California Democrats Vote against Anti-Child Trafficking Bill, Then Change Course

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Last week, one Democrat in the California State Assembly made a rare public apology — not over a scandal, but over her position on a vote that had taken place the same week. Assembly member Liz Ortega had joined fellow Democrats just a few days earlier in blocking a bill aimed at cracking down on human trafficking of children. The move justifiably made national headlines and garnered widespread criticism. But it shouldn’t take a national controversy for Democrats to vote the right way on something as blatantly evil as the human trafficking of children.

Now, Assemblywoman Ortega says she “made a bad decision,” and in her public apology on Twitter, she wrote, “Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law.”

On July 11, the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety failed to pass SB-14. The only two Republicans on the committee voted in favor. Yet not a single one of the six Democrats on the committee, including Ortega, voted in favor of the bill, instead making the cowardly decision to abstain from voting at all. The bill had already passed unanimously in the California State Senate in May with bipartisan support.

SB-14 would make “human trafficking of a minor” a “serious felony” under Section 1192.7 of the state’s Penal Code. “Serious” felonies get harsher punishments under California law and are considered “strikes” under California’s “Three Strikes Law.” Eighty-nine nonprofits and organizations and 13 individuals registered their support for the bill (including multiple district attorney’s offices, police departments, and anti-trafficking groups), while only seven groups opposed it. The State of California Department of Justice’s own website states, “California is one of the largest sites of human trafficking in the United States.” Thus, a bill aimed at making the penalty for trafficking children harsher should be something that California Assembly members of both parties can see is necessary.

After originally declining to vote for the bill, Ortega told the Washington Free Beacon, “Sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives is not going to fix the harm moving forward. And that’s the part I’m struggling with. It’s a complex issue.” Ortega’s grave misunderstanding of the criminal justice system was covered over by her with a veneer of compassion. It ignores the fact that putting a trafficker behind bars for a significant amount of time is not only an act of justice for the crimes that were committed, but it also protects the children whom the trafficker might target next were he or she not behind bars.

At the California Assembly’s hearing for the bill last Tuesday, one survivor of trafficking, Odessa Perkins, called out the Democrats’ reluctance to inflict harsher penalties for child trafficking as continuing the “horrific cycle of abuse and depravity.” As a black survivor of trafficking in California, her testimony contradicted opponents of the bill who claimed the proposal would lead to lead to overcrowded jails or contribute to mass incarceration of black individuals, saying, “I was molested and raped repeatedly by black and white men and even some women. So, it does not matter the race. What matters is saving our children. Traffickers are getting out of jail, parole, and reoffending …” Progressives who are soft on crime may try to use their tired and routine talking points, but this is simply not a racial issue, an economic issue, or even a partisan issue — it’s about protecting vulnerable children.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican State Senator Shannon Grove, expressed her shock and frustration that SB-14 was blocked, saying, “I am profoundly disappointed that committee Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to support the bill, with their stubborn and misguided objection to any penalty increase regardless of how heinous the crime.” Even Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was unhappy with the committee Democrats. The day after the committee vote, he called Grove to see how the bill might be revived. After the call, Newsom told reporters, “I want to understand exactly what happened yesterday. I take it very seriously.” He further noted that he “cares deeply” about the issue of child trafficking.

The public outcry and chastisement from California’s liberal governor was enough for most of the Democrats on the committee to reverse course entirely. On Thursday — just two days after the initial vote — the committee voted on SB-14 again. This time, it passed with six votes in favor while two Democrats still abstained from voting.

This is a small victory for justice and for the survivors of human trafficking. Next, the bill must be approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which will likely vote on the bill mid-to-late August, before going on to the full Assembly. Grove believes that “most Assembly Democrats want to vote for this bill if they are given a chance” and is hopeful that the bill will be successful.

The controversy in California comes at a time when child human trafficking is garnering heightened attention after the theater release of the movie “Sound of Freedom,” based on a true story of a sting operation in Latin American that successfully led to the rescue of dozens of children trapped in sex slavery. Negative reactions to the movie from some legacy media outlets have been outrageous. The Guardian published the following heading: “Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America.” Rolling Stone followed suit with the headline “‘Sound of Freedom’: Box Office Triumph for QAnon Believers.” The Washington Post attempted a faux nuanced tone with “QAnon and ‘Sound of Freedom’ Both Rely on Tired Hollywood Tropes.”

Many in the legacy media are trying to discredit “Sound of Freedom” — and its underlying message that the trafficking of children is a serious problem that ought to be addressed — by linking it to the QAnon conspiracy theory. But it begs the question: why? Do these progressive elites not think that human trafficking of children happens? Or is the reason even more sinister? The exact motivation is unclear; but what should be clear to Christians is that there is an intense spiritual battle surrounding this issue right now. We must pray that the darkness will be exposed, and that American’s hearts will be moved to bring the perpetrators of trafficking to justice and the victims of trafficking to freedom.

Human trafficking should be exactly the type of issue that unites everyone with an intact conscience. Human trafficking, especially of defenseless children, is a horrifying reality — one that everyone should want to see effectively combatted, and ultimately ended. The debacle over SB-14 last week was unexpected and disappointing, even for California. It might have taken a national uproar for Democrats to rethink their position on SB-14, but at least some did rethink it and change course.

We can hope that California Assembly members will now work diligently to see SB-14 pass the full Assembly. Beyond that, politicians across the United States should strategize on how our laws can more effectively address this scourge upon society.

AUTHOR

Arielle Del Turco

Arielle Del Turco is Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, and co-author of “Heroic Faith: Hope Amid Global Persecution.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission.  All rights reserved. ©2023 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.

America: A Society in Crisis

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

If one visualizes the establishment of the first (small) society, as Enlightenment thinkers did (circa 1690-1800), one must suspect that it was founded on the mutual agreement of—a social contract among—the first members. It seems unlikely that it could not have lasted very long if any society had been fashioned on disagreement. Given that agreement was at the foundation of the community, the only thing that could break the club apart would be the introduction of disagreers into its midst.

Of course, disagreers might have been expected to come from outside the society, if only because they could not have been party to the agreement in the social contract. But disagreers might also have been expected to come from inside the society if the children of the members needed to be schooled in the necessity to continue the agreement made by their parent, guardian, and ancestors. Such “schooling” arose at first within every family’s lodgings (and duties). As the generation succeeded generation, the survival of society depended upon the effectiveness of family schooling. Successful schooling and transmission of social commitment to the agreement eventually led to establishing a culture with rules, laws, and (sometimes) a constitution.

Anyway, somewhere along the line, in many (if not all) growing societies, these two types of problems arose. External problems arose as people from outside the club occasionally attempted (usually by engaging in armed conflict) to take over the community and impose a new and different agreement system. Thus, the threat of external attack by disagreers–aka enemies–made it necessary to devise an externally oriented (military) self-defense force.

(2) Internal problems arose, as people (parents) on the inside, for whatever reason, failed to properly school their children properly, opening the way for the rise of rebellious disagreers in the midst the society, who would attempt (usually by engaging in law-breaking behaviors) to take action against one or more (law-abiding) members of the community. The threat of internal attack by disagreers—a.k.a. criminals—made it necessary to devise an internally oriented (police) self-defense force. The problem faced by every society has been what to do with disagreers, especially with those who were actually citizens by birth but technically non-citizens by disagreement—non-citizens by rebellious choice–against the very social contract in which they had been nourished to adulthood.

For thousands of years, the accepted way to deal with external enemies was to defeat them on the field of battle, and the accepted way to deal with internal criminals was to capture and punish them with lashing, torture, incarceration, exile, and execution.

But, today, we style ourselves as having reached Kantian (enlightened) maturity, no longer (completely) accepting such methods, if only because we think those methods are inhumane. Furthermore, our (U.S.) system of government not only permits disagreement, it has come to encourage it. It has created a (tacitly legal, at least) second category of citizen disagreers who are not considered criminals.

This second category of citizens who disagree with the social contract has a variety of euphemistic labels: progressives, liberals, mainstream media, change agents, innovators, visionaries, special interest groups, etc. Hence society is destined to be in constant turmoil as waves of new children (encouraged to question authority and to think there isn’t even supposed to be a box) rush onto the agreement stage with ideas of how to change it from whatever it was before, even if it’s for no good reason at all.

Drug users and the drug industry want drugs legalized the same way alcohol was because there is a market for getting stoned. Thieves want robbery legalized because they are poor. Criminals wish to have prisons abolished because they are oppressed. Illegal immigrants want citizenship rights even if they are not citizens. Even if they displace American jobs, businesses want to have international business ties for labor. Snoops wish to increase surveillance capabilities and rights with less hostility from privacy advocates because they think they can save the nation. Technologists wish to have more customers with less work. Governments want more power with less disclosure. Employers wish to lower wages for more work. Employees expect to pay higher wages for less work. Bullies don’t like bullying criminalized. Stock brokers want insider trading legalized. Women’s liberation leaders want to end the biological definition of womanhood and erase it from social memory. The salacious want sexting legalized, just like “adult” literature.

Muslims want to build mosques legally like churches have been lawfully made. Atheists want all public evidence and acknowledgment of Christianity and all religion removed from the public square. The NRA wants to keep Second Amendment rights free of surveillance. The anti-gun advocates wish to have every gun and owner tracked in detail. Etc. All these things are pleas and petitions about the social contract.

No society can survive for long in such persistent bickering and turmoil. And when we overlay all this with the “fact” that there are terrorists behind every tree, under every rock, and in every social setting, who can be confident that anything they say or do will not mark them for some watch list? After all, everyone is watching everyone for signs of anti-social behavior. But what is anti-social behavior in this turmoil? Who is appropriately defending his human rights? Who is not entitled to display violence to make their point in a society drowning in messages of change? How else can the message gain precious national television and news media coverage?

I advocate for stopping the encouragement for change, if only because it affects the stability and future survival of this Great Nation that many of us have worked and died to establish. Not everything done or settled in the past is wrong and needs change, simply because the sweep hand passed the twelve on the clock and someone has succumbed to the media mantra for change. The fact is that every society must have a stable constitution, laws, and rules. And it is not much harder to adjust to the government to have no premarital sex than it is to accept the current calls for no sexual harassment.

Societies have adapted to the former quite well. It is time to think about establishing certain sections of the country where all those who disagree with the current constitution and laws are separated from those who accept them. Perhaps there should be sections of the country where all the gun advocates can live; areas of the country where all the free-sex people can live together; sections of the country where all the married men and women, who want to live happily with each other and raise their children together by the social contract, can live together; or sections of the country where all the disagreers with the social contract can sit around disagreeing all day long if they want to.

According to the United Nations, self-defense is legal and a human right. But, in my view, no one has the right to violence and destruction of property for a political cause contrary to the law, no matter how much the change might be desired. Violations of the law must (should) be met with policing force to end them and punish the offenders, lest more illegalities be encouraged the next time someone has a problem with authority. If one does the crime, one should do the time.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

VIDEO: Trump Needs Help — Philosophically and Constitutionally

/in , , , , , , /by

One man can only do so much heavy Constitutional lifting…

If re-elected President Donald J. Trump has promised to demolish the Deep State.

But he can’t do it alone; he needs our help!

Art5Now by The Ledger Report can be accessed at your convenience at GrahamLedger.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Should We The People eliminate the FBI and start over?

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Ledger Report is republished with permission. ©The Ledger Report 2023

D-Y-S-T-O-P-I-A!

/in , , , , , , /by

The opponents of the proposed judicial reform are not defending liberal democracy, but promoting Orwellian dystopia.

“Deceivers are the most dangerous members of society. They trifle with the best affections of our nature, and violate the most sacred obligations.” — George Crabbe, English poet, surgeon & clergyman (1754-1832).

“When one with honeyed words but evil mind; Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”― Euripides, Ancient Greek playwright & poet (c. 480 – c. 406 BC).

As the Machiavellian demonstrations, malevolently crafted and mendaciously choreographed, rage across the country, one thing is becoming ominously clear. The bellows of “DEMOKRATIA” by the protesters are being increasingly exposed as being just as hollow and hypocritical as they are absurd and artificial.

Indeed, virtually every aspect of their vociferous grievances can be shown to be either entirely false, totally self-contradictory, or an unadulterated non-sequitur—or a combination of any or all of the above.

Enhancing democracy

Take, for example, the claim that, somehow. the reform proposal, according to which judicial appointments should be made by elected politicians rather than appointed jurists imperils Israel’s democracy. The only thing more bewildering than the actual claim itself is that the coalition has not been able to repudiate it forthwith. For, not only have the opponents of the reform never presented a cogent logical chain of cause and effect showing how the proposed measures will advance dictatorship/endanger democracy, but their allegation is patently illogical.

After all, the reform’s proposal that decisions should be transferred from unelected, unaccountable forums to elected, accountable forums is perhaps the epitome of enhanced democracy, making the accusation that the measure is somehow “undemocratic” manifestly ridiculous.

Similarly, the claim that if politicians appoint judges, the judges will be subject to the will of their appointors, withers and shrivels in light of recalcitrant realities. After all, it was two government appointees, Attorney-General Avichai Mendelblit and Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh, who were the leading figures in concocting the contrived indictments against the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu—an inconvenient fact that blatantly contradicts their professed concern…and somehow never emerges in the public debate.

Minority “rights” trump majority decisions?

Indeed, opponents of the reforms have a curiously perverse view of democracy, seemingly believing that because, in democracy, there is place for preserving minority rights, these should take precedence over majority decisions. After all, whatever one’s opinion of the reforms, they are more procedural than substantive in that they do not impinge in any partisan way on the rights of any political or ethnic faction. Any benefits, which they purportedly bestow on the election winners, would accrue to the reform’s opponents—if they could win the elections by persuading voters of the merits of their case. However, apparently, they do not really believe that this is a feasible prospect—and hence their almost apoplectic response.

Accordingly, it is not that the reform proposal infringes substantively on the rights of any minority, as a minority, but merely that the opposition minority disapproves of the measures it comprises. Thus, they cannot legitimately claim that they are defending “minority rights”. To the contrary. They are endeavoring to impose minority preferences on a democratically elected majority and impede the implementation of policy formulated by a majority coalition with which they disagree—something that, in and of itself, is a blatant and brazen contravention of democratic norms.

Selective concern

Moreover, the concern of reform’s opponents for democratic governance seems highly selective—further undermining their waning credibility.

Thus, when the previous Bennett-Lapid coalition was spawned by what is easily the most shameful—and shameless—violation of all the hitherto accepted norms of democratic procedures, nary a peep of protest was sounded by those, who today purport to be the “guardians of democracy”. Somehow, they managed to ignore that this was a coalition headed by a prime minister, who:

– won barely 5% of the overall vote,

  • brazenly betrayed his supporters, breaking his pledge to them on the very eve of the elections,
  • formed a government dependent on the approval of the Islamist Shura Council and the support of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, Ra’am, which Bennett’s Yamina faction tried to disqualify from taking part in the elections on the grounds that its members supported terror!!!

Nor did they express any concern at the fact that in the last days of his incumbency, then-substitute Prime Minister Yair Lapid bypassed Knesset approval and hurriedly pushed through a decision with long-term strategic implications, yielding Israeli claims to potentially rich marine gas fields to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. Significantly, the reasons proffered for the unbecoming haste in making the decision was that it would pacify Hezbollah–an argument that was swiftly exposed as false. Indeed, today an increasingly aggressive Hezbollah is, unsurprisingly, spoiling for a fight,  shortly after the ill-considered concessions were made —raising troubling thoughts as to the prudence of  Lapid’s move and his real motivations in making it.

From “poodle” to “Rottweiler”

Significantly, the agreement was given the stamp of approval by the Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who miraculously metamorphosized from a “docile poodle”, catering to every whim of the previous government, to a ferocious Rottweiler opposing virtually every initiative by the current one.

Indeed, perhaps one of the most perverse aspects of the Opposition leader, Yair Lapid’s criticism of the reforms is that they have the support of the Ultra-Orthodox factions, whose members he berates for not serving in the IDF—when Lapid himself has proved incapable of giving a credible account of where he served in the military—which certainly was not in any hazardous combat capacity. Again, this is something rarely raised in the public debate.

But no less devious and deceptive is the terminology adopted. Thus, the reform opponents have rejected the term “reform” and labeled the coalition’s judicial initiative a “revolution”—as if policy adopted by a duly democratically-elected government can be termed a “revolution”, a term usually reserved for a challenge to an incumbent government.

A sense of entitlement, not patriotism

But perhaps the adoption of the word “revolution” is revealing, exposing—inadvertently—the underlying motivation of the leaders of the opposition to the reform initiative. For it seems to indicate—much in line with the self-laudatory laurels with which they continuously anoint themselves—that they believe that they are the truly ordained leaders of the country, and the incumbent government is merely a motley collection of impudent usurpers, swept to unmerited positions of power by unworthy “plebs”. Accordingly, it is more than likely that they see the reform as a move to diminish the stature of their true source of power, the judiciary, that hitherto has offset their failure at the ballot box and allowed their credo to dominate much of the decision-making in the country. Thus, in their eyes, the judicial reform is a challenge to the established order and to the true ruling class—hence a “revolution”.

It is thus a sense of entitlement, not of patriotism that drives the demonstrations. It reflects a selective loyalty to Israel, in which borderline sedition, purposefully undermining the nation’s security, economy and international standing is preferable to accepting the victory of political rivals.

“Dystopia!”: A countervailing battle cry

The opponents of the current coalition have created a dystopian reality in Israel, where, like in the Orwellian Newspeak, language is manipulated and distorted to serve the goals of the leadership. Thus, words take on meaning antithetically opposite to their commonly used sense. In Orwell’s 1984 dystopia, “war” was “peace”; “freedom” was “slavery” and so on.  In the emerging Israeli dystopia, “dictatorship” is “democracy”; “revolution” is “elected government policy”; “entitlement” is “patriotism”; and “sedition” is “loyalty”.

It, thus, should be clear that the opponents of the proposed judicial reform are not defending liberal democracy—but promoting Orwellian dystopia.

Paradoxically, it is this grim reality that provides the coalition and its supporters a tool to counter the misplaced cries of D-E-M-O-K-R-T-I-A. They should respond with a countervailing call: STOP DYSTOPIA!

©2023. Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

The Overwhelming Evil of the Global Slave Market

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” — Thomas Paine

“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” — Haile Selassie

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” — Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945)

“Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil… prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon.” — Terry Pratchett, author

“Recent research has shown that traffickers are no longer just kidnapping individuals off of the street, but they are now employing new tactics to find their potential victims. There is one absolute commonality amongst the victims of human trafficking; the loss of personal freedom.” —  Asa Don Brown, author

The latest Jim Caviezel movie, Sound of Freedom, is absolutely riveting.  Everyone should see it.  Brilliantly done.  Stay thru the credits as Jim then speaks to the audience. He tells us, once you know it is happening, you must work to stop the evil.  Jim asks the audience, “Can we love God’s children more than we fear evil?”

The movie beat out Disney’s highly-anticipated “Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny,” among others, Box Office Mojo reported.  Sound of Freedom, which exposes the horrors of human trafficking, scored $14.2 million at the box office ($11.5 million at the direct box office combined with another $2.6 million from PAY IT FORWARD tickets sold), per a release from the studio.  By July 10th, it had raked in $40 million.  The Federalist Papers are telling us the film is likely to break $100 million in gross receipts.

“The Sound of Freedom brings this truth to light,” said Bob Unanue, President and CEO of Goya Foods, and Executive Producer of Sound of Freedom. Goya Cares, inspired by the movie, is a global initiative dedicated to combating child trafficking and educating on child mental health.

Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson filmed this movie in 2018; it has taken them five years to get it into theatres.  Everyone fought against its theatre release.

Fox News reported, “The Guardian and website Jezebel claimed that the film starring Jim Caviezel, which was based on the true story of a U.S. Homeland Security agent rescuing two young children from human traffickers in South America, was attached to QAnon, a right-wing community that has been accused of buying into fringe conspiracy theories.

“Although the film, produced by Angel Studios and released over the July 4 holiday, never engages in such conspiracy theories while exposing the underbelly of the real underground sex slave trade, both outlets linked the film to fringe right-wing extremists in an attempt to discredit it and its box-office success.”

The reality is that Hollywood, mainstream media, CNN, Washington Post, Media Matters, Rolling Stone Magazine and every leftist outfit is attacking the true story of Tim Ballard’s heroics, saving the lives of sex-trafficked children as portrayed in Sound of Freedom.  They’ve coordinated their reporting with the lies and nonsense of QAnon.

Why is the left so desperate to shut down a film that exposes the child sex trafficking industry?

And who are they protecting?

Sound of Freedom is based upon the true story of former government agent Tim Ballard who quit his job to rescue a little girl from sex traffickers in the Colombian jungle. In the process, Tim ended up saving 123 people, 55 of which were children, from one mission alone.

Human trafficking is the intentional forcing of another into slavery.

The global estimates for 2022 are shocking.  Worldwide, there are 24.7 million victims of human trafficking, 20.1 million labor trafficking victims, 4.8 million sex trafficking victims, and globally, 99% of victims were women and girls.

Chipping the Children

Media is claiming Tim Ballard is promoting chipping of children.  I asked a friend of mine who has met with Tim if he is for chipping children, and Tim said, “Absolutely not. We try to think of everything we can to protect them, but we don’t want the government involved.” More and more lies to discredit Tim Ballard’s work, and the truth of human trafficking and the global slave trade.

However, Georgia has a Child Identification Program.  I would never agree with chipping and neither would I agree with fingerprinting my child.  Data bases are not kept confidential.  Government “protection” is just another way to invade your privacy and collect data on you and your children.

Chipping our pets has caused a rise in cancers around the chip sight.  Why would we risk our children?

We no longer live in the 1950s.  Today’s America is far more dangerous than yesteryear.  Adults must be with their children at all times.

Tim Ballard was the CEO and founder of Operation Underground Railroad.  He recently told Fox News he had been forced out, just as was James O’Keefe of Project Veritas.

DOJ Removed Three Areas of Trafficking Concern

Pedophile Biden’s latest ploy was to have the Department of Justice remove “International Sex Trafficking of Minors” from areas of concern.  One America News Network reported three sections were removed from the “Child Sex Trafficking” webpage –  “International Sex Trafficking of Minors,” “Domestic Sex Trafficking of Minors,” and “Child Victims of Prostitution.”  The timing is questionable with the success of Sound of Freedom.

The section was originally added by the Trump administration and used to highlight how international sex trafficking is a major problem in the United States.

As of July 5th, 2023 Health and Human Services (HHS) said they had at least 6,127 unaccompanied children in its care. In FY 2022 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) referred 128,904 unaccompanied children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The move also came not long after HHS whistleblower, Tara Lee Roda, accused the U.S. government of being the “middleman” in a child trafficking operation. She testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement in April.

The State Department helped fund a film festival in September that featured movies depicting drag queens, incest, and pedophilia, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Our government promotes this evil with our tax dollars.

Biden’s Southern Border

Our southern border is wide open.  There are more than 365,000 missing children in our country each year. Thirty percent of those missing are being trafficked (approximately 109,000 children).

As long as Biden incentivizes foreigners to illegally immigrate…Mexican drug cartels will continue to have a river of prey to rob, rape, abuse and exploit.  A study predicts nearly sixty percent of unaccompanied minors crossing the border have been caught by cartels and are being forced into child pornography and drug trafficking.

Texas Public Policy Foundation states, “Sophisticated transnational syndicates are notorious for using children to get single, adult males not just across the border, but through Border Patrol processing. Once these men are granted a stay, they smuggle the children back across the border where they will continue to be trafficked.

“In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security, under the Trump Administration, launched a pilot program that allowed for ICE to DNA test families that were deemed suspicious of fraudulent activity. This program was designed to help prevent minors from being trafficked or recycled, and it resulted in criminal charges for the adults exploiting them. Yet this program was met with great disdain by activist groups and lawmakers and is not being used by the current administration.”

Rep. Kat Cammack, who serves Florida’s Third Congressional District, tells us, “Over my five trips to the border, I have seen children as young as two months old being smuggled by coyotes across the Rio Grande. On my first trip to McAllen, Texas in 2021, I met a little girl who couldn’t speak because her vocal cords had been severely damaged by gang members who sexually abused her.”

On July 11, Yahoo reported that a headless child of two or three years old, washed up on a Spanish beach.  These atrocities are reported every day throughout the world.

While traditional agencies focus on rescuing victims, DeliverFund equips the only people with the power to arrest traffickers–law enforcement.

“Our breakthrough tech tracks down human traffickers and unites law enforcement in the fight.

“While it’s generally believed that children are the prime targets for human trafficking, they make up 25 percent of the 40 million victims across the globe. That leaves 75 percent to adult human trafficking. According to the 2020 Federal Human Trafficking Report published by the Human Trafficking Institute, child victims in active sex trafficking cases in the United States rose to 55% compared to 2019, and 45% for adults.

“These people are lured in using manipulation. Many times, traffickers will make false promises of upward economic mobility, job opportunities, and repayment of debt to make the offer seem enticing. All the while, the individual has no idea what they’re getting themselves into.

“In some cases, sheer force and threats are used to traffic victims, giving them no choice but to give into the demands of the trafficker.

“One of the biggest misconceptions about human trafficking is that it always has to involve sex, and that is far from the truth. In fact, one of the major contributors to adult human trafficking is migration and relocation. 2,364 victims of human trafficking reported that they were trafficked as a result of migration to the United States. This is the type of demographic that traffickers target.”

It is common to think of human trafficking only in terms of sexual exploitation, but from the numbers reported, this is not entirely true. In fact, while the United States tends to have higher awareness numbers toward sex trafficking, there is belief among human trafficking experts that forced labor takes a larger percentage of the global slave market.

Traffickers don’t need to worry about location when hunting for victims, the internet is an invaluable source for them. They prey on the vulnerable, and have methods of coercion that seem attractive or promising to a potential victim. This is how they “recruit” their victims.

There are millions of victims of labor slavery and sexual exploitation.  First, we must all be aware of it, and keep our eyes and ears open, not just for our own children, but those around us. The average trafficked female is 15 years old.

Secondly, we must join the fight to prosecute the traffickers and buyers.

This demonic modern-day slavery must be stopped.

In this six-minute video DeliverFund tells how they are helping to end human trafficking.

Big Money in Resettling Refugees

James Simpson’s article, Resettling Refugees, Part One, written in late 2018, exposes the organizations who are making vast amounts of money via refugees.  In Part Two, Who’s Coming to America, he relates us shocking statistics.  In Simpson’s Conclusion, he tells us the costs.

The current domestic refugee resettlement program, formally called the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), was created with passage of now-deceased Senator Ted Kennedy’s Refugee Act of 1980.

Refugee resettlement originally started with oppressed people coming to America after the Vietnam War, but the United Nations had other ideas.  Being entirely socialist in intention and design, the U.N. envisioned redistributing not only wealth, but also populations, across the globe. As stated in the document, “Human settlement policies can be powerful tools for the more equitable distribution of income and opportunities.”

A vast network of non-governmental organizations, foundations, and non-profits, i.e., churches, rake in huge amounts of money with the resettlement of refugees.  Thus, their reasoning for supporting politicians who vote to keep them afloat.  These organizations need to be audited and the current network of public/private immigrant advocacy and resettlement programs overhauled.

Simpson writes, “These nonprofits siphon millions of dollars from the federal government, spreading the gospel of immigration as they line their own pockets and perpetuate an agenda that advantages the Left as it dismisses justifiable concerns from communities strained by the needs of these newcomers.”

Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).  Their list of benefits to refugees is astonishing.  We are being bilked for billions upon billions with our wide-open Southern Border!

America is Driving the Demand

Remember the missing children on milk cartons?  It was started in 1979 with six-year-old Etan Patz who disappeared in the Soho neighborhood of Manhattan, New York.  In late 1984, the nonprofit National Child Safety Council began a nationwide program called the Missing Children Milk Carton Program in the United States. Photos of missing children were put on milk cartons. That sparked the program, “Stranger Danger.”  Forty years ago, our nation noticed that children were missing…now it’s an avalanche of loss.

The United States is ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for human trafficking. According to a recent released report by the State Department, the top three nations of origin for victims of human trafficking in 2018 were the United States, Mexico and the Philippines. America’s dirty little secret is the United States is the number one consumer of paid sex worldwide.  America is driving the demand as a society.

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

  • Of the 1,169 defendants charged in U.S. district court with human trafficking offenses in fiscal year 2020—
    • 92% were male
    • 63% were white
    • 18% were black
    • 17% were Hispanic
    • 95% were U.S. citizens
    • 66% had no prior convictions.
  • At yearend 2020, for the 47 states that reported data, 1,564 persons were in the custody of a state prison serving a sentence for a human trafficking offense

That’s not enough!

Conclusion

Most of us who went to see this movie are God fearing American patriots.  We are now responsible for seeing justice is done, that children are saved and the perpetrators and buyers see a fitting end.

In a recent article by Ray DiLorenzo entitled, The Root of the Problem, I agreed with DiLorenzo except for one point…the Republican Party has long been in bed with the left.  They won’t save America unless we force them to.

They are not Constitutional conservatives.

World Economic Forum member, Kevin McCarthy is House Speaker.  McConnell is a leftist, with a Chinese wife and has gained monetarily through his wife’s family who own a Chinese shipping company.

Only a handful of Republicans do not belong to the left.  Republicans are not Stalinists like the Democrats, but they’re not far behind.  They’re measured Marxists, like Leon Trotsky who wanted people to accept Marxism via slower implementation. Of course, Trotsky ended up with an axe in his head in Mexico.

Do you see any republicans fighting the leftist machine?  They vote for leftist judges, even that lunatic Ketanji Brown Jackson who says she can’t define a woman.  Huh? High school Biology 101 taught chromosomes.  She’s not stupid, she’s a Marxist.

What about the January 6th prisoners?  Who cares?

Biden administration appointees are put in power with the assent of the right.

How many unconstitutional laws did the right vote for?  Nearly all of them.

Stalinists on the left, Trotskyites on the right.  This is the core we’re fighting because every one of them thinks they will be chumming with China when America is overtaken.  The New World Order is nearly complete, now represented by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

This is why it is up to those of us who watched Sound of Freedom.  Get off your backsides!  Don’t just complain!

I remember the days when we shut down the DC phone system because we ravaged the federal reps with our calls.  Do it again!

Emails that aren’t answered need to be followed up with calls.

Harass the basturds!

Close the damned southern border!

Stop the slavery!

Save the children!

Save America!

And remember all this the next time a Democrat says border security would be “insensitive.”

©2023. Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

‘They Know The Person’: Trump Says Secret Service Knows Who Brought Cocaine Into White House

/in , , , , , , /by

Former President Donald Trump believes investigators know who brought cocaine into the White House despite the Secret Service concluding its investigation without finding the culprit.

Trump was interviewed on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo when he raised the cocaine investigation while speaking about the “weaponized” Department of Justice and FBI.

“The DOJ is weaponized like I’ve never seen before. They come after me on boxes and they can’t find drugs.

Do you know how many cameras they have opposite the front door of the Situation Room where these drugs were — the cocaine — now I understand they have many other forms of drugs. They know who this was. They know the person. It’s impossible, how can they not know the person,” Trump said.

Baritromo mentioned that the Secret Service could not identify a suspect after wrapping up its investigation into the bag of cocaine discovered at the White House July 2.

“You know, I’ve gotten to know the Secret Service really well, okay. And I can’t speak more highly, these are incredible people. And I believe that they know everything. They’re really smart and really good at what they do. And I don’t think it’s possible for bags of cocaine to be left in a certain area — by the Situation Room. I’m not talking about, you know, five blocks away. The Situation Room where you decide on war, where you decide on nuclear” Trump added.

Conflicting reports have come out about where inside the White House the cocaine was found. Initial reports said it was found in the West Wing lobby but later reports said the cocaine was discovered near the White House’s executive entrance.

The White House also shut down speculation about Hunter Biden being the one who had cocaine in the White House. The younger Biden, a known drug addict, was not at the White House when the cocaine was found. Trump previously floated the possibility that Joe and Hunter Biden were the ones using cocaine.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Joe Biden Apparently Isn’t The First Democratic President To Have Cocaine At The White House

Trump Says He Views Indictment Charges As A ‘Badge Of Honor’

INVESTIGATION: Whose Cocaine Was In The White House?

RELATED VIDEOS:

Watch as the Secret Service drove VP Harris right by a bomb placed near a parking garage on January 5th, 2021.

Garland DOJ Rigged Hunter Biden Investigation!

RELATED TWEETS:

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

Jan. 6 Prisoner Takes His Obstruction Charge to the Supreme Court

/in , , , , , , , /by

A. R. Hoffman in the NY Sun writes, the filing at the Supreme Court of a petition arguing that hundreds of defendants who engaged in violence at the Capitol were mischarged has the potential to upend the largest prosecutorial effort in the Department of Justice’s history.

The justices have been asked to consider whether a federal law, Section 1512 (c)(2) of the United States Code, is a fit for what transpired at the Capitol. The statute assigns 20 years in prison for anyone who “corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document,” or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Read more.

Jan. 6 Prisoner Takes His Obstruction Charge to the Supreme Court

‘The federal government has effectively declared a jihad, or a holy war, on everyone within sight of Jan. 6,’ attorney says

By Patricia Tolson, The Epoch Times, July 15, 2023:

In a historic move, a Jan. 6 prisoner has taken his challenge of the infamous obstruction charge, levied against him and hundreds of other Jan. 6 prisoners and defendants, all the way to the Supreme Court.

On July 7, attorneys for Jan. 6 prisoner Edward Jacob (Jake) Lang filed a document with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) challenging the government’s obstruction of Congress charge—one of the most common felony charges used against Jan. 6 defendants—which carries a 20-year prison sentence.

“We filed what’s called a writ of certiorari, or a request to the Supreme Court to hear an issue,” Norm Pattis, lead attorney for Mr. Lang, told The Epoch Times. Mr. Pattis explained that the legal team is asking the high court to review the details behind Mr. Lang’s alleged violation of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2), one of the 11 charges against him, according to court documents (pdf).

According to the writ, obtained exclusively by The Epoch Times (pdf), “Mr. Lang filed a motion to dismiss the Section 1512 count prior to trial. The District Court granted his motion.”

However, “on a consolidated interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit joined by two similarly situated codefendants, the Court, in a split decision, reversed the District Court. A motion for rehearing was denied.”

The “question presented for review” is “Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c)(2), a statute crafted to prevent tampering with evidence in ‘official proceedings,’ can be used to prosecute acts of violence against police officers in the context of a public demonstration that turned into a riot, resulting in so ‘breathtaking’ an application of the statute as to run afoul of Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021).”

The document warns the high court that “dozens of convictions” on this same obstruction charge are “headed to this Court,” all arising from Jan. 6, and “Resolution of the question is imperative to prevent the use of this statute to prosecute folks who protested in a good faith belief that their actions were necessary to prevent an election from being stolen, an event tantamount to an internal coup d’état.”

“Refusal to resolve this question,” the document predicts, “will chill others inclined to petition and assemble for the redress of grievances, for fear that those opposed to their views might prosecute them for possessing a ‘corrupt’ intent.”

‘Really Far Afield’

Obstruction under Section 1512(c) is among the 37 charges for which the federal government indicted the current GOP frontrunner for the 2024 election, Donald Trump (pdf). A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on the former president’s legal future as well.

This is not the first time the obstruction charge has been called into question.

Politico reported that, during a two-hour hearing on Nov. 19, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich argued in the case of Jan. 6 prisoner Guy Reffitt—also charged with hindering communications through physical force, civil disorder, and bringing a firearm onto the grounds (pdf)—that the government’s effort to apply the obstruction charge appeared to run “really far afield” from what Congress intended.

Mr. Friedrich ultimately allowed the charge to stand.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

NEW YORK: Muslim migrant helped supply ‘thousands’ of recruits from Western countries to the Islamic State

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Why did all these Western Muslims fall for the supposedly twisted and hijacked version of Islam that the Islamic State offers? Why didn’t the peaceful, benign Islam that they supposedly learned in their local mosques prevail?

U.S. Islamic State recruiter sentenced to life in New York court

 The New Arab, July 15, 2023 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Kosovo-born US man who helped supply “thousands” of recruits to the Islamic State group was sentenced to life in prison Friday for helping the extremist group, the Justice Department announced.

Mirsad Kandic, 40, was a high-ranking member of the jihadist group between 2013 and 2017, when it controlled large swathes of Iraq and Syria, the Justice Department said.

In 2013 he left his home in New York and traveled to Syria, where he joined IS, becoming a fighter in Haritan outside of Aleppo.

Then he was directed to move to Turkey to help smuggle foreign fighters and weapons for the group into Syria, it said.

He was also an emir for IS media, the department said, disseminating the group’s propaganda and recruitment messages online, including via more than 120 Twitter accounts.

As recruiter, “he sent thousands of radicalized ISIS volunteer fighters from Western countries into ISIS-controlled territories in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East,” the Justice Department said, using another acronym for IS….

Read more

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: Trudeau claims Muslims are being influenced to oppose the trans agenda by the ‘far right’

Poland: Teen converts to Islam, plots jihad bombing of government building

Biden Regime Lied to Senators About Iran Envoy Under FBI Investigation

Catherine Philp of the Times of London Tries to Turn a Terrorist Into an Innocent Civilian

Germany: Muslim migrant stabs his wife to death, gets twelve years in prison

Eight-year old Palestinian child congratulates 15-year-old cousin on her ‘martyrdom-death’

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

Affirmative Action Battle Moves on to the U.S. Military

/in , , , , , , /by

Military Academies can still discriminate who they admit by Race. This is exactly what new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Brown had in mind when he ordered no more than 43% of military officers should be white.

One of the Biden administration’s big arguments for racially discriminating against white and Asian students in college admissions was the need for military diversity. More than half of the ‘national interest’ section in its amicus brief argued that the military “depends on a well-qualified and diverse officer corps” which requires that colleges select for diversity over merit.

“It is not possible to achieve that diversity without race-conscious admissions, including at the nation’s service academies,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard shot down affirmative action as a legal practice, but punted on the question of racial discrimination within the military and its service branch academies.

A footnote briefly stated that, “no military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

Affirmative Action Battle Moves on to the Military

Racial discrimination is now illegal at Harvard, still legal in the Army.

by 

One of the Biden administration’s big arguments for racially discriminating against white and Asian students in college admissions was the need for military diversity. More than half of the ‘national interest’ section in its amicus brief argued that the military “depends on a well-qualified and diverse officer corps” which requires that colleges select for diversity over merit.“It is not possible to achieve that diversity without race-conscious admissions, including at the nation’s service academies,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court.

The Roberts decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard shot down affirmative action as a legal practice, but punted on the question of racial discrimination within the military and its service branch academies. A footnote briefly stated that, “no military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

The idea that racial discrimination should be illegal at colleges, but still legal at service branch academies like the Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy, is a loophole. Justice Sotomayor argued that the exception proves that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not categorically prohibit the use of race in college admissions.” And it’s hard to deny her reasoning. Either racially discriminating against students is legal or it’s illegal. National security can only go so far to justify an illegal practice especially when it’s a social element with an indirect effect.

Democrats quickly attacked Justice Roberts for seemingly leaving the carveout on military diversity that the Biden administration had demanded as a matter of national security.

“Adding insult to injury is that the Court exempted military service academies, like West Point and the Naval Academy, from its own ruling,” Rep. Elissa Slotkin complained. “So the majority on the Court does in fact recognize the inherent importance of a diverse military and that diversity makes our country not only more fair, but more stable and secure — but they refuse to allow our colleges and universities to hold the same values.”

“This decision is deeply upsetting but outright grotesque for exempting military academies. The court is saying diversity shouldn’t matter, EXCEPT when deciding who can fight and die for our country,” Rep. Jason Crow tweeted, inverting an illegal racial preference into a disadvantage.

Justice Roberts’ footnote and the outcry from Democrats and Republicans over the status of service branch academies suggests that affirmative action at service branch academies may have to be revisited at some point. Meanwhile some members of Congress are acting.

Senator Roger Wicker, a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to introduce his ‘Military Merit, Fairness, and Equality Act of 2023’ as an amendment to the defense bill which would “prohibit the Department of Defense from prioritizing the demographic characteristics of service members above individual merit and demonstrated performance.”

The senator has said that as part of that his amendment “would further prohibit our military service academies from engaging in race-based affirmative action.”

This legislation isn’t likely to advance in a Democrat Senate, but may be the beginning of an important conversation. Affirmative action did not arrive in the military yesterday, it has been around for far too long, but in recent years it has escalated to an alarming degree.

In May, an exclusive investigation by Front Page Magazine and the David Horowitz Freedom Center revealed that Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown Jr., Biden’s nominee to succeed Milley as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had signed off on a quota that would keep the number of white male officers in the Air Force down to only 43%.

Even before Senate hearings on Brown’s nomination get underway, the American Accountability Foundation filed a complaint against the Air Force boss on the grounds that “General Brown has made statements in favor of making hiring and promotion decisions in the Air Force based on race.” It notes Brown’s public statements such as “I hire for diversity” and “I purposely build my office, my front office, and my team with diverse” backgrounds.

Military officials have stated publicly that service academies “employ race as a factor in recruiting and admission policies and decisions.” This is illegal, but there’s a reason that it’s been the trump card of proponents of this form of systemic racism. Many things get a pass when national security is introduced into the equation. National security has been used by the Biden administration to argue that abortion and transgender procedures on children should be legal. The Biden military brass have chosen to halt confirmation of 150 nominees, including the new commandant of the Marine Corps, rather than abandon its allegiance to abortion.

While the Biden administration has no interest in winning any wars, it wants to fight its culture wars using the military. Service branch academies have become battlegrounds on issues such as BLM and the LGBTQ movement. The Biden administration has also led a purge of alumni and conservatives from boards, including from the Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy.

Chief Justice Roberts may have wanted to avoid addressing racial discrimination at service branch academies, but it is an inescapable question. Unlike Harvard and Yale, there isn’t a sympathetic high-achieving minority group in the crosshairs. Asians are seen as underrepresented in the military and especially the officer corps, but their numbers have been growing sharply.

Asian students and candidates generally suffer from racial preferences in academic settings, but the military is still a case where they are seen as statistically underrepresented and less likely to be impacted by affirmative action. That is another reason why the Left would like to take the battle over systemic racism in college admissions into the service branch academies.

A legal battle over racial discrimination in and around the military would have white people as the victims. And not only white people, but poor white people. As the Biden amicus brief notes, “West Point, for example, reports that its efforts to emphasize socioeconomic status have actually reduced racial diversity”. What that means is that providing special preferences to poor kids reduced ‘diversity’ by helping poor white candidates. The same people who form the backbone of the active duty combat military. Discriminating by race is required, the Biden administration implicitly admitted, to keep poor white kids down in the ranks.

Those are the same poor white kids taking jobs at an Amazon warehouse or a fast food place instead of risking their lives for a military brass that wants them to be ready to die without hope of rising in the ranks to a real career because they were born with the wrong skin color.

There is a compelling moral case to be made for ending racial discrimination in the military. And an even more compelling national security case. Senator Wicker noted that, “a recent survey found nearly 7 in 10 active members believe the armed forces are being politicized and that this would affect whether they encourage their children to enlist”. The Biden administration claims that it needs to racially discriminate for national security, but its racism harms national security.

The Supreme Court needs to have the courage to do to systemic racism in the military what it did to systemic racism in civilian higher education. A nation, a society and a system cannot endure half-slave and half-free, half-racist and half-equal. It’s time to end military racism.

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

©2023. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does the US military have a recruiting problem?

Why Affirmative Action Died, Why Not Sooner?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

It was straight up racist. And an abject failure.

“Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).” Ayn Rand

Like every form of determinism, affirmative action invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Affirmative action negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. (paraphrasing rand on racism).

10 Reasons Why Affirmative Action Died

By: Victor Davis Hanson, Daily Signal, July 14, 2023

The end of affirmative action was inevitable. The only surprise in the Supreme Court’s recent decision was that such intentions gone terribly wrong lasted so long.

First, supporters of racial preferences always pushed back the goal posts for the program’s success. Was institutionalized reverse bias to last 20 years, 60 years, or ad infinitum?

Parity became defined as an absolute equality of result. If “equity” was not obtained, then only institutionalized “racism” explained disparities. And only reverse racism was deemed the cure.

Second, affirmative action was imposed on the back end in adult hiring and college admissions. However, to achieve parity, remediation early at the K-12 school level would have been the only solution.

Yet such intervention was made impossible by teachers unions, the rise of identity politics, and government entitlements. All were opposed to school choice, self-help programs, critiques of cultural impediments, or restrictions on those blanket entitlements.

Third, class, the true barometer of privilege, was rendered meaningless. Surrealism followed. The truly privileged Barack and Michelle Obama as well as Meghan Markle lectured the country on its unfairness—as if they had it far rougher than the impoverished “deplorables” of East Palestine, Ohio.

Fourth, affirmative action supporters could never square the circle of proving that racial prejudices didn’t violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the text of the Constitution.

What they were left with was the lame argument that because long ago the 90% white majority had violated their own foundational documents, then such past bad unconstitutional bias could be rectified legitimately by present-day “good” unconstitutional bias.

Fifth, supporters never adequately explained why the sins of prior generations fell on their descendants who grew up in the post-civil rights era.

Nor could they account for why those who had never experienced institutionalized racism, much less Jim Crow apartheid or slavery, were to be compensated collectively for the suffering of long-dead individuals. No wonder 70% of Americans in many polls favored ending affirmative action, including half of African Americans.

Sixth, there never was a “rainbow” coalition of shared non-white victimhood—a concept necessary to perpetuate the premise of white privilege, supremacy, and rage, so integral to race-based reverse discrimination. More than a dozen ethnicities earn more per capita than do whites.

Asians have been subject to coerced internment, immigration restrictions, and zoning exclusions. Yet on average, they do better than whites economically and enjoy lower suicide rates and longer life expectancies.

The arguments for affirmative action never explained why Asians and other minorities who faced discrimination outperformed the majority white population. As a result, affirmative action ended up discriminating against Asians on the premise they were too successful.

Seventh, no one ever explained when affirmative action was to apply. Blacks, for example, were vastly “overrepresented” in merit-based professional football and basketball. Yet no one demanded “proportional representation” to address such “disparate impact,” despite underrepresentation of all other demographics.

Yet if blacks were “underrepresented” in baseball, then reparatory measures were supposed to address that fact—even if Latino players were “overrepresented” and whites “underrepresented” as well. No one in our race-obsessed culture, of course, objected that white males died at twice their demographics in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Eighth, in our increasingly intermarried mass-immigration society, few could adjudicate who was what, or much less what standard gave one racial preference. In lunatic fashion, pink, blond Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., became Harvard’s first “Native American” law professor due to her “high cheekbones.” Light-skinned Latinos were considered marginalized, while some darker Italians or Greeks were not.

Keep reading.

And read this thread:

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Stop the Silence

/in , , , , /by

We need to start by taking a truthful accounting of how power has slipped out of the people’s hands and think more genuinely about how we can—and cannot—put the people back in control.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution has given us all we need to have:

“We, the people of the United States, to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

It is no secret. Time after time, in every election, many politicians promise everything and deliver very little or nothing once elected. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a welcome exception.

Texas Attorney General Paxton has been doing everything possible to protect Texas since he became the Texas Attorney General in January 2015. General Paxton, like President Trump, is a fighter:

“We stand on the side of right, and we will never stop fighting to protect this state and the people who proudly call it home,” said Paxton.

You, the Texas voters, must step up to the plate and say no to the Uniparty and the sham impeachment. You elected him, and you need to protect him.

I believe Paxton should receive the Medal of Honor for public service, the nation’s highest award for bravery, when he singlehandedly filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court for ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, violating the Constitution. By ignoring state and federal law, these states have tainted the integrity of their citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton.

“Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court correct this egregious error.”

This effort by General Paxton will seal his name forever in history books. At the same time, those elected officials who betrayed our trust and were certified an imposter will go to the history books as traitors.

This nation of all nations, America, is bleeding under the dark cloak of oppressive leftism and now UniParty. Texans cannot afford to relinquish the office of the Texas Attorney General to the Socialist-Fascist Party responsible for America’s decline.

Most of us know that the Bush family has left an indelible mark on American politics, stretching back four generations. Enough!

The House UniParty rush to impeach Attorney General Paxton, with 20 articles adopted within a mere two days, raises concerns about the integrity and fairness of the process. Such haste, combined with the lack of compelling evidence, undermines the credibility of the impeachment effort and threatens the foundations of our democratic institutions.

The impeachment against General Paxton is nothing short of a political witch hunt driven by partisan motives rather than genuine concerns of wrongdoing. The burden of proof for impeachment lies with those making the allegations, and we must adhere to this fundamental principle of justice to protect the integrity of our democratic processes.

It is the duty of every Texan who elected General Paxton to stand up and support him. If you remain silent, you will be next.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

CDC Altered Death Certificates to Remove ‘COVID Vaccine’ as Cause

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

“In almost every death certificate that identifies a Covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.”

“.. CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.”

Mass murder by government (democide) is the new normal.

CDC Altered Death Certificates to Remove ‘COVID Vaccine’ as Cause

By Stephen Green, PJM, July 05, 2023:
The CDC removed “COVID vaccine” as the cause of death on a number of Minnesota death certificates, according to an anonymous tipster — and that has the Brownstone Institute referring to the health agency as the “Centers for Data Concealment.”

The tipster — and I’m sure you can understand why they chose to remain anonymous — was able to get their hands on the complete set of Minnesota death certificates from 2015 on.

Aaron Hertzberg’s deeply detailed report digs deep into the federal bureaucratic requirements involved in filling out local death certificates all over the country. The extremely short version is that while local coroners fill out death certificates with the cause or causes of death (CoD), the CDC later applies an International Classification of Diseases (ICD 10) code. ICD has an alphanumeric code for everything from “Fall involving ice skates, skis, roller-skates, or skateboards” to “Florida Man got drunk and tried to kiss a barracuda.”

I’m kidding about that second one but just barely.

“The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s,” explains Hertzberg. The application is usually made by a “secret algorithm,” but there is “a tiny percentage of cases adjudicated by CDC staff when the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code.”

What you need to know next is that ICD 10 code T88.1 is the CoD for “Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified,” and that Y59.0 is for “Viral vaccines.”

“There are three death certificates in the MN tranche that contain either T88.1 or Y59.0. One is for a flu vaccine reaction, and – surprisingly – the other two are for a Covid vaccine.”

What the tipster found — and I’m glossing over a lot of details here that you can find at the link — was that the CDC removed or refused to add the T88.1 or Y59.0 IDC codes from Minnesota death certificates that indicated that someone died from complications involving a COVID vaccine.

“In almost every death certificate that identifies a Covid vaccine as a cause of death,” Hertzberg concluded, “the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.”

Hertzberg’s report lists only nine altered death certificates, so, admittedly, we aren’t talking about big numbers here for COVID vaccines that were basically universal for adults in the given timeframe. The takeaway from this story for me is the lengths to which public officials will go just to squash any dissent or data contrary to the official narrative.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: NY Health Commissioner Says She Blew Hospitalizations Way Out of Proportion to Mandate COVID Shots for Children

RELATED TWEET:

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

‘Bidens Do The Crime, But Not The Time’

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Biden family is an ongoing crime spree in which the word “consequences” does not exist.

DEROY MURDOCK: Bidens Do The Crime, But Not The Time

By: Deroy Murdock, Daily Caller, 

The family that skates together stays together.

The influence-peddling, money laundering, and foreign shakedowns encircling Hunter Biden, his uncle Jim, and The Big Guy in the Oval Office have received considerable attention, at least in the conservative media. But even Fox News addicts would be stunned ​by how many Bidens have T-boned into the law and ​waltzed away from the wreckage. The Biden family is an ongoing crime spree in which the word “consequences” might as well be in Swahili.

New York Post​’s​​Jon​ Levine recently detailed how the Bidens get away with lawlessness  over and over and over again. Being a Biden means never facing the music for ​crimes that routinely land ​n​on-royals behind bars.

  • ​​First Son Hunter Biden earned at least $8.3 million in foreign schemes, according to IRS whistleblowers, evidently in exchange for access to his father. ​Echoing Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre, the U.S. Department of Obstruction of Justice ​told the IRS on May 15 to ​instruct whistleblower Gary Shapley and his 12-member team ​to stop investigating Hunter. A concurrent DOJ probe already had devoured five years, as statute​s​ of limitation​ repeatedly expired.

With Hunter​ no longer under IRS’ microscope​, his lawyers and DOJ agreed that federal prosecutors would request two years of probation once Hunter pled guilty to misdemeanor​s, not felonies​,​ for not paying $100,000 in taxes on $1.5 million in income in 2017 and ’18. This 6.7% effective tax rate is the Democrats’​ new definition of “fair share.” If ​tax-evading ​actor Wesley Snipes were named Wesley Biden, he ​would have ​savored such a wrist massage. Instead, he spent nearly three years in prison.

Hunter lied on a gun-purchase application, claiming to be drug-free. He soon illegally possessed a gun while drug-addicted. Federal prosecutors want Hunter in a diversion program, not prison. Confirming America’s two-track justice system, rapper Kodak Black received a 46-month prison sentence for lying on a gun form.

Again: No punishment.

An anti-corruption non-profit called Marco Polo on July 1 released photos discovered on the Laptop from Hell. ​In them, Hunter snapped himself holding a crack pipe while driving through Arlington, Virginia, on June 12, 2018. That August 1, Hunter photographed himself piloting a Porsche to Las Vegas at 172 MPH.

What next? Will Hunter become the Department of Transportation’s Man of the Year?

  • ​​First Daughter Ashley was busted for marijuana possession in 1999, while at Tulane University. New Orleans police confirm her arrest, but court documents show no conviction.

Ashley offended again, after a 2002 bottle-shattering fracas outside a Chicago​ bar​. She allegedly tried to obstruct a cop and made “intimidating statements.” So what? Charges were dropped.

In 2009, Levine reports, a woman who looks like Ashley appeared in a video, seemingly snorting cocaine at a Delaware house party. Once again, Ashley skated.

  • ​​First Brother Frank was a passenger in an August 14, 1999 drunk-driving crash near San Diego. On September 2, 2002, a court found Frank partially liable for fatally hitting single-father Michael Albano. Frank was told to pay Albano’s daughters $550,000 in damages. With interest, this had grown to $880,000. As the Daily Mail reports, Frank skipped court appearances and paid the Albanos nothing through at least 2020.

On August 20, 2003, Frank was arrested for drunk driving in Fort Lauderdale. His license had been suspended four times. Penalty: Six months’ probation.

That October 27, Biden got nabbed at a Pompano Beach, Florida, Blockbuster with two stolen DVDs shoved in his pants. He missed his court hearing and apparently skirted prosecution.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former DHS agent whose story is told in Sound of Freedom explains why these Biden policies help pedophiles

DeSantis’ and the GOP’s Problem Isn’t Trump, It’s That Dems Rigged The Last Election

RELATED VIDEO: Transgender Movement and Biden Border Policy Aid and Abet Child Sex Slavery, Tim Ballard Warns

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

Is the DOJ Covering Up Child Sex Trafficking? Why Delete This?

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The recent removal of crucial language on child sex trafficking from the Department of Justice (DOJ) website by the current administration has raised significant concerns. This article aims to shed light on the implications of these changes and their correlation with the administration’s handling of migrant children. Join us as we examine the erased sections, explore the timeline of revisions, and discuss the impact on the fight against child sex trafficking.

Understanding the Removal of Language:

On May 12, 2023, the DOJ eliminated sections on “International Sex Trafficking of Minors,” “Domestic Sex Trafficking of Minors,” and “Child Victims of Prostitution” from their website. These sections played a vital role in educating the public about the nature and extent of child sex trafficking. By examining the previously available information, we can better comprehend the significance of their removal.

Prior to this recent change, this information could be found on the DOJ’s webpage about Child Sex Trafficking as of May 2021.

As of April 21, 2023, those 3 sections here, here and here were quietly deleted.

An Insight Into Erased Sections:

The eradication of the sections on international and domestic sex trafficking of minors, as well as child victims of prostitution, is deeply troubling. These sections provided valuable insights into the cross-border transportation of children, the tactics used by traffickers, and the plight of victims. We must reflect on the implications of removing this critical information and what it means for combating child sex trafficking.

The Connection to Migrant Children and “The Sound of Freedom” Movie:

Coinciding with the removal of language on child sex trafficking, the Biden administration’s mismanagement of 85,000 “missing” migrant children in the last 2 years adds to the concern. These parallel events demand our attention and raise questions about the administration’s commitment to combating child exploitation.

Additionally, the release of the film “The Sound of Freedom” provides a backdrop that further highlights the urgency of addressing this issue.

Seeking Answers and Accountability:

As concerned individuals committed to protecting children, it is essential to demand transparency and accountability. By questioning the motives behind these changes, we can hold the administration responsible for the decisions made. Our collective voice can ensure that the fight against child sex trafficking remains a top priority.

The removal of language on child sex trafficking from the DOJ website raises significant questions about our federal government’s commitment to this crucial issue. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit of truth, demand answers from our leaders, and advocate for the protection of vulnerable children. Together, we can work towards a future where child sex trafficking is eradicated, and every child can live free from exploitation.

Watch and Share: CONTRALAND

We produced this free documentary in 2019 to alert the populace to the gruesome reality of child trafficking and predators in the USA. The footage provides a glimpse of our tailored operations and arrests, includes interviews with surviving victims and world experts on the subject, and exposes the history and methods predators use to groom and abuse children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

California Democrats Shut Down  Bill to Increase Penalty for Child Traffickers

Democrat Media Axis Attacks Film Exposing Child Trafficking

Levine: Can’t Limit ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ to Adults Because ‘Puberty Is Hard’

RELATED VIDEO: Sex Trafficking of Children Through America’s Border

EDITORS NOTE: This V4CR column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hunter Biden Worked To Secure U.S. Visa For Ukrainian Oligarch Allegedly Involved In Suspected Bribery Scheme

/in , , , , , , , /by

Hunter Biden and his business associates attempted to get Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky a U.S. visa shortly after the president’s son became a board member of the Ukrainian energy firm, according to emails reviewed by the Daily Caller.

The emails in Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop archive show a coordinated attempt to obtain a visa for Zlochevsky while he was being investigated by Ukrainian authorities for corruption.

Biden and some of his associates were potentially “engaging in registrable lobbying activity,” and one email indicates that Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations could have been occurring outside of the exchanges, a FARA expert who reviewed the emails told the Caller.

From 2014-16, Hunter Biden worked with former Burisma board member Devon Archer, Rosemont Seneca adviser Eric Schwerin, former Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP Partner Heather King and other business associates to assist Mykola Zlochevsky with his visa reapplication process after the State Department revoked his visa in 2014.

Zlochevsky is the “foreign national” involved in an alleged bribery scheme with President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene confirmed to the Daily Caller.

Greene, alongside other House Oversight Committee members, viewed a redacted version of an FBI FD-1023 form, where an informant allegedly detailed how Zlochevsky spoke to him about making a $10 million bribe to the Bidens, Greene said. FBI Director Christopher Wray redacted the foreign national’s name, according to Greene, but “within the same sentence, it says ‘him/ Burisma.’”

“If you’re anyone who is familiar with the whole Burisma story and the information on the laptop, it’s easy to make the connection of who it is. It’s like a no-brainer … No one has refuted that it’s not him,” she added.

Hunter Biden And His Associates Try To Get Zlochevsky To The U.S.

Hunter Biden and his partners communicated with Zlochevsky’s conduit, Burisma board member Vadim Pozharskyi, about Zlochevsky’s U.S. visa application beginning in May 2014, the emails demonstrate.

Pozharskyi emailed Archer on May 7, 2014, asking about “Nikolay’s visa issue” as a follow-up to “previous communications” between them. Pozharskyi frequently used the “Nikolay” moniker to refer to Mykola Zlochevsky in correspondence with Hunter Biden and his associates.

Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden and his associates biographical information about “Nikolay” in June 2014 describing his status as Burisma’s major shareholder. In October 2014, he sent Archer a bio of Zlochevsky with information about his time as Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, and Archer forwarded the document to Hunter Biden, emails show.

King emailed Pozharskyi in May 2014 about her communications with the U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian Embassy regarding Zlochevsky’s visa status.

When Pozharskyi responded, he referred to Zlochevsky as “Nikolay” and said Zlochevsky is “totally in line” with what King recommended. Pozharskyi said in the same email that he engaged in “joint conversations” with Hunter Biden about King’s suggestions with Zlochevsky.

King’s work with Hunter Biden and Archer on Zlochevsky’s visa situation began a week after Pozharskyi’s initial email to Archer in May 2014. King recommended to Archer and Hunter Biden a PR firm, an investigative research firm and a lobbyist to work on the visa because “me going on my own means I’d have to register” as a lobbyist, she said in a May 14, 2014 email.

She said she recommended a lobbyist to Pozharskyi specifically to work on getting Zlochevsky off the State Department’s visa “ban list” that he’d been added to after Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution in 2014.

In late May 2014, King sent Pozharskyi an update on Zlochevsky’s visa status from the Ukrainian embassy. She said the embassy could not disclose the reason why his visa was removed and suggested Zlochevsky contact the embassy directly in an email with both Hunter Biden and Archer cc’d.

Pozharskyi told King in early June that Zlochevsky was “prepared to apply to US embassy for US visa” and said he needed a reason to travel to the United States. Pozharskyi asked King’s company to send Zlochevsky an invitation to be “signed by one of companies lawyer/partner, namely H. Biden,” emails show.

“Two reasons for that, firstly having Hunters [sic] name on invitation will invite embassy [sic] to consider carefully that application. Secondly If [sic] he is denied in obtaining visa, then your company, that actualy [sic] invited Nikolay could work with state department on this,” Pozharskyi said.

Hunter Biden mentioned his work for Zlochevsky in a June 2014 email to Archer – where he uses “NZ” to refer to the Ukrainian businessman – in a conversation on how to use the media to their benefit by covering Zlochevsky positively.

“If we are worried about NZ or image issues they will just continue to bury us with the nepotism/ privileged BS. On the other hand, if we embrace it- say why we really think we are on the right side of the fence- argue over it- know our shit- speak intelligently about energy and the future of US foreign policy that depends upon it,” Hunter Biden said.

Pozharskyi asked King for an update June 25, 2014, and King replied by discussing a meeting she was setting up with the “Ukraine desk,” potentially happening that week or the next week, the emails show.

King sent the invitation Sept. 8 and told Pozharskyi she would make any changes he recommended. He responded by correcting King’s spelling of Zlochevsky’s name and thanked King for her “effort,” according to the emails.

“What’s the latest buddy?” Hunter Biden asked Archer after Archer brought him back in the loop on King’s invitation to Zlochevsky. Archer confided in Hunter Biden about how he thought the Ukrainians were getting “frustrated” with the fees King was allegedly charging them. Hunter Biden told Archer to speak with King and asked if he should be working on anything.

Archer kept working on trying to secure Zlochevsky’s U.S. visa and gave Pozharskyi an update at the end of September.

“I have spoken to the individual who is the contact on the DHS side. Can you forward me Nicoli’s bio and a short summary of the status of when and where he was granted his US visa. I will cross reference with Heather for any information I can use from State without crossing any boundary’s [sic] and forward the compiled case to DHS contact and have a phone call to insure we will not have an issue there,” Archer said.

Craig Engle, a FARA expert and partner at ArentFox Schiff LLP, told the Daily Caller that in this exchange, Archer or “maybe the company he works for could be engaging in registrable lobbying activity.”

“Here’s why: If you go outside of normal regulatory channels and try to influence other parts of government to influence the regulatory process then you lose your exemption from registration,” Engle said. “Second, this lobbying may not be a FARA event because the intended beneficiary is an individual. Not a foreign government or political party. If so, then any lobbying activity should be recorded under the LDA — our domestic lobbying reporting system and not FARA — which is generally used for foreign entities.”

Pozharskyi responded to Archer on Oct. 1 with Zlochevsky’s passport and U.S. visa copies attached in an email. He said the visa was issued in May 2011, when Zlochevsky was working as Ukraine’s Minister of Ecology, and that it was supposed to last for five years.

Zlochevsky’s “visa issue” not being resolved prevented Burisma from holding its upcoming board meeting in Washington, D.C., Pozharskyi said in an email Oct. 9. The board meeting was set for Dec. 5-6, 2014, in Cyprus to ensure Hunter Biden’s jury duty would not prevent him from attending the meeting.

Pozharskyi asked Archer for an update on the “visa issue” Oct. 20 and Archer immediately forwarded the email to the president’s son. “Any progress with DHS?” Archer emailed Hunter Biden.

This exchange between Archer and Hunter Biden “is not a FARA event, but it does indicate that there may be other FARA events that occurred prior to that email exchange,” Engle told the Caller.

Hunter Biden And His Associates Attempt To Get Zlochevsky Into Mexico

Hunter Biden and his team were also involved in attempting to secure Zlochevsky a Mexican visa while setting up a Burisma business meeting in the country, according to the emails.

Hunter Biden reached out to a Mexican connection, Miguel Aleman, otherwise known as “MAM” in the emails, to get Zlochevsky a visa and to assist with potential business opportunities in February 2015.

Biden contacted Aleman’s Interjet email address, confirming his identity as Miguel Aleman Magnani, a Mexican businessman and grandson of a former Mexican president.

Archer reassured Pozharskyi on Feb. 5 that “Hunter is checking in” with Aleman to “provide cover” for Zlochevsky on the “visa issue” for his trip to Mexico. The Ukrainian sent Archer Zlochevsky’s passport and revoked U.S. visa, emails show.

Hunter Biden emailed Aleman after Archer’s correspondence with Pozharskyi and explained how Zlochevsky’s “USA Visa was suspended and we are working on that” ahead of his Feb. 27 trip to Mexico. Biden also brought business associate Jeff Cooper into the fold to assist with Zlochevsky’s Mexico trip.

Archer emailed Pozharskyi on Feb. 16, 2015, about how Hunter was still working with “our contact” and suggested Pozharskyi come to Mexico by himself if they could not ensure safe passage for Zlochevsky.

“Me [sic] contact has said that he will take care of it— BUT I have not gotten confirmation yet that he has done so with 100% certainty. If he cannot give me complete confidence that there will not be an issue I agree the risk is too great. I will let you know as soon as I hear. I am asking everyday for an update,” Hunter Biden said.

The same day, Hunter Biden asked Cooper if he had heard from Aleman, and Cooper said Aleman delayed their phone call and promised to pay them $250,000 as “band-aid” for the inconvenience. Biden told Cooper he wanted to tell Aleman to “shove it” and said the delay “most likely jeopardizes my board position,” according to the email archive.

Cooper then suggested bringing Joe Biden into the mix to find out what was happening with Aleman’s family.

“Soooooo, we have to go with the theory that Miguel has been cut out, at least temporarily. Maybe a call from your [sic] or your dad to his dad? Maybe that shakes things loose? Whaddya think? I really don’t want to give up on it because I truly believe in this shit,” Cooper said.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden met with Aleman’s father, Miguel Aleman Velasco, at the Naval Observatory in November 2015, pictures from Hunter Biden’s laptop show, the New York Post reported.

Hunter Biden emailed Aleman months later in 2016 showing apparent frustration at the latter for going silent after inviting him to the White House.

“I want you at the plane when the VP lands with your Mom and Dad and you completely ignore me,” Hunter emailed Aleman Magnani in February 2016. “I have brought every single person you have ever asked me to bring to the F’ing White House and the Vice President’s house and the inauguration and then you go completely silent.”

On Feb. 17, 2015, Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden and Archer about whether it was worth going to Mexico without Zlochevsky and wondered if they could go to Mexico on behalf of Burisma. Biden and Pozharskyi then scheduled a call for later in the day.

Hunter Biden and Pozharskyi’s next email exchange took place in March 2015, when the pair checked in and scheduled a call. Biden told Pozharskyi to “thank Nicolay for me” and mentioned a watch box he’d left in Pozharskyi’s hotel room.

Hunter Biden’s plan to work with Aleman and Cooper on Mexican business dealings culminated in an offer for Aleman in July 2015, emails show. Private equity investor Thomas Zaccagnino sent Archer an offer for Aleman and the offer was forwarded to Cooper.

A month later, Pozharskyi sent Hunter Biden and Archer the agenda for Burisma’s upcoming board meeting. Zlochevsky’s visa and an issue with the DHS were on the agenda for the board meeting, emails show.

Hunter Biden And His Associates Figure Out Next Steps

In November 2015, Zlochevsky’s legal issues in Ukraine were still unresolved, and Pozharskyi expressed his frustration with the lack of tangible results.

“The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine,” Pozharskyi said, emails show.

Hunter Biden emailed Pozharskyi back and said he would call “Sally and Karen,” who are executives at the bipartisan international lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies. Pozharskyi responded positively and asked Schwerin to give him an update from “Sandwig” about the Visa issue.

Schwerin informed Pozharskyi that he brought in former Obama Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director John Sandweg to work with them on Zlochevsky’s visa. Sandweg said he asked individuals from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to search DHS and State Department databases for information on the visa.

“That said, the reason State cancels visas in situations like this is to force the visa holder to come into the embassy/consulate and answer questions related to the issues that are concerning State. As we discussed I do not recommend that the client make any effort to obtain a new visa until the other matters are resolved,” Sandweg emailed Schwerin.

Schwerin sent Sandweg’s correspondence to Pozharskyi and told him Sandweg recommended for Zlochevsky to stay in Ukraine until his legal situation was resolved. Schwerin told Pozharskyi they should discuss strategy for the visa issue and the other legal problems to be handled by Blue Star.

A source close to the matter told the Daily Caller that Sandweg worked solely with Schwerin and Zlochevsky. He did not communicate with Archer or Hunter and his work ended in November 2015, the source added. The Caller granted the source anonymity to allow them to speak openly on a sensitive matter.

Pozharskyi emailed Schwerin on Nov. 3, 2015, and said he expected Hunter Biden and Archer to confirm Blue Star’s plan. He also said they would have time to discuss the visa issue and crisis management at a later date.

The Blue Star lobbyists sent Burisma a contract proposal Oct. 30, 2015, and Hunter Biden and Archer advised Pozharskyi to sign the contract on Nov. 5, 2015. Schwerin had an assistant schedule a call for Pozharskyi, Archer and Hunter Biden to finalize the Blue Star contract three days later, according to the email archive.

Zlochevsky’s Legal Issues In Ukraine

Zlochevsky’s legal troubles in Ukraine were thought to be resolved in January 2017, when all the cases against him were cleared. Schwerin shared with Biden a February 2017 Kyiv Post article about Zlochevsky’s legal battles on the day it was published.

The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General (PGO) investigated Zlochevsky for allegedly abusing his role as Minister of Ecology to unlawfully acquire business assets. Ukrainian authorities provided evidence to the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and presented their findings to the U.K. Central Criminal Court in January 2015. The British court ruled in Zlochevsky’s favor and found the SFO failed to provide evidence that would have bolstered Zlochevsky’s case. A district court in Kyiv, Ukraine, also ruled in Zlochevsky’s favor in September 2016 with regards to the PGO’s corruption case.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) subsequently investigated the PGO for allegedly failing to collect significant evidence against Zlochevsky for the SFO and reshaping the case into a tax investigation, according to the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a Ukrainian watchdog.

The NABU later charged Zlochevsky and his associates in 2020 for attempting to send $6 million in bribes to shut down the case. Ukraine’s PGO said in 2021 that the investigations into Zlochevsky had been closed and that they would not be reopened.

Zlochevsky’s corruption case was initially prosecuted by Vitaly Yarema, who left his position as PGO head shortly after the U.K. criminal court’s decision. Former Ukrainian MP Sergey Leshchenko and former deputy prosecutors accused Yarema of colluding with Zlochevsky.

Victor Shokin replaced Yarema in February 2015. Numerous western officials and Ukrainian activists led by then-Vice President Joe Biden later accused Shokin of corruption. At a March 2016 panel with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Joe Biden bragged about using a $1 billion loan guarantee as leverage for Ukraine to fire Shokin. He told a similar story at CFR in January 2018 and described how Shokin was replaced by a “solid” prosecutor.

Then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said Shokin managed to implement reforms to the PGO but had to resign because he lost public trust, according to local media reports. Zlochevsky’s allies supported Shokin’s dismissal because he was allegedly threatening to prosecute Burisma if he was not given bribes, The New York Times reported in 2019.

Pro-Maidan politician Yuriy Lutsenko replaced Shokin in March 2016, Ukrainian media reported. Lutsenko later cleared Zlochevsky and Burisma of criminal charges, the Kyiv Post reported.

The Ukrainian PGO under Lutsenko conducted a separate investigation into whether Burisma failed to pay back taxes, and the taxes were later paid by an accountant for the company, according to the Kyiv Post.

Former President Donald Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in September 2019 about reinstating Lutsenko and potentially investigating Joe Biden for getting Shokin fired, according to a transcript released by a whistleblower.

Trump accused Joe Biden of getting Shokin fired to protect Burisma and Hunter Biden in campaign ads ahead of the 2020 presidential election. He was impeached by House Democrats in 2020 because of his phone call with Zelenskyy.

Hunter Biden Investigations

The Justice Department charged Hunter Biden in June with a felony gun charge and two tax avoidance misdemeanors. The younger Biden pleaded guilty and will not face jail time. David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney leading the Hunter Biden case said the DOJ has not closed its case against the president’s son.

Republican Kenucky Rep. James Comer, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, said June 5 the FBI is actively investigating the Biden bribery allegations. Greene told the Caller that Zlochevsky’s visa correspondence is in the broader scope of Oversight’s investigation.

“We’re investigating all of that, and we’re not finished with our investigation,” she said. “It’s a link to Burisma and the business deals and the use of power that Hunter Biden was selling and Joe Biden himself was involved in selling… getting people visas into the United States would certainly play a part.”

IRS Whistleblower Gary Shapley said in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee released in June that “[t]here were also potential FARA issues relating to 2014 and 2015” that Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia allegedly refused to act on. He accused the DOJ of slow-walking the Hunter Biden investigation and contradicted sworn testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Weiss said in a letter Monday that he did not seek Special Counsel authority to file charges outside of his district without the presiding U.S Attorney. An email Shapley sent in October 2022 showed Weiss did not have ultimate authority to charge the younger Biden. Weiss did confirm in his letter that the investigation into the alleged bribery scheme is ongoing.

Joe Biden has called the bribery allegations “malarkey” and dismissed questions about the FBI document.

Hunter Biden’s lawyer and his business associates did not respond to the Daily Caller’s requests for comment. DHS and the Ukrainian embassy did not respond to requests for comment. The State Department told the Caller that Zlochevsky’s visa information is classified.

Devon Archer was sentenced to a year in prison in February 2022 for defrauding a Native American tribal entity. An appellate court rejected his appeal in March 2023, according to the New York Post.

AUTHORS

DIANA GLEBOVA AND JAMES LYNCH

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Director Wray Confirms Joe Biden is Under Criminal Investigation for Ukrainian Bribes

“Bidens Do The Crime, But Not The Time”

DOJ Prosecutors Who Allegedly Refused To Charge Hunter Biden Donated To Joe Biden And Kamala Harris, Records Show

‘Such A Dumb Question’: Biden Dismisses Question About FBI Informant File

RELATED TWEET:

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