Once Upon a Time, When Schumer and Pelosi Supported Everything Trump Wants on Illegal Immigration

/0 Comments/in , /by

“It is the sense of the Congress that the mission statement of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should include a statement that it is the responsibility of the Service to detect, apprehend, and remove those aliens unlawfully present in the United States, particularly those aliens involved in drug trafficking or other criminal activity.” ~Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208

The media wants us to continue being frogs in a slow-boiling pot of water and not to realize how much the political temperature has shifted on the issue of national sovereignty. But if we jump out of the water for a moment and explore relatively recent history on the issue, we will learn that protecting our border, building the wall, working with local law enforcement, expediting deportations, clamping down on visa overstays, and deporting criminal aliens were all consensus issues.

Several “conservative” commentators (see Jay Cost and Charlie Sykes) have lamented the fact that Republicans once fought government funding battles over fiscal restraint and are now doing so over immigration. They are bemoaning what is in their view a negative shift towards so-called nationalist priorities. But they are missing one major point, a point that reveals that it is in fact they and the Democrats who have shifted, not the rest of us. The reason there was a shutdown fight in 1996 over spending and welfare and not over immigration is because President Clinton agreed to sign the GOP’s toughest overhaul of illegal immigration law in a generation! There was no shutdown because Republicans got much of what they wanted. And they got what they wanted because Democrats, including Schumer and Pelosi, once believed in a modicum of sovereignty.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA 96”), originally the “Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995,” was signed into law by President Clinton on September 30, 1996, after the final conference bill passed the House 370-37 and the Senate by voice vote.

This bill essentially contained all the promises Trump has made, from the wall and clamping down on visa overstays to robust interior enforcement and expedited deportations, except that it was tailored for that time period. Many of the provisions failed because they were ignored by past presidents and state and local governments and twisted by the courts. This bill was designed to fulfill the wayward promise of the 1986 amnesty and to finally fulfill the pledge to protect Americans from the cost of illegal immigration. Those promises have not been met, and millions of illegals later, millions of pounds of drugs later, and trillions in costs later, these same politicians have no interest in rectifying the promise they helped break once again.

Unlike today, Republicans actually had a vision and a sense of purpose. One of their agenda items was to cut back on legal immigration, which was a failed promise of the 1990 bill. The other was to end illegal immigration – completely. It was the former goal that Democrats opposed, which is why Republicans originally attached their legal immigration cuts to the illegal immigration bill. Democrats gutted it. But they all broadly agreed on the goal of stopping illegal immigration. To be clear, Democrats insidiously weakened some provisions and only allowed for a ban on in-state tuition for illegals, not K-12 education per the original version of the bill, but they still all agreed on the core provisions of interior enforcement we are trying to implement today.

As the Washington Post explained at the time, “By shifting their focus to a crackdown on illegal aliens, the representatives seized an issue on which there is broad agreement but did little to lower the overall influx of immigrants, most of whom come to the United States legally” [emphasis added].

To punctuate this point, we must not forget that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was signed just one month earlier and born out of the government shutdown the year before, explicitly barred illegal immigrants from accessing welfare. The bill contained language expressing the sentiment that it was a “compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.” The bill used the word “alien” 93 times.

As I’ve lamented before, the courts and executive malfeasance have allowed the letter and spirit of the welfare law to be violated. But a number of Democrats voted for it at the time, and President Clinton signed it into law.

A similar dynamic happened with the IIRIRA, except that Pelosi and Schumer actually voted for that immigration enforcement bill. Among other things, the law accomplished the following:

It provided for funding of 5,000 border agents and a 14-mile triple-layer border fence in San Diego, which worked well for years. Section 102 also gave the attorney general (now the DHS secretary) a general mandate that he “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.”

The bill called for an automated entry-exit control system within two years to clamp down on visa overstays.

The bill dramatically expanded deportations and explicitly stripped the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate many of these cases. For example, the bill stated, “No court can accept jurisdiction in most cases where person assert an interest under legalization provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.” We are tragically paying for the results of courts ignoring these provisions to this very day.

