How Biden’s 2025 Proposed Budget Impacts Values Issues

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

President Joe Biden released his proposed 2025 budget on Monday. “As the president is fond of saying, a budget is a reflection of our values,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) at Senate hearings on the multi-trillion-dollar proposal. But Biden’s proposed budget would:

  • Place transgender-identifying minors into the foster care facilities of the opposite sex, a policy that has led to sexual abuse and human trafficking;
  • Deny most Americans, especially Christians, the right to participate in foster care for certain children unless they agree to subject those minors to transgender medical interventions, such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone injections;
  • Seek to expand abortion;
  • Overturn laws that punish prostitutes for knowingly infecting others with HIV/AIDS;
  • Eliminate abstinence-based sex education;
  • Spike funding for Title X, a program that encourages doctors to give contraception to underage minors without parental knowledge and conceal children’s sexual activity from their parents;
  • Entrust government-funded workers with raising children beginning at the age of three; and
  • Increase funding for controversial, United Nations population programs.

Below is an overview of the budget’s most controversial features in his 2025 budget, which would raise taxes by more than $5 trillion, spend more than $8.6 trillion, enact a constitutionally-dubious wealth tax, implement a global minimum tax, and add $16.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Promoting Extreme Transgender Ideology

Joe Biden has repeatedly committed his administration to promoting the LGBTQ agenda. The Biden administration’s proposed 2025 budget intends to make the LGBTQ revolution permanent by placing children in sex-segregated group homes of the opposite sex, and by denying Christians the right to participate in aspects of foster care.

Buried in Table S-6, on page 153 of the budget (page 157 of the PDF), is a line item committing to “[p]revent and combat religious, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex discrimination in the child welfare system.”

That apparently refers to a proposed rule the Biden administration issued last September requiring the foster care system to place LGBTQ-identifying children with “safe and appropriate” homes — homes that agree to facilitate a child’s social and medical “gender transition.” The rule would “require specific steps before the placement of transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming children in sex-segregated child-care institutions (CCIs),” specifically that they place children and teens in foster care facilities according to their gender identity. That is, the Biden administration intends to place children who say they identify as transgender into sex-segregated foster care facilities of the opposite sex. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, pointed out this would open the beds and showers of female foster homes to teenage boys.

Such a policy has already led to tragic results. In Virginia, a 14-year-old girl named Sage began to identify as a boy. Police found the teen after she ran away and got sexually trafficked, but instead of returning her to her home, a judge accused her custodial grandparents of “emotional and physical abuse” by “misgendering” her. Sage was placed in the male section of a foster home, where she was beaten and given drugs. She then ran away again, where she was apprehended by a human trafficking ring in Texas, where she was “drugged, raped, beaten, and exploited.”

The definition of “safe and appropriate” also excludes anyone who expresses skepticism about exposing children to transgender procedures. Christians and anyone who shows “hostility” toward the LGBTQ agenda would be deemed unsafe to foster children who identify as transgender. Similar policies have already denied Christians the right to care for children in Oregon and Massachusetts. This issue stood at the heart of a 2021 Supreme Court ruling, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which ruled the city’s policy against contracting with Catholic Social Services because of their religious beliefs “violates the First Amendment,” specifically the Free Exercise Clause. The rule attempts to sidestep this concern by saying Christians can still care for foster children, just not those who identify as LGBTQ.

Multiple U.S. senators expressed concerns with the language of the rule at the time. “We are fighting back against the Biden Administration’s woke gender ideology and pronoun politics,” said Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) “Their new proposed rule aims to exclude faith-based foster care providers from helping children in need.” A coalition of 19 state attorneys general also raised alarms about the policy’s unconstitutional, and religiously discriminatory, language.

To justify these policies, the Biden rule falsely asserts, “when a LGBTQI+ child has their identity respected and supported by the caregivers in their life, their risks of attempted suicide decrease dramatically.” Yet a host of studies, from around the world over multiple decades, have found that transgender procedures do not help, and may harm, those who undergo them. A 2021 study in the Journal of Urology found, “The overall rates of suicide attempts doubled” among trans-identifying men “after vaginoplasty,” commonly referred to as “bottom surgery.” The budget indicates Biden is doubling down on this rule and its flawed methodology.

Abortion

In releasing the 2025 proposed budget, the “Biden-Harris [a]dministration has taken action to protect and expand access to reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, “in every way possible.”

The budget spreads misinformation while announcing the administration’s intention to expand abortion in all 50 states. “Twenty-seven million women of reproductive age — more than one in three — live in one of the 21 [s]tates with an abortion ban currently in effect. In the last year, women have been denied medical care needed to preserve their health and save their lives,” the budget asserts. In fact, no state bans abortion if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Pro-life advocates say doctors may have been confused specifically because abortion industry lobbyists have repeatedly claimed “miscarriage care” is illegal.

After touting Biden’s actions on behalf of the abortion industry, the budget states, “The [a]dministration continues to call on the Congress to pass legislation restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade in [f]ederal law.” The Biden administration endorses the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, which goes well beyond Roe.

In concrete terms, the budget proposes giving $390 million to the “family planning” services of Title X, a 36% hike. As this author exposed, training sessions funded by the Biden administration encourage Title X providers to talk about sex with minors behind parents’ backs, hide minor children’s sexual activity from parents both during live conversations and in medical records, and even to have vans roam neighborhoods giving minors federally funded contraceptives.

The budget also “provides $594 million, an increase of $37 million above the 2023 level, for USAID directed high-impact and lifesaving voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs and America’s voluntary contribution to the United Nations Population Fund,” the budget states. UNFPA was long complicit in forced abortions necessitated by China’s one-child policy and remains tied to controversial population control efforts worldwide.

The abortion lobby said the proposed budget proved the Democratic administration is enacting their values. “The Biden-Harris administration is fighting by our side,” said Mini Timmaraju, CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL). “[T]his budget is proof. We look forward to partnering with our allies in the White House and Congress to pass a budget where our values are reflected.” Planned Parenthood also greeted the budget as “an encouraging sign of their continued support for sexual and reproductive health care.”

Universal Pre-K

As he did in last year’s $6.9 trillion budget proposal, Joe Biden proposed offering “free” preschool to children beginning at age four and “charting a path” to expanding the program to three-year-olds. The program is a longstanding item on the Left’s wish list, constituting a part of Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, mentioned in Barack Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address, and referenced in Obama’s 2010 report to the UN Human Rights Council. Yet children being raised by daycare are associated with a panoply of negative outcomes for children and, polls show, is unwanted by parents, especially mothers.

Fighting Laws against Spreading AIDS, Combatting ‘Hate Crimes’

The 2025 proposed budget continues President Joe Biden’s fixation on overturning state laws designed to prevent AIDS-infected prostitutes from spreading HIV. “The Budget further supports State and local efforts to promote equity and protect civil rights by including $10 million for a new initiative to modernize outdated criminal statutes with a discriminatory impact on HIV-positive individuals … and $50 million for programs to combat hate crimes.”

The Biden administration sued the state of Tennessee over its aggravated prostitution law (§ 39-13-516), which charges anyone who knowingly sells sex while HIV-positive with a felony. The lawsuit came as the administration is negotiating the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement. In January, WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus instructed “[p]olitical leaders at all levels” to “counteract conservative opposition” and “enact progressive laws” championing “sexual rights.” Specifically, “Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission.”

Ending Abstinence-Based Education

The Biden budget would end funding for the Sexual Risk Abstinence Education program. Instead, he would give $101 million for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, despite a 2015 survey which found 40% of teenagers said these classes made them feel pressured to have sex. The Department of Health and Human Services lists eight regional Planned Parenthood alliances among the current Teen Pregnancy Prevention grant recipients.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America’s Economic Checkup Doesn’t Look Good

Military Bill Expands IVF Services to Gay and Transgender Servicemembers

Survey Shows Support for Same-Sex Marriage Declining

Kansas Judge Prohibits Sex-Changes on State IDs, Arkansas May Be Next

England Bans Puberty Blockers for Minors

Former Lance Armstrong Prosecutor Says Men in Girls’ Sports Offers 10 Times the Edge of Doping

Biden Giving Sanctuary New York City Over $100 Million in Aid for Migrants

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

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

VIDEO EXPOSÈ: Secretary of Defense Personnel, “Why Not Just Have An Open Border?”

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

BREAKING INSIDE THE PENTAGON: Associate Director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense says, “Why not just have an open border?” “Tear down the wall.”

“I think we should repeal the Second Amendment and take the guns all away!” says Jason Beck, who has a classified security clearance and works for the Department of Defense. Beck, who uses a fake name Aidan Grey in his meetings with a disguised James O’Keefe, describes his extremist policies, including “mobilizing the national guard” to confiscate guns from people’s homes. Beck says he wants a “monopoly on state violence,” a concept he describes as “‘We [the government], are the only ones with guns.”

Jason Beck works in Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. This office oversees the Department of Defense and acts as the principal defense policy maker and adviser to the President of the United States. Beck says he helps “writes answers for testimony” of “the department’s senior leadership – basically they go over to the Hill for hearings on the department’s posture.”

In this shocking footage we get an INSIDE look as Jason Beck tells James O’Keefe: “we need to pack the Supreme Court,” ban the United States Senate, and abolish the electoral college. He also discusses his “bottom surgery’ being painful and the changes to his plumbing.

OMG got a concerning peek under the lid of Pentagon policymaking when James O’Keefe went undercover to have dinner with Jason Beck, the Associate Director in Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Headquartered in the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense oversees the Department of Defense (DoD) and acts as the principal defense policy maker and adviser to the President of the United States. The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.

Oddly enough and never explained, Beck introduced himself to O’Keefe as Aidan Grey. His name was not the only thing Beck was confused about as he detailed his bottom surgery to change his sex, explaining to desired love match O’Keefe: “The plumbing is different.” It is in this mind frame Beck, who has classified security clearance, conducts his work. Beck stated that he helps write answers for senior DoD officials for their testimony before Congress in Posture hearings, is “trying to get policies in place” to revise DoD policies for issues including contracts with private military contractors like former CEO of Blackwater Erik Prince, and implements DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives throughout the DoD, the nation’s largest government agency. When O’Keefe asked about the recent controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin hiding his health condition and surgery from the White House, Beck admitted “the way they hid it was really strange um, nobody knew?”

The most disturbing aspect of OMG’s undercover footage of Beck was how he harbored views not only antithetical to the mission of the agency for which he works but also to the very tenets of our government. Beck expressed how he wanted to work on the State’s Monopoly on Violence – the idea that government is “the only legitimate purveyor of violence and enforcement of force, so, we [the government] are the only ones with guns” – something our Founders knew inevitably leads to government tyranny. Nonetheless, Beck advocated for the repeal of the Second Amendment and for the National Guard “to take them [guns] all away,” similar to the forced integration of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. To ensure individuals within the National Guard followed orders to confiscate Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms, Beck justified packing the United States Supreme Court with a leftist majority so legislation banning all guns could not be overturned as unconstitutional.

Addressing border security, which ensures the security of our nation – the very mission of the DoD, Beck harbored extremist views entirely out of line with the majority of Americans. He claimed the recent immigration bill was “really racist” and wanted to “tear down the wall” even when public health emergencies would allow for the removal of illegal immigrants under Title 42. Instead, Beck demanded: “Why not just have an OPEN BORDER.” He maintained the border is “not a security crisis” and any belief dangerous individuals are coming across the border are “just made up.” It was apparent Beck had not seen OMG’s ongoing border coverage exposing piles of discarded ID cards from China, Venezuela, Cuba, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt found by OMG Citizen Journalists or OMG’s exposé on No Mas Muertas where OMG’s undercover immigrant was held at gun point by Spanish-speaking men who looked and acted like cartel members. Thus, perhaps the only thing more disturbing than Beck’s hatred of Constitutional rights was his ignorance of documented facts and current events. In fact, DoD officials testified before the House Armed Services Committee this week acknowledging concern about an anticipated mass migration into the United States from an incredibly dangerous and unstable Haiti.

The power wielded by Beck influencing DoD policy according to extremist anti-Constitutional views and IRS officials like Alex Mena unconstitutionally using AI to view the contents of our private bank accounts reveals a modern federal bureaucracy that is dangerously unaccountable. We can only hope that OMG and its army of Citizen Journalists continue to expose government corruption and turn the tide.

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This O’Keefe Media Group video exposé is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Lied About Beau Exchange With Robert Hur During Angry Press Conference, Transcript Confirms

/in , , , , , /by

President Joe Biden lied about an exchange with special counsel Robert Hur regarding his son Beau during an angry press conference following the release of Hur’s report last month, a transcript of their five-hour interview confirms.

Hur’s report detailing the president’s handling of classified documents made several notes about Biden’s memory, including that he forgot the date of his son’s death and when his vice presidency began and ended. Biden held an unexpected press conference a few hours after the release of the report, criticizing Hur for questioning his late son’s death. The president, however, was the one who raised the date of his son’s death, according to the transcript the Daily Caller obtained .

Rather than pushing Biden about the date of Beau Biden’s death, Hur questioned the president on where work-related papers were being kept following the conclusion of his vice presidency in January of 2017.

“Well, um … I, I, I, I, I don’t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?” Biden began.

“Yes, sir,” Hur responded.

“Remember, in this time frame, my son is — either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was — and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the president. I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did,” Biden began. “And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for president. And, and so what was happening, though — what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30 —”

“2015,” Rachel Cotton, a White House lawyer, interjected.

“2015,” an unidentified male confirmed.

“Was it 2015 he had died?” Biden asked.

“It was May of 2015,” an unidentified male reiterated.

“It was 2015,” Biden responded.

“Or — I’m not sure of the month, sir, but I think that was the year,” Robert Bauer, the president’s personal lawyer, weighed in.

During his post-release press conference, Biden blasted Hur for asking him about his son’s death, despite the report revealing that did not happen. “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Biden told reporters. “Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

During the Hur interview, the president went on to ask when former President Donald Trump was elected, and several speakers correct the president when he asks if it was November of 2017. The unidentified speakers tell the president that he left the vice presidency in January of 2017, which is why the year is coming up.

“OK, yeah,” Biden confirms. “And in 2017, Beau had passed and — this is personal …” the president continues, appearing to forget the year of his late son’s death again.

In his report, Hur noted that Biden willfully kept classified documents, but declined to pursue charges. The special counsel justified his decision by citing the memory lapses and adding that the jury might see Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

The White House rebuked Hur, calling the report “flatly wrong,” “inappropriate” and “politically motivated.” The special counsel is now set to testify in front of Congress on Tuesday about his investigation.

The transcript provides new insight into a number of key moments from Biden’s interview with Hur beyond the Beau and vice presidential exchanges.

Biden repeatedly throws his own staff under the bus, as he did during the post-report press conference, failing to take personal ownership for the mishandling of classified documents.

“I don’t want to hold them responsible or get them in trouble, but I believe they were the ones who were packing up … and were deciding, you know, where, where things were going, to the best of my knowledge,” Biden said of his staff. He added he had “no goddamn idea” what was in one set of files shipped to his house.

The president claimed to not recall or struggled to recount certain details he was asked about on a number of occasions. Biden said he had no memory of a comment he made about a 2009 memo to then-President Barack Obama about surging troops to Afghanistan. Biden had told the ghostwriter for his memoir that he found the memo amongst classified documents downstairs.

“It has nothing to do with the investigation, you’ll understand why this is sensitive,” Biden said. “The president thought that I knew a lot more about Afghanistan than he did, and other members of the administration.”

Biden added that the memo was handwritten because it would have taken him five times as long to type it. In a separate exchange, Biden remarked that Obama didn’t want him to run for president in 2016 because he believed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a better chance of winning the election.

Despite claiming that his staff was ultimately responsible for moving around classified documents and moving items in and out of his residence, Biden displayed a highly-detailed knowledge of the architecture of his home and said he participated in moving his belongings in and out as well.

“I’m a frustrated architect,” Biden said, while explaining that his home had seven different types of molding. “In order to try to convince me not to run for Senate for the 19th time, my wife said, ‘Look, you don’t run, I’ll pay for architectural school for you.”

At one point, Hur remarked that Biden had “a photographic understanding and, and recall of the house.”

Biden also stated “I remember moving boxes, literally physically moving them, with help, one side to the other so I could get the Corvette in that garage on the left.”

At various times during the interview, Hur had to implore Biden to answer his questions rather than go off on unrelated tangents. Biden once blew past Hur’s attempt to re-focus the interview to explain to him how the torque on electric cars worked, complete with “car noises.”

“You step your foot on the accelerator all the way down until it gets about six, seven grand,” Biden said. “Then all the sudden it will say ‘launch.’ All you do is take your foot off the brake.”

Biden then made a car engine sound, according to the transcript.

The president also digressed about solar panels in Angola, investigators finding swimsuit photos of his wife amongst his documents and the archery skills he displayed on a trip to Mongolia, according to the transcript.

Nevertheless, the White House reacted defiantly to the release of the transcript Tuesday morning. It was delivered to Congress by the Department of Justice just hours before Hur was slated to testify about his findings.

“You can’t make this up. On page 72 of the transcript, it is not President Biden who admits to “misremembering” things from just moments earlier. It’s the Special Counsel himself,” White House spokesperson Ian Sams tweeted, after retweeting a number of other posts defending the president from Hur’s claims about his memory.

AUTHOR

REAGAN REESE

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: FLASHBACK: Democrats Had No Problem With Robert Hur Until He Became A Thorn For Joe Biden

POSTS ON X:

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

Judge Orders Biden Administration to Build the Wall

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

The Biden administration must spend funds allocated by Congress to build a wall on the southern border, a federal judge ruled Friday. Southern District of Texas Judge Drew Tipton sharply rebuked the Department of Homeland Security for contending that, “notwithstanding the language in the statute,” it had discretion to spend the money however it pleased. “Whether the Executive Branch must adhere to federal laws is not, as a general matter, an area traditionally left to its discretion,” Tipton, a Trump appointee, remarked dryly.

As usual, this lawbreaking by the Executive Branch is traceable back to the nation’s chief executive. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation declaring that “it shall be the policy of my Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.” The proclamation, as Tipton noted, paused all spending on a border wall and directed DHS to devise other ways to spend the allocated funds.

This language was already misleading because the word “divert” means “to turn from one course or use to another.” To quote from the ruling, “In 2020 and 2021, Congress funded roughly $1.4 billion ‘for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border.’” Thus, by halting construction, President Biden was responsible for diverting funds from one purpose to another. The issue was funds being diverted from, not to, border wall construction.

In compliance with Biden’s proclamation, but in defiance of Congress’s allocation restrictions, DHS dreamed up plans to spend most of the money on “smarter border security measures” (a.k.a. technology systems, not a wall), “environmental remediation, flood-control, and cleanup projects.” Under these plans, the DHS would only construct new barriers “in two locations where they are filling gaps in existing walls,” according to the testimony of their own expert.

“The Biden Administration has failed to abide by the law to finish the construction of a wall along the southwest border,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R). “Joe Biden refuses to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibilities, so we took him to court to force him to do his job.”

In response to the Biden administration’s fantastical interpretation of “construction of [a] barrier system,” the judge threw the dictionary at them. “The definitions of ‘construction’ and ‘barrier’ connote building a physical structure that would serve as a barricade and a line of demarcation,” he wrote, after quoting from Merriam-Webster. “‘System’ accounts for the large scale of the U.S.-Mexico border requiring different kinds of barriers such as walls, fencing, buoys and the like.” Obviously, “this plain meaning does not include the Government’s definition,” Tipton concluded.

Tipton proceeded to analyze surrounding text in the same appropriations law. “Congress broke [the relevant section] down into five distinct subsections” and stipulated that “these funds ‘shall be available only as follows,’” he acknowledged. So, funds allocated in one category couldn’t be diverted to a purpose in another category. The following section of the law gave “currently deployed steel bollard designs” as an example of one type of barrier DHS was authorized to construct with the funds, demonstrating that Congress clearly intended the funds to cover the construction of the actual barrier.

Tipton further reasoned that DHS’s creative plans to reallocate border barrier funds fell into the other subcategories Except for a “generalized catch-all,” each section had “clearly separate and distinct purposes,” with one funding a border barrier, another “border security technologies,” another “facility construction and improvements,” and yet another “integrated operations assets and infrastructure.” These distinct categories described all the other projects DHS had in mind.

The agency’s discretion over spending projects did not extend so far, the judge argued. It would be one thing if the states who challenged the administration’s decision (Texas and Missouri) simply objected to DHS’s decision to pursue or not pursue any particular spending project. Instead, a fundamental part of their argument was that “DHS was specifically obligated to spend the CAA funds to construct border walls, and the decision to not do so … was outside DHS’s discretion and violated the law.”

This distinction was important because, instead of turning the argument into a question of federal authority versus state authority, it became an argument over whether Congress or an executive agency had authority over spending. “The central question in this case, then, is this: Has the Government obligated FY 2020 and FY 2021 funds for the ‘construction of [a] barrier system’?” the judge asked. He answered, “The answer is largely no.”

This is not just the opinion of a single federal judge out in Texas. Tipton quoted from a 1993 Supreme Court opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil, “an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities: Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes.”

Given this legal slam dunk, the judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing any parts of the DHS’s plan that did not involve the “construction of physical barriers, such as additional walls, fencing, buoys, etc.” and prohibiting them from obligating the funds in question “toward mitigation and remediation efforts, repair of existing barrier, so-called system attribute installation at existing sites, or other similar purposes.”

During a previous hearing in the Southern District of Texas, a federal judge had dismissed Texas’s border wall lawsuit for a lack of standing, but then the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision and remanded the case in July 2023.

This lawsuit forms part of a legal maelstrom darkening relations between Texas and the Biden administration over its handling of the border. Other lawsuits taking place concurrently involve Texas’s attempt to arrest illegal immigrants, place razor wire along the border, or place buoy barriers in the Rio Grande River.

Given the larger legal context surrounding the southern border, not to mention political controversy making illegal immigration a top issue in the 2024 election, the opinion contained several findings that could be significant beyond the scope of this one ruling. Specifically, the court acknowledged the Biden administration’s border crisis had inflicted real injury on the state of Texas because of the costs the state has incurred in dealing with it.

Beyond that, the court also found “that Texas has demonstrated that its injuries are traceable to DHS’s funding decisions.” Texas submitted the DHS’s own documents to prove to the court that “constructing additional border barriers will reduce illegal entries in areas where those walls are constructed, increase detection rates across the entire border, and generally disincentivize illegal immigration.”

In other words, the Biden administration knew that constructing barriers would at least hinder illegal immigration, yet from January 20, 2021 it has deliberately chosen to pursue a policy of not constructing border barriers. In late January, President Biden told reporters, “I’ve done all I can do” to secure the border. According to this federal court’s findings, DHS’s own documents prove that statement false.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

POSTS ON X:

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

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

FLORIDA: Muslim Migrant Chases Couple on way to Synagogue, Screaming Anti-Semitic Slurs & Threatening to Kill Them

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

Diversity, ya know, is our strength. Borders and immigration controls are racist.

Jordanian man arrested in Florida for antisemitic threats against Orthodox Jews

Jerusalem Post, March 10, 2024:

A man in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, is under investigation for what authorities are calling antisemitic attacks, as reported by Local 10 News.

Mohamed Al Saccal, 39, has been accused of using a sharp object, described by some victims as a dagger, to threaten Orthodox Jews in the community.

According to Sgt. Brain Schnell, this incident is part of a disturbing trend of harassment targeting members of the Jewish community over the past three days.

Al Saccal allegedly chased a couple on their way to a synagogue along Collins Avenue, yelling antisemitic sentiments and threatening their lives.

According to the report, Al Saccal, a resident of Sunny Isles Beach born in Jordan, is currently in custody, facing charges of aggravated assault.

Authorities are considering upgrading these charges to hate crimes in light of the nature of his actions….

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu defies Biden, vows to keep fighting: ‘It’s either Israel or Hamas. There’s no middle way.’

Biden, Kamala Send Ramadan Message Empathizing With Hamas Supporters

Austria: Nine Muslim migrant teens sexually abuse two teen girls, film the abuse

Israel Must Make Clear That It Won’t Keep Helping Jordan If Jordan’s Hostile Rhetoric Continues

While Israel Unstintingly Helps Jordan, Jordan Rails About Israel’s Unsurpassed Villainy

The Zone of Interest Was a Bad Movie. No Wonder Jonathan Glazer is a Hamas Apologist.

Montreal: Pro-Hamas protester gives National Socialist salute, screams ‘Death to the Jews’

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer with Stephen Gardner on the true nature of the Israel-Hamas war

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

‘Emerging Collusion’: Experts Warn of Expanding Warrantless Surveillance of Americans

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

A panel of experts, including famed author and psychologist Jordan Peterson, warned Congress on Thursday that potential collusion between federal law enforcement agencies and financial and other corporations could lead to unprecedented violations of the constitutional right of American citizens not to have private information handed over without proper warrants.

On Thursday, a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government was held to examine how citizens’ private financial data is being surveilled by the federal government. In the wake of incidents like what happened in January when a government agency colluded with banks to uncover gun and religious book purchases of citizens without a warrant, experts are concerned that the U.S. could be headed in the direction of surveillance states such as China.

“If the emerging collusion between government and gigantic corporations continues in the manner it is continuing, there won’t be anything that you do that can’t be used against you and will be used against you in very short order,” Peterson warned. “We are in danger of eliminating the private sphere in its entirety. It’s already happening in places around the world, particularly China. … We have technologies at hand, and it appears both giant corporations and giant governments are utilizing it in every way that they can manage.”

Congressmen like Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) are also worried about how surveillance laws already in place can potentially be abused by the government for political reasons, as he shared on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Thursday.

“[The] Bank Secrecy Act is supposed to keep us safe,” he explained. “You use [it] to … catch terrorism, money laundering, illicit finance, tax evasion, things like that. So they do have sort of this loophole, though, because they implemented this in 1970, and it essentially circumvents the Fourth Amendment. … [I]f you remember back a couple of years ago, the Biden administration wanted to start surveilling your bank account for $600 of activity a year and share that directly with the IRS. I think what people are seeing now is they already surveil your accounts … with the rules they have in place. The question is, can they use it in court?”

Davidson, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, went on to observe how other laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and agencies like the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) were initially enshrined to protect Americans but are now being increasingly used to eavesdrop and spy on Americans without cause.

“[T]he Fourth Amendment’s there on purpose,” he emphasized. “And there’s a reason it’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — foreigners aren’t protected by our Constitution the way American citizens are. … [Y]ou’re supposed to have to get a warrant or a subpoena to go after an American.”

Davidson continued, “They can’t just do this blanket [search] like, ‘Well, I don’t know who was in Washington, D.C. on this day. Well, who was here? Who was here?’ And they build the case from that end. They’ll literally say, ‘We’re querying the database,’ which is a synonym for searching. But they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, that’s very different, because once we go to search, we get a search warrant.’ So they’ll query the database, and they build the database. How does the data even get into the database? They do it [in] multiple ways. … [T]he Financial Crimes [Enforcement] Network will direct the banks to, basically, ‘Here’s how you spy on your customers better for us. And if you don’t do a good job, the regulators will come in and shut your bank down.’”

The congressman further shed light on how the FBI surveilled private data without a warrant surrounding the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

“[T]he whistleblower came forward because he worked in the Boston FBI office, and he said, ‘Hey, what I saw is we were targeting people that happened to be in Washington, D.C. on January 5th, 6th, and 7th,’ and then they started building from there, like who had a financial transaction on this date,” Davidson described. “And if they had financial transactions on this date, what other things did they buy? Did they use transactions in certain stores? And they started highlighting red flags like, ‘Oh, you might have gone to Cabela’s or Bass Pro, you might have purchased anything related to a firearm. You might have purchased religious material, including the Bible.”

Davidson concluded by outlining what congressional actions need to happen in order to help restore Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.

“[W]e have to change the law fundamentally,” he stressed. “The Bank Secrecy Act is very flawed. … There’s court decisions related to that … [which could] effectively completely nullif[y] the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. … The Judiciary Committee, in a rare set of events, you had Jim Jordan [R-Ohio] and Jerry Nadler [D-N.Y.] agreeing that the government needs to get a warrant. … The intel community, on the other hand, is asking to expand the surveillance on Americans. They want to add Wi-Fi hotspots … to get at more expansive data, to add more things to the database. And those ideas deserve a debate, and they deserve a recorded vote. So we hope Speaker [Mike] Johnson will give us that vote very quickly.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICE: Viktor Orbán Warns: ‘The Hegemony of the West has Ended, A New World Order is Emerging’

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

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

Liz Cheney, January 6 Committee Hid Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Offer to Send 10,000 National Guard Troops to Protect the U.S. Capitol

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

The last thing the real insurrectionists was going to allow was any real push-back of their 2020 coup.

There was a stand down order to allow Federal operatives to stage the set-up.

Exclusive: Liz Cheney, January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard

By: Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist, March 08, 2024

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POSTS ON X:

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

Why Are Individual States Forced to Do ‘the Federal Government’s Job’ Securing the Border?

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

The rate at which illegal immigrants are coming into the U.S. is already astonishing on its own. And yet, with each new headline, the circumstances become even more flabbergasting. What has many American citizens scratching their heads is the fact that many states are treating those who are in the country illegally better than those who are here legally.

The American dream used to be about working hard to accomplish great things in a great country. Regardless of your background, if you were an American citizen, you could work your way to success. But now, American citizens are getting the short end of the stick. Taxpayers work tirelessly to provide for themselves and their families only to see their hard-earned dollars fund the housing, food, education, and medical bills of illegal immigrants.

For most Americans, buying a home is a long-term goal many spend years working toward. But just recently, California proposed legislation that seems to further mock those in this country who save money to do things the right way. The legislation, The Post Millennial wrote, “would expand the zero-down, no-payment home ‘loan’ program [California] has to illegal immigrants.” Originally, this program was not offered to migrants.

In response, California State Senator Brian Dahle (R) said, “Assembly Bill 1840 is an insult to California citizens who are being left behind and priced out of homeownership.” He added, “I’m all for helping first-time homebuyers, but give priority to those who are here in our state legally.” But isn’t that the cry of many Americans as illegals take over our streets?

Some states are trying to take matters into their own hands, since the Biden administration seems intent on making the crisis worse. However, as states try to protect their communities from this invasion, their efforts are thwarted time and time again by those who seem to have little regard for this country’s laws.

Arizona, for instance, had a Republican-sponsored bill that would allow police to arrest illegal immigrants in the state. But the Arizona Border Invasion Act was vetoed by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) who claimed “the legislation was anti-immigrant and likely unconstitutional.” She continued, “I know there’s frustration about the federal government’s failure to secure our border, but this bill is not the solution.”

But do you know, Governor Hobbs, how frustrating your actions are?

As the Arizona Senate Republican Caucus expressed in a statement: “From human smuggling to child sex trafficking, rapes, murders, drug trafficking, fentanyl overdoses, high-speed chases, subsequent deadly crashes, and other atrocities, local law enforcement personnel have reached their breaking point trying to protect the lives of our citizens from this invasion.”

And I wish I could say it was just Arizona facing these threats, but states like Texas are going through similar madness.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had temporarily blocked a law in the Lone Star State that would also allow police to arrest illegal immigrants. The Hill reported, “In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the high court blocked Texas from enacting the law until March 13, giving the state until March 11 to respond to the Justice Department’s request asking to pause the law from taking place.”

It’s not surprising “the Biden administration is against” this law “because they want people to be coming into this country illegally,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said on Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.” But “what effect will this have on the border crisis the Biden administration has enabled?”

Texas State Representative David Spiller (R) responded first by noting that, if the bill were to go into effect, “Texas will have the authority, as no other state does … to secure [its] own borders” by being able to “arrest and order the return of people that arrive here in [the] state, in our country illegally.” But he added that the Supreme Court decision was something he considered “reasonable” since the law will likely still be able to go into effect in a couple days.

Even so, it doesn’t alter the fact that Texas is “doing the federal government’s job to secure our border,” he pointed out. “But in the meantime, Texans will protect Texas.” Which, unfortunately, seems to be the most that can be done at the moment.

As Perkins said, we’ll have to keep “watching this closely as it makes its way through the court system.” And as this crisis continues to unfold, we’ll have to watch closely to see who the Biden administration will ultimately defend.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Mayorkas Orchestrated the Illegal Invasion

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

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

At Last! A new bill in Congress to hold Big Pharma companies responsible for Covid vaccine injuries!

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

Hats off to Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, for authoring this bill!

While so many of us have been sounding the alarm over the experimental mRNA Covid “vaccines” and fighting localized battles as we were able, Rep. Chip Roy’s bill may be the colossal breakthrough we’ve all been praying for!

Not only would it be a godsend to the many thousands who’ve been badly injured by these novel injections, but it also loudly proclaims to the entire nation that these vaccines were not, and are not, safe!

Chip Roy is one brave man. His quote below says it all:

“I am introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.” (Emphasis mine)

Gotta now watch his back!

Here’s more from an Epoch Times article: Proposed legislation introduced on March 5 would strip COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers of liability protections, enabling U.S. residents injured by the vaccines to sue the companies.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), would retroactively remove protections from the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers. (Emphasis mine)

The bill itself reads as follows: “No federal law … may make the manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccine immune from suit or liability, or limit the liability of such a manufacturer, with respect to claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a COVID-19 vaccine.”

And now we need to flood our Representatives with calls, letters, faxes and emails, exhorting them to support this bill!

©2024. Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson with Dr. Pierre Kory on the now known deaths from the mRNA shots

VIDEOS: The Jeffrey Epstein ‘Black Book’ — Corruption & Fighting for Justice

/in , , , , , /by

In an era where truth often finds itself obscured by layers of complexity and power, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal stands as a glaring testament to the failures of accountability and justice. This story of wealth, influence, and unimaginable abuse demands answers and change.

At Veterans For Child Rescue (V4CR), we are committed to not just exposing but understanding the depths of child trafficking in the USA. In pursuit of this mission, we recently sat down with Investigative Journalist Nick Bryant, known for his groundbreaking work in bringing the Epstein case to the forefront of public consciousness. We aimed to uncover the truth, expose the complicit, and be a voice for the victims left shattered in Epstein’s wake.

Uncovering the Darkness: Nick Bryant’s Quest for Truth & Justice

As a reporter, Nick Bryant dedicated his career to exposing child trafficking rings, a pursuit that has put him outside of the journalistic mainstream. In 2009, before he turned his attention to Epstein, Bryant published a small-press book called The Franklin Scandal, about an alleged power broker pedophile ring in Nebraska that garnered national media attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Nick Bryant started pursuing Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier around 2012. Nick released Epstein’s “Black Book” on the internet in 2015, a document that shed light on the high-profile connections and seemingly impenetrable networks that enabled Epstein’s crimes to remain hidden in plain sight. This book wasn’t just a list of names; it was a ledger of complicity, detailing a network that spanned industries and borders, entangling politicians, celebrities, and business moguls in a narrative they wished remained untold.

“First discovered by the journalist Nick Bryant, Mr. Epstein’s little black book has resurfaced as part of the current investigation into the sex crimes Mr. Epstein, a 66-year-old financier, has been charged with. (Last week, a federal judge denied his request to await trial at his $56 million Upper East Side mansion.)

Alfredo Rodriguez, Mr. Epstein’s former house manager, attempted to sell the book; it was published in 2015 by Gawker, with the telephone numbers redacted.

Described in an F.B.I. affidavit in 2009 as “a small bound book,” the item contains the names of people who viewers theorized may have known Mr. Epstein socially. Being in the book suggested a fuzzy complicity: Might these people also have known, or had some sense, of his crimes?”

A report by New York magazine about those who appear in Mr. Epstein’s book declares that the list creates a portrait of a man “deeply enmeshed in the highest social circles.” The names in the book, though, are as likely to be a map of aspirational connections, as well as actual ones.”

– New York Times: What’s Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book?

“Bryant first got his hands on a copy of the black book in 2012, after the feds caught Epstein’s former house manager trying to peddle it for $50,000. At the time, Bryant was shopping a feature on Epstein, without success. “My Epstein article would focus on the government malfeasance that enabled Epstein to skate on scores of child abuse charges,” Bryant wrote in a pitch he submitted to various editors, “and I would also look into covert ties that the government may have had with Epstein. Moreover, the little black book opens up multiple vistas of investigation, and I would attempt to amass sufficient corroboration on some of the power broker perps who molested these girls.”

Three years later, when Epstein was back in the news due to fresh allegations that his pal Prince Andrew had slept with one of the girls who’d alleged she’d been trafficked by Epstein (Buckingham Palace denies this), Bryant finally published the black book in full (phone numbers redacted) in a Gawker article. In particular, the article called attention to a bunch of names that Epstein’s former house manager (who passed in late 2014) had circled, supposedly to identify them as potential “material witnesses.” (Trump, Barak, Alan Dershowitz, Les Wexner, Bill Richardson, and others.)”

– Vanity Fair: “A Lot of Powerful People…Could Go Down”: The Journalist Who Published Jeffrey Epstein’s Black Book and Jet Passenger Logs Comes in From the Fringe

Our interview series with Nick Bryant of EpsteinJustice.com peeled back the veneer of societal elite to reveal the mechanisms of power that protect the guilty while leaving the vulnerable exposed. He discussed not only the factual evidence gathered during his investigation but also the systemic failures that allowed such exploitation to thrive.

Epstein’s Victims: A Stark Reminder of Horrors Unseen

Epstein’s victims, their stories silenced for too long, are the beating heart of this fight. Their names and harrowing experiences, now emerging from the shadows, demand that we bear witness. With every new testimony, we understand the true scope of Epstein’s evil. But, we must go deeper and confront the structures that allowed this abuse to fester for so long.

The Public’s Role in the Wake of Scandal

As the Epstein investigation unfolded, it became a litmus test for our society’s willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. The scandal, as Bryant notes, isn’t just about Epstein himself but about the broader implications for child safety and the lengths to which systems of power will go to protect their interests over the well-being of the innocent.

The release of Epstein’s “Black Book” and the documented list of known victims serve as a stark reminder of the scale of Epstein’s and, by extension, society’s transgressions. It’s a call to action for the public, a demand for awareness, acceptance of the harsh realities of child trafficking and our government’s direct involvement, and a rallying cry for holding our elected officials accountable.

-8″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/LzfNzzWX9ts?start=2″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen” data-mce-fragment=”1″>

Acceptance, Awareness, and Action

Our discussion with Bryant underscored the importance of public engagement in the fight against child trafficking. Awareness is the first step toward change, but it must be coupled with action. By bringing these discussions into the public domain, through interviews like the one with Bryant and through documentaries like CONTRALAND, V4CR aims to arm the public with knowledge and urge a collective demand for justice and reform.

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal, while horrific in its scope and implications, offers an opportunity for societal reflection and transformation. It’s a reminder that the fight against child trafficking requires vigilance, perseverance, and, most importantly, a united front dedicated to safeguarding the innocent and bringing predators to justice.

Holding Elected Officials Accountable

As we navigate the aftermath of the Epstein scandal, it’s imperative that we, as a society, hold our elected officials to a higher standard. The failures of justice in Epstein’s case must not be in vain but should catalyze legislative and systemic reform. It’s up to us to ensure that our voices are heard, that we vote with our conscience, and that we demand accountability and action from those in power.

In conclusion, the Epstein scandal, as explored through our interview with Nick Bryant, serves as a sobering reminder of the work that lies ahead. It’s a call to arms for everyone who values justice, child safety, and the rule of law. By standing together, staying informed, and demanding change, we can hope to build a future where the horrors of child trafficking find no shadows to lurk within.

Join us in this mission. Be aware, be vocal, and be part of the solution. Together, we can make a difference.

Houses Passes ‘Laken Riley Act’ To Crack Down On Illegal Immigrant Criminals

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

The House passed a bill Thursday that would target illegal migrants in the U.S. who have committed certain crimes, naming the legislation in memory of the late nursing student Laken Hope Riley.

Riley, aged 22, was killed on Feb. 22 after being allegedly attacked while running in a forested area near the University of Georgia (UGA) in Athens, Georgia, with the suspect arrested and charged with her murder, Jose Antonio Ibarra, being a Venezuelan national who allegedly entered the United States illegally and was released after being initially detained. The Laken Riley Act would require the federal government to detain foreign nationals who commit “burglary, theft, larceny, or [a] shoplifting offense” as well as grant states to sue the federal government for non-enforcement of certain aspects of immigration law, and passed the House by a vote of 251 yeas to 170 nays.

“It that should pass the Senate. That doesn’t mean it will or it would, but it should. This is common sense legislation. This is good legislation, and this can help our local law enforcement so I would hope that the Senate would look at it from that standpoint,” Republican Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia, the bill’s sponsor, who represents the district where Riley died, told the DCNF. “There’s nothing wrong with this bill. There’s nothing I could see that they could point at and say ‘That’s wrong,’ with this bill. And if we can pass this, we should pass it. It’s got a good chance of helping save a life.”

H.R. 7511, Laken Riley Act by Daily Caller News Foundation on Scribd

“Laken Riley is not here with us anymore because of Biden’s failed policies. It’s about border security more than immigration. So, we need to look at what can we do if he is not going to secure the border,” Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia told the DCNF. “Her murderer was arrested in New York City weeks before and was released. Why shouldn’t he have been deported at that moment, by committing a crime?”

“Jose Ibarra, a 26-year-old citizen of Venezuela, was arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Sept. 8, 2022, after unlawfully entering the United States near El Paso, Texas. He was paroled and released for further processing,” ICE spokesperson Lindsay Williams told the DCNF. “On Aug. 31, 2023, Ibarra was arrested by the New York Police Department and charged with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation. He was released by the NYPD before a detainer could be issued,” Williams added.

The bill was passed shortly before Biden visited the U.S. Capitol to deliver the annual State of the Union address.

“This is a young lady who was just…with everything that we’ve learned about her, [she] just had a great future, a wonderful young lady who was dedicating herself to being a nurse, to help people,” Republican Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter of Georgia told the DCNF. “Don’t think that this is the only incident there are other incidents, as well…Every city is a border city. Now, every state is a border state.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

ARJUN SINGH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Georgia GOP Looks To Crack Down On Sheriffs, Jailers Who Shield Illegal Immigrants From ICE After Laken Riley Murder

POST ON X:

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

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

TREASON: Biden Regime Secretly Flew In 320,000 ‘Inadmissible’ Illegals To Lessen Border Numbers

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

According to a new FOIA disclosure from a lawsuit filed by CIS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been secretly flying over 320,000 illegal aliens from foreign airports to over 43 American airports.

“Under these legally dubious parole programs, aliens who cannot legally enter the country use the CBP One app to apply for travel authorization and temporary humanitarian release from those airports. The parole program allows for two-year periods of legal status during which adults are eligible for work authorization.”

Biden admin secretly flew in 320,000 ‘inadmissible’ illegal migrants — admits operation creates ‘vulnerabilities’: Report

By: Candace Hathaway, The Blaze, March 05, 2024

The Biden administration secretly flew 320,000 “inadmissible” illegal migrants into the United States last year, according to a Center for Immigration Studies Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the nonprofit think tank’s senior national security fellow, Todd Bensman, reported Monday.

The lawsuit revealed that Customs and Border Protection approved flights that brought hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants to 43 airports in the United States from January through December 2023. All of the individuals were preapproved on the CBP’s cellphone app, CBP One.

Citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and Ecuador are eligible to apply for travel authorization through the mobile app from their home countries. The Biden administration rolled out the CBP One app as part of its “lawful pathways” strategy, reportedly designed to reduce the number of migrants illegally coming across the southern border.

Migrants who apply for travel authorization and temporary humanitarian release through the administration’s app are then flown into the U.S. and placed on a parole program that grants them two years of legal status and work authorization eligibility.
Sign up for the Blaze newsletter
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time.

The administration initially refused to disclose the number of the 43 U.S. airports that received the illegal migrants, citing a “law enforcement exception,” according to Bensman’s report. However, CIS’ lawsuit revealed that the federal government is withholding the information over fears it could expose “vulnerabilities” caused by the program.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Starving ‘Palestinians’ Throw American Aid Food Into The Garbage

Iran-backed Hezb’Allah (Party of Allah) Launches Massive Rocket Attack Against Israel From Lebanon

FASCISM: Democrats Propose Bill To Remove Trump On Ballot In Wake of Unanimous of Trump SCOTUS Ruling

UNRWA Staff Recordings Prove Hamas Treated Young Women ‘Like Animals’

UN AUDIO: United Nations Employee Brags, Laughs About Kidnapping Female Hostage During the 10/7 Atrocities in Israel

POST ON X:

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

Supreme Court Schedules Date To Hear Trump’s Presidential Immunity Appeal

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court announced it will hear former President Donald Trump’s immunity appeal on April 25.

Trump’s election interference case in Washington, D.C. is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on his appeal, making the trial unlikely to conclude before the election. Trump’s presidential immunity appeal is one of multiple high-profile cases the Supreme Court is considering this term involving the former president.

“The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court wrote in an order last week agreeing to take up Trump’s case.

In April, the Supreme Court is slated to hear another case, Fischer v. United States, dealing with the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, which could also have a major impact on Trump’s case, as the statute is connected to two of the charges in his indictment.

The Supreme Court also ruled Monday that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado’s ballot. It held that Congress, not states, is responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which restricts individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

“In light of the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity case, I seriously doubt the D.C. federal trial will take place before the election,” John Malcolm, vice president for the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government and former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Criminal Division, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court will have to issue its decision in that case and the Fischer case – both of which will likely occur in late June – and assuming that the Supreme Court rules against former President Trump, there are still several pretrial matters pending before Judge Chutkan that would have to be resolved before a trial could begin.”

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan initially rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss his case based on presidential immunity in December. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in February that he is not immune from prosecution.

Over the past months, Special Counsel Jack Smith has sought to speed up the process to keep Trump’s trial on track. The Supreme Court rejected his request in December to take up the question before letting the appeals court weigh in.

Malcolm noted there is also a “DOJ policy that says that the Justice Department should not do anything close to an election that might impact that election” that would “likely come into play for any trial that would begin in the fall.”

“And there is the issue that the classified documents case in Florida may be going on this summer, which will last a few weeks,” he added.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Be Removed From Colorado Ballot

Donald Trump Will Take on Pro-Abortion Radical Joe Biden

LAWFARE 101: Blue Laws for Red Citizens

POST ON X:

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

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

FASCISM: Democrats Propose Bill To Remove Trump From Ballot In Wake of Unanimous of Trump SCOTUS Ruling

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

This is the very definition of authoritarianism. Democrat supremacism must be dismantled.

Democrats Eye New Way to Get Trump Off Ballot After Supreme Court Loss

By: Newsweek, Mar 04, 2024:

Hold us accountable by rating this article’s fairness

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, on Monday said he’s working with colleagues on legislation that could bar someone who committed insurrection from holding office.

Raskin made the announcement after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that former President Donald Trump should appear on the primary ballot in states that have challenged his presidential candidacy.

“”I’m working with a number of my colleagues—including [Democratic Representatives] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell—to revive legislation…to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment,” Raskin said during an appearance on CNN.

Continue reading.

Jonathan Turley opines, “I Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.

The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of “chaos” in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.

Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”

In other words, preventing voters from voting is “the most democratic” because these people choose to oppose certification . . . as he did in 2016.”

It appears citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency. It is the constitutional version of the Big Gulp law, voters like consumers must be protected against their own unhealthy choices

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

ELECTION FRAUD: Biden’s Border Invasion Will Inflate Democrats’ Electoral College Majority

Poll: 69% of Americans Believe Free Speech Is ‘Heading in the Wrong Direction’

How The Democrats Destroyed the American Legal System

A Showdown on the Freedom of Speech in Europe

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

Federal Appeals Court Says Texas Law Allowing Police To Arrest Illegal Migrants Can Take Effect

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

A federal appeals court reversed on Saturday a lower court’s freeze on a Texas law enabling local police to arrest illegal migrants.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge David Alan Ezra blocked Texas’ SB 4 from taking effect while the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Texas proceeds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay over the weekend, which would allow the law to take effect on March 9 if the Supreme Court does not intervene.

“Texas has the constitutional right to defend itself because of President Biden’s ongoing failure to fulfill his duty,” Republican Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott said last week. “We will not back down in our fight to protect Texas. This case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Ezra, a Reagan appointee, ruled last week that the state’s law “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

“If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws,” he wrote. “The effect would moot the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country and force the federal government to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations.”

The DOJ sued Texas over its law in January. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed it into law in December in response to record levels of illegal crossings.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘That’s A Problem’: Retired Border Patrol Chief Says Biden, Harris ‘Never’ Spoke To Him About Migrant Crisis

‘How Is That Possible?’: Martha MacCallum Presses Kirby On Why Biden Had Never Spoken To Ex-Border Patrol Chief

Joe Scarborough Practically Hyperventilates Over People Criticizing Biden’s Border Walk

Federal Judge Blocks Texas Law That Would Allow Law Enforcement To Arrest Illegal Migrants

POST ON X:

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

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