Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a significant ruling Friday, a federal judge in Texas declared the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, to be unconstitutional in its entirety, citing a key change in the law implemented by Republicans in their big tax reform bill last year.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a conservative George W. Bush-appointee, issued the ruling on the eve of the deadline for signing up for Obamacare coverage. His ruling is expected to be appealed, which means the conservative-majority Supreme Court, with newly appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh, will have a chance to reassess the constitutionality of the law.

The lawsuit was brought by conservative Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, 18 other Republican attorneys general, and one governor, the Denver Post reports. The plaintiffs argue that the law in its entirety is invalid because the removal of the penalty tax nullifies the argument used by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2012 upholding the law on the premise that the ACA is ultimately a tax and thus falls under the authority of Congress, which has “the power to impose taxes,” in this case “on those without health insurance.”

“Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall,” states the lawsuit, the Post notes. Democrats countering the suit claim that even though the tax is reduced to $0.0, it still remains a hypothetical tax.

In his ruling Friday, O’Connor agreed with Republicans that with the tax aspect of the law scheduled for elimination starting January 2019, the 2012 ruling’s defense of the law is invalidated, making the entire law unconstitutional. (Read more from “Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Republican Congress Is Breaking Spending Records With Almost No Spending Cuts in Sight

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Republican-controlled federal government is setting new records for blowing out the national debt, and substantial spending cuts don’t appear anywhere on the outgoing Congress’ radar. This week the government released two different statistics showing how rapidly the federal deficit is still growing.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s monthly budget review for November 2018 found that that the first two months of fiscal year 2019 have yielded a deficit of $303 billion. On Thursday, the latest monthly report from the department of the Treasury showed that the deficit for the month of November 2018 alone was $205 billion — over $66 billion more than the same time last year.

With numbers this high this early in the fiscal year, the federal government will post a trillion-dollar deficit for the first time in its history quite easily before the end of this fiscal year in September, as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Government predicted back in March.

Meanwhile, the national debt clock is still growing, with a total just south of $22 trillion as of Friday morning.

Yet here we are at the end of the year, and you’d be hard-pressed to find any meaningful effort to cut government spending in the upcoming spending package.

Additionally, Republican leadership has even given up on the spending-related agenda items of defunding Planned Parenthood or placing modest work requirement reforms on the federal food stamp program in the nearly $900 billion farm bill that passed this week.

At this point, it appears that the only way congressional leadership might manage to save any taxpayer money in the ongoing year-end spending negotiations is if they fail to negotiate the $5 billion in funds President Trump has demanded for a southern border wall. (For more from the author of “The Republican Congress Is Breaking Spending Records With Almost No Spending Cuts in Sight” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Media Isn’t Telling You This!’: GOP Congressman Shows What a Government Shutdown Actually Looks Like

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on Friday tweeted out a graphic from his office showing exactly what a partial government shutdown will look like if Congress does not pass a spending bill on December 21.

“The media isn’t telling you this,” he wrote in a tweet featuring a pie chart that shows only 8 percent of the federal government will not be funded beyond Dec. 21.

Vital functions of the U.S. government including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the military are funded and will remain operational if the government “shuts down.”

President Trump has threatened to veto a spending bill from Congress that doesn’t appropriate $5 billion towards the construction of a border wall. Democrats have balked at this request and House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has indicated she would rather keep the “government closed forever” than give in to Trump’s wall request.

If 8 percent of the government shuts down in two weeks, it will be all about the wall. (For more from the author of “‘The Media Isn’t Telling You This!’: GOP Congressman Shows What a Government Shutdown Actually Looks Like” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former FEC Chief: Actually, Those ‘Hush Money’ Payoffs Were Not Campaign Finance Crimes

/0 Comments/in , /by

Let’s begin with an astonishingly weak political argument, albeit not a legal one, from Rudy Giuliani. Trump critics are dunking on the former New York City Mayor over his latest comment, but let’s face it: He basically posterized himself with this one — especially given the conspicuous “law and order” campaign rhetoric from his boss, and his own adherence to the “broken windows” theory of law enforcement that helped animate the city’s dramatic turnaround on his watch. That was then. This is now. Yikes:

. . .

Part of the reason I believe this is because in order to successfully prosecute this sort of crime, the government would have to prove that Trump willfully and knowingly intended to break the law. (Some crimes, like Hillary’s Espionage Act violations, do not require proof of intent). Given his sordid dealings over many years, I cannot imagine Trump is a stranger to seedy deals and payments to keep certain things quiet. “Fix this and protect me” is almost certainly not a mindset that first emerged when Trump was a candidate for federal office; I suspect it’s been a way of life for quite some time. His motivations may have been selfish, and the acts he sought to cover up (and has lied about) do not speak well of his character. But it’s entirely plausible that Trump and his lousy lawyer did not realize that such par-for-the-course personal pay-offs became illegal once he was running for office. I realize that viewpoint isn’t exactly a snappy sound byte, but it’s still a hell of a lot better than, ‘no one died, so what’s the big deal?’ Which brings me to the next point: Is it actually true that the ‘hush money’ payments constituted crimes? Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, so it would seem so, right? Not so fast. Former Federal Elections Commission Chairman Bradley Smith makes a pretty compelling case that Cohen copped to acts that were never criminal acts:

The law — following our common sense — tells us that the hush-money payments outlined by the U.S. Attorney are clearly not campaign expenditures. There is no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act…To reach the opposite conclusion, the U.S. Attorney is placing all his chips on the language “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Intuitively, however, we all know that such language cannot be read literally — if it were, virtually every political candidate of the past 45 years has been in near-constant violation. The candidate who thinks “I need to brush my teeth, shower, and put on a nice suit today in order to campaign effectively” is surely not required to report as campaign expenditures his purchases of toothpaste, soap, and clothing. When he eats his Wheaties — breakfast of champions, and surely one cannot campaign on an empty stomach — his cereal and milk are not campaign expenses. When he drives to his office to start making phone calls to supporters, his gas is not a campaign expense.

(Read more from “Former FEC Chief: Actually, Those ‘Hush Money’ Payoffs Were Not Campaign Finance Crimes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Federal Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped a Major Bombshell

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. On Tuesday, attorneys for Michael Flynn filed a sentencing memorandum and letters of support for the former Army lieutenant general in federal court. The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple 302 interview summaries of Flynn’s questioning by now-former FBI agent Peter Strzok and a second unnamed agent, reported to be FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka.

Further revelations may be forthcoming soon following an order entered late yesterday by presiding judge Emmet Sullivan, directing the special counsel’s office to file with the court any 302s or memorandum relevant to Flynn’s interview.

Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, pleaded guilty more than a year ago to making false statements to federal investigators during a January 24, 2017 interview. During that interview, Strzok and (presumably) Pientka questioned Flynn about a telephone conversation the Trump advisor had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

While Flynn’s sentencing memorandum methodically laid out the case for a low-level sentence of one-year probation, footnote 23 dropped a bomb, revealing that the agents’ 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As others have already noted, the August 22, 2017 date is a “striking detail” because that puts the 302 report “nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.” When added to facts already known, this revelation takes on a much greater significance.

First, text messages between Strzok and former FBI Attorney Lisa Page indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned the national security advisor on January 24, 2017. Specifically, on February 14, 2017, Strzok texted Page, “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page responded, “Launch on f 302.” Given Strzok’s role in the questioning Flynn, the date (three weeks from the interview), the notation “F 302,” and Page’s position as special counsel to Andrew McCabe, it seems extremely likely that these text exchanges concerned a February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview. (Read more from “The Federal Judge Overseeing Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Just Dropped a Major Bombshell” HERE)
__________________________________________________

Federal Judge Wants More Information About the Shady Meeting the FBI Used to Nail General Flynn

By Townhall. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is demanding prosecutors for Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel explain a January 2017 meeting between then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and a pair of FBI agents at the White House. One of those agents was Peter Strzok, who was fired this year for serious misconduct and political bias. He was sent by disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and fired FBI Director James Comey.

More from Fox News:

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government’s documents and “memoranda” related to Flynn’s questioning. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel’s office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.

Explaining why Flynn was not warned about the possible consequences of making false statements, one of the agents wrote in the 302 cited by Flynn’s lawyers that FBI brass had “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

So-called 302 reports are ostensibly contemporaneous accounts by agents of what is said during their interviews with witnesses and subjects, as well as other critical details like interviewees’ demeanor and descriptions of where the interview took place. They are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI typically does not audio- or video-record interviews.

(Read more from “Federal Judge Wants More Information About the Shady Meeting the FBI Used to Nail General Flynn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Members of Congress Will Now Have to Pay out of Pocket to Settle Sexual Harassment Claims

/0 Comments/in , /by

Members of Congress will no longer be able to rely on taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment and sexual misconduct claims, thanks to legislation passed just this week.

The Huffington Post reports that the final version of the bill passed Thursday, “sailing” through the House and Senate by unanimous consent, and will be on President Donald Trump’s desk awaiting a signature by the end of this week.

“Time is finally up for members of Congress who think that they can sexually harass and get away with it. They will no longer be able to slink away with no one knowing that they have harassed. … They will pay back the U.S. Treasury,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), one of the primary sponsors of the bill told reporters on Thursday, according to Reuters. . .

Speier and bipartisan group of congressional leaders began drafting the bill last year after the “#MeToo” movement exploded across social media, ensnaring powerful men in Hollywood, in the media, and even in the federal government. Both Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) resigned their positions in Congress after past indiscretions came to light in late 2017 and early 2018.

Now, thanks to the legislation, senators and representatives will be required to pay out of pocket for settlements with former staffers and aides who accuse them of sexual misconduct and will not be allowed to rely on taxpayer money to defend themselves in lawsuits brought by former colleagues. (Read more from “Members of Congress Will Now Have to Pay out of Pocket to Settle Sexual Harassment Claims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will Trump Be Impeached? Here’s What Comes Next.

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week, it has become clear that House Democrats will likely be forced to vote to impeach President Trump in 2019 on allegations of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury. The case that Trump committed such violations isn’t implausible, at least after developments this week concerning American Media Inc. (AMI), parent company of The National Enquirer, and Michael Cohen. That doesn’t mean there’s enough evidence to prosecute — but it does mean that there may soon be. And it doesn’t mean that there’s enough there to impeach — but it’s likely that Democrats will do it anyway. . .

Campaign Finance Violation. The case here is that Trump worked with Michael Cohen, pushing Cohen to pay off former Trump paramour Stormy Daniels in the midst of an election cycle after hearing via AMI that Daniels was looking to tell her story. The alleged crime would be that the Daniels hush money was a campaign expenditure, given that it would not have existed “irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” How do we know that Trump wouldn’t have paid off Daniels outside the campaign? AMI has now admitted that it paid former Trump paramour Karen MacDougal $150,000 “in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that [MacDougal] did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.” Cohen has said that his payoffs were made at Trump’s direction, as well. . .

Surborning Perjury And Obstructing Justice. The crime of suborning perjury requires these elements, according to the Department of Justice: “that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.” Cohen is already setting Trump up for this, having pled guilty to perjury himself in his testimony before Congress. Now all he has to establish is that Trump instructed him to lie for him. Trump’s defense: Cohen is lying to procure a better deal from prosecutors. It’s not merely Cohen who puts Trump in the line of fire for suborning perjury: Michael Flynn, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, could theoretically do the same, although we’ve seen no indicators that Flynn will blame his lying to the FBI on Trump. . .

But is this stuff impeachable? . . .

After Bill Clinton’s impeachment and acquittal, the answer is pretty obviously no. (Read more from “Will Trump Be Impeached? Here’s What Comes Next.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Border Reality: A Caravan Crosses Every Day

/0 Comments/in , /by

A caravan a day makes our sovereignty go away.

If you want to see what a real government shutdown looks like, look at what is going on at our border. And it’s a much bigger problem than the news-covered caravan parked south of San Diego. It’s the equivalent of a caravan quietly crossing our border every day. Because Pelosi and Schumer refuse to end catch-and-release policies, the drug cartels are using our border agents to complete the criminal conspiracy killing our citizens.

On Tuesday, Kevin McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, testified before the Senate that 3,029 illegals were apprehended at the border on December 3, the biggest single-day number in years. That would be a pace of over 1.1 million a year. The Arizona Republic is reporting that record numbers of Guatemalan families are crossing in the Yuma sector just west of San Luis where the Colorado River has dried up. There are no pedestrian fences in that part of the Yuma sector, and they are coming right over the dried-up river to surrender themselves to agents.

“We are seeing an increase in these large groups that are coming in a larger frequency,” Yuma Sector spokesman Jose Garibay told the Arizona paper. Even in areas with fencing, some of them are coming over to surrender themselves, increasingly in large numbers. “Groups sometimes numbering more than 80 migrants continue scaling the 18-foot-tall fence to enter the country illegally. They even risk serious injuries, avoiding repeated calls from U.S. border officials to cross or present their claims legally at ports of entry,” the Republic reports.

But as I’ve mentioned before, even more disturbing than who we catch is who we don’t catch. The broken asylum policies driven by the courts and supported by the Left are creating an entire economy for the drug cartels.

Why illegals are coming in urban sectors and what that means

In order to understand the latest trends at the border, we need to remember that all border migration is controlled by the cartels that have dominion over their given region. They take across people who want to come here illegally for jobs or family reunification and use them to smuggle in their drugs or criminals. Given that our insane asylum policies allow economic migrants to come and surrender themselves to agents, it is easier for them and for the cartels if they just cross out in the open, which allows the cartels to use the diversion to bring in their drugs undetected.

In a freewheeling interview with CR, Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Council, explained the latest trend at the border that is exasperating his colleagues as a result of congressional inaction. “Unlike previous years, what we’re seeing now is that a large number of illegal aliens aren’t even trying to get away from us,” said the veteran border agent. “Instead, they’re running straight to us. Due to the asylum loopholes, they understand that apprehension is as good as, if not better, than getting away. This is why they’re once again crossing in metropolitan areas like El Paso and San Diego, areas that haven’t been very busy since the late 1990s. There is no need to cross through harsh rural terrain and risk dehydration and other dangers when you can illegally cross the border in major metropolitan areas, give yourself up, claim asylum, and get released just to disappear into the ‘shadows’ of society. Cartels coach illegal border crossers on exactly what they need to say when they claim asylum, allowing them to game the system.”

This trend is reflected in the latest border numbers. El Paso, which was dormant for many years, is now the second biggest trafficking area of the nine border sectors. Whereas total border apprehensions of family units are up 303 percent this fiscal year relative to the first two months of FY 2018, those numbers are up in San Diego and El Paso by 601 percent and 1866 percent respectively.

Then what happens in the rural areas out of sight of the agents? Judd continued:

“To be clear, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t criminals and drug runners coming in through the rural areas – there are, but given that the entire of flow of aliens is orchestrated by the cartels, they’re using ‘asylum seekers’ as pawns to create gaps in the border by tying up Border Patrol resources. The cartels flood the metropolitan areas with more family units than we have resources to deal with, causing us to move resources from rural areas, thereby creating the gaps that allow them to move more valuable products like illicit narcotics and criminal aliens. It’s sort of like a game of football. Offenses will use misdirection in hopes the defense will bite. When the defense bites, the good offenses exploit the weaknesses or gaps for large gains.”

Judd made it clear that President Trump, by pushing for a wall and an end to the asylum loophole, “is one of the very few people trying to stop this trend and provide lasting border security for the American public.”

However, until Congress acts to stop the court-driven policies, these politicians are quite literally complicit in an evil conspiracy to smuggle drugs and humans. “The American public needs to understand that it is Pelosi and Schumer policies that are allowing the cartels to exploit our vulnerabilities and cross deadly drugs into the country that are killing thousands of our citizens.”

What the current border trend tells us about policy solutions

Consistently, I’ve heard three major themes about the state of play at the border from federal law enforcement and local sheriffs:

1) Migrants are now coming in large numbers, as groups of 100 or more, in addition to single individuals.

2) Migrants are coming out in the open in urban areas where they are more likely to be caught, opposite to trends of previous decades. They are even willing to climb the existing fences in the urban areas, many of which are insufficient, to get over.

3) There is a record flow of drugs, both opioids and non-opioids, pouring over the border facilitated by this flow, but Border Patrol is powerless to stop it because resources are stretched thin and our federal policies play into the scheme of the cartels.

In other words, our national sovereignty and security are shut down because of policies supported by Schumer and Pelosi and their allies in the courts. This is why, according to DEA, the size of the Mexican poppy fields more than tripled in 2013-2016, right around the time the Central American migration surged, driven by asylum, DACA, and catch-and-release. Over the same time, deaths from heroin and meth tripled, and fatalities from fentanyl skyrocketed ninefold. If Schumer and Pelosi have their way, we will likely find out in the coming years how the 2018 border surge led to an even worse drug epidemic. If Pelosi thinks it’s “immoral” to build the border wall, she might want to check her sense of morality at the door.

Why we need both a fixed border wall and the elimination of magnets

This is important to understanding why we need both the border wall and a fix to all the magnets, such as bogus asylum. The wall is clearly effective in serving as a force multiplier for blocking those who want to avoid detection. It can keep out criminals and drugs. Just ask Israel.

On the other hand, those seeking entry into this country for economic reasons but exploiting asylum will continue to come over the fence deliberately seeking detection, which is why we must get rid of the magnets and end phony asylum. Once we begin prosecuting phony asylum-seekers again rather than releasing them, they will no longer want to be detected by border agents and will be deterred by an effective wall. The proposed wall is much harder to climb than existing fencing, and it would take migrants too long to get over before risk of detection. By that time, they would be scared of getting caught.

Moreover, while the wall will help between the points of entry, migrants are increasingly coming to the points of entry themselves, and all of them would do the same if we had an impenetrable wall between the points of entry. Many more are coming to the northern border. While channeling the flow to the points of entry with the wall is certainly better than empowering the drug cartels between the points of entry, it still drains our culture and economy to invite potentially millions of people to come based on bogus asylum claims.

This is why the president and the Freedom Caucus are right to make the budget fight about both the wall and the asylum loophole.

This is also why the president is right to dismiss the concern of a government slowdown. Let’s not forget that the military, Social Security, and health care programs are already funded for the remainder of the fiscal year. The only major security-related department not funded is DHS. But it’s circular logic for Democrats to complain about a shutdown, since DHS is not stopping the flood of illegal immigrants every day. What’s the point in funding DHS without fixing this problem if our agents will just be used to facilitate the most evil human and drug smuggling?

Madison explained the arrangement of federalism best in Federalist #45 as keeping the powers of the federal government “few and defined,” applied “principally on external objects.” Most other functions of life and economy are supposed to be handled by state governments. There is no greater purpose to the federal government than protecting us from the ultimate external threat of migration, drugs, gangs, and terrorists at the border. As Iranian president Hassan Rouhani warned a few days ago, Iran will flood the West with “a deluge of drugs, asylum seekers, bombs and terrorism.”

Now is the most critical time for Trump to stand his ground, finally reopen our government, and unshackle our border agents so we can close our border. (For more from the author of “Border Reality: A Caravan Crosses Every Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obstruction? Mueller probe wiped Strzok phone before giving it to investigators

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has released a report on its investigation into the recovery of text messages from FBI mobile devices that were once operated by disgraced former FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

The report reveals disturbing details about the inner workings and lack of transparency in the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, who has been investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election for the past 575 days and has failed to publicize any evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion.”

The OIG report found that all of the texts off of Strzok’s and Page’s mobile phones that they had received while they were working for the special counsel’s office (SCO) were deleted.

“SCO’s Records Officer told the OIG that as part of the office’s records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok’s DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive text messages,” the OIG report said in stating that Strzok’s phone had been “reset to factory settings,” which means it was completely wiped of all of its data.

Additionally, the SCO claimed it “was unable to locate the iPhone previously assigned to Page.” When the phone was finally found, it too had all of its data deleted and was reset to factory settings, according to the report.

This is peculiar, given that Strzok and Page were dismissed from the SCO after texts surfaced showing that the couple had a strong anti-Trump bias. Additionally, further texts appeared to show that they were prepared to take action in their official capacity as FBI agents to “stop” candidate Trump from winning the election, citing an “insurance policy” they had put together.

The OIG report raises questions about the transparency of the Mueller investigation as a whole. It adds fuel to the narrative that Mueller was appointed in order to protect corrupt institutions and cover up wrongdoing by elements of the federal government, instead of shining a light on corruption within it. (For more from the author of “Obstruction? Mueller Probe Wiped Strzok Phone Before Giving It to Investigators” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Caravan Is Making the Most Ridiculous Demand for Them to Go Home

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Newsweek. Central American asylum seekers in Mexican border town Tijuana reportedly marched to the U.S. Consulate on Tuesday to present the Trump administration with an ultimatum: Let us into the country or give us $50,000 each to turn back home.

The demand came a month after asylum seekers began to arrive in Tijuana. Many still face weeks, if not months, of waiting in the border town before their asylum claims can be processed.

Asylum seekers showed up at the consulate in two groups, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, with one of the groups—made up of roughly 100 people—delivering the $50,000 demand.

Asked how the asylum seekers came up with the figure, organizer Alfonso Guerrero Ulloa of Honduras told the newspaper that while “it may seem like a lot of money to you…it is a small sum compared to everything that the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

In a letter outlining the ultimatum, the group reportedly criticized U.S. intervention in Central America. The U.S. intervened in numerous military coups as it sought to protect commercial interests in the region. (Read more from “The Caravan Is Making the Most Ridiculous Demand for Them to Go Home” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Students Offended by ‘Distasteful’ Sign Advertising Migrant Caravan-Themed Sandwich

By Washington Examiner. A restaurant near the campus of Clemson University has upset students. Their grave error? Naming one of its sandwiches the “Tijuana Chicken Sandwich.”

The restaurant, named “ Loose Change,” put a sign outside their establishment which read:

“Big enough to feed a caravan. Built high enough with smoked chicken, lettuce, tomato, pepperjack, bacon + guac. Bordered with a side of pub chips. So good, it should be illegal.”

(Read more from “Students Offended by ‘Distasteful’ Sign Advertising Migrant Caravan-Themed Sandwich” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.