New Report: A Border Wall Easily Pays for Itself With Its Own Effectiveness

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the most inane arguments against constructing a border wall is that the estimated cost of $12-$15 billion is just too much to bear. As if liberals suddenly care about spending when it comes to defending our sovereignty, security, and society from the crushing human and fiscal costs of illegal immigration, terrorist infiltration, drug importation, and sex trafficking. It’s akin to refusing to pay for the water to preempt a fire from spreading to your neighborhood and burning down your house.

Now a new report from the inimitable Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies demonstrates how easily the wall will pay for itself by saving taxpayers the heavy costs of future illegal aliens successfully kept out of the country. Camarota finds that, at a lifetime cost of $74,722 per illegal alien, the border wall will pay for itself within the 10-year budget frame if it only succeeds in keeping out 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade. And as I will demonstrate, border fences are almost fully effective in keeping out those who smuggle through non-legal points of entry. Plus, the lifetime cost of keeping out each alien is very likely much higher.
Border fences work spectacularly

Once we establish the efficacy of a double-layered security barrier — similar to the one built in San Diego and Israel — it is simply indefensible to focus on the cost of the actual construction. Last month, we reposted my “Case for a Border Fence,” in which I prove conclusively that a double-layered security wall in the toughest areas serves as a force-multiplier.

The facts stand for themselves. A similar wall stopped almost 100% of the most committed Hamas terrorists in the West Bank and migrants on Israel’s southern border. The presence of such a security wall in the San Diego sector and a plain double (or triple) layered fence in the Yuma Sector reduced apprehensions by 95% and substantially reduced the flow of drugs. And most importantly, only a fraction of those two sectors — primarily in urban areas — have the double layered fence. Imagine if most of the sectors were sealed off?

We can see the effectiveness of fencing from a report published several months ago by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Although there are only 35 miles of heavy duty double-layer fencing along the southern border, roughly one-third of the border has some form of fencing or vehicle barriers, with all but 100 or so miles being woefully inadequate. Nonetheless, the report found that while interdiction rates were over 50% across the border, they were as low as 5% in areas without any form of fencing. The history of the efficacy of fencing is “settled science,” as liberals like to say.

Thus, it’s quite evident that a fence would succeed in stopping a lot more than 9-12 percent of crossings. Camarota, however, just wanted to demonstrate how even a modest level of success would result in full savings. As Camarota noted, a full-proof wall, in his estimation keeping out 170,000 aliens per year, would actually save $64 billion over 10 years, which would mean taxpayers would recover the cost of the fence after just a few years’ worth of blocking illegal entry.

A wall stops hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities and amnesty costs

But it gets better.

Camarota’s report uses data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to estimate the life-time fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education level. He comes up with a sum of $74,722 per illegal-crosser. However, if the descendants of these illegal immigrants are factored in to the equation, the cost increases to $94,391 per illegal. And if different mythologies are used to calculate the life-time fiscal cost (not using net present value), the cost could be as high as $140,000-$150,000 per illegal, according to Camarota.

Moreover, there are more factors to consider when conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the wall. These numbers are merely comparing the cost of having a low-income migrant live here illegally vs. keeping that individual out. Liberals don’t merely oppose the border fence and allow illegals to come in only to remain here illegal. They want to give all these people amnesty, which will grant them access to welfare and entitlements. According to Robert Rector, “If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.” That is eight times the cost of non-amnestied illegals residing in the country, per Camarota’s report.

Assuming a 95% success rate in deterring 170,000 immigrants, we could save roughly $100 billion a year relative to the cost of amnesty. Which means that just 6-8 weeks’ worth of deterring illegal entry would make building the fence more cost effective than amnesty.

A wall saves the cost of deportation, litigation, detention, and interior enforcement

The wall would likely save us from more than the estimated 170,000 illegals that evade the border patrol between points of entry. Until now we were only counting the fiscal cost of impoverished illegal immigrants who successfully infiltrate our borders and remain in the country undetected. In FY 2016, for example, 408,870 illegals were apprehended at or near the southern border. How many were not caught and successfully disappeared into the country? There is no way of telling for sure, but DHS estimated that in FY 2015 they apprehended 54% of those who infiltrated the country.

But even the 54% of illegals we supposedly apprehend every year are not free of charge. Not by a long shot. Many of them wind up successfully remaining in the country. According to recent data from the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), nearly six in ten illegal aliens during the first ten months of FY 2016 were set free by immigration judges.

Even the ones we wind up deporting come at a big cost. They almost always surrender themselves to the border patrol, many of the children are let out of ICE custody, and even many families are now being released by the courts. The cost of the detention centers, the crushing burden on the courts, the education and health care for the Central American children, and the logistics of deportation all cost money. There is no better cost effective enforcement mechanism than a fixed impenetrable deterrent that prevents illegals from stepping foot on our soil in the first place. Not to mention the fact that it solves the political and legal arguments about deportation that invariably come into play the minute they enter our country.

Moreover, by focusing our investment in enforcement on a border wall, which is an up-front non-reoccurring cost for something that actually works, we will save billions in extra funding for the many other assets that have failed to secure the border. Just over the past decade, we have spent over $100 billion on different methods of security but to no avail — all to avoid the $12-$15 billion cost of building a double layer security barrier.

Thus, even if we say conservatively that roughly 700,000 illegals cross the border per year – including those apprehended and those who evade the border patrol – we can easily say that the life time cost of illegal immigration would be paid for within just a few weeks of a fence successfully deterring over 50,000 border crossings. And that is just the cost of illegal immigration.

Avoiding the cost of harmful drugs

According to the DOJ’s National Drug Intelligence Center, the economic cost of drugs in terms of crime, health care, and productivity is some $215 billion a year. And that was long before the recent opioid epidemic. The war on drugs has been a dismal failure in stopping drugs (although it has helped reduce crime across the board). However, there is one idea we never tried: keeping drugs out of America in the first place. The same wall that keeps out illegal immigrants and stopped Hamas terrorists will stop most drug smugglers.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to analyzing the drug problem is the open southern border, and particularly the sectors with limited or no fencing. Almost every drop of marijuana seized by the feds in FY 2016 (99.8%) and 76% of cocaine came though the southern border. Of all the marijuana seized at the southern border, 82% was found in just two sectors: Tucson and Rio Grande (east Texas). Those are by far the two busiest corridors for illegal immigration and the sectors with the least meaningful fencing.

Remember the double-layered fence we mentioned earlier that was constructed in only part of the Yuma Sector? As a result, Tucson suffers from marijuana smuggling exponentially more than Yuma — by a factor of 22. Arizona has become the drug-smuggling capital of the country. From 2010 to 2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207 percent, while methamphetamine seizures grew by 310 percent.

It’s hard to even calculate the tens of billions we would save every year as a result of plugging the hole and building a security wall in just those two sectors alone. In addition, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment, most of the heroin in this country, which is tearing our communities apart, is coming from Mexico. Obviously, we will never live in a utopia and a portion of the other drugs will come in through the maritime borders, with some drugs will be smuggled through cars passing legally over the border, but building the wall would go a long way in cutting the costs of the drug epidemic.

In addition to drug smuggling, the permanent presence of an impenetrable fence will deter the appalling sex trafficking cartel and terrorist smugglers. This has an enormous fiscal cost as well as a moral and national security cost. Also, to paraphrase DHS Secretary John Kelly at his confirmation hearing, “in America, some of us think of this drugs as leisure, but in Latin America they are killing their people.” And remember, every dollar of drug revenue that is lost to the Narco-terrorist gangs is a dollar less flowing into Islamic terror.

Anyone who wants to haggle over the price of the fence clearly has no understanding of the severe burden open borders has on our budget or doesn’t want to secure the border. (For more from the author of “New Report: A Border Wall Easily Pays for Itself With Its Own Effectiveness” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SICK: Breitbart Writer Milo Yiannopoulos Celebrates Pedophilia, Disinvited From CPAC

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Anika Smith. Yiannopoulos recently made headlines when social activists rioted at UC-Berkeley to prevent him from speaking.

He is back in the news today as conservatives register their outrage and disgust over recently surfaced comments he made defending pederasty and joking about molestation and sexual assault.

The Reagan Battalion posted a video yesterday bringing Milo’s comments to light.

Milo is a gay man noted for his outspoken support of Donald Trump, whom he calls “Daddy” for the sake of the reactions he gets. His schtick is posh-accented camp, and his reward is the outrage his comments trigger.

The right response should be easy enough: turn off, tune out, and don’t give Milo the attention he craves. Maybe spend that time reading about actual conservative intellectuals who are being punished for their beliefs. A good point from University of Washington president Ana Mari Cauce, who urged upset students not to ignore Milo but to “stay away” from his scheduled lecture there:

A. I never said “ignore,” I said “stay away.” There’s a difference. Look, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Folks need to think about how to use their energy and how to be strategic. What strategy do you want to use in what situation? The reason why I believed that he was not the most strategic thing to protest is that that’s what he feeds off, that’s what he makes money off.

Think about it for a second. If there had been no protest, what you’d see is a line of mostly white men, who might be described by some as “macho,” standing in line for hours to see a gay man in a boa in essence perform camp.

If CPAC wants to champion free speech on college campuses, they should have invited someone like Robert Oscar Lopez (also a Trump supporter, BTW), who has been hounded for his work advocating for children’s rights. As Lopez pointed out after the Berkeley riots, Milo’s campus lectures only serve to raise Milo’s profile, all while conservative professors are quietly expelled.

Instead of the positive reinforcement of a boycott or a protest of Milo, conservatives attending CPAC might choose to leave the hall quietly when he speaks, or taking to Twitter to champion those who fight against sexual assault in locker rooms, like the heroic Kaeley Triller Haver. Don’t forget what Milo said, and don’t forget that CPAC invited him to speak. But don’t give him the attention he wants. Don’t feed the trolls. (For more from the author of “SICK: Breitbart Writer Milo Yiannopoulos Celebrates Pedophilia, Disinvited From CPAC” please click HERE)

_______________________________________

Milo Yiannopoulos’s Pedophilia Comments Cost Him CPAC Role and Book Deal

By Jeremy W. Peters, Alexandra Alter and Michael M. Grynbaum. Milo Yiannopoulos, a polemical Breitbart editor and unapologetic defender of the alt-right, tested the limits of how far his provocations could go after the publication of a video in which he condones sexual relations with boys as young as 13 and laughs off the seriousness of pedophilia by Roman Catholic priests.

On Monday, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference rescinded their invitation for him to speak this week. Simon & Schuster said it was canceling publication of “Dangerous” after standing by him through weeks of criticism of the deal. And Breitbart itself was reportedly reconsidering his role amid calls online for it to sever ties with him.

Mr. Yiannopoulos’s comments, which quickly created an uproar online over the weekend, put many conservatives in a deeply uncomfortable position. They have long defended Mr. Yiannopoulos’s attention-seeking stunts and racially charged antics on the grounds that the left had tried to hypocritically censor his right to free speech. (Read more from “Milo Yiannopoulos’s Pedophilia Comments Cost Him CPAC Role and Book Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Labor Secretary Nominee Approved Horrendous Epstein Pedophile Deal That Protected All Unnamed Co-Conspirators

/0 Comments/in , , /by

President Donald Trump’s new nominee for secretary of labor, Alexander Acosta, could face a grilling in the Senate over claims that — while he was the top federal prosecutor in Miami — he cut a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 with a billionaire investor accused of having sex with dozens of underage girls.

As the U.S. attorney for Southern Florida, Acosta agreed not to file any federal charges against the wealthy financier, Jeffrey Epstein, if he pled guilty to state charges involving soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Epstein ultimately received an 18-month sentence in county jail and served about 13 months — treatment that provoked outrage from alleged victims in the case.

Soon after the deal was cut in 2008, two women filed suit claiming that the decision to forgo federal prosecution violated a federal law — the Crime Victims Rights Act — because they and other teenagers Epstein paid for sex were never adequately consulted about the plea deal or given an opportunity to object to it.

Acosta is not a party in the suit, which names only the federal government as a defendant. In 2015, lawyers for the women demanded Acosta submit to a deposition in the case. The motion was withdrawn last year as settlement talks in the case went forward, but the case remains pending. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Labor Secretary Nominee Approved Horrendous Epstein Pedophile Deal That Protected All Unnamed Co-Conspirators” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Washington State Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a judgment against a florist who declined to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage. She had previously provided the gay couple flowers for other occasions, but told them she couldn’t supply flowers for their “wedding,” because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.

The court held that the government can force individuals to provide artistic works and participate in events they disagree with. The nine justices claimed that Barronelle Stutzman violated anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The court found her personally accountable, meaning the state can seize her home, personal property, savings and bank accounts to pay any damages fines or attorneys fees awarded against her.

The Court Says: No Violation of Her Rights

A Southern Baptist, Stutzman lives in Richland, one of the most conservative areas in Washington state. She has been in the florist business for 30 years, having started out delivering flowers in her mother’s business. She now owns Arlene’s Flowers.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the gay couple sued her in 2013. Ferguson has been making a name for himself aggressively pursuing a liberal activist agenda as attorney general, with aspirations for higher office.

In 2016, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom fined Stutzman and awarded attorney’s fees against her. Stutzman appealed the lower court’s decision to the state’s highest court.

The Washington State Supreme Court found forcing her to provide flowers for a gay wedding did not violate her constitutional rights. She provided services for people of other religions, the judges argued, and had no grounds for refusing service to anyone else. “As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.

However, Stutzman was not objecting on the grounds that her services would constitute an endorsement of another religion. She was objecting on the grounds that doing that would condone and aid something against her religion, thus violating her freedom of religion.

She also objected on the grounds of free speech, not just freedom of religion. The court rejected her claim that its interpretation of Washington’s anti-discrimination law violates her right free speech.

A Case About Crushing Dissent

Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom which is representing Stutzman, denounced the decision. “This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” she said. The ADF issued a press release explaining how the activist ACLU operates to force through these types of cases.

I will mention that the ACLU raised $24 million in a single weekend recently. And this is what is does with its treasure: file suit against a humble grandmother who was literally minding her own business on the day when she referred a long time customer (who she served dozens of times fully aware that he is gay) to nearby florists who would be willing to celebrate same-sex weddings. While ADF is providing, as we do for all of our clients, free legal representation, the ACLU can and will come after her for legal fees that may top out north of a million dollars.

The organization said the decision marked “a decisive blow against fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.”

ADF intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case in 2014 involving a photographer who refused to service a same-sex wedding.

A page has been set up to help Stutzman. An effort is being made to encourage President Trump to sign an executive order protecting religious freedom. Others are talking about raising funds for her.

Stutzman says this isn’t about herself, but about the bigger picture of protecting the Constitution. She warned in an op-ed in The Spokesman-Review (in Spokane), “Does anyone really believe that a government that gives itself the power to force people to believe (and not believe) things and can order artists to create state-sanctioned messages will only use that power to bend one small-town florist to its will — and then leave everyone else alone?” (For more from the author of “Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

My Son’s Response to American Girl’s New Doll Tells Me Everything I Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , , /by

After more than three decades in business, the makers of the American Girl doll have released an American Boy doll. Logan Everett wears plaid, plays the drums and — you read that right — is a boy doll. There may be many nuanced reasons for this new doll — after all, girls might want to play with boy dolls a la Ken and Barbie. Or, heck, since American Girls, the dolls, and books are so popular, why shouldn’t boys join in on the fun? But given the timing of this announcement and our culture’s obsession with eradicating traditional gender roles, this is another progressive ploy, a “Holy, gender-stereotypes-are-so-2005,” sidekick sentiment, like Robin is to Batman.

Eradicating gender is sometimes okay

Given the explosion of gender-neutral clothing lines and the call for gender-neutral toys, I’m actually surprised American Girl headed in this direction. In 2015, Target removed their gender-specific labels from children’s toys and bedding. It’s hard to keep track of when gender matters and when it doesn’t. (I also hope Logan doesn’t get confused and end up wanting to be a girl? In 2020 Logan might be “Laura!”) Of course, girls will want to play with the boy — he’s a novelty after all — and I’m sure some boys will too. Especially young ones. This mom said her little boy wanted an American Boy doll so much, last year she made him one herself by hacking off an American Girl doll’s hair and the like.

Very young children aren’t always as gung-ho for or against gender-specific toys as one might think. For example, my five year-old girl has put a play dress on my three year-old boy for giggles and he’s clueless. If you must know, I gently explain dresses are for girls and we remove it, throw a do-rag on his head, and hand him a sword. (I know! I’m so antiquated!)

But does this mean boys should be as drawn to “girl” toys as “boy” toys? Does it even matter?

Boys will be boys

I think it does matter. Here’s why: Whether intentionally or not, American Girl is forcing political correctness and a discussion of gender stereotypes onto an age and gender that doesn’t want it. When boys are young, especially boys who don’t struggle with dysphoria at all — which is a very real issue — they seem generally and naturally drawn to what adults would call “boy” toys.

As a mother of two boys and two girls we have plenty of boy, girl, and gender-neutral toys.

Still, when you throw it all into the playroom and let the heathens at it, one of my girls gravitates towards really girly things like dolls; the other plays with both (but mostly her older brother).

The two boys, however, embrace their masculinity like Peter Pan embraced Neverland. Since they could talk they have gravitated towards boy toys, have made boy sounds for everything, and have chewed things into the shapes of boy toys. Once at a science museum, my son and his friends were playing in the “colonial” frontier area which had a cabin, fake firewood, and fake food. Ten minutes later they were playing Army and were shooting each other with fake bananas. Bananas.

This is actually okay. For a mother of boys, “boys will be boys” isn’t just a slogan we utter when they get toothpaste all over the counter or create a fort in the backyard out of branches and duct tape. It is — at least for me — a way to celebrate masculinity. Boys generally will be boys and why shouldn’t they be? Why shouldn’t we as a society, instead of commanding they give up their innate boy traits and be just like girls who want to play with dolls, celebrate this instead of criticizing? The joy of a boy lay in his grubby hands and loud nature and ferocious, curious spirit. From those things we see traits that carry into manhood: Men who love to fix, build, problem-solve, create, command, lead, and protect. What would we be as a society without these?

Do boys grow up to be violent criminals more than girls? Yes. Is it because they turn bananas into guns at the science museum? I doubt it. Should I encourage them to play with dolls more? I could certainly try, but when I showed my nine year-old son the picture of Logan he scrunched up his freckled face and said, “Why would they do that?”

As a mom, I’ve actually found all my children play best with toys that are basically gender-neutral and can be played with repeatedly in a myriad of ways: Think Legos versus a Nerf gun. On the other hand, Legos, blocks, Moon Sand, Play-Doh, Lincoln Logs, board games and Dominoes have all been well-loved.

Research even supports this concept. These professors found, through various studies and watching children play with very gender-specific toys, gender-neutral toys, and anything in between that range, “[S]trongly gender-typed toys appear to be less supportive of optimal development than neutral or moderately gender-typed toys.” This 2015 op-ed in the New York Times made a whole case for gender-neutral toys saying gender-specific toys can actually “negatively impact a child’s development.”

Get your facts straight

So if that’s the case, why the sudden push for an American Boy doll for girls and boys alike? Sure, more money, more variety — it’ll make some people very happy. But it looks like progressive marketers and liberal media needs to have a pow-wow to really figure out: Does gender matter? If not does it only matter when it’s traditional — girls are doing girl stuff and boys are doing boy stuff — then there’s a monumental effort to criticize and flip it around to be more progressive?

It’s bogus for the commercial industry at-large to succumb to reversing stereotypes especially on a segment of society — young boys — who are completely comfortable being male and whom we should encourage thusly: Make bananas into guns, not boys into dolls. It plays into male psyche to provide and protect as it plays into the female psyche (in general) to nurture and comfort. Of course girls can be soldiers and guys can cook in the kitchen, but this isn’t really about that is it? Deep down, everybody knows many people fall very naturally into gender-specific roles and are just fine with it, celebrating when it’s convenient, decrying it when it’s a matter of political correctness. That needs to stop. (For more from the author of “My Son’s Response to American Girl’s New Doll Tells Me Everything I Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When it comes to taking on the LGBT lobby’s cultural cronies, officials in Texas are setting a new standard for conservative lawmakers, and going on the offensive against recent threats from the National Football League.

It all began when legislators introduced SB 6, a state-level privacy bill that would dare violate and blaspheme the LGBT lobby’s latest commandment: “Thou shalt not leave bathroom safety policies up to private institutions.”

Of course, the anticipated dragoons of artists and musicians deployed in an initial strike against the bill, as they have done countless other. But now the professional sports have gotten involved.

The most pertinent development in the brewing Lonestar Bathroom Battle™ came when the NFL issued a statement saying that, if passed, the legislation might interfere with future Super Bowls in the state.

“The NFL is walking on thin ice right here,” Republican Governor Greg Abbott told Glenn Beck Tuesday. “The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.”

A day later, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick doubled down, going after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s alleged hypocrisy on the issue:

“The NFL embraces inclusiveness,” an NFL spokesman told the Houston Chronicle in an email last week. “We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events, and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.”

Of course, the NFL, its teams, its owners, and its vendors can embrace whatever bathroom policy they want at games and events. The Texas bill – just like its maligned and misrepresented sister in North Carolina – is written to give private institutions the freedom to do so. If the NFL wants to enforce that everyone in the stands be assigned a different set of restrooms every quarter and institute a free-for-all co-ed scenario during halftime at every Cowboys game, the state would have no recourse under the provisions of SB 6.

These, however, are facts — “stubborn things” that should never be allowed to get in the way of a tear-jerking leftist narrative. Meanwhile, rather than wait out the inevitable storm, Patrick and Abbott are taking the fight to the cultural cronies themselves – disarming the playbook and pointing out the Left’s absurdity before it happens in full form. (For more from the author of “Texas Lawmakers Are Taking the Longhorns to the Bathroom Crybullies, and It’s Freakin’ AWESOME” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Global PEDOPHILIA Rings Exposed and Arrested — Where’s U.S. Press Coverage?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

“Pizzagate” is a familiar pop culture buzzword and everyone probably knows what it means or that it is affiliated with sexual abuse of children, especially in Washington, DC. However, there has been breaking news about world-wide arrests regarding pedophilia, but the U.S. media and television—other than CBS journalist Ben Swann in Atlanta, Georgia—have not investigated the problem to expose it and its perpetrators.

In Canada, a recent Project Spade press conference took place, which you can listen to here.

The U.S. Postal Service was represented at the Toronto press conference. How come the U.S. press has not covered that international event? Some children as young as five years old were involved. What a scourge upon society! By the way, have you heard the rumblings that some want to have pedophilia made legal? What is wrong with society?

How high up the professional ladders do these sick activities go; who will be exposed and how soon—barring none at any level of involvement, including the swamp in Washington, DC, which has been alleged to be crawling with pedophiles in all levels of government. Why isn’t the U.S. media investigating and reporting on it? What say you Washington Post?

Here’s coverage of a California pedophilia bust, which ought to make people wonder why it wasn’t national front page news plus a short clip on the DA’s press conference on sexual exploitation arrests across southern California.

Lastly, a huge pedophilia-sex operation was exposed in Norway. Did you hear anything about that on the nightly news? Here’s some of the information that surfaced:

Norwegian police have filed charges against 51 people suspected of various kinds of abuse of children including babies. Even the future abuse of yet unborn children was discussed in the country’s largest ever pedophile ring. [CJF emphasis added]

Truly one of the sick, sad and pathetic parts about pedophilia is those who are educated and should know better.

Several perpetrators were obviously familiar to their immediate environments. Family and friends reacted with shock when they were arrested. Perpetrators come from all walks of life, many of them have a higher education, possess high IT skills and have used encryption to hide their tracks,” prosecutor Janne Ringset Heltne told NRK. [CJF emphasis added]

Abuse of children at any level, in any form/format, including vaccines neurotoxic ingredients, has to stop, and all responsible government agencies must be made to deal with it whether they like it or not, or want to or not, since, apparently, many at the top may be involved. (For more from the author of “Global PEDOPHILIA Rings Exposed and Arrested — Where’s U.S. Press Coverage?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In an effort to help the Trump White House and “feckless” Republicans running for cover from the post-Flynn fallout, Mark Levin asked the real question about the recent intelligence leaks that led to National Secuirty Advisor Michael Flynn’s departure: “What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?”

“Where did the orders come from to intercept these phone calls? To record these phone calls?” Levin asked on his radio show Wednesday night. And, most-importantly, “Who knew about it?”

Listen:

“It is not that simple to get authorization from the FISA court … particularly when it comes to private citizens,” Levin said, recalling his experience in Reagan’s Department of Justice. “So the question is how many of these phone calls were intercepted and recorded by the Obama administration.”

“This, ladies and gentlemen, is the real scandal,” Levin concluded. “Because even the NYT has to admit that there is no evidence” Michael Flynn broke the law by communicating with his Russian counterparts.

It’s also important to know, Levin added, how many other members of the Trump team had their communications intercepted by the Obama administration.

“I don’t believe this intercept was a one-off,” he said. “I suspect there have been a lot more intercepts and I don’t believe that he is the only one.” (For more from the author of “Levin Unpacks the Real Scandal Behind Michael Flynn’s Resignation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory. (Read more from “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UNBELIEVABLE: Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People, Press Totally Silent

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As Americans who recognize the equal place under God of every person, and under law of every citizen, whatever his background, would we find it acceptable if conservative organizations started cooperating with white nationalists?

What if Republicans organized protests against left-wing campus speakers employing violent gangs of whites who wanted to stop non-whites from having children, because they regard other races as a plague on our species?

What if a conservative newspaper employed a spokesman for a radical white racist group, and he wrote on social media that all black men are a threat to public safety? Or if the co-founder of that organization described non-whites as genetically defective, the result of destructive mutations? Imagine if groups with racist agendas like these had instigated riots after the election of President Obama.

No one would need to wait for the social justice left to be outraged at such uncivil, hateful, and destructive abuse of free speech. People from all across the spectrum, including every Christian conservative leader in the country, would step forth to distance themselves from these ideas, and demand that the relevant GOP officials and conservative leaders who’d cooperated with those racists be removed from their positions.

So why are we hearing crickets from Democratic and liberal leaders about the thuggish tactics of the “Antifa” (supposedly anti-fascist) demonstrators who rioted at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolis tried to speak by invitation? Since these groups’ attack on Constitutionally protected free political speech at a college campus doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the high-minded left, maybe this news will: The “Antifa” group in Seattle appears to have posted fliers warning white people not to have children:

Just an isolated incident that might have been a fake? Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so. But there’s evidence that such attitudes go far beyond Seattle. The Toronto Sun reports that Yusra Khogali, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, revealed the same racist agenda, aimed at eliminating white people:

Yusra-Tweet

Even professional journalists feel emboldened to engage in such dangerous talk. Shaun King, a highly visible activist in Black Lives Matter who works for a mainstream liberal tabloid, The New York Daily News, responded to the appalling news that former Penn State athletic coach Jerry Sandusky’s son has been arrested for sexually abusing children (as his father did) with this uplifting reflection:

We have already seen that colleges are removing writers like Shakespeare and Milton from reading lists, solely because they are white men. MTV published a public service announcement in which non-whites and women told white men how to rectify their misbehavior in public. (You might enjoy The Stream‘s tongue-in-cheek response: “My 2017 Resolutions for Minorities and Women.)

But really, there’s nothing funny at all about this kind of divisive rhetoric, or the dangerous undercurrents of group hatred that underlie it. What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg, the statements and actions of those who feel bold and secure enough to vent their secret feelings in public. Such open expression of ethnic hatred, unrebuked and virtually unanswered, is profoundly destructive. It’s the kind of talk we saw in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, as the prelude to organized violence.

The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to remove the question of race from issues of citizenship, to exorcise at last the demon of tribalism from American public life. Those claiming to speak on behalf of minority groups, who lapse into language that would have made racists like Margaret Sanger proud, are betraying everything that Civil Rights demonstrators worked, fought, and died for. (For more from the author of “Far Left Trump Haters Calling for Genocide Against White People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.