Why Conservatives Must Fight Judicial Supremacism — and Not Hang Their Hopes on John Roberts

The reason why judges don’t stand for election is because they are supposed to look narrowly at the law, regardless of their political positions or political pressure from elites in media and culture. Yet Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be crafting vital legal opinions based on nothing more than a scorecard of how often each political side wins on a legal question. The latest revelation that Roberts might have changed his mind on the census case, just as he did on Obamacare, should give conservatives pause about putting their faith in a “conservative Supreme Court” rather than delegitimizing the concept of judicial supremacy in the first place.

Joan Biskupic, a CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer, wrote an “exclusive” exposé on Thursday suggesting that initially, “Roberts was ready to rule for [Secretary of Commerce] Ross and the administration. But sometime in the weeks that followed, sources said, Roberts began to waver.”

The reason this report sounds credible is because, as I noted at the time of the ruling, if you read Roberts’ plurality opinion, the legal reasoning sounds like the opposite of his final order, the same phenomenon that gave away his flip in the Obamacare case. Roberts noted that the citizenship question is the essence of the census, has been with us for most of our history, and that nothing in the Constitution, census statute, or even the rule-making process under the APA precluded the president from doing this. But he then concluded that the case should go back to the lower court because he didn’t like the reason the secretary of commerce gave for why the administration chose to reinstate the citizenship question.

The problem with this rationale is that if there is no violation of statute or the Constitution, then how is there a valid case or controversy against the administration, regardless of the reason they give for a policy, especially something as obvious as asking about citizenship on a census? Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, his decision made no sense.

I have noticed in following many other Roberts decisions that he has an iron political motivation to avoid making the Supreme Court look too “conservative” at all costs. Thus, he finds ways to either allow liberal rulings to stand by not taking up appeals or uses tortured logic to join with the liberals on some other cases, but in a convoluted way that he thinks won’t offend his personal jurisprudence. He so badly doesn’t want to be political that he is more political than anyone else.

In the run-up to this past term’s grand finale in June, many court watchers and commentators that I follow were speculating about a “conservative sweep” in the critical cases. But Roberts found ways to side with the leftists. He did so on a number of criminal “rights” cases, executions, a global warming case, and an administrative state case, in addition to flipping on the census.

There is a simple reason why conservatives should win every case at the Supreme Court: The law compels it. Most (but not all) political cases initially brought to court are from the Left. This is because, in general, leftists control the legal profession and more aggressively litigate political issues, but it’s also particularly true today because Trump is president and they will naturally shoot at anything he does in court. Thus, by definition, the cases the Supreme Court gets are appeals from lower court judges who created insane new constitutional rights or adopted novel rules of standing. Sorry to break it to you, Roberts, but you have an obligation to aggressively swat them down categorically.

Most of the court’s cases are not 50-50 equal constitutional questions. They are legally 100-0 no-brainers but nonetheless are viewed, at least by the elites, as political 50-50 issues or as leftist winners. Any judge, regardless of his politics, is obligated to side with the law, even if that means siding against the political outcome of the more popular political movement in Washington 10 out of 10 times.

Take Obama’s DACA amnesty, for example. Among the D.C. elites, 90 percent of Republicans support it. Heck, even Trump supports it. Nonetheless, anyone with any legal honesty would know that this doesn’t even register as a legal case. There is no way, however much you want the result, to say that Obama can take people whom law requires be deported and give them legal documents, much less mandate that Trump must continue this usurpation. You could be a rabid open-borders advocate from a political standpoint, but you’d have to concede that there is no legal justification, much less legal mandate, for Obama’s amnesty.

But it appears that for Roberts, it would be perceived as an act of right-wing court bias to rule correctly. Thus, either he will employ another tortured legal trick to avoid categorically throwing out the lawsuit, or he will “compensate” for a proper ruling on amnesty by agreeing with the Left in another absurd case. And there are plenty of totally absurd cases to choose from: a ruling creating a right for 7.8 billion people to immigrate, a ruling creating a right for Planned Parenthood to be subsidized, another case where they say transgenderism is in the Civil Rights Act, and yet another case where the Ninth Circuit says the Eight Amendment creates a right for prisoners to undergo taxpayer-funded castration.

No sane person can say the law or Constitution mandates those policies. As such, any honest justice not only must reverse those opinions, but is obligated to do so as early and as categorically as possible. The simple reality is that most cases coming before the court that are very political have a “legal” foundation built upon insanely novel “constitutional” ideas.

Imagine for a moment if the shoe were on the other foot. Let’s say conservatives got their favorite judges to indulge the following propositions: abstinence organizations are entitled to free taxpayer funding, government can mandate that all citizens without a criminal record must own a gun, and government must pay for at least one firearm for people who can’t afford them. Even with gun rights emphatically listed in the Constitution, while the right to immigrate is not, Americans suing for government-funded guns is absurd. And illegal aliens crashing our border and then suing because they don’t like the free medical care they get is even zanier. But the Supreme Court would immediately “side with the Left” in these hypotheticals, and likely call for the removal of those lower court judges mandating taxpayer-funded firearms.

But the Left has successfully made its most insane ideas mainstream and at least a 50-50 toss-up legal questions in the courts. This is why Roberts feels the pressure to make up reasons to rule with the Left and often quietly allows absurd lower court rulings to stand in the “shadow docket,” as he sometimes agrees to overturn others.

Which brings us back to the census case. Nobody had any inkling that Roberts could buy into the absurd notion that the census can’t ask a citizenship question. But he is not governed by law or rationality; it seems he is governed by his perception of the equilibrium of politics in Washington.

This is why conservatives are foolish to agree to judicial supremacism and then put their faith in somehow winning the supremacism game. Instead, it’s time to educate the public in the fact that the courts don’t have the final say over political matters. Courts are every bit as political as the political branches. So let’s keep the politics where it actually belongs, where it is more transparent, and where the public can address their problems through elections. (For more from the author of “Why Conservatives Must Fight Judicial Supremacism — and Not Hang Their Hopes on John Roberts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Primary Threat Now Is Civilization Jihad, and It’s on Our Own Shores

In my first article commemorating the eighteenth anniversary of 9/11, I discussed how, rather than dialing back immigration from the Middle East, we stepped on the gas pedal, bringing in millions more without any guarantee we can vet them. But there is the other half of the equation: The radicalism already on our shores and not aggressively investigated and prosecuted by the government.