Section 531(4) updated the public charge laws by directing adjudicators of green card application to consider factors such as age, health, family status, financial resources, education, and skills. All relatives bringing in immigrants were forced to sign a legally enforceable affidavit promising to provide financial support if needed. Unfortunately, none of this has been followed until the Trump administration, but it is still the law, a law that Pelosi and Schumer supported. Only .00008 percent of applications between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011 were disqualified on the public charge basis, even though overwhelming majorities of immigrants from a number of top sending countries are on welfare.

The bill provided for new programs promoting employment verification. While E-Verify was developed from this bill, the intent of the law was never followed through. In fact, the IRS still explicitly invited illegals to work, file tax returns, and receive refundable tax credits, a violation both of this provision of IIRIRA and the welfare reform bill.

The bill tightened up asylum requirements and barred asylum to all those who have access to another safe country, which in today’s cases means Mexico. It also permanently barred those applying under frivolous pretenses from ever immigrating here. The intent and letter of this law have now been flipped on their heads by the courts.
The bill expanded the definition of “aggravated felony” as defined to trigger deportability of even legal immigrants. This is another provision that has been twisted by the courts. Congress also criminalized female genital mutilation, another provision that has been “struck down” by a wayward district judge.

The 287(g) program was created to allow states to work with the federal government to train local law enforcement in helping enforce immigration law. Obama gutted the program, and now many sanctuaries have pulled out of it.
It barred states from providing in-state tuition breaks to illegals. Nevertheless, this was never enforced, and at least 20 states were allowed to aid and abet illegal immigrants.

The point is that anyone who voted for this bill 22 years ago should, by a factor of 10,000, support the reaffirmation and expansion of these provisions today, now that we see that the other two branches of government have evaded the provisions and also that the results of what Congress was trying to stop in ’96 are worse today. The law was just but never worked as intended because of executive laziness and malfeasance as well as judicial tyranny. If Schumer and Pelosi were good to their word, they would agree with all the tightening of the statutes Trump is calling for, because they are needed to preserve the promise of the bill they voted for.

While Democrats opposed the idea of slashing legal immigration and some grumbled about increasing deportability of certain crimes for legal immigrants, none of them had the temerity to (at least publicly) side with illegal immigrants. Clinton’s chief of staff, Leon Panetta, who would later become Obama’s secretary of Defense and CIA director, best summed up the Democrat view at the time, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. “We all understand the problem of illegal immigrants. We’re all trying to ensure that we have additional enforcement to protect against illegal immigrants,” he said. “But I, for the life of me, do not understand why we need to penalize legal immigrants in that process.”

This is why Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn, Democrat leaders who were all in the House at the time, voted for the bill. Only 13 Democrats in the House voted no. In fact, more Republicans voted no because they were upset that the bill was gutted too much in conference and wasn’t strong enough.

What about the California delegation, including Dianne Feinstein, who is still serving?

Here is more from the October 1, 1996, article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was generally pleased, saying “the rich tapestry of this country must continue to be woven by people who come to this country legally.”

“This is not a perfect bill, but its major thrust is stop illegal immigration and carried out and enforced I believe it can make a major step forward in that direction,” Feinstein said. But she said she was “disappointed” that the law did not increase the penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants and that it did not have a more comprehensive verification system to identify illegal immigrants who try to work in the U.S.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also welcomed the bill. “This bill recognizes that states like California which bear most of the burden of illegal immigration should not be left alone to deal with this national problem,” she said.

Even Nancy Pelosi, who was radicalized earlier than the others, still said on March 21, 1996, “I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively.”

Thus, illegal immigration wasn’t even an issue, except for a few provisions. And in fact, Feinstein wanted to be even tougher on employer sanctions. Feinstein, along with Patrick Leahy and Patty Murray, actually voted for the original Senate bill before it was gutted in conference. Even the stronger bill passed with 72 votes in the Senate.

After decades of lies by people like Schumer, Pelosi, and Feinstein, Trump should deliver a televised address framing the entire immigration issue and showing how these people have failed on the promises he intends to deliver. Caring about Americans over illegal immigrants is not an ideal invented by Trump. It was once a universal value until the elites completely betrayed us. (For more from the author of “Once Upon a Time, When Schumer and Pelosi Supported Everything Trump Wants on Illegal Immigration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Clock Runs out on ‘Trump’s Worst’ Nominee. Will He Finally Pick a Conservative for the Job?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

With the start of a new Congress on Thursday, nominations President Trump sent to the last Congress have expired, including a highly controversial one that a conservative senator hopes won’t be nominated again in the new year.

The re-nomination of Commissioner Chai Feldblum to another term in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been opposed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, for months. Lee has long said that Feldblum’s views on marriage and LGBT issues are dangerous to the First Amendment.

As early as February, Lee warned that the nominee “wants to use the federal agency’s power to undermine our nation’s founding principles,” and effectively blocked Feldblum from being confirmed again during the 115th Congress.

“And don’t think for a second that you, your family, and your neighbors will be left alone if Feldblum gets her way,” reads a press release from the senator’s office highlighting the nominee’s more radical statements. “Feldblum believes her radical agenda ‘cannot be adequately advanced if pockets of resistance… are permitted to flourish.’ She therefore has argued that ‘no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs’ should ever be allowed if they conflict with ‘the goal of liberty for gay people.’”

Feldblum was first nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009. When she didn’t get a floor vote, Obama appointed her during a Senate recess, after which the Senate confirmed her by a vote of 54-41, with only two Republicans voting to confirm: Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Lee also highlighted several of these positions in a recent floor speech. Feldblum responded in a Medium post saying that she “did not recognize the person Senator Lee was talking about” because the “quotes were either misconstrued or taken out of context.”

“Ms. Feldblum’s views on using government power to undermine religious liberty are too extreme and contrary to existing law,” Lee said in a statement to BlazeTV. “I hope President Trump chooses a different nominee this year.”

Back in March, Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro called Feldblum “President Trump’s worst federal nomination” and referred to her views as “fully radicalized stuff.”

“We need a conservative, now, to lead the EEOC and push back against the radical courts,” Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz wrote in late 2017, “not maintain Obama’s personnel to encourage the courts to be even more radical.”

Since Lee blocked the slate of nominees, which also included two others, the commission does not have a quorum going into this year, a paywalled article at Law360 explains. This means that while the body will be able to continue investigating and bringing suits in harassment cases, it will not be able to make policy.

The EEOC and other government bodies like it are part of what many constitutionalists refer to as the “fourth branch” of the federal government, so a temporary hiccup in the commission’s operations shouldn’t bother too many on the Right anyway. (For more from the author of “The Clock Runs out on ‘Trump’s Worst’ Nominee. Will He Finally Pick a Conservative for the Job?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Taking Over House Plan Massive Government Expansion, Higher Taxes, While Promising Free Everything for Everybody

/0 Comments/in , /by

At noon on Thursday, Democrats officially take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. A short time later, the new majority will pick a Speaker, expected to be (once again) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Californistan).

And a little while after that, they’ll start work on a bold “new” agenda to expand government, blanket business with new regulations, raise taxes on all Americans and push a new socialism that will deliver “free” health care and college tuition.

In fact, socialism is literally coming to the new House as democratic socialists, such as outspoken Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ​and Muslim Rashida Harbi Tlaib, join the 116th Congress. Their platform is increasingly similar to that of rank-and-file Democrats, including a “Medicare-for-all” program and “guaranteed jobs” programs, along with demands for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Democrats will also push a “Green New Deal,” which would create hundreds of new regulations on businesses and the energy sector.

Some, like Ocasio-Cortez, want to see the end of capitalism. “I do think right now we have this no holds barred, wild west hyper-capitalism,” she said in July. “What that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.”

Democratic voters are also embracing socialism. “An overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a ‘socialist’ political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would,” finds a July 24 poll conducted by The Hill and HarrisX. And an August poll by Gallup found that 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016, while 57% of view socialism positively. (Read more from “Democrats Taking Over House Plan Massive Government Expansion, Higher Taxes, While Promising Free Everything for Everybody” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Documents Suggest the Steele Dossier Was a Deliberate Setup for Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. A trove of recently released documents sheds further light on the scope and logistics of the information operation designed to sabotage an American election. Players include the press, political operatives from both parties, and law enforcement and intelligence officials. Their instrument was the Steele dossier, first introduced to the American public two years ago.

A collection of reports compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, the dossier is now engraved in contemporary U.S. history. First marketed as bedrock evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, the dossier’s legitimacy took a hit after reports showed the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the work.

The revelation that the dossier was used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page compromised the integrity of the investigation the FBI had opened on Page and three other Trump associates by the end of July 2016. Nonetheless, that same probe continues today as the special counsel investigation.

The dossier plays a central role in Robert Mueller’s probe. In the unredacted portions of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo outlining Mueller’s scope are allegations that Trump adviser Paul Manafort colluded with Russian government officials interfering in the 2016 race. That claim is found in no other known document but the dossier. It is unclear whether further dossier allegations are in the redacted portions of the scope memo.

Further, with Mueller in charge, the dossier-won warrant on Page was renewed a third, and final, time in June 2017. It expired in September, when confidential human source Stefan Halper reportedly broke off regular communications with Page. (Read more from “New Documents Suggest the Steele Dossier Was a Deliberate Setup for Trump” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Here’s What Could Be Ahead In The Russia Investigations In 2019

By NPR. The Russia imbroglio is barreling into another year that could deliver even more revelations and political heat than the last one — and maybe even a big finale.

The criminal cases of several key players are unresolved, new charges could be ripe, and House Democrats are set to sweep into Washington with huge ambitions about how to use their investigative and oversight powers now that they wield the majority. . .

Three of President Trump’s former top aides are waiting to be sentenced after reaching plea agreements with prosecutors.

Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, first was convicted in a bank and tax fraud trial in Virginia, then pleaded guilty to avoid a second federal trial in a separate conspiracy case in Washington, D.C. (Read more from “Here’s What Could Be Ahead In The Russia Investigations In 2019” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dem’s 2020 Operation Is Ready to Launch

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the holiday weekend, The New York Times revealed that the normally quiet former vice president, Joe Biden, has been amassing a complex 2020 campaign operation, ready to spring into action as soon as Biden officially announces his candidacy.

Biden has long been at the top of early 2020 polls, measuring Democratic enthusiasm for the 30 or so potential candidates who will vie for the party’s presidential nomination. In a recent poll from USA Today, Biden ranks second, just below “someone new,” who isn’t likely to come along in the next two years. He’s trailed by Bernie Sanders — who is already on the outs with the national Democratic party — and Beto O’Rourke, the Texas Democratic Representative who lost to Ted Cruz in the 2018 senate election in that state.

There are concerns, of course. The newly woke Democratic Party would be loathe to admit that their best chance against sitting President Donald Trump is an older white man with a history of moderate leanings, rather than a minority or female candidate who tends toward the progressive end of the spectrum.

Biden also has his drawbacks: age (he’ll be nearly 80 by the time the 2020 election rolls around), his history of gaffes, and a long senate record that includes defending Clarence Thomas from sexual harassment accuser Anita Hill and voting for several of then-President Bill Clinton’s moderate reforms, including the controversial 1994 crime bill — a tough-on-crime measure that had a disproportionate affect on minority communities, and dogged even Hillary Clinton during her 2016 run. . .

According to The New York Times, Biden has spent these last two years carefully amassing his own personal war chest, commanding upwards of $100,000 per speech and appearing regularly on college campuses and at corporate events. Moreover, he’s been placing some of his most trusted aides at the helm of Biden-affiliated super-PACs, research centers and think tanks, creating an under-the-radar campaign apparatus that can roar to life the minute he officially declares. (Read more from “Dem’s 2020 Operation Is Ready to Launch” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Border Patrol Now Facing Invasion of Infectious Diseases, While Democrats Worry About the Invaders

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our Border Patrol agents have not only been conscripted as the world’s day care center, they have now become the world’s hospital for dangerous diseases. Perhaps serving as the world’s police force no longer looks so bad in comparison.

First, the illegal immigrants came for jobs and family unification with other relatives who illegally violated our sovereignty. Then they came for welfare and abortion access. Now they are coming with dangerous diseases. Yet the politicians, rather than seeking to shut down the flow and protect Americans from the public health concern, are pressuring our Border Patrol to become the world’s hospital, with stricter “malpractice” standards than domestic health care practitioners. Meanwhile, the evil drug cartels and human smugglers who are orchestrating this flow in order to paralyze the Border Patrol are making a killing off organized crime.

According to a report by USA Today, “Between Dec. 22 and Sunday, the agency reported 451 cases referred to doctors or other providers, including 259 children.” They report that the illegals have increasingly “been arriving with all kinds of ailments, many with flu or pneumonia that can be particularly pervasive and dangerous this time of year.”

CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan made it clear in a statement on Monday that many of those coming with “cases of pneumonia, tuberculosis, parasites” did not develop them on the way but actually left for our country while ill. This is quite literally what our country has tried to stop since the colonial times. Now we have infectious disease chain migration, whereby our politicians are encouraging them to come here with diseases and chastising our agents for not treating them fast enough.

Part of a “Gaza style” media warfare on our sovereignty

What affect does this have on our security at the border? Now, on top of dealing with flows of over 100 migrants at a time sent their way by the cartels, Border Patrol is forced to use more resources and add an entirely new layer of emergency medical assessments. The DHS is calling on the CDC to investigate the cause of this growing trend.

Picture our border for a moment as a war zone. We have the worst drugs, gangs, and criminals being smuggled over by some of the most violent organizations such as Jalisco, Sinaloa, Gulfo, and Juarez – groups that rival ISIS in terms of their immoral tactics. We need every ounce of talent and time from our agents oriented toward stopping that flow and their criminal activity. Instead, Schumer and Pelosi have enabled these cartels to successfully launch lawfare against our agents. The cartels use the migrants as a blitz play in a dangerous game of migration football with our agents, as Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, described to me in an interview last month. The cartels now know that our agents have become a day care center and processing venue for tens of thousands of migrants. That way they can confidently pour drugs and dangerous criminals over our border without ever being confronted by an agent doing patrol work.

Where are the agents? They are now walking on eggshells, dealing with all the sickest people in Latin America, often made worse by abuse at the hands of these very cartels. But the cartels know our agents will get blamed for it. This is part of a broader psychological/media war against our agents, in the spirit of what Hamas has been doing to the Israeli military at the Gaza border for years. Just last night, CBP put out a statement exposing how migrants were attempting “to lift toddler sized children up and over the concertina wire” of the San Diego fence while simultaneously throwing rocks at border agents. Agents were, therefore, “not in a position to safely assist the children due to the large number of rocks being thrown at them,” according to CBP.

The abuse of our border agents is even more appalling and dangerous when you consider how few of them there are patrolling at any given moment. Brandon Judd testified before the House Oversight subcommittee on national security last April that because of the growing inefficient bureaucracy, only “around 50 are assigned to actually patrol the border in a 24-hour period of time” at the Rio Grande Valley, our busiest sector.

Thus, quite literally, Schumer and Pelosi are not only enabling but facilitating the vilest human and drug smuggling network ever assembled. Then they have the nerve to virtue-signal about the shutdown and suspended pay for border agents. Rather than abuse these agents and pay them to facilitate an invasion – quite the opposite of what they signed up for – why don’t we restore their original jobs?

Stopping criminals, diseases, and public charges from entering our country was once a universal ideal

Then there are the forgotten people of this debate. What about Americans suffering from the dangers of illegal immigration? Why is the only concern of the media directed toward the welfare of the invaders, not the security of the American people whom the politicians are charged with protecting? Imagine if we had thousands of migrants being smuggled through our border by ISIS and Border Patrol was forced to worry about their needs instead of stopping the danger to America by the very evildoers orchestrating it. Well, just because the media hasn’t exposed people to the names of Jalisco and Sinaloa the way they do ISIS doesn’t mean they are any less evil and dangerous than ISIS.

Look how far we have regressed as a society and a nation-state. Protecting Americans from migrants who are criminals, public charges, or those carrying infectious diseases was so deeply embedded in our social compact since our founding that the Supreme Court said states could even brush up against federal powers over foreign commerce to protect their own welfare.

In the 1820s and ’30s, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (the “border states” of those days) passed laws mandating inspections of landing vessels at the ports to weed out those who would likely be a public charge or who were carrying diseases. In City of New York v. Milne (1837), the Supreme Court deemed New York’s regulation of ships transporting immigrants preventing “multitudes of poor persons” from coming “without possessing the means of supporting themselves” as constitutional and not infringing upon the foreign commerce power of the federal government.

Here is what the court said about the importance of even state sovereignty against all forms of liability of foreign nationals:

There can be no mode in which the power to regulate internal police could be more appropriately exercised. … Can anything fall more directly within the police power and internal regulation of a state than that which concerns the care and management of paupers or convicts or any other class or description of persons that may be thrown into the country and likely to endanger its safety, or become chargeabl[e] for their maintenance? […]

We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles imported or from a ship the crew of which may be laboring under an infectious disease.

This is why I believe states like Texas and Arizona are well within their rights to take precautionary measures to block the invasion at their borders, irrespective of what the federal government does.

Either way, if this is how our early political figures thought of state powers to reject infectious migrants and public charges (and certainly criminals), how much more is it the responsibility of the federal government to protect the whole of the union? And in those days, those transporting migrants weren’t flooding our country with drugs and gangs and weren’t run by smugglers who chop off limbs like ISIS.

Yet the first order of business for House Democrats upon assuming control will be to hold hearings not on the harm posed to Americans by “convicts, paupers, and infected persons,” as our laws have dictated for years, but on accusing Border Patrol of not performing miracles to revive those killed or seriously endangered by the smugglers and evil parents.

A growing number of children are being brought here with tuberculosis. But these are just the ones we apprehend or those who surrender themselves to the border agents. What about the ones we never catch? They are in our communities.

As early as 1907, we passed laws singling out those with tuberculosis for exclusion. Yet 112 years later, we have gone backwards by allowing the courts to essentially invite in a population that is 83 times more likely to have TB than Americans. Worse, rather than turning them back, we are now on the hook for their survival. There is nothing progressive about that.

If a government can’t turn back and deter invaders from bringing in infectious diseases we worked to eradicate a century ago, and if their actions will only embolden the drug and human smugglers, then why have a Border Patrol at all? (For more from the author of “Border Patrol Now Facing Invasion of Infectious Diseases, While Democrats Worry About the Invaders” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dems ‘Refused’ to Even Listen to Border Security Briefing at White House

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democratic lawmakers brought a border security briefing at the White House to a screeching halt Wednesday, refusing to even listen to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, a White House official tells The Daily Caller.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy echoed this version of events to reporters outside the White House immediately after the briefing, saying, “Once the secretary started, Schumer interrupted her and didn’t want to hear it.”

Republican and Democratic lawmakers after the meeting indicated little progress was made toward ending the partial government shutdown and that they agreed to reconvene Friday. The White House official says there was a consensus in the room that negotiations would be put on hold until Pelosi officially assumed her expected role of Speaker.

The White House official told TheDC that both Pelosi and Schumer refused to hear out Nielsen’s briefing and instead advocated for two solutions to end the government shutdown. Neither of the Democratic options would provide the additional funding for border security requested by The White House.

“Democrats in the room either don’t care that there is a humanitarian crisis on the border or just prefer ignorance. It was incredibly disheartening that they don’t want to know the facts when making policy,” DHS Spokeswoman Katie Waldman said in a statement to TheDC. (Read more from “Dems ‘Refused’ to Even Listen to Border Security Briefing at White House” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

One Way Elizabeth Warren Thinks She’s Obama

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Daily Caller. Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s website for her presidential exploratory committee attempts to link questions about her claims of Native American heritage to people who questioned whether former President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Warren launched the committee Monday, including a website with a “fact squad” meant to push back against criticisms of the senator.

Warren’s website blames “the right-wing machine” for scrutiny of her heritage claims. . .

“Show us your papers. Release your birth certificate. It’s all part of the right’s disgusting effort to use race-baiting and fear-mongering to distract our country and divide our people while they rig the system for the rich and powerful,” Warren’s site claims.

It also displays a photoshopped image of Obama behind Warren that reads: “Don’t worry Liz, I think we fooled them.” (Read more from “One Way Elizabeth Warren Thinks She’s Obama” HERE)

_________________________________________________

Warren Is Officially Launching 2020 Presidential Committee

By The Daily Caller. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced on the last day of 2018 she is officially forming a presidential exploratory committee in a bid to run for the presidency in 2020.

“America’s middle class is under attack,” Warren said in the announcement video Monday. “How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie. And they enlisted politicians to cut them a bigger slice.”

Speculation regarding the Massachusetts senator’s presidential aspirations have been swirling for months. In June, she announced that she would not be running for president, however, less than three months later she seemingly flipped on her word, revealing she would, in fact, take a “hard look” at launching a presidential campaign following the midterms. During an interview leading up to her November election, Warren refused to commit to serving her full term in the Senate if re-elected.

Warren has also been quietly shopping for office space in the Boston area to headquarter her possible presidential campaign, according to a report earlier in December. And on Sunday night, she changed the name of her twitter account from “elizabethforma” to “ewarren,” removing her home state of Massachusetts. (Read more from “Warren Is Officially Launching 2020 Presidential Committee” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Put Politics Before Safety

/0 Comments/in , /by

As the partial government shutdown continues into 2019, too much of the media is focused on the political winners and losers of the budget funding stalemate and not enough on the reason for the shutdown.

Democrat opposition to border wall funding is rooted in politics and not in reason. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., want to deny President Trump a significant campaign promise in hopes of demoralizing the president’s base as the 2020 presidential race approaches.

In the end, the Democrats’ strategy will backfire because they are putting politics before the safety and security of Americans.

President Trump’s motivation for border security, including a wall, is not that he’s bored and misses his old job of construction projects. The president wants a wall to help secure the southern border to protect citizens from criminal illegal aliens and to impede the flow of drugs that are killing too many Americans.

The Christmastime shooting death of police officer Ronil Singh in Newman, California, exposes the risk to Americans from Democrats who oppose funding of a wall and support sanctuary cities.

An illegal alien, Gustavo Perez Arriaga, was arrested and charged with homicide as the primary suspect in Singh’s death. In addition to Arriaga, seven others were arrested for hiding him and aiding his attempted escape to Mexico.

Arriaga was identified as a member of the Surenos street gang, and some of those arrested were also illegal aliens and may also have connections to the gang.

Democrats’ support for sanctuary polices makes our problem of criminal illegal aliens worse. Sheriff Adam Christianson said Singh’s death was “preventable” but, “Under SB54 in California, based on two arrests for DUI and some other active warrants that this criminal has out there, law enforcement would’ve been prevented — prohibited — from sharing any information with ICE about this criminal gang member.”

Sanctuary policies coupled with a porous border are a lethal combination for innocent law-abiding Americans. In addition to illegal alien crime, dangerous drugs are flowing over the Mexican border.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 70,237 people died of drug overdoses in 2017. Most alarming is the dramatic increase in overdoses from fentanyl-type drugs.

Fentanyl, a synthetic form of heroin, and related drugs were responsible for 28,466 overdose deaths in 2017, a stunning rise from about 3,000 deaths in 2013 based on CDC data. The National Institute on Drug Abuse attributes 29,406 deaths to fentanyl in 2017, up from 19,413 deaths in 2016, more than a 50 percent increase in overdose deaths.

Fentanyl, originally designed as an anesthetic, is scarily potent. Fentanyl can be up to 100 times more potent than morphine and is so dangerous that it’s a potential weapon for terrorists and was called “a significant threat to national security” by a former intelligence government official.

Mexico is the biggest supplier of heroin to the U.S., and, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, a major source of fentanyl is drug cartels in Mexico. China is also a major supplier of the drug.

A Drug Enforcement Administration official noted a rise in the amount of the potent drugs seized in Arizona coming from Mexico, saying, “We have seen a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of fentanyl powder we seize and a 3,000 percent increase in the amount of fentanyl pills.” Clearly, construction of a border wall will not totally halt drug trafficking, but it will make one route more difficult and allow resources to focus on other modes of illicit transport.

Democrats are politically very vulnerable for a partial government shutdown for resisting $5.7 billion for border wall funding, especially since in 2006, many Democrats, including Schumer, voted for a bill to fund construction of a border fence.

