Trump Unveils New $399 ‘Never Surrender’ Footwear At ‘Sneaker Con’ Following $355 Million Ruling Against Him

Former President Donald Trump made a surprising appearance Saturday at Philadelphia’s “Sneaker Con,” a renowned sneaker convention, to engage with young voters and launch a line of Trump-branded sneakers, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

The event was held at the Philadelphia Convention Center. The launch of Trump’s footwear was marked by a mix of reactions, with Trump facing both cheers and boos as he unveiled the Never Surrender High-Tops. “There’s a lot of emotion in this room,” Trump said.

Priced at $399, the gold high-tops were adorned with an American flag motif. The launch also included the promotion of Trump-branded “Victory47” fragrances that retail at $99, according to the AP. The sales of these sneakers and fragrances are facilitated through a website which explicitly denies any affiliation with Trump’s campaign efforts. Trump campaign officials, however, have been actively promoting the event through various online channels, according to the outlet.

The sneaker event attracted a polarized audience, with Trump’s detractors and supporters voicing their stances through boos and chants, respectively, according to the outlet. Social media users and influencers also chimed in.

Others expressed support; one user uploaded a video of fans chanting, “We Want Trump” at the event.

This marketing venture unfolds against a backdrop of legal and financial challenges for Trump, the AP reported. A New York judge recently imposed a $355 million penalty on Trump, citing years of deceit surrounding his wealth to secure favorable deals from banks and insurers. This financial setback is compounded by an $83.3 million judgment Jan. 26, 2024 in favor of E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault and defamation.

One pair of the autographed shoes reportedly fetched $9,000 during an auction.





‘Completely Out Of Proportion’: Wisenberg Rips ‘Extremely Dubious’ Trump Fraud Ruling

Former CBS CEO Les Moonves Agrees To Pay $11K Fine For Allegedly Trying To Influence Former LAPD Captain

‘Donald Trump Is Not Adolf Hitler’: Bill Maher Blasts Media For Overdramatizing 2024 Election


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

WATCH: How The U.S. Government Annihilated Free Speech, “The National Security State”

If you do nothing else, you must watch this interview with “Foundation For Freedom Online” director Mike Benz. Take it from someone who has been on the front lines of the war on free speech – as far back as the Danish cartoons in 2005 – this interview is seismic.

I am shook by it. But it all makes sense.

The colossal chaos is not chaotic at all – but by very deliberate design.

The Western defense and foreign policy establishment created, used, and then turned against the concept of free speech on the internet, during an interview with Tucker Carlson.

“Free speech on the internet was an instrument of statecraft almost from the privatization of the internet in 1991… Free speech was championed more than anybody by the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA cutout-NGO blob architecture as a way to support dissident groups around the world overthrow ‘authoritarian governments,’ as they were billed.”

“Essentially, internet free speech allowed insta-regime-change operations to be able to facilitate the foreign policy establishment’s State Department agenda,” Benz said. “Google is a great example of this, Google began as a DARPA grant by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were Stanford PhDs, and they got their funding as part of a joint CIA/NSA program to chart how ‘birds of a feather flock together’ online through search engine aggregation. And then one year later, they launched Google and became a military contractor quickly thereafter.”

“All of the internet free speech technology was initially created by our national security state. VPNs to hide your IP address, TOR and the dark web to be able to buy and sell goods anonymously, and encrypted chats. All these things were created as DARPA projects or joint CIA/NSA projects to be able to help intelligence-backed groups to overthrow governments that were causing problems to the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and Obama administration.”

“This plan worked magically from about 1991 to about 2014 when there began to be an about-face on internet freedom and its utility.”

“The highwater mark of the internet free speech movement was the Arab Spring in 2011-2012, when you had one by one all of the adversary governments of the Obama administration — Egypt, Tunisia — all began to be toppled in Facebook revolutions, Twitter revolutions. You had the State Department working very closely with the social media companies to be able to keep social media online during the periods.”

“In 2014, after the coup in Ukraine, there was an unexpected countercoup where Crimea and the Donbas broke away with essentially a military backstop that NATO was highly unprepared for at the time,” he said. “They had one last hail-mary chance that was the Crimea annexation vote in 2014, and when the hearts and minds of the people of Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, that was the last straw for the concept of free speech on the internet in the eyes of NATO. They saw the fundamental nature of war change at that moment.”

“NATO, at that point, declared something called the Gerasimov Doctrine… that the fundamental nature of war has changed, you don’t need to win military skirmishes to take over Central and Eastern Europe, all you need to do is control the media and social media ecosystem because that is what controls elections. And if you get the right administration into power, they control the military. So it is infinitely cheaper than a military war to simply conduct an organized political influence operation over social media and legacy media,” he continued.

“An industry had been created spanning the Pentagon, the British MOD, and Brussels into an organized political warfare outfit infrastructure created initially in Germany and Central and Eastern Europe to create ‘psychological buffer zones,’” he said. “To create the ability to have the military work with social media companies to censor Russian propaganda or to censor domestic right-wing populist groups in Europe who were rising in political power at the time because of the migrant crisis.”

“When Brexit happened in 2016, it was this crisis moment where suddenly they didn’t just have to worry about Central and Eastern Europe anymore, it was coming West — this idea of Russian control over hearts and minds.”

