The Next Democrat President Must Be Impeached

I am of the opinion that the next Democrat president must be impeached.

That’s the only way to stop this.

If the Republicans control the House, they must impeach the next Democrat President to ensure this sort of thing is never repeated.

The next Democrat President must be impeached? What are grounds? It doesn’t matter.

With Trump, they were talking impeachment when he was a candidate. They were talking impeachment the day he got elected. I told you, this is all sham. It’s a scam. It’s a ruse.

The only way to stop them is to turn the political and impeachment guns on them.

The next Democrat president must be impeached.

The Republican Congress can take a page from Nadler, from Waters, from Engel, from Schiff and all the rest.

They should issue scores and scores of subpoenas. Scores of subpoenas, for financial information, for bank records, for tax information; all kinds of communications with, around and about the president; issue subpoenas for the president’s White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, National Security Adviser, and other people who are closest to the president so he ceases to function.

You want to burden this Democrat president as much as possible. You want to undermine him as much as possible.

And you can wave around the Pelosi doctrine, the Schiff doctrine, the Nadler doctrine, and all the rest of them. Use their rules and take him down.

Do the Republicans have the guts to do so? I doubt it, but they must.

It is the only way to fix the Constitutional order when it comes to impeachment, because the Democrats are creating this precedent.

Now let them eat it.

Joe Biden would be the perfect Democrat president to be impeached.

Start subpoenaing all of his records; all of his phone calls with Ukraine, all of his phone calls with Red China.

You bring Hunter Biden in for 30 hours of secret testimony, like they brought Don Jr. in.

You create a special counsel, the way they created a special counsel against President Trump.

You demand Joe Biden testify in person and, when he refuses, you claim he has something to hide.

Imagine using their tools and their rhetoric against their guy. Or gal, it could be Elizabeth Warren, another liar. She’s another one with interesting finances. Well, we want to get to the bottom of it.

The next Democrat president must be impeached.

And Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Nadler and the others; CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC and the others; they have all laid the foundation.

And the only way to stop this is to destroy their foundation with their guy or their lady.

Read more at MarkLevinShow.com.

(For more from the author of “The Next Democrat President Must Be Impeached” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

While Conservatives Sleep, Refugee Contractors Push to Resettle Refugees in Every County

Conservative media, political operations, and grassroots organizations on the Right might be paralyzed 100 percent by impeachment proceedings, but left-wing groups have not diverted an ounce of resources from their fundamental transformation agenda. In fact, as conservatives focus on an issue whose outcome is already known and about which there is nothing they can do, they are ceding an eminently winnable fight on refugee resettlement to the only men on the field: Open Borders Inc. The outcome of this one-sided fight will determine nothing less than the future of all our communities and neighborhoods. It is both the most local and most national issue of prominence that grassroots conservatives can actually influence.

In September, President Trump moved to rectify one of the most egregious manifestations of social transformation without representation by allowing the people to decide the future of their neighborhoods and refugee resettlement. While reducing the refugee intake number, the president also enacted the most enduring long-term reform that would spawn grassroots involvement in the future of society by requiring refugee resettlement agencies within government that work with “private” contractors to obtain permission from local officials and the state governor before resettling refugees in a given county. Now it’s time for conservatives to actually get on the field to fight before the Left wins the game.

Aristide Zolberg, one of the leading immigration historians of recent memory, asked the question in his scholarly book, “A Nation by Design,” how amid anti-open-borders sentiment in the country, the open-borders Left always wound up “moving [the policy] in the opposite direction.” Citing other commentators, he noted that “while public support for a reduction in legal immigration was broad, it was not well-organized. … In contrast, a liberal coalition of well-organized organized groups, including ethnic organizations, churches, and employer associations, articulated strong opposition to proposals for restricting legal immigration.”

This is exactly what is playing out with local advocacy for refugee resettlement following Trump’s requirement that local officials sign off. In some ways, Trump’s order was so beneficial for the pro-sovereignty side that it is resting on its laurels, not realizing that the Left is already 100 percent activated, while the Right is sedated on the political morphine of Trump’s presidency and all of the drama in Washington surrounding his personality, not his policies.

Trump’s order requires affirmative support from local officials as well as the state’s governor in order to activate resettlement rather than formal opposition in order to stop the default outcome of resettlement. Thus, the Left is activated to lobby for its side, while the Right doesn’t even know resettlement, particularly under this administration, is still a possibility.

Nobody has covered this unfolding story better than Ann Corcoran, a citizen journalist and refugee law and policy expert who has covered this issue like a laser beam at her blog for over a decade. As Corcoran notes, in the ultimate conflict of interest, refugee resettlement contractors’ entire budgets grow commensurate with the number of refugees they resettle. The more localities they get to sign off on resettlement, the more money they get. That is why they are fighting and sending out step-by-step guides to astroturf every local official in all 3,000+ counties to get them to send their affirmative letters of support to the State Department.

The one-sided battle is having its effect. Even though most citizens oppose refugee resettlement, most Republican politicians on this issue are, at best, amenable to one-sided pressure, and at worst, downright in the pockets of Open Borders Inc. As Corcoran observes, several Republican governors have already voiced support for statewide resettlement, including Utah’s Governor Gary Hubert. While conservatives have ceded so much of America to the Left, the refugee groups have not ceded a single red county, and indeed, thanks to many apathetic and corrupted GOP politicians, resettlement has thrived in the reddest areas of the nation. The fiscal and cultural costs have been enormous.

The Left is winning in North Dakota while conservatives clamor for their hot takes on impeachment. Gov. Doug Burgum, an alleged Republican, already said he would agree to resettlement if any local jurisdiction is willing to go along with it. What happened? As Corcoran reported, Cass County officials agreed to resettlement. Thankfully, residents of Bismarck turned out in force to their local county meeting, and resettlement has been blocked for now. But everywhere American citizens sleep, the refugee resettlement parasites plot and scheme.

There’s no reason why patriots can’t contact their governors or local officials and express the opposite opinion – that they don’t want to pay for the social transformation of their own communities. But that would require some people on our side to peel themselves away from the dead-end impeachment proceedings for a few minutes.

December 25 is the deadline the State Department has set for determining the exact formula for localities to accept or reject refugees. Last week, more than 85 mayors sent a letter to the secretary of state on behalf of the Conference of Mayors opposing the president’s executive order requiring local opt-in to refugee resettlement. Why would they possibly do this? See if your mayor is on this list and find out why they don’t want local input on what affects their communities more than almost any issue. The reality is that every time the people weigh in on immigration, they oppose the elites. But if elite politicians get to quietly make decisions, including even local Republican elected officials, they will go along with the pressure of the cultural elites, unless conservatives become active on the ground.

The ultimate question anyone who works in conservative politics must ask is: Are we looking for hot takes and talking points, or are we looking for actual policy results on the issues that matter most to the future of our communities? The Left has already answered that question. (For more from the author of “While Conservatives Sleep, Refugee Contractors Push to Resettle Refugees in Every County” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

This Thanksgiving, Remember Who Grants the Blessings We Take for Granted

Perhaps we need a little more Thanksgiving and little less Black Friday to cure what is ailing our culture. Perhaps the best way to return God’s gift to our generations of unprecedented wealth and convenience is to focus on the “day of public humiliation and prayer,” as George Washington conceived the first national Thanksgiving, rather than the day of national indulgence.

As a nation, we may have turned away from God, but God sure has not turned away from us. Despite the infinite social and political problems in this country, God continues to bless us with an extraordinary level of bounty and prosperity that would shock our founding leaders, who believed their relative abundance showed a need for a national thanksgiving.

In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge noted in his annual Thanksgiving message, “An abundant prosperity has overspread the land.” He exhorted the nation to use the abundance to please the giver of that bounty and to lift our spiritual state to equal our physical one. “We shall do well to accept all these favors and bounties with a becoming humility, and dedicate them to the service of the righteous cause of the Giver of all good and perfect gifts,” wrote the quiet and humble 30th president. “As the nation has prospered let all the people show that they are worthy to prosper by rededicating America to the service of God and man.”

As we stand here today, nearly a century later, nobody would wish to live in that era, which Coolidge later referred to as one of “comfort” where “wealth is almost incalculable.” Most people didn’t even have the full bathroom amenities of hot piped water, a bathtub, shower, or a flush toilet in their homes, yet they were happy with their state of being. Why? Because as Coolidge observed in his 1928 Thanksgiving proclamation, the spiritual wealth of the nation grew commensurate with its physical wealth:

Our fields have been abundantly productive; our industries have flourished; our commerce has increased; wages have been lucrative, and comfort and contentment have followed the undisturbed pursuit of honest toil. As we have prospered in material things, so have we also grown and expanded in things spiritual. Through divine inspiration we have enlarged our charities and our missions; we have been imbued with high ideals which have operated for the benefit of the world and the promotion of the brotherhood of man through peace and good will.

Today, the opposite is true. As our spiritual wealth and healthy family life decline precipitously, God continues to bless us with unparalleled material wealth as a nation that makes the advances of the 1920s seem like a period of destitution and scarcity. Thus, any excuse we have for our troubles can certainly not be blamed on God’s open hand. We have every reason to succeed now as a nation, at least from a physical standpoint.

Even years before the era of Black Friday, where the most unfathomable high-tech comforts of life would become available at a cheap cost in a dizzying array of choices, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin taught us American abundance in a local Houston supermarket. On September 16, 1989, Boris Yeltsin made a high-profile visit to Houston’s Johnson Space Center. However, it wasn’t the amazing space technology that impressed him about America and crushed his will to continue pursuing communism in his home country. It was an unscheduled visit to Randall’s supermarket that shocked him, according to his autobiography.

Yeltsin, then a high-ranking Soviet official, reportedly “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement” and told those around him that if Russian supermarkets looked like this, “there would be a revolution.” He later wrote of his experience: “When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people.”

What Yeltsin saw in just one local supermarket was a much a greater abundance than what was celebrated in the first Thanksgiving in 1621 – by a factor of a million.

The asymmetry between America and the rest of the world in terms of choices and abundance in food, cars, and other products is still evident today. In fact, even our homeless vagrant population in San Francisco has iPhones that they use to effectively barter goods, according to a recent report by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald.

We have so much food in this country that we don’t know what to do with it. According to the USDA, farm output grew by 170 percent between 1948 and 2015, “even as the amount of labor and land (two major inputs) used in farming declined by about 75 percent and 24 percent, respectively.” Earlier this year, America’s dairy surplus reached a record high with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese. Last year, the USDA reported a 2.5 billion-pound surplus of meat.

More recently, we have witnessed the oil and natural gas miracle of America, as we become the global energy superpower. Contrary to the socialist principle of scarcity, God is constantly renewing the world, such that the more oil and gas we produce, the more we find. The U.S. has an estimated 310 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, more than Saudi Arabia, and the numbers keep growing every year. Those estimates have jumped over 30 percent in just a decade, even though we have already extracted over 30 billion barrels during that period.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced that American crude oil production had hit an all-time record of 12.8 million barrels per day (bpd) in November. That is an astounding 43 percent increase in production in just three years. Our oil exports have grown 30-fold over the past five years.

We are also the global leader in natural gas production. The EIA predicts that U.S. liquified natural gas exports will increase 72 percent this year over last year’s impressive showing. In petroleum production combined with “other liquids” production, total U.S. production is projected to hit 20.73 million bpd during the fourth quarter of this year, according to the EIA. That is 67 percent and 83 percent more than Saudi Arabia and Russia respectively. Just seven years ago, those countries were producing more than us. Through 2040, the U.S. is expected to account for 75 percent of the global growth in oil production and 40 percent of the growth in natural gas.

Indeed, God’s blessings are growing faster than we can harvest them. However, His blessings are also growing faster than our spirits can use them for the good. The age-old story of spurning God when we are fat and happy was portended in the Bible – “Jeshurun[a] grew fat and kicked; filled with food, they became heavy and sleek. They abandoned the God who made them and rejected the Rock their Savior” (Deuteronomy 32:15).

That is the true lesson of Thanksgiving. It’s easy to turn to God in a time of need. After all, there are no atheists in a foxhole. What man struggles with most, however, is keeping God in his life during a time of bounty and prosperity. As the sagacious President Coolidge said in his 1923 Thanksgiving proclamation, “We have been a most blessed people. We ought to be a most thankful people.” Yet the number of people who don’t believe in God or don’t attend church has skyrocketed over the past decade. As such, many people don’t even know who to thank.

That we are so pampered with luxury and convenience has turned our society away from family and godly values and has reared an entire generation on unvarnished narcissism and selfishness. Moreover, as we remain personally wealthy and indulgent, we remain apathetic to the injustices around us in our broken political and legal system, like the citizens of Rome in the generations preceding its fall. We have let our guard down because we forgot we need a guard and we forgot that God is the ultimate granter of those comforts we take for granted.

Consequently, everything wrong with our society, culture, and government is not because of God’s punishment but because His immense blessings of divine providence, filtered through our corrupted souls, have turned into divine judgement. God has given us everything we could possibly want, but because our spirituality as a society has been attenuated, His very blessings from His just ways have been used for crooked and profligate purposes. As it says in Hosea 14:9, “Who is wise? Let them realize these things. Who is discerning? Let them understand. The ways of the Lord are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them.”

As we thank God for our unfathomable level of physical abundance, we must remember that while only He can deliver material prosperity, only we can salvage our spiritual prosperity by returning His favors and turning back to Him and His ways. Thus, while we, as a civilization, thank God for His unparalleled blessings, we should oblige ourselves to be worthy of those blessings, lest his endless patience run out. As the wise President Coolidge once said, “If at any time our rewards have seemed meager, we should find our justification for Thanksgiving by carefully comparing what we have with what we deserve.” (For more from the author of “This Thanksgiving, Remember Who Grants the Blessings We Take for Granted” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Anti-Prison Anarchy Is Spreading: It’s Way Beyond ‘Soft on Crime’

Stathos Hugunnie was wanted in connection with two stabbings in a housing project in Long Island City one day in April 1997. When police showed up, Hugunnie fired eight shots, striking NYPD officer Peter Bueti three times in the chest, which would have killed him if not for his protective vest. After being released from prison two years ago, he was picked up again on drugs and firearms charges. Yet he was released on just $5,000 bond. This, folks, is the real criminal justice dysfunction that needs “reform,” but victims and law enforcement don’t have the same lobbying power criminals do.

Although New York’s new law abolishing cash bail won’t be enacted until January 1, judges are already getting a head start by either applying it now or setting bail at a very low rate, even for repeat violent felons. Hugunnie was charged with attempted murder, assault, criminal weapons possession, and criminal use of a firearm for the 1997 incident. Back then, criminals were actually locked up, so he served 20 years in prison.

According to the New York Post, “On Nov. 7 at 6 a.m., detectives from Queens North carried out a search warrant and found the would-be cop killer in another apartment in the Queensbridge Houses, loaded down with multiple firearms, ammunition, and grams of both heroin and crack cocaine.”

Liberals always say they want to combat gun violence, but they love to let out the most violent gun felons of all on the streets. Consequently, someone like this, who almost killed a cop and was then caught illegally possessing firearms, was let back out on just $5,000 bond. “This is the type of person New Yorkers are going to be encountering on our streets in increasing numbers: vicious criminals who are being spit back out by our criminal justice system,” said Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch, as quoted by the Post. “We must fix our broken parole system before perps like Hugunnie create more victims.”

This is the sort of “criminal justice reform” the public wants, but the political class, including so-called conservatives, think even the current weakened system is not weak enough on criminals. Two weeks ago, the American Conservative Union, the same organization that hosts the supposed annual conservative conference of record, held a jailbreak conference where 100 percent of the focus was on the needs of the criminal and not on all the victims needlessly harmed by repeat offenders let out of prison. . .

Who needs Soros electing anti-prison prosecutors in San Francisco and northern Virginia, when “conservatives” seem to agree? We see how harmful the Soros prosecutors have been in their quest to decriminalize public order laws, a big project of AOC’s “squad.” How much more so the release of drug traffickers and gang-bangers?

Many so-called conservatives are motivated, in part, by the assumption that they will somehow pick up new voters from the felons who are released. Jared Kushner reportedly told a group of donors as much at a GOP summer fundraiser in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It’s akin to their suicidal and circular logic that if Republicans out-left the Democrats on amnesty for illegal aliens, they will somehow pick up more votes. A recent jailbreak story from New York demonstrates the laughableness of this view.

José “Catano” Jorge was originally held without bond after he was charged with killing someone by distributing fentanyl-laced heroin in NYC. Last week, though, he was released without any bond pursuant to the new bail law, and according to the NY Post, he announced in Spanish as he left the courthouse, “Cuomo for president!” According to the New York Daily News, when Jorge’s lawyer tried to hush him up, Jorge said, “It’s in my heart, man. It’s in my heart, bro.”

Yes, indeed, there are a lot of vices incorrigibly embedded in the hearts of violent career criminals. Voting Republican is not one of them. This is the army of violent punks that “conservative” criminal justice deform will unleash on our streets.

Ironically, people who actually understand crime, even Democrats, comprehend the consequences of jailbreak more than supposed conservative organizations. A pair of law-and-order Democrat prosecutors in northern Virginia who were defeated by Soros candidates in primaries were recently profiled by the Daily Caller Foundation about their concern with this growing anti-prison movement and their shock that even Republican politicos don’t seem to care or understand what’s happening.

“The weird thing is, as a result of Soros pouring money into low-turnout primaries, center-left voters are unquestionably more closely aligned to the Republican candidates than they are to these radical challengers,” said Jonathan Fahey, the independent who was defeated by Soros accolyte Steve Descano in the Fairfax County DA race. “If the citizens were informed they’d never vote for this.”

The longtime incumbent Democrat prosecutor who was defeated by Descano, Ray Morrogh, endorsed the independent Fahey, but voters upset with Trump simply voted party line up and down the ballot.

Descano “is completely unqualified for the office of commonwealth attorney,” Morrogh said in a video. “The only case he tried, he disgraced himself when the judge reversed the conviction because [he] lied in closing argument. This man is not fit to hold office in Fairfax County.”

Unfortunately, citizens are not being informed of what is quietly happening on all aspects of criminal justice because all of the monied GOP interests agree with the false Soros premise about race and incarceration. Thus, rather than running endless soft-on-crime ads against the Left, which would appeal even to center-left voters disenchanted with Trump’s personality but who still want stable and safe suburbs, the host of CPAC joins with the Soros agenda. We now have a radicalized Democrat Party and a compromised Republican Party. Where does that leave the average citizen? (For more from the author of “Anti-Prison Anarchy Is Spreading: It’s Way Beyond ‘Soft on Crime’” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bottom Line: Do Illegal Aliens Matter More Than American Citizens?

Now that the Supreme Court will likely “give permission” for the president to obey immigration law and not Obama’s illegal amnesty, both parties will now clamor to enact the amnesty in a lawful manner. But there is no sense of urgency in Congress to enact immigration legislation to reinforce current laws and protect Americans from the ill effects of illegal immigration.

From reading the current media narratives, one would come away with the impression that nobody exists other than illegal alien “dreamers,” most of whom are valedictorians and the highest order of creation. As is the case with all issues, liberals isolate straw-man talking points and ignore the broader context. They present a false dichotomy: Do you empathize with those who were brought here “by no fault of their own” and are nothing but amazing assets to America? Gee, who doesn’t?

But whose fault is it? It’s not the fault of American taxpayers. It’s the fault of the immigrants’ parents and their countries of origin, particularly the country of Mexico, which has used every tool to instigate endless violations of our border integrity for decades. The forgotten people in this discussion are the American communities that are suffering from rampant crime, cartel violence, social and language problems in schools, drained health care and welfare systems, and drugs and gang activity in many parts of the country.

Let’s not kid ourselves: It’s not the 80-year-old illegal aliens who are committing most of the crimes. Common sense dictates that it will be the younger ones who are more problematic – the demographic endearingly referred to as “dreamers” by the political elites.

According to the USCIS, 53,792 DACA recipients have been arrested while in the U.S. Arrest records show some were apprehended for assault, rape, drug charges, and even murder — and yet were still given status. Thousands were arrested for drug trafficking and drunk driving, which are habitual crimes endangering our streets, yet remained in our country thanks to lawless lower courts. Shockingly, a whopping 66 percent of self-reported criminals on DACA applications were initially approved, and 33,709 or 94 percent were granted renewals.

A number of DACA recipients have turned out to be drug smugglers and MS-13 members, and UACs/“dreamers” as a whole are supplying the surge of drugs and MS-13. One disturbing fact about the USCIS data is that those who applied under the age of 14 were never even fingerprinted. Now, one might say there is no need to look at the criminal record of people that young, but this means there is no basic way of verifying their identity.

Then there is the other half of DACA. These are all of the people who came here after 2014 from Central America as a result of DACA and the driving philosophy behind it – that anyone who comes here as a child will simply escape enforcement.

It’s a simple fact that DACA caused the great surge of young teens from Central America – many of whom joined MS-13 and furthered the gang and drug problems in this country.

The Miami Herald reported at the height of the surge that “children are also being sent by families who believe they could qualify for immigration reform—if Congress ever acts on it—or for President Barack Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA.”

On June 13, 2014, the Washington Post, which now recognizes the problems with UACs but still obsessively supports DACA, admitted that the surge of tens of thousands of Central Americans was “driven in large part by the perception they will be allowed to stay under Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

On June 4, 2014, the New York Times reported that the “shift in the way the United State treats [illegal alien] minors,” aka amnesty and catch-and-release, “prompted” and “inspired” parents to either “hire so-called coyotes … to bring them north” or to “make the trip with toddlers in tow, something rarely seen before in this region.”

It’s a simple fact that illegal immigration is all driven by incentives, and immigrants come here to the degree that we encourage them. This is why the border crossings surged precisely during the periods of executive amnesty under Obama and judicial amnesty under Trump, while they ebbed when Trump began enforcing the law. Ironically, with border numbers down again, they are still up in one state: Arizona. Why Arizona? That is the one state where the DHS has not implemented the “return to Mexico” policy.

It’s time we finally implement the laws on the books to protect Americans from the fiscal, social, security, and identity theft problems from illegal aliens before implementing yet another amnesty. It’s time to finally fulfill the promise of current law on sanctuary cities and deportations. It’s time to finally combat identity theft. It’s time to finally implement the border security promise codified into law – to “achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”

But there is no impetus from almost anyone in Washington to embark on an aggressive fight to punish sanctuary cities, like Montgomery County, that release illegal alien child molesters.

Ultimately, the question is who matters more in American politics: the citizen or the illegal alien? For the political elites – from the business world and media to the political and legal cabals – it’s a no-brainer. Indeed, the “Americans last” mindset of amnesty advocates and their utter disregard for the social problems created by their advocacy is the crux of what makes Washington a swamp. We are strangers in our own land. (For more from the author of “Bottom Line: Do Illegal Aliens Matter More Than American Citizens?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Horrific ‘Knockout’ Murder Shows Need for Mandatory Sentencing Targeting ‘Pack’ Crimes

It’s one of the worst nightmares of any family. You are walking either alone or with your kids and are surrounded by a belligerent mob of “teens,” or young adults, often in packs as large as 15-20. They are not even looking for money; they are looking for blood. At its core, this is the most important job of government: to protect people’s freedom of movement so they are never confronted with such danger. Yet this is what is happening all too often because citizens are disarmed while criminals, particularly violent juveniles and young adults, are not deterred. The latest horrific pack knockout murder took place in increasingly violent Minneapolis.

A 75-year-old man was exiting a bus at a metro stop last Wednesday when 23-year-old Leroy Davonte Davis-Miles, who was together with a bunch of belligerent companions, punched the man. The victim hit his head hard on the pavement and remained in critical condition until he died Tuesday.

Minneapolis, with its plummeting prison population and proliferation of jailbreak policies, has seen a spike in violence, particularly on local public transportation. The Twin Cities are likely to break the record for annual homicides this year.

However, there is something particularly horrific about this knockout trend. These are often young males with massive rap sheets who cycle in and out of jail and never face serious consequences. But people die from these sudden attacks. In September, a man was surrounded by a pack of teens at the Frederick County, Maryland, fair and was knocked out, resulting in his sudden death in front of his family members. The perpetrators were only charged as juveniles, a fact that disgusted the local sheriff, Chuck Jenkins, who discussed the knockout trend on my podcast several weeks ago.

Often, these people serve little or no time, even though these attacks can lead to serious injury or death. Furthermore, the cowardly perpetrators will often have only one person initiate the attack, but they are surrounded by 5-15 friends who ensure that the victim has no way of defending himself. Those who play this support role never face any consequences whatsoever.

It’s time for lawmakers in the various states to begin pushing for anti-knockout legislation. It’s time to deter predatory pack attacks and take them as seriously as the evil they bring on our neighborhoods. Conservatives should push legislation in state legislatures to create mandatory minimum sentences for predatory attacks and mandate that juveniles engaged in these attacks be charged as adults. Furthermore, there needs to be some punishment for those who join in the packs that engage in violence. It’s time to take the game out of the knockout game.

Unfortunately, there is a reason why there is no effort in the states to deter these crimes. The new focus is all on de-incarceration. This relentless focus on criminal justice deform in places like Minneapolis has transformed the once peaceful “Minnesota nice” atmosphere of the Twin Cities into violence and anarchy. Violence is increasing now every month, threatening to reverse the two-decade trend of reduced crime. Homicides are up 32 percent over last year, and violent crime in general is up 13 percent. Property crimes are up 15 percent. These numbers reflect disturbing trends we are seeing in many cities across the country. The obvious culprit is the jailbreak mentality up and down the criminal justice system, which now views incarceration as the problem, rather than crime itself. In the case of Leroy Davonte Davis-Miles, he had numerous arrests for violent offenses and for drugs and theft over the past few years, according to Hennepin County court records. Yet he barely served a day in prison.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice, the Minnesota incarceration rate dropped 6.4 percent just from 2017 to 2018. However, that is not enough for the Left. The ACLU is pushing ideas it believes will cut the prison population in half. The safety of the communities is simply not a factor in its agenda. (For more from the author of “Horrific ‘Knockout’ Murder Shows Need for Mandatory Sentencing Targeting ‘Pack’ Crimes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Could U.S. Courts Make Animals into Humans?

It’s the slippery slope question that proponents of judicial supremacism can never answer. If an unelected judge stands above the other branches of government over societal or philosophical questions affecting the whole of the people – and can redefine even God’s laws, basic biology, and common sense – then there is quite literally nothing the judicial branch of government cannot do. So, is there any limit whatsoever to judicial power?

Meet “Sandra,” a 33-year-old orangutan from Argentina that is in the news this week because it was transferred to a Florida facility. But there is some unique history behind this orangutan, to say the least. In 2014, animal rights groups in Argentina filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of the animal to have her freed from the Buenos Aires zoo whose accommodations violated human rights. Judge Elena Liberatori ordered her released in 2015, suggesting that she “spend the rest of her life in a more dignified situation.”

“With that ruling I wanted to tell society something new, that animals are sentient beings and that the first right they have is our obligation to respect them,” Liberatori told the Associated Press.

Now Sandra has found a home at the Center for Great Apes in Wauchula, Florida, which is billed as a “sanctuary” for apes where they can live free in a sprawling 100-acre reserve that fits their natural habitat.

With Sandra in the news, it got me thinking, what is to stop a judge from doing that in America? If U.S. judges are accorded authority to contort human biology, natural law, our history, our founding, case law, and ancient principles of sovereignty to make denizens of aliens, victims of criminals, and men of women, then why can’t they offer human rights to animals?

If a court can rule that 7.8 billion people have the right to sue to enter our country and then demand mental health treatment for their kids and all sorts of free medical care, then what is to stop them from creating mandatory asylum for animals in zoos around the world? The Center for Great Apes is a voluntary sanctuary, but what’s to stop the courts from mandating it on society? Then, what’s to stop them from mandating sex change operations for the orangutans, using Medicaid?

We’ve essentially reached that point in this country. This has been a crazy week in the courts. A federal judge demanded that the Trump administration pay for mental health services for illegal alien children whose parents were prosecuted for breaking the law like any American criminal. Another judge mandated the right to enter the country and access health care on the taxpayer’s dime. And yet another judge said the states have a right to federal health care block grant funds and that we must allow states to force doctors into performing abortions and castration procedures.

There is not a single social, political, or philosophical question – whether it violates natural law or not – that courts have not taken for themselves.

The question Republican politicians and administration officials are not asking is: what is the limit of their power? Simply responding to these power grabs by suggesting we just appeal to a higher court is problematic for three reasons:

The higher courts, yes, even after Trump’s torrent of judicial appointments, often side with the Left. What do you do when they also rule an alien is a citizen, a man is a woman, and perhaps that a beast is a man? Is that “the law of the land”?

It feeds the erroneous premise than somehow the judiciary gets to patrol the other branches plus retains the status as sole enforcer of its own boundaries of power. This is simply tyrannical and flies in the face of the defining characteristic of a constitutional republic with three branches — in which the judiciary is the least As Madison said, “If the constitutional boundary of either be brought into question, I do not see that any one of these independent departments has more right than another to declare their sentiments on that point.” At some point, it’s incumbent upon the other branches to defend their own prerogatives the same way the judiciary jealously guards (and expands) its powers.

Even if and when the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts, we’ve seen time and again how the lower courts just come back in a slightly different case and rule against both the long-standing and recent principle of the Supreme Court’s opinion. We’ve seen this consistently with immigration law after Trump v. Hawaii and with conscience rights after Hobby Lobby. We can’t keep playing this game. What are we going to do if a California judge orders Delta Force to deploy to Syria and bring a million Kurds to our shores? Are we to believe they have such power and that Trump has no recourse other than to appeal to the Ninth Circuit?

The tragic twist is that the first fight over judicial supremacism vs. decompartmentalism among the three branches was over the courts making beasts of humans. In Dred Scott, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that black people were property, just like animals.

Stephen Douglas expressed the view that the courts can decide such questions and that those decisions are binding on other branches to accept that view. Lincoln, on the other hand, believed that every branch must interpret the Constitution according to its right construction. Indeed, this is why, as president, he gave passports and citizen documents (which are executive powers) to black people even as the courts continued to view them as chattel. He wound up making Roger Taney eat crow and be reminded of his impotence and that of his branch of government when he became president. Taney was compelled to administer the presidential oath of office to Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1861, and was forced to listen to Lincoln’s inaugural address, in which he rejected the notion that “the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions.”

Back then, slavery was pretty much the only issue on which the question of judicial supremacism mattered. The courts in general were in sync with natural law, and everyone understood that the Constitution didn’t create a right to immigrate or to taxpayer-funded castration while infringing upon the inalienable rights of self-defense and conscience. Today, there is no fixed constitutional belief in anything. As such, if we genuflect to judicial supremacism, we are consigning ourselves to a judicial model of North Korea. And whereas the Dred Scott legacy of judicial supremacism began with according unelected judges the power to make animals of humans, those powers will now capture everything under the sun, including the ability to make humans out of animals.

As Lincoln warned during the fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in Galesburg, Illinois, October 7, 1858, the acceptance of Dred Scott “commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate it, and won’t inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong.” Lincoln portentously said that Douglas “teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take the next decision when it comes, without any inquiry.

As we see today, there is no limit to “the next decision,” nor is there any floor to the depravity of judicial omnipotence. Their wish is our command. (For more from the author of “Could U.S. Courts Make Animals into Humans?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

5 Actions Trump Can Take NOW to Reclaim Our Border from the Mexican Cartels

Try to think of any other foreign entity – a country, terrorist group, or criminal group – that devastates our country as much as the Mexican cartels. They control our border – both sides of it – and have operatives in every state fueling the entire drug crisis, gangs, crime, and an endless flow of illegal immigrants who cause a massive fiscal drain and cultural transformation of our communities. Why have we gone to war with everyone but them? Will that change in light of the murder of Americans by the cartels?

It’s good that there is finally some media and policy focus on the Mexican cartels. Sadly, it came at the cost of an American family living in a Mormon community in Mexico. Three mothers of the LeBaron family were driving in three separate SUVs in two locations eight miles from each other in the Sonora province, just 50 miles from the international border with New Mexico, on Monday. Cartel gunmen opened fire on the three vehicles and then torched them, killing and burning the three mothers, as well as six children, including twin babies. Six other children were wounded, and there are reports some of them were initially kidnapped but managed to escape.

The president called for action against the cartels and implied he’d be willing to help Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) militarily against the cartels, a gesture that was rebuffed by the leftist president of Mexico. However, Trump can focus the fight on the cartels closer to home – at the border itself and in the interior of our country, where the cartels and their contractors are operating with impunity.

Here’s the reality of the cartels at the border that nobody realizes: They have created an entire business model on the premise that our government will not treat them as a hostile enemy. Were that to change, as powerful as the cartels seem today, they’d be crushed quite easily. Thus, Trump’s strategy should not hinge upon cooperation of AMLO and the Mexican military. We must seize control of our own destiny and at least protect our own country from the cartels.

To that end, here are five ideas the Trump administration should pursue:

1) Reorient the mission of Border Patrol and the military: The 9/11 commission staff reporton terrorism and travel warned that “no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal” and that even in 2004, it was “not considered a cornerstone of national security policy.” Sadly, that is still true today. Whether it’s the potential threat of Islamic terror, cartel terrorism that plagues our cities with drugs, gangs, and violence, or the espionage threat from the increasing presence of Chinese migrants, our State Department, Defense Department, and Department of Homeland Security still do not view our border as relative to our national security. That must change.

At present, CBP treats the border like a domestic law enforcement issue. This is why cartels can cross our border with impunity. As I’ve reported before, Border Patrol agents will not grab armed smugglers who have crossed our border and are an inch across the border in a belligerent posture as agents appear on the scene. They do not retaliate when shot at with automatic fire. The military is even worse. It is hamstrung from doing anything, and the cartels, knowing this fact, cross right in front of our troops.

The time has come for the military to be used at our border the way we use it to defend other borders. Our Founders envisioned a military for our own border, not for Afghanistan. Not enforcing immigration law or dealing with detainees, but holding the line right at the perimeter and striking hostile actions, whether through smuggling, drone espionage, or armed conflict. There is no reason the cartels should be operating scouts in Arizona’s mountains as deep as 70 miles into our territory. If we can’t secure our own soil, we are on our way to becoming like Mexico.

2) Shut off all immigration requests between ports of entry: We can’t have a global babysitting service operating in the middle of a war zone, especially when the cartels monetize that service for their operation. While the Trump administration is moving in this direction, there are still many people seeking status at the border. Trump must announce that until the cartels are neutralized, he is using his power under 212(f) of the INA to suspend all forms of immigration requests outside ports of entry. This will clear the field to fully counter the cartels, while also stripping them of their strategic distractions, source of revenue and drug smuggling, and ability to bring in a steady flow of contract gang members under the guise of “asylum” and “unaccompanied alien children” programs.

3) Designate the cartels as terrorists: The cartels need to be treated like al Qaeda with regard to apprehension within America, travel restrictions, prosecutions, and intelligence. Anything associated with them must be treated as an enemy. Part of why the war on drugs failed is because a war on an object doesn’t work. It’s not the drugs that are the problem, it’s the people. We need to stop this ambivalent treatment of the cartels. Trump can enact this tomorrow.

4) Declare war on sanctuary cities: It’s one thing to get drugs into the country one time; it’s quite another to operate a lucrative network in perpetuity without detection. Organized crime like drug trafficking and illegal immigration, which are interdependent, cannot succeed without political protection. There is clearly political protection at many levels, but one of the biggest is sanctuary cities. The Senate has not voted on a single sanctuary bill this year, and Democrats don’t feel the heat, even though 71 percent of liberal Tucson voters rejected sanctuary policies.

The real issue with the cartels is their ability to get their drugs and aliens reliably into the United States, then to market and realize a huge return in profit for their products. If they can’t get it to market, they can’t sell it, and they make no money. Sure, it is their reliable infrastructure that gets it across the border, which can be deterred by a military mindset at the border. But it is the people embedded inside the U.S. they trust to get it to market (and the money back), and it is shutting down that infrastructure that will stop this quicker and cleaner than anything else. Forget the war on the drugs, declare war on their infrastructure and keep the drugs from getting to market. There will always be drugs and addiction, but there is no reason they should be this ubiquitous and cheap if we actually enforced our laws.

5) Document cartel crimes and incidents: The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is woefully outdated. It doesn’t capture the reality of 21st-century crimes, as cartel expert Jaeson Jones warned on my podcast last month. Jones helped command operations against the cartels as a captain in the Texas Department of Public Safety. He observed, “Our experience in Texas showed that you need data to drive the politicians to act. The outdated crime reporting needs to be updated to quantify cartel-related crimes. You’d be shocked at how many crimes that are reported as some domestic act are really external problems driven by the cartels.”

Indeed, El Mencho, the head of the Cartel Jalisco New Generacion (CJNG), is the most wanted man in the city of Chicago. According to the DEA’s 2018 threat assessment, the gangs contracting with Sinaloa and CJNG “are also responsible for a substantial portion of the city’s violent crime.” If our data actually quantified how much of the violence is driven by the cartels, it would dictate a change in policies.

The Trump administration can begin the fight against the cartels from our own turf. We have nobody to call on to bail out our own homeland. We are our only defenders. (For more from the author of “5 Actions Trump Can Take Now to Reclaim Our Border from the Mexican Cartels” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Chicago Is Tough on Guns and Soft on Crime, and the People Suffer

It’s the sort of gun violence that happens every day, but is conveniently ignored by those who hate guns, except in the hands of repeat violent offenders. A seven-year-old girl was out trick-or-treating with her father in Chicago dressed up as a bumblebee. Suddenly, they were caught in the crossfire of a Latin Kings gang war, and the child was shot in the neck and chest.

While the identity of the suspected gunman has not yet been revealed, the Chicago Tribune is reporting that the target of the gunfire was a 32-year-old Latin King man “with a record of drug and assault arrests.” The man, who refused to cooperate with police even though he was the intended victim, was walking among the children who were trick-or-treating. The seven-year-old girl remains in critical but stable condition.

Once again, we see that so much of the gun violence in Chicago, a city with one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, is caused by known wolves who are out on the streets despite their criminal records. Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson is too busy fighting with Trump and promoting illegal aliens to actually deal with the epidemic of jailbreak policies allowing the worst gang members to remain on the streets. Politicians often dismiss gang violence as bad people killing other bad people, but this incident demonstrates how innocent people are often killed or injured in the crossfire.

The feds have a history of targeting Latin Kings members in Chicago on drug charges to take them off the streets when they escape justice in the state system. This was the big lie behind the First Step Act. Federal prosecutors don’t target “low-level, first-time, non-violent drug offenders” for long sentences; they target gang murderers and use drug laws (or firearms or racketeering) to get them off the streets.

The results of the federal jailbreak bill already came home to roost in Providence, Rhode Island, last month when Joel Francisco, who was released in February under the First Step Act, was charged with murder. Francisco was serving life in prison for a third drug trafficking charge in 2005 under the “three strikes and you’re out” law. However, he got such a severe sentence not because of drugs but because he was a known Latin Kings member responsible for a lot of violence in the city, including shooting a man in the back of the head, execution-style, in 1997. He pleaded no contest for that incident, so at the time he escaped full justice in the state system. The feds targeted him specifically for this reason, yet the First Step Act released him.

Once Francisco was released earlier this year, he tested positive for drugs several times thereafter and was caught attempting to break into his former girlfriend’s house armed with a knife but was never reincarcerated before the October 2 fatal stabbing for which he was arrested two weeks later.

This is the story of Chicago and other major cities as well. Politicians in both parties misleadingly parade convicts before the cameras who they believe were over-sentenced, but for every one of those, there are hundreds of people who are under-sentenced. Yet there is no voice for those victims. Hunter Best, 26, is another recent example of the worst criminals barely serving time in Chicago.

Best was charged with breaking into two homes in Lincoln Park last May and sexually assaulting two young girls in separate incidents on the same night. Surveillance images, video, and DNA testing all substantiated the charges. Yet, as always, it’s too hard, not too easy, to land a conviction, so, according to CWB Chicago, the prosecutor dropped 26 felony charges, “including four counts of Class X felony home invasion involving a sex offense” and “14 burglary counts and four sex-related charges.” Instead, the prosecutor accepted his guilty plea to just two counts of residential burglary.

According to the original charges, as reported by CWB Chicago, “the 13-year-old girl woke up when Best entered her bedroom. Best remained in the room for about fifteen minutes, kissing the girl and rubbing her shoulders as the girl pleaded with him to leave.” The second girl, eleven years old, told investigators that “the man kissed her on the lips and touched her private areas.” Yet, thanks to the plea bargain, good time credits, and time served, this man will be out of prison in a little more than two years from now.

These stories of the worst assaulters, robbers, and even murderers or child molesters barely serving time, despite massive rap sheets, happen every day. They are the stories politicians in both parties have no interest in telling. It’s a criminal’s world; we just live in it. They get the treats from the special interest groups, while we are left with the tricks – quite dangerous ones. (For more from the author of “Chicago Is Tough on Guns and Soft on Crime, and the People Suffer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Deep State’s Vendetta Against General Flynn Led to the Russia Collusion Hoax

Long before he met Donald Trump in August 2015, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn was a man marked by the Obama administration.

To them, he was a dangerous ticking bomb because of his deep intelligence knowledge and his outspoken opposition to President Obama’s cavalier attitude toward the resurgent threat of terrorism as represented by the rise of the Islamic State.

Already under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British intelligence for his contacts with Russians, Flynn’s initial meeting with Trump triggered a cascade of events that would eventually lead to Flynn’s coerced guilty plea for lying to the FBI and the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax investigation.

In August 2012, during Flynn’s tenure as director, the Defense Intelligence Agency released an internal, classified report predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Just three months before the 2012 election, candidate Obama did not want to hear that the war in Iraq was about to reignite thanks to his troop withdrawal and that al-Qaida in Iraq (now ISIS) was on the rise after declaring at the Democratic National Convention that he had “end[ed] the war in Iraq” and put “al-Qaida … on the path to defeat.”

Even as late as January 2014, Obama was still ignoring the threat, famously referring to the Islamic State as the “JV team.”

Punished for being correct, Flynn was removed from his position as DIA Director and forced into early retirement from the military on Aug. 7, 2014, ironically the day Obama announced that U.S. warplanes had begun bombing Islamic State targets, and U.S. troops would soon be dispatched back to Iraq.

Flynn, however, remained on the Obama administration’s radar screen, his past and occurring interactions with Russians being carefully logged by U.S. and British intelligence.

That surveillance would later provide “evidence” of Russian collusion including Flynn’s attendance at a December 2015 dinner in Moscow to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Kremlin-linked English-language news service RT, where he was seated next to Vladimir Putin.

The key and earliest known connection to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, however, occurred in February 2014, six months before Obama fired him as DIA Director.

Flynn had traveled to England to speak at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. It was at that event that individuals, who eventually became key figures in the Russia hoax, appeared, such as Stefan Halper and Sir Richard Dearlove.

According to Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller:

“Dearlove, who served as chief of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, had contact during the 2016 [U.S. Presidential] campaign with dossier author Christopher Steele. He is also a close colleague of Stefan Halper, the alleged FBI and CIA informant who established contact with several Trump campaign advisers. Dearlove and Halper attended a Cambridge political event in July 2016 where Halper had his first contact with Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.“

The actual inflection point came in early 2016 when the Obama administration’s vendetta against Flynn and his alleged Russian sympathies evolved into the Trump-Russia collusion hoax after Trump piled up primary victories.

It was long before George Papadopolous arrived on the scene, the individual often cited by the Deep State as the trigger for the Russia collusion investigation, in particular his meeting with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in May 2016 in which “damaging material” about Hillary Clinton held by the Russians was allegedly discussed.

The formation of CIA Director John Brennan’s inter-agency Trump task force, which was immediately leaked to the BBC, much to Brennan’s consternation, coincided with Flynn becoming a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign as described by a Reuters article on Feb. 27, 2016, titled “Trump being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favors closer Russia ties.”

That Brennan-led task force included not only U.S. intelligence agencies, but likely also foreign services such as Britain’s CIA, MI6, and its National Security Agency equivalent GCHQ, which had access to NSA’s database of recorded telephone conversations and emails.

No doubt, Brennan’s task force employed the services of a network of intelligence freelancers located in Europe, some of whom seem to have had connections with the British secretive strategic intelligence and advisory firm, Hakluyt, founded by former MI6 members and retaining close ties to British Intelligence services.

Those allegedly connected to Hakluyt are Stefan Halper, Sir Richard Dearlove, Alexander Downer and John Brennan, who was photographed meeting with Hakluyt personal in 2018.

Hakluyt’s top executives come from MI6 and it has retired GCHQ officials as board members. Perhaps coincidentally, listed on the board of Hakluyt’s parent company, Holdingham, is Louis Susman, formerly Obama’s ambassador to Great Britain, a major fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidates and reportedly a close friend of Hillary Clinton.

The scheme appears to have involved foreign sources in an artificial feedback loop, gathering unsubstantiated information to support the Russian collusion hoax or feeding back planted CIA information that could then be “legitimately” passed on to the FBI to generate a counterintelligence investigation, where Trump personnel or Trump himself could be interrogated.

Parallel coordination with sympathetic media outlets was an obvious additional option. It is not unlike a disreputable journalist providing disinformation to another journalist, then using that story as verification of his preconceived notions.

Another peculiarity of the Flynn saga occurred during the first meeting between then-President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump held within 48 hours after the 2016 election. Among all the critical national security issues that could have been discussed, Obama offered two pieces of advice, one regarding North Korea and the other an oddly out-of-place personnel employment recommendation — don’t hire Michael Flynn.

The rest is history.

Seeing the indictment of Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, as the first step towards impeachment, the Deep State applied unscrupulous, if not illegal, tactics to coerce a guilty plea.

In December 2017, Flynn did plead guilty to charges that he lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in what many regard as an “ambush” interview conducted by Peter Strzok, who was later fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.

Now it appears that the FBI may have tampered with the notes from his 2017 interview, during which they claim Flynn lied.

The time is long past that the case against Lieutenant General Michael Flynn be dismissed and the real Deep State perpetrators of entrapment and criminal conspiracy be investigated.

(Reposted with permission from the author of “The Deep State’s Vendetta Against General Flynn Led to the Russia Collusion Hoax”, originally posted HERE)

_________________________________________________

Lawrence Sellin is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel with branch qualifications and assignments in Special Forces, Infantry and Medical Services. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq and participated in a humanitarian mission to West Africa. Sellin holds a Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College and received training in Arabic, Kurdish and French from the Defense Language Institute. He had a distinguished civilian career in medical research after completing a Ph.D. in physiology, followed by an international business career in information technology, where he was a manager and subject matter expert in telecommunications, business process management, and command and control systems. He is also the author of numerous articles on military and national security issues.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE