The Same FBI Moles Pushing Russiagate Are Protecting Hunter Biden

We often think of institutions as inherently corrupt. And some are. But within the FBI it’s very much a case of political agendas being played out by certain figures.

“Highly credible” whistleblowers have come forward to a senior Senate Republican alleging a widespread effort within the FBI to downplay or discredit negative information about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, according to letters reviewed by CBS News.

“The information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI’s receipt and use of derogatory information relating to Hunter Biden, and the FBI’s false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation,” GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland on July 25. “The volume and consistency of these allegations substantiate their credibility and necessitate this letter.”

Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the whistleblowers alleged that legitimate streams of information and intelligence about the president’s son were characterized as likely disinformation or prematurely shut down leading up to the 2020 presidential election.

Some of that involves known players.

FBI supervisory intelligence agent Brian Auten opened in August 2020 the assessment that was later used by the agency, according to the disclosures. One of the whistleblowers claimed the FBI assistant special agent in charge of the Washington field office, Timothy Thibault, shut down a line of inquiry into Hunter Biden in October 2020 despite some of the details being known to be true at the time.

A whistleblower also said Thibault “ordered closed” an “avenue of additional derogatory Hunter Biden reporting,” according to Grassley, even though “all of the reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants.” The senator said Thibault “ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required” and that FBI officials “subsequently attempted to improperly mark the matter in FBI systems so that it could not be opened in the future,” according to the disclosures.

Whistleblowers alleged investigators from an FBI headquarters team “were in communication with FBI agents responsible for the Hunter Biden information targeted by Mr. Auten’s assessment” and that their findings on whether the claims were true or disinformation were placed “in a restricted access sub-file” in September 2020, according to the senator.

The connections of course run in both directions.

The new information comes after Auten was involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, including interviewing Igor Danchenko, the alleged main source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier in 2017. Congressional sources confirmed to the Washington Examiner that Auten is the “Supervisory Intel Agent” from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse.

All of this is connected. From Russiagate to protecting Joe Biden, Democrat political allies within the DOJ colluded to cover up for Hillary and now for Biden.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI analyst behind Russian Collusion hoax also worked to discredit accurate reports about Hunter Biden’s crimes

FBI Leadership Pressuring Agents to Artificially Pad Domestic Terrorism Data

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

Which Burns Faster, Wind Turbines or EVs?

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for climate true-believers.  If you’re one of them, buckle up, you’re about to get red-pilled:

A wind turbine in Texas caught fire and was destroyed after being hit by lightning.  The 800 pounds of oil in the gear box produced a column of thick black smoke.  Firefighters are not prepared to handle that kind of blaze.  Before you dismiss this as a one-off, you should also know Mother Nature can destroy wind turbines with 200 mile-per-hour wind gusts in hurricanes.  Wind turbines are only designed to handle 160 mile an hour winds.  The flexible blades can bend, curve backwards, hit the tower, and destroy the whole thing.  And you want to put more turbines in the Atlantic Ocean, smack dab in the middle of Hurricane Alley?

So much for romancing the turbines. But there’s always electric vehicles, right?  A new electric bus caught fire and was destroyed in a bus parking lot in Connecticut.  Those fires are hard to handle, too. Fire officials said, “Lithium-ion battery fires are difficult to extinguish due to the thermal chemical process that produces great heat and continually reignites….”  This happened one day after the Governor celebrated a new law phasing in electric vehicles for the state fleet.    Fires aren’t the only problem. If you buy a used EV and the battery quits, you will find a replacement battery will cost you more than the used EV did in the first place.  And you won’t be able to get a replacement without condoning forced labor in China.  You’re not in favor of slavery, are you?  But don’t let me spoil the party. I’ll leave that to the countries having second thoughts about EV mandates because of the cost, the hit to living standards, the lack of infrastructure, and the wishful thinking behind them.

Oh well, there’s always solar panels, right?   Never mind that their output can decrease 25 percent if it gets too hot outside.  Worn-out panels end up “in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.”  That’s according to the left-wing Los Angeles Times, by the way.

Oh well, at least we’re getting rid of coal, right?  Hate to break it to you, but China is building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow, more than the rest of the world combined.  Germany is turning back to coal after its disastrous green energy policies which shut down 14 nuclear power plants produced the highest household electricity bills in the world, and resulted in over-dependence on Russian gas.  World coal-usage continues to go up, not down.  So you can super-glue yourself to the Mona Lisa all you want, but the fact of the matter is whatever we do here in the West isn’t going to make any difference to climate change, not one bit.

Gee, all these problems nobody ever talks about.  Oh well, at least our leaders have their hearts in the right place, right?   Actually, no.   Biden’s green energy transition is being led by green energy investors who are dictating government policy to enrich themselves.  For example, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was on the board of an electric car company and, in May, pocketed a cool $1.6 million from exercising stock options in the company.  John Kerry – Saint John Kerry – has green energy investments in China.   Hunter Biden owns a stake in a Chinese company that assisted in the purchase of a cobalt mine, cobalt being necessary for electric car batteries.  Did the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden get 10 percent of this deal, too?  Green-friendly ESG funds are moving into fossil fuel investments, profiting from the mayhem green energy policies have produced.

And you thought these people were environmentalists and true believers. Joke’s on you. You’ve been played.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Electric Cars: Inconvenient Facts, Part 2

RELATED TWEET:

DeSantis: Kamala is the Best Impeachment Insurance Biden Could Have Asked For

Friday on FNC’s The Ingraham Angle, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) explained why he was initially wrong about President Joe Biden’s selection of then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his vice-presidential running mate in 2020. He now realizes her epic incompetence makes her “the best impeachment insurance and 25th amendment insurance anyone could have.”

“So here’s the thing – I thought Biden picking her at first was like the worst decision ever because she’s not great,” DeSantis said.

“She’s not great” is the whopping political understatement of 2022.

“But she’s like the best impeachment insurance and 25th amendment insurance anyone could have,” DeSantis continued. “Because as bad as Biden is, even though he can barely read the teleprompter, and as much as people disapprove of him, nobody wants Harris, and so they’d much rather stick with Biden floundering around than actually turn the wheels of power over to somebody that clearly is in over her head.”


Kamala Harris

111 Known Connections

Harris Gives Simplistic Explanation of Russia’s Recent Invasion of Ukraine

During a March 1, 2022 appearance on the syndicated “Morning Hustle” radio program, Harris was asked by co-host Headkrack to explain the conflict “in layman’s terms for people who don’t understand what’s going on and how can this directly affect the people of the United States.” Speaking slowly, Harris replied: “So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.”

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Defund UCLA

“No one wants to openly admit [we all] hope Clarence Thomas dies.”


Earlier this month, Joseph H. Manson, a respected anthropologist and the former winner of a Leakey Foundation Research Grant, announced that he was walking away from his tenured position at the university after what he described as the “woke capture” of the institution.

After writing about the ruthless political persecution of P. Jeffrey Brantingham, a fellow anthropology department academic who was canceled for studying crime patterns, he also listed other purged UCLA faculty.

“Emeritus Professor Val Rust (Graduate School of Education) was banned from campus after incurring the wrath of graduate student adherents of Critical Race Theory. Researcher James Enstrom (Environmental Health Sciences) and lecturer Keith Fink (Communication Studies) were fired from dissenting from the woke orthodoxy. Gordon Klein, after being suspended by UCLA’s business school in Spring 2020 for refusing to use race-based grading criteria, mobilized mass support and legal assistance, was reinstated, and is now suing the university.”

Klein came under such sustained attack that he had to be placed under armed guard.

The academic documented campus antisemitism including a talk by bigoted antisemite Rabab Abdulhadi, who had falsely accused a Jewish student of “white supremacy” for supporting Israel resulting in a complaint filed with the Department of Education. UCLA has been the subject of complaints over antisemitism by StandWithUs, the Zachor Legal Institute and others.

UCLA anti-Israel activists, as documented by the civil rights group Canary Mission, have boasted that they’re members of terrorist groups, supported terrorism and called for the murder of Jews without any action being taken by the university.

Leftist hate and violence at UCLA has not only been directed at Jews and pro-Israel students.

Manson’s principled resignation comes after Johnathan Perkins, the director for Race and Equity at the University of California-Los Angeles, recently tweeted, “No one wants to openly admit [we all] hope Clarence Thomas dies.”

Unlike the academics targeted by leftist campus lynch mobs, Perkins faced no consequences.

Despite UCLA’s growing extremism, its core budget in past years was funded at as much as a third by California taxpayers. In 2015, UCLA received $440 million from the state. And the nation’s taxpayers, through the federal government, provide a majority of its research grants  amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars more in money flowing through the system.

As a public university, UCLA is a non-profit under 501(c)(3) even though it has long ceased to function as a non-partisan institution and has become an aggressive leftist political machine.

UCLA spends over $1 million on political lobbyists.

Its personnel rank as 47 out of 25,950 in political funding and have provided almost $1 million to the DNC, $400,947 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $181,468 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $151,650 to the House Majority PAC in the 2022 cycle alone. Even though Senator Raphael Warnock, a racist Georgia politician, is on the other side of the country, UCLA’s leftists still poured $124,881 into his campaign.

In 2020, UCLA personnel funded Biden to the tune of almost $4 million and nearly another million to Bernie Sanders, along with millions more to various leftist election PACs.

UCLA is no longer a serious academic institution. Its “woke” faculty are purging credible academic figures like Joseph H. Manson and others, while cultivating an atmosphere of hatred on campus and using a taxpayer-funded institution for political and anti-American activity.

It’s time for the IRS to pull UCLA’s non-profit status.

With a $5.1 billion endowment, there’s no reason for taxpayers to fund UCLA either directly or indirectly. If UCLA wants to drive out serious academics while promoting radical discourse, it should do this with its own money and if it wants to function as an arm of the Democrats, it should not enjoy non-profit status while interfering in and subverting our political system.

While the IRS has targeted conservative non-profits, it has continued to allow leftist non-profits, including UCLA to operate without oversight or accountability. Department of Education investigations have failed to clean up UCLA, lifting its non-profit status is the nuclear option.

California and this country deserve great public universities. UCLA and its institutions can no longer claim to be serving any such function. By lifting UCLA’s non-profit status, donors may be redirected to contribute to emerging institutions like the University of Austin that are dedicated to serious academic inquiry and honor free speech: values that UCLA no longer believes in.

AUTHOR

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

RELATED VIDEO: Kellyanne Conway: Newsom’s political career has been marked by ‘hypocrisy’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill de Blasio Blames Jews, Bashes Israel Over Political Failures

Turkey: 12th grade public school textbook promotes armed jihad

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

Barry Goldwater Correctly Predicted The Problems Afflicting America in 1980

The need for ‘economic growth that we hear about so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nation’s economic forces, but by emancipating them.” — Senator Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative.


We have been a fan of former Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona. His views on government and the roll of politicians can be summed up in the following passage from his book “The Conscience of a Conservative“:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

WATCH: Senator and Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater’s 1980 speech at the Republican National Convention.

Here is Senator Goldwater making his famous statement, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

We wish we had more politicians like Barry Goldwater in today’s Republican Party. If we did our nation and its people would be more free and secure.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ANALYSIS: How Did ‘The Least Racially Diverse,’ And Most Radical Faction Of The Left Hijack The Democrat Party?

Election Integrity Professional Demolishes Guardian Hit Piece

Democrat-friendly media outlets are working overtime to discredit all efforts to achieve free and fair elections and to smear anyone involved in election integrity efforts.  One of many such pathetic articles appeared in The Guardian, the left-wing British publication with a U.S. presence. The article drives the phony narrative that poll-watching and training for election integrity activists amounts to voter intimidation and is to be condemned.

The article specifically names Tim Meisburger, a member of my activist network devoted to achieving free and fair elections. Tim has spent 30 years observing overseas elections, culminating in his appointment as Director of the Center for Democracy Rights and Governance for the federal agency USAID. Tim is currently Director of the America Project’s election integrity program.   The Guardian never asked him for his side of the story, so he wrote a letter to the editor demolishing the article, a letter which the Guardian has yet to publish.  In the letter, Tim wrote:

This article is littered with “scare quotes”; a rhetorical device and cliché whose overuse reflects poorly on the professionalism of the author, and competence of his editor. Although this article is listed under “US news”, it is immediately clear that it is an opinion piece….

Early in the article Peter Stone … plays the “Hitler” card, suggesting our leadership is pushing a “big lie”; a pejorative the left uses to refer to the opinion shared by many (according to recent polls, more than half of all Americans, including 30% of Democrats) that the 2020 election may have been affected by fraud….

As election and democracy professionals know, you cannot judge the legitimacy of an election by looking solely at what happens on election day, as many events can occur well before election day that affect the integrity of the election process….

[U]ndisputed examples of incidents or programs that might give one cause to doubt the democratic legitimacy of the election include:

  • Coordinated suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election
  • Introduction of many new election procedures as a response to COVID 19 that universally weakened the security of the election process
  • Widespread use of insecure mail-in ballots and drop boxes, paid for in many cases by donations from a partisan billionaire.
  • The use of state officials and resources to turn out voters in predominately Democratic areas, again paid for by a partisan billionaire.
  • Ballot mules geo-tracked and videoed collecting ballots from partisan organizations and then stuffing said ballots in drop boxes
  • Observers being prevented (on video) from observing counting processes
  • Poll workers (on video) sending observers home and stuffing ballot boxes in the middle of the night
  • The suspiciously coordinated suspension of counting in battleground states, followed by markedly different results when counting is resumed

These and other incidents may not be enough to sway Peter, but they are certainly enough to create reasonable doubt for many people. For me, as an election professional, the prevention of effective observation alone is enough to declare that the integrity of the election cannot be verified; and if we were overseas monitoring an election in a developing country and saw that, we would condemn the process and call for new elections….

The letter goes on from there and includes the inconvenient fact Meisburger left USAID at the end of President Trump’s term, not under a “cloud” as the article baselessly claimed.

That’s the rebuttal.  Let’s see if the Guardian prints it.  Don’t hold your breath.  Open and honest debate, any more than free and fair elections, is not how the Democrats roll.

Visit The Daily Skirmish  and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Biden’s TSA Becomes the Transportation False Security Administration

Illegal aliens are welcomed aboard airliners – using arrest warrants for ID.


The Biden Administration continues to implement policies that are not in the best interests of America or Americans.  Nowhere is this more apparent than the multifaceted immigration system.

Immigration is not a single issue, but a singular issue because it profoundly impacts nearly every challenge and threat that confronts America in this especially perilous era.

Even with the ongoing “crisis on the southern border” getting some attention by some news organizations, the immigration crisis involves far more than the unending tsunami of illegal aliens flooding into the United States from Mexico.

The frequently maligned Border Wall was never designed to keep people from entering the United States, only to make it more difficult of those who seek to enter to evade the vetting process we conduct at ports of entry to screen out aliens who would pose a threat to public health, public safety, national security and the jobs and wages of Americans.

The border wall does not block ports of entry only serves to funnel all people and commerce to ports of entry where the vetting process is conducted, guided by 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

In discussing the importance of the border wall I have frequently compared the wall on the border to the “cattle runs” that are employed at airports to guide passengers to the next available TSA (Transportation Security Administration) agent.  In using that comparison I have often rhetorically asked, “Would you get on an airplane if you saw your fellow passengers evading thet TSA officials?”  As you might expect, without exception the response was immediate and vehement.  All stated that there was no way in hell they would board such an airliner.

It turns out that the vetting process conducted by the TSA is not much better than the lunacy we are experiencing with the immigration system under the Biden Administration.

The only thing worse than no security is false security.

The TSA needs an additional word in its title, the Transportation False Security Administration (TFSA)!

As I have written in many of my articles, the Biden Administration has all but terminated the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.  As I noted a long time ago during one of my first television appearances shortly after the terror attacks of 9/11, “No one would break into the amusement park if they could not get on the rides.”  The corollary is that “No one stays in the amusement park when they turn off the lights and shut down the rides.”

The Biden Administration has laid out the red carpet to the biggest “Amusement Park” in the world- the United States of America and has invited millions of illegal aliens to “come on down!”

This is actually the “Root Cause” for the unprecedented massive illegal immigration we are now witnessing.

While some of these illegal aliens are fleeing crime and poverty in their home countries- others may be fugitives from justice or are members of drug cartels, transnational gangs or terrorist organizations and therefore pose a threat.

Inexplicably the Biden Administration through its Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, and through its TSA (Transportation Security Administration) administrator is acting in direct opposition to letter and spirit of our immigration laws and has promulgated policies that are in direct conflict with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony.

I hate say, “I told you so,” but on December 7, 2020 my article, Biden’s DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender: Alejandro Mayorkas, architect of DACA, picked by Biden to head DHS, was published, accurately predicting the disaster that now undermines our national security and public safety.

Recently members of congress turned to yet another Biden policy decision that not only makes no sense but undermines national security and public safety.  There is absolutely no “upside” to the administration’s policy of permitting illegal aliens to board airliners with their only form of “identification” being an administrative Warrant of Removal issued by DHS.  This lunacy was reported by Fox News on January 21, 2022, TSA confirms it lets illegal immigrants use arrest warrants as ID in airports.  The subtitle noted that: TSA said the document would be checked against CBP databases.

Before we go further, the obvious question is why is the Biden Administration doing this?  Where is the benefit to America or Americans?

On July 21, 2021, Fox News reported:  TSA chief says ‘under 1,000’ illegal immigrants have been allowed to board planes with warrants as ID.

Here is an unbelievable excerpt from that report that focuses on an exchange at a senate hearing between Republican Senator Josh Hawley and TSA (Transportation and Security Administration) Administrator David Pekoske on July 21, 2022:

(Senator) Hawley pushed the TSA chief on why he would allow illegal immigrants with such a warrant onto a flight at all.

“We arent looking at whether a person is legal or illegal in the country,” he said. “Our role is to make sure that people who may pose a risk to transportation that is significant enough to require enhanced screening or to not allow them to fly.”

“So your position is someone who is known to have violated the laws of the United States does not thereby need enhanced screening?” Hawley said.

“Sir, there are people who violate the laws of the United States every day who fly,” Pekoske responded. “We look for things related to transportation security.”

While Pekoske again stressed that the warrant is “the beginning of an identity verification process that follows” Hawley was not convinced.

“I think youre going to have a hard time explaining to folks who wait for all of this time in these lines, who subject themselves voluntarily to the restrictions you impose…that youre allowing illegal aliens with warrants for arrest to get on airplanes.”

Speaking from my 30 years of experience with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service, many illegal aliens have no reliable documentary proof of their identities or even of their actual nationality.  The “CBP database” is virtually worthless where illegal aliens are concerned.

Arrest Warrants can be forged and do not do not meet the standards for documents that other travelers must provide to positively identify the persons carrying that document.

Think about the hundreds of thousands of so-called “get aways” who evaded the overwhelmed  Border Patrol.

For all of the nonsense about the administration addressing “root cause” of illegal immigration, the true Root Cause is the fact that the Biden administration. Is facilitating the entry of millions of illegal alines and then dispersing them around the United States.

As an INS agent I frequently arrested illegal aliens who either had no identity documents or had multiple identity documents in multiple false identities.  We were frequently left with no alternative but to issue them warrants in whatever name they claimed was their names.

Law violators frequently use false aliases as a way of deceiving law enforcement officials.  This is why law enforcement agencies invariably fingerprint those who are arrested in an effort to determine their true identities and to determine if they are fugitives from justice.

In my personal experience, aliens may have outstanding arrest warrants in many countries around the world that do not show up when we run their fingerprints.  Frequently the fingerprinting systems are not compatible from one country to another and because of corruption, many criminals in other countries can pay a relatively small fee to have their criminal records expunged and even enable them to purchase “Good Conduct Certificate” from the law enforcement officials of this other countries, even after they completed lengthy prison sentences after they were found guilty of committing serious violent crimes.

Meanwhile, Biden Administration Plans To Protect Immigration Fraudsters.

The official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was authored by members of the 9/11 Commission staff- the federal agents and the attorneys, wrote about the findings of the Commission.

Here are a few excerpts that illustrate how dangerous the Biden administration’s policies are to America and Americans- once again raising the question  about the possible motivations of this administration.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States.

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.

Page 54 of that report- Under the title 3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot,” included this excerpt that makes the above issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the U.S. terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the U.S. government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

Benjamin Franklin sagely noted “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Under the Biden administration we have certainly compromised our freedoms- but as for our “security” we have officials whose titles include the word “security” but clearly, they could not care less about the security of our nation or our fellow citizens.

©Michael Cutler. All rights.

If Consumers, Businesses Cared About ‘Climate’, The Last Cars They’d Buy Are Hot-Selling Electric Vehicles

Governments are forcing the public to buy EVs even if they don’t want the WOKE nonsense.

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal, “A zombie business or industry, in today’s parlance, is one sustained less by creative destruction than by a combination of government bailout, regulation and hidden subsidies. This is what the global auto sector is becoming.

The Upside-Down Logic of Electric SUVs

The auto industry gambles its finances on big electric vehicles for the rich, like Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and GM’s Hummer EV, and second-rate cars for everybody else.

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2022:

If consumers and businesses cared about the CO2 they emit, the last cars they might buy are hot-selling EVs like Ford’s Mustang Mach-E or GM’s Hummer EV.

These large-battery, long-range vehicles would have to be driven many tens of thousands of miles before they rack up enough mileage and save enough gasoline to compensate for the emissions created to produce their batteries. And that’s according to their fans, whose calculations often smell of friendly assumptions about the source of the electricity consumed, whether gasoline driving is really being displaced mile for mile, and a presumed lack of progress in the meantime in reducing the carbon intensity of conventional motor fuels. Most problematic of all is the assumption that EV use causes oil to stay in the ground.

If a real incentive to reduce CO2 were in place, namely a carbon tax, buyers would gravitate to the smallest-battery vehicles and hybrids, suitable for running about town but not highway trips. These cars stand a better chance of offsetting their lifecycle emissions.

OK. Buyers aren’t drawn to the electric Mustang or Ford’s new F-150 Lightning pickup to solve climate change. These are exciting, high-tech gadgets in their own right. And that’s fine. Even so, customers’ appetite might slacken if they were told the truth. Ford leaked this week for the benefit of the investment community plans to lay off thousands of workers to fatten the profits of its conventional vehicles. This extra cash is needed to support electric vehicles that lose money despite taxpayer rebates plus hidden subsidies via our convoluted fuel-economy and trade regulations.

This trade-off could actually lead to worse emissions than otherwise (though still a rounding error in total global emissions) considering that most nonrich consumers will likely opt for gasoline-powered cars for decades to come. It also represents a gamble with the industry’s finances, which depend on large, government-protected profits from standard SUVs and pickups. If these vehicles start looking shabby and out of date due to lack of investment, the industry is in deep straits. As Ford CEO Jim Farley said in March, “we need them to be more profitable to fund” Ford’s $50 billion in spending on mostly high-end EVs, which have the least chance of being net reducers of CO2.

These outcomes make no sense in climate terms, naturally. Nissan is giving up its pioneering electric Leaf in favor of a big electric SUV aimed at affluent shoppers. One manufacturer that speaks confidently of profits in the near term from electric vehicles is Porsche—whose cars don’t rack up Camry-like mileages, don’t displace gasoline-powered trips to the Shop-Rite, and don’t stand a snowball’s chance of offsetting the emissions involved in producing their powerful batteries.

Keep reading……

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Charging an All Electric Car Uses 4 Times the Electricity of a Home Air Conditioner

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

Gore: Eliminate Democracy to Save Planet

A guy who lost a presidential election but made a fortune has some thoughts on the political system.

Gore, in an interview with Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd that will air Sunday, said that public sentiment is changing in regards to climate change but that “democracy is broken,”

The only people who think “democracy is broken” want to eliminate it.

Much like “the Supreme Court is broken” or “the Constitution is broken.”

The former vice president also called for the filibuster to be eliminated, saying that “we have a minority government….we have big money playing much too large a role in our politics.”

Gore, who went from an estimated $1.7 million to over $200 million knows all about “big money” and where to get it.

The environmentalist scam has been adopted by green investors who want to hijack our entire economy, as they have already hijacked the economies of entire states, like California, and countries, like those of much of Europe, and they insist on destroying anyone who stands in their way.

AUTHOR

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

The Border is Secure and I’m the Tooth Fairy

There he goes again.  DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said again last week the border “is secure”.   Sure, and I’m the tooth fairy.  This is gas-lighting of the highest order.  How do I know?  Let me count the ways.

Border agents called Mayorkas a liar for saying it.  Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens have poured across the border in recent months and the number of border stops is at an all-time high.   A new DHS report shows about a third of those released failed to check in with ICE within 60 days as required.  The government failed to collect many of their U.S. addresses and has no idea where many of them are.   More illegal aliens are headed our way.  One day last week, 3,000 migrants stormed the Mexican border with Guatemala, pushing their way past the Mexican National Guard on their way to the U.S.  Watch the video if you want to see pure chaos.

Things are so bad the Biden administration has stopped releasing the numbers of people who die illegally crossing into the U.S.  Things are so bad, even Democrat big city mayors are complaining.  New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said too many migrants are finding their way to these cities and are straining public resources.  But they have only themselves to blame.  The New York City website proclaims for all to see, “Many services and benefits are available to all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status.”  If you’re an illegal alien, not to worry. The website promises, “The City of New York has confidentiality protections in place for all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status, who are accessing important City services.”  Washington, D.C. has been a sanctuary city for years, with Bowser trumpeting in 2016, “We celebrate our diversity and respect all DC residents no matter their immigration status.”  But now that the problem is in their face, she and Adams want the federal government to bail them out and let them escape the consequences of their own bad policies.

The feds are busy enacting bad policies of their own.  In previous commentaries, I’ve listed numerous policy changes the Biden administration has made to deliberately open the border.  Here are half a dozen more to add to the list:

The administration wanted to reduce the number of deportations where there was no immediate public safety risk, but the Supreme Court has blocked this for now, pending litigation.  The number of prosecutions for illegal border crossings is down 80 percent, and that’s by design.  The federal government just gave a contract worth at least $171 million to a left-wing group to help unaccompanied alien children avoid deportation.  The administration reinterpreted federal law to allow people with Temporary Protected Status to leave the country and return even if they had come here unlawfully at the outset.  Deported illegal aliens used to have to wait years before being allowed to reenter the U.S. legally but now they can come back in the next day without prejudicing their eventual application for legal status.  Finally, the administration is instituting a new system to allow aliens to apply for asylum online from anywhere in the world.

Alejandro Mayorkas and Joe Biden hate America and they’re trying to destroy it by replacing who lives here.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: they should be impeached for refusing to faithfully execute the laws.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Documentary: The Real Story of January 6th

I am reliably informed by some dedicated people I work with daily that this is a superb document on the events of January 6th. I myself have not watched past the first few minutes yet. But I do plan to over the next day or so. Recording events and editing them, takes up a lot of time. But this is supposed to be really good. After watching, some commentary may be added from the particular viewpoint of this site and its authors. But then again, it may not be needed.

Either way, here it is:

Please share this.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Secret Service discovers records of potential deleted Jan 6 text messages on phones of 10 agents, report

Police Stand Around As Michelle Malkin Assaulted By BLM

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

Fossil Fuels: Essential to Human Flourishing

Despite the prevailing narrative, there are compelling arguments for the continued use of fossil fuels.


Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas — Not Less By Alex Epstein | Portfolio, USA | 2022, 480 pages

Alex Epstein first shot to fame in 2014 with his counter-cultural bestseller, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

In it, he provided an assertive defence of fuels which enable so many aspects of modern life, but which many suggest threaten our survival in the long-term.

His new work, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas — Not Less, continues in the same vein.

In the decade since Epstein’s emergence on the fringes of the climate debate, concerns about rising temperatures have grown with the effect that governments have committed themselves to ever-more radical decarbonisation policies, in particular the increased use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Epstein accepts the scientific evidence that the increases in greenhouse gas emissions in recent centuries due to human activity have increased the Earth’s temperatures. At the same time, he rejects the central premise of the modern environmental movement by maintaining that this does not threaten the survival of our species.

Instead, he convincingly argues that the widespread availability of fossil fuels has been crucial in leading to an unprecedented improvement in living standards in the developed world.

Counterintuitive

Not only do fossil fuels allow us to do more things and enjoy a more comfortable existence, Epstein also writes that they help humanity to guard against natural disasters and the negative impact of a gradually changing climate. For this reason, we need more fossil fuel use, not less. He writes:

“[M]ore fossil fuel use will actually make the world a far better place, a place where billions more people will have the opportunity to flourish, including: to pull themselves out of poverty, to have a chance to pursue their dreams, and — this will likely seem craziest of all — to experience higher environmental quality and less danger from climate.”

Epstein maintains that it is especially vital that the billions of people in what he calls the “unempowered world”, who currently use almost no energy, can enjoy the benefits which so many of us take for granted.

One example of the suffering which energy poverty imposes is the fact that almost 800 million people have no access to electricity, while around 2.4 billion people still rely on wood and animal dung to cook and heat their homes.

Without easy access to oil, gas and coal, people living in these environments will never escape an existence which involves so much daily hardship.

Energy use is clearly correlated with various measurements of human progress (such as increased life expectancy), and the author cites the examples of China and India whose economic rise has largely been fuelled by coal and other fossil fuels.

Their rise forms part of an often unheralded advance in living standards which has occurred in recent decades, in which the extreme poverty rate worldwide has decreased from 35% in 1990 to less than 10% today.

Epstein insists that this transformation could not have happened without fossil fuels, and he maintains that they enjoy a range of advantages including greater affordability, reliability, versatility and scalability.

Valid arguments

When it comes to the statistics he cites, again it is difficult to argue with Epstein’s stance.

Fossil fuels provide 80% of the world’s energy, whereas solar and wind power provide just 3%. Crucially, unlike wind and solar, fossil fuels are not an intermittent source of energy. They can be more easily stored and transported, and far more energy is concentrated within them.

Contrary to the claims of some commentators, they are also not running out: proven oil and gas reserves have increased in recent decades, thanks in part due to new technologies being used to extract them like fracking, which the green movement continues to fight against tenaciously.

In the area of mobile energy, oil is especially important, and is responsible for meeting virtually all humanity’s needs in the areas of shipping, aviation and heavy-duty trucking, without which the global economy would come to a shuddering halt.

Throughout the book, Epstein describes the multitude of other ways in which fossil fuels make life possible, including the powering of agricultural and industrial equipment and the use of fossil fuel materials in a wide variety of synthetic materials.

Perception

There is something more at the core of Epstein’s argument other than the evidence attesting to the importance of high-quality energy sources.

He is a philosopher by training, and he believes that the refusal of many to acknowledge the aforementioned facts stems from the popularity of an anti-impact worldview. Those who hold this viewpoint tend to seek to minimise if not eliminate the impact which humans have on a world they consider naturally safe and untainted. This also helps to explain why green activists have long opposed the use of nuclear or even hydroelectric power, neither of which contribute to emissions significantly.

Rejecting this view outright, Epstein proposes an alternative framework based around “human flourishing”, one which considers the negative impacts of carbon dioxide emissions in the context of the “climate mastery” benefits which come from having abundant supplies of energy available and being more prosperous.

This ability to cope with the vagaries of the world around us has resulted in climate-related deaths falling by 98% over the last century, even while carbon dioxide levels increased. In a similar way, technological improvements in the area of flood protection — many of which are made possible by the availability of fossil fuels — means that over 100 million now live below the level of high tide in their home area.

Epstein does not deny that the increased use of fossil fuels which he seeks will likely accelerate the pace of global warming. Instead, he simply maintains that the benefits of expanding access to energy greatly outweigh the drawbacks, while also elaborating upon the reasons why he believes many people exaggerate the risks which climate change poses.

There are many things to admire about Epstein’s central argument — in particular the insistence on recognising the importance of affordable energy to continued human prosperity and progress.

At a time when increasingly alarmist rhetoric is accelerating unwise policies, his calm and reasoned take (along with that of others like the author of False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg) is more needed now than ever.

Quibbles

That being said, Fossil Future does not represent a major advance on Epstein’s earlier book. It covers much of the same ground and at times his analysis is too simplistic.

There are significant differences between different fossil fuels, for example, with natural gas producing only half the emissions produced by coal. Indeed, the shift from coal to gas in electricity generation in the United States has been the cause of major emissions reductions there.

Yet though he compares different energy sources, Epstein does not devote enough attention to the question of whether some fossil fuels should be favoured over others.

Even those inclined to agree with his arguments may also be perturbed by the lack of concern which Epstein has about the risks posed by climate change, compared to the attitude of Lomborg — who likens the process to having “a long-term chronic condition like diabetes — a problem that needs attention and focus, but one that we can live with.”

Epstein’s lack of scientific qualifications is another drawback, and even though he presents a cogent explanation for why the media may be overestimating the problem of climate change, many people will not take this argument seriously until it is made more firmly by specialists in the area of climate science.

In spite of this, Epstein has once again succeeded in focusing attention on facts which cannot be avoided.

“The fossil fuel elimination movement is powerful only because it has a moral monopoly, meaning that it is widely considered the only moral position,” he tells us. This is true, and by presenting readers with an alternative moral and philosophical framework with which we can examine these issues, Alex Epstein has again made a valuable contribution.

AUTHOR

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… 

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s ‘Farmercide:’ Green Policies Create Planned World Famine

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

8 Ideas That Will Teach You to Think Like an Economist

Sound economic thinking is vital for a prosperous future.


Economics is the study of human action—the choices people make in a world of scarcity. Scarcity means that people have unlimited wants but we live in a world of limited resources. Because of this fact people have to make choices, and choices imply trade-offs. The choices people make are influenced by the incentives they face and those incentives are shaped by the institutions—rules of the game—under which people live and interact with others.

The Foundation for Economic Education has published some excellent essays on the economic way of thinking and basic concepts (“The Economic Way of Thinking” by Ronald Nash and “Economics for the Citizen” by Walter E. Williams).

In this essay, I will explain eight ideas and give examples of the economic way of thinking.

We often hear how wonderful certain countries are because they provide “free healthcare” or “free education.” Many will also say “I got it for free” because they didn’t pay with money.

The error lies in not understanding the difference between price and cost. For example, people usually say, “The Starbucks latte cost me five dollars” or, “The movie ticket cost me fifteen dollars.” Cost in economics means what you give up or sacrifice. In these examples, the prices were $5 and $15. But the cost of the latte was perhaps the sandwich one could have purchased instead with that same $5, and the cost of the movie was perhaps the three lattes one could have purchased instead with that same $15.

Labeling healthcare and education “free” is not just wrong—”there’s no such thing as a free lunch”—it’s also misleading. As my former professor Walter E. Williams would say, “Unless you believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, the money has to come from somewhere.” You might not get a medical bill in those countries but you have more taken out of your paycheck (i.e., taxes) and you might have to wait much longer to get that test or have that “minor” (from the bureaucrats’ perspective) surgery. You pay with either money or time, but either way, you pay! Taxes are also used to pay for public schools, which is yet another example of how people call something “free” when it is not.

There’s a difference between zero price and zero cost. There could be a zero price ($0), but there’s never a zero cost. Therefore, don’t swear anymore by using the “F” word!

“Actions speak louder than words,” is a well-known idiom. Humans act, and the act of choice tells us something. Consider this example: A person walks into an Apple store and sees the price of the latest iPhone and angrily mumbles, “What a rip off” but still proceeds to purchase that phone.

When one does something voluntarily, it demonstrates their true preference at the time. Assuming that individuals are self-interested and will ex ante (looking forward in time) subjectively weigh the cost and benefit of an action, and, also assuming it’s not a right to have the private property of another (i.e., Apple’s iPhone), then when a person walks into an Apple store and buys the new iPhone, the individual obviously expects to be better off in some way at that moment. To say that Apple “took advantage” of the willing customer would be nonsense since Apple, or any private business, cannot force people to buy their product. It’s one thing to say something, but the proof is in the act of choice.

“Don’t cry over spilt milk” means what’s done is done. The only costs that should come into our decision-making are future opportunity costs. Past costs are “sunk.” The typical example to explain the sunk cost fallacy is the movie example. You spend $15 to see a movie and an hour into this three-hour movie you realize that it’s horrible and will only get worse. However, your feeling is that you should stay and get your money’s worth. That is bad economic thinking. The $15 is gone so don’t lose the next two hours of your valuable time—get up and leave.

Most of us know people who were (are) in a horrible relationship or dating the wrong type of person (perhaps this applies to you). But the feeling of “I’ve already spent two years of my life with this person” can lead to a bad decision. Many end up marrying the person in order to justify the investment of time.

No offense to Beyoncé, but if you like yourself, then perhaps don’t let that person “put a ring on it”! Don’t lose the next two years of precious time. It’s better to be single than in a bad relationship (but that’s for another essay).

The optimal or efficient level of pollution is not zero. The optimal number of traffic deaths or sports injuries also is probably not zero. The optimal number of people getting a virus is not zero. The optimal level of safety is not perfect safety. Does this sound strange or harsh? Well, if you want to do a cross country road trip and not walk or ride a bike, or if you want to enjoy playing or watching sports, and if you want to physically interact with others, then it is clear that the optimal level of pollution, deaths, injuries, and people getting a virus is actually greater than zero. The optimal level of safety is less than perfect safety. Nothing is free including more safety—trade-offs are always involved because there is always an opportunity cost when we do something, even things like travel, play sports, or interact with others.

Incremental decision-making is what economists call thinking at the margin. Marginal means the one additional or extra unit. Every time we make a decision it’s as if we are calculating the marginal benefit (the benefit of one more unit) and the marginal cost (what would be given up to acquire one more unit) of the action. The economic way of thinking says something should be done until the marginal benefit (MB) equals the marginal cost (MC). There’s also a concept known as the law of diminishing marginal utility—each additional unit gives less and less utility or benefit.

We want clean air so that our eyes aren’t irritated when we go outside and our lungs don’t burn when we take a breath. However, if the desire is perfectly clean air this would mean no more cars, no planes, no boats or ships, and no trains (some would actually desire this situation, at least theoretically). This would impose tremendous costs on society.

Let’s look at it another way. If I snapped my fingers and made the Pacific Ocean perfectly clean but then put one drop of oil somewhere in the ocean unbeknownst to everyone else, would it be worth it to spend money, time and other resources to hunt down that one drop of oil? The marginal benefit of finding and removing one drop of oil in the quintillions of gallons of water would be less than the marginal cost. In plain English, it’s not worth it. Again, the optimal level of pollution is some, not zero.

When it comes to studying, practicing a sport or musical instrument, or dating someone before marrying them, you might think, “The more time, the better.” I am a literal person so if I told my students, “The more you study the better,” this would mean they would never eat, drink, sleep, or spend time with family and friends. But common sense says that after studying for a certain amount of time most students will say, “I get it” or simply “time to move on.” Why waste more time studying?

Also, if you are in a place in your life where you are considering marriage, then the point of dating is to acquire information about the other person so that you can make a good decision. Ultimately, you come to a point where you have enough information to propose, accept a proposal, or break up with this person. When I proposed to my wife, I did not have perfect information about her, but my information was good enough. Sure, one more month of dating would have given me some marginal benefit in terms of additional information about her, but I came to a point where I had enough information—where MB=MC.

“Good enough is good enough” is what economists mean by doing something until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost. The MB=MC rule implies that the “more is better” thinking is not optimal. One aspirin from the bottle can help your headache but it’s dangerous to think, “Well, if one is good, the whole bottle is better.” Yes, your headache will be gone but so will you.

In a standard economics class, students are taught absolute advantage and comparative advantage. The former means being able to produce more than another with the same amount of resources or using fewer resources to produce an output. The latter means being able to do something at a lower opportunity cost than another.

Because there’s always an opportunity cost when doing something, sometimes it is advantageous to pay someone else to do something even if we have the knowledge and skills to do it ourselves. This also has applications to trade policy. Just because the United States (actually individuals in the United States) can produce certain products does not mean we should. It’s ok if not everything we buy says “Made in USA” because if the government tries to “protect American jobs” and begins imposing tariffs and quotas, we are not actually saving American jobs. It’s more correct to say we are saving particular jobs at the expense of other American jobs. Of course, good politics and good economics often go in different directions.

The complaint that businesses can charge “whatever they want” is nonsense. For example, why is it that movie theaters only charge $8 for popcorn and not $8,000 or $8,000,000 if they can supposedly charge whatever they want? There are two sides to a market transaction, and it’s this interaction of sellers and buyers that determines the price. What’s interesting is that many times the same people complaining are the ones making noise eating that popcorn during the movie.

Entrepreneurs become wealthy if they create a product or service that provides value for a large number of people. Unless the entrepreneurs received special privileges from the government, they didn’t forcibly take money from their customers.

The anger directed at “the rich” is based on the fallacy of thinking the economy is a fixed-size pie. In other words, those who criticize the “filthy rich” believe that they took a piece that was too big, leaving less pie for the rest of us regular folks. The reality is that these entrepreneurs baked a bigger pie. They benefited, but so did we!

In a business transaction, exchanges are voluntary, and voluntary trade is a win-win situation. The entrepreneur wins (as well as the employees he or she hires) and the customers win.

Intentions and results are not always the same thing. The economic way of thinking teaches us to consider possible unintended consequences of our own actions or the actions of politicians. Just because something sounds good or feels right does not mean a certain goal will be achieved. In fact, the very problem that is being addressed can become worse.

Sound economic thinking also removes one’s blinders. The effects of a policy on all groups are considered, not just one group. This helps individuals to see through politicians’ claims that a policy will save American jobs when in reality only some special-interest group will benefit at the expense of other Americans. When politicians confiscate money (i.e., taxes) to build sports stadiums using the “it will create jobs” argument, the mistake is to focus on the jobs seen and neglecting the unseen—the opportunity cost of those tax dollars.

There is so much more to say about this subject called economics and there are many more examples of the economic way of thinking that I could have included. Some characterize economics as applied common sense; yet, economics also gives us counterintuitive insights.

This is the power and beauty of economics

AUTHOR

Ninos P. Malek

Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.

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

‘Kneel To God And No One Else’: Trump Slams Biden, J6 Trial At Arizona Rally

Former President Donald Trump held a rally Friday night at the Findlay Toyota Center in Prescott Valley, Arizona, where he voiced his support for Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters. In his speech, Trump criticized President Joe Biden’s handling of the U.S. economy and the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, which Trump called “the greatest humiliation our country has ever seen.”

Trump then addressed January 6th last night in Prescott Valley, Arizona. Trump said of the recent investigation: “Where does it stop? Where does it end? Never forget: Everything this corrupt establishment is doing to me is all about preserving their power and control over the American people, for whatever reason. They want to damage me in any form so I can no longer represent you,” according to MSN.

In response to being accused of grabbing the steering wheel from a secret service agent on January 6th and throwing food in the White House, Trump stated during Friday’s rally, “And they know that wasn’t true too. But they don’t call back the secret service. You know the secret service wants to testify and say it wasn’t true, but they won’t let them testify because they don’t want to hear the answer.  It’s just a horrible thing that’s going on in our country. It’s sick, and the fake news media is totally complicit. These are very dishonest people, many of them.”

“We will never give in, we will never yield, we will never, ever, ever back down,” Trump said during his speech, according to FOX News. “As long as we are unified, the tyrants we are against do not stand a chance because we are Americans who kneel to God and no one else.”

“Rather than targeting Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, the Biden admin should go after street gangs,” Trump stated. “Instead of taking guns away from law-abiding Americans, they should take them away from career criminals and felons,” he continued.

Trump pointed out that we are just four months away from midterms, calling this “the most important election in America’s history.” He said, “If we do not get this done then it is going to be tragic.”

AUTHOR

MEG FOLEY

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Does Anyone Want Me To Run Again?’: Here’s What You Missed From Trump’s Rally In Wyoming

Here Are Just Some Of The Uprisings Over Government Incompetence Happening Around The World

North Carolina Town’s Entire Police Force Resigns, Citing ‘Hostile Work Environment’

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

BIDENOMICS: Mortgage Demand Drops to a 22-year Low as Higher Interest Rates and Inflation Crush Homebuyers

With the Biden Administration’s economic policies devastating the purchasing power of American consumers, home ownership has become out of reach for millions of Americans. What a tragedy.

Mortgage demand drops to a 22-year low as higher interest rates and inflation crush homebuyers

By CNBC, July 21, 2022

  • Surging inflation and interest rates are hammering American consumers and weighing on the housing market.
  • Mortgage demand fell last week, hitting the lowest point since 2000, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
  • Buyers have lost considerable purchasing power as rates have almost doubled since earlier this year.

The pain in the mortgage market is only getting worse as higher interest rates and inflation hammer American consumers.

Mortgage demand fell more than 6% last week compared with the previous week, hitting the lowest level since 2000, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s seasonally adjusted index.

Read more.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

The More Biden Tanks In The Polls, The More Insane and Radical He Becomes

With Dems saying Biden has to go, is Michelle Obama making a run for the White House?

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