3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong

/0 Comments/in , /by

Prescription painkiller deaths are responsible for only a small portion of drug deaths and almost none of the epidemic-level increase since 2014. Yet Congress was willing to regulate the heck out of prescriptions in order to address the epidemic. But when it comes to illicit drugs, which are doing most of the drug killing and are almost all coming in from the Mexican drug cartels and their criminal alien syndicates, suddenly the political class has no interest in solutions unless you can prove that it will stop 100 percent of the problem.

Last year, Congress held endless hearings, wrote copious reports, and passed dozens of bills misdiagnosing the poly-drug crisis, its nature, and its source. They spent billions of dollars funding unproven addiction treatment programs while regulating prescription painkillers. Then they passed a bill with endless leniencies for drug traffickers. To the extent they ever spoke about illicit drugs, they focused on China and the dark web, but would never mention the word Mexico or the southern border, where almost all of the drugs are brought into the country. They were willing to do everything that, in their mind, would mitigate the emergency epidemic, even when they went after the wrong source. Now that we’ve successfully exposed the authentic source of the crisis – the Mexican border and lack of interior enforcement against cartel distributors in America – Congress is suddenly not interested in doing anything unless it’s a bulletproof end-all solution.

Now that the media finally has been forced to admit that the source of the drug problem is the Mexican cartels, the same evil terrorist groups orchestrating the flow of illegal immigration, leftists have a new talking point. They contend that almost all of the drugs come through the points of entry and not in between the points, thereby making a wall completely irrelevant to mitigating the drug trafficking problem. This talking point is part of a general trend where they magnify the problem beyond the solution of the wall. For example, after calling us kooks for years when we warned that the most brutal cartels were digging tunnels into our territory, the media is now admitting this is indeed taking place in order to, in their minds, diminish the efficacy of the wall as a solution.

But this in itself is a self-indictment of their refusal to deal with the problem through the years. Really? So, this is even worse than what a wall can solve? All the more so this should be treated as a national emergency, then. We should be sending our military over the Rio Grande to fight these terror groups.

This new alarmist argument that a wall is ineffective to combat the cartels is ludicrous for a number of reasons.

1. The wall as a force multiplier to effectively channel resources: Before I explain how drugs are pouring through between points of entry, it’s important to understand that having substantial barriers rather than an open frontier in many areas allows our agents to place their resources more in points of entry to interdict the drugs. The same thing applies to their argument about tunnels. It’s sure a lot easier to detect the tunnels and drones, as well as the criminal activity at the points of entry, when the agents are not completely shut down by thousands of bogus asylum seekers every day coming in between the points of entry. With that chaos successfully blocked by the wall, the agents can focus all their attention on the criminal activities of the cartels rather than serving as babysitters and field hospitals between the points of entry.

2. Drugs absolutely pour in between the points of entry: The reason the media is asserting that most drugs come in at the points of entry is not because they know it to be true, but because most of the drug seizures occur at the points of entry. But that outcome is dictated by pure common sense. While the cartels do succeed in getting drugs in at the points of entry, it’s obvious that we have the most success in detecting drugs in this carefully controlled environment. While in the hundreds of miles of open frontier, the cartels get the drugs in un-interdicted at all, we catch a lot of their contraband at the checkpoints. On the other hand, we likely only catch an infinitesimal amount of drugs in between the points of entry.

The most important fact about the border the media is obfuscating is that the cartels control the entire flow of migrants precisely so they can strategically tie down our agents with a humanitarian crisis while they confidently bring in drugs, gangs, criminals, cartel enforcers, and special interest aliens with the full confidence that no agents will be present in the gaps they tactically created. As Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Council, explained to me last year, “The cartels flood the metropolitan areas with more family units than we have resources to deal with, causing us to move resources from rural areas, thereby creating the gaps that allow them to move more valuable products like illicit narcotics and criminal aliens. It’s sort of like a game of football.”

Why do you think the volume and widespread availability of lethal illicit drugs spiked to epidemic levels suddenly in 2013-2015 with the rise of the Central American teens and again with the flow of the family units? They all came in between the points of entry, not at the points of entry. Many of the UACs served as drug runners.

Jaeson Jones, who commanded a group of Texas Rangers dealing with this precise problem at the time, told me it’s laughable to suggest the cartels aren’t bringing in drugs between the points of entry. “Most unaccompanied alien children enter our country between the points of entry,” said the retired captain, who spent 24 years with the Texas Department of Public Safety focusing on counterterrorism and counter-narcotics at our border. “Every day, these teens and young adults are forced into human trafficking, human smuggling, and drug trafficking in order to pay their way to be smuggled into the United States by the cartels.”

The cartels knew that we never prosecute teens on drug charges at the federal level and therefore deliberately used them to bring in drugs. As Jeff Sessions said last June, “These drug cartels know our laws and take advantage of our generosity. They are only too happy to use children to smuggle their drugs as well.” Those kids who help smuggle humans and drugs because of our lenient laws are referred to as polleritos.

Many of them also went on to fuel the gang crisis as well. Gangs are now the distributors of these drugs. So, the invasion of UACs – yes, between the points of entry – thanks to a lack of a standing deterrent is really two for the price of one in fueling the drug crisis.

Moreover, Jones told me his officers have been dealing with a long-standing problem of the cartels recruiting dual U.S.-Mexican citizens in middle and high schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs across the border. “For the last decade across the southwest border, America’s youth have become the ideal smuggler for the Mexican cartels. The cartels have learned that U.S. prosecutors in most cases will either not prosecute or will be very lenient involving juvenile smuggling offenses. We must protect our youth from the Mexican cartels.”

Again, this was occurring between the points of entry just as much as at the points of entry, and it is a crisis that will be mitigated by the construction of a wall, among other assists needed at the border.

In July 2018, the DEA started a new program in San Diego to combat the cartels recruiting in schools on our side of the border to smuggle drugs in both in cars and on foot. It’s no wonder a local San Diego station accused CNN of losing interest in interviewing their reporters after they expressed their educated view that barriers at the border work.

3. Interior enforcement is even more important to stopping drugs, but Dems oppose that even more strongly. Democrats are not wrong when they assert that not all problems will be addressed by the wall. The problem is that is a further indictment of their visceral opposition to interior enforcement and deportations. Sure, the cartels will always be able to find ways to get some drugs into our country. But merely getting drugs past the border is not their goal. Their ultimate goal is establishing profitable networks that can operate in our major cities undetected in perpetuity. That is absolutely impossible without sanctuary cities.

As I’ve noted in my series on sanctuary cities and the drug crisis, the drug crisis reached epidemic levels during Obama’s second term, right as he began dismantling interior enforcement and sanctuary politics took over in major metro areas. All of the organizational trafficking is from foreign nationals. It’s bad enough that American drug traffickers barely serve any jail time any more and are back on the streets in no time. But criminal aliens, who, again, control all the primary-level trafficking, can and should be deported. We don’t need to land convictions; we just need to bust up their networks and get them out of here.

This also ties in to the new Democrat talking point about half of illegal immigration stemming from visa overstays. They are exactly right! So many of the Dominicans fueling the drug crisis in New England fly into Logan Airport with false Puerto Rican identities. If we actually got tough on interior enforcement, it would solve both the illegal immigration and the drug problem.

Yes, we need both border and interior enforcement. Yet, Democrats, because their border denialism has been discredited, must resort to a cat-and-mouse game of “No, this is not the problem, the other issue not directly before us now is the real problem … except we oppose action on that too.”

Finally, you know what is even more effective than both border walls and deportations? Actually making illegal immigration illegal and not incentivizing it with all sorts of magnets and benefits. This is really a very easy issue to solve. In life, there are can’ts and there are won’ts. When it comes to protecting our sovereignty and security from external threats, there are no can’ts. It’s all won’ts. (For more from the author of “3 Reasons Why the Media’s ‘Walls Won’t Work to Stop Drugs’ Argument Is Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Federalist. Compromise. It’s a word President Trump used several times yesterday. He is open to compromise. In this case, that means something short of the $5 billion he wants for a border wall. He’s open to taking less, perhaps in exchange for not applying the law to younger illegal immigrants. This is clearly the easiest way out of the current debacle. But it is something the Democrats, led by “No Wall” Nancy Pelosi, have said they will never support.

This is a problem. Democrats have backed themselves up against a, well, a wall. They have created a situation in which if they give even one dollar to Trump to build a wall, or fence, steel barrier, or whatever, they have lost the political fight. Pelosi, the great speaker of the House who gets things done, has left herself no leverage to get anything done. She could ask for almost anything in exchange for wall funding, but instead, she won’t budge.

Trump is channeling his inner Michael Corleone and telling Democrats that his offer is this: nothing, not even the price of the border wall, which he would appreciate Pelosi appropriating. So here we are.

We all like to knock and mock Trump’s braggadocio claims that he is the best negotiator ever. But in this case, he really has outflanked his opponents. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have painted themselves into a corner. They have said, “No funding for a wall.” They say this despite the fact that they have supported barrier funding in the past. So in essence they have given themselves no fallback position. . . .

A president always has an advantage in a government shutdown. The executive branch speaks with a single voice, while Congress is divided between parties. Trump is clearly pointing to and offering a solution. The House Democrats aren’t. And their intransigence is highlighted by the fact that Republican members of Congress are calling them out. (Read more from “Why Trump Will Win the Shutdown” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government

By BBC. A senior US Republican has urged President Donald Trump to temporarily reopen parts of the government shut down for more than three weeks.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who is close to Mr Trump, said a limited re-opening of a few weeks would allow talks to resume between Republicans and Democrats.

The partial government shutdown has now become the longest in US history.

It has left hundreds of thousands of public workers unpaid and government offices closed.

President Trump is refusing to approve a budget unless it includes $5.7bn (£4.5bn) for a wall along the Mexican border – a key campaign pledge, which the president said that Mexico would pay for. (Read more from “Trump Urged to Temporarily Reopen Government” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

A Media That Twists Facts to Demean President Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

The news coverage of the border crisis and President Trump’s speech to the nation proves the agenda-driven media can be the enemy of the people.

The left-wing media is so intent on destroying President Trump that it enthusiastically twists and manipulates facts without any regard for the consequences of an insecure border to Americans or the damage of harming the credibility of the president.

Before and after President Trump’s speech, the anti-Trump media was actively trying to undermine the president. The talking heads on MSNBC led the way. The morning before the nationwide address, “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski wanted to silence President Trump by urging networks not to broadcast the prime-time address because they were confident the president was going to lie.

“Why in the world would the networks run Donald Trump’s address tonight when we know that Donald Trump is going to be using it to spread these lies?” asked Scarborough.

Brzezinski passionately responded, “Do they want to run the promise of more lies, more misleading statistics, more twisting of reality, mindless confrontation, all for the sake of defending Trump’s dark, twisted fantasy of a wall on the Mexican border to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist, except in the most fevered swamps of American politics — do they want to do that for ratings?”

She added that “the networks should refuse to turn over the airwaves to Donald Trump tonight for what they know, objectively, to be a steady stream of lies.”

The MSNBC segment on the president’s address the following morning opened with a video montage mocking him. The editors used a series of video clips from a rally speech where the president was joking about being presidential, and after each joke, they spliced in video from the president’s nationwide address from the Oval Office. Pure propaganda, with the goal of demeaning President Trump.

The remainder of the segment was a discussion. The co-hosts and assembled anti-Trump cheerleaders reiterated the conclusion from the morning before, that the speech did not merit a prime-time address and did not justify the wall. Notably absent was any identification of the “steady stream of lies” that Brzezinski was so confident would be delivered.

MSNBC was not alone in the effort to demean President Trump. The Washington Post had a “fact-checker” standing by to analyze statements made by the president.

During the address, President Trump said 266,000 aliens were arrested “with criminal records” during the last two years. The fact-checker determined the arrest “numbers add up” but said the statistic was misleading because it “includes all types of crimes, including nonviolent offenses such as illegal entry or reentry.”

So even when the president is correct, he is wrong, because according to The Washington Post, a crime is only a crime when it is violent. The “analysis” did not disprove the number of “charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) fiscal year 2018 report provides a list of charges and convictions from arrests, including 80,730 DUIs, 76,585 dangerous drugs, and 50,753 assault.

The statement that President Trump made that Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., voted for a “physical barrier” before he was president was also a problem for the fact-checker. That too was misleading because “the fence they voted for is not as substantial as the wall Trump is proposing.”

Wrong. During the speech, President Trump stated he would yield the concrete wall for a “steel barrier.”

The fact-checker also challenged the president’s statement that 90 percent of heroin comes from the southern border. The focus of the challenge was that “virtually all of it comes through legal points of entry” and not between the ports of entry. The fact-checker concluded that therefore “Trump’s wall would do little to halt drug trafficking.”

Wrong. While it’s true that nine times the amount of heroin comes through the ports of entry as between the entry points, a significant amount of dangerous drugs gets into the U.S. around the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, the Border Patrol seized 10,382 pounds of methamphetamine, 6,423 pounds of cocaine and 332 pounds of fentanyl — over an eighty percent increase from the prior year.

Keep in mind these are the drugs that were seized. Who knows how many pounds escaped border agents?

Just on the basis of drugs brought in and crimes committed by illegal aliens, there is a border crisis. By mocking President Trump and twisting the facts to minimize the security risk to Americans from a porous border shows the media can be the enemy of the people. (For more from the author of “A Media That Twists Facts to Demean President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display

/0 Comments/in , /by

How remarkable that the same press that obsessed Donald Trump straight into the White House has doubled down once he was there, to the point that the former editor of the New York Times called them out on it a few days ago. And it’s now going full Voldemort — “he who shall not be named” — when it comes to Trump’s Oval Office speech to the country.

And when I say remarkable, I mean totally predictable. Because journalism is magical and not at all broken.

Don Lemon at CNN. Mika at MSNBC. Don’t even run the president’s speech on our networks, they say. Or at the very least delay it so that we can get our, ahem, “fact-checking” underway. So much is at stake, they say.

For example, says Lemon, “people will believe [Trump].” And that. Can’t. Happen.

I mean, he’s Voldemort, remember. You can’t let his “propaganda” go unchecked, says Lemon. Because a man who said he wouldn’t even shake Trump’s hand if presented with the opportunity probably has the market cornered on objectivity.

This is bigger than just Lemon and Mika, though. They’re legion. The number of people in media who resent that we live in a representative republic that must endeavor to put the people’s legitimate desires first, no matter who the president might be, is far, far greater than the number of Constitution-loving people in the U.S. Congress, which is supposed to be serving those interests.

Not good. It’s a swarm of locusts vs. a single can of bug spray.

Such collective drunkenness now has the press inferring out loud that the people are simply too dumb to be left to their own devices. And that the president they elected is simply too terrible to even be listened to on two issues — the government shutdown and immigration — of obvious national importance. And that a properly ordered society, even if it isn’t remotely the form of social contract we actually live under, should depend on a bunch of unelected elites like the press and judges and scientists and Hollywood stars to tell the plebes when it’s time to jump and how high.

Good grief, people. It’s far past time to wake up to the consequences of all this. Because if the press believes it is this reasonable to consider muting the voice of a sitting president of the United States simply because they disagree with him, what do you think they are doing every other day of the week when it comes to shaping the narratives of the day?

The press thinks it is supposed to be deciding what the conversation is, and it is deeply wrong about that. Dangerously wrong. This is a country by, for, and of the people, led in part by an executive branch, whether it be Democrat or Republican or Trumpian, that is entitled to address the country from time to time as it sees fit.

That’s not remotely debatable to anyone who isn’t, quite frankly, an enemy of liberty. That’s not Trump. He’s got a lot of problems, but that’s not one of them.

He’s not Voldemort. But the press? They clearly know a thing or two about the dark arts. (For more from the author of “The Dark Arts of the Press Are on Full Display” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

No, Senate Apportionment Is Not White Supremacy

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week the Atlantic ran an article by Eric Orts, arguing for a major change in how seats to the U.S. Senate are apportioned. Like many others, he believes that small states have too much power in our legislative upper body. This idea floats around a lot, especially when Republicans control the Senate. Instead, he would give every state one senator to start with, then apportion the rest based on population. California, for example, would have 12, while Rhode Island would have 1.

Let’s set aside the broad arguments about this issue, such as the fact that limiting the power of the larger, more powerful states was a feature, not a bug of the U.S. Constitution, and that in all likelihood the plan Orts lays out violates that document. Charles Cooke has a good takedown in National Review Online that is worth reading. . .

I’d like to investigate just one of the claims Orts makes. In the essay, he contends that the Senate’s two per state apportionment is a “vehicle entrenching white supremacy.” His argument is that because most small states are predominantly white, white voters are being overrepresented. He views this not only as an example of white supremacy, but one that works to ensure the permanence of white supremacy. But is that true? . . .

Unfortunately, the assumption underlying Orts’ argument is an ugly one. His claim only works if it is true that, either consciously or unconsciously, white voters favor politicians and programs that are better for white people and that this preference for white supremacy is an essential element in how they vote. If this were true, however, wouldn’t we see white voters overwhelmingly flock to the political party that best supported these supposedly white supremacist policies?

In fact, we see exactly the opposite. According to Pew, 33 percent of whites are Republicans, 26 percent are Democrats, and 37 percent are Independents. If white people really are voting based on the interests of their racial group, they certainly can’t seem to agree what positions and policies best advance them. Apparently white voters in tiny Delaware, who elected Democrats Chris Coons and Tom Carper, have very different ideas about what is best for white people than do those in Wyoming, who elected Republicans John Barrasso and Mike Enzi. (Read more from “No, Senate Apportionment Is Not White Supremacy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Border Invasion Intensifies, While Congressional Republicans Sleep

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s nothing as righteous as a Republican Party out of power and in the minority. Yet even in their newfound minority status, seven Republicans managed to join the Democrats in passing a budget bill continuing to fund the invasion at our southern border rather than stopping it. Every single Democrat without exception – including those from more conservative districts who promised to work across the aisle – voted for the Democrat budget bill, which funds international abortions but not border security.

How is it that we have an invasion at our border that single-handedly fueled the drug crisis, created gang and cartel violence in our communities, and burdened us with the crushing fiscal costs, yet Republicans won’t effectively force a national discussion on this issue? Increasingly, drugs are connecting to terrorism, and they are all being pushed into our communities by the most violent gangs and cartels. Then there is the problem of the public health crisis. Illegal immigration sits at the nexus of everything that is dangerous and everything against which the federal government was created to protect us. Why is there no leading voice in either body of Congress on this issue?

The answer, very simply put, is that the party doesn’t care. The GOP hates its base. That is why Trump is going to need to step up his game and give televised addresses to the nation every few days while traveling the country giving speeches, not just at the border, but in cities inside our country that have been devastated by illegal immigration.

Last night, Breitbart reported that ICE and Border Patrol were forced to release another 2,000 illegal aliens into our country because there is no more detention space thanks to the intensity of the invasion. The danger to our country is unfathomable when you consider that the last major surge in 2014 unleashed the worst drug and gang crisis in our history on our country.

As the Texas Department of Public Safety reported, “The increase of illegal alien gang members crossing the border into Texas among unaccompanied minors the previous year… positioned the gang as one of the state’s most significant gang threats.” According to both the DEA and the Texas DPS, these aliens smuggled in by the cartels expanded the transnational street gangs in our city that serve as the retail distributors for various cartels.

Every wonder why Chicago is experiencing more violence than usual since Obama’s second-term immigration policies? Most of the extra violence there is not the result of the domestic gangs, but the transnational gangs working for the cartels and nourished by our border and sanctuary policies. “The Mexican cartels provide a steady stream of drugs to the Chicago area. Though the Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG are the city’s most notable sources of supply, other Mexican cartels that deliver drugs to the area include BLO, the Gulf Cartel, La Familia Michoacán (LFM), and Los Guerreros Unidos (LGU),” wrote DEA officials in their brand-new threat assessment report. “Chicago is home to several street gangs that are heavily involved in drug distribution, and collectively these gangs serve as the primary mid-level and retail-level drug distributors for the cartels.”

What else? “These gangs are also responsible for a substantial portion of the city’s violent crime.”

The type of crime we are now seeing across the country is a sign that the most brutal cartel violence has already crept into America. Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s Special Operations Division, told me that he was seeing this trend already toward the end of his career during the Obama era, and the violence from the cartels was as “ruthless” as anything he saw. “Mexican cartels have exported their evil, violent, and radical tactics into the communities of America. They have no concern for innocent citizens when they are trying to carry out their drug operations,” said the veteran DEA agent in an exclusive interview with CR. “We have seen incredible cartel-on-cartel violence in cities all over America. Humans are burned, shot, stabbed, and tortured, and there is no regard for human life.”

But there is no passion from Republicans on this issue. Where are the op-eds, speeches on the Senate floor, bills being proposed? Why, to this day, are Senate Republicans refusing to force votes on the Senate floor on cutting off magnets for criminal aliens, identity fraud, sanctuary cities, and asylum fraud? Why are they not forcing Democrats to hold the floor and sustain a talking filibuster?

Unfortunately, we have negative energy among Republicans. Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner have already complained about the partial fake shutdown of the bureaucracy, not the shutdown of our nation-state. Lamar Alexander is trying to revive the Gang of Eight amnesty. Lindsey Graham and Joe Manchin are trying to work on a “dream” amnesty deal, the very amnesty that spawned this invasion to begin with!

In addition, the following seven House Republicans voted for the Democrat budget bill: Brian Fitzpatrick, Penn.; Will Hurd, Texas; John Katko, N.Y.; Peter King, N.Y.; Elise Stefanik, N.Y.; Fred Upton, Mich.; and Greg Walden, Ore. Walden recently ran the very GOP organ responsible for recruiting other Republicans, and Stefanik is being tapped to recruit more women candidates.

Then there is the donor class. Time magazine reports that the Kochs are making amnesty their biggest priority this year. Last year, their biggest priority was jailbreak, and they succeeded in getting Jared Kushner to convince President Trump to break his lifelong views on that issue. The overwhelming majority of federal drug traffickers these days, who will now be eligible for early release and reduced sentencing, are those tied to the very transnational cartels and gangs that have been empowered by the same immigration policies promoted by the Kochs. Yet the Kochs fund most of the “conservative” think tanks and many of the activist groups.

There is nobody who stands for the forgotten American taxpayer who is the victim of this insanity. All of the money, power, and fame are on the side of the invaders.

Which brings us to President Trump. He is the only voice for this issue, but he needs to step up his game. Yesterday’s press conference with border agents was a good start. He should follow up with a series of televised addresses to the nation laying out the history of the lies and betrayals against the American people on the immigration issue. He should deliver a presentation on how this particular iteration of illegal immigration is fueling the worst drug and gang crisis ever and is responsible for much of the violence in cities like Chicago. He should educate the public on the cost to our schools, health care, welfare, and criminal justice system and the number of Americans who pay the ultimate price for the betrayal of our border.

This is Trump’s time to shine. As Reagan once said, if not now, when? If not us, who? (For more from the author of “The Border Invasion Intensifies, While Congressional Republicans Sleep” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Worst Enemy of Black People

/0 Comments/in , /by

Malcolm X was a Muslim minister and human rights activist. Born in 1925, he met his death at the hands of an assassin in 1965. Malcolm X was a courageous advocate for black civil rights, but unlike Martin Luther King, he was not that forgiving of whites for their crimes against black Americans. He did not eschew violence as a tool to achieve civil and human rights. His black and white detractors accused him of preaching racism and violence. Despite the controversy, he has been called one of the greatest and most influential black Americans.

Many black Americans have great respect for Malcolm X. Many schools bear his name, and many streets have been renamed in honor of him, both at home and abroad. But while black Americans honor Malcolm X, one of his basic teachings goes largely ignored. I think it’s an important lesson, so I will quote a large part of it.

Malcolm X said: “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.” . . .

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year only 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. As late as 1950, female-headed households constituted only 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. In much earlier times, during the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. Welfare has encouraged young women to have children out of wedlock. The social stigma once associated with unwed pregnancy is all but gone. Plus, “shotgun” weddings are a thing of the past. That was when male members of a girl’s family made the boy who got her pregnant live up to his responsibilities.

The high crime rates in so many black communities impose huge personal costs and have turned once-thriving communities into economic wastelands. (Read more from “The Worst Enemy of Black People” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Top 10 Votes in Congress From 2018

/0 Comments/in , /by

The year 2018 is finally over. It was a tumultuous year for Congress, during which the government shut down twice, President Trump faced several challenges both domestically and in foreign policy, and the Democrats retook the House of Representatives on Election Day.

In all the tumult of the day-to-day news and the hysterical media coverage of Trump’s every action, Congress was at work passing some legislation you may have missed. Have you watched how your elected representatives voted in 2018?

Taken from the Conservative Review Scorecard, here are the top ten votes of 2018:

1. Support unconstitutional abuse of Americans’ privacy

This procedural vote in the Senate was to advance a bill reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Act, without substantial reforms. This law permits the warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

Under Section 702, the National Security Agency has sweeping authority to collect incidental data on Americans while spying on foreign targets. The collected information, including emails and text messages, is stored and can be queried by law enforcement without a warrant or even probable cause.

Civil liberties advocates in the Senate like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., were denied the opportunity to filibuster the legislation when Republicans and Democrats voted 60-38 to end debate and advance the bill.

2. Support effort to ban abortions after 20 Weeks (point of pain)

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would have protected unborn children through a federal ban on abortions after the 20th week of gestation, when scientific evidence suggests a child can feel pain. This bill would have penalized abortionists who perform an abortion procedure after 20 weeks with up to five years in prison and/or fines.

The United States is one of just seven countries — including China and North Korea — to permit elective abortions after 20 weeks. Even in leftist Europe, most countries ban abortions after the first trimester.

The House of Representatives passed the bill in 2017, sending it to the Senate, where Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., brought it up for a vote in January 2018. Sixty votes were needed to break a Democratic filibuster, ending debate and considering the legislation for passage. Unfortunately, the Senate fell short at 51-46, with progressive Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voting against.

3. Massive spending, debt ceiling raise, and Democrat priorities funded

In February, the Republican majority in Congress passed a two-year budget agreement containing the largest spending increase since the 2009 “stimulus” bill passed by Democrats under President Obama. Importantly, the spending bill increased the budget caps set by Republicans in 2010 by $300 billion for two years, which undid the only successful effort to limit spending under the Obama administration and has since led to hundred-billion-dollar deficits under President Trump.

The bill funded several Democratic priorities, including increased spending on entitlement programs, bailouts for hospitals, and $89 billion in “disaster relief” unrelated to the hurricanes that hit the U.S. in 2017. Republicans also squeezed in crony capitalist tax breaks for special interest groups after touting a tax reform bill that was supposed to simplify the tax code.

Throw in a debt ceiling increase on top of all of that, and you have one of the worst pieces of legislation Congress passed in 2018, which the Senate voted to advance 73-26, and the House passed 240-186.

4. Advance a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities

Having passed the budget in February, Congress moved on to funding the government in March with an enormous $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill. The titanic 2,232-page bill failed to keep Republican promises of securing the border, defunding sanctuary cities, and defunding Planned Parenthood, among others.

Instead, the Republican Congress increased the deficit by $1 trillion without funding President Trump’s priorities. President Trump was so incensed at Congress that he vowed he would “never sign another bill like this again.”

There were two opportunities in Congress to stop this bill. The first was on procedural votes necessary to advance the legislation before final passage. The House of Representatives advanced the bill 211 – 207, and the Senate advanced it 67-30.

5. Pass a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus that funds Democrat priorities

The second opportunity to stop the spending was on final passage of the omnibus bill. Instead, the House of Representatives passed the bill 256-167, and the Senate followed in a vote of 65-32.

6. “Penny Plan” to balance budget without tax increases

Having passed the “must-pass” omnibus spending bills in March, Republicans in the Senate who campaigned as fiscal conservatives had an opportunity to show that in the future they will be responsible with government funding. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., offered up a resolution to balance the budget without raising taxes by restoring the budget caps and implementing a “Penny Plan” to cut government spending.

The Penny Plan is simple: It would require the government to spend one penny less for every on-budget dollar the federal government spent in fiscal year 2018 for the next five years. Thereafter, spending would grow by one percent annually. Paul’s plan would reduce spending by $13.35 trillion over the next ten years and would balance the budget without making changes to Social Security.

Paul characterized it as a “litmus test for conservatives.” In a procedural vote of 21-76 to advance the budget, most Senate Republicans failed the litmus test.

7. Pass amnesty with citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants

More than any other issue, illegal immigration was central to President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign. He made key promises to build a wall on the southern border, increase border security, end Obama’s unconstitutional DACA amnesty policies, and reform our immigration system into a merit-based system.

Democrats in Congress refused to accept this agenda, and Republicans, unwilling to fight for most of the year, attempted to reach a compromise that would have traded making Obama’s illegal amnesty the law of the land in return for $25 billion for border security. But Republicans went above and beyond what Obama had done, expanding amnesty with citizenship to 1.8 million illegal immigrants in their proposed deal. The legislation also failed to limit judicial involvement in immigration, permitting rogue leftist judges to continue to undermine American sovereignty without limits imposed by Congress.

It was a bad compromise, and thankfully it was defeated in the House of Representatives, 121 – 301.

8. Pass a promise-breaking cromnibus before the election

Just before the election, Congress added a continuing resolution (CR) to another omnibus spending bill, creating an $855 billion “Cromnibus” bill combining Department of Defense funding with Labor/Health and Human Services/Education funding.

The dirty swamp trick of this vote was to make it look like conservatives opposed to increased funding for government programs in the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education Departments were also opposed to increased military spending. The military was held hostage by congressional leadership to force conservative lawmakers to vote for these progressive policies.

It was a despicable thing to do. The Senate passed the Cromnibus in a vote of 93-7, and the House passed it 361 – 61.

9. Pass a $900 billion farm bill with socialist policies

The spending never ends in Washington D.C. This vote was to pass a $900 billion farm bill to fund crony capitalist farm subsidies and food stamps for the next five years.

Every five years the farm bill contains the same government handouts, bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that favor big agribusiness in America at the expense of the taxpayer. And every five years Congress passes the bill without needed reforms. At one point conservatives attempted to attach watered-down work requirements to the bill, but Senate Democrats and some Republicans balked and rejected that effort. While they were at it, lawmakers actually increased spending in this farm bill compared to the last one.

The Senate passed the bill 87-13, and the House passed it 369-47.

10. Release dangerous criminals from federal prisons

This bill, the First Step Act, was a divisive piece of legislation that had the support of many good-willed conservatives but ultimately contained too many unaddressed problems. Focusing on prison reform, the bill reduced prison sentences for drug traffickers, increased the discretion judges have to avoid mandatory sentencing, and mandated that administrative agencies create ill-defined programs to accelerate release for federal prisoners.

Sentencing leniencies were given to many classes of hardened criminals, including criminal illegal aliens. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., confirmed that several violent crimes ranging from assaulting a law enforcement officer to first-time assault with intent to commit rape were not excluded by the First Step Act. Cotton offered amendments to the legislation that sought to exclude more classes of sex offenders and violent criminals, to require the government to notify victims of a crime before prisoners are released, and to require the Bureau of Prisons to track the re-arrest rates of those who are released early. Those amendments and other important amendments that would have strengthened the bill and corrected several of these problems were rejected by the Senate before the bill was passed.

The other problems with the law are numerous and too extensive to cover here. You can read more of Conservative Review’s opinion and analysis on the First Step Act here.

The Senate passed the First Step Act 87-12, and the House of Representatives passed it 358-36.

Visit the Conservative Review Scorecard to see how your elected representatives in Congress voted not just on these 2018 votes, but on all the top votes Congress took in recent years.

What bills will Congress pass in 2019? Stick with Conservative Review to keep up to date. (For more from the author of “The Top 10 Votes in Congress From 2018” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Why You Shouldn’t Make New Year’s Resolutions

/0 Comments/in , /by

I hate New Year’s resolutions. They are a polite conversation piece while at a party with friends and family. It is a bunch of worthless empty talk, and the worst sort of virtue signaling possible: promising something but failing to do it. . .

When we procrastinate, we are not thinking in the present tense, but stuck worrying about the past and the future. I have found that making decisions in the present as situations come up has much better results that actually stick. Instead of making New Year’s resolutions, I make resolutions year round. A more frequent habit of self-reflection makes changes more likely than assuming we can jump cold-turkey into new ways of living.

Eighty percent of us fail to keep New Year’s resolutions, says clinical psychologist Joseph J. Luciani. I am no perfect example, of course, but I have found success with making big changes throughout the year instead of once a year, such as deciding to tighten up my budget by going without air conditioning. I have also not gone back to Facebook after dropping it, and it is still glorious! . . .

The faith angle is also important. “‘Everything is permissible’ but not everything is beneficial. ‘Everything is permissible’ but not everything builds up (I Corinthians 10:23 CSB).” I am free to live differently and the goal is for my life trajectory to always be getting closer to a better ideal until I finally run across the finish line and shake hands with those who cheered me on. I still have a long race to run.

If things need to change in my life, there needs to be urgency. Waiting for New Year’s is as silly as punting the ball on a third down. Yes, passing or running the ball has risk, but you’ve got to move the ball! It is as if we set our alarm, but hit the snooze button and wonder why we are always late: this is one of this hard habits to break, but no excuses, it is no way to thrive. Today, I will do the thing that I need to change, not wait a few weeks. (Read more from “Why You Shouldn’t Make New Year’s Resolutions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Mueller Investigation Stirring up More Trouble Than It’s Finding

/0 Comments/in , /by

After 19 months, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has charged a number of targets with almost every conceivable sin — except collusion with Russia to throw an election. Yet suspicion of collusion was the reason that Mueller was appointed in the first place. . .

Instead, the accusation is that [Michael] Cohen and Trump used Trump’s own money, but they did not report the payout as a “contribution” to his campaign. But Trump likely would have paid off Daniels anyway to protect his marriage, family and reputation, regardless of whether he was running for office.

If you take media-sensationalized sex out of the equation, Trump, like any other American, has the right to pay anyone whatever he wishes to keep quiet about past embarrassing behavior, whether that be secretly gulping down too many Big Macs or cheating on the golf course. . .

Next, former FBI Director James Comey counted on the Trump administration’s inexperience and broke normal protocol by sending investigators to interrogate Flynn directly without bothering with the usual administration intermediaries. Comey’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, misled Flynn into assuming that the interview would be a friendly chat among “allies.” Flynn was told he would not need a lawyer. . .

It gets worse. The FBI agents, who presumably had transcripts from Flynn’s talks with the Russian ambassador to compare to Flynn’s interview answers, expressed the belief that Flynn did not seem as if he was lying to them. Yet that conclusion was apparently overturned at some point by the FBI. To this day, the only real evidence that Flynn lied is his confession — and apparently the second thoughts of the FBI investigators, who reinterpreted their initial impressions in a much later official report. (Read more from “Mueller Investigation Stirring up More Trouble Than It’s Finding” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.