There was a long-standing Muslim Brotherhood network already in this country in 2001 that was instrumental in inspiring and working with those behind the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 as well as other terror attacks. Rather than going after that network with a vengeance after 9/11, our government still treated them as legitimate Muslim community outreach leaders. That problem is still huge today.

In 2009, the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding trial gave Americans a jolting dose of reality when it came out that so many of the leading charity and community organizations within the American Muslim community had significant ties to terror groups like Hamas. Federal Judge Jorge Solis implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust. His 2009 order denied efforts by CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to have their names expunged from the trial record. Solis noted that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (‘IAP’), and with Hamas.”

The judge cited a 1991 memorandum from a Muslim Brotherhood official explaining the organization’s goals in America as follows:

“Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America” is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Rather than following up on this case at every level and actually prosecuting these groups while banishing the Muslim Brotherhood umbrella organizations from polite society, as with KKK, the government indulged their leaders as legitimate partners with the Muslim community. With so many new people coming from the Middle East every year, how do they even have a chance to assimilate into Americanism if these are the ones leading the community and are legitimized by government?

In 2010, counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole, who now writes for PJ Media, wrote a white paper on 10 jihadists living in America who were involved with terrorism and had ties to either the 9/11 group or terror cells that committed prior acts who were indulged by our government, in some cases even after 9/11. Perhaps the best-known example is Anwar al-Awlaki.

Two weeks after 9/11, according to FBI documents released in 2013, our government knew that al-Awlaki bought airline tickets for Mohammed Atta and two of the other hijackers. The flights were in the summer of 2001 and are thought to have been dry runs for the terror attacks. Yet, as Fox News reported in 2010, al-Awlaki was hosted by the military at the Pentagon several months after his disciples flew planes into it for the purpose of “outreach to the Muslim community”! Documents secured by Judicial Watch further confirmed that al-Awlaki was in the crosshairs of law enforcement several other times between 2002 and 2007 but was mysteriously released each time. He is suspected of directing the underwear bomber on Christmas 2009 and was in contact with Nidal Hassan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood a month before that. He was eventually killed in a drone strike in Yemen two years later.

Poole details nine other prominent Islamists in America who were treated as partners by our government and military, even though they were hooked up with the very cells responsible for the worst terrorist attacks. One such figure was Ali Mohamed, al Qaeda’s security chief, who was allowed to infiltrate our special forces, training soldiers in Arabic culture at Fort Bragg after being expelled from Egypt in the 1980s. While he was working with one of the most important parts of our military, according to Poole, “he was schooling U.S.-based Islamic militants in weapons, explosives and martial arts, including the cell responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.” He also helped transport bin Laden from Afghanistan to Sudan, trained the Somali forces who attacked our soldiers in “Black Hawk Down,” helped arrange the cell responsible for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and arranged a U.S. fundraising tour for Ayman al-Zawahiri, the man who took over al Qaeda’s leadership after the death of bin Laden.

Another example cited by Poole is Sheikh Kifah Mustapha. He was personally named an unindicted coconspirator and fundraiser for Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation case. A year later, he was given a tour of O’Hare airport as a member of the FBI’s “Citizens Academy.”

How in the world did a man who should have been indicted on terror charges but is free to engage in treason to this day obtain a security clearance?

Earlier in 2010, Mustapha’s behavior was repugnant enough that the Illinois state police fired him as a chaplain. When Mustapha filed a lawsuit, with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR, even the Democrat attorney general was appalled by him. Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion in federal court in 2013 noting that Mustapha “aided and abetted, or at least cheered for, terrorism” after he was caught on a video chanting “terrorist lyrics.”

In October 2010, Eli Lake reported in the Washington Times that then-director of the FBI Robert Mueller was asked about the inclusion of the Hamas cleric in the FBI’s training program, and he refused to answer the question, even as he admitted there are widespread terror links in the sphere of outreach groups the Bureau patronizes.

Indeed, the war on terror is primarily not overseas. It is on our own shores. We need not solve the vexing problems of tribal warfare in Afghanistan to secure our homeland. We need to simply open our eyes and not commit suicide. There’s a reason why our enemies rely on us “sabotaging its miserable house by their hands.” They rely on our own self-destruction for their success. (For more from the author of “The Primary Threat Now Is Civilization Jihad, and It’s on Our Own Shores” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

How Trump Can Take the Supreme Court Border Victory to the Next Level

In a better world, we’d all suffer from heartburn reading the headline, “Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect.” We don’t need a Supreme Court to “allow” us to have a sovereign nation or to “allow” a president to use his authority to deny entry to any foreign national. However, in our prevailing political system, I’ll take “allowing” over disallowing any day of the week. Now the Trump administration has an opportunity to go on offense and kick these district judges while they’re down and drive a stake through the heart of the border crisis, ending it once and for all.

Late yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed the partial injunction of the Ninth Circuit and the nationwide injunction by California Judge Jon Tigar against the administration’s policy of rejecting asylum requests of those who could have claimed asylum in another country. Only two justices – Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – went on record as dissenting from the unsigned SCOTUS decision to reverse the unprecedented lower-court power-grab, at least pending the disposition of the case on the merits.

Now is the time for the administration to strike while the iron is hot and put an end to this entire concept of carefully selected district judges in California controlling international relations and border policies. Rather than tepidly ease into the border policies pending the outcome of the case on the merits, the administration should begin immediately rejecting every non-Mexican asylum applicant at the border. No half-measures and no more deference to the same judges who have been repudiated over and over again.

Trump should call on Sen. McConnell to bring to the floor the bill introduced yesterday by Sen. Tom Cotton, which officially clarifies existing constitutional law that judges cannot issue rulings outside the cases of legitimate plaintiffs and that district judges cannot apply rulings outside their geographical jurisdictions. He should also have a conservative member of the House introduce articles of impeachment against Jon Tigar, who has now blatantly violated the core of judicial power by giving standing to third-party organizations to sue as aggrieved parties just so he can veto border policies.

There is never any pressure within the left-wing legal profession against those judges who rule more progressively than Supreme Court precedent, but only against those who rule more conservatively. This is why Clarence Thomas warned in the original “travel ban” case that absent a categorical repudiation from the Supreme Court, the left-wing groups would continue going back to the same district judges and get the same favorable rulings.

The more the administration delegitimizes the entire concept of universal injunctions and illegal judicial tampering in the process of admission of aliens, the more it will create pressure against these judges stepping out of line.

