Bernie Sanders HIRES Previously Arrested Illegal Alien

/0 Comments/in , /by

Senator Bernie Sanders’ new press secretary will be unable to cast a vote for the open socialist in 2020 due to her immigration status.

Far-left activist and illegal immigrant Belen Sisa announced her new position with the Sanders campaign on Wednesday in a social media post condemning the “hateful and bigoted” Trump administration.

According to The Washington Examiner, Sisa was brought into the United States illegally from Argentina by her parents when she was six years old. Currently, Sisa is shielded from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, implemented by former President Barack Obama.

“My life recently has taken some crazy unexpected twists and turns. From thinking I was going to be moving to San Francisco, to now moving to Washington, DC. I know many of you are wondering what exactly I’ll be doing in DC, well… I am incredibly excited and honored to announce that I will be joining the Bernie 2020 campaign as National Deputy Press Secretary! I’m ready to continue our fight, finish what we started, and take down the hateful and bigoted administration of Trump. Are you with me?!” wrote the activist in a social media post on Wednesday. . .

She’s been an active protester, too, and has been arrested for such activity on at least two occasions.

(Read more from “Bernie Sanders HIRES Illegal Alien for Position on Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Admin Extends TPS Amnesty and Bows to Judicial Supremacy

/0 Comments/in , /by

Once again, the executive and judicial branches have gotten together to nullify a sovereignty statute and grant indefinite amnesty to illegal aliens while saddling Americans with the cost and citizen children of illegal aliens who wrongly were awarded temporary legal status. We have a government of, by, and for illegal aliens.

Remember when Trump offered Democrats amnesty plus extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in exchange for wall funding? Well, yesterday his DHS secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, agreed to illegally extend this program for free simply because the powers that be in this administration support the amnesty agenda and the stealing of American sovereignty. This is a scam of issuing work permits for primarily illegal aliens who take advantage of a program designed for legal visitors who can’t return home because of a natural disaster. After promising to end it, Trump’s DHS extended TPS for 300,000 nationals of Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The overwhelming majority are from El Salvador, among them those with proven ties to MS-13. Pursuant to law, TPS should have expired for Sudan in 1997, Nicaragua in 1998, El Salvador in 2001, and Haiti in 2010.

The administration decided to give in to Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who illegally ruled that Trump must continue a program over which the judiciary has no control.

This decision is destructive on many levels, both to Trump’s immigration promises and to the growing tyranny of the courts. Trump is giving in to an illegal injunction issued by a single district judge in what is probably one of the worst abuses of power from a court in modern history.

Consider the following:

TPS is a discretionary act of leniency written into immigration code, not a mandatory In fact, it is only a temporary visa for those who cannot return home because of natural disasters or “other extraordinary and temporary conditions.” To use this program for illegal aliens and 20 years after a natural disaster in some cases is a violation of statute. For a district judge to then mandate that the administration violate statute on something that, even under the right circumstances, is only discretionary is legally unprecedented.

According to law (INA §244 (b)(1)), TPS may not be designated if the DHS secretary finds that allowing migrants to temporarily stay in the United States is against the national interest or for individuals with criminal convictions. This is solely up to the administration, not the courts.

Most egregiously, not only is a universal injunction by a district judge unconstitutional, as Clarence Thomas observed, statute explicitly bars the courts from reviewing complaints against termination of TPS. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) states unambiguously, “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” For a district judge to rule on this case last October is a violation of law. The judge should be removed from office, not legitimized with this decision.

By far, El Salvador is the home country of most of these bogus TPS claims. It is also the home of MS-13. As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies has warned, by liberal judges conferring official status on these people, they have ensured that MS-13 gangsters here illegally are not deported. This is a classic example of how, much as with asylum and unaccompanied alien children, the liberal judges and past administrations have interpreted a statute in the exact opposite manner to its intended purpose. TPS, precisely because it’s not an immigration or amnesty program but rather a temporary dwelling, doesn’t require the applicants to show “good moral character.” Yet the Left has turned it into a permanent amnesty program that still, of course, does not require a showing of good character, which makes it much harder to get rid of the bad guys.

