Taliban Uses U.S. Military Equipment, IG Withholds Records of Afghan Security Forces Collapse

The Taliban is training and operating with U.S. military equipment including rifles, trucks, and helmets with night vision mounts since the Biden administration withdrew American troops from Afghanistan last year. Taliban forces even held a military parade with dozens of U.S.-provided armored vehicles and Mi-17 helicopters flying overhead, according to a federal audit documenting the collapse of the American-funded Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). For two decades the U.S. government spent a mind-boggling $90 billion to help the ANDSF develop into a self-sustaining force capable of combatting terrorist groups like the Taliban. It never happened.

When the Biden administration withdrew U.S. troops in August 2021 the ANDSF crumbled and the Taliban took over, generating images and videos of soldiers wearing U.S.-provided clothing and brandishing U.S.-provided rifles. “Taliban units now patrol in pickup trucks and armored vehicles likely procured by the U.S. and provided to the ANDSF,” reads the report published by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which was created by Congress to provide independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction projects and activities. “Taliban special operations troops, known as Badri 313 units, wear helmets with night vision mounts likely provided by the United States, and carry U.S.-provided M4 rifles equipped with advanced gunsights.” The report continues. “Khalil Haqqani, a senior Taliban leader, carried a U.S.-provided rifle as he attended prayers at a mosque in Kabul following the collapse.” The examples show that the terrorist group is now equipped with material that was supplied by the U.S. to defeat it, the watchdog writes.

The 43-page report, which has 17 pages of endnotes, was released to the public earlier this year and determined that the single most important factor in the ANDSF’s collapse was the U.S. decision to withdraw military forces and contractors from Afghanistan. Since 2002, the United States deployed military and civilian personnel to train, advise, and mentor Afghan soldiers, police, and ministry officials, the report reveals, adding that Uncle Sam provided the ANDSF over 600,000 weapons, 300 aircraft, 80,000 vehicles, communication equipment, and other advanced material, such as night vision goggles and biometric systems. As part of its probe SIGAR reviewed hundreds of government and academic reports related to the development of Afghan forces and its subsequent collapse. Investigators also conducted more than 40 interviews with former Afghan government officials, former ANDSF members, and current and former U.S. government officials, including commanders of U.S. forces and the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A), the unit responsible for the ANDSF’s development. Ambassadors and advisors were also interviewed.

Though quite lengthy, the report leaves a lot of unanswered questions so Judicial Watched filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records that could shed light on the SIGAR probe and provide answers for the American taxpayers that financed the 20-year boondoggle. In its request Judicial Watch asked for emails, interviews, memoranda, reports, and briefings with former Afghan government officials, former ANDSF members, and current and former U.S. government officials, including former commanders of U.S. forces, CSTC-A commanders, ambassadors, and advisors responsible for the development of the Afghan army, air force, special forces, and police, as they relate to the report. A few weeks later Judicial Watch received a letter acknowledging receipt of the FOIA request and several weeks later SIGAR followed up with a letter rejecting the public record request. The watchdog claims only 27 records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request were located but they are exempt from disclosure under measures that protect attorney-client privilege, personal privacy and information compiled for law enforcement that could reasonably be expected to constitute an invasion of personal privacy. The exemptions have official government codes that were cited in the rejection letter.

SIGAR’s refusal to provide the records means the public will never know the entire truth behind the U.S.’s massive failure in Afghanistan and the abrupt demise of the American-funded ANDSF. In the name of transparency the watchdog should provide the information. Ironically, SIGAR recently blasted the State Department for withholding records necessary to investigate how billions of dollars in Afghanistan reconstruction money is being spent. The watchdog condemned the stonewalling in a letter to Congress and the Secretary of State that explains “American taxpayers deserve to know why the Afghan government collapsed after all that assistance, where the money went, and how taxpayer money is now being spent in Afghanistan.”

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

‘Finally Backing Down’: Border Patrol Lifts Vaccine Mandate For Personnel

  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has lifted its vaccine mandate, according to a memorandum exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • “CBP is halting the COVID-19 screening program, and employees may choose to withdraw their pending reasonable accommodation requests for screening exemption,” an internal CBP memorandum stated.
  • Several agents who fought for vaccine exemptions are both happy and frustrated over the new decision, they told the DCNF.
  • “Management is finally backing down because this is a fight that they’re not going to win. I think this is a huge win for people that didn’t get the vaccine. It’s almost like a relief,” one Border Patrol agent said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has ended the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for its personnel, according to a memorandum exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“CBP is halting the COVID-19 screening program, and employees may choose to withdraw their pending reasonable accommodation requests for screening exemption,” an internal CBP memorandum stated. National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd confirmed to the DCNF that both the vaccine mandate and testing requirements have been lifted.

President Joe Biden issued the mandate for all federal employees via a Sept. 9 executive order. Border agents who didn’t get vaccinated and didn’t have approved exemptions faced possible termination, two active agents and a union official previously told the DCNF.

Due to a court order, CBP paused the vaccine requirement in January in favor of Texas’ push to block the mandate.

But the latest move makes some unvaccinated agents feel like their battles against the mandate, the ostracization from their fellow agents and fears that they’d lose their jobs were all for naught, four of them, all from different sectors of the southern border, told the DCNF on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution.

“It frustrates me,” one Border Patrol agent fighting the mandate with a pending appeal for a religious exemption told the DCNF.

“It boggles my mind that the agency was ready to lose maybe about half of its workforce during this crisis that we’re having right now at the border. I just didn’t understand that they were willing  to reprimand these guys or even dismiss them or fire them going through this crisis at the border,” the agent added.

CBP leadership has realized it was fighting a losing battle, a second Border Patrol agent, who requested a religious exemption, told the DCNF.

“Management is finally backing down because this is a fight that they’re not going to win. I think this is a huge win for people that didn’t get the vaccine. It’s almost like a relief,” the agent said.

“It’s a joke because we’re so worried about COVID that we’re letting in all these aliens unvaccinated, untested, we’re not doing anything for them, right? We’re not testing them when they come across. We’re not giving them the vaccine when they come across, but COVID is such a big deal,” they added.

The record surge in illegal migration in fiscal year 2022, when CBP encountered roughly 2.3 million migrants, has only made matters worse for the workforce, especially those threatened for not getting the jab.

“It doesn’t even feel like we’re the sworn agents that we were developed and made out to be … we’re the guys that are protecting the border. It’s like they don’t even care. We’re not even like people to them. At this point. It’s just a statistic,” a third agent requesting a religious accommodation said.

“It does very much feel like we’re being tossed around and like our lives don’t matter. We’re talking about people with families, with medical issues, prior medical issues, monetary issues, there are some people that live check to check, and the patrol is going to burden them with termination. That was insane. You got to be kidding. We’re at this point now.”

A fourth agent, who fought against the vaccine mandate on both religious and medical grounds, said other than one superior, they’ve not faced too much scrutiny over the fight for an exemption.

“The rest of them, they understand it’s bullshit,” the agent said.

CBP didn’t respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: CBP Chief Tries To Reassure The Rank-And-File As Agency Levels Charges Against ‘Whipgate’ Agents

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Musk’s New Blue Check System Costs Eli Lilly Billions After Fake ‘Free Insulin’ Tweet

Elon Musk’s new blue-check system for Twitter apparently cost at least one multinational corporation billions of dollars in value this week.

Eli Lilly, one of America’s foremost pharmaceutical brands, saw its stock price fall more than 2% Thursday after a fake tweet went viral earlier in the day promising “free insulin.” The account responsible for the fake tweet impersonated the official Eli Lilly account and had purchased a verification checkmark under Musk’s new “Twitter Blue” system.

The account, which used the username @EliLillyAndCo and the official Eli Lilly logo, tweeted Thursday afternoon, “We are excited to announce insulin is free now.” The tweet quickly gained hundreds of retweets and thousands of likes, precipitating the drop in stock value that cost the real company roughly $20 billion in market cap.

The blue check was removed from the account and its tweets were made private later Thursday, but the damage had been done. Eli Lilly issued a statement clarifying that insulin would not be free under its real twitter username, @LillyPad, and apologized for the misleading statement being disseminated.

Musk promised to begin charging $20 per month to users who were verified on Twitter after he purchased the platform last month, a plan that quickly evolved into charging $8 per month for “Twitter Blue,” which would give users the same blue check mark as those who are verified along with some other perks.

Within days of the service launching, misinformation began to run rampant across the platform as accounts impersonating celebrities and politicians now had blue checks to grant them a veneer of credibility. An account impersonating Lebron James requested a trade from the Los Angeles Lakers. Another pretending to be the Pittsburgh Steelers announced the death of starting quarterback Kenny Pickett. A fake George Bush and fake Tony Blair shared memories of “killing Iraqis.”

Twitter reportedly circulated an internal memo Friday claiming it is suspending the launch of Twitter Blue and actively discouraging people from signing up while it addresses “impersonation issues.”

AUTHOR

DYLAN HOUSMAN

Chief foreign affairs correspondent. Follow Dylan on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLR: Musk Tells Twitter Staff ‘Bankruptcy Isn’t Out Of The Question’ As Executives Jump Ship Over Privacy Concerns

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

5 Counterintuitive Things I Learned Reading Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’

Rand makes some radical claims in the book, but when you think about it, they make a lot of sense.


I recently picked up Ayn Rand’s 1943 novel The Fountainhead, and I must say I quite enjoyed it. For those who haven’t read it, The Fountainhead is a story about a young architect named Howard Roark. Roark is a non-conformist who finds himself at odds with the rest of his profession because of his refusal to compromise his artistic expression for the sake of tradition. It goes deeper than that, however. Roark’s self-described worldview is “egotism,” and it’s this selfish, individualistic attitude that the rest of the world can’t seem to stand, save a few of his close friends.

Rand unapologetically uses the story to advance her life philosophy, called Objectivism. Roark is the prototypical hero in this philosophy, though if you read some of the things Roark does, you may bristle at the thought of holding him up as an example to be emulated.

Thinking back on the book, I enjoyed the narrative, but the dialogues are really what made it stand out. They were incredibly clever and sharp, and they really help the reader get to know the characters and their worldviews.

The book also challenged me to rethink a lot of “common sense” ideas people often take for granted. Throughout the story, Rand makes many counterintuitive points that push back against the mainstream view on various topics.

Here’s a selection of some counterintuitive ideas that stood out to me.

1) Our Culture Is Not as Individualistic as We Think

Most people would say we live in a fairly individualistic culture in the West, but Rand would disagree. According to Rand, our society is full of “second-handers,” people who live for and through others.

This theme is introduced early in the book in a dialogue between Roark and Peter Keating, a fellow architect. Keating knows Roark is good at architecture, so he goes to Roark for advice. Roark’s response is illuminating.

“If you want my advice, Peter, you’ve made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don’t you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?”

As we learn through the rest of the story, asking for advice may seem benign, but it often reveals that you don’t have any opinions of your own—you can only live through the opinions of others. And it’s not like these others have their own opinions either. They too are second-handers, reflecting the opinions of everyone around them. It’s “like the senseless infinity you get from two mirrors facing each other across a narrow passage,” Rand writes, “…reflections of reflections and echoes of echoes. No beginning and no end. No center and no purpose.”

The point is that we live in a culture where people are afraid to be original and to have their own ideas. We strive so much to please others, to be the person others want us to be, that in the process we lose our very selves.

Truly being yourself—genuine individualism—is difficult. Because it inevitably means being unpopular, unliked, and constantly criticized. And when you’re criticized, you need to have enough integrity to say, “I disagree with your criticism and refuse to incorporate it. I refuse to be the person others want me to be simply to appease them.” Integrity in this sense is loyalty to your self—to you. Betraying your self to the whims of others is the telltale sin of the second-hander.

Rand expands on the second-hander idea in a later section of the book. “That, precisely, is the deadliness of second-handers,” she writes. “They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: ‘Is this true?’ They ask: ‘Is this what others think is true?’ Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull.”

People often say two heads are better than one, and there are times when that’s certainly the case. But according to Rand, the “teamwork” mentality is applied far too broadly in our culture, with mediocrity being the predictable result.

There’s a story in The Fountainhead that’s intended to illustrate this point, and it revolves around an architectural project called The March of the Centuries, which is part of an exhibition for the World’s Fair. Eight of the best architects in America were chosen to design the building—collaboratively. It was intended to demonstrate how much better working with others is compared to working alone. Peter Keating was one of the eight collaborators.

The project, however, was a “ghastly flop.” And as usual, every reason except the most obvious one was given for its failure.

A few chapters later, Roark is talking with Peter Keating, trying to make him understand the individualist ethos. In an offhand comment, Roark brings up The March of the Centuries. “Peter, every single one of you on that committee has done better work alone than the eight of you produced collectively. Ask yourself why, sometime.”

I asked myself “why” when I read that, and the answer was self-evident, as Rand intended it to be. The reason the project was a flop is because creation and production are best pursued as individualistic enterprises. One person with a grand vision—someone who can control every detail—is usually the key to achieving excellence. When you lead by committee no one is really in charge; you have to compromise and incorporate everyone’s input. The result is a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. No single, comprehensive vision can come to fruition. But it is precisely single, comprehensive visions that make a product great.

There’s a reason almost all great art is created by individuals rather than teams.

3) The Imbecile Always Smiles

“Have you noticed that the imbecile always smiles? Man’s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought.”

That line instantly clicked the moment I first read it. Many people—“imbeciles” in particular—seem to have a certain unseriousness about them. They spend all their time in bars, at parties, and watching laugh-track TV shows, chasing what basically amounts to cheap thrills. It’s a kind of hedonism, a cavalier approach to life that is frankly rather shallow and trite.

The thing these people all have in common is that smile. That naive, whimsical, childish smile.

What sets apart the mature—in my view and in Rand’s—is the frown of thought and determination. It’s not a renunciation of joy. It’s learning to find a deeper joy, perhaps in applying yourself on a difficult project, or in learning something new, or in appreciating genuinely good art.

Jordan Peterson highlights this dichotomy in his analysis of The Lion King. In the beginning of the movie, Simba is young and immature, and you can see it in his face. But by the end, he has grown into adulthood, he has shouldered responsibility. You can see the change especially in the eyebrows, which point firmly down when someone is concentrating.

4) When It Comes to People, You Often Can Judge a Book by Its Cover

It’s common knowledge that you’re not supposed to judge others by first impressions. You’ve just met them, after all. It’s almost unfair to jump to conclusions about their character and personality when you hardly know them.

Or is it? In one section of the book, Rand makes an interesting point about intuition that challenges this notion that we can’t possibly judge people just by looking at them.

“‘There’s nothing as significant as a human face. Nor as eloquent. We can never really know another person, except by our first glance at him. Because, in that glance, we know everything. Even though we’re not always wise enough to unravel the knowledge. Have you ever thought about the style of a soul, Kiki?’

‘The … what?’

‘The style of a soul. Do you remember the famous philosopher who spoke of the style of a civilization? He called it ‘style.’ He said it was the nearest word he could find for it. He said that every civilization has its one basic principle, one single, supreme, determining conception, and every endeavor of men within that civilization is true, unconsciously and irrevocably, to that one principle. … I think, Kiki, that every human soul has a style of its own, also. Its one basic theme. You’ll see it reflected in every thought, every act, every wish of that person. The one absolute, the one imperative in that living creature. Years of studying a man won’t show it to you. His face will. You’d have to write volumes to describe a person. Think of his face. You need nothing else.’”

In recent years this philosophical speculation has been backed up by some pretty cool scientific research. For instance, in a 2016 paper titled Perceptions of Sexual Orientation From Minimal Cues, psychologist Nicholas Rule summarizes the literature on “gaydar,” the colloquial term for being able to intuit someone’s sexual orientation. “The bulk of scientific evidence suggests that people are sensitive to differences in sexual orientation and can reliably perceive it based on minimal nonverbal cues,” Rule writes.

Many other characteristics can also be reliably predicted from subtle cues, according to a 2013 paper by Rule and coauthor Konstantin Tskhay. “The majority of groups to which we may belong (e.g., professions, religious groups, political parties) are ambiguous, yet research has nonetheless shown that many of these distinctions are perceptible,” they write.

This isn’t to say we should always rush to judgment, of course. We should be open to new information and be willing to revise our initial assessments of people should they prove erroneous. But as Rand, Rule, and Tskhay point out, we often know far more than we think, even if we can’t “unravel the knowledge.” It’s subconscious. I can’t tell you how I know what you’re like. I just know. You betray far more than you realize when you show your face to the world.

5) Man’s Ego is the Fountainhead of Human Progress

The summary of The Fountainhead that appeared on the first edition in 1943 begins with the following line: “An excitingly dramatic novel, this book is based on a challenging belief in the importance of selfishness, on the provocative idea that man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”

In his afterword, Rand’s protégé Leonard Peikoff sheds some more light on the title, which is never directly explained in the book itself. “Ayn Rand’s working title for the novel was Second-Hand Lives,” he explains. “The final title, chosen after the manuscript was completed, changes the emphasis: like the book, it gives primacy not to the villains, but to the creative hero, the man who uses his mind first-handedly and becomes thereby the fountainhead of all achievement.”

The idea that man’s ego is the fountainhead of progress and achievement is the central claim of the book, and perhaps the most radical. But Rand’s explanation of this idea—both through dialogue and narrative—is compelling.

“Before you can do things for people,” Roark says, “you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity. I’ll be glad if people who need it find a better manner of living in a house I designed. But that’s not the motive of my work. Nor my reason. Nor my reward.”

Rand’s point is that productivity and creative achievement only really come from individuals acting in their own self-interest. Paradoxically, the best way to help others is to be, in a sense, selfish.

That probably sounds uncouth, but Rand challenges us to at least wrestle with the idea. Ask yourself, who is the more effective benefactor of the downtrodden? The one who professes love for them but is impotent to help, or the one who acts out of sheer self-interest but—as a result of that self-interest—is actually able to produce something of value?

A Novel for Our Time

Though it was written many decades ago, The Fountainhead has enduring appeal because it speaks to issues that are as relevant today as they were when the novel was first published. The battle between individualism and collectivism in particular rages on, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

This book will challenge many assumptions about morality and what a life well-lived looks like. But the challenge doesn’t come in the form of an argument. It comes in the form of a story, one that has the potential to transform how you see the world.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

AUTHOR

Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

The New Puritans: The Woke Left wants to put all of us on trial

When was the last time you watched MSNBC or CNN – or any of the broadcast networks? I am not suggesting that one should do this often; but like taking cod’s liver oil or boiled spinach, watching the opposition is an essential ingredient to building character.

Because no matter which of the smug Woke left hosts you happen upon, they are all preaching the same sermon, over and over, so often in fact you would think they would tire of it: we are the virtuous ones, the vigils of Democracy. We are the ones who command history, art, culture. We are America. And themThey are the enemies of democracy.

This is what we have come to. We are no longer a nation divided, but two separate and distinct nations, each with its own culture, its own history, its heroes and villains, its own aspirations, its fears. Even its own language. (Here is Joy Reid telling us that Republicans “taught people the word ‘inflation.’”)

Some have suggested we are witnessing a repeat of the 1960s. But the drug-laden counter-culture of the Strawberry Statement and Abbe Hoffman and the Chicago Seven was quite distinct from today in significant ways. The sixties were about an awakening – an awakening of the mind and a liberation of the body from the shackles of generations of predominantly Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.

Today’s Woke Left are the new Puritans. They do not seek to liberate our minds from habit, or challenge us to innovation, but to enslave us in new doctrines far more rigid than anything earlier generations of Americans could conceive, from redefining biological sex to re-engineering freedom itself.

They have already held dress rehearsals of their Salem Witch Trials: the Mueller hoax, two impeachment fantasies, and the phantasmagoric January 6 inquisition. Now they want to put all of us on trial.

In the 1960s – as today – the media played a key role as a vector of change. Then, it was television bringing the horrors of war out of the shadows and into the living rooms of a nation of women. Before television, twentieth century war was something fought over there, whose gruesome evil was anaesthetized into newsreels and magazine articles that focused on big picture battles, with rare but sanitized glimpses of individual heroes. When the Greatest Generation returned from Europe and the Pacific, they largely nursed their wounds quietly, among themselves.

Vietnam changed all that; indeed, it made war dirty and present and dangerously real. The natural reaction of all but the martial spirits among us to televised war was revulsion – revulsion at our capacity for evil, and fear that we might be called upon to engage in it. Vietnam made cowards of many.

Today it is social media that acts as the enforcer of the new Alinsky-ite norms of behavior, shaming those who dare to defy the Woke Left.

This is why we must pay attention to what they are saying, because they no longer disguise their intentions. They believe they have won the battle for the soul and direction of America, and all that remains is to clean up the bodies left on the field.

According to the president of the United States:

“The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace, embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.”

So-called ‘presidential historian’ Michael Beschloss went even further: “We’re on the edge of a brutal authoritarian system.” If Republicans win on Tuesday, “our children will be sentenced to death and put in prison.”

It’s too easy to say that Biden and the others have lost their minds. They believe every word of it. Even a red tsunami on Tuesday will not cure them of their conviction that they alone stand up for truth, and that their opponents are the embodiment of evil.

Because they are convinced they have definitively won the battle for the soul of America, the Woke Left is now treating their political enemies as a vanquished population — to be slowly starved, silenced, and banned from social intercourse.

They are telling this to their supporters every day: they are evil, they are corrupt, they want to destroy America, destroy democracy. 

The Woke Left sees us as players in the Hunger Games. But I believe this over-reach will be their downfall.

I predict they will soon discover that we have our own District 12, our sanctuary cities and free states where the dream of America’s better angels still thrives and Justice still wears her blindfold as she holds the scales. They might not admit to it, but they will know it. They will fear it.

You may even see the truth dawn on them during their election night coverage, as we saw in 2016 once it became clear Donald Trump was going to become president.

Even in defeat, they will not give up. But watch them, listen to them; know them for who they truly are.

They have been waging a (not-so) civil war on the American center-right for decades, and we have rarely fought back.

Now it’s time to take our victories at the ballot box and use them judiciously, cutting off the Woke Left from the levers of power – not just in Congress, but in our culture. And it starts by declaring their project for a socialist America illegitimate, un-American, throwing it out of our schools – and most importantly, defunding it.

©Kenneth R. Timmerman. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Target Liberty: The Dangerous Stalinism of the “Woke” Hard-Left

EXCLUSIVE: Judge Approves Restraining Order Against Lincoln Project Co-Founder Steve Schmidt

The soon-to-be ex-wife of Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt was granted a temporary restraining order against the political operative, court records obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller show.

Angela Schmidt filed for the restraining order on Aug. 15 in a Summit, Utah, state court, according to a case history of the Schmidts’ divorce. It was modified and granted on Oct. 16, according to the case history, obtained by the Daily Caller. Since the restraining order was granted, Schmidt has repeatedly accused Republican media figures and candidates of acting inappropriately towards women.

Details of the underlying behavior that led to the court issuance of the restraining order are not publicly available. However, under Utah state law, individuals going through divorce and child custody proceedings may request a restraining order with the court. The orders are only granted when the individual taking out the order will face “irreparable harm unless the court issues an order.” Judges are allowed to grant the orders at their own discretion and are not required to alert the subject of the order.

View the case history here:

Schmidt TRO Information-1 by Michael Ginsberg on Scribd

Angela Schmidt did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment on the matter.

The TRO is the latest accusation of Schmidt behaving inappropriately with women. Several news outlets have reported that the longtime operative has berated reporters and campaign staffers. Schmidt drew a rebuke from the Coalition for Women in Journalism in March after he published messages with New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Schmidt compared Haberman to former Times reporter and Soviet Union propagandist Walter Duranty, and Haberman accused Schmidt of “menacing” and “harassing” her “on Twitter and on text.”

“The Coalition For Women In Journalism condemns the incident and demands that Steve Schmidt offers an apology, not just for his unprofessional opinion but also for his latest attempt to bully Maggie Haberman on social media. CFWIJ has routinely reported on how quickly social media and digital space can be weaponized against women journalists, and Schmidt’s decision to release private correspondence in order to expose some ‘rot’ appears to be an attempt to do just that,” the organization said in a statement.

Schmidt’s organization, The Lincoln Project, was also a hotbed of harassment and misconduct, according to a report from The 19th. Schmidt reportedly believed that the campaign ad shop was a way to generate “inter-generational wealth,” but the group devolved amid infighting and allegations that cofounder John Weaver sexually harassed young men. Employees frequently referred to women as “girls,” and their enemies as “pussies,” “cocksuckers,” or “faggots,” the report adds.

Schmidt resigned from the board of the Lincoln Project in February 2021.

Steve Schmidt could not be reached for comment at phone numbers publicly listed under his name.

Schmidt turned on the late Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose 2008 presidential campaign he ran. The operative told Politico in May that he did not vote for McCain, believing him “unfit” for office. He called the senator’s daughter, conservative commentator Meghan McCain, “rotten, entitled, spoiled, cruel, mean and bullying,” and favorably contrasted his interactions with her to those between Trump White House officials John Kelly, James Mattis, and HR McMaster and the children of the 45th president.

Currently employed by Democratic Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan’s failed Senate campaign, Schmidt repeatedly accused Republican opponent JD Vance of supporting domestic abuse. Vance said during a speech to a southern California high school that increased levels of divorce stemming from the sexual revolution negatively impact kids.

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,’” Vance said, according to Vice News.

Schmidt frequently referenced the reported remarks on Twitter, including after his ex-wife took out the restraining order.

I really think most normal people don’t think women who are beaten should stay married to the men who beat, shoot, stab, burn and torture them. JD Vance  proves this theory. He wants the beaten women to stick around for the next beating. It’s extreme and sick. It’s disqualifyin[g],” Schmidt tweeted on Nov. 4.

Schmidt also referenced sexual harassment allegations levied against the late Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and other Republicans.

I used to be smuggled into Fox News for secret meetings with Ailes. Same elevator he abused the women out of,” he claimed on Nov. 2.

Violence against women is a very specific type of crime. It is almost always perpetrated by men, usually a family member,” Schmidt said in a tweet thread about Missouri GOP Senate candidate Eric Greitens.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MSNBC Did Not Ask Lincoln Project Founders About John Weaver Despite Booking Them 17 Times After The Story First Broke

Lincoln Project Takes Responsibility For Tiki Torch Hoax At Youngkin Rally

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

Biden climate speech in Egypt reveals bad science, massive spending and regulation

UPDATE: Florida Congressman Greg Steube Talks Biden’s Radical Climate Proposals.


President Biden, seeking to “greenwash” his failing energy policy, delivered a speech at COP 27, the big UN climate conference in Egypt.

The President falsely attributed a host of natural weather events to climate change and then went on to detail a massive laundry list of wasteful climate spending and destructive regulation.

The President said that:

In the United States, we’re seeing historic drought and wildfires in the West, devastating hurricanes and storms in the East.

Here in Africa — here in Africa, home to many nations considered most vulnerable to climate change, food insecurity [and] hunger follows four years of intense drought in the Horn of Africa.

Meanwhile, the Niger River in West Africa, swollen — swollen because of more intense rainfall, is wreaking havoc on fishing and farming communities.

In Nigeria, flooding has recently killed 600 people; 1.3 million more are displaced.

Seasonal livestock migration routes have been used for hundreds of years are being altered, increasing the risk of conflict between herders and local farming communities.

President Biden is wrong.

All of this is natural weather.  Government policy can help people suffering the impacts of extreme weather, but nothing on this list was meaningfully caused by our use of energy.

Floods, droughts, fires, storms, even African “livestock migration” are historically normal and not your fault.

Watch President Biden’s full COP 27 remarks at CFACT.org and read the full transcript and judge for yourself.

President Biden’s media office, joined by Climate Envoy John Kerry, released a lengthy U.S. climate “fact sheet” that summarizes Biden’s climate spending and regulation since he took office and their plans for the future.

Here’s a sample:

  • Double U.S. contributions to the UN “Adaptation Fund” from $50 to $100 million this year.
  • $150 million for “climate resilience in Africa.”
  • $20 million for small island states
  • $5 million to the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund to support “climate-affected vulnerable migrants.”
  • Launching a “Climate Gender Equity Fund”
  • $250 million for power generation in Egypt
  • Severe clampdown on methane emissions by American energy producers with $20 billion in spending
  • Close to $4 billion on “Green Shipping” initiatives
  • Require federal contractors to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and comply with government mandated emissions reductions
  • Commit U.S. national government operations to be “net zero” no later than 2050
  • Quadruple U.S. climate finance to over $11 billion a year
  • More than $65 billion in climate finance through the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and U.S. Export-Import Bank

Read the President Biden’s full climate “fact sheet” at CFACT.org.

In addition to Biden, Friday saw a presentation at COP 27 by the Republican “Climate Caucus,” who many see as “useful idiots” playing into the hands of the climate-Left.

As CFACT’s Adam House posted to CFACT.org: “by participating in this ‘Decarbonization Day,’ these Republican lawmakers have legitimized the UN’s message of collectivism, massive taxes and government spending, corrupt and alarmist science, and centralized power. In their attempt to be part of the conversation, they have only eroded the conservative message.”

President Biden’s climate and energy agenda is based on unsound science, would lead to massive erosion of national sovereignty, individual liberty, and prosperity that will weaken the free world and empower its adversaries.

This cannot stand.

Yet what lies in store for those of us with the courage to marshal the facts and correct the record on climate?

Take a look at this photo Marc Morano posted of a climate radical calling for the “death penalty” for “climate deniers” to CFACT’s Climate Depot.

If world leaders go on shamelessly egging them on, could climate radicals go from attacking great works of art to attacking people?

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

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

The Problems with ‘Free Stuff’

South Dakota voters approved Medicaid expansion in Tuesday’s election, leaving just 11 states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs to include middle-class able-bodied childless adults making almost $40,000 a year.  I hope the remaining states hold the line because they will be in a world of hurt if they don’t.

The first problem is voters demanding free stuff with nary a thought of how to pay for it.  Missouri voters previously demanded Medicaid expansion, but the state couldn’t figure out a sustainable way to pay for it.  Expansion would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but nobody knew what the funding mechanism would be.  The same thing happened in Idaho and Oklahoma – Medicaid expansion occurred without a stable permanent funding source.   Since Medicaid is now such a huge part of state budgets, every expansion state faces fights in the legislature about raising taxes or pulling money from other priorities like education to fund more government-sponsored healthcare.

That’s just for openers.  Expansion states face a raft of other problems.  Enrollment always exceeds expectations and many states have hit the wall in terms of being able to afford their programs.  I haven’t seen any more reports of this lately, but extra federal COVID money has postponed the day of financial reckoning.   I would argue the reason we still have a federal COVID emergency, though the medical facts no longer justify it, is to keep the states – especially expansion states – from going bust over their Medicaid expenses.  A world of hurt is coming because the fiction of a COVID emergency can’t be maintained forever.

Other problems with Medicaid expansion include

  • middle class dependency on government – a tragedy, not a triumph as the Left would have you believe, and completely unsustainable
  • billions of dollars spent on people who aren’t eligible
  • new inequities like traditional enrollees – low-income children, pregnant women, and the disabled – getting sent to the back of the line as childless able-bodied adults enter the system
  • substandard care – women already on Medicaid account for the majority of pregnancy-related deaths
  • longer wait times for ambulances and medical services
  • worse health outcomes than private insurance as more doctors refuse to take Medicaid patients because of the low pay and paperwork burdens
  • more drug overdoses and lower life expectancy in expansion states
  • lower labor force participation, and
  • special interests like large hospitals and managed care companies benefitting more than enrollees

Speaking of special interests, they are busy agitating for Government Healthcare 2.0.  It’s not enough that one in four Americans is now on Medicaid, we have to expand the range of services and the amount of government money spent on them for them to become healthy, or so the pretext goes.  The theory is called Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).  I call it naked redistribution, with calls growing for, and localities dabbling in, providing Medicaid recipients with free housing, transportation, food aid, education, job programs, guaranteed income, and other social services galore.  The theory has been around for a while but it is gaining traction, inducing mission creep in the Medicaid program.  Proponents claim the theory saves money, but their analysis fails to account for the magnet effect of free stuff from the government drawing ever-larger numbers of people into government dependency.  Once again, the Left points to immediate gains and fails to think systemically.

If you think the nation is too far in debt now, and states are biting off more than they can chew with Medicaid expansion, just wait.   Insolvency 2.0 is the inevitable outcome of social determinants of health.  Insolvency is what you get when no claim on public funds can be resisted and the government tries to put a soft pillow under absolutely everybody for absolutely everything.  Ultimately, it won’t work.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

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

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS

Federal law enforcement agencies are violating the 1974 Privacy Act by gathering, storing, and demanding social media posts be throttled or censored.


The sensible ambition of every human is to feel secure. To feel safe. To be worry-free from random or intentional attacks.

We desire it so much, that most are willing to sacrifice a little less freedom to obtain it.

Normally, those precious freedoms are gobbled-up by some government agency promising to snatch only a small portion of our personal sovereignty if we allow them to act as an iron shield against organized mobsters, gangs, criminal syndicates, and terrorists.

So, track us. We don’t care. Monitor us. Listen to what we say. Put a camera on every corner. Review what we write. Frisk us. Scan us. Snoop all you want. We have nothing to hide. We know the difference between right and wrong.  After all, it’s not about us.

Heck, we hardly notice those freedoms being scarfed up. The invasion of our privacy rights is ghostly, invisible, and ethereal.

All is fine and dandy‚ until…

…the government redefines what’s right and wrong.

Then we see it.

Now, we’re the bad actor. And good luck trying to reclaim those freedoms that could have protected us in the past.

Last week, Intercept (a leftwing, online news publication) shook America with the astounding revelation that the FBI and Homeland Security are working with Big Tech to scrub the internet of information they label “inaccurate.”

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” the article reveals.

The goal of the Government is to scrub the internet of social media posts that “drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

To that end, agencies inside the FBI and Homeland Security – that previously focused on international terrorists, such as ISIS – are using their snooping tools to go after Americans who post “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”

If any of these law-enforcement employees determine a social media post will lower the nation’s “trust in government,” the content is flagged, stored, and then sent back to the originating social media platform with the expectation the message will be suppressed, throttled, or eliminated.

The snooping tools of the FBI: Babel X, Dataminr, ZeroFox

As much as I would like to reveal more about the findings in the Intercept story, that’s not the intent of this article.

I aim to broaden the discussion on a few things the Intercept article briefly mentioned.

Intercept reports that government officials have a unique portal to Facebook to request takedowns or throttling of postings they don’t like, which means anything that harms the “cognitive infrastructure” of the United States.

(The “cognitive infrastructure” would mean everything would be game)

But one of the most puzzling questions I wanted to be answered was how the FBI has the manpower to review virtually every social media message posted on the World Wide Web.

One of the answers is Babel X.

In April of this year, the FBI spent $27 million to purchase 5,000 licenses from Babel X.

In its purchase request, the FBI notified Babel X:

“The tool shall be able to gather information from the following mandatory online and social media data sources: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Deep/Dark Web, VK, and Telegram,” the bureau said.

But they’re hoping for a far greater reach.

The FBI also asked Babel X to give them the ability to search Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Discord, and others.

Bable X aside, the FBI also uses Dataminr to scour the data highway.

The FBI has 200 agents plugged into Dataminr (with its “advanced alerting tool”) to review Twitter posts that meet the bureau’s interest.

Of course, the FBI claims they need these tools to combat “terrorists and other criminals” that “communicate, recruit, and raise funds for illegal activity.”

But thanks to FBI official Laura Dehmlow [quoted in the Intercept story] we know the FBI also wants to eliminate the threat of “subversive data utilized to drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

That “subversive” information, according to Intercept and a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, includes “malinformation” or “disinformation” of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, Covid vaccines, the Hunter Biden laptop story, racial justice, the Ukraine war, and the 2020 election fraud claims.

The answer to how the FBI can monitor and takedown posts believed to harm “trust in government” is also found in a program called ZeroFox.

In court records, the FBI said they also monitor the Internet with ZeroFox (a $14 million contract) that surveils organizations across social media, including web domains, online news sites, blogs, forums, deep/dark web, and even email.

The “great” feature of ZeroFox is that it provides its customers with a “takedown service,” which allows the FBI to hide, delete and block posts they don’t like.

Read this from ZeroFox:

“Although ZeroFox will initiate a takedown request on behalf of a customer [such as the FBI], the social network or other online provider assesses the request against its own terms, rules and policies and decides whether to act on, or reject, the request. In other words, the third-party provider controls whether the material is removed.”

Of course, big corporations may fail to convince Facebook, for instance, to remove an unflattering post. But a request coming from the FBI?

Who wants to get on the wrong side of the FBI?

The 1974 Privacy Act protects American citizens

At one time, the FBI and Homeland Security focused their surveillance efforts on ISIS and other international, radicalized terrorist organizations and cartels.

For the most part, Americans applauded these law enforcement agencies and their zeal to protect America from another 9/11 attack. We weren’t ignorant, though. We knew it meant the FBI and DHS would resort to monitoring every crevice of the virtual world in all its forms, styles, and behaviors.

But we convinced ourselves we would never become the target of the US Government and their massive and invasive snooping tools that can collect, store, suppress or eliminate what we post.

Now, we know better.

But we can fight back.

The 1974 Privacy Act makes it illegal for the Federal Government to engage in any activity that gathers, maintains, keeps secret files, or releases to non-government parties the identity of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Here are two important sections found under 5 US 552a of the 1974 Privacy Act that we can reasonably believe are currently being violated by many federal law-enforcement agencies:

“Each agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statue or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.” (emphasis added)

“Any officer or employee of an agency…who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” (emphasis added)

The takeaway is:

  1. It is illegal for the Federal Government to maintain, collect, or use any social media post that falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
  2. It is illegal for any federal employee to release that social media post to any person or agency (think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) that is not entitled to receive it.

In addition, the 1974 Privacy Act requires the Federal Government to explain when the information is being gathered, why it is needed, and how it will be used. They must also ensure that those records are handled only for the reasons given.

Who believes the feds, when gathering up posts on Joe Biden’s failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, are completing the process of explaining why that collection was needed and how it will be used?

America needs answers.

The way to get those answers is for Congress to immediately launch a full-scale investigation using its sledgehammer power of subpoenas to determine the numerous violations of the 1974 Privacy Act, including criminal offenses.

©Marin Mawyer. All rights reserved.

Delayed Vote Counts Have Favored Democrats 77% Of The Time


On November 2nd, 2022 American Military News’   reported, 

During a speech at a Democrat Party campaign event on Wednesday night, President Joe Biden said voters should expect to see delayed vote counts in the midterm elections and be patient.

“We know that many states don’t start counting those ballots until after the polls close on November 8th,” Biden said. “That means in some cases we won’t know the winner of the election for a few days after the election. It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. [Emphasis added]

Read more

Prophetic isn’t it that Biden knew that election counting would be delayed. How did he know this?

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC in an email stated,

Going into the 2022 mid-term elections, more than 40% (almost half) of Americans doubted the integrity and outcomes of US elections.

Now those doubts and concerns are going to new unprecedented levels because of new reversals and Democrat wins that defy the polls, the mood of the nation, and historical trends combined with delayed vote counts!

[ … ]

Late or delayed vote counts in cities and states ruled by Democrats led to Democrat wins 10 out of 13 times in recent years (77% instead of 50%)!

QUESTION: Why do Democrat controlled areas have delayed vote counts?

ANSWER: It allows Democrats time to flip an election.

At the 7:40 mark in the below video Tucker Carlson states, “Lengthy delays in vote counting [is] followed by good news for Democrats. It’s happened all across the country.

In the 2020 presidential election Americans went to bed believing that President Donald J. Trump had won a second term in office. However, after midnight someone ordered the vote counting to stop and when Americans woke up they learned the vote had flipped and it was Biden who won.

As Tucker Carlson points out, “It’s hard to understand this.”

We agree.

QUESTION: If Florida, the 3rd most populated state, can count all 2022 midterm election votes without delay why can’t states like Arizona (#14 in population) and Nevada (#32 in population)?

ANSWER: Because Democrats inexplicably benefit from delayed vote counting!

How does one stop this delay vote counting and restore confidence in America voters of free and fair elections? This one tweet has the answers.

Simple, isn’t it.

Hopefully every state will follow Florida’s lead.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Feature Film ‘Lions And Lambs’ — Exposing Human Trafficking

Vets for Child Rescue is honored to align with Storyteller Film Co to make a full length, action-packed movie called Lions and Lambs

One of the biggest challenges we face in our efforts to expose and combat child trafficking is the suppression of information online. We hope this movie will provide a strategic work-around to bring massive awareness to the issue while creating an entertaining action/thriller film that everyone will want to watch.

Feature Film Trailer: A young girl is kidnapped to be sold to the highest bidder.

At its core, 𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐁𝐒 is a vigilante action film.

It will have exciting car and foot chases, fight sequences, and good-ole fashioned REVENGE!⁣ ⁣

In order to have a broad appeal to a variety of audiences, it’ll be a #PG13 rated #movie.

It’ll feel like a blockbuster of the late 90’s early 2000’s — but with a twist of true-to-life storytelling.⁣ ⁣ Co-producers @Travis Conover – The Creator’s Podcast and Matthew Wallace have nearly 30 years combined experience in the film industry as actors, writers, directors and producers.⁣

They’re now on a mission to #RaiseAwareness and bring this topic to the masses while 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 our mission to 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 and 𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 it.⁣

Travis Conover and J. Matthew Wallace will be acting and producing this project and they have generously offered to:

  1. Promote Vets For Child Rescue and our mission in the project
  2. Donate a large amount of the proceeds of the fundraising and profits from the film to V4CR’s mission.

Here’s how you can help!

  1. Learn about the movie and support it here: igg.me/at/LIONSandLAMBS. No donation amount is too small. Even $5 or $10 donated will show publicly as another “backer” of the project. They need at least 12,000 backers.
  2. Share the project directly with your friends and family. We need to drive over 50k people to this site in the next 2 weeks.
  3. Pray for the project to be fully funded, for protection around all involved, and for it to create massive awareness.

Crowdfunding is Necessary For This Project Because Hollywood Won’t Support It

“LIONS and LAMBS” is the story of a man who’s 12 year old niece is kidnapped and sold into sex slavery, and the lengths he’ll go to, to get her back.

Actor and Film Makers Travis Conover and Matthew Wallace partner with “Vets for Child Rescue” to tackle the issue of sex slavery in the United States. This action thriller explores the underground world of sex trade in Atlanta, Georgia and the horrible reality behind one of the most lucrative business in the world.

“LIONS and LAMBS” is written as a modern day action blockbuster, with inspiration from the best action films of the late 90’s and early 2000’s. While LIONS and LAMBS is centered around an important cause, quality storytelling, character development, and set pieces will be its foundation. It’s sure to be a fast-paced, action packed and entertaining thrill ride that will keep you pinned to the screen.

The story is approached from three unique angles. Firstly, the point of the view of the girl who is taken from her home in North Atlanta. Secondly, from her family’s point of view (primarily, her uncle Leon who is former military) and also from the perspective of law enforcement, who are fighting to bring down the people responsible for this horrible crime.

At its core, LIONS AND LAMBS is a vigilante, buddy cop action film. It will have exciting car and foot chases, hard-hitting, action-packed fight sequences, and a strong dose of good-ole fashioned REVENGE! Studies show that movies that do not include gratuitous violence and sex actually have a much broader appeal to audiences, so we will be aiming for a PG-13 rating. It will feel like a blockbuster of the late 90’s early 2000’s but with a twist of true-to-life storytelling.

The Cause

Unlike most films, this project in particular has the potential to raise awareness around the very serious issue of human trafficking. This project has pledged to raise over $100,000 for our organization to help put a stop to child sex trafficking.

The impact of raising awareness is also something that we hope this movie will help achieve. There is an intentional effort to suppress information about child trafficking, and this movie has the opportunity to bring awareness to the masses.

Follow the Lions And Lambs movie project and it’s team

Indiegogo: Indiegogo.com/projects/lions-and-lambs

Twitter: @TravisConover

Instagram: @Travis_Conover

©Veterans For Child Rescue. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: FBI Warns About Child Abductions Through Rideshares

RELATED VIDEO: Biden Sanctioned Child Trafficking

IT BEGINS: Biden Says He’ll Use Constitution to Make Sure Trump Will Never Be President Again

“We have to demonstrate that he will not take power if he does run. Making sure he under the legitimate efforts of the Constitution, become the next president again.”— Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. 


They just got away with another big election steal. Seamlessly. They stole another election and nobody was able to stop them. So now they are coming after us MAGA people and President Trump with a vengeance.

Joe Biden Holds Midterm Election Result Press Conference – Vows to Push Harder on Economic Agenda, Continue Targeting President Trump and Investigate Elon Musk

By: Sundance, Conservative Treehouse, November 9, 2022:

Joe Biden held a press conference today to celebrate the electioneering and ballot collection efforts of the Democrat party. The video and transcript of the press conference is below.

When questioned about any changes to his White House policy agenda, or what he plans to do differently, Biden said, “Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing. The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.” Current support for Biden’s economic policy agenda is around 22%, current opposition 78%.

Here’s the video:

Transcript

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Well, we had an election yesterday.  (Laughter.)  And it was a good day, I think, for democracy.  And I think it was a good day for America.  (Clears throat.)  Excuse me, I’m a little hoarse.

Our democracy has been tested in recent years.  But with their votes, the American people have spoken and proven once again that democracy is who we are.

The states across the country saw record voter turnout.  And the heart and soul of our democracy — the voters, the poll workers, the election officials — they did their job and they fulfilled their duty, and apparently without much interference at all — without any interference, it looks like.  And that’s a testament, I think, to the American people.

While we don’t know all of the results yet — at least, I don’t know them all yet — here’s what we do know.  While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen.  And I know you were somewhat miffed by my — my obsessant [sic] optimism, but I felt good during the whole process.  I thought we were going to do fine.

While any seat lost is painful — some good Democrats didn’t win the — last night — Democrats had a strong night.  And we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic President’s first midterm election in the last 40 years.  And we had the best midterms for governors since 1986.

And another thing that we know is that voters spoke clearly about their concerns — about raising costs — the rising costs and the need to get inflation down.  There are still a lot of people hurting that are very concerned.  And it’s about crime and public safety.  And they sent a clear and unmistakable message that they want to preserve our democracy and protect the right to choose in this country.

And I especially want to thank the young people of this nation, who — I’m told; I haven’t seen the numbers — voted in historic numbers again and — just as they did two years ago.  They voted to continue addressing the climate crisis, gun violence, their personal rights and freedoms, and the student debt relief.

Last night, I was pleased to call Maxwell Frost, the 25-year-old who got elected — I guess the youngest man ever elected to the United States Congress.  And I told him that he — I told him that I was the first elected — the second-youngest person ever elected to the United States Senate at 29; that I have no doubt he’s off to an incredible start in what, I’m sure, will be a long, distinguished career.  And when he’s President and they say, “Joe Biden is out in the outer office,” I don’t want him to say, “Joe who?”  (Laughter.)

But the voters were also clear that they’re still frustrated.  I get it.  I understand it’s been a really tough few years in this country for so many people.

When I came to office, we inherited a nation with a pandemic raging and an economy that was reeling.  And we acted quickly and boldly to vaccinate the country and to create a stable and sustained growth in our economy; long-term investment to rebuild America itself and our roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, clean water systems, high-speed Internet.

And we’re just getting started.  The interesting thing is that this is all going to really come into clear view for people in the months — in the months of January, February, March of next year.  It’s just getting underway.  So, I’m optimistic about how the public is going to even be more embracive of what we’ve done.

Historic investments that are leading companies to invest literally hundreds of billions of dollars combined to build semiconductor factories and other advanced manufacturing here in America.  It’s going to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.

And, by the way, a significant number of those jobs are going to be jobs that pay an average of $126-, $127,000.  And you don’t need a college degree to get those jobs.

We’re dealing with global inflation as a result of the pandemic and Putin’s war in Ukraine.  We’re also handling it better than most other advanced nations in the world.

We’re lowering gas prices.

We looking — we’re taking on powerful interests to lower prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums and energy bills.

After 20 months of hard work, the pandemic no longer controls our lives.  It’s still a concern, but it no longer controls our lives.

Our economic policies have created a record 10 million new jobs since I came into office.  The unemployment rate is down from 6.4 when I was sworn in to 3.7 percent — near a 50-year low.  And we’ve done all this while lowering the federal deficit in the two years by $1.7 trillion.  Let me say it again: $1.7 trillion.  No administration has ever cut the deficit that much.

And reducing the federal deficit is one of the best things we can do to lower inflation.  But while we’ve made real progress as a nation, I know it’s hard for folks to see that project — that progress in their everyday lives.

And it’s hard to see the results from actions that we took while — that we have to implement what we’ve done.  But I believe we took the right steps for the country and for the American people.

In fact, if you look at the polls, an overwhelming majority — I don’t look at them much anymore, because I’m not sure how to read them anymore.  (Laughter.)  I hope you are uncertain as well.

But the overwhelming majority of the American people support the elements of my economic agenda — from rebuilding America’s roads and bridges; to lowering prescription drug costs; to a historic investment in tack- — tackling the climate crisis; to making sure that large corporations begin to pay their fair share in taxes.

And I’m confident these policies are working and that we’re on the right path, and we need to stick with them.

All these initiatives take hold as they do, from lead pipes being removed from schools and homes, to new factories being built in communities with a resurgence of American manufacturing.  It’s already created, by the way, 700,000 brand new manufacturing jobs.

You’ve heard me say it ad nauseam: I don’t know where it’s written it says we can’t be the manufacturing capital of the world.  We are now exporting product, not jobs, around the world.

People across the country are going to see even more clearly the positive effects on their day-to-day lives.  But I still understand why they’re hurting right now and so many people are concerned.

As I have throughout my career, I’m going to continue to work across the aisle to deliver for the American people.  And it’s not always easy, but we did it the first term.  And I’ll be — surprised lot of people that we signed over 210 bipartisan laws since I’ve become President.  And we’re revitalizing American manufacturing; gun safety — we did it together — and dozens of laws positively impacting on our veterans.

And let me say this: Regardless — regardless of what the final tally in these elections show — and there’s still some counting going on — I’m prepared to work with my Republican colleagues.  The American people have made clear, I think, that they expect Republicans to be prepared to work with me as well.

In the area of foreign policy, I hope we’ll continue this bipartisan approach of confronting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

When I return from the G20 meetings in Indonesia with other world leaders, I’m going to invite the leaders of both political parties, as I’ve done in the past on my foreign trips, to the White House to discuss how we can work together for the remainder of this year and into the next Congress to advance the economic and national security priorities of the United States.

And I’m open to any good ideas.  I want to be very clear: I’m not going to support any Republican proposal that’s going to make inflation worse.  For example, the voters don’t want to pay higher prescription costs for drugs.  We’ve cut that now.  We’re going to kick into gear next year — the next calendar year.  And I’m not going to walk away from the historic commitments we just made to take on the climate crisis.  They’re not compromise-able issues to me, and I won’t let it happen.

The voters don’t want more taxes for the super we- — tax cuts for the super wealthy and biggest corporations.  And I’m going to continue to focus on cost-cutting for working- and middle-class families, and building an economy from the bottom up in the middle out.

I know you’re tired of hearing me say that, but I genuinely mean it.  That’s what makes America grow.  The wealthy do very well when the middle class is doing well, and the poor have a way up.

And while continuing to bring down the federal deficit.

You know, as we look at tax cuts, we should be looking at tax cuts for working people and middle-class people, not the very wealthy.  They’re fine.

I — look, I — if you can go out and be a multimillionaire, that’s great.  Just — just pay your fair share.  That’s all.  That’s all.  Just pay your fair share.  It’s like those 55 corporations in 2000 [2020] that made $40 billion and didn’t pay a penny in federal taxes.

It’s not right.  Everybody has an obligation.  So now they have to pay a staggering 15 percent.  And you all pay more than that in your taxes.

So I’m going to keep my commitment that no one — no one earning less than $400,000 a year — and that’s a lot of money, where I come from — are going to see their federal taxes go up.

And I want to be very clear: Under no circumstances will I support the proposal put forward by Senator Johnson and the senator from down in Florida to cut or make fundamental changes in Social Security and Medicare.  That’s not on the table.  I will not do that.

I will veto any attempt to pass a national ban on abortion.

But I’m ready to compromise with the Republicans where it makes sense on many other issues.  And I’ll always put the needs and interests of the American people first.

So let me close with this.  On this election season, the American people made it clear: They don’t want every day going forward to be a constant political battle.  There’s too much that — of that going on.  And there’s too much that we have to do.

The future of America is too promising — too promising to be trapped in an endless political warfare.

And I really mean it.  You’ve heard me say it time and again for the last 20 months or so: I am so optimistic about the prospects for America.  We need to be looking to the future, not fixated on the past.  And that future is bright as can be.

We — we’re the only nation in the world that’s come out of every crisis stronger than we went into the crisis.  And that’s a fact.  I mean — I mean I literally mean that: We’ve come out stronger than we’ve gone in.

And I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future than I am today.  You know, I — particularly because of all those young people I’ve talked about, 18 to 30.  They’re showing up.  They’re the best-educated generation in American history, they’re the least prejudiced generation in American history, the most engaged generation in American history, and the most involved.

Look, after a long campaign season, I still believe what I always have: This is a great nation, and we’re a great people.  And it’s never been a good bet to bet against America.  Never been a good bet to bet against America.

There’s nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we work together.  We just need to remember who the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  The United States of America.  There’s nothing beyond our capacity.

And I’m pretty well convinced that we’re going to be able to get a lot done.  Now, I’ve been given a list of 10 people that I’m supposed to call on.  And you’re all supposed to ask me one question, but I’m sure you’ll ask me more.  (Laughter.)

And so let me start off with a list I’ve been given.  Zeke Miller, Associated Press.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have two questions for you.  As you mentioned — (laughter).  As you mentioned —

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  How come we never hold you guys to the same standards you hold us to?  (Laughter.)  But, anyway, go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.  I’m teasing.

Q    You mentioned that Americans are frustrated.  And, in fact, 75 percent of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction, despite the results of last night.  What in the next two years do you intend to do differently to change people’s opinion of the direction of the country, particularly as you contemplate a run for President in 2024?

THE PRESIDENT:  Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing.  The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is.

Do you know anybody who wants us to get rid of the change we made on prescription drug prices and raise prices again?  Do you know anybody who wants us to walk away from building those roads and bridges and — and the Internet and so on?  I don’t — I don’t know any- —

I think that the problem is the major piece of legislation we passed — and some of it bipartisan — takes time to be recognized.

For example, you got — you got over a trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure money, but not that many spades have been put in the ground.  It’s taking time.

For example, I was on the phone congratulating a Californian recently and then someone in — up in Scranton, Pennsylvania — the Congressman who got elected.  And he said, “Can you help us make sure we’re able to have high-speed rail ser- — rail service from Scranton to New York — New York City?”  I said, “Yeah, we can.  We can.”

First of all, it’ll make it a lot easier, take a lot of vehicles off the road.  And we have more money in the — in the pot now already — already out there — we voted for — than the entire money we spent on Amtrak to begin with.

It’s the same way — for example, I talked about, through the campaign, that we’re going to limit the cost of insulin for seniors to $35 a month instead of $400 a month.  Well, it doesn’t take effect until next year.

So there’s a lot of things that are just starting to kick in.  And the same way with what we’ve done in terms of environmental stuff.  It takes time to get it moving.

So, I’m not going to change — as a matter of fact, you know there’s some things I want to change and add to.  For example, we had — passed the most bipartisan, we passed the most extensive gun legislation, anti- — you know, rational gun policy in 30 years.  And — but we didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m going to ban assault weapons.  They’re going to try like the devil —

So, I’m not going to change the direction.  I said I ran for three reasons.  I’m going to continue to stay where I’m — and I know — I fully understand the legitimate concern that what I’m saying is wrong.  Okay?

One is that I said we’re going to restore the soul of the country, begin to treat each other with decency, honor, and integrity.  And it’s starting to happen.  People are — the conversations are becoming more normal, becoming more — more — how can I say it? — decent.

Second thing I said is I want to build a country from the middle out and the bottom up.  And that way, everybody does fine.  I’m tired of trickle-down.  Not a whole lot trickles down when you trickle down to hardworking folks.

And the third thing — I know is still very hard — I’m going to do everything in my power to see through that we unite the country.  It’s hard to sustain yourself as a leading democracy in the world if you can’t — can’t generate some unity.

So, I’m not going to change anything in any fundamental way.

Q    And just on a different topic, Mr. President.  Russia today claimed that it had evacuated the Kherson region and the Kherson city.  Do you believe that this is potentially an inflection in that conflict?  And do you believe that Ukraine now has the leverage it needs to begin peace negotiations with Moscow?

THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I found it interesting they waited until after the election to make that judgement, which we knew for some time that they were going to be doing.  And it’s evidence of the fact that they have some real problems — Russian — the Russian military.  Number one.

Number two, whether or not that leads to — at a minimum, it will lead to time for everyone to recalibrate their positions over the winter period.  And it remains to be seen whether or not there’ll be a judgment made as to whether or not Ukraine is prepared to compromise with Russia.

I’m going to be going to the G20.  I’m told that President Putin is not likely to be there, but other world leaders are going to be there in Indonesia.  And we’re going to have an opportunity to see what — what the next steps may be.

Nancy.  CBS.  Nancy Cordes.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have a few questions.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Okay.

Q    I’ve been saving them up.  First of all, Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said last night that, “It is clear we are going to take the House back.”  Do you think he’s probably right about that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, based on what we know as — as of today, we’ve — we’ve lost very few seats for certain.  We still have a possibility of keeping the House, but it’s going to be close.  And — for example, in Nevada, we won all three of those seats — contested seats.  I went out for each, and I spoke with each — for each of those folks.  But we won them all.  I didn’t know that last night.

So it’s a moving target right now, but it’s going to be very close.

Q    Can you — can you describe your relationship with Mr. McCarthy?  How often do you speak to him?  What do you think of him?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think he’s the Republican Leader, and I haven’t had much of occasion to talk to him.  But I will be talking to him.  I think — I think I’m talking to him later today.

Q    When it comes to your legislative agenda — when you were Vice President, your legislative agenda basically ran into a brick wall two years in when Republicans took control of the House, and that lasted for the rest of the Obama presidency.  Is there any way for you to prevent that same fate from happening this time around —

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    — if Republicans take control of the House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, because it’s going to be much closer if they take control.

Look, the predictions were — and again, I’m not being critical of anybody who made the predictions.  I got it, okay?  This was supposed to be a red wave.  You guys — you were talking about us losing 30 to 50 seats and this was going to — we’re nowhere near — that’s not going to happen.  And so, there’s always enough people in the — on the other team, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, that the opposite party can make an appeal to and maybe pick them off to get the help.  And — and so it remains to be seen.

But, look, I doubt whether or not — for example, all the talk — I’d ask the rhet- — I don’t expect you to answer, but the rhetorical question: Do you think that, you know, Senator Johnson is going to move to cut Medicare and Social Security?  And if he does, how many Republicans do you think are going to vote for it?

So, it depends.

Q    And then, my — my final question.  (Laughs.)  Republicans have made it clear that if they do take control of the House, that they want to launch a raft of investigations on day one into your handling of Afghanistan, the border.  They want to look into some of your Cabinet officials.  They want to investigate you.  They may even want to investigate your son.  What’s your message to Republicans who are considering investigating your family and, particularly, your son Hunter’s business dealings?

THE PRESIDENT:  “Lots of luck in your senior year,” as my coach used to say.

Look, I think the American public want us to move on and get things done for them.  And, you know, I heard that there were — it was reported — whether it’s accurate or not, I’m not sure — but it was reported many times that Republicans were saying, and the former President said, “How many times are you going to impeach Biden?”  You know, impeachment proceedings against Bi- —

I mean, I think the — I think the American people will look at all of that for what it is.  It’s just almost comedy.  I mean, it’s — but, you know, look, I can’t control what they’re going to do.  All I can do is continue to try to make life better for the American people.

Okay.  Phil.  Phil Mattingly, CNN.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I have 37 ques- — I’m kidding.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)

Q    Sir, at a fundraiser last month, you said, quote, “The rest of the world is looking at this election…both the good guys and the bad guys.”  You noted you’re going to G20 in a couple days.  You’ll come face to face with many of those leaders at the same moment that your predecessor is considering launching his reelection effort.  How should those world leaders, both good guys and bad guys, view this moment both for America and for your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, these world leaders know we’re doing better than anybody else in the world, as a practical matter.  Notwithstanding the difficulties we have, our economy is growing.  You saw the last report; we’re still growing at 2.6 percent.  We’re creating jobs.  We’re still in a solid position.  And there’s not many other countries in the world that are in that position.

And I promise you, from the telephone calls I still have and from the meetings I have with other heads of state, they’re looking to the United States and saying, “How are you doing?  And what are you doing?  What can we do together?  How…”

So I think that the vast majority of my colleagues — at least those colleagues who are NATO members — European Union, Japan, South Korea, et cetera — I think they’re looking to cooperate and wanting to know how — how we can help one another.

And what was the other question?

Q    (Inaudible) I hadn’t asked it yet.

THE PRESIDENT:   Oh, I’m sorry.

Q    No, no, no.  So, I think the — one way to follow up on that is you noted that you felt like there was a shift in terms of people being willing to show more decency in this moment.  You’ve often talked about breaking the fever or kind of a transition from this moment that we faced over the last several years.  Do you feel like the election is what represents that?  Do you feel like the fever has broken, I guess?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not — I don’t think we’re going to break the fever for the super mega MAGA Republicans.  I mean — but I think they’re a minority of the Republican Party.  I think the vast majority of the members of the Republican Party, we disagree strongly on issues but they’re decent, honorable people.  We have differe- — differences of agreement on — on issues.

But they — you know, I — I worked with a lot of these folks in the Senate and the House for a long time.  And, you know, they — they’re — they’re honest, and they’re — and they’re straightforward.  They’re different than mine, but they’re — you know, they’re — they’re decent folks.

And so, I think that the rest of the world — and a lot of you have covered other parts of the world, and you know — the rest of the world is looking at the United States.  I guess the best way to say this is to — is to repeat what you’ve — some — some of you’ve heard me say before.

The first G7 meeting — for the public, that’s the — the seven largest democracies — when I went to — right after we got elected, in February, after I got sworn in in January.  And I sat down at a table — a roundtable with the six other world leaders from the European Union, the United — and — and Canada, et cetera, and said, “America is back.”  And one of them turned to me and said, “For how long?  For how long?”  It was a deadly earnest question: “For how long?”

And I looked at them.  And then another one went on to say — and I’m not going to name them — went on to say, “What would you say, Joe, if, in fact, you went — we went to bed tonight here in — in England, woke up the next morning and found out that thousands of people had stormed the parliament of — of Great Britain — gone down the hall, broken down the doors, two cops ended up dying, a number of people injured, and they tried to stop the co- — the confirmation of an election?”  It’s not the same situation, obviously, as we have.  And he said, “What would you think?”

And what — I ask a rhetorical question: What would you all think?  You’d think England was really in trouble.  You’d think democracy was on the edge if that happened in Great Britain.

And so, that’s the way people were looking at us, like, “When is this going to stop?”  Nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.  I don’t want to exaggerate.  But literally, nothing like this has happened since the Civil War.

And so, what I find is that they want to know: Is the United States stable?  Do we know what we’re about?  Are we the same democracy we’ve always been?

Because, look, the rest of the world looks to us — I don’t mean that we’re always — like we’re always right.  But if the United States tomorrow were to, quote, “withdraw from the world,” a lot of things would change around the world.  A whole lot would change.

And so, they’re very concerned that we are still the open democracy we’ve been and that we have rules and the institutions matter.  And that’s the context in which I think that they’re looking at: Are we back to a place where we are going to accept decisions made by the Court, by the Congress, by the government, et cetera?

Q    So the entire genesis of that G7 conversation was tied to your predecessor, who is about to launch another campaign.  So how do you reassure them, if that is the reason for their questioning, that the former President will not return or that his political movement, which is still very strong, will not —

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, yeah?  (Laughs.)

Q    — once again take power in the United States?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power by — if we — if he does run.  I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  Steve, Reuters.  I’m sorry.  Steve Holland.

Q    Thank you, sir.  How do you interpret last night’s results in terms of deciding whether you want to seek another term?  Is it now more likely that you will run?  And what’s going to be your timeline for consideration?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Jill and I have — and by the way, this is my wife, Jill — (laughter) — who’s a hell of a lot more popular than I am in the Democratic Party, too.

But at any rate, all kidding aside, our — our intention is to run again.  That’s been our intention, regardless of what the outcome of this election was.  And the fact that we won — we — I didn’t run — the fact that the Democratic Party outperformed anything anyone expected and did better than any off-year presidency since John Kennedy is one that gives everybody, like, “Hoo” — sigh of relief — that the mega Republicans are not taking over the government again, et cetera.

And so, my judgment of running, when I announce — if I annou- — now, my intention is that I run again.  But I’m a great respecter of fate.  And this is, ultimately, a family decision.  I think everybody wants me to run, but they’re go- — we’re going to have discussions about it.  And I don’t feel any — any hurry one way or another what — to — to make that judgment today, tomorrow, whenever, no matter what the — my predecessor does.

Q    By end of the year or early next year?  Or what’s your — what’s you’re thinking?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — my guess is — I hope Jill and I get a little time to actually sneak away for a week around — between Christmas and Thanksgiving.  (Laughs.)  And my guess is it would be early next year we make that judgment.

Q    Thanks.

THE PRESIDENT:  But it is my plan to do it now.  I mean, but — you know.

Okay, I’m sorry.  Karen.  Karen Travers of ABC Radio.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  WNBA star Brittney Griner today was moved to a Russian penal colony to serve out her nine-year sentence.  Do you have an update right now on her condition?  What do you know about that?  And does this mark a new phase in negotiations with the Russians to secure her release?  Can the U.S. now fully engage in talks on a prisoner swap?

And then a follow-up, if I can.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’ve been — we’ve been engaging on a regular basis.  I’ve been — I’ve been spending a fair amount of time with — with her wife about what’s going on with her.

And my guess is — my hope is that now that the election is over, that Mr. Putin will be able to discuss with us and be willing to talk more seriously about a prisoner exchange.

That is my intention.  My intention is to get her home.  And we’ve had a number of discussions so far.  And I’m hopeful that, now that our election is over, there is a willingness to — to negotiate more specifically with us.

Thank you.

Q    And, if I can, your Press Secretary had said that the U.S. government has continued to follow up on that significant offer but also had proposed “alternative potential ways forward” with the Russians.  Can you tell us what those “alternative ways forward” are and how Russia has responded to those?

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I can, but I won’t.  Okay, I can’t — I mean, you know, it would — it would not be a wise thing to do in order to see if they would move forward.

But it is my — I’m telling you, I am determined to get her home and get her home safely — along with others, I might add.

April Ryan.

Q    Of TheGrio.

THE PRESIDENT:  Of TheGrio.  Excuse me.  I beg your pardon.

Q    (Laughs.)  Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  I got it right last time we did this.

Q    Yes, you did.  Yes, you did.

Mr. President, I have a couple of questions on several issues.  One, the Supreme Court.  As you know, the Supreme Court has before it the issue of college admissions and affirmative action.  What can and are you planning in case of a rollback that is expected?

There are legal analysts that say that there will be drastic implications, there are tentacles from this, and they even say that this can impact Brown v. Board — the decision from Brown v. Board.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you know, first of all, I asked our Justice Department to defend the present policy before the Supreme Court.  And like a lot of pundits, I’m not prepared to believe that the Supreme Court is going to overrule the pre- — the existing decision.  That’s far from certain.  And I don’t be- — I don’t believe that.

But number one — so, number one, what I did to try to change it is object to it before the Supreme Court of the United States — our administration.

Number two, I — there are a number of things that we can and must do to make it — and, by the way, this is a case involving an Asian American, in terms of getting into school, and whether there’s affirmative action makes sense at all from the standpoint of those who are arguing against it.

But, you know, the fact is that we’re — we’re also in a circumstance where there’s a lot that we can do in the meantime to make sure that there’s an access to good education across the board.  And that is by doing things that relate to starting education at age three — formal schooling at age three — which it increases — not daycare, but school.  All the studies over 10 years show that that increases the prospect of someone making it through 12 years without any difficulty, no matter what the background they come from, by 56 percent.

And I also think that we should be making sure that we have the ability to provide for two years of education beyond that, whether it’s apprenticeships or community colleges.

And we also are in a situation where I think that — for example, I want to make sure we — a lot of it has to do with finances as well — that we make sure that we have help for people who come from modest means to be able to get to school.

You know, the cost of college education has increased fourfold.  And it used to be that a Pell Grant would cover something like 70 percent of the college tuition.  Now it covers significantly less than that.  So I want to increase the Pell Grants as well.

But let’s see what the Supreme Court decides.  And I’m — I am hopeful.  And our team and our — the lawyers who argued for us are not nearly as certain as the people you quoted as saying it’s going to be overruled.

Q    Next question, sir.  The issue is inflation.  TheGrio and KFF conducted a study of Black voters that said inflation was the number one issue, and we saw it in this midterm election.

What can you promise concretely in these next two years that will help turn the pocketbook for the better in the midst of staving off a recession?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, a number of things.  First of all, un- — Black unemployment is almost cut in half under my administration just since I began.  More Black businesses have opened up — small businesses — than ever before.

We’re now in a situation where we’re providing, through the Small Business Administration, down payments for people buying homes, because most people accumulate wealth in the value of their home, most middle-class families like mine.  My dad bought a home, didn’t have — just scraped together to get a home.  By the time he was able to retire, he was — he had built up equity in a home.  That’s how most people do that.

And so — but what I can’t do is I can’t guarantee that we’re going to be able to get rid of inflation, but I do think we can.

We brought — we’ve already brought down the price of gasoline about $1.20 a gallon across the board.  And I think that the — the — the — the oil companies are really doing the nation a real disservice.

They’ve made — six of them made over $100 billion in the last quarter in profit.  A hundred billion dollars.

In the past, if they had done the two things that they had done before — one, invest in more refineries and producing more product and/or passing on the rebates to the gas stations that — you know, they sell the oil at a cheaper rate than they have to — than they are selling it now, not taking advantage.  And that lowers the price of the total gallon of gas because that gets passed on.

So there’s a whole lot of things that we can do that are — that are difficult to do, but we’re going to continue to push to do them.

And the other thing is that one of the things that makes a gigantic difference is what are the costs that exist in the average family and the average Black community.  One, prescription drug costs.  Well, we’re driving those down precipitously, beginning next year.

And, you know, I’ll bet you know a lot of people in the African American and — and Caucasian community that — that need to take insulin for diabetes.  Well, we’re going to reduce that cost.  They’re not going to pay more than $35 for the insulin instead of four- — average of $400.

And I can go down the list of the things that — my dad used to say it a different way.  At the end of the month, the things you have to pay for, from your mortgage to food on the table to gasoline in the automobile, do you have enough money to do it?  And when it’s done, do you have anything left over?  And medical bills are a big piece of that, particularly in the African American community and the poor — and poorer communities.  They need help.

And so we’re driving down all of those costs.  And we’ve already passed the legislation to do that; it’s just taking effect.

So there’s a lot of things we can do to affect the things that people need on a monthly basis to reduce their inflation, their cost of living.

And so — but I am optimistic, because we continue to grow and at a rational pace, we’re not anywhere near a recession right now, in terms of the growth.  But I think we can have what most economists call a “soft landing.”  I’m convinced that we’re going to be able to gradually bring down prices so that they, in fact, end up with us not having to move into a recession to be able to get control of inflation.

Q    And, Mr. President, last question on humanity.  I know, everybody else got some.

Q    Not everybody else.

Q    Well, you’re coming.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    Last question on humanity.  Sir, you can’t legislate and you can’t executive order out the issue of empathy or the lack thereof in the midst of this rhetoric — this heated political rhetoric.  What’s next?

THE PRESIDENT:  Part of what I think leadership requires — and I hope I meet the standard — is letting people know you understand their problem.

Again, my dad used to have an expression.  He said, “I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I expect them to at least know what they are, understand them.”

And like a lot of you, we’ve been very fortunate as a family, but we’ve also been through a lot of fairly tough times.  And it’s not — and I’ve had the great advantage of having a family to get through them.

When my first wife and daughter were killed when a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my wife and — killed my — my first wife and killed my daughter, and my two boys were expected to die; they were in the — it took the Jaws of Life three hours to get them out.  They were on top of their dead mother and dead sister.

I understand what that pain is like.

And when Jill and I lost Beau after a year in Iraq, winning the Bronze Star and Conspicuous Service Medal, a major in the United States military, came home with Stage 4 glioblastoma because he lived about 200, 5- — between 2- and 500 yards from burn pit that’s 10 feet deep and as big as a football field, burning every toxic waste you could find.

You know, I think that we — we understand what it’s like to lose family members, mothers, fathers, to can- — all of you have been through that kind of thing.

We’ve been fortunate, though.  We’ve had each other.  We’ve had strong families — Jill’s sisters, my brothers, my sister.

And so what we can do to deal with that empathy is make sure there’s help available, make sure there’s people who are there to help — whether they are a psychologist or whether they’re medical doctors or whether they’re social workers — to be there to help, to help just hold a hand.

And, for example, we can do an awful lot for a lot of families, the families you’re talking about, if we re- — reinstate this Child Tax Credit.  It cut child poverty by 40 percent when it was in place.  I couldn’t get it passed the second time around.

So there’s a lot we can do.  And the empathy is not just talking about it, it’s communicating to people you genuinely understand.  And I hope a lot of people don’t understand, because they — I don’t want people having to know the pain.

But the second piece of that is: Let them know that you are there to help.  You’re there to help.

And one of the things I’ve talked with Vivek Murthy about — and a lot of you have written about it, and you’ve written it well about it — is the need for mental health care in America.  You know, when we got elected, there were something like, I don’t know, 2-, 3-, 5 million people who had gotten their — their COVID shots.

Well, in the meantime — I’ve got over 220 million people all three shots.  But in the meantime, what happened?  We lost over a million dead.  A million dead.

I read one study that for those million people, they had nine people who were — each one of them had, on average, nine people close to them.  A relative, someone they’re married to, a child — someone close.

The impact has been profound.  It’s been profound.  Think of all the people — think of all your children or your grandchildren who didn’t have that senior prom, who didn’t have that graduation party, who didn’t have all the things we had that we took for granted — the impact on their psyche.

So, there’s a lot we have to do.  And empathy reflects itself not just on what a person demonstrates they understand — of knowing what people need and helping to make it happen.  And we’re trying to do that.  And a lot of Republicans are trying to do it, too.  I don’t mean this is a partisan thing.  A lot of people are trying to do it because they know we got a problem.

Okay, excuse me.  These 10 questions are really going quickly.  (Laughter.)

Q    Stick around for more.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  Well, I’ve got to meet with some of my — talk to some of the Republican leadership soon.  But — anyway.

Jenny Leonard, Bloomberg.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Two questions.  One, shifting back to your trip to Asia.  When you meet with President Xi Jinping of China, will you tell him that you’re committed to defending Taiwan militarily?  And what are you hoping to get out of this meeting that will make it a success?  Are you willing to make any concessions to him?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’m not — I’m not willing to make any fundamental concessions because what I — what I’ve told him in the beginning — and this is — we’ve — I’ve spent over 78, I think they told me, hours with him so far — 67 in person, when I was Vice President.

President Obama knew he couldn’t spend time with the Vice President of another country, so I traveled 17,000 miles with them in China and around — and the United States.  I’ve met with him many times.

And I’ve told him: I’m looking for competition, not — not conflict.

And so what I want to do with him when we talk is lay out what the — what kind of — what each of our red lines are, understand what he believes to be in the critical national interests of China, what I know to be the critical interests of the United States, and to determine whether or not they conflict with one another.  And if they do, how to resolve it and how to work it out.

And so — and the Taiwan doctrine has not changed at all from the very beginning — the very beginning.  So, I’m sure we’ll discuss China — excuse me, Taiwan.  And I’m sure we’ll discuss a number of other issues, including fair trade and — and rela- — relationships relating to his relationship with other countries in the region.

And — and so, anyway.  So there’s a lot we’re going to have to discuss.

Do you want another question?

Q    Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Everybody else got one.

Q    You didn’t say if —

THE PRESIDENT:  Or two or three.

Q    You didn’t say if you will tell Xi Jinping personally that you are committed to defending Taiwan.

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m going to have that conversation with him.

Q    That wasn’t my second one, sorry.  (Laughter.)

Sorry, I actually have an unrelated question too.  Mr. President, do you think Elon Musk is a threat to U.S. national security?  And should the U.S. — and with the tools you have — investigate his joint acquisition of Twitter with foreign governments, which include the Saudis?

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  I think that Elon Musk’s cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at.  Whether or not he is doing anything inappropriate, I’m not suggesting that.  I’m suggesting that it wor- — worth being looked at.  And — and — but that’s all I’ll say.

Q    How?

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of ways.

All right.  Kristen.  Kristen Welker.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, Mr. President.  I appreciate it.

I want to follow up with you on working with Republicans.  Leader McCarthy again suggested that he is not prepared to write what he has called a “blank check” to Ukraine.  And yet, you expressed optimism that funding for Ukraine would continue, that the policies toward Ukraine would continue.  Why should the people of Ukraine and this country have confidence in that, given the comments by Leader McCarthy?

And just to follow up with you on your comments to Zeke, you said you don’t need to do anything differently.  If Republicans control the House, don’t you need to recalibrate, to some extent, to try to work across the aisle with a Republican-led House?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me put it this way.  What I meant was: I don’t have to change any of the policies that have already passed.  That’s what they said they want to go after.

And so, what I have is a simple proposition: I have a pen that can veto.  Okay?  So, that’s what I mean.  I don’t have to recalibrate whether or not I’m going to continue to, you know, fund the — we’re going to continue to fund the infrastructure bill or we’re going to continue to fund the environment, et cetera.

What — we have to — I hope — I think there’s a growing pressure, on the part of the American people, expecting both parties and all elements of both parties to — to work out their substantive differences and not just, “I’m not going to do that because it would benefit that party.”  Just make it — make it personal.

So, I — and, you know, it remains to be seen what the makeup of the House will be.  But I’m hopeful that Kevin and I can work out a modus vivendi as to how we’ll proceed with one another.

Q    So, will aid to Ukraine continue uninterrupted?

THE PRESIDENT:  That is my expectation.  And, by the way, we’ve not given Ukraine a blank check.  There’s a lot of things that Ukraine wants we didn’t — we didn’t do.

For example, I was asked very much whether we prefe- — we’d provide American aircraft to guarantee the skies over Ukraine.  I said, “No, we’re not going to do that.  We’re not going to get into a third world war, taking on Russian aircraft and directly engage.”  But would we provide them with all — the rational ability to defend themselves?  Yes.

We provide those HIMARS.  Well, the HIMARS — there’s two kinds of, in the average person’s parlance, rockets you can drop in those: one that goes over 600 miles and one that goes about 160 miles.  We didn’t give them any ones that go to 600 miles, because I’m not looking for them to start bombing Russian territory.

And so, we want to make sure that there’s a relationship that they’re able to defend themselves and take on what is purely a — a — the ugliest aggression that’s occurred since World War Two on a massive scale, on the part of Putin, within Ukraine.  And there’s so much at stake.

So, I would be surprised if — if Leader McCarthy even has a majority of his Republican colleagues who say they’re not going to fund the legitimate defensive needs of Ukraine.

Q    And just quick one.  Obviously, a lot of attention on 2024 now that the votes have been cast in the midterms.  Two thirds of Americans in exit polls say that they don’t think you should run for reelection.  What is your message to them?  And how does that factor into your final decision about whether or not to run for reelection?

THE PRESIDENT:  It doesn’t.

Q    What’s your message to them — to those two thirds of Americans?

THE PRESIDENT:  Watch me.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.  One more.  (Laughter.)  Very quickly.  You saw Governor Ron DeSantis with a resounding victory in Florida last night.  Who do you think would be the tougher competitor: Ron DeSantis or former President Trump?  And how is that factoring into your decision?

THE PRESIDENT:  It’d be fun watching them take on each other.  (Laughter.)

All right.  David Sanger.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I also have a question for you about China.  But before I do, I just wanted to follow up on something you said earlier when you said “it remains to be seen whether” the Ukraine government “is prepared to compromise with Russia.”  Previously, you’ve told us the only thing for the Russians to do is get completely out of Ukraine, go back to the — the lines that existed prior to February 24.  Are you suggesting with the word “compromise,” that you think that there is room for territorial compromise now?  That —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I’m not say- — that’s up to the Ukrainians.  Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Q    But what kind of compromise do you have in mind?

THE PRESIDENT:  I didn’t have any in mind.  You have asked the question whether or not, if I recall — whether or not — what would happen if, in fact, after the — this — I think the context is that whether or not they’re pulling back from Fallujah.  And the — I mean, from the —

Q    Kherson.

THE PRESIDENT:  Kherson.  The — the city of Kherson.  And they’re coming back across the river to the eastern side of the river — the Russian forces.  And I said what’s going to happen is they’re going to both lick their wounds, decide whether — what they’re going to do over the winter, and decide whether or not they’re going to compromise.

That’s — that’s what’s going to happen, whether or not.  I don’t know what they’re going to do.  And — but I do know one thing: We’re not going to tell them what they have to do.

Q    You were asked before about the — your meeting with President Xi.  At this point, the Chinese government, by the estimate of the Pentagon, is getting ready to bring their force of nuclear weapons up to over 1,000 weapons.  Significant increase from what they’ve had for many decades.  You’ve seen the threats from President Putin about the use of his nuclear forces —

THE PRESIDENT:  Remember how you all went after him when I said that was real?

Q    And what — what, in your view, happened?  Do you think he — he backed off because of that, (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, I’m just saying.  I just — I just found it interesting that, “Biden is being apop- — apoc- –acop- — Biden is being extremist.”  And — and it turns out you all are writing about it now.  Kind of fascinating.

Q    So my question is: Do you think that they are putting together a real alliance, the Chinese and the Russians?  And do you believe that you need to begin speaking with President Xi about some form of arms control if he’s going to get up to a level of weapons similar to what the United States and Russia have right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  No and yes.  No, I don’t think there’s a lot of respect that China has for Russia or for Putin.  I don’t think they’re looking at it as a particular alliance.  Matter of fact, they’ve been sort of keeping their distance a little bit.

I do think that it remains to be seen whether Xi Jinping has decided that — or backed off of his initial judgment that he wanted Ukrai- — excuse me, China to have the most powerful military in the world, as well as the largest economy.

And — but he’s a long way from both.  But I think — I think — talk about nuclear weapons and location and the number of them and access is important to discuss.

Thank you all so very, very much.

(Cross-talk by reporters.)

Thank you very, very much.  We’ll do another — we’ll do another hour a little later.  Thank you so much.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.

[End Transcript]

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

WARNING: Legacy Media and RINOs Are Trying to Force Ron DeSantis into Fight to Dethrone President Trump

Biden vows ‘nothing’ different in next two years despite majority saying US headed in ‘wrong direction’

Arizona Announces Election Results Delayed AGAIN ….. Until Next Week, Maricopa Officials Say

Pennsylvania Elects Dead Democrat

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

Scalise Announces Bid for House Majority Leader

This needs t happen. GOP ‘leadership’ needs an overhaul.

The current Republican Party leadership of Mitchell McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are the problem. They need to be replaced, or the Republican Party will have many  more disappointing election nights. McConnell and McCarthy represent the Trump-hating establishment who alienate the Trump voters. They always play defense, even when they are in charge. They run lousy elections, and they are consistently outmaneuvered by the Democrats. This can’t continue if the Republican Party is to remain a national party.

Scalise Announces Bid for House Majority Leader

By Newsmax, Nov 9, 2022

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise is launching a bid to become the House majority leader as the GOP appears likely to regain control of the lower chamber.

The Louisiana Republican, who easily won reelection Tuesday night, announced his bid Wednesday, according to The Hill. California Republican Kevin McCarthy, the current House minority leader, is expected to be elected speaker in the next Congress should the GOP wrest control from Democrats.

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Republican Party Needs an Overhaul Before 2024

27 Illinois Counties Have Voted to Split the State

Ballots vs. Votes

ELECTION FRAUD: Nevada Finds 60K Ballots in Drop Boxes, Delays Will Stretch into Next Week

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

Biden’s Student Loan Handout Struck Down By Federal Judge

It hardly matters now. The Biden regime got what it wanted — the imbecilic, privileged Gez Z voter, rendered incapable of critical thought by the very college education they expected the working class to pay for.

Biden’s student loan handout struck down by federal judge in Texas

By: Fox News, November 10, 2022:

Appeals court temporarily halts President Biden’s student loan handout

Texas Rep. Beth Van Duyne discusses GOP members attempting to block President Biden’s student loan plan on ‘The Evening Edit.’

A federal judge in Texas struck down President Biden’s student loan handout in a Thursday night ruling.

Biden’s plan, which aims to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients in college and up to $10,000 for others who borrowed using federal student loans.

“Whether the Program constitutes good public policy is not the role of this Court to determine. Still, no one can plausibly deny that it is either one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch, or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the
United States,” United States District Judge Mark Pittman wrote.

“In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone. Instead, we are ruled by a Constitution that provides for three distinct and independent branches of government…The Court is not blind to the current political division in our country. But it is fundamental to the survival of our Republic that the separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution be preserved. And having interpreted the HEROES Act, the Court holds that it does not provide ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the Program proposed by the Secretary,”

Elaine Parker, President of Job Creators Network Foundation, which brought the lawsuit, reacted to the ruling on Thursday.

“The court has correctly ruled in favor of our motion and deemed the Biden student loan program illegal. The judge criticized the Biden Administration program, calling it ‘one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States.’ This ruling protects the rule of law which requires all Americans to have their voices heard by their federal government,” Parker said.

“This attempted illegal student loan bailout would have done nothing to address the root cause of unaffordable tuition: greedy and bloated colleges that raise tuition far more than inflation year after year while sitting on $700 billion in endowments. We hope that the court’s decision today will lay the groundwork for real solutions to the student loan crisis.”

Read more.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: Pennsylvania Elects Dead Democrat

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

FBI Contractor Spied on GOP Congressman to Protect Muslim Brotherhood

The ex-CIA officer’s company also worked for the Democratic National Committee.


The death of Qatari operative Jamal Khashoggi has been the subject of front page headlines, press conferences, a documentary, and speeches by top figures including Joe Biden.

Qatar employing an ex-CIA officer who set out to spy on a Republican congressman to help protect the Muslim Brotherhood has received virtually no coverage in the media.

The Washington Post, which platformed Khashoggi and labored to turn the old friend of Osama bin Laden into a martyr, did not feel that Qatar spying on a congressman was worth more coverage than rerunning the AP’s wire story. The New York Times didn’t even do that much.

The AP’s story alleged that Qatar employed Kevin Chalker, a former CIA officer, and his company, Global Risk Advisors, to target opponents of the Islamic terror state which has ties to everything from 9/11 to Hamas to the Taliban. That included “pitching a sprawling covert influence operation to damage the reputations of U.S. officials perceived as Qatar’s enemies.”

One of those “enemies” of the Islamic terror state may have been Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

In 2015, the Republican congressman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. This would have been extremely inconvenient to Qatar, which hosts Muslim Brotherhood figures and backs the Islamist expansionist movement whose goal is to take over countries and impose the brutality of sharia law on their people.

Including the United States.

The bill was reintroduced again in 2017, co-sponsored by a number of House Republicans, including Rep. Louie Gohmert. While the bill never became law, Rep. Diaz-Balart’s persistence appeared to worry Qatar and the former spooks doing its dirty work.

The AP story reveals that Global Risk Advisors created “Project ENDGAME” and “boasted in internal records that it had ‘developed an approach to a close contact of the congressman’ who sponsored legislation that year to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“’Developed an approach’” is intelligence jargon for seeking to recruit a potential asset.”

At least one previous GRA effort had allegedly involved a Facebook “honey pot” operation.

While GRA appears to have done a lot of work for Qatar, the AP revealed that “its affiliates have won small contracts with the FBI for a rope-training course and tech consulting work for the Democratic National Committee.”

GRA also appears to have some employees who have gone on to work for Democrats. It may be no coincidence that the two known American targets of GRA operations, Rep. Diaz-Balart and former RNC finance chair Elliot Broidy are both high-profile Republicans. And Democrat media groups and reporters were deeply involved in promoting Broidy’s hacked emails.

Qatar has cultivated Republican contacts, but through its Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States, it has become an integral part of the Democratic political machine. Unless new names are revealed, Democrat complicity in foreign operations against American officials by an enemy nation becomes a burning question that must urgently be resolved.

The involvement of the FBI is also troubling as it’s the Bureau that is investigating possible misconduct by its former contractor. And as we’ve seen with Russiagate, its personnel have a history of covering up the sins of their contractors and informants to protect their credibility.

In echoes of the Steele Dossier, GRA had allegedly employed British ex-intel officers to spy on the American team conducting a bid for a soccer tournament and used a “fake Facebook profile of an attractive young woman to communicate with the target”.

Was this what Qatar’s assets had in mind for a congressman?

What ought to be an explosive story has instead been studiously ignored by the media because it exposes its own complicity and touches the third rail of the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement.

The intersection between an ex-CIA figure, an FBI contractor, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood also raises the question of Islamist infiltration of the intelligence community.

The AP story on GRA’s work for Qatar notes that the Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi delivered a sermon after Qatar beat out America’s bid for a soccer tournament that the intel operatives had been hired to assure in which he said “Qatar had humbled the United States.”

Qaradawi had previously predicted that, “we will conquer America” and declared that, “those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs”. Serving Qatar ultimately means serving the enablers of Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s quest to destroy America.

The complete lack of interest in the AP’s scoop by either the media or the political class also reveals how deeply Qatar, an ally of Iran, a state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood and the hand behind Al Jazeera, controls Washington D.C. and the journalists of the mainstream media.

It also offers a peek into how enemies of this country were able to take over Washington D.C.

Kevin Chalker, the ex-CIAer, and Global Risk Advisors came up during the hack of former Republican National Committee deputy finance chair Elliot Broidy. Broidy’s emails were passed on to media operatives which described them as being “leaked”. Broidy’s lawsuits since have alleged that Qatar hired Global Risk Advisors to “coordinate” cyberattacks which led to the hacks of his emails which were then distributed to the media by a PR firm working for Qatar.

The media, which seized on the documents to damage former President Trump, and appeared to be coordinating with operatives working for Qatar, ignored or dismissed the accusations.

And previous AP reporting suggested GRA was engaging in behavior that could be interpreted as treason, after noting that “one Global Risk Advisors document lists the United States as a ‘threat’ to Qatar”.

Despite these revelations, the Democratic National Committee has failed to issue a statement disavowing GRA, laying out GRA’s work on its behalf and committing to ending that work.

Nor has anyone in the media pursued DNC officials to push for an answer.

Global Risk Advisers, to all appearances, appear to be operating normally. And the same media outlets which cried endlessly about Russian operations are keeping quiet.

Even allegations of spying on a Republican congressman aren’t about to change that.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act once again in 2021. Senator Ted Cruz reintroduced the Senate version: co-sponsored by Senator Ron Johnson. After 7 years, the bill has yet to pass. Will the revelation that Qatar appears to have targeted the bill’s sponsor to protect the Muslim Brotherhood change that?

Or will Qatar, the Muslim and a band of mercenary spooks continue to terrorize Congress?

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

NJ Muslim threatens attack on synagogue and ‘many more attacks against the enemy of Allah and the pigs and monkeys’

‘Palestinian’ jihadi in Brussels: EU has committed genocide, ‘Defeating Israel means defeating the US’

Afghanistan: Taliban’s vice and virtue agent murders a teenage girl for refusing marriage proposal

Australia Muslim says daughter has ‘psychological trauma’ from seeing Muhammad cartoon, demands teacher be suspended

Iran: Khamenei is on fire!

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