Then there is the situation at the border itself. We can’t continue going pursuing border policy tethered to the whims of any district judge. This has real-life consequences at our border for the agents on the line, because the policies keep changing every day. Judges have an important role mediating domestic disputes among legitimate parties, but they cannot take the role of a commander-in-chief in securing an international border.

To that end, the administration should begin rejecting all Central American asylum applicants rather than using the half-measure of the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), otherwise known as the “return to Mexico policy.” Rather than rejecting them outright, the administration gives them a notice to appear in court while they wait in Mexico near our border for several months. While it certainly has resulted in many Central Americans returning home and was better than full catch-and-release, it is still a half-baked measure that should no longer be needed.

Todd Bensman, National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, reported a few weeks ago from his conversations with illegal immigrants waiting in Mexico that Central American migrants in the pipeline are already much reduced and further, that those who have been given an MPP document are trying to sneak over the border anyway.

Bensman was on my podcast several weeks ago and related how several of the migrants he met in Mexico who had received MPP documents told him that they were planning to cross the river illegally.

One border agent in the Rio Grande Valley told me he caught a woman from Honduras running away from agents over the weekend. She had a son with her. Until a few weeks ago, this was unheard of. With catch-and-release in full swing, they wanted to get “caught” by an agent if they had a kid with them. Why are they now running?

“Well, after questioning her, we found out that we apprehended her and her son on August 10th almost in the same area,” said the line agent patrolling the RGV, who must remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “She was part of the MPP program. We gave her a court date in December and sent her back to Mexico. She didn’t want to wait, so she paid the cartel $22,000 for having to cross her twice. Unfortunately, this story is now becoming the norm. Every day we are catching family units running from us because they too do not want to wait. Just a few days ago we had a big bailout from a high-speed FTY [failure to yield], and the majority of the illegals in the vehicle were family units in the MPP program. They face no consequences from trying to come over again.”

Thus, we are allowing an entire group of illegal aliens from Central America to remain on our doorstep in very desperate straits in this half-status. Right now, Mexico is deporting many Central Americans, but they won’t deport those who have an MPP document. MPP is rapidly reaching the tipping point of undermining our more categorical policies as well as Mexico’s enforcement. This is why it’s time to just categorically reject all of these asylum applications and not issue MPPs, because they all could have and should have applied for asylum in Mexico. That would end almost the entire flow, and the rest would be subject to deportation by the Mexican authorities.

At the very least, CBP must put teeth in the MPP for those who violate the agreement. I asked a CBP press officer if those MPP recipients who are caught coming over the river again lose their opportunity to apply for asylum. The spokesman replied, “Their paperwork is updated with the illegal entry and they are returned to Mexico to await their hearing date.” Which likely means that a judge might possibly take this infraction into account, but they do not categorically lose their chance to apply. If CBP updated this policy to deny asylum to those who violate their waiting period in Mexico under MPP, it would deter them and likely encourage all of them to return home.

Trump sits at the crossroads of the issues of judicial supremacy and the border crisis. Momentum is on his side, but history has shown that the best way to kill a policy problem is when it has been weakened, lest it become strong again. (For more from the author of “How Trump Can Take the Supreme Court Border Victory to the Next Level” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Have We Learned Anything About Our Immigration System 18 Years After 9/11?

On December 7, 1941, on a day that will live in infamy, the Japanese military attacked our naval base in Hawaii, killing 2,335 people. We responded with clarity of mission by declaring war on Japan and defeating it militarily, with a no-holds-barred approach and not a scintilla of political correctness.

On September 11, 2001, a ragtag terrorist organization attacked us through our immigration system, killing nearly 3,000 Americans. We simply let in people we should not have admitted and allowed them to work with networks within this country of other people who should not have been let in. We responded by making the problem worse and increasing migration from those countries without any system to vet incoming immigrants.

Our government’s response to what should have been treated primarily as an immigration and national security problem was to sacrifice thousands of lives and trillions of dollars nation-building on behalf of various tribes fighting each other in the Middle East, empowering Iran, and clamping down on civil liberties at airports – all the while ignoring our visa system and doubling immigration from the Middle East. One could not possibly conjure up a more backward, more counter-intuitive array of policies than the way we have prosecuted the war on terror for the past 18 years.

Responding to an immigration problem by doubling down on unvetted mass migration from the Middle East

The recent arrest of Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani brings out this point. Alani is a mechanic for American Airlines who is accused of putting foam glue inside part of a commercial plane’s navigation system last month. We now basically make Americans strip naked and be humiliated at airports, while we bring in people like this from overseas and even have them work on the very planes our TSA procedures are meant to keep safe! According to Breitbart’s John Binder, “Alani first arrived in the U.S. from Iraq sometime in the mid-1980s. Alani came to the country as the spouse of an American citizen and eventually was able to become a naturalized American citizen himself in 1992.” How was he vetted? What did we know about him before he came to the U.S.? Later citizenship is no guarantee.

Last Thursday, an alleged sniper for ISIS was indicted on conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS. How did Ruslan Maratovich Asainov get here from his native Kazakhstan? According to John Binder, he arrived in 1999 on the diversity visa lottery. And he too became an American citizen. There is nothing more dangerous than a random visa lottery to bring in people from volatile parts of the world with limited vetting and no ties to this country. Yet we refused to get rid of the lottery after 9/11.

On December 11, 2017, when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, Akayed Ulla, a Bangladeshi national who came here through the diversity visa lottery, attempted to blow himself up at a New York City subway, a nightmare terror scenario. Six weeks earlier, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, an Uzbeki national who came on a diversity visa in 2010, ran down eight people with a truck in the deadliest terror attack in New York City since 9/11. There was pressure to get rid of the diversity lottery back then, but Republicans declined to advance such a bill even at the committee level.

There are endless enclaves and clustering of large communities of unassimilable migrants from countries with strong ties to terror right in New York City, the target of the 9/11 attacks. Every week, we see more stories of those arrested on terror charges. On August 29, Awais Chudhary was arrested for plotting an ISIS terror attack in Queens. He came from Pakistan some time after 9/11.

The same applies to the Somali community in Minneapolis, where dozens have been charged for terrorism-related activity. In 2015, U.S. attorney Andrew Lugar warned that there is “a terror-recruiting problem in Minnesota” among the Somali youth and that it does not stem from overseas but “may be their best friend right here in town.” Similarly, in November 2016, Michael Davis, a federal judge in Minnesota appointed by Bill Clinton, warned, “This community needs to understand there is a jihadist cell in this community. Its tentacles spread out.”