“Brexit was June 2016, the very next month at the Warsaw Conference, NATO formally amended it charter to expressly commit to hybrid warfare as this new NATO capacity. They went from basically 70 years of tanks to this explicit capacity building for censoring tweets that they deemed to be Russian proxies. And again, it is not just Russian propaganda. These are not Brexit groups, groups like Matteo Salvini in Italy, Greece, Germany, or Spain with the Vox Party.”

“At the time, NATO was publishing white papers saying the biggest threat NATO faces is not an invasion from Russia, it is losing domestic elections across Europe to all these right-wing populist groups, who because they were mostly working-class movements, were campaigning for cheap Russian energy at a time when the U.S. was pressuring this energy diversification policy. They made the argument after Brexit that the entire ‘rules-based international order’ would collapse unless the military took control over the media.”

“So NATO would be killed without a single bullet being fired, and without NATO there i no enforcement arm for the International Monetary Fund or World Bank, so now the financial stakeholders who depend on the battering ram of the national security state would basically be helpless against governments around the world.”

“From their perspective, if the military did not begin to censor the internet, all of the democratic institutions and infrastructure that gave rise to the modern world after World War Two would collapse.”

Kanekoa explains here:

THREAD: Mike Benz speaks with Tucker Carlson about the Department of Homeland Security-backed censorship consortium that censored millions of social media posts during the 2020 election and COVID-19.

The 2020 election and COVID-19 were the two most censored events in American history.

Mike Benz outlines how the government established a permanent domestic censorship office under the pretext of countering misinformation. and disinformation.

Initially considered for the State Department, CIA, and FBI, the censorship office found its home in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), utilizing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

DHS classified elections as critical infrastructure and online misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation as cybersecurity attacks.

The original goal of countering Russian disinformation shifted to suppressing domestic dissent and the populist movement led by President Trump.

Examining the 2020 election’s censorship strategy, Benz details CISA’s collaboration with Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council through the Election Integrity Partnership.

The censorship consortium employed coercive tactics, leveraging its deputized status to pressure tech companies through government threats.

A critical element was the seven-month pre-censorship campaign before the 2020 election. The consortium compelled social media companies to introduce a new “delegitimization” violation, targeting content challenging faith in mail-in ballots, early voting, and ballot drop boxes.

The overarching goal was narrative control, preventing doubts about a Biden victory and avoiding a crisis akin to the 2000 Bush-Gore election.

Anticipating Biden’s victory hinging on mail-in ballots, early voting, and ballot dropboxes, the consortium precensored any questioning of the election’s legitimacy, particularly if Trump appeared to win on election night but later lost due to late-arriving mail-in ballots.

The so-called “Red Mirage-Blue Shift event.”



EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Biden Protects ‘Palestinian’ Illegal Aliens From Deportation

Terrorists welcome.

Is there a major wave of terror in the Middle East? Are Hamas supporters marching through the streets of American cities while calling for Jihad? Sure we could deport them, but instead Biden is protecting them from deportation.

Biden granted Palestinians in the United States temporary protection from deportation amid the ongoing conflict overseas, according to a new memo Wednesday.

The move comes as the White House faces immense pressure from the Arab-American community over the situation in Gaza.

Late last year, Democrats urged Biden to extend temporary protections to Palestinians in the US, arguing that those already in the country “should not be forced to return to the Palestinian territories, consistent with President Biden’s stated commitment to protecting Palestinian civilians.”

The president has discretion to authorize what’s known as deferred enforced departure, which protects those covered from removal from the US for a period of time. Those who qualify are also eligible for work permits.

This is a green light encouraging Arab Muslim settlers from the region to come to America. While the temporary protection from deportation is supposed to kick in only for those enemy aliens currently here, anyone who makes it across the border without being spotted can show up and claim that he was here all along.

The usual pro-terror lobby and its Democrat elected officials had been demanding TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for Arab Muslims operating in Judea and Samaria, Biden instead granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED).

That’s the good news here. DED is arguably illegal unlike TPS. It’s really similar to Obama’s DREAM amnesty. But the legal provisions for it are weaker and so accordingly DED recipients have a weaker case, but the pernicious thing about TPS is that it gets extended virtually endlessly. Some countries have had TPS status for decades making for an illegal alien population that just moved here and will never leave.

The bad news about DED is that it can also be extended. While the DED status for the Pallies currently is at 18 months, that can be renewed and there will be pressure to renew it. For example, Liberia’s status has been under DED since 2007. At some point DED may transition to TPS and we’ll have an even larger domestic terrorist population.




EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

MUST WATCH INTERVIEW: With Mr. Ryan Hartwig, formerly of Facebook

Ryan Hartwig is an American unsung hero. For two years Mr. Hartwig was responsible for censoring conservative messages and especially anything Trump from Facebook, Instagram and social media. As you will learn, Ryan did not grasp the subtle messages and internal memos he received with sometimes nebulous instructions as to the screening he was being ordered to impose. Steadily, however, Ryan saw the diabolical scheme unfolding which began a whole new level of heaviness for him to contend with – namely, to continue or stop.

Ryan Hartwig is a man of integrity who seriously began struggling with the demands of his employer, versus what his conscience was beginning to stir.  “Newsworthy exceptions” is one term his employer used in pushing the censoring that was steadily becoming dominant.  As you listen to the process Mr. Hartwig underwent, you will learn he honored ARIZONA TODay  by unpacking a lot of information that hereto before has not seen the light of day.

His book: Behind The Mask Of Facebook – A Whistleblowers Shocking Story of Big Tech Bias and Censorship is incredible reading filled with previously unknown facts as to the full-blown war to censor Christian and Conservative, especially MAGA information.  I look forward to his return.

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved.

Dem Senate Candidate And Gun Control Advocate Has Shelled Out Thousands For His Own Private Security

Democratic Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, who is challenging Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024, has given thousands to a private armed security company despite his history of supporting gun control.

The Senate candidate is a vocal critic of the Second Amendment, supports firearm regulation and has backed anti-police measures in Congress. Allred’s campaigns have disbursed thousands to Eagle Protective Group, which offers private armed security, as well as hundreds more to individuals who appear to be police officers for security, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.

In 2023, Allred’s Senate campaign doled out over $2,500 to the private armed security company, according to FEC filings. Another $900 was given to Daniel Ramirez, Jorge Cardenas and Beatriz Diaz, all of whom appear to be deputy constables for the county of El Paso.

Allred’s congressional campaign has given $14,496.89 to Eagle Protective Group since its 2018 launch, FEC data shows. The campaign also paid a combined $2,040 for “event security” to two other individuals.

Despite his payments to the private armed security company and to individuals who appear to be police officers, Allred has voiced opposition to the right to bear arms, voted for various forms of gun control and against provisions to support law enforcement.

In 2018, the Democrat said it would’ve been “better” if the Second Amendment “hadn’t been written.” Allred has also been critical of the National Rifle Association (NRA), to which over 400,000 Texas belong.

Allred supported the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order of 2021, a red flag gun law, and voted for the failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. The congressman opposed a provision that would’ve made it easier for victims of domestic violence to purchase a firearm.

The congressman also opposed a 2020 measure that would’ve required Washington, D.C., to provide “adequate and continued funding” to the police as the city saw a surge in crime. The congressman voted against condemning the Defund the Police movement in 2021.

Cruz is one of the most vulnerable incumbent Senate Republicans running for reelection in 2024. His seat is currently characterized by The Cook Political Report as in the “Lean R” column along with Florida Sen. Rick Scott.

A National Public Affairs survey released on Feb. 9 found Cruz and Allred tied at 44%, with 12% of Texas general election voters remaining undecided. Other polling for a potential matchup indicates Cruz is largely favored to retain the seat, with the Republican leading Allred anywhere from one to 16 points, according to FiveThirtyEight’s compilation.

Texas went for former President Donald Trump in both 2020 and 2016. The former president is likely to be on the ballot in November against President Joe Biden, who the RealClearPolitics average shows Trump is beating by nearly nine points in the Lone Star State.

Allred’s campaign did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.





Democrat Running Against Ted Cruz Bankrolled By Donors Who Want To Defund The Police

Joe Manchin Reveals Whether He Will Run For President

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

A Proposed Federal Election Integrity Law

This is WAY overdue!

I’m well aware that states have the primary authority regarding election matters, but there are certain apolitical, across-the-board regulations that the Federal Government should — MUST — enact.

The gist of what I’m proposing for a new Federal law is that when reporting Federal election results, all states must fully adhere to standard accounting practices.

The new law can adopt something like the 10 Principles of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices), after tweaking them to be more election-specific.

It says there: “GAAP compliance makes the financial reporting process transparent and standardizes assumptions, terminology, definitions, and methods. External parties can easily compare financial statements issued by GAAP-compliant entities and safely assume consistency, which allows for quick and accurate cross-company comparisons.

In other words, such a Federal law would: “make the federal election reporting process transparent and standardize assumptions, terminology, definitions, and methods. External parties can easily compare election reports issued by different states, and safely assume consistency, which allows for quick and accurate state-to-state comparisons.

That we have fifty sets of election reporting rules, and zero consistency regarding such profoundly significant matters like transparency, is mind-boggling.

I would propose that the following be incorporated into the Federal Election Transparency Act of 2024 (ETA), for every state:

  1. Reporting of Federal ballot results must fully comply with the ETA.
  2. Each report of Federal ballots must be trackable by a unique UTC code.
  3. All positive Federal ballot reports must consist of just positive numbers from one or more precincts. When more than one precinct is included, the results from each individual precinct will be available for inspection.
  4. All negative Federal ballot reports must consist of just negative numbers from one or more precincts. When more than one precinct is included, the results from each precinct will be available for inspection. For every precinct reporting a negative, there should be a full explanation as to the reason for a negative ballot report, including the specifics of exactly what was corrected and why.
  5. Under no circumstances can positive and negative ballot tallies be combined into one UTC code.
  6. Complete ETA-compliant ballot results for all federal elections must be formally presented to the state legislators at least one (1) week prior to the statutory time for state legislators to certify federal ballot results.
  7. All ETA records must be kept for at least two (2) years.

What Positive and Negative votes are explained here.

I had originally proposed that this bill be made part of the ACE Act, but upon further reflection, this matter warrants its own law. Further, there is nothing “Republican” about wanting standard accounting practices to be used by every state for their election reporting, so this bill should have bipartisan support.

One might ask: why is this needed? 

The short answer is that two reports from my team indicate that in 2020, over SEVEN MILLION suspect ballots fell into the category of having little or no transparency (3± million positives and 4± million negatives)! Further, since there is currently no prohibition against state reports combining positive and negative numbers, the actual amounts are likely much higher.

The bottom line is where we compare the data in Table 1 of this Report, plus the data from Page 2 of another Report, to the reported Biden lead for some key swing states. We’ve also listed the Electoral College votes for each state (270 needed to win).

Click here to view Some Swing State 2020 Presidential Margins vs Ballot Spikes & Negative Ballots infographic.

Note 1: The Electoral College votes were: Biden = 306 and Trump = 232.

Note 2: If any three of the above states’ Electoral College votes are changed to reflect the public’s apparent wishes, the new totals would put Trump in a tie, or over 270.

Note 3: Sources = Ballot DataElectoral VotesBallot SpikesNegative Ballots.

It should be extremely clear that the Positive Spikes and Negative Ballots are not trivial numbers. For example, in every case for these key swing states, both the 2020 Positive Spikes and the Negative Ballots, far exceed the Presidential vote differential. Yet there is little or no transparency for either of these!

In other words, it is imperative for the Federal Government to require every state to adhere to standard accounting practices in reporting (and keeping track of) federal election ballot results.

Copyright 2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Biden’s FBI and Communist Nicaragua’s Security Forces Oppress Religious Freedoms

Biden’s FBI under the investigative umbrella term domestic terrorism, listed so-called certain “radical-traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) as violent extremists and proposed an avenue for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of “threat mitigation.”

The same problem is prevalent in Communist Nicaragua where the situation for the Catholic clergy and its faithful followers in Communist Nicaragua is growing with maximum oppression in 2024, according to exiled priests and formerly imprisoned priests in the Central American country.

Communist dictator President Daniel Ortega is spying on Catholic Churches and evangelists and installed dictator Joe Biden’s weaponized FBI is acting much like the Communist government of Nicaragua is silencing criticism of the government by Catholics and Christians.

“Life in Nicaragua is hell, because surveillance is brutal. You can’t say anything that’s against the government,” said an exiled Nicaraguan Catholic priest.

The same oppression was being initiated by the FBI in the United States when parents where subjugated to FBI surveillance for protesting at School Board meetings.

Catholics and other religious groups were also prosecuted for holding religious ceremonies and singing during the unconstitutional COVID restrictions and during the Obama Marxist reign of terror Catholic nuns were forced to provide abortions and dispense abortion pills at Catholic charity hospitals.

The nuns sued Obama in Federal Court and won protecting the lives of the pre born children and the nuns -1st Amendment religious rights.

Much like the Atheist Communist democrats in our congress who want the citizens of the United States to bow to them and not God.

Nicaragua’s Communist congress, controlled by Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front, has closed over 3,000 privately run charities including Mother Teresa’s creating a major gap in social services which is trying to force Nicaraguans to depend on the communist dictatorship, not on independent church groups.

Much like the fraud Catholics in the US government like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi the communists in the U.S. government and the communists in the Nicaraguan government both want to completely eliminate the Catholic faith, and all religious groups because they haven’t succeeded in making the church kneel before them.

But like all communist dictatorships they will fail.

Copyright 2024. Geoff Ross. All rights reserved.


MUST WATCH: Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones Describe the ‘State of the Union’ under Biden

Butler County, Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones recently returned from the National Sheriff’s Association in Washington D.C. He states the both Biden and Harris refused to meet with the Sheriffs.

He spoke directly to the public on what he learned, including threats to the U.S. and “need-to-know information.”

Xi’s Pearl Harbor: It’s Not Just the Plan; the CCP is Acting on It


With the benefit of hindsight, experts debate whether we had foreknowledge about the deadly Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks on our homeland. There can be no such dispute about those being readied by the Chinese Communist Party.

For example, FBI Director Chris Wray warned last week that the CCP is planning to “wreak havoc” here with cyberwarfare. The same day, the Justice Department announced it had just thwarted such an attack. And a new multinational report says Chinese government hackers have been “hiding” inside our critical infrastructure for five years.

Last month, ten former senior FBI executives wrote that Chinese and other military-age men invading our border threaten catastrophe. That could be especially the case if those invaders marry up with the deadly pathogens that could abound in any other CCP biolabs here like the one discovered in Reedley, California over a year ago.

This CPDC webinar maps out Xi Jinping’s incipient Pearl Harbor – and what we must do about it now. Every American should see it.


  • Frank Gaffney, Founder and Executive Chairman, Center for Security Policy; Vice Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger: China, co-author, “The Indictment: Prosecuting the Chinese Communist Party and Friends for Crimes Against America, China, and the World”


  • Charles “Sam” Faddis,  Former Career Clandestine Service Officer, Central Intelligence Agency; Army veteran; author, “The Decline and Fall of the CIA”; editor, AndMagazine at Substack  – Topic:  “The Chinese Communist Party: Inside our Wire”
  • Gordon Chang,  Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute; columnist, Newsweek; author, “The Coming Collapse of China” – Topic: “Xi’s Determination to Remove the Only Real Impediment to His Global Ambitions: The USA”
  • Lieutenant Colonel Tommy Waller, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), Former Commanding Officer, the Marines’ only Reserve Force Reconnaissance Company; President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy (CSP, 2023, CSP Director of Infrastructure Security until 2021  — Topic: “How is the CCP inside our Grid and Other Infrastructure?”
  • John Guandolo,  Founder, Understanding the Threat; combat veteran U.S. Marine Force Reconnaissance Officer; Former FBI Special Agent and Investigator, Counterterrorism Division  – Topic: “The FBI is Warning of Coming “Havoc” and “Catastrophe,” But What is It Doing to Prevent Such Threats?”
  • Brian T. Kennedy, Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger: China; President, American Strategy Group; former President, Claremont Institute; author, “Communist China’s War Inside America”  – Topic: “The Danger is Present:What Must America Do NOW?”



Moving EB’s comment here: Webinar | Xi’s Pearl Harbor: It’s Not Just the Plan; the CCP is Acting on It
Committee On The Present Danger China – Published On: February 7, 2024
Video + Full Transcript


00:51:29 – John Guandolo recommends The Citizen’s Guide that Steve Coughlin has on his Unconstrained Analytics website.

Insurrection and Violence: A Citizen’s Guide

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by  is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Biden Regime Pressured Amazon to Suppress Books It Didn’t Like

“Is the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books”?

What’s the difference between books and any other kind of speech? Books have an emotional quality to them.

Delete someone’s post and it can be called enforcing community guidelines, but burn a book and suddenly you’re a Nazi. Speech is still speech, but the idea of going after books in particular summons all sorts of historical references from the Muslim destruction of the Library of Alexandria to book-burning rallies in Berlin.

It’s why the Left was able to mobilize so much opposition by accusing school boards and parents of trying to “ban books” by keeping pornographic books out of schools.

Still every prior form of political censorship was defended by leftists, why not go after books on Amazon?

Tyler O’Neil at the Daily Signal reports that the Biden team saw no apparent difference between targeting books on Amazon and any other forms of social media censorship that it was pushing.

Andrew Slavitt, then a senior adviser on Biden’s COVID-19 response team, had previously asked, “Who can we talk to about the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation [on] Amazon?”

And by “talk to”, they meant get rid of.

In one email produced through a House Judiciary Committee subopena had an Amazon employee asking, “Is the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books”?

After the March 9 meeting at the White House, Amazon staff strategized how to respond to a negative story that Buzzfeed would publish discussing “COVID-19 related books for sale on Amazon.” Staff noted that they were “feeling pressure from the White House Taskforce” on the issue of books “related to vaccine misinformation.”

The resulting compromise instead settled for shadowbanning the books.

In this discussion, a staffer noted that “we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you, [redacted], and [redacted] on 3/19.”

That March 9 decision to change Amazon’s algorithm to avoid promoting “anti-vax books” appears to have happened after the meeting with White House staff.

The media will predictably support this or ignore it: thus crossing another line. And at some point we’ll run out of lines. Liberals used to love Heinrich Heine’s line, “where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.” There’s some truth to it. At least insofar as the sorts of regimes that burned people tended to have also burnt books beforehand.

The pattern here is similar to what we saw before with the #TwitterFiles. While externally Dot Coms defend censorship, internally we’ve seen a good deal of discomfort from top execs with what they’re being asked to do.

That discomfort is key. A judicial decision banning the government from pushing companies to censor materials was protested on the grounds that the government was persuading, not ordering. Liberals pretended that there was such a distinction. But the more of these cases are aired, the more that distinction collapses.

Justice Clarence Thomas had warned that government agencies pressuring social media companies to censor might not be considered “private action.” And without that, it’s just government censorship.



UNRWA supplied electricity to Hamas tunnel under UN Gaza headquarters

No, Jenny Leong, There is No ‘Occupation’ of Gaza

Jenny Leong and ‘The Jewish Lobby That Uses its Tentacles to Influence Power’

‘We Will Have To Do Things for Saudi Arabia That Will Be Very Unpopular in This Country’: Biden Aide

Biden Sends Delegation to Meet With Hamas Supporter

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Thousands of Illegals Quietly Put on Welfare Rolls By NY Democrat Governor Hochul

And that is how the Democrat party thanks its lower-income, below poverty level constituents, not to mention all the jobs these illegal aliens will take from entry level, minimum wage jobs.

Thousands of migrants in NY quietly collecting cash assistance through Hochul rule change

By Rich Calder, NY Post, February 10, 2024,:

The Hochul administration is quietly using taxpayer dollars to gift cash payments to thousands of migrants who don’t qualify for typical welfare assistance, The Post has learned.

The cash windfall was made possible by the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance modifying its “Safety Net Assistance” program’s eligibility rules in May to include non-citizens with pending applications for legal asylum status.

The announcement was made through an under-the-radar message the agency sent out to social services agencies across the state.

The OTDA declined to reveal how many migrants have received SNA checks, but estimates that 90% of New York’s current migrant population won’t see additional benefits under the rule change.

With more than 173,000 migrants coming to the Big Apple since spring 2022, if only 10% of migrants here are eligible for SNA payments, the number of recipients could exceed 17,000 in NYC alone.

66,000 migrants currently remain in the city’s care.

Continue reading.


RELATED ARTICLE: The Decline of the Democrats


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

More Lack of Critical Thinking Evidence?

The jury’s Mann v. Steyn conclusion.

As readers know, I recently posted a detailed discussion of the Mann v Steyn lawsuit, and asserted that ALL of our rights were being debated. The jury’s verdict was rendered yesterday — and it was disturbing.

I’m not an attorney, but the two fundamental issues appeared to be: 1) Does a person have the right to publicly express their opinion (right or wrong) about a national matter? and 2) Does a person have the right to publicly express an opinion that is based on reasonable scientific evidence, but differs from what is currently politically correct? Apparently no to both!

Put another way, can a public figure be awarded damages when their work product is publicly criticized (based on scientific evidence), but they are unable to show material damages directly related to such criticism? Apparently yes!

Since I’m not a lawyer, please read a good synopsis of this jarring jury verdict by a very competent attorney who was closely following this case. And when I say competent, I’m referring to the fact that he is not only legally knowledgeable, but he is very informed about the climate matter as well.

That the jury came to such conclusions could well be interpreted as yet another sign that our education system has been effectively hijacked by the Left, as we are producing citizens who not only lack critical thinking skills, but give unquestioned deference to authority — irrespective of any contrary evidence presented.

The hope for some semblance of sanity is that the judge in this case will overturn the jury’s verdict, based on the fact that it was in stark contrast to the evidence presented.

Some other good commentaries as of this writing:

Copyright 2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

The SPLC Seeks to Profit Off of Alleged Hate

Are parents who are concerned for their children’s education “haters”? Are they bigots? Do they deserve to be treated as “domestic terrorists”? The answer to all of these questions should be, “No.”

But lately, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a group that claims to be the last word in who are haters and hate groups in America, has now added Moms for Liberty to their infamous “map of hate.”

This means, according to the SPLC, that right up there—or really, right down there—with the skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan is this grassroots organization of mothers concerned about their children’s education.

The website of Moms for Liberty explains why they exist: “The organization’s mission is to organize, educate and empower parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.”

Tyler O’Neil of the Heritage Foundation wrote the book on the SPLC. It’s called Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I‘ve had the privilege to interview O’Neil about the infamous work of the SPLC. He told me, “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a morally bankrupt organization with upwards of $700 million endowment. And they make their money by demonizing people who disagree with them.”

Just last week, O’Neil wrote, “The SPLC, which has weaponized the program it used against the KKK in the 1980s to attack mainstream conservative and Christian organizations, in June added parental rights groups to its so-called hate map, among them Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, Purple for Parents, and Courage Is a Habit.”

This is scary. America is in the midst of a crisis of education, and a crying need for more parental involvement in their children’s education. But according to the SPLC, if they are parents with a conservative point of view, then they’re bigots.

For the American experiment in self-rule under God to work, said virtually every founding father, the people themselves have to be virtuous.

George Washington, whose birthday we celebrate soon, said famously, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

But today’s elites seem committed to promoting irreligion and immorality. And if you oppose any of these things, you might just find yourself labeled as a hater or a hate group.

That may seem preposterous, but my employer, Coral Ridge Ministries (also known as D. James Kennedy Ministries) has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC. And we can be found on their “hate and antigovernment groups” map. Why? Because we disagree with same-sex marriage. We sued them for libel, but they basically said they were practicing their First Amendment right of free speech. When they appear in the media, they appear as Arbiters of Hate. But when it came time to defend their hate designation in court, they meekly stated that it was simply a matter of opinion. Our appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court failed.

There was a time when the SPLC did some good work to try and curtail racism in America. But in the last few decades or so, they seem to spend all their considerable resources trying to vilify conservatives and Christians.

The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Tom Parker once told our viewers in a television interview that the SPLC is basically a gigantic fundraising machine: “They have been able to squirrel away overseas while they continued to purport to represent those in poverty and in need.”

Parker made an interesting suggestion when we were making a documentary on the SPLC. He said we should take our TV crew and go across town, to the other side of the tracks, and get some footage of some of those still experiencing Southern poverty that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t lift a finger to help. We followed up on the Chief Justice’s idea.

All of this makes one wonder: Who died and put the SPLC in charge of determining who hates and who does not?

Many of the groups that the SPLC now targets as alleged hate groups are perhaps being so labeled because they are effective in making a positive difference, like the Alliance Defending Freedom (which has won a number of significant cases at the Supreme Court), Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council, and a host of other conservative Christian groups that defend religious liberty and traditional marriage.

The SPLC sets themselves up as prophets. But judging by the endowment they’ve built up by scaring northeastern liberals who don’t know any Christians, it seems that perhaps they’re more driven by profits.

The words of the ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah come to mind. He said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

Copyright 2024.  All rights reserved.

4 Biblical Principles to Inform Immigration Policy

The ongoing crisis at the southern border remains a top concern for voters in the 2024 election and on Capitol Hill. Recent disagreements over the Senate’s border deal and the House impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas underscore the range of opinions — good, bad, and ugly — on securing the border and demonstrate how even likeminded legislators can disagree about the best approach.

God’s Word instructs Christians to be “transformed by the renewal of your mind.” In part, this means that a Christian’s thoughts about every issue should be shaped and informed by a biblical worldview. Christians will not necessarily agree on issues that call for the application of wisdom, or to which Scripture does not speak clearly. However, applying biblical principles can at least enable us to rule out patently unbiblical ideas and approach much closer to a prudent outcome.

Immigration policy is just such a wisdom issue. While the Bible has a lot to say on the subject, it doesn’t clearly define what is a “moral” immigration policy. However, it does provide clear principles that can help to inform our approach to immigration policy. In pursuit of biblical wisdom on immigration, here are four applicable biblical principles.

1. All people are made in the image of God.

Scripture teaches that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). Bearing God’s image endows every human being with inherent dignity, which cannot be taken away through economic hardship, social isolation, moral corruption, or anything else.

God himself applies this foundational truth as an argument against murder in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Where human justice fails, God himself will exact justice on those who wickedly destroy the precious life of a fellow image-bearer. He warned, “from his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man” (Genesis 9:5).

Due to the self-centered corruption of human nature, human justice most often fails in cases where the victim is vulnerable, whether through physical weakness, economic poverty, or social isolation. God most especially promises to look out for those who have no one else to look out for them. In the agricultural economy of ancient Israel, that included orphans, widows, and sojourners. Thus, we read that God not only “watches over” and “upholds” the vulnerable (Psalm 146:9), but also that “He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18).

In response to God’s concern for the vulnerable, the Mosaic covenant instructed Israel to care for them, but most of the applications were personal rather than corporate. The Mosaic law’s only government-oriented directive concerning sojourners, in particular, is, “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner” (Deuteronomy 24:17, see Deuteronomy 27:19). Of course, perverting justice is always wrong.

In lieu of a state-run welfare system, individual Israelites were instructed not to reap the gleanings of their grape and grain harvests, but “leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22, see Deuteronomy 24:19-21). It was assumed that sojourners would be welcomed into their homes (Leviticus 25:6, see Job 31:32), share in their feasts (Deuteronomy 16:14), and benefit from their tithes, “that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do” (Deuteronomy 14:29).

Again, these directives did not stipulate a national immigration policy, but rather instructed individual Israelites to treat individual immigrants who dwelt near them as human beings, ensuring that care was taken for their basic needs. While the details might look different in a different society, organized around a different type of economy, the underlying principle, rooted as it is in a recognition of human dignity as image-bearers, carries forward to our day more or less intact.

However, the Bible gives no indication how much of this principle applies to governments. Thus, likeminded Christians will likely disagree, for instance, on how much responsibility the U.S. government bears for caring for the humanitarian needs of migrants who appear at the southern border in the middle of a vast desert.

2. All people are sojourners.

God paired commands to “love the sojourner,” “not wrong a sojourner,” and “not oppress a sojourner” with a reminder to the Israelites that, “you were sojourners in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21, 23:9, Deuteronomy 10:19). The principle behind the argument appears to be this: you should have compassion on the sojourner because you know what it’s like to be one. Obviously, most of us have never been sojourners in Egypt, so there isn’t a direct correlation.

However, in a more general sense, we are all sojourners. Near the end of his life, King David confessed to God, “We are strangers before you and sojourners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding” (1 Chronicles 29:15). The span of our lives is brief, compared to eternity — so brief that an elderly David could say he was just passing through (something repeated in Psalms 39:12 and 119:19). The argument held true under the Mosaic law (Leviticus 25:23) and for both patriarchal (Hebrews 11:13-14) and new covenant (1 Peter 2:11) believers.

Admittedly, traveling through this life to eternity is not the same thing as leaving one’s homeland behind to live in another country. Many of us have an established family, home, church, job, community, and reputation; migrants crossing the border have none of those things (unless they brought their family with them).

But surely there are ways in which we can — or should be able to — sympathize with their plight. We, too, are vulnerable to death, disease, unemployment, crime, and injustice, despite our perceived security. So, the application of this principle is less direct, but that doesn’t mean it is no longer operative.

The application of this principle is so similar to the first I was tempted to combine them (but decided to keep them separate because they are based on distinct reasons). In fact, Moses combined them in Leviticus 19:33-34, “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Again, the command to not oppress a sojourner is primarily directed at individuals, as are the condemnation against the wicked who do oppress sojourners (see Psalm 94:6, Jeremiah 7:6, Ezekiel 22:7, Malachi 3:5). How much of it applies to government policy on a border thousands of miles away is a matter of wisdom.

3. Laws apply equally to all people.

A third biblical principle is that laws apply equally to all people — including sojourners. This is stated clearly in Leviticus 24:22, “You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” God is just, and justice involves treating like things alike and unlike things differently. The implication of this principle is, when it comes to applications of moral law, all human beings are alike, no matter where they come from.

The immediate context of this statement (Leviticus 24:10-23) concerned punishments for blasphemy, murder, destruction of property, and personal injury. The principle also appeared in prohibitions against sexual immorality (Leviticus 18:26), child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2), eating blood (Leviticus 17:11-15), and idolatry (Ezekiel 14:7-8). It appeared in the fourth commandment’s command to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10, Deuteronomy 5:14). It applied to due process rights for involuntary manslaughter (Numbers 35:15, Joshua 20:9), purification rituals (Numbers 19:10), and the curses and blessings of the covenant (Joshua 8:33).

America has different laws than ancient Israel, but there is no reason why the same general principle shouldn’t still hold true: laws should apply to all people, and no one should be exempt from the effects of the law.

Currently, U.S. law only allows people to enter the country with proper paperwork at legal points of entry, with an exception for those who can prove a legitimate claim for asylum. U.S. law further stipulates that those who enter the country illegally must be detained until the outcome of their case is determined. While all U.S. citizens and residents of some other countries can obtain the proper paperwork, the law puts restrictions on how many citizens of other countries may receive authorization to enter the United States.

Christians can have different opinions about whether current U.S. immigration law is just or unjust, prudent or imprudent, acceptable or in desperate need of reform. What they should be able to agree on is that, unless a law is flagrantly immoral, that law ought to be observed and enforced equally on all people until it is amended.

4. Government has a duty to protect.

The Bible teaches that the government has a duty to protect its people from those who would attack and harm them. A wicked ruler is “like a roaring lion or a charging bear,” tearing and devouring, consuming for his own benefit. A good ruler acts like a good shepherd, delivering his flock from the lion and bear (1 Samuel 17:34-35). If necessary, he even “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

This duty of protection is a function of all God-given authority, if used well, from a husband and father’s duty to protect his family from destitution, to a pastor’s duty to protect the church from false teachers, to an employer’s duty to protect the well-being of his employees.

The duty of protection is particularly applicable to temporal government, whose rulers “bear the sword” and protect in the most literal sense (Romans 13:4). When God established rulers over his people — first judges and then kings — protecting the people of Israel from foreign enemies was a major part of their job description.

That same duty to protect also applies to governments of modern nations. That is the whole purpose of militaries and police forces. That is also the purpose of patrolling the border and constructing barriers along it. Border Patrol does not exist to help foreigners enter the country; it exists to keep out foreigners who want to harm Americans.

Given the dangerous world we live in, it’s not difficult to imagine people who fall into this category. Cartels traffic deadly opioids across the border, not to mention human beings. Extremist terrorist organizations send agents to kill and injure Americans in mass casualty events. Agents of foreign governments cross into the country, to spy if not to do worse.


These biblical principles are just the tip of the iceberg. They barely begin to address questions like: is immigration good or bad? Does the government have an obligation to consider the hazards run by migrants before they even reach our border? How much assimilation is required?

However, I pray that they provide a starting point to help you, dear reader, inform your outlook on immigration policy with a biblical worldview, instead of just accepting the un-nuanced opinions peddled in the world. I pray that they help you engage others on the issue in a wise and loving way and leave room for differences of opinion on tertiary issues, in favor of unity on the main thing, the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

ELECTION RIGGING: Not just by the FBI, but the CIA had a hand in trying to throw the election for Clinton in 2020

Wouldn’t it be great if Canada had a few actual journalists who could look into the RCMP and military and maybe figure out if the same was done for Trudeau etc.?

Canada is much more controlled in most ways than the U.S. though.

WATCH: Obama CIA EXPOSED in bombshell report


RELATED VIDEO: No Prosecution For Biden? Then No Prosecution for Trump!

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Media Worried About Hamas Terrorists Who Died in Israeli Hostage Rescue

Two hostages were rescued from Hamas, but all the media cares about is protecting Hamas.

The media defies satire.

Palestinians in Rafah Describe ‘Night Full of Horror’ During Israeli Hostage Rescue – New York Times

Dozens reported dead in Rafah strikes as Israel rescues two hostages – Washington Post

Israeli military says it’s rescued 2 hostages during Rafah raid; Palestinian officials say dozens of Palestinians killed – CBS News

Israel frees two hostages in Rafah under cover of air strikes, Gaza health officials say 67 killed – Reuters

How bizarre is this coverage? Here’s what normal coverage of a hostage rescue looks like.

How Israeli commandos blasted their way into Rafah apartment to rescue hostages – The Telegraph

But the media has stopped pretending that its concerns are anything other than the lives of Hamas terrorists. Except that it refuses to actually say the words. Instead, in keeping with the same distorted framing we hear from the likes of AOC or Bernie Sanders, no distinction is made between Hamas and “Palestinians” or “Gazans.”

All of this has been passed along to the Biden administration. Here’s the CNN coverage of that.

The Biden administration is deeply concerned about an Israeli operation that rescued two hostages out of Rafah but may have also resulted in some one hundred Palestinians being killed as part of that operation, according to a senior administration official.

We’ve gone from dozens to 67 to a hundred. By next Wednesday, it’ll be a thousand.

For now, United States officials are still gathering information on details of the rescue operation, including how exactly the operation unfolded and how many civilians may have been killed, that official said. But such a high rate of Palestinian deaths would be deeply worrisome, according to the official, and comes as US President Joe Biden and US officials have been warning Israel about their preparation to make a ground incursion into Rafah.

High rate of what? Hamas claims 97 dead. Who were those 97? How many of them were Hamas?

Don’t ask the media which is not concerned with such questions or distinctions. All it does is repeat Hamas propaganda.

Two hostages were rescued from Hamas, but all the media cares about is protecting Hamas.



ICC prosecutor threatens Israel with action over strikes in Rafah

Israeli Casualties Have Significantly Increased In Order to Please Biden and Blinken

EU Supreme Court outlaws kosher slaughter, effectively declaring Judaism illegal in European Union

CNN worries that Muslim migrant gang rape in Italy will bolster ‘far right’

Sweden: Court orders man who burned Qur’an to be deported

Lockheed Martin to sell $23 billion worth of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey

Hamas is Obviously Lying About Number of Gazans Killed During Hostage Rescue

UK: Far-left ‘comedian’ throws Jewish audience members out of his show, leads chants of ‘Get the f**k out’


EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.