Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been filled with outrageous moments in the mainstream media. Some of those moments will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and some will infuriate you. Here are six of the hottest of hot-take fails, outrageous comparisons, outright fabrications, and more from Trump’s first 100 days.

1. LET’S START AT THE BEGINNING, ON INAUGURAL DAY AND NIGHT

LIfeZette had a great compilation of media meltdowns on inauguration day: Matt Lauer being afraid that Trump fans would physically harm Hillary Clinton, Salon saying that Trump was going to “victimize his own voters,” and more. But perhaps my favorite is Paul Krugman, the smarmy New York Times economic columnist, who just needed a safe space.

Inaugural day kicked off the insanity. It really hasn’t ended.

2. TRUMP SIGNS HIS NAME LIKE A NAZI WAR CRIMINAL

Surely this can’t be true, you must be saying to yourself. There is no way that any respected journalism outfit would waste either paper or internet bandwidth with a story like that. Well, you’d be wrong. The Boston Globe published an “ideas” piece that basically asked if you “should care” that Trump signs his name like a Nazi.

Some experts — graphologists, people who have been trained to examine handwriting for markers of personality — were no less harsh. “His signature is this barbed-wire thing that’s into power and control and rigidity,” said Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience in this small field. “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.” As in Heinrich Himmler, head of Adolf Hitler’s SS and the man who established the first official concentration camp at Dachau.

But they totally made it OK by asking if you “should care.”

3. TRUMP’S KIDS ARE JUST THE SAME AS THE HUSSEIN WAR CRIMINAL DUO

If you guessed that this one would involve MSNBC, you’d be right. Almost lost in an orgy of Leftist spin were these two jewels by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Here’s Rachel – jump to 3:40 in this video.

We have never thought of us as a country where Uday and Qusay [Hussein] get to be ministers of whatever they want, right?

You might think that was obnoxious but was all of it, until you hear Matthews from the week before.

That’s right, because the Trump kids and family follow a long tradition of family members working in a presidential administration, they should be compared to murderous thugs like Uday and Qusay Hussein, the sons of Saddam Hussein.

4. DONALD TRUMP IS CAUSING THE NATION TO LOSE PRECIOUS SLEEP

Here’s another golden one. Lisa Belkin, the “chief national correspondent” for Yahoo News, decided back in March that a think piece on Trump as national bogeyman would be a fun time. She described a dystopian present where Americans were tossing and turning, all because of Trump.

She even went full Nazi Germany, casting the heroes of the piece:

Last night I dreamed we were hiding people in our basement,” says Allentown, Pa., physician Jenni Levy. “Not sure what they were hiding from.”

It continued …

I’m worried about the ‘Anne Franks‘ of Syria, Somalia, Yemen,” says tech industry employee Amanda Silver, who is literally sleepless in Seattle, her hometown.

“I am afraid the democratic process is under attack by a nationalist, far-right, authoritarian leader,” says Lori Rivere Rodrig, who teaches math at a New Jersey high school.

Boo!

5. NOT JUST TRUMP BUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TOO

It was pretty hard to find dirt on the Boy Scout and Trump SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. But that didn’t stop NPR and a whole host of other organizations from trying. Here’s an original headline for a gotcha piece on Gorsuch.

The story went on to describe a class discussion about employment law that, quite simply, did not happen. Here’s the NPR story. After a rush to publish, without disclosing the conflicts of the source, NPR and other organizations were forced to clarify the story. It ended up not that bad for Gorsuch. Here’s the editors’ note from NPR.

Editors’ note Monday, 12:55 p.m. ET: Since this story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk’s political affiliations. On Tuesday, Gorsuch disputed the allegation himself during his confirmation hearing and explained the lesson he intended to teach.

What were Sisk, the accuser’s, political affiliations?

Sisk, once a staffer for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and the Interior Department during the Obama administration, told NPR that she wrote the letter “so that the proper questions could be asked during his confirmation hearings,” which begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yeah, the allegations came from a professional Democratic operative, and until called out on it, NPR didn’t disclose it.

6. RACHEL MADDOW CHANNELS AL CAPONE’S VAULT

If you were alive during the 1980s, chances are you remember the hype from a not-yet-famous Geraldo Rivera surrounding the unveiling of Al Capone’s secret vault. It was a live prime-time event. Except it was an empty room behind a wall.

Maddow wanted a similar moment all to herself. So she hyped that she had Donald Trump’s tax returns. Except, well, she didn’t. Here, let Greg Gutfeld explain.

That’s right, she had one year’s returns, that Trump probably sent her anonymously himself, that showed he paid a higher tax percentage than almost every president who has released his returns.

Maddow was rightly excoriated for the remarks. Even Geraldo got in on the fun, in a hilarious bit of self-deprecating humor.

Those are just six of hundreds of media moments. Do you remember any others? Tweet me @robeno to let me know of your favorite meltdown. I may cover it in a future article or Facebook live. (For more from the author of “Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen

/2 Comments/in , , /by

An assistant principal at Downingtown STEM Academy in Chester County has been placed on administrative leave after a video surfaced of him yelling at pro-life teenagers last Friday.

The video, posted on YouTube by one of the teens, showed a heated verbal exchange between Dr. Zach Ruffs and a 16-year-old protesting the “holocaust of abortion.”

The argument transpired as students were leaving school for the day. Ruff appeared to be directing traffic away from the school when the incident was recorded.

“Innocent children are being murdered in our society,” declared one of the protesting teens in video footage.

“They’re not children. They’re cells. Go home!” yelled Ruff. (Read more from “STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A teenager in Australia pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 9 women and girls but was not sentenced to prison. Instead, he was put on two-years’ probation. Why? The judge reasoned that, as a Muslim who had immigrated from Afghanistan, “seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up.”

Seriously? This young man assaults 9 different women and girls on a beach in Australia, and the court finds him not guilty because he came from a different culture?

A Closer Look at the Case

I understand that in Afghanistan, women are required to be completely covered. And so, it would be quite a shock for a Muslim teen raised in that country to come to Australia and see so much flesh.

It’s for that very reason that some believers who come from conservative religious backgrounds avoid going to crowded beaches. They’re not into the bikini culture.

I can relate to that personally, which is why I avoid crowded beaches myself. I’m no more comfortable surrounded by women in bikinis than I’d be surrounded by women in their underwear.

But I fully understand that these women are not asking to be sexually assaulted, no matter how they’re dressed. And it would never dawn on me in a million years that I had the right to assault them because of their scanty attire. God forbid.

You might say, “But you were raised in America, so this is not foreign to you. You understand the culture, which is similar to Australia.”

That’s true.

But do you mean to tell me that this 17-year-old teenager from Afghanistan thought that what he was doing was fine? That, as he swam in the water and “spent two hours grabbing women, aged between 15 and 24 years,” he had no idea he was upsetting them?

The court was told that the “defendant grabbed his victims on their bottoms, breasts and, in three cases, their vaginas.” And the Crown attorney, Nick McGhee “said the defendant was seen swimming up to his victims ‘in quite a predatory manner’.”

And he had no idea this was a bad thing? He had no idea he was at a beach where these girls went to swim, not get assaulted? And, after the first girl reacted to him, he still thought they were inviting his predations?

The judge also noted that the young man had a difficult background, having lost his father in 2011.

But how, exactly, does this lessen his guilt before the court? How, precisely, does this mitigate his responsibility?

It is all too common for convicted criminals to have troubled pasts, and our prisons would be nearly empty if judges looked the other way because the guilty party was raised without a dad. (I don’t mean to sound uncaring here. I’m simply talking about a judge doing his or her duty.)

Let’s Take the Judge’s Decision to Its Logical Conclusion

As for the idea that the teen came from a different culture and therefore was not fully responsible, how far will the courts take such logic?

“Your honor, I killed my daughter because she disgraced the family by dating a non-Muslim boy.”

“Your honor, I poisoned by son because he apostasized from the Islamic faith and became a Christian.”

“Your honor, I burned down the TV station because one of the hosts made disparaging comments about the Quran.”

“Your honor, I butchered the cartoonist because he mocked the prophet Muhammad.”

“Your honor, that’s just what we do in our culture. Please understand I wasn’t used to your way of doing things, and I’ll do better next time.”

Would the judge accept arguments like these? Hardly. (Or perhaps this same judge would accept such arguments. That’s what is really scary.)

What if you came from a cannibalistic culture where tribal disputes were settled with knife fights, and the winners ate the losers? How would this play out in court?

“Your honor, yes, it’s true that I roasted and ate my neighbor, but it’s a cultural thing. If I had lost the fight, I assumed he would have done the same to me. So, can I go home now?”

The Message It Sends

It’s bad enough that these girls and women have to deal with the trauma of being assaulted and groped. It’s even worse when the court sympathizes with their attacker rather than with them, finding a reason to look the other way. And what kind of message does this send to other Muslim immigrants, who will surely hear of this court case in the days to come?

Ironically, if an Australian woman living in Afghanistan decided to dress as she did in her home country, she’d be lucky to escape a mob assault on the streets, let alone experience leniency from the court. Yet in Australia, a young man guilty of multiple sexual assaults is let off the hook because of his Muslim background.

This is being open-minded to the point of utter foolishness. It sets a very dangerous precedent too. (For more from the author of “Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let Slip the Hogs of War — Wild Pigs Thwart ISIS Ambush, Kill 3 Militants

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Three Islamic State fighters were mauled to death by a pack of wild boar, reports U.K.’s The Times. Another 5 militants were also injured in the attack.

The men were said to be taking cover in a field as they set up an ambush for local tribesmen, local leaders said.

“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told the Times. “The area is dense with reeds, which are good for hiding in.” (Read more from “Let Slip the Hogs of War — Wild Pigs Thwart ISIS Ambush, Kill 3 Militants” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Repeat After Me (or Lose Your Job): ‘White Men Are Not Being Persecuted. And They Deserve It.’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I wrote a few days ago that the Alt-Right movement is a neopagan error. It’s an “angry, inchoate reaction to a powerful, slippery heresy that preens as a winsome angel of light.” That heresy is multiculturalism, which boasts of its double standards and targets white males as villains. But how powerful is that movement, really? Was I exaggerating for effect?

No. If anything, I understated things. White men are demonized and scapegoated for nearly every evil. Highly educated people feel perfectly comfortable, even proud of themselves for doing so. It’s part of the ritual exorcism practiced by the church of multiculturalism:

“Do you renounce white males?”

“I do.”

“And all their works?”

“I do.”

“And all their books and institutions?”

“I do.”

Scapegoating a Race

Multiculturalists point to long-dead slaveowners, or to freakishly rich members of the “one percent,” to pretend that every white man partakes of “privilege.” So he ought to be suspect as a bigot till proven otherwise. Likewise, anti-Semites have always pointed to Jewish accomplishments and influence as proof of their power and wickedness.

If you scoff at the idea that white men could ever be victims, remember this: Scholars of the Holocaust report that German Jews were the best-assimilated, wealthiest, and most successful Jewish community in the history of the world. Right up until 1933. That didn’t help them. Alas, their achievements made them a highly attractive scapegoat.

“Kill As Many White Males as Possible.”

I wonder what part the escalating atmosphere of racial/sexual hatred played in the recent mass killing in Fresno, California. The killer, Kori Ali Muhammad, interrupted his spree to go online and announce “that he was going to kill as many white males as possible,” according to Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer.

Yes, Muhammad was deranged. But so was Charleston killer Dylann Roof. That didn’t stop observers from concluding that Roof represented a dangerous trend in racist violence. They won’t say that about Muhammad. In fact, since the facts have come out, you will not hear his name mentioned in the media ever again. Especially that name.

As proof that multiculturalism is virulent, dangerous, and ungrounded in reality, I could cite the epidemic of “deaths of despair” among less educated white men in America: Why isn’t it being taken seriously as a public health catastrophe like breast cancer or AIDS? I could point to the persecution of all-male organizations at colleges. Black and Muslim groups, of course, are exempted. Or the fact that white males, alone, are not protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Should White Men Be Stripped of the Vote?

Instead, let’s talk about an event that on the face of it seems less serious. On April 13, The Huffington Post ran a column by “Shelley Garland” that argued for depriving white males of the vote:

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

Now, you’ll notice that I didn’t include a link to that column. That’s because The Huffington Post took it down. Why did that happen? Did some sane editor read the article and conclude, accurately, that it was hate speech against human beings who happened to be both male and white?

Silencing Satire, Like Good Little Stalinists

No, not at all. You see, it turned out that the piece was a satire. It was written by a white guy. As Heat Street reports:

Earlier this week, the gullible Huffington Post fell victim to a hoax article calling for white men to be stripped of their voting rights. The site became the subject of widespread derision and condemnation after HuffPost editors stood up to defend the article’s content.

But as was later revealed, the author submitted the piece to Huffington Post South Africa as a hoax, intending to prove a point about the outlet’s radical leftist stance. He did so under a fake persona masquerading as a feminist activist named “Shelly Garland.” …

Following its publication and subsequent retraction, the HuffPost identified the author behind the “Shelly Garland” persona as Marius Roodt, a researcher at South Africa’s Centre for Development and Enterprise. According to the site, the email address Roodt used to submit the piece was traced back to him. The site claims that his identity was further “confirmed with facial recognition technology,” as he digitally altered a picture of himself to look like a woman.

Pretty funny, right? Except that after Roodt was outed, he lost his job. No, not the editors who published the outrageous article, thinking it was dead serious and a pretty good idea. They’re still working, still shaping American minds.

You Think That’s Funny? You’re Fired.

But Roodt was stripped of his livelihood for daring to mock the pieties of the church of multiculturalism. His employer publicly denounced him. And The Huffington Post took down the post, under the rationale that it had turned out to be hate speech.

Have you got that? At first, the article seemed to call in all seriousness for hundreds of millions of people (rich and poor, including coal miners and war veterans) to be denied the right to vote because of their sex and their race.

So The Huffington Post had no problem with it. They defended it, in fact. But when it came out that the piece was in fact a satire of that position, now it amounted to hate speech.

Wrap your mind around that. Try “mansplaining” that to yourself.

No wonder some white guys are paranoid. People really are out to get them. (For more from the author of “Repeat After Me (or Lose Your Job): ‘White Men Are Not Being Persecuted. And They Deserve It.'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Army General and Former VP of Company at the Heart of Child Sex Trafficking Scandal Arrested for Child Rape

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A retired Army general, who after leaving the military, worked as VP for embattled DynaCorp International for three years – the private military contractor at the heart of numerous international child sex scandals – has been charged with multiple counts of rape for the alleged assault of at least one minor three decades ago.

Maj. Gen. James Grazioplene faces six charges for alleged rapes that happened in 1983 and 1989, according to an announcement made by the Army last Friday. He faces life and prison and the loss of his pension if convicted of the charges. As a retired officer, Grazioplene is subject to military law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and will face an Article 32 hearing to determine if he will face a court martial.

Details surrounding the case remain scarce, as the Army released no other information as to what precipitated Grazioplene being charged three decades after the alleged sexual assault . . .

While potentially just a coincidence, Grazioplene’s connections with DynCorp immediately raise a red flag, as the company has been embroiled in numerous high-level scandals involving the exploitation and trafficking of children for sex — dating as far back as the Bosnia conflict during Bill Clinton’s tenure as US President.

Revealing the extreme level of complicity, by DynCorp, in the illegal exploitation of children, former employee, Ben Johnston filed a RICO lawsuit against Dyncorp after he was allegedly fired for reporting human rights abuses by other employees during the Bosnian conflict. (Read more from “Army General and Former vp of Company at the Heart of Child Sex Trafficking Scandal Arrested for Child Rape” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What Chuck Schumer Is Revealing out in the Open

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Senator Chuck Schumer on MSNBC: “We’re no longer fact-based. The founding fathers created a country based on fact. We don’t have a fact base. If Breitbart News and the New York Times are regarded with equal credibility, you worry about this democracy.”

First of all, in Schumer’s opening sentence, who is this “we”? There is an implication that the “we” is somehow monolithic and centralized. But people have been in disagreement about facts and what they mean since the dawn of time. People have rejected centralized sources of facts, from kings and queens and priests, to newspapers and television news.

In the same way that 99% of economists assume society must be planned and centralized, Schumer and “the people in power” assume media must operate as a centralized force—as if it’s a natural law.

They just assume it, because until recently, it was the case, it was cozy and easy. But not now. And they’re angry and shocked. They see their foundation of propaganda and mind control slipping away.

You must appreciate how secure they used to feel. It was a cake walk, a picnic in the park. The definition of “fact” was: whatever centralized media said it was. What could be simpler? And to them, that was “democracy.”

Feed the people lies, hide deeper truth, slam dunk.

Then along came independent media.

Boom.

t turned out millions of people were interested.
The cat jumped out of the bag.

I know about this. I’ve been letting cats out of bags since 1982.

That’s longer than some of my readers have been alive.

I also know about censorship, because almost from the beginning of my work as a reporter, I had stories turned down by major media outlets and even alternative outlets. I saw the handwriting on the wall.

Chuck Schumer is echoing what many of his colleagues—and far more powerful people—are worrying about. Their vaunted mouthpieces, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc., are failing. They can’t carry the same old freight with impunity.

So Schumer “worries about the future of democracy.” What he’s actually worried about has nothing to do with democracy, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Republic, which was the form of this nation from the beginning.

Schumer is worried about decentralization.

He’s worried that people are defecting from the authoritarian arrogant Castle of Truth.

And, given his position, he should be worried.

We are at a tipping point. Needless to say—but I will say it—independent media need your support. Your choice about where you obtain your news makes a difference.

Until a few years ago, I never considered that I was relentless. I was just doing my work. But as I saw the counter-efforts of major media, social media, government, Globalists, and other players, as they tried to reassert their primacy, I found a deeper level of commitment. A person can find many reasons to stop what he is doing. Every person eventually realizes that. But will he give in? Or will he decide to keep going? My choice is reflected on these pages, where I write every day.

Many of my colleagues have made the same choice. As for myself, I take the long, long view. Whatever befalls this civilization, the individual survives. He cannot be erased. I know that as surely as I know I am sitting here.

People like Chuck Schumer are living on a foundation of sand. Their power depends on obfuscation and deception and exchanging favors. When they feel the ground shifting under their feet, they growl and accuse and declaim and resort to fake ideals. If they see their con isn’t working and isn’t selling, then they panic.

Which is a good sign.

Many, many years ago, I had a good relationship with a media outlet. Then one day, the man in charge told me I was “positioning myself” outside the scope of his audience. I was speaking to “different people,” and therefore I should “go my own way.” I could tell he wasn’t happy about saying this, because he thought of himself as an independent, but there it was. He was bending to the demands of “his people.” So we parted company.

I was now further “out there” than I had been before. I was “independent of an ‘independent’ media outlet.” It took me about five minutes to see the joke. A good and useful joke.

As the years rolled on, I kept finding myself in a more independent position, which meant I was writing what I wanted to write, and in the process I was discovering deeper levels of what I wanted to write.

Understanding this changed my political view. If I didn’t stand for the free and independent individual, what did I stand for? If I didn’t keep coming back to THAT, what could I come back to?

It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.

This is why I keep writing about collective, the group, the mass, and the generality, those fake representations of life.

The individual is always free, whether he knows it or not. And therefore, he can choose.

This is what the Chuck Schumers of this world vaguely apprehend on the horizon. They can’t believe what they’re seeing; it’s too horrible a prospect. They reject it as a fantasy. A random nightmare.

But it isn’t a random nightmare.

It’s the potential for an open future.

Decentralized.

Alive.

Back from obscurity.

Back from the late 18th century, when the ideas embedded in the Constitution reflected the desire to unleash the free and independent individual and afford him protection from the powers-that-be. (For more from the author of “What Chuck Schumer Is Revealing out in the Open” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Promise Not Kept: Trump’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It takes some time for a successor to clean up the mess of his predecessor. But when a new president continues a patently illegal immigration program from his predecessor, at some point he must own that unconstitutional policy. For Obama’s illegal executive amnesty, Trump is rapidly approaching that moment.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer used all of the typical straw-man arguments to explain why the president has decided to keep Obama’s executive amnesty in place:

I think he’s been consistent about two things. One, that he has a heart. He wants to make sure that he does what’s in the interest of children in particular. But secondly, I think the President’s priorities since he took office have been very clear that the focus would be on folks who presented a danger to public safety. And that’s what it’s been, and that’s where it continues to be. And I think he is someone who understands the issue and the priorities that need to get laid out by this country. And so everything that he has done has been consistent with what he said from the get-go.

What about the legality – the fact that it is illegal to issue work permits and Social Security cards contrary to the most foundational sovereignty statutes?

I think that his comments that he made last week, that he understands that in a lot of cases this involves families and small children who have been here, and he has a heart…

And how does that address the legality, again?

Besides, it is wholly inconsistent with the policies and the talking points Trump harnessed during the campaign.

When Trump was campaigning in Phoenix last August, he spoke with true moral clarity on the issue of immigration in a way that shows “heart” first and foremost to the American people and, by extension, to those who make the dangerous trek across the southern border:

We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants, five million.

The president actually revealed what was in his “heart” when he said in the speech that Arizona held a special place in his heart. Arizona has been beleaguered by these very myopic policies that place the emotional arguments of foreign nationals in a vacuum ahead of the broad needs and concerns of Americans. Trump lambasted the media and Hillary at the time for focusing on “one thing and only one thing, the needs of people living here illegally.” He then spoke with moral clarity of how “the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants” and that “anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington…. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.”

As I’ve noted before, and demonstrated from the Rockville rape case, it is this very promise of amnesty for “families with children” that is solely responsible for the recent surge in migration from Central America that has cost taxpayers untold sums of funding, burdened schools, crushed hospitals, and, yes, has resulted in violent crime against Americans. And as we saw with a slew of violent incidents perpetrated by young illegal aliens, they usually have clean records … until they offend. The “vetting” of the Obama administration was a joke, because 96 percent of applicants were granted legal status.

Yet the Trump administration is likely issuing roughly 760 illegal cards to illegal aliens every day. Even Marco Rubio said he’d only honor those cards already handed out. For this administration to renew a flagrantly illegal policy demonstrates that the campaign rhetoric of the entire Republican Party when in opposition is an utter joke. It’s one thing to show recalcitrance to ending a legal, albeit odious, policy. But to continue an illegal policy, especially when illegal aliens are the sole beneficiaries of that policy, is a mockery of the rule of law. Trump could end this tomorrow with a simple display of inaction – refusing to renew any work permits.

As a man who always likes to project power and the image of a winner, there is a further need for Trump to eliminate Obama’s executive amnesty in light of the courts nullifying his own immigration orders. For this administration to sit idly as Trump’s completely legal immigration order is struck down (while refusing to negotiate it as part of the budget bill) and at the same time continue the illegal immigration order of an ex-president is the ultimate humiliation of the The Donald. Moreover, courts are treating Obama’s order as a legitimate “law” through which to force states to issue driver’s licenses for illegals.

Trump is clearly a man who desires to check off his list of promises. Getting rid of Obama’s executive amnesty must make its way back onto that list. (For more from the author of “Promise Not Kept: Trump’s Illegal Executive Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cops Detain Entire School, Illegally Search/Grope 900 Kids

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Children feel violated, parents are furious, and a lawsuit is getting filed after the Worth County Sheriff’s office conducted an illegal search of 900 students — in the name of the war on drugs. The rights-violating intrusive and aggressive patdowns and drug dog searches yielded absolutely nothing.

On April 14, when the students of Worth County High School returned from spring break, they arrived at school to find a police state had taken over. The sheriff and his deputies — with no probable cause — detained and illegally searched every single child in the school, all 900 of them.

When kids went home that day to tell their parents what happened, naturally, they were furious as it is a gross violation of the children’s 4th Amendment rights.

“It’s essentially a fourth amendment violation,” said attorney Mark Begnaud. “It’s 900 illegal searches, suspicion-less pat downs, suspicion-less searches.”

Naturally, Sheriff Jeff Hobby is standing by this rights violation on a massive scale, noting that as long as a school administrator was present, the search of the children was legal.

Apparently, in the sheriff’s mind, school administrators can usurp the constitutional rights of children in favor of unlawful police searches.

But school officials and the student rule book disagree.

In the student handbook, it says school officials may search a student only if there is reasonable suspicion the student has an illegal item.

As WALB reports, Worth County Schools attorney Tommy Coleman said in order for the Sheriff’s office to search any students, they’d had to have reason to believe there was some kind of criminal activity or the student had possession of contraband or drugs.

“If you don’t have that then this search would violate an individual’s rights,” said Coleman. “[It] violates the constitutional right and enforcing them the right against unreasonable search and seizures.”

Interim Worth County Superintendent Lawrence Walters said he understands parents concerns about the drug search at Worth County High school on Friday, according to WALB.

“I’ve never been involved with anything like that ever in the past 21 years and I don’t condone it,” said Walters.

Walters said he was notified that there was be a search but pointed out that he did not give permission nor did he approve the mass groping of children.

“We did not give permission but they didn’t ask for permission, he just said, the sheriff, that he was going to do it after spring break,” said Walters.

“Under no circumstances did we approve touching any students,” explained Walters.

Adding insult to injury, many students complained that they got far more than just a pat down.

At least one deputy’s searches were found to be “too intrusive.”

According to Hobby, it was later discovered that one of the deputies had exceeded instructions given by Hobby and conducted a pat down of some students that was considered to be too intrusive.

When multiple students complained about being groped by the intrusive deputy, Sheriff Hobby ensured parents and school officials that “corrective action was taken to make sure the behavior will not be repeated.”

Exactly who that cop was and what ‘corrective action’ was taken, remains a mystery.

“I’m okay with them doing the search, if it was done appropriately like the school has done in the past,” said father of two Jonathan Luke. “But when they put their hands on my son, that’s crossing the line.”

Aside from not finding a single bit of contraband, the sheriff’s search was also entirely uncalled for as the Sylvester Police Department did a search on March 17 — just a few weeks before — and found no drugs.

But Hobby told reporters he didn’t think that search was thorough enough, so he decided to do his own. And, this time, he’d grope every student.

Now, many of the parents are planning a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s office which will likely be the only means of holding this man and his department accountable.

As for the 900 counts of deprivation of rights under the color of law that the sheriff should be facing, not a single charge has been levied against the department.

This is what school has become in a police state. (For more from the author of “Cops Detain Entire School, Illegally Search/Grope 900 Kids” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Antifa Thugs Unmasked – by Laws Originally Passed Against the KKK

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In a standoff between white supremacists and communist thugs, there are no heroes — save local law enforcement. Occasionally, however, there’s some half-decent schadenfreude to be found.

In a twist of delicious irony, a law originally enacted to deal with the Ku Klux Klan led to the unmasking of several Antifa thugs on the streets of Auburn, Alabama, Tuesday.

According to a story at Twitchy, local police told people protesting a speech by Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer at Auburn University — which was court-ordered to host him — to take off their hallmark masks.

From video shot outside the venue, it appeared as though the police were enforcing the rules, which included a no-mask policy. That meant the members of the [A]ntifa, or anti-fascists, were made to uncover their faces as they marched past law enforcement toward the campus.

As the story notes, the responses to the unmasking on social media included tweets lauding the Auburn Police Department for enforcing the law while criticizing local cops in Berkeley, California, where lax law enforcement has been blamed for riots over the weekend. Spencer’s views are despicable, but the way a free society deals with bad ideas is to drown them out with better ones, not engage in domestic terrorism. Someone needs to pass that memo along.

As my colleague Chris Pandolfo pointed out in the wake of the past weekend’s riots in Berkeley, Antifa’s name, which is a truncation of “anti-fascism,” really ought not to be taken at face value.

“‘Antifa’ is made up of self-described anarchists — radical left-wing thugs who employ violence and intimidation to advance their beliefs,” he writes. “They’ve shown up previously at Berkeley to shut down a “free speech” event hosted by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, leaving damaged property, fires, and assault victims in their wake.”

In short, Antifa has no problem shutting down political demonstrations with brute force and intimidation tactics for their socio-political ends [read: terrorism], and they typically wear masks to do it.

Covering one’s face to commit acts of political violence is not limited to Antifa thugs. It’s also a favorite tactic of groups like ISIS and other Islamist terror cells, as well as another U.S.-based, Democrat-sympathetic domestic terrorist organization: The Ku Klux Klan.

What many may not know, however, is that the current law forcing the Antifa demonstrators to remove their facial coverings finds its roots in a decades-old provision originally passed to take on the robe-clad hate group.

Title 13 of the Alabama State Code prohibits masked people from congregating in public places without facing criminal charges. If you want to publicly gather in the Yellowhammer State, you can either take your mask off, move along, or leave in cuffs. This, along with a provision the court order was what was being enforced, a spokesman for the Auburn Police Department confirms via email.

While several states now have laws prohibiting the covering one’s face in public, these laws in the deep south herald back to mid-20th century efforts to keep white supremacists from going about incognito to terrorize and intimidating law-abiding citizens.

The history of Alabama’s anti-masking law go back to Governor Jim Folsom — a noted opponent of the KKK — who in 1949 signed a law making wearing a mask a misdemeanor, punishable, back then, by a $500 fine and a year in jail, according to Time Magazine archives. The law was the first of its kind passed in the Deep South since Reconstruction.

The current version of the law was passed in 1977.

Furthermore, in “Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan”, historian David Mark Chalmers notes that Folsom also ordered the arrest of anyone who similarly covered their license plates, saying “mobs, hooded or unhooded, are not going to rule Alabama.” Nor would they at Auburn.

Georgia also has a similar statute, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1990, after it faced a legal challenge from the KKK on First Amendment grounds.

So there you have it: A law put in place to combat racist terrorists over five decades ago is now being used against communist terrorists trying to intimidate racists. Welcome to 2017, folks. (For more from the author of “Antifa Thugs Unmasked – by Laws Originally Passed Against the KKK” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.