No amount of TSA “security” for passengers can stop the suicide of a nation bringing in Sharia-adherent Islamists in large numbers on visas to this country without any way to vet them or deal with the Muslim Brotherhood subversion in their communities on our soil.

We have grown our immigration from Iraq exponentially since 9/11. We’ve brought in roughly 188,000 since 2009, largely because of a war that was sold to us as “fighting them there so they won’t come here.” What has our government done to better vet these people? Iraqi refugees are caught all the time by the FBI on terrorism charges.

We have clearly not learned our lesson, or we are just willing to allow the false gods of mass migration to overshadow safety concerns. We have issued roughly 2.2 million green cards to nationals of predominantly Muslim countries from 2001 through the first quarter of 2018, a level we’ve never seen in our nation’s history. We’ve brought in more just in a five-year period than the entire Muslim population of Belgium, which has become saturated with radical Islamic elements.

Then there are the non-immigrant visas. Consider how astounding this is: Congress passed an exit-entry visa tracking system in 1996. Its implementation was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We still have not implemented such a verification system. Two of the hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Nawaf al Hazmi, overstayed their visas. Visa overstay remains the biggest gaping hole in our security. Roughly 667,000 people overstayed their visas in 2016 alone, and many still remain in the country.

Furthermore, instead of making visa applications from terror-prone countries a red flag, we now admit over 155,000 foreign students from the Middle East. One of the 9/11 hijackers who piloted the plane that flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, came here on a student visa from Saudi Arabia. We have responded to the threat by increasing the number of foreign students from Saudi Arabia from a few thousand a year to over 70,000. In 2014, ABC news discovered that 58,000 foreign nationals had overstayed their student visas in particular, of which 6,000 represented a “heightened concern.”

Remember, the internet was still quite primitive around the time of 9/11. Now it is the prime recruiting tool of terrorism, making it even harder for mass numbers of Middle Eastern immigrants to assimilate than before. In 2018, the DHS and DOJ put out a joint report that found that at least 402, or 73 percent, of the 549 individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges from September 11, 2001, through 2016 were verified as foreign-born, almost all of them from the Middle East or North Africa. The origin of many of the remaining ones were unknown. The first line of defense on terrorism is immigration policy, not war in Afghanistan.

The nexus of immigration, drugs, organized crime, and terror finance missed by the government

What’s worse than bringing in millions of migrants from the Middle East without proper vetting and then sending our troops overseas to fight aimless nation-building missions? Bringing in those people to engage in criminal activity in our own country to fund the terror operations overseas!

Last year, Derek Maltz, who headed the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Special Operations Division in the years after 9/11, told me on my podcast that “increasingly, terrorists from Middle Eastern families are using organized crime through drugs and contraband on our own soil and the government agencies are not doing enough to combat it.” He spoke about the frequency of notorious terror families being allowed into this country, “particularly Yemeni-owned bodegas, gas stations and convenience stores operating all over the U.S. engaging in drugs, cigarette trafficking, and EBT fraud while sending money back to Yemen.” There are similar concerns of day-care fraud funding terror within the Somali community in Minneapolis.

In an interview with CR yesterday, Derek pointed to the absurdity of the son and family of the mastermind of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa living in this country and engaging in criminal activity. Abdullah el Hage was arrested in 2016 on drug charges. He is the son of Wadih el Hage, a close associate of Bin Laden who helped mastermind the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Abdullah’s mother was featured on the cover of Newsweek a few months after 9/11 in a story titled “Married to Al Qaeda.” They were allowed to raise an entire family in Texas.

Derek offered a brief presentation of this case a few weeks ago on Twitter:

“With the 18th anniversary of 9/11 coming up, it’s quite alarming how the government agencies are heading in a horrible direction in regards to terror and crime investigations,” he said.

“Why isn’t the DOJ directing the resources to work cohesively on the complex transnational crime and terrorism issues? Why haven’t they adjusted the strategies knowing that ‘terrorists are increasingly turn to criminal networks for their funding’?”

Derek has warned about the endless problems from the Yemeni-owned bodegas selling drugs that are often laced with rat poison, with the proceeds funding terror overseas. “People have immigrated into this great country in masses since 9/11. Unfortunately, many have nefarious motives and are making huge money from criminal activity, which is being sent back to Yemen and other countries to support radical terrorists.”

Let’s focus on our domestic security and save our military for true military threats

Moral of the story? We don’t need to spend hundreds of billions in the Middle East and risk lives refereeing Islamic civil wars. We merely need to stop admitting Sharia-adherent immigrants, at least in large numbers, and focus like a laser beam on the money trail and Muslim Brotherhood networks already in this country. It all gets back to money.

It’s hard to fight terrorism with a conventional military, especially when we let the problems into our own country. This is why a relentless war on terror financing should be the top priority of counterterrorism. Hezbollah, al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, or any other network cannot function without funding.

The lesson of 9/11 should have been all about immigration and homeland security while saving our military for appropriate missions, forming the right alliances, and maximizing soft power and the tools of statecraft to cut off the money trail funding terror from Iran, Turkey, and Qatar.

Then, of course, there is our border. Despite the numbers finally dropping at the southern border, there are still many “gotaways,” gang members, criminals, and yes, potential terrorists who come over undetected. We have refused to treat our border and the cartels as a military issue and use military tactics to secure the border. It remains every bit as vulnerable to bad people entering as it did 18 years ago. Imagine if a fraction of the resources we used in the sands of Afghanistan had been used at our border.

The results of our backward policies are particularly painful for someone like Derek Maltz. Knowing what he knows about the number of criminal aliens from the Middle East killing us with drugs on our own soil while funding terror overseas, he lost a brother fighting in Afghanistan … so we can bring in more people from there?

The war on terror starts and ends with our own homeland and a prudent and clear foreign policy. Preventing the admission of new individuals who might subscribe to a jihadist ideology and busting up the existing terrorist networks in our country are the front lines in this war. Thank God, until now, a mass attack has been prevented. Given that we have stepped up immigration since 9/11, could there ever be an attack deadly enough to make it fashionable among the political elites to stop importing danger? We don’t ever want to find out. (For more from the author of “Have We Learned Anything About Our Immigration System 18 Years After 9/11?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Chicago: A Hellhole for Parole, Free Bail, and Jailbreak for Violent Gun Felons

Why aren’t Republicans pounding the lectern with righteous indignation about violent gun felons being let off easy by the judicial system the same way Democrats engage in cerebral gyrations over guns? Democrats have sob stories for their gun control agenda. Republicans need to look no farther than Chicago as the poster child for criminal control.

On June 23, 2017, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson stood beside then-Gov. Bruce Rauner and celebrated the passage of a bill stiffening sentences on gun felons. “1,400 individuals, who are repeat gun offenders, just imagine if we took 50 percent of them off the street where our gun violence would go in the city of Chicago,” declared Johnson at the signing ceremony. “Gun offenders get slaps on the wrist in this city — and it has to stop. I need our judicial partners and our state legislators to help me close this gap.”

Well, thanks to the goal among both parties to reduce the prison population at all costs, things have only gotten worse over the past two years. You see, while politicians tell the public they want to keep people safe, Gov. Rauner also made it his goal to cut the prison population by 25 percent.

According to CWB Chicago, a local crime watchdog, a Cook County judge granted a repeat violent gun felon a special deal on bail that allowed him to walk straight out of the courthouse without posting a dime of bond. Joaquin Urcino is a career criminal with a record dating back to 1991 for everything from homicide and drugs to stolen vehicles, aggravated battery with a firearm, and assault. On July 12, police arrested Urcino, a Two Six gang member, for firing four shots out of his apartment window. He was charged with felony use of a firearm by a felon while on parole, felony reckless discharge of a firearm, and felony possession of a controlled substance.

One would expect someone like this, who served (brief) time for homicide and for shooting another person, to be locked up without bail when caught illegally possessing and discharging a firearm, right? This is especially true given that he was out on parole at the time of his arrest and such an egregious violation should have triggered an automatic re-incarceration. Well, on August 22, Judge Carol Howard let him walk on $100,000 bail, but rather than making him give the customary $10,000 deposit, she let him go for free.

This is all the result of the aggressive and obsessive bipartisan push to let people out without bond and replace incarceration with probation, then avoid enforcing violations of probations so as not to increase the prison population. The goal is 100 percent focused on reducing the prison population without reducing crime with a stronger deterrent, all the while lying to the public that these are just first-time, low-level offenders.

According to data from the Illinois Department of Corrections, the prison population has declined by almost 20 percent since 2013. The Crime Report chronicles how some counties began working with judges to consider jail capacity as a factor in determining whether to give jail time or probation to a new offender. Judges would then allow the criminal offenders to develop a “pretrial” record by their behavior while out with little or no bond to determine their ultimate sentencing at the end of the trial. For example, in McLean County in 2011, “42 percent went to prison and 57 percent were put on probation.” By 2016, “29 percent of convicted felons were sent to prison and 70 percent went on probation.”

That is the power of jailbreak. Now the effects are reverberating across the state. The number of murders statewide jumped 54 percent from 2014 to 2016, while the number of aggravated assaults climbed 16.7 percent.

Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported on a missing woman who police believe was murdered by someone who is out on parole and remains a fugitive. Several years ago, the suspect “was convicted of hitting his girlfriend with a pipe and hammer, pouring a caustic substance on her and setting her on fire.” In addition, he had a domestic battery conviction in 2011 and “felony convictions for armed robbery, aggravated battery and burglary” in the preceding decade. One would expect someone like that to be put away for life, but he was placed on parole in November 2018, barely serving any time.

This past weekend, another eight people were killed and over 40 wounded in Chicago in shootings. While we don’t yet know definitively who committed these crimes, in June, Anthony Guglielmi, spokesman for the Chicago police, gave a description of the perpetrators in a similar shooting spree:

As you can see, many of them had previous convictions, including gun felonies, yet were let out on the streets again. It often takes years to get a court date while these people remain free. This is why the jail population is plummeting in addition to the prison population. Many offenders don’t even have to post bail.

Even when they are finally sentenced, many of them get off with parole. Given that they know the system is reluctant to put them back in prison, there is no deterrent against re-offending. Moreover, as Chicago Tribune editorial board member John Kass recently noted, the monitoring system for those on parole is weak because “there are only 100 deputies monitoring the system to watch over more than 2,000 alleged criminals, many of them violent.” Proponents of the jailbreak agenda want to have it both ways – reduce the prison population but then spend no additional funds on building a post-incarceration security apparatus because they want to talk about saving money.

Sadly, even phony conservative groups, along with liberal ones, are pushing for even more “bail reform” in their effort to avoid incarceration at all costs. These groups refuse to be honest that what was sold to the public as a movement to loosen laws on “first-time, low-level” offenders has been used as a vehicle for releasing the worst repeat violent offenders.

What Eddie Johnson said about Chicago is true of almost every city. It’s a relatively small number of people committing most of the murder and robbery in any given area. Liberals claim an urgent need to “do something” about gun violence just to save one life. Well, actually enforcing our laws against violent gun felons and ending all of the liberal “criminal justice reform” loopholes would save thousands of lives every year. How any national discussion over gun violence can ignore the 800-pound gorilla of repeat gun offenders being let out on the streets is a testament to the dishonest foundation of this entire debate. (For more from the author of “Chicago: A Hellhole for Parole, Free Bail, and Jailbreak for Violent Gun Felons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

7 Ways for Conservatives to Counter Gun Control with Criminal Control

This past weekend, another 8 people were killed and over 40 wounded in Chicago in shootings, more than the casualties in the West Texas shooting over this weekend. As the Democrats seek a relentless war on guns by focusing on the relatively small number of people killed in mass shootings, Republicans should have a bold counter-agenda to deal with the vast majority of other homicides in this country – committed with handguns or other objects – who are almost always known career criminals. Senate Republicans should counter the coming gun control agenda with a criminal control agenda.

Rather than joining with Democrats to cast a wide net on broad constitutional rights while groping in the darkness to solve the vexing problem of first-time murderers, how about working to deter and punish those who are actually knows to be violent? Also, how about dealing with the ultimate avoidable deaths caused by criminal aliens who would never have been in the country if we actually enforced our immigration laws?

Here are seven ideas that Republicans should push to broaden this discussion over safety and security that will actually deter and prevent murders and mayhem in this country.

Increase mandatory sentencing for gun felons: Rather than violate the Constitution and needlessly strip peaceful citizens of the ability to protect themselves, how about we swiftly punish gun felons? The very same people who push gun control are the ones seeking to avoid locking up gun felons at all costs. What if Republicans brought a bill to the Senate floor to increase mandatory sentencing on gun felons for those engaging in a violent crime with guns or those caught possessing guns after being convicted for aggravated felonies? There are so many stories of violent felons violating their probation by owning firearms, yet they aren’t sent back to prison.

Actually make the mandatory minimums mandatory: Homicide in this country plummeted by over 60 percent precisely over the same period that gun ownership soared. Why? Thanks to Reagan’s Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), we actually deterred violent criminals with stiff mandatory sentencing. Yet for all the hand-wringing over “draconian” mandatory sentences, they were only mandatory from 1987 to 2005. Following the Booker decision of the Supreme Court, they have just been advisory. This has created a huge amount of disparity in the system, and in recent years, the lack of mandatory sentencing has decreased the successes of the Reagan-era laws. Take bad guys who use guns (or other weapons) off the streets, not guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Fix court loophole allowing violent felons back on the streets: Four years ago, in Johnson v. U.S, the Supreme Court ruled that the “crime of violence” provision in the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague. That has allowed thousands of the worst career gun felons and other violent individuals to get out of jail early or escape reasonable sentencing to begin with. Just this year, in S. v. Davis, Justice Gorsuch joined with the four liberals in expanding the assault on the ACCA, this time by saying that 924(c)(3), the statute that prohibits using or carrying a firearm during a federal “crime of violence,” is unconstitutional and therefore vetoed out of existence. It is simply astounding that the GOP-controlled Senate has not tried to fix this law, especially in light of Democrats supporting gun control. Now, armed robbers pointing short-barreled shotguns at store clerks avoid tougher sentencing at the same time liberals claim they want to “do something!” about gun violence.

Allow good guys to carry everywhere: While we seek to deter bad guys with guns, why not allow peaceful citizens who undergo a background check and licensing to be able to carry in all 50 states with such a license, just as with driver’s licenses? Republicans in the Senate refuse to go on offense and hold a vote expanding the right to carry universally in all 50 states. Recently, there has been a rash of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in Brooklyn, NY. Some have been attacked with concrete and rocks, which again demonstrates that violence is not just from guns. Shouldn’t Jews in New York be allowed to carry if they obtain a license from another state? No state has the right to deny an unambiguous constitutional right, and one of the reasons we have a federal government is to protect those rights when states infringe on them. A smart Republican Party would aggressively put Democrats on defense and openly discuss what is happening to Jews in New York as in impetus to flip the tables on the Democrats’ gun agenda and their obsession with white supremacism at the expense of focusing on career criminals of all types.

Fast-track death penalty for mass murderers: While mass murderers with no criminal record account for just a small fraction of murders, roughly 001 percent of the 928,093 homicide victimsfrom 1966 to 2017, they are the most confounding criminal justice problem to solve. The best way to deal with those who have no criminal record is to have the swift deterrent of the death penalty. The problem is that it now takes over 20 years to execute someone, essentially rendering capital punishment worthless as a deterrent. Moreover, as I’ve shown, white supremacist attackers, in particular, don’t seem to kill themselves as they attack, which means they would be more deterred by a swift death penalty. There is news that the Justice Department is working on such legislation. McConnell would be wise to make it a priority and dare Democrats to vote against it.

Why are we keeping other countries’ criminals? The only thing worse than letting career criminals back on the streets is letting other countries’ career criminals remain in the country. Yet thanks to the Dimaya court decision, a number of violent legal immigrants are now shielded from deportation. There are numerous other loopholes and lax enforcement that allow people like Billy Chemirmir, who is now accused of smothering 19 seniors to death with nothing more than a pillow in Texas, to remain in the country.

Declare war on sanctuary cities: Nearly every day at CR, we cover the endless murders, sex assaults, and drunk driving incidents by illegal aliens who are allowed to remain in this country, often after committing other crimes, thanks to sanctuary cities. By definition, these are the most avoidable deaths imaginable. If Democrats are demanding to do something!, we should begin with getting rid of other countries’ criminals by immediately punishing sanctuary cities and by allowing citizens to sue sanctuary officials who release criminal aliens. Congress should also create a fund for victims of illegal aliens out of the money saved from denying grant programs to sanctuaries.

The bottom line is that inanimate objects don’t kill. Bad people kill. Most of the murders every day in places like Chicago are the result of career criminals not being locked up and are committed with handguns or knives, not AR-15s. Even the latest mass shooter in West Texas, Seth Ator, appears to have had a criminal record for which he never went to prison. While Democrats declare war on a handful of rifles in an effort that will not save a single life, Republicans should have a counter-agenda that will focus on the bad people in a way that will absolutely save countless lives. (For more from the author of “7 Ways for Conservatives to Counter Gun Control with Criminal Control” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Sanctuary Cities and Lack of Vetting Continue to Fuel Illegal Alien Crime

Every day, there are stories of Americans or immigrants being murdered, raped, or assaulted either by illegal aliens who could have been deported if not for sanctuary cities, by those admitted legally without proper vetting, or by those who have exploited immigration loopholes that should be closed.

Unfortunately, unlike the soul-searching that takes place after each mass shooting as to what sort of gun control policies can be enacted to somehow prevent a criminal from getting a gun, there is no soul-searching from a single prominent member of Congress after any one of these criminal alien cases as to what can be done to enforce national sovereignty and better prevent crime. There are no questions of how to close to the criminal alien loopholes, clamp down on sanctuary cities, or enforce our immigration laws to prevent 100 percent avoidable crimes.

Here is just a tiny sample of some of the most recent cases that should spawn a debate in Congress when it returns from recess in September.

Montgomery County, Maryland: Brutal rape, child molesting, and MS-13 activity

As Nate Madden reported, there are now four known illegal alien rape suspects in Montgomery County, Maryland, just from this past month. Montgomery is a hotbed of MS-13 and criminal alien activity in a substantial illegal alien population from Central America. Yet the county has rolled out its welcome mat to illegal aliens and works to shield them from detection of law enforcement in defiance of federal law.

In the latest incident, Kevin Mendoza, an illegal alien from Honduras, is accused of brutally raping a woman outside a Rockville, Maryland, apartment complex on Saturday night. As the police report, posted online by local ABC reporter Kevin Lewis, states, the suspect strangled and punched the victim so hard to subdue her that, according to hospital officials, it could have killed her. He then proceeded to rape her for seven minutes.

Here we have a case of an illegal alien using nothing but his body to rape and almost murder a woman. Yet there is no soul-searching about how to better detect and remove criminal aliens. The politicians focus on guns, not criminals, including those who would never be enticed to remain here if not for sanctuary cities.

Then, there is a new attempted rape of a 12-year-old, allegedly committed by a Guatemalan national while his wife was giving birth to a baby who will get “birthright” citizenship.

Smothering an elderly woman to death in sanctuary New Jersey

Juanita Rosario, a kind-hearted 74-year-old woman who was active in her Hispanic community in Camden, New Jersey, allowed Esteban Cabrera, 30, an illegal alien from Ecuador, to live in her home. On August 10, he is accused of repaying her kindness by smothering her to death on her bed.

According to an ICE spokesman, “U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has lodged a detainer on Esteban Fernando Cabrera Bermeo, 30, an unlawfully present Ecuadorian national, with Camden County Jail, N. J. Aug. 12 following his arrest for murder.”

Once again, we see that the people most often harmed by illegal aliens are Hispanic immigrants, and once again, it’s self-evident that because we do not enforce our immigration laws and because of the magnet of sanctuary states, bad people from other countries are allowed to kill.

Visa overstays never deported and committing gruesome murders without guns

Earlier this month, I reported how Billy Chemirmir, avisa overstay from Kenya, could have been deported multiple times but wound up remaining here and is now accused of killing 19 elderly Americans … with a pillow.

Similar to the case of Chemirmir, Ayoola Ajayi, a Nigerian national who was never deported after overstaying his visa, was allowed to work loopholes into legal status and likely engaged in immigration and marriage fraud. He is now accused of sexually assaulting a woman and charged with 19 counts of child porn in addition to being charged with the murder of 23-year-old University of Utah student MacKenzie Lueck. Her charred body was found in a shallow grave. Once again, the lack of immigration enforcement leads to death and assault – guns or no guns.

Florida senior beaten and burned by Cuban national. Where’s the vetting?

On Monday, Jorge Lachazo allegedly beat a 75-year-old woman to death in Boca Raton, Florida, while delivering a washer and dryer. He is accused of beating Evelyn Udell to death and setting her body on fire. A DHS source confirms with CR that Lachazo does have legal status, so there is no ICE detainer until he is actually convicted. I’m told further that he is a Cuban national, but it’s unclear how and when he got legal status. But why is the media not investigating his immigration background like they investigate the history of the weapon used in a shooting?

Again, where is the soul-searching on our vetting process for green cards to ensure we don’t add to our existing criminal population through elective immigration policies?

Mother and two daughters burned alive by illegal alien previously charged for assaulting her

In June, Areli Aguirre-Avilez, an illegal alien from Mexico, was charged with murdering a mother and two daughters with a gun in North Carolina. In addition, he was accused of statutory rape and domestic violence. He previously was charged with assaulting the mother (who was his ex-girlfriend) just last December, yet he was never apprehended by DHS.

Finally, it’s important to remember that many illegal aliens do actually use guns to kill, except it is 100 percent illegal for them to own any firearm of any caliber or capacity. Yet an illegal alien was recently charged murdering his wife with a .45-caliber pistol in Washington state last week.

Where is the national discussion on sanctuary cities? Without sanctuaries, illegal aliens could ostensibly not live in this country without being caught. Also, why is there is no investigation into tightening up our screening for green cards?

Where is the outcry of “DO SOMETHING” about the countless avoidable crimes committed by illegal aliens thanks to sanctuaries? Just in New York City, 3,000 illegal aliens were released over just a 12-month period in defiance of ICE detainers. These are all people arrested for crimes other than being here illegally. Now consider that fact that, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 83 percent of all criminals released by states reoffend within 9 years. Every one of those crimes committed by people like this are 100 percent avoidable simply by enforcing federal law against defiance of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Can you imagine if as many people killed by sanctuary policies were killed by mass shootings and Democrats were not saying a word about guns? Now consider the GOP silence on criminal aliens and repeat offender criminals escaping justice. That asymmetry in passion, commitment, and focus is what sets the two parties apart in terms of their devotion to their respective party platforms. (For more from the author of “Sanctuary Cities and Lack of Vetting Continue to Fuel Illegal Alien Crime” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Media Needs a Serious Reality Check on Immigration, Welfare, and the Reality of American History

The following is an excerpt from Blaze Media’s daily Capitol Hill Brief email newsletter:

Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced an updated rule to better screen out potential welfare users from immigration applications. Later in the week, the media tried to misrepresent what USCIS acting Director Ken Cucinelli said in defense of that rule.

Cucinelli said that the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty was written about people coming from class-based societies that didn’t have the social mobility of a free society like the United States. The media and members of the 2020 Democratic field twisted that to say he was saying that the sentiment of the poem only applied to Europeans, which is a lie. You can watch the full video of what the acting director said here.

“Let us now review what has transpired over the past 24 hours or so,” the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh writes. “A Trump immigration official answered a question on NPR. The media lied about the question and his answer. That official then went on CNN to clarify, and the media lied about his clarification.”

And here’s the thing about that poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty, “The New Colossus”: At the time when it was written, it was widely understood that incoming immigrants should not be a financial burden on the United States. The law even stipulated that the cost of sending public charges back would be “borne by the owners of the vessels in which they came.” But, then again, history is often complex; political smears and platitudes about it are easy. (For more from the author of “The Media Needs a Serious Reality Check on Immigration, Welfare, and the Reality of American History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE


Here is a picture of a rifle class typical of those conducted in schools just a few decades ago.

Kids took their rifles to class on the school bus.

What’s changed?

Could it be the growing epidemic of kids in single-parent households (“Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Were Fatherless“)?

Could it be the mainstreaming of America hatred and demonization of law enforcement?

Could it be an unfree press that reviles objective reporting and instead pursues “social justice”?

Or could it be a mainstreamed culture that believes a baby — hours before or after being born — can be executed through shredding, an act positioned as “choice”?

Might it be an educational system that ignores the incredible and unique beauty of America’s founding with coursework that:

…attacks capitalism, the only economic system that has lifted the living standards of billions?

…has abandoned prayer, even silent prayer, on a daily basis?

…has removed patriotism from the classroom, from the Pledge of Allegiance to their bizarre social justice textbooks (e.g., a Third Grade text that devotes 1 page to Lincoln and 6 pages to Cesar Chavez)?

Could it be a society that has largely abandoned faith in favor of ever-shifting morals and arbitrary standards (i.e., gender identification) that have no historical or scientific basis?

Perhaps it’s an entertainment complex that resembles Sodom and Gomorrah more than middle America?

Perhaps it is a government-funded culture of dependency that encourages single-parent families with trillions in wealth redistribution?

Or maybe it is our benevolent Tech Giant Overlords that encourage anti-Americanism by blatantly favoring one political party over the other?

Could it be an other diabolical attribute of our unfree press that encourages violence by “progressives” — Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Black Block, etc. — and then claims that the rare, one-off reaction by conservatives is a worrisome trend?

Or a media that lies repeatedly and has no compunctions about doing so over and over again (Russia collusion, Trump at Charlottesville, etc.) to try and overturn the results of the 2016 election? (For more from the author of “One Picture of Americana: What Has Changed?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Republicans Should Jump to Push for Our Security and Self-Defense

This time last year, we were well into the border crisis, which has spawned a massive gang, drug, and criminal alien crisis, not to mention a huge fiscal drain on Americans. Republicans had control of all three branches of government and refused to act on anything from the border wall and drug cartels to sanctuary cities and transnational gangs. Fast-forward to a year later, and they still have done nothing, but they did give Democrats everything they wanted on the budget, which destroyed our leverage on every issue. Now, they finally found an urgency to act on public safety, but only in the exactly wrong way. They have now agreed to the entire premise of the Left on guns.

There is no middle ground. You either believe guns kill and that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens helps public safety, or you believe it is evil people who kill and that letting out bad guys from prison while taking away guns is a recipe for Baltimore. Republicans have long believed the latter, and the issues of guns and crime were the only issues where Republicans have held the line this past generation. Now, in one fell swoop, they have joined the Left on “criminal justice reform,” aka jailbreak, and are attacking guns as the source of the violence problem. The zeal they never exhibited to act on senseless murders committed by people who should never have been in the country is now evident in casting a wide net on constitutional liberties and due process.

In July, I called for Republicans to stay in session all of August to focus on a safety and security agenda for our border and to counter sanctuary cities. Now, while they didn’t decide to come back to town yet, GOP leaders have already tasked members with plans to immediately push for gun control in September, including bills to take away guns without due process while echoing and legitimizing the entire Democrat thesis on this issue. As Rep. Thomas Massie said on my podcast this week, so-called “red flag” laws will violate due process for a large number of people. This is all about going after objects, not dangerous people.

Republicans failed to push a safety and security agenda with suburban voters for years and refused to hold Democrats accountable for their increasing hostility toward locking up criminals. They refused to hold them accountable for letting out criminal aliens, including child sex offenders, rather than deporting them from our communities. They refused to utter a peep over one MS-13 mass murder after another when prosecutors said they are directly related to the border flow. They refused to push action on enforcing current immigration laws when one innocent victim after another was needlessly murdered because sanctuaries released already known violent criminals in defiance of numerous ICE detainers. Now, they’ve ceded the entire security agenda to the Left.

Billy Chemirmir, a Kenyan national who overstayed his visa, is now accused of killing 19 people, almost all elderly women, most of whom he killed with nothing more than a pillow. That is almost as many fatalities as in the El Paso shooting, and police suspect there may have been more victims. This was done by someone who should never have been allowed to stay in the country. Even after he found a way to get status, he was arrested for multiple DWIs and assault resulting in bodily injury. He should have been deported. Yet not only is there no inquiry from Mitch McConnell or the Trump administration into what legislation could be passed to close “the criminal alien loophole,” they won’t even talk about this, so no American even knows it happened.

If Republicans would relentlessly focus on these cases as much as Democrats focus on their agenda, the American people would see the absurdity of legislating on objects, when the real issue is going after bad people, especially those who could easily be removed from the country. There is not a single law anyone can point to that would have prevented the El Paso shooting. But simply enforcing immigration laws on someone known to law enforcement numerous times could not only have prevented 19 murders, he could have been completely removed from the country.

The Democrat position is clear. They want open borders, endless cartels and MS-13 in our communities, sanctuary cities, to abolish prison, to abolish ICE, and unvetted migration from the Middle East, and yet they want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. But what is the GOP position? Rather than holding Democrats accountable for these views and pushing the exact opposite agenda, they offer a faint echo for the Democrat agenda. Why would voters turn to the GOP if both sides admit that gun control is the key to security and one side is doing it more reluctantly?

Republicans need to return to Washington immediately and promote a safety and security agenda rooted in locking up criminals and protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to arm themselves. They should push one vote after another on the following ideas:

Toughening sentences for gun and other violent felons;

Fixing court loopholes that have recently allowed violent criminals to be released early;

Punishing sanctuary cities;

Designating MS-13 and the cartels as terrorists;

Launching an investigation into what really happened in the Las Vegas shooting, the most deadly of all;

And finally, they should fulfill their original promise to pass right-to-carry reciprocity legislation.

The last point provides Republicans with an easily articulated alternative to the Democrat position of “disarm the public and let criminals out of jail.” Nobody can say with a straight face that a single one of the proposed ideas on gun control and red flag laws, which will implicate First and Second Amendment rights as well as basic principles of due process, would have done anything to stop these attacks. Bad guys are still going to get guns. Once a bad guy has access to a gun, what is the point of banning the right to carry – even from the liberal perspective? Why would anyone intent on committing mass murder be dissuaded from carrying a weapon to the place he plans to commit the atrocity? It’s only law-abiding citizens who will listen to those laws, which is a recipe for disaster.

That has always been the position of the Republican Party. Why are they incapable of going on offense now? They need to push right-to-carry legislation and repeal gun-free zones, which would be comical if they weren’t so tragic.

There is no greater opinion poll that market forces. People vote with their pocketbooks. The reality is that women are the fastest-growing demographic of gun owners. There is also an increase in inquiries for concealed carry permits following the shootings. Clearly, people want to feel secure and have the ability to defend themselves now more than ever. Now is the worst time to run from a self-defense agenda and cede safety and security to the party of anarchy.

Sadly, Republicans refuse to raise outrage over sanctuary cities, gangs, and cartels. They refuse to raise outrage over the drug crisis plaguing so many suburban families as a result of empowering the cartels with open borders. And when it comes to being tough on crime, Republicans have downright agreed with Democrats on the need to empty out the prisons rather than shaming Democrats for their position. Thus Republicans have destroyed all their ammo in this fight.

Republicans have won on the issue of security for decades. It has been the last issue holding the party together after they essentially ceded every fiscal and social issue to the Left. For them to lose on security with suburban voters would be the final act of malpractice rendering this party beyond worthless. (For more from the author of “Republicans Should Jump to Push for Our Security and Self-Defense” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE