Cops Settle Case After Injuring Man Who Refused Warrantless Search

Deputies in a Texas county have settled a lawsuit brought against them for injuring a man who refused them permission for a warrantless search of his home after he told the officers the person they sought wasn’t there.

The deputies didn’t believe the homeowner, Huntly Dantzler, but it turned out he was right.

Before they discovered Dantzler was telling the truth, however, they handcuffed him, threw him to the ground and arrested for him refusing to give consent. The officers then coerced his wife, Susan Dantzler, to allow one of them to conduct the warrantless search.

After a judge ruled that at least some of the couple’s claims were valid and would require a trial, the deputies agreed to a settlement, the terms of which were not disclosed.

Earlier, a ruling from U.S. District Judge David Ezra left charges standing against the officers. (Read more from “Cops Settle Case After Injuring Man Who Refused Warrantless Search” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Explosive Claim: Missing FBI Texts Show Treasonous Plan to Harm Trump; Agents Met, Discussed ‘Secret Society’ Day After the Election

By PJ Media. There is serious talk on Capitol Hill about the appointment of a second special counsel amid several new bombshell revelations swirling around the Trump/Russia probe. First, there are the allegations of shocking and substantial government surveillance abuses under President Obama outlined in the FISA abuse memo. Secondly, the FBI lost five months of key text messages between the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton FBI officials Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page. And now there’s talk of a “secret society” of officials within the FBI that apparently met the day after the election of Donald J. Trump to plot against the president-elect.

Top Republicans now believe there may be real grounds for a second special counsel, Fox News reported Monday evening.

Reps. Devin Nunes (R-CA), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), and Bob Goodlatte (R- VA) met on Saturday to discuss the FISA memo and the text messages. On Monday, the trio put out the following statement:

(Read more from “Explosive Claim: Missing FBI Texts Show Treasonous Plan to Harm Trump; Agents Met, Discussed ‘Secret Society’ Day After the Election” HERE)

___________________________________________________

FBI Official: FBI Agents Threatened Physical Harm to President Trump in Missing FBI Texts and Other “Frightening” Communications

By True Pundit. A high-ranking FBI official confirms a number of the missing 50,000 FBI text messages — as well as other text and email messages among FBI brass — reportedly discussed initiating physical harm to President Donald Trump.

The FBI official urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — which oversees the U.S. Secret Service — to launch an investigation of the Justice Department, the FBI and all text messages missing and otherwise that threatened the President.

“This is dangerous territory and all FBI text messages and personal phones should be examined,” the official said. “It would reveal some frightening conversations.” (Read more from “FBI Official: FBI Agents Threatened Physical Harm to President Trump in Missing FBI Texts and Other “Frightening” Communications” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Hannity: DOJ Has Started Recovering Missing FBI Texts, DOJ Sources Say

By Fox News. Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Wednesday night on “Hannity” that the Justice Department has started recovering some of the missing texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, citing DOJ sources.

Federal law enforcement officials had notified congressional committees that a technical glitch affected thousands of FBI cellphones between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017. This meant that 5 months’ worth of texts would be missing from Strzok and Page, both of whom are under scrutiny after it was revealed that the former members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team exchanged anti-Trump texts during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Hannity said sources at the DOJ told him they have begun to recover some of the texts from that time period. Specific content from those texts has not been released . . .

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have sent a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz noting that the IG’s office said on Dec. 13 that it had all the messages between Strzok and Page between Nov. 30, 2016, and July 28, 2017. (Read more from “Hannity: DOJ Has Started Recovering Missing FBI Texts, DOJ Sources Say” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George Soros Broke a Record Trying to Oppose Trump Last Year

Liberal billionaire George Soros spent more on lobbying during President Donald Trump’s first year in office than he has in any previous year, disclosure forms show.

The Open Society Policy Center, a D.C.-based 501 (c)(4) nonprofit that focuses on domestic and international advocacy efforts and is a separate entity from Soros’s Open Society Foundations, poured $16.2 million into lobbying throughout the entirety of 2017.

Soros’s group reported spending $4.6 million during the first half of 2017 on its lobbying efforts. During the third quarter, Soros added $1.25 million to the total. Most of the lobbying expenditures—$10.3 million—were spent during the fourth quarter, which spans from October 1 to December 31.

Soros ramped up his efforts as the year progressed by pushing funds toward issues that have been seen as a direct attack on the deep-pocketed financier, such as Hungary’s Bill on Foreign Funded Organizations (LexNGO), a crackdown on foreign-funded organizations in that country . . .

Soros also pushed funds to lobby on the Restricted First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, and the Preventing Preemptive War in North Korea Act of 2017, among others, according to the disclosure forms. The Open Society Policy Center lobbied the Senate, House of Representatives, State Department, National Security Council, and the Department of Defense last year. (Read more from “George Soros Broke a Record Trying to Oppose Trump Last Year” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Says He Would ‘Love to’ Answer Special Counsel Mueller’s Questions – Under One Condition

By Daily Wire. President Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he is “looking forward” to being questioned by Special Counsel Robert Mueller — under oath — in the investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Trump said at the White House. As for the session would occur, Trump said, “I guess they’re talking about two or three weeks…. I’d like to do that as soon as possible.”

“But I’d love to do it,” he declared. Trump again insisted there has been no collusion — and no obstruction of justice in the May firing of FBI director James Comey. “Here is the story: There has been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And I am looking forward to it.”

During an exchange with reporters, Trump vowed to do the interview under oath — “subject to my lawyers.”

“I would do it under oath. I would do it,” he said, later adding, “I would do it under oath, yeah.” (Read more from “Trump Says He Would ‘Love to’ Answer Special Counsel Mueller’s Questions – Under One Condition” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Says He Is Willing to Speak Under Oath to Mueller

By The New York Times. President Trump said on Wednesday that he was willing and eager to be interviewed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, insisting that he has done nothing wrong . . .

Mr. Trump suggested that his efforts to defend himself against damaging allegations had been unfairly misinterpreted as wrongdoing . . .

His lawyers have been negotiating for weeks with Mr. Mueller’s team about the prospect of having him answer questions in the inquiry, including what topics would be covered. Mr. Trump said last year he would be willing to speak with Mr. Mueller, but he has more recently suggested that should not be necessary because the allegations being examined were baseless. (Read more from “Trump Says He Is Willing to Speak Under Oath to Mueller” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lawsuit Could Empower States to Reject Refugees

If successful, a lawsuit by the state of Tennessee against the federal government could empower states to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program.

The assessment comes in a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies that spotlights the federal government’s ability to compel a state to pay for federal programs they don’t want.

Over time, writes CIS fellow Don Barnett, the author of the report, the federal government “has shifted the fiscal burden of resettling refugees to the states, often requiring resources be taken from social services, infrastructure, schools, as well as other state taxpayer priorities to implement a federal program.” . . .

If the court rules in Tennessee’s favor, states would be able to withdraw fully from the refugee resettlement program by negating what Barnett describes as a legally questionable 1994 regulation.

Barnett explained that the federal government uses the regulation (45 CFR 400.301) rather than statutory law to allow private non-profits to operate in a state where the state has asked to withdraw from the program. (Read more from “Lawsuit Could Empower States to Reject Refugees” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Releasing Own Legislative Framework on Immigration

By WND. With the clock ticking on the reprieve from a government shutdown, President Trump is entering the fray on immigration with his own “legislative framework” for Congress to consider and adopt before the Feb. 8 deadline.

The White House says Trump’s proposal will be released Monday.

In a statement, the White House said: “Last fall, the White House sent Congress a list of the core reforms necessary to fix our immigration system. These reforms were assembled in coordination with frontline law enforcement officers and career public servants who know what is necessary to keep America safe. Since that time, President Donald J. Trump and his administration have hosted dozens of meetings with Republican and Democrat leadership and rank-and-file members of the House and Senate to discuss these reforms and find a bipartisan path forward. Based on these negotiations, the White House will release a legislative framework on Monday that represents a compromise that members of both parties can support.”

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate failed to come to agreement on a continuing resolution to fund the government last week, primarily over the issue of DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, leading to a three-day government shutdown. A temporary agreement was made to continue funding the government until Feb. 8, with Republicans pledging to bring a proposal on immigration to a vote by the deadline. (Read more from “Trump Releasing Own Legislative Framework on Immigration” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Puts Path to Citizenship for Some ‘Dreamers’ on the Table in Immigration Deal

By The Washington Post. President Trump said for the first time Wednesday that he is open to a path to citizenship for some younger undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” in an immigration deal being negotiated by Congress, a potential breakthrough in the stalled talks.

In an impromptu discussion with reporters, Trump emphasized that his support of a citizenship path for about 690,000 immigrants would be contingent on securing $25 billion for a wall on the southwest border with Mexico and $5 billion for additional border upgrades. The president also is expected to continue his push to curb legal immigration as part of a deal.

But his remarks signaled what could prove to be a major shift for a president who ran a campaign with a hard line on immigration and last week rejected a bipartisan Senate proposal that included citizenship.

White House aides said the president would release a complete “framework” on Monday. The aides said that plan probably would grant immediate provisional legal status to those immigrants covered by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that he terminated in the fall. That group would then be eligible to pursue full citizenship over 10 to 12 years. (Read more from “Trump Puts Path to Citizenship for Some ‘Dreamers’ on the Table in Immigration Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Majority of Voters Want Less Than Half Our Current Immigration

“So, if we have people who were brought here ‘through no fault of their own,’ are amazingly smart and industrious, and all serve in the military and kill Al Qaeda terrorists with their bare hands, should they be deported?”

“No? Great! Now it’s time for completely open borders.”

That essentially describes the attitude of the political class at this point.

It’s one thing to put out BS polling as a propaganda tool; it’s quite another to actually believe it yourself and implement political strategy accordingly. That is the mistake Democrats have made by obsessing over superficial polling suggesting that Americans, including conservative Republicans, are clamoring for amnesty.

The reality of the polling tells quite a different story.

The immigration polling dynamic is very similar to the dynamic of the gun issue. Democrats have touted polls showing support for expanded background checks as high as 90 percent. “Do you want criminals to get guns or not?” a pollster would ask.

But even honest Democrat strategists will admit that the reality of the gun issue is just the opposite — the issue as a whole, especially when you weigh the intensity of the sides, is a major loser for Democrats. In general, people want more pro-gun legislation, not less. Just ask Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

The same dynamic applies to immigration. Isolating a largely abstract and mythical population of illegals and encapsulating it into a poll doesn’t reflect where people’s hearts and priorities are on this issue. But the answers to very straightforward polling questions of whether we have too much or too little immigration, whether immigrants should assimilate, whether immigrants should get welfare, whether immigrants should learn English, and whether immigration should be merit-based as opposed to family-based, are indeed very reflective of where the national mood is on immigration. And deep down, Democrats know this.

A very thorough and comprehensive poll from Harvard-Harris shows that Americans want a dramatic cut in legal immigration and a transition to merit-based immigration. Here is a list of some of the questions and results:

Question: “Do you think immigration priority for those coming to the U.S. should be based on a person’s ability to contribute to America as measured by their education and skills or based on a person having relatives in the U.S.?”

Results: The merit side won by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Support for merit-based priorities was 72 percent among Hispanics and 85 percent among blacks. Seventy-two percent of self-described Democrats and 65 percent of self-described liberals agreed. Yet you will never see news stories or even Republican politicians touting the fact that even liberal Democrats support merit-based over chain migration.

Question: In your opinion, about how many legal immigrants should be admitted to the U.S. each year?

This is as non-leading and non-push-polling as a polling question can get. No preconceived notions of “no fault of their own” or “brought to America by parents.” This is a straight-up question of numbers. Only 19 percent chose options ranging from 1 million to over 1 million. Our official level of immigration every year is about 1.1 million, but between other de facto permanent programs, as many as 1.8 million immigrants were likely admitted in 2016. The American people clearly reject it and would never support it if the numbers were advertised. Eighteen percent chose the 500,000-1 million option, 19 percent chose 250,000-499,999, and 35 percent (including 48 percent of blacks) – by far the largest share – chose 100,000-250,000.

This means that a clear majority want less than half the current intake, if not one third of the current intake, a result that would not even be achieved through passage of the RAISE Act. In total, 81 percent desire less immigration than our average recent intake, and less than 12 percent want the level of immigration from our most recent year. That is not much more than the 9 percent on the other extreme who said they want absolutely no immigration whatsoever.

Talk about the silent majority! Most of the numbers were pretty uniform across all demographics, too.

Other findings of the poll: 61 percent feel that border security is inadequate; 68 percent (including 62 percent of Democrats) oppose the diversity visa lottery; and only 22 percent want open-border policies.

Yet the media will just latch onto the one question about giving work permits or a path to citizenship to “those brought here by their parents,” to which 78 percent answered in the affirmative. The problem with this question is that it gives no context as to who these people are, which priorities should come first, and whether they should get welfare.

What if voters were told that most people in this group have only a high school diploma, don’t know English very well (unlike the ones the media puts on camera), and would likely be on welfare and rely heavily on refundable tax credits?

What if voters were told that young illegal immigrants were even more likely to commit crimes, particularly gruesome ones, than older ones and that in Arizona they were 884 times more likely to be convicted of a crime?

What if they were told that 535 DACA recipients who were ordered deported for serious crimes are still roaming our communities and that this is not even a discussion in the negotiations?

What if they were told that DACA is what spawned the Central American wave of border crossings, as confirmed by the El Paso Intelligence Center, the Congressional Research Service, the Washington Post, and the Migration Policy Institute, that the new promise to ratify DACA is rejuvenating the border surge, and that up to 30 percent of unaccompanied minors (or purported minors) detained by immigration authorities as a result of DACA have ties to MS-13 gangs?

What if voters were asked whether we should grant amnesty before fixing immigration and security for Americans and risk more illegal immigration or if we should first prioritize security and legal reforms?

What if they were told that as soon as these people have children, they will immediately be eligible for welfare and already get refundable tax credits?

Clearly, the electorate is a lot more outraged at our stolen sovereignty and at America becoming a dumping ground for the world’s criminals than they are about the urgency for a limited amnesty for the “best and the brightest.”

So what does this all mean?

If Republicans would embrace sovereignty and security and run on lowering immigration, making it merit-based, deporting all criminal aliens, ending welfare for immigrants, and stopping automatic citizenship for future children of illegal aliens, they would be leading this election season in a heartbeat. And even if one believes there is a clamor and intensity for amnesty, the Goodlatte bill incorporates both elements – so they can have their cake and eat it too.

When will Republicans stop listening to their phony consultants, who have done them a disservice on this issue for decades? Common sense is the best poll of all. (For more from the author of “Poll: Majority of Voters Want Less Than Half Our Current Immigration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Florida Proposal on Ex-Felon Voting Rights Could Have National Impact — Here’s How

Convicted felons in Florida could have their voting rights restored automatically upon completion of their sentences if a proposal passes this November . . .

“Dems want to restore the felon vote because they think they will benefit; Republicans want to restrict felon voting because they believe they will be harmed,” said former University of South Florida professor Darryl Paulson, who is a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Most felons are nonviolent and deserve to have their rights restored. Most felons in Florida are white, not black. If conservatives want to end recidivism and reintegrate felons into society, the restoration of voting rights is essential.” . . .

Concerns on both sides about the political impact of restoring the vote to convicted felons explains why this has remained a contentious issue for decades.

The 2000 presidential election serves as a useful example of the potential significance of 1.5 million Floridians suddenly being allowed to vote. A 2002 study estimates that if Florida’s former felons had been allowed to vote in 2000 and turned out at a 13 percent rate, 31,000 additional votes would have been cast. Former president George W. Bush won by 537 votes.

Florida is just one of four states that still permanently bans ex-felons from voting. (Read more from “This Florida Proposal on Ex-Felon Voting Rights Could Have National Impact — Here’s How” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CIA Boss in Discussion with Trump About Preemptive Strike Attack on North Korea

As tensions remain high between North Korea and the U.S., the director of the CIA indicated that President Donald Trump is being briefed by the agency on the risks and opportunities that would result from a limited attack against the hostile regime.

Mike Pompeo revealed this information during a Tuesday speech at the American Enterprise Institute, and though he would not discuss the “wisdom of a preemptive strike,” he admitted the regime’s nuclear program is an urgent priority for the agency, according to The Daily Beast.

“We’re working to prepare a series of options to make sure that we can deliver a range of things so the president will have the full suite of possibilities,” Pompeo said. “The president is intent on delivering this solution through diplomatic means.”

“We are equally at the same time ensuring that if we conclude that is not possible, that we present the president a range of options to achieve what is his stated intention,” he added.

Pompeo described these “options” as a means to “denuclearize permanently” North Korea, noting that “we’re going foreclose this risk.”

The director spoke on behalf of the information he claims the CIA assessed. He believes North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to be a rational man but is unsure as to how serious the dictator considers the prospect of a U.S. attack.

Pompeo didn’t say whether or not options exist for Trump to attack North Korea without sparking a nuclear war, though analysts have warned that even a limited strike could eventually lead to a nuclear conflict.

The CIA director indicated that the administration is developing numerous options, spanning from diplomacy to war, in order to avoid having to choose between inaction against the regime and a possible nuclear catastrophe.

But in the past months, some analysts have expressed concern with the CIA’s current analysis and statements made by the president.

In October, Trump said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was “wasting his time” in trying to negotiate with Kim. In August, meanwhile, Trump stated that any provocation from North Korea would be “met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

According to a former North Korean spy it’s not possible to denuclearize the regime with diplomacy.

“North Korea won’t give up its nuclear weapons,” said Kim Hyon-hui. “They’re its lifeline.”

Just before Christmas, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis echoed those same fears by stating that “storm clouds are gathering” in the wake of the growing threat.

Many within the CIA believe the missile program in North Korea is aimed at coercion, rather than self-defense.

The next logical step, they suggest, would be for the regime to develop an arsenal of weapons with the capability to fire multiple missiles toward the U.S. in an effort to achieve maximum destruction.

And the possibility of destruction may only get worse, Pompeo said, adding that he spoke last week about North Korea being only a “handful of months” away from a successful nuclear attack.

“I said the same thing several months before that,” Pompeo said. “I want everybody to understand that we are working diligently to make sure that a year from now I can still tell you they are several months away from having that capacity.” (For more from the author of “CIA Boss in Discussion with Trump About Preemptive Strike Attack on North Korea” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Star: ‘Abortion Is the Definition of Evil’

Not all Hollywood actors speak social justice nonsense while hypocritically wearing Planned Parenthood buttons on their multi-thousand dollar dresses at awards shows. Actor Kevin Sorbo (“Hercules”, “God’s Not Dead”) has his values in the right order.

In an editorial for CNS News, Kevin Sorbo and his wife, Sam, unequivocally denounced abortion as an “evil” that spreads through fake buzzwords like “empowerment.” . . .

“In some cases, disturbing the nest of a sea turtle and stealing its eggs is a crime punishable by years in prison and tremendous fines, but we have an entire industry in this nation devoted to the murder of unborn human beings,” says the piece . . .

“This is the new civil rights cause for our country,” the piece continues. “Barely a century after our grave and costly war against slavery, against depriving some human beings of their dignity and based solely on their skin color, we codified into law the right of the citizen to kill her progeny, based solely on its size and location, while unwittingly depriving herself of love that is pure and enduring.” . . .

“This is the definition of evil, pure and simple,” the piece concludes. (Read more from “Hollywood Star: ‘Abortion Is the Definition of Evil'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.