This decision of the administration is even more damaging on the judicial front than on the immigration front. It sets a baseline precedent that there is nothing a district judge can do that is out of bounds and that even if judges violate statute, not just on the merits but on their power to even hear the case, their illegitimate rulings will be countenanced as law. Trump is confronted with a challenge no other president has faced with a judiciary literally engaging in civil disobedience against immigration law. It’s understandable why, given the decade-long lionizing of judicial supremacy, he would be reluctant to pick a fight. But if he fails to do so, he will permanently set the baseline of judicial power over immigration. He has no choice but to fight.

As a result of this decision, the baseline is set that jurisdiction-stripping statutes mean nothing.

As a result of this decision, the baseline is set that universal injunctions are the law of the land.

As a result of this decision, the baseline is set that there is no area of immigration law and sovereignty off limits to the courts.

As a result of this decision, the baseline is set that courts can once again use Trump’s political statements against him as means of canceling his lawful powers, in contravention to the majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii just last year. Judge Edward Chen, in his October ruling, said that Trump’s decision to use his unquestionable authority was “based on animus against non-white, non-European immigrants in violation of Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution.” Never mind the fact that, around the same time, the administration continued TPS for the country of Somalia.

The other point being missed here by some defenders of the White House is that Trump is destroying any shred of negotiating leverage he has with the Democrats over the wall. Just like he constantly renews DACA, he is now renewing TPS, thus giving Democrats what they want for free. Therefore, they have no incentive to play ball and offer him concessions in return for permanent amnesty when he is already agreeing to de facto indefinite amnesty. When a president blinks the first few times on ending an amnesty of previous administrations, there is not much fear from the Left that it won’t get extended forever.

It’s hard to tell which is worse: this administration’s affinity for amnesty or its ceding of power to the courts. Either way, the American citizen is left holding the bag, paying for the rope for MS-13 to hang us with, while their kids become citizens on our dime and our laws are unilaterally canceled by the unelected branches of government.

The problem in this administration is not the deep state. It’s the shallow state in the White House and in the Cabinet appointed by the president himself. Conservatives remain silent in deference at their own peril. (For more from the author of “Trump Admin Extends TPS Amnesty and Bows to Judicial Supremacy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Judge Demands That Texas Get His Approval to Stop Non-Citizens From Voting

/0 Comments/in , /by

Shouldn’t we all agree that someone’s citizenship should be verified before he or she casts a vote in our elections?

There is no greater interest of a state than protecting the integrity of its franchise from foreign nationals voting in our elections. Yet repeatedly, the federal courts, which have unconstitutionally crowned themselves king over election law, have prevented states from taking any logical measures to stop non-citizens from voting. With the latest court ruling in Texas, conservatives must ask themselves how much longer they will tolerate this judicial tyranny and how many more elections they are willing to lose as a result of our passive approach to the judicial power grab.

Judges have already prevented states from requiring proof of citizenship on the voter registration forms under the motor-voter process. As such, states like Texas are left with the option of retroactively comparing existing voter rolls to citizenship information. Last month, the Texas secretary of state revealed that approximately 95,000 registered voters’ driver’s license information from the motor vehicle department indicate they submitted non-citizen documents. This is a red flag for voter fraud, because while an unknown number of them might later have become naturalized citizens before voting in our elections, it’s unlikely that all of them have become citizens.

To try to determine their status, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley instructed the county clerks to send out letters to these voters and request them to notify the county government if they indeed have become naturalized.

Isn’t that a reasonable request to protect the interests of the state?

In comes an obnoxious judge, Fred Biery, and rules that the state cannot even inquire about someone’s status “without prior approval of the Court with a conclusive showing that the person is ineligible to vote.” He asserted in the four-page order that “there is no widespread voter fraud” that would warrant this process set forth by the state.

These names are not picked out of a hat. There is a conflict between their DMV records, which indicate they are aliens, and their voter registrations, which should indicate they are citizens. Texas is not automatically purging these voters; it is simply asking these people to update their status. Yet Biery said this is too much of a “burden” on potentially naturalized citizens and will “intimidate the less powerful among us.”

Thus, while no judge has officially said “non-citizens shall vote in our elections,” judges have walled off every logical way for states to prevent them from registering and from voting. Judge Biery’s assertion that Texas’s concern is bogus is simply ludicrous. The threat of non-citizens registered to vote is a prima facie problem.

There are record numbers of foreign nationals residing in this country, and that number is growing rapidly, particularly in border states like Texas. There are currently over three million non-citizens in Texas.

The motor-voter law creates a seamless conduit from driver’s licenses to voter registration. All legal immigrants are obviously eligible for driver’s licenses, and in many states, illegal immigrants are eligible too.

There is no front-end requirement to show proof of citizenship for the driver’s license process, and courts have stopped every state that tried to place such a requirement on the voter form from doing so. Additionally, many states are now adopting automatic voter registration of anyone who has a driver’s license. This is actually why the ACLU, of all groups, initially opposed California’s automatic registration law because it would easily ensnare immigrants into the felony of voter fraud and make them deportable.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we have a smoking gun on non-citizens voting. We essentially have an honor system. For voting. To deny that there is even a problem strong enough to warrant a state “burdening” with an inquiring letter people who got driver’s licenses as immigrants is absurd. My wife had to wait in line for four hours at the DMV this week because of the verification requirements holding up the line, yet somehow, we can’t burden people who are registered in the system as non-citizens to protect the franchise of the citizenry.

The problem is that groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), flush with cash from the Verizon Foundation, are able to lodge one lawsuit after another to stop states from even investigating the extent of the problem.

Worse, LULAC is now suing groups that even try to publish data on non-citizens voting. The group has filed a lawsuit in Virginia against J. Christian Adams and his Public Interest Legal Foundation for simply publishing the data of those non-citizens who were taken off Virginia’s voter rolls.

What is so ludicrous about this case is that the Constitution accords federal judges no power over election law whatsoever. Only Congress can get involved under extraordinary circumstances. Unless an individual citizen is being barred from actually voting, there should be no standing to sue a state’s plenary power of verifying voter registration. If a voter is purged and can’t get back on the rolls and is a citizen, let him sue in court. But judges shouldn’t have control over a general process of notification. Sen. Jacob Howard, one of the prime drafters of the 14th Amendment, made it clear during the floor debate in 1866 over the 14th Amendment: “The second section leaves the right to regulate the elective franchise still with the States, and does not meddle with that right.”

Yet judges all over the country have now assumed control over all aspects of election law, asserting that any effort to combat voter fraud, including photo ID requirements and anti-fraud measures on absentee ballots, are tantamount to stripping voting rights. It took years for Texas to get its photo ID law enacted because of liberal district judges. The state only won in the end because it is under the auspices of the saner Fifth Circuit. States like North Carolina were not as lucky. Now, Judge Biery, a Clinton appointee, is invoking this very clause of the 14th Amendment to block his state from even contacting immigrants registered to vote to make sure they became naturalized as citizens.

Voting, while close to being a fundamental right, is still a product of positive law. States have full control to regulate the process. As Howard said, “The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a despotism.”

Yet when it comes to unambiguous rights like self-defense, these same liberal judges burden it to the point of non-existence.

Taking a shot at the secretary of state, Judge Biery smugly concluded, “The Court further finds and concludes the Secretary of State, though perhaps unintentionally, created this mess. As Robert Fulghum taught in All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, ‘always put things back where we found them and clean[] up our own messes.’” Perhaps the learned judge should learn another preschool lesson: Namely, don’t grab for yourself something that you don’t have permission to touch. (For more from the author of “Judge Demands That Texas Get His Approval to Stop Non-Citizens From Voting” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Otto Warmbier: Separating Facts From Rumors

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump is taking a lot of heat from across the political spectrum after telling the media Thursday in Vietnam that he believed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when the dictator claimed he was not aware of mistreatment of Otto Warmbier. Otto Warmbier was an American college student who was imprisoned in North Korea after Pyongyang authorities convicted him of stealing a propaganda poster from the hotel where he was staying. He was later sentenced, absurdly, to 15 years in jail and hard labor for his “crime.” He died shortly after being released to the United States.

“He felt badly about it. He felt very badly,” President Trump said of Kim Jong Un at a news conference in Hanoi Thursday. “He tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word,” he added.

“I did speak about it, but I don’t believe he would have allowed that to happen,” the president said of Warmbier’s death. “It just wasn’t to his advantage to allow that to happen.”

Immediately following the president’s comments, media networks, television personalities, members of Congress, and others castigated the president for taking Kim Jong Un at his word.

The Otto Warmbier case is more complicated than many have been led to believe. In fact, evidence is still thin that North Korea “brutally tortured” the American college student, a claim that is being parroted in the media nonstop.

The University of Virginia student made a youthful mistake, and that one silly mistake had tragic and disastrous repercussions. Almost immediately after he was sentenced, media reports began to emerge that Warmbier’s medical condition was rapidly deteriorating. News networks began to report that North Korea was torturing Warmbier. “A senior American official has said the United States obtained intelligence reports that he had been repeatedly beaten,” The New York Times reported. After almost a year and a half in a North Korean prison, he was later released to the United States, where he died shortly thereafter.

Warmbier was undoubtedly wrongfully imprisoned by the Pyongyang regime. Certainly, it is a strong argument that North Korea, through its gross negligence and wrongful imprisonment, is responsible for his death. However, there remains no firm evidence that Warmbier was tortured or that North Korean officials such as Kim Jong Un were responsible for his declining health while imprisoned.

In the GQ report The Untold Story of Otto Warmbier, American Hostage, by journalist Doug Bock Clark, it becomes clear that the jury is still very much out on what caused Warmbier’s rapid decline in health and tragic death.

“Otto would never recover to tell his side of the story. And despite exhaustive examinations by doctors, no definitive medical evidence explaining how his injury came to be would ever emerge,” Clark writes.

The comprehensive piece on the tragic saga shows that medical examiners and coroners did not find firm evidence of torture and could not come to a conclusion about Warmbier’s injuries.

“Non-invasive scans found no hairline bone fractures or other evidence of prior trauma,” the piece notes, adding that “three other individuals who had close contact with Otto on his return also did not notice any physical signs consistent with torture.”

Moreover, North Korea experts and senior government officials interviewed for the piece expressed doubt about the claims sourced to U.S. intelligence agencies that the regime tortured him.

“In general, the intel reports were wrong, as the medical examinations have shown. They were apparently not even correct about where Otto was or when he was beaten,” a senior U.S. official told GQ. “Likely, the reports were just hearsay. Someone heard third- or fourth-hand that Otto was sick, and that person decided he was beaten. The North Koreans have never tortured a white guy physically. Never.”

President Trump’s comments about the Otto Warmbier tragedy need to be understood in the context of what evidence we have. We still do not know what led to his devastating and untimely death, but we don’t have evidence that Kim Jong Un had a personal hand in his death. Of course, that does not excuse Kim Jong Un’s horrific treatment of his own people or North Korea’s wrongful imprisonment of Otto Warmbier. (For more from the author of “President Trump, Kim Jong Un, and Otto Warmbier: Separating Facts From Rumors” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ocasio-Cortez Hit With MASSIVE Complaint

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday alleging that socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) may have illegally funneled money to her boyfriend through an allied PAC.

Fox News reports that the group alleges “in their complaint that when the Brand New Congress PAC (BNC) — a political arm of Brand New Congress LLC, a company that was hired by Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to run and support her campaign — paid Roberts for marketing services, it potentially ran afoul of campaign finance law.”

The complaint highlighted a report from earlier in February by Luke Thompson, who “published an article entitled ‘The Congresswoman Loves the Swamp. Her Wealthy Chief of Staff Used a PAC to Pay Her Boyfriend,’ on Medium, which parses FEC records to reveal evidence Ocasio-Cortez funneled money from her official campaign account to her boyfriend, Riley Roberts.”

The complaint added: “The timing and amounts of these transactions, the use of two affiliated entities as intermediaries, the vague and amorphous nature of the services Riley ostensibly provided, the magnitude of these transactions compared to both the limited funds the campaign had raised at the time and the total amount of its expenditures, and the romantic relationship between Ocasio-Cortez and Riley collectively establish reason to believe these transactions may have violated campaign finance law.” (Read more from “Ocasio-Cortez Hit With MASSIVE Complaint” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lefties Didn’t Mind When Obama ‘Reprogrammed’ Billions in Taxpayer Funds for Illegal Alien Welfare

/0 Comments/in , /by

When anti-federalists were scared that the proposed Constitution would grant the president king-like powers, Alexander Hamilton penned an essay in Federalist 69 to allay their fears. Among the paradigm differences distinguishing the power of a president from that of a king, Hamilton wrote, whereas “the one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever, the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens.”

In 2012, President Obama, after declaring, “I am president; I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself,” proceeded to not only grant illegal aliens amnesty but to confer on them positive privileges of denizens, namely work permits and Social Security cards. Because of those cards issued to over 770,000 aliens, billions of dollars in refundable tax credits, aka welfare, were handed out to them in violation of immigration law and the welfare reform bill of 1996. Not a single Democrat protested. To be fair, not too many Republicans did either.

Now, evidently, Democrats believe it is OK for a president to unilaterally make residents of aliens and divert taxpayer funding for their welfare, but a president can’t use defense funds for our own border against the cartels who are bringing in the very aliens incentivized to come as a result of Obama’s executive action.

Obama handed out resident status to roughly 770,000 illegal aliens, of which about 683,000 are still active. Providing this primarily low-income group of individuals with Social Security cards made them all eligible to collect the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is essentially a wealth transfer program through the tax code. While there is no definitive data on how much we spent on refundable credits for this particular amnesty, a 2015 estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that Obama’s second executive amnesty – DAPA – would cost $2 billion in earned income tax credits (EITC) over five years just for the retroactive portion of back taxes they were eligible for until the program was halted by the courts. The CBO gave a similar estimate for a parallel amnesty proposal in 2017, concluding that the cost of the EITC accessed by this population would be $5.5 billion over 10 years. Either way, the point is that to this very day, these illegal aliens unlawfully granted Social Security cards are drawing funds from the Treasury pursuant to an illegal executive order.

And $5.5 billion is roughly the same amount Trump would transfer from other defense accounts to the border wall under the Emergencies Act, except he would be doing so pursuant to statute and in defense of our sovereignty. Obama did this in violation of statute and in violation of the sacred trust of the American people by handing out welfare to invaders. Even if one is uncomfortable with Trump’s particular decision, there is simply no comparison to Obama’s DACA amnesty. For Democrats to support DACA to this day is scandalous hypocrisy.

Just how insane was Obama’s amnesty, which is still astoundingly being implemented by Trump? Recipients were eligible to file back taxes, according to Obama’s royal edict, and could retroactively collect the refundable tax credits for previous years. In a written response to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, then IRS-Commissioner John Koskinen confirmed that “not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC” and that “a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed.”

Obviously, this was designed for legal immigrants and American citizens, but by Obama unilaterally declaring 770,000 illegal aliens to be legal and issuing Social Security cards, he opened the door for them to steal from America’s treasury.

A CRS memo in 2015, in response to a query from Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., confirmed that illegal alien families would be eligible for tens of thousands of dollars in tax credits from this retroactive scheme. Remember, most illegal aliens are low-income and get back much more than they pay in taxes. A whopping 87 percent of illegal immigrant households benefit from at least one federal welfare program (not including refundable tax credits), primarily because of children born in America.

Talk about illegally reprogramming funds! And there was no emergency declaration or statute backing him up at the time. The only emergency was the need for more Democrat votes.

Section 401(c)(1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWOA), the famous welfare reform bill, bars unlawfully present aliens from receiving any “retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”

Refundable tax credits should definitely count as forms of payments and assistance to individuals because all government budget scoring entities, including the Treasury Department, the IRS’ parent department, count refundable tax credits as “outlays,” not just reductions in revenue. The Congressional Budget Office, the arm of Congress that wrote the welfare reform statute prohibiting programs from being doled out to illegal aliens, counts refundable tax credits among “income security” programs, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Also, the language of the 1996 statute makes clear the intent of the law: “It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.”

What Obama did is even worse when you view it from the standpoint of legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law, when it is actually enforced, prevents green card holders from accessing public benefits for five years based on the principle that permanent resident immigrants who come to the U.S. should be contributing to society as a condition of entry. Yet illegal immigrants not only got a reprieve from deportation, but were paid with the refundable tax credits that are not even available to hard-working legal immigrants.

Yet to this day, both Congress and the White House continue to champion this program.

Every day, one law after another is being violated in order to accommodate people whose entire presence here is illegal. It sets off a chain reaction of illegal behavior on their part and the part of government, most prominently accommodating identity theft. But when the end goal is to help illegal aliens, it’s not just permissible, but laudatory. Conversely, when an executive action is done to protect America from very harmful effects, then it’s terrible.

But the hypocrisy of Democrats is even worse. Not only was Obama’s amnesty more out of legal bounds than Trump’s executive order by many orders of magnitude, it is also the exact reason why Trump must take action at the border today.

From the time DACA was announced, in 2012, through 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras increased 490 percent, 444 percent, and 610 percent respectively. The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) drafted a memo in 2014 asserting that 95 percent of the border-crossers interviewed cited the promise of amnesty as the primary factor behind their migration. During the height of the UAC surge in 2014, the Washington Post admitted that it was “driven in large part by the perception they will be allowed to stay under Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

That perception is now a reality, with a gushing flow thanks to the Trump administration continuing DACA, as well as other catch-and-release policies in deference to illegal universal injunctions from district judges.

Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi declared that Trump is “asking each and every one of us to turn our backs on the oath of office that we took to the Constitution of the United States.” I think she is right. It is absolutely illegal for Trump to continue validating Social Security cards and drawing refundable tax credits for illegal aliens, pursuant to Obama’s executive action. Consequently, if she really cared about her oath to the Constitution and also wanted to serve as a check on executive power grabs, she’d propose a resolution to overturn the DACA amnesty. (For more from the author of “Lefties Didn’t Mind When Obama ‘Reprogrammed’ Billions in Taxpayer Funds for Illegal Alien Welfare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Meat-Bashing AOC Lashes out at Man Who Took Pic of Burger-Eating Aide

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., lashed out at an anonymous shutterbug who “creepily” snapped a picture of her at a restaurant with an aide who was feasting on a juicy burger — an image that soon made the rounds on social media, as it was taken days after she questioned whether Americans needed to eat so much meat.

“Tonight a dude was creepily (and obviously) taking a picture of me while pretending he wasn’t and I had to break his imaginary fourth wall and say ‘Hi! I’m a person! This is weird!’” she tweeted.

The picture, posted by conservative social media strategist Caleb Hull, showed Ocasio-Cortez and Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti eating at an unidentified restaurant. Notably, Chakrabarti was munching on a burger, just days after Ocasio-Cortez had warned against eating too much of America’s favorite dish.

In talking up her Green New Deal, which had initially come with an FAQ that talked (presumably tongue-in-cheek) about “getting rid” of “farting cows” to help combat climate change, Ocasio-Cortez said on a TV appearance that Americans may need to eat fewer burgers.

“In the deal, what we talk about, and it’s true, is that we need to take a look at factory farming, you know? Period. It’s wild,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Showtime’s late-night “Desus & Mero” last week. “And so it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture, it’s not to say we’re gonna force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that. But it’s to say, ‘Listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.’ Like, let’s keep it real.” (Read more from “Meat-Bashing AOC Lashes out at Man Who Took Pic of Burger-Eating Aide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

More Than 100 House Dems: Our Healthcare Bill Will Outlaw Private Coverage, Eliminate Up to Two Million Jobs, and Cover Abortion

/0 Comments/in , /by

More than 100 House Democrats — nearly half of the new majority — have signed on to a new single-payer healthcare bill that supporters describe as “battle ready.” If by “battle ready,” they mean, “extremely controversial, deeply politically risky, and totally bereft of any acknowledgement of the proposal’s eye-poppingly exorbitant costs,” they’re undoubtedly correct. Politico’s story on the legislation is full of extraordinary tidbits and quotes. Here are some of the most important facts we’ve learned:

(1) The bill “doesn’t include a price tag or specific proposals for financing the new system, which analysts estimate would cost tens of trillions of dollars over a decade.” The lead sponsor of the bill says her crew will release a list of “suggested funding mechanisms” at some point in the future. One of these mechanisms, we’re told, is “a tax on high earners.” If you’ve been following this debate, you’re well aware that targeted taxes on ‘the rich’ would be woefully insufficient in raising even a fraction of the expected cost. Enormous tax hikes on all Americans would be necessary. This math is not seriously disputed.

And given the comprehensiveness of the proposed ‘benefits’ in this bill (it goes even farther than Bernie Sanders’ Senate version), some experts are already estimating that its price tag (which, again, is missing entirely from the legislation) could be on the order of $40 trillion over its first ten years. This would require roughly doubling the entire federal budget, which already runs a significant annual deficit. It’s possible that they believe this plan to be “battle ready” because it hides the ball on cost, allowing proponents to mumble about hazy “investments” instead of confronting real numbers.

(2) Via NBC News, “The legislation’s most contentious provision would end private health insurance and replace it with a government system.” Yes, virtually all private coverage would be outlawed, forcing every single American into an innovation-crushing, government-run system. Approximately 177 million Americans currently receive private health insurance, either through their employers, or directly from insurers. The vast majority of these people are satisfied with their coverage, according to Gallup. All of these people would be uprooted from their existing plans and funneled into the federal bureaucracy. On the matter of ripping people away from their existing status quo, this proposal gets worse — both practically and politically:

(3) Given the party’s grim march toward abortion extremism, it should come as little surprise that this single-payer regime would require taxpayer funding of abortion. One of the few bipartisan truces on this divisive issue at the federal level has been the Hyde Amendment, under which public dollars do not flow to abortions. This would upend that precedent, mandating (unpopular) public funding of abortion. (Read more from “More Than 100 House Dems: Our Healthcare Bill Will Outlaw Private Coverage, Eliminate up to Two Million Jobs, and Cover Abortion” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Democrats Just Wrote Trump’s 2020 Ads for Him

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Earlier this week, 44 Senate Democrats, including all six leftist senators running for president in 2020, voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act introduced by Senator Ben Sasse, R-Neb.

Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., all voted against requiring doctors to save and care for a new baby born after an attempted abortion. Trump should hang this heinous vote around their necks at every campaign stop from now till Election Day.

Abortion was already a key election issue during the 2016 election, but after the third and final debate between then-candidates Trump and Hillary Clinton, Clinton’s extreme stance on late-term abortion put the subject at the top of the list. In fact, it was the top candidate-related Google search on Election Day.

A majority of Americans disagree with the position that all but three Senate Democrats took in this vote. In fact, most Americans think that abortion should be limited to the first trimester of pregnancy, and that includes a majority of folks who consider themselves “pro-choice.”

Given that Donald Trump’s pro-life positions drove a substantial portion of his voters to the polls back in 2016, when the controversy about his opponent’s position was only about late-term abortion, imagine what his numbers could look like if he’s up against a Democrat who voted against banning outright infanticide.

Sure, they could make the claim – as Planned Parenthood has – that this would somehow have restricted abortion access, which is nonsensical since the bill’s text places no limits on when a an abortion may be performed or what kind of procedure could be used.

They could claim – as Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., did before the vote – that the bill would have criminalized doctors who do not go to extraordinary lengths to save babies who were “non-viable” to begin with or that mothers would be put in danger. But the bill simply and unequivocally states that doctors should give the same reasonable standard of care to babies born alive as they would to any infant needing care.

They could claim – alongside their colleague Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. – that this was a vote to criminalize something that was already illegal. But, as Alexandra DeSanctis points out over at National Review, no law specifically requires care for infants born in the context of abortion. But even if it there were one already, how much sense does it make to signal that you are against further protections for living human babies?

With a Democratic House certain to keep any pro-life legislation from making it to the president’s desk, the best hope for this week’s Senate vote was to find out where everyone in the upper chamber stands on the issue of infanticide.

Now that these 2020 candidates have made it clear that they have no intention of banning infanticide in America, the Trump campaign must never let voters forget it from here till November 2020. Then it will be up to voters. (For more from the author of “The Democrats Just Wrote Trump’s 2020 Ads for Him” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Conservatives Outraged After Facebook Deletes Former Breitbart Editor’s Account

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Hill. The deletion and subsequent restoration of the Facebook account of a former Breitbart editor sparked outrage from conservatives on Tuesday.

Raheem Kassam‏ tweeted early Tuesday that his account had been deleted. . .

Facebook said it had removed a page that violated its community standards for praise, and then accidentally removed the profiles of that page’s administrators.

It was not clear what page administered by Kassam was removed for violating Facebook’s community standards, or why it specifically was removed. . .

“How come it is only right wing/conservative accounts that get “removed in error” pending “investigations”?” Kassam tweeted after Facebook’s statement on his account was released. “And who watchers the watchers in this regard?” (Read more from “Conservatives Outraged After Facebook Deletes Former Breitbart Editor’s Account” HERE)

___________________________________________________

James O’Keefe Claims Proof Facebook Censored Conservatives

By Newsmax. James O’Keefe of Project Veritas says a former Facebook employee has proof the social media giant’s practices for limiting harassment and hate speech is designed to censor conservative accounts.

“It’s clear that Facebook is targeting the language of the right,” O’Keefe says in a video published to his site Wednesday. . .

“We fired this person a year ago for breaking multiple employment policies and using her contractor role at Facebook to perform a stunt for Project Veritas,” a [Facebook] spokesperson told The Verge. “Unsurprisingly, the claims she is making validate her agenda and ignore the processes we have in place to ensure Facebook remains a platform to give people a voice, regardless of their political ideology.” (Read more from “James O’Keefe Claims Proof Facebook Censored Conservatives” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE