By Daily Wire. . .Yes, Chuck Norris, who starred in a bunch of martial arts movies, is still a bada** at age 78. And although he hasn’t been in a movie since 2012, Norris has kept busy writing several books on martial arts, exercise, philosophy, politics, Christian religion, and westerns, twice earning the title of New York Times best-selling author.
On Sunday, Norris penned a piece for WND, formerly known as World Net Daily. In the piece, headlined “An incredible solution to building the border wall,” Norris backs a proposal to have Mexico’s biggest drug lord fund construction of a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border.
“I have written many articles over the years, but I have never written an article more important than this one. While Democrat and Republican leaders in Washington are polarized and in gridlock over how to pay for a wall on the U.S. southern border with Mexico, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is a Lone Ranger with a Tonto-sized idea riding into town to get the job done in a way that would cost taxpayers nothing at all,” he writes.
Cruz put out the proposal in April 2017, but it’s been forgotten (at least until Chuck Norris got his hands on it). Cruz wants “El Chapo” (real name Joaquin Guzman) to forfeit his $14 billion in assets to the U.S. government, which could then use the money for the barrier.
“Fourteen billion dollars will go a long way toward building a wall that will keep Americans safe and hinder the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and individuals across our southern border,” Cruz said in a statement at the time. “Ensuring the safety and security of Texans is one of my top priorities. We must also be mindful of the impact on the federal budget. By leveraging any criminally forfeited assets of El Chapo and his ilk, we can offset the wall’s cost and make meaningful progress toward achieving President Trump’s stated border security objectives.” (Read more from “Chuck Norris Backs Brilliant Idea to Fund Southern Border Wall” HERE)
_____________________________________________
An Incredible Solution to Building the Border Wall
By WND. I have written many articles over the years, but I have never written an article more important than this one. While Democrat and Republican leaders in Washington are polarized and in gridlock over how to pay for a wall on the U.S. southern border with Mexico, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is a Lone Ranger with a Tonto-sized idea riding into town to get the job done in a way that would cost taxpayers nothing at all.
Because I live in the border state of Texas, it has made this issue even more personal to me. I also have many black belts that live in Mexico that are hindered by this crisis to even be able to visit the U.S. legally in order to attend our annual United Fighting Arts Federation (UFAF) Convention in Las Vegas. . .
If you didn’t know, El Chapo is almost entirely responsible for the majority of drugs that come up through the U.S. southern border. As the co-founder and head of the Sinaloa Cartel, he is the #1 supplier of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the U.S. If you or your loved ones have ever tried or been addicted to illegal drugs, odds are they originated from the Sinaloa Cartel. . .
s Sen. Cruz’s EL CHAPO Act not a brilliant idea to fund the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico? And guess what? A Mexican pays for it after all – one evil hombre who has repeatedly raped America’s communities and the souls of precious millions through narcotics and other criminalities for the past three decades.
Think of the impact passing the EL CHAPO Act could have. First, El Chapo’s drug monies could fully fund the completion of the entire U.S. southern border wall without a single dime more from the federal government or American taxpayers. Second, simultaneously the majority of El Chapo’s own drug trafficking into our country would be greatly diminished using his own monies. Third, president Trump could fulfill his primary campaign promise. Fourth, the Democrats would be able to open their government the same day the EL CHAPO Act passed. (Read more from “An Incredible Solution to Building the Border Wall” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/4666792381_cc1ea3b903_b.jpg6761024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 23:02:142019-01-12 21:09:56Chuck Norris Backs Brilliant Idea to Fund Southern Border Wall
While Jared Kushner is working assiduously to promote amnesty for some of the same criminal aliens for whom he just secured early release from prison, the courts are already repealing our immigration laws.
Among all the new rights created by courts in recent years, a judge just created a right for illegal aliens to receive advance notice of ICE deportations, even after they have final orders to be deported. In other words, criminals have a right to be tipped off so they can flee and remain elsewhere in the country while sucking us dry and committing more crimes.
There are over roughly one million aliens in this country with final deportation orders from immigration judges (not to be confused with Article III judges). These are people who harm our country and on behalf of whom we’ve already exhausted overgenerous and gratuitous notions of due process. One can imagine the millions of others that have evaded justice whom we haven’t even apprehended. It’s hard enough for ICE to secure a final deportation order. Yet now the federal courts are fighting trench warfare on every last criminal alien removal, making it impossible to deport anyone, even in slam-dunk cases.
On Thursday, California U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, a Bush appointee, issued a temporary injunction against the deportation of 1,400 criminal legal aliens and 500 illegal aliens – all from Cambodia. He said that even though they all had final orders of deportation, ICE could not re-detain them for deportation without two weeks’ notice.
Judge Carney is the same radical in a robe who unilaterally declared California’s death penalty to be unconstitutional in 2014.
As I observed last week, the categories of offenses to trigger deportation for legal immigrants were set out in the 1996 immigration bill, which was adopted unanimously in the Senate and signed by Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and James Clyburn all voted for it. That is the law of the land. Yet judges have now seized the power to nullify immigration law outright and rewrite it with their own conditions.
This is the other side of the immigration story. In many ways, interior enforcement is even more important than the wall. Even if we stopped all illegal immigration across the land border, we have many criminals and dangerous aliens from the past few decades already here and many more who overstay their visas or who commit crimes while here with a green card. ICE can easily remove them, but the courts are now fighting every last deportation from every angle, even if it means rewriting immigration law. Left-wing groups have convinced judges that these particular criminal aliens in California are somehow a protected class because they fled violence in Cambodia, but that doesn’t change the fact that these particular Cambodians targeted for deportation are criminals. The fact that they were fleeing persecution should make it all the more egregious that they bit the hand that fed them and returned our generosity with criminal acts. The overwhelming majority of Cambodians who came here in the 1970s fleeing Khmer Rouge lived law-abiding lives in America.
As the courts have said for 130 years, there are no limitations on the power of the political branches to deport any foreign national for any reasons without any judicial oversight. The only limitation on immigration enforcement is that we can’t indefinitely detain aliens just for detention’s own sake, but can certainly detain for the purpose of deporting. Among many settled cases, here is what the court said in Turner v. Williams in 1904:
No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. … Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid, but so much of the act of 1892 as provided for imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial was held to be unconstitutional.
Thanks to a previous egregious court ruling (Zadvydas v. Davis), over the strenuous dissent of Justice Scalia, ICE has been forced to release a number of criminal aliens because their home countries refused to repatriate them. Now that the Trump administration has made diplomatic progress in achieving cooperation, ICE is finally tracking them down and simply following up on the existing deportation orders. This is where judicial civil disobedience comes in.
Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told me she was concerned that the courts are essentially creating a “two-week notice to disappear” for criminal aliens. “This is outrageous on an operational level and in the context of the law,” said the veteran analyst of interior immigration enforcement. “If a federal judge can block these relatively cut-and-dried deportations, why not every single deportation case? This is nonsensical. The deportation due process that Congress set up is not meant to provide deportable aliens with endless appeals without appropriate grounds. The federal judiciary seems bent on taking over the civil deportation process and creating rights for removable non-citizens that Congress never intended and Americans do not wish to underwrite or allow.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court has already said decades ago that any effort to eliminate the concept of deportation must be done through the political branches, not the courts. “[I]t would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. … It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for American citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities,” said the high court in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952).
In 1893, the Supreme Court made it clear that the power to deport is just as unassailable as the power to exclude so long as the alien has not been naturalized. “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” (Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 707 (1893))
I couldn’t reach out to ICE for reaction because the agency is limited in media correspondence during the partial shutdown. While ICE could not respond to any media requests during the shutdown, the courts seem to have no problems operating 24/7 to subvert our sovereignty.
The problem of judicial amnesty is one of the many reasons why Trump would be insane to allow Jared to push him into a deal of “amnesty for a border wall.” If courts are voiding existing statutes that explicitly call for deportations, one can only imagine what would happen once the law is changed to blatantly shield a number of illegal aliens from deportation. They would essentially shut down deportations for everyone so that all aliens can be afforded an opportunity to apply for status. Then, a number of others will just come here on tourist visas and overstay their visas indefinitely while the courts shield them from any interior enforcement.
Instead of agreeing to amnesty, it’s time to double down on the original promise of 1996 – a promise Schumer and Pelosi agreed with – to stop all illegal immigration once and for all and to deport criminal aliens. That promise will never be actualized until we finally enforce the judiciary’s own settled case law on today’s activists disguised as judges. (For more from the author of “Judge Creates a ‘Right’ for Deportable Aliens to Be Tipped Off” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Illegals-jumping-a-border-fence.jpg428640Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 22:58:152019-01-07 22:03:40Judge Creates a ‘Right’ for Deportable Aliens to Be Tipped Off
Ahead of the one year anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Thursday re-introduced the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act,” commonly referred to as “red flag laws.”
“A gun violence restraining order is one of the most effective policies we can put in place to prevent another tragedy like Parkland,” Rubio said in a statement. “We can help keep our schools and communities safe by empowering law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get other states to do the same thing.” . . .
Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have both voiced concerns over red flag laws. The main concern is the potential for a lack of due process. While Rubio’s previous piece of legislation required a court hearing within 14 days of being petitioned, there’s no appeals process. Once a person is deemed unfit, their Second Amendment rights can – and will – be revoked.
The other issue is the abuse factor. There’s nothing that keeps people from abusing this system. Here’s an example:
A man is an avid Second Amendment supporter, enjoys going to the range and is a concealed carrier. He decides the relationship with his girlfriend is no longer working out so he breaks up with her. She’s upset about the breakup. To get back at him, she petitions the court utilizing red flag laws (assuming they’re already in place). Her claim is he’s mentally unfit to own a firearm. She decides to lie and say he’s threatened her and has stocked up on ammunition. The court would, more than likely, decide he is a threat. That means they’d revoke his access to firearms. There’s nothing that would prevent the ex-girlfriend from making these false claims. And there’s no way for him to refute the claim. (Read more from “Marco Rubio Is Spearheading a Gun Control Policy 2A Advocates Warned About” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1024px-Marco_Rubio_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg6721024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 22:31:222019-01-07 21:35:34Marco Rubio Is Spearheading a Gun Control Policy 2A Advocates Warned About
. . .Preliminary fiscal analyses of partial expansion proposals suggest the policy has few obvious supporters. Liberals will complain that partial expansion could lead to hundreds of thousands of individuals dropping coverage in states that have already expanded Medicaid. By contrast, conservatives will object to the sizable price tag associated with the policy—because government actuaries believe it will encourage more states to expand Medicaid.
The Times reported that some within the administration—including CMS Administrator Seema Verma and White House Domestic Policy Council Chairman Andrew Bremberg—have embraced the proposal. But if the plan overcomes what the Times characterized as a “furious” internal debate, it may face an even tougher reception outside the White House. . .
After the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional for states as part of its 2012 ruling upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate, the Obama administration issued guidance interpreting that ruling. While the court made expansion optional for states, the Obama administration made it an “all-or-nothing” proposition for them.
Under the 2012 guidance—which remains in effect—if states want to receive the enhanced 90 percent federal match associated with expansion, they must cover the entire expansion population—all able-bodied adults with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty level (just under $35,000 for a family of four). If states expand only to some portion of the eligible population, they would only receive their regular Medicaid match of 50-76 percent, not the enhanced 90 percent match.
Because individuals with incomes above 100 percent of the poverty level—but only individuals with incomes above 100 percent of the poverty level—qualify for subsidized coverage on insurance exchanges, states like Arkansas and Massachusetts have applied for waivers to implement a partial expansion. If the Trump administration approves such proposals, Arkansas and other states that have already expanded Medicaid would still receive the 90 percent federal match, while shifting the population with income between 100-138 percent of poverty from Medicaid to exchange coverage. (Read more from “Inside the Trump Administration’s Debate Over Expanding Obamacare” HERE)
By The Blaze. A group of progressive Democrats tried to undermine Roy Moore’s Senate campaign by associating him with alcohol prohibition with a fake Facebook page, hoping to scare off moderate and business-oriented Republican voters, according to The New York Times.
The effort, called “Dry Alabama,” is the second reported online false flag operation by Democrats who sought to weaponize fabricated online information to influence the election.
Matt Osborne, an activist who helped with the effort, justified the tactics by claiming Republicans do the same thing.
“If you don’t do it, you’re fighting with one hand tied behind your back,” Osborne told NYT. “You have a moral imperative to do this—to do whatever it takes.”
About the fake page: Dry Alabama was a Facebook page that was made to look as if it was run by a group of Moore supporters who wanted to outlaw alcohol in Alabama. The issue is somewhat divisive among Alabama Republicans as fewer counties remain dry. (Read more from “Democrats Tried to Sabotage Roy Moore With Second Fake Facebook Campaign During Alabama Election” HERE)
Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race
By The New York Times. The “Dry Alabama” Facebook page, illustrated with stark images of car wrecks and videos of families ruined by drink, had a blunt message: Alcohol is the devil’s work, and the state should ban it entirely.
Along with a companion Twitter feed, the Facebook page appeared to be the work of Baptist teetotalers who supported the Republican, Roy S. Moore, in the 2017 Alabama Senate race. “Pray for Roy Moore,” one tweet exhorted.
In fact, the Dry Alabama campaign, not previously reported, was the stealth creation of progressive Democrats who were out to defeat Mr. Moore — the second such secret effort to be unmasked. In a political bank shot made in the last two weeks of the campaign, they thought associating Mr. Moore with calls for a statewide alcohol ban would hurt him with moderate, business-oriented Republicans and assist the Democrat, Doug Jones, who won the special election by a hair-thin margin. (Read more from “Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/38369746752_4cefa6e708_b.jpg5761024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 22:27:332019-01-07 22:22:26Democrats Tried to Sabotage Roy Moore With Second Fake Facebook Campaign During Alabama Election
Last week, President Donald Trump said all four living presidents – Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – support his push for building a border wall.
“This should have been done by all the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it,” Trump told reporters. “Some of them have told me that we should have done it so, we’re not playing games. We have to do it.” . . .
The Carter Center took to Twitter to release a statement from the former president about his stance on the border wall, saying very clearly he “does not support” Trump’s stance:
Clarification from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter:
"I have not discussed the border wall with President Trump, and do not support him on the issue.” — Jimmy Carter
“Suggesting that we can build an endless wall along our borders, and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot; it contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been spurred by our ability to attract strivers from every corner of the globe,” Obama said at Rutgers University in 2016. “That’s how we became America. Why would we want to stop it now?”
The spokesman also said Obama hasn’t spoken to Trump since the inauguration except for a few exchange of words at President George H.W. Bush’s funeral last month. (Read more from “All Four Living Presidents Open up About Their Feelings on Trump’s Border Wall” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/170718-O-ZZ999-221.jpg550825Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 22:26:412019-01-07 21:30:59All Four Living Presidents Open up About Their Feelings on Trump’s Border Wall
An Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss, on Monday agreed with the Trump administration’s request to halt a lawsuit challenging the White House’s new asylum restrictions throughout the duration of the government shutdown, The Hill reported. . .
“Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal Defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” the administration said in a court filing on Dec. 26.
Moss also told the administration to notify the court if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifts or modifies their Dec. 12 preliminary injunction that blocked the administration’s new policies from going into effect. The administration also has to alert the court if any appropriated funds are used with respect to the rulemaking process.
The lawsuit stems from immigration groups challenging the legality of Trump’s proposed asylum ban. Jennifer Chang Newell of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the Department of Justice asked for more time providing the court with deportees because of the government shutdown. . .
“Overall, this is a really unfortunate result of the President’s shutdown, and we are hopeful that the new Congress will be able to reach a resolution that enables all of these things to move forward,” Newell told CNN. (Read more from “Victory? Judge Sides With Trump Admin on One Aspect of the Shutdown” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/hammer-1281735_960_720.jpg656960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 22:18:122019-01-07 21:26:28Victory? Judge Sides With Trump Admin on One Aspect of the Shutdown
Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) exploded on Monday after multiple left-wing publications fact-checked her and criticized her defense of the numerous falsehoods she has told.
The former bartender claimed on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday that people were too focused on being “factually” accurate, and not focused enough on being morally right, which drew widespread criticism.
That criticism carried over into news reports today from left-leaning publications, including The Washington Post and CNN, which published reports titled, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very bad defense of her falsehoods” and “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very slippery slope on facts,” respectively. . .
Ocasio-Cortez then suggested that it was not fair that she was, in her own mind, being held to the same standards as President Donald Trump.
Facts are facts, America. We should care about getting things right. Yet standards of who gets fact-checked, how often + why are unclear.
This is where false equivalency+bias creeps in, allowing climate deniers to be put on par w/scientists, for example.https://t.co/87c6kVzIuI
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez_July_2018-1-1.jpg480640Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 21:59:552019-01-07 22:03:23MELTDOWN: Ocasio-Cortez Explodes After Fact-Check, Doesn’t Want to Be Held to Same Standards as Trump
The migrant caravans now storming our borders were not spontaneous. They were highly organized and assisted by multiple agencies of the United Nations and numerous illegal alien advocacy groups. In the recent rushes to overwhelm the border, migrants placed women and children in front as human shields while they pelted the Border Patrol with rocks.
Two related Chicago-based organizations, Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders), a project of La Familia Latina Unida (The United Latin Family), and Centro Sin Fronteras Community Services Network, were heavily involved in organizing the caravan. Reports claim there are at least 100 Pueblo Sin Fronteres workers embedded with the caravan.
Emma Lozano, founder of both Centro and Pueblo, is a leftwing activist and a pastor at the Lincoln United Methodist Church in Chicago. She fights deportation of illegals, and wants Illinois to become, “an Immigrant Freedom Zone.” She has stated, “We need to change America, we are all America.”
Lozano has been assisted by La Familia Latina Unida founder Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien who advocates for her fellow illegals. She was deported in 1997 but quickly returned. She was arrested again in 2002 for using a false social security number. She faced possible deportation but avoided it through the personal intervention of then Chicago Rep. Luis Gutiérrez and community pressure.
Both Lozano and Arellano work with another immigrant advocacy group, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Additional help was provided by the CARA Family Detention Project, which offers pro-bono legal help to illegals, and the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families, a Mexico-based group that organizes caravans. Reportedly, CARA has been coordinating caravan efforts with Pueblo Sin Fronteras from bases in the United States.
Government Funding
Centro Sin Fronteras also receives donations from foundations that get government funding. The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) receives about 10 percent of its grant money from the government. CLINIC works closely with CARA, and distributes much of its grant money to Catholic Charities and other organizations specifically to assist immigrants in becoming citizens and to push for amnesty.
CLINIC has received at least $2.2 million from Soros Open Society foundations since 2002. The Ford Foundation, probably the largest supporter of open borders, has provided $2.9 million since 2011, according to Foundation Search.
Centro also received over $1.5 million from the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) between 2010 and 2012. ICIRR in turn gets 80 percent of its funding from the state of Illinois.
From 2015 to 2017 ICIRR received $15.3 million from the Illinois Department of Human Services and other government sources, according to IRS returns. Some of the state money likely came from the federal government’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance State Administered programs, one of numerous HHS grant programs for refugees and illegal aliens. During those same years, the Illinois DHS received $24.6 million through this program.
ICIRR distributed between $11,000 and $246,000 in government grant money to each of 59 separate organizations for “Immigrant and Refugee Rights” in 2017 alone. According to its 2015 tax return, ICIRR also “provides comprehensive services to assist Illinois’ more that 325,000 legal permanent residents become U.S. citizens.”
Left-Wing Funding
The National Immigration Forum has provided at least $60,000 to Centro Sin Fronteres. NIF describes itself as a “conservative” pro-immigrant organization, but gets its funding, $5.5 million in 2016, from liberal funders, including the Soros Open Society Foundations.
Another extreme Left organization helping out is the National Lawyers Guild, labeled a Communist front by Congress decades ago. It is a subsidiary of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, founded as a Soviet propaganda front. NLG has brought volunteer attorneys to help caravan migrants with their asylum applications.
NLG is heavily involved in the open borders movement through its National Immigration Project, and gets ample funding from George Soros and other funders that focus on immigration issues.
The Ford Foundation has provided at least $1.3 million to NLG since 2002. The NLG partners with many open borders groups, for example CASA de Maryland, an influential Maryland-based illegal alien advocacy group that also receives government money.
Dozens of Buses
Many media reports focused on the mass of caravan migrants, estimated at anywhere between 4,000 and 12,000, walking doggedly on the 1,000 plus mile journey to the border. But left unreported, the caravan made most of the trip by bus.
Journalist and filmmaker Ami Horowitz reported directly from Mexico, where he was embedded with the migrants. Horowitz said that the migrants walked some of the way, but that, “They had chartered these, almost luxury tour buses, just dozens of them.”
Horowitz said that what struck him most was the degree of organization and dollars involved. “[The buses] didn’t come from nothing, this isn’t manna from Heaven. This was highly organized, chartered, and that’s how they got this caravan… 1,000 miles across Mexico,” he said.
Horowitz estimated just the cost of providing water to the caravan is almost $1 million. He added that the Mexican government did not want the caravan in Mexico so it was always under police escort.
‘Poke Trump in the Eye’
Horowitz also revealed another major source of assistance: the United Nations. He said there were “numerous” U.N. organizations on the ground in Mexico, most prominently, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF. These organizations provided “an incredible degree of services,” including mobile hospitals, children’s’ services and more. They also trained migrants how to speak to the press using words that would inspire sympathy, and gave powerpoint presentations explaining what to tell border agents in order to apply for asylum.
According to Horowitz, in a phone interview, the UNHCR representative admitted that the UNHCR had been involved in the caravan from the beginning, and acknowledged that part of its purpose was to “poke Trump in the eye.”
Horowitz said that the goal of all the groups involved was to “Degrade U.S. security… degrade U.S. sovereignty and to create this manufactured crisis, which they did in order to push the agenda.”
Horowitz estimated the caravans to be comprised of about 90 percent men. Women and children were present, but they were a small minority, no doubt included to boost the sympathy factor. When caravan males tried to storm the San Ysidro border crossing in late November, and again this week, the Border Patrol turned them back with tear gas.
The presence of women and children caused an outcry in the media. But none reported that the men thrust women and children forward as human shields, while they pelted the Border Patrol with rocks.
Every migrant interviewed by Horowitz said that they joined the caravan for economic reasons. None cited danger or violence at home. The migrant caravans are also complicating an already difficult job for border agencies.
Preoccupied with those attempting to cross, they cannot simultaneously protect the more remote areas of the border, leaving many opportunities for drug smugglers and terrorists to enter the United States.
CAIR Supports
In December of 2018, the Council on American Islamic Relations announced it intends to amass activists in San Diego to support the caravans:
“December 10, representatives of chapters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, will join hundreds of other faith leaders from around the nation at a solidarity action for asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego as part of the “Love Knows No Borders: A Moral Call for Migrant Justice” mobilization, organized by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).” (Emphasis theirs.)
The AFSC is a nominally Quaker group with ties to the Communist Party USA and its Soviet overseers going back to the 1920s. AFSC has also formed an alliance with MEChA, the radical Latino group whose goal is to retake portions of the Southwest sold by Mexico to the United States in 1848.
Even without the caravans, however, recent Southwest border apprehension statistics show that at least 10-12,000 are coming to the border every week separately.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Border_USA_Mexico-2.jpg8801280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-07 21:21:162019-01-12 21:08:18Highly Organized Migrant Caravans Are Being Supported by Taxpayer Funded American Groups and the U.N.; And They’re Using Women and Children as Human Shields
Accusations against Donald Trump today are actually a Hollywood remake of the great “Reagan – Iran Collusion Scandal” of the 1980s. Democrats were just as convinced that Ronald Reagan was an illegitimate President because Reagan stole the 1980 election. Reagan couldn’t have been a better president than Carter. He must have conspired with Iran’s Ayatollahs to delay the release of hostages from the U.S. Embassy in order to manipulate the election campaign. Democrats really do believe in recycling.
The Democrats just took control of the U.S. House of Representatives by 235 Democrats to 199 Republicans. The House will (predicts this author) hold impeachment hearings of Donald Trump and will hold a vote to impeach under the Democrats in 2019 through early 2020.
Articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump were immediately filed on Thursday, January 3, 2019, on the first day of the new session of Congress. Congressmen Brad Sherman (D-CA) (Northridge near Los Angeles) and Al Green (D-TX) re-filed their Articles of Impeachment they had previously filed in the last session of Congress on July 12, 2017.
Later that evening, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — a Palestinian-American women — declared that the Democrats will impeach Trump: Tlaib quoted her son telling her, “Mama, look, you won. Bullies don’t win.” And then she said, “’Baby, they don’t.’ Because we’re gonna go in there, we’re gonna impeach the motherf@@@er.”
Rep. Tlaib was handed the microphone at a celebration about the Democrats taking over the House at a reception thrown by the leftist group MoveOn.org. Long-term political junkies will recall that MoveOn.org was created to stop the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. The group urged that the country should “move on” from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s dozens of felonies in the 1990s (like selling nuclear missile guidance technology to China in return for millions of dollars of illegal foreign campaign contributions) and focus on the nation’s important issues. Al Gore famously held a fund-raiser at a temple for monks sworn to poverty, clearly strawmen for money illegally donated from China. MoveOn.org argued that we should focus on the nation’s problems, not the Clintons’ and Al Gore’s crime spree. Yet on Thursday the MoveOn.org crowd roared approval Thursday night for talk of impeaching Trump.
Democrat leaders know better. They know it will be disastrous for their party. They know it will probably cost them the 2020 elections, both presidential and congressional. But the Democrats just can’t help themselves. It will be like daring a teenage boy to jump off the roof into an above-ground swimming pool. The Leftist activists will demand it. And Democrats just really want to down deep. [Update: Billionaire Tom Steyer’s campaign to impeach Trump has garnered 6,615,331 petition signers calling for Trump’s impeachment. No matter how much Democrats know impeachment will create a back-lash politically, they will not be able to resist so many of their supporters, that big of an activist mailing list, or Steyer’s political warchest.]
They can’t escape the fact that Democrats filed for impeachment before any report or results from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. So how credible can their claims be? Sherman and Green first filed their Articles of Impeachment in June 2017.
The grounds for impeachment Sherman and Green argue is that Donald Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey. The evidence keeps growing that Comey deserved to be fired. The only wrong is that Trump did not fire Comey on day one.
But this is all astonishingly similar to 1981 when Democrats were dreaming up excuses for losing the White House — to an actor! “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” warned writer and philosopher George Santayana (also credited as “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”).
They all mocked Ronald Reagan as a buffoon who had co-starred with a chimpanzee in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” Democrats, the overwhelmingly-dominant liberal news media back then, political experts, etc. portrayed Reagan the candidate as an ignorant conservative with primitive views who did not read or know anything. (And where politicos insist that Trump is unacceptable because we need a dignified president like Reagan, Reagan actually actually did co-star with a chimp. He was still a great president.)
So, then how could Democrats accept when Reagan defeated the saintly, wise, morally superior Jimmy Carter? When the Left demonizes and belittles a Republican during a campaign, how can they then explain it away when the Republican wins? Election after election, after telling the American people how awful the Republican candidate is, Democrats are in a bind when that Republican gets elected.
So in 1981 Democrats invented a conspiracy theory of collusion between Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Reagan campaign: Yes, supposedly-serious Democrats firmly believed this. The Reagan campaign entered into a secret pact with the Ayatollah Khomeini to keep the Iranian hostage crisis alive to embarrass Jimmy Carter through election day. See: John Barry, “Making of a Myth,” Newsweek, November 10, 1991.
In 1979, after President Jimmy Carter helped create the Iranian Islamic revolution through foreign policy blunders empowering Islamic revolutionaries, militant Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Fifty-two U.S. citizens, most of them diplomats and staff of the Embassy, were held hostage for 444 days. Iran released the hostages immediately after Reagan was sworn in as President.
In the absence of any evidence, Democrats decided that Reagan campaign official William Casey must have flown to Madrid from a conference in London to hold a secret meeting with Iranian interests. Casey must have convinced Iran to not release the hostages until after the election. It could not be that Iran released the hostages because they feared and respected in-coming President Reagan’s tough-line foreign policy. It could not be that strong men do not respect apologizing and weak liberals like Jimmy Carter.
Of course, Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III did not recuse himself thereby handing power to the entrenched deep state to indulge the hoax. Nor did Meese — despite being a mild-mannered gentleman — have the lapse in judgment to appoint a Special Counsel to look into a clear falsehood.
This story has been now reborn with astonishing similarity in a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump’s private lawyer Michael Cohen flew to the gloriously-beautiful city of Prague. The Hollywood remake of the 1981 story is that Cohen meet with someone “near Prague” with poorly-defined “ties” to poorly-defined “Russian interests.” In my heart if not in employment, this author is a scientist. If you can’t define something, you can’t prove it. As a lawyer, it is a red-flag when a concept is suggested that is so vague it is impossible to prove or disprove. What are “ties?” What are “interests?” This is scurrilous slander, not serious discussion.
The fact that there was no evidence that William Casey ever flew to Madrid led to the “obvious” conclusion that Casey must have been smuggled on a military jet fighter leaving no paper trail (while Reagan was a private citizen).
The lack of any evidence that Michael Cohen ever visited Prague does not dampen the spirits of Trump’s accusers either. The fact that it would be physically impossible for non-Russian computer hackers with vague “ties” to unidentified “Russian interests” to transfer 2 gigabytes of data over the internet from the Democrat National Committee’s computers in only 87 seconds doesn’t arouse any curiosity. The DNC’s refusal to allow the FBI or any government investigator to examine the DNC’s computers to investigate the alleged hacking does nothing to discourage the conspiracy theorists.
It is important to see how nearly every criticism of any Republican candidate or official is a rerun. When political insiders merely dust off old claims, cross out the old name, and scribble in a new name, can it really be all that convincing? Can nearly the same story be true again and again? (For more from the author of “The Impeachment Games: Now It Begins” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/181019-F-KS667-055-1.jpg521780Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2019-01-06 21:50:592019-01-06 20:32:22The Impeachment Games: Now It Begins