Pelosi is opposed to a border wall because she feels it’s “immoral, ineffective, expensive,” but her arguments are false and misleading. In fact, she’s wrong on all accounts.

Walls do work. A border fencing project in Yuma County, Arizona, combined with border security personnel resulted in a 96 percent drop in illegal alien apprehensions.

As for the cost, the Defense Department has $674 billion to spend to protect the U.S. in fiscal year 2019, so the $5.7 billion for a wall is a reasonable amount to protect Americans from illegal aliens and drugs.

Pelosi’s “immoral” claim is by far the worst, and the likely incoming speaker of the House of Representatives has it backwards: It’s immoral to block efforts to protect Americans. Democrats were for a border barrier before they were against it, proving they are putting politics before the safety and security of Americans. (For more from the author of “Democrats Put Politics Before Safety” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The National Debt Is the Punch Line

/0 Comments/in , /by

An elderly gentleman walked into the bar last week and proceeded to tell me jokes.

The greatest joke-tellers can be reasonably assured that their jokes will wither and die with me, because I’m the world’s worst rememberer and re-teller of great jokes. I destroy good jokes, and it’s a shame, but I remember the punch lines.

So after the gentleman told me the one about the Murphy twins getting drunk and the one where the old man needs help to recall his wife’s name (Rose), he asked me if I’ve ever been to Europe.

I have been, but to keep him talking, I said I hadn’t, and he told me that the best place to live is France. “The government builds nice roads there, and you can go to college for free, and public transportation, why, they’ve got it down to a science over there,” he said.

I thought, “This is a joke, right?” I mean, come on.

“Everything you could ask for is taken care of; health care is terrific; in fact, it costs you nothing to stay at a hospital, unlike here where you’ll go to the poorhouse,” he continued. “Sure, they tax you at 50 percent, but your life is pretty much worry-free.”

I chuckled, thinking that was the punch line. Apparently this old socialist Democrat was not a consumer of the news of the recent riots in Paris due to high taxes. But I offered the fact that as someone about 40 years his junior, I am most worried about our debt.

“The debt has always been high; people have been complaining about the debt since I was 15,” he said.

“OK,” I thought, “this isn’t funny any more.” When he was 15, two parents didn’t have to work to support the family. When he was young, the nation was fighting and winning a world war and government debt was due to that. He was apparently unaware that our debt is due to accumulative massive spending on social programs and foolish intervention in the private sector.

So I countered that a trillion dollars is an unimaginable sum. He said, “So was a billion 30 years ago.” I said yes, but we owe upwards of $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, to which he responded, “You should blame the president for giving those tax cuts to the rich.”

Are you kidding me? I’m not rude, so I just acted like I didn’t understand his point, rather than give him simple truths like, “We had those liabilities before Trump” and “You are benefiting from them” and “Congress has no plan to fix the shortfalls” and “They have extended us too far” and so on. He truly believes we should be taxed at 50 percent, and then everything will be hunky-dory.

As he got up to leave, I searched for a kind thing to say. “Well, you have a Merry Christmas, sir,” I said, and he laughed and said, “You too, thank you.” I thanked him for the great jokes, and he left.

I have thought a great deal about that meeting. I recalled that the answer to the debt that this socialist Democrat shared was exactly the same answer that was given to me by the first local Republican I met when I jumped into politics for the first time, ten years ago. “The debt has always been high.”

It’s like a punch line to a joke. Almost.

Then, cynically, I thought the old man could afford to think the way he did. His working years are over; he has Social Security and Medicare; and he chooses to live in America despite that it does not give him enough free stuff for his liking. I’m one of two and a half workers paying for his benefits. My back will still carry the increased consequences of high debt, and so will my children’s and their future children’s.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is near 100 percent and quickly reaching WWII levels, yet the Republicans are salivating over new infrastructure spending and the Democrats have their hearts set on Medicare for all and a global warming tax.

The government is closed because of a disagreement between two fiscally irresponsible parties about how to spend more money.

And the punch line is, “Don’t worry; the debt has always been high.” (For more from the author of “The National Debt Is the Punch Line” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE