The Same FBI Moles Pushing Russiagate Are Protecting Hunter Biden

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

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

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

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

Some of that involves known players.

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

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

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

The connections of course run in both directions.

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

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

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

FBI Leadership Pressuring Agents to Artificially Pad Domestic Terrorism Data

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

Trump To Sue CNN

Former President Donald Trump notified CNN of his intention to file a lawsuit against the network for “repeated defamatory statements” in a statement Wednesday.

Ifrah Law, a Washington-based law firm, filed a Notice of Intent ordering the network, under Florida Statute § 770.02, to “publish a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction” in published pieces or broadcasts that allegedly made “false statements” about the former president. The notice warned that failure to issue an apology will result in a lawsuit.

“Failure to publish such a correction, apology, or retraction will result in the filing of a lawsuit and damages being sought against you, CNN,” the document warned.

Trump warned he will be suing other media outlets that have “defamed and defrauded the public” about the 2020 presidential election results.

“I have notified CNN of my intent to file a lawsuit over their repeated defamatory statements against me,” Trump said. “I will also be commencing actions against other media outlets who have defamed me and defrauded the public regarding the overwhelming evidence of fraud throughout the 2020 Election. I will never stop fighting for the truth and for the future of our Country!”

The notice accused CNN of allowing claims that Trump was “illegitimately elected” in the 2016 presidential election to go unchallenged. It then raised accusations that CNN “fed a narrative” that repeatedly defamed Trump’s character before and after the 2020 presidential election.

The document stated that CNN inaccurately branded Trump as a “liar” and likened him to Adolf Hitler and communist leaders by labeling his election fraud claims as the “Big Lie.” The network has coined the term “Big Lie” in relation to Trump more than 7,700 times since January 2021, the document said.

“In this instance, President Trump’s comments are not lies: He subjectively believes that the results of the 2020 presidential election turned on fraudulent voting activity in several key states,” the document said.

The document alleged that the network treats Trump unfairly in comparison to other public figures, including Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, Jussie Smollett and Andrew McCabe. It then argued that the former president’s questions about election integrity are legitimate, given that True the Vote reportedly found evidence of illegal, fraudulent votes in states such as Georgia and Arizona.

The outlet published several headlines either defaming or negatively depicting the former president. Headlines negatively depicting the former president included, “Trump’s growing recklessness is a ticking time bomb,” “Trump’s Jan 6 plot appears darker and more dangerous by the day,” “Trump’s Big Lie is changing the face of American politics,” and “Trump’s Mental Health becomes an issue again.”

CNN declined to comment on the potential lawsuit.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio

RELATED VIDEO: Lawsuit challenges Democrats’ fitness for office

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Sues Hillary Clinton, Other Democrats Who Alleged Russian Collusion

Trump Threatens To Sue Pulitzer Committee If They Don’t Take Back Some Prizes

President Trump Threatens To Sue ‘Everyone’ Over Mueller Investigation And Roger Stone Trial

Steve Bannon Convicted Of Contempt, Faces Up To 2 Years In Jail

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

Which Burns Faster, Wind Turbines or EVs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Electric Cars: Inconvenient Facts, Part 2

RELATED TWEET:

The Israeli Journalist Who Visited Mecca Should Be Worried

Muslims are usually determined to avenge humiliation, and they know how to be patient.


Most non-Muslims have difficulty understanding why they are not allowed to enter Mecca. Israeli journalist Gil Tamari certainly appears to have lacked understanding when he secretly entered the city after covering U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, causing a scandal with potentially important ramifications for Israel-Saudi relations.

The legal prohibition on non-Muslims visiting Mecca is based on a Quranic injunction (Surah 9, verse 28). Since Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God, no human authority, whether religious or political, can change this ruling. Non-Muslims who enter Mecca are therefore defiling Islam’s most important holy place, as Tamari did.

To complicate matters, Islam has no Pope-like central figure. So, even if the Saudis decided to table the issue for the time being, others—such as a “lone wolf” terrorist—perhaps opposed to the Saudi regime, could take up the charge to defend the honor of Islam. Indeed, throughout the history of Islam, individual Muslims and sects have interpreted the Quran as they chose, resulting in insurrections and assassinations that have often threatened Muslim regimes. This means that extremists might try to take revenge against Tamari personally.

Further complicating this picture, most of the Muslim world has a strong sense of honor and shame. Tamari, as well as the Saudi Muslim taxi driver who brought him to Mecca, shamed the Saudi government, which is responsible for protecting the sanctity of Mecca and Medina from such desecrations. Any Muslim who besmirches the honor of another person or group of people can often provoke blood feuds between two people, their families, their clans, their tribes and their religious sects that can last for generations. Muslims often brood for centuries until these slights have been avenged.

How does this manifest itself? One example can be found in Osama bin Laden’s post-9/11 speech. In that speech, he alluded to an event that had happened 80 years earlier. Since Americans tend not to have a sense of history, senior American government officials scrambled to find out what bin Laden meant. To those familiar with Muslim history, however, it was obvious what he was talking about. It was a reference to early 20th century Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk’s then newly-established secular Republic of Turkey, which abolished the Caliphate—that is, the leadership of the entire Sunni Muslim world.

The title “Caliph” was one of the many titles held by the Ottoman Sultan, and from a Sunni point of view, his most important one. Thus, Muslim extremists still revile Ataturk and his comrades, whom they claim were installed as Turkey’s leaders by the infidel West in order to destroy Islam. The 9/11 attack on important Western symbols of power—the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as the unsuccessful targeting of the U.S. Capitol—were an act of revenge against the center of non-Muslim power, the U.S., thus avenging the abolition of the Caliphate.

Furthermore, bin Laden’s choice of September 11 to carry out the attack was of symbolic importance. On that date 318 years before, a Christian army at Vienna defeated the Ottoman Muslims, who were on a march to conquer all of Europe for Islam. From then on, Islam was in retreat. Over the ensuing centuries, non-Muslims recaptured almost all of southeastern Europe. The humiliation of this defeat had to be avenged, and the attacks on American symbols of power were that vengeance.

Again, this might sound absurd to us, but Muslim cultures understand the value of patience and know how to wait until they believe the appropriate opportunity has arrived to take revenge. We often dismiss and belittle this way of thinking as primitive, but it is how Muslim cultures understand the world. We ignore it at our peril.

Analyzing how Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) handled Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia shows that the opportunity for revenge can often come more quickly. Back in October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Thereafter, then-candidate Biden blamed MBS for the murder, even though no “smoking gun” was found that proved MBS responsible. The Saudi government denied his involvement, but MBS remained silent. However, as a product of his culture, he must have hoped the opportunity to avenge this insult would present itself, and he knew how to wait for it. It was wrong to interpret his silence as acquiescence.

Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia provided MBS with the perfect opportunity. Accordingly, the Saudis humiliated Biden in every possible way. Right from the beginning, the way Biden was greeted at Jeddah airport was a snub. The Saudis sent the provincial governor to meet him, instead of Biden’s protocol counterpart—King Salman. But since the king is infirm, MBS should have been the one to greet the president. To the Muslim world, that he didn’t could not have sent a clearer signal that he was getting back at Biden for having blamed MBS personally for Khashoggi’s murder.

Moreover, Biden’s primary goal was to convince the Saudis to increase oil production. The answer was a polite but emphatic no.

Finally, Biden wanted to take credit for the Saudi decision to open its airspace to Israeli planes. But the Saudis announced their decision before Biden reached Saudi Arabia, denying the president the opportunity to do so.

In the case of Gil Tamari’s visit to Mecca, we can see this same phenomenon at work. The Saudis have found and arrested the taxi driver who took Tamari to the holy city, even though the journalist did his best to blur the driver’s image in a video he filmed. Only God knows what will be the driver’s fate. Not only will he pay for his transgression, but he has brought enormous shame on his family. Moreover, if Tamari’s visit was such an unimportant incident, the Saudis would not have invested so many resources in order to find the driver. Thus far, the Saudis and MBS have been almost totally silent on this matter. But again, we should not misinterpret this as acquiescence.

What about Gil Tamari himself? As mentioned above, Muslims often brood over humiliation and wait for a time when the object of their anger either is or looks weak. Then they strike.

As a result, Tamari and others who defame the honor of Islam should be worried. Those who offend Islam are vulnerable to revenge attacks that could occur at any time. Tamari now has a target on his back. Whenever a Muslim seeking to avenge the honor of Islam believes he has the opportunity to do so, violence could ensue.

Tamari is probably safe in Israel. But should he travel to Europe, he might not be so lucky. As it says in the Talmud, a moment of pleasure can ruin an entire life. Tamari clearly enjoyed himself in Mecca, but he might pay for that pleasure by having to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

©Harold Rhode. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: That Stupid Stunt In Mecca

Chloe’s Story: Puberty Blockers at 13, a Double Mastectomy at 15

Laying bare the iniquity of doctors and psychologists who exploit the confusion of children and adolescents.


The California State Assembly has been studying a bill, SB 107, to declare the state a sanctuary for minors who have been denied transgender -affirming medicine and surgery elsewhere.

SB 107 would permit insurance companies, physicians, and contractors to disregard subpoenas about child custody if the child is being medically treated for gender dysphoria. It would also ban health care providers from providing medical information requested from another state if that state has a policy allowing civil action to be taken against individuals who perform “gender-affirming health care” on children.

A young California woman, Chloe Cole, has testified before legislators in her own state, in Louisiana, and in Florida about her experience at the hands of gender-affirming doctors. She began to transition to a male at 13; she had a double mastectomy at 15; and she detransitioned at 17. Her brief speech lays bare the iniquity of doctors and psychologists who exploit the confusion of children and adolescents.

This is the text of her address in Louisiana. It is heart-breaking.

My name is Chloe Cole, and I am from the Central Valley of California and a former transgender child patient. I am currently 17 years old and was medically transitioning from ages 13-16.

After I came out to my parents as a transgender boy at 12, I consulted a pediatric therapist in July of 2017 and was diagnosed with dysphoria by a ‘gender specialist’ the following month. The healthcare workers are trained to strictly follow the affirmative care system, even for child patients, in part because of California’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban. There was very little gatekeeping or other treatments suggested for my dysphoria.

When my parents asked about the efficacy of hormonal, surgical, and otherwise ‘affirming’ treatments in dysphoric children, their concerns were very quickly brushed aside by medical professionals. I didn’t even know detransitioners existed until I was one.

The only person who didn’t affirm me was the first endocrinologist I met. He refused to put me on blockers and expressed concerns for my cognitive development. However, it was easy to see another endocrinologist to get a prescription for blockers and testosterone, just like getting a getting a second opinion for any other medical concern. After only two or three appointments with the second endocrinologist, I was given paperwork and consent forms for puberty blockers (Lupron) and androgens (Depo- Testosterone), respectively. I began blockers in February of 2018, and one month later, I received my first testosterone shot. I received Lupron shots for about a year.

After two years on testosterone, I expressed to my therapist that I was seeking top surgery, or the removal of my breasts. I was recommended to another gender specialist, who then sent me to a gender-affirming surgeon. After my first consultation with the surgeon, my parents and I were encouraged to attend a ‘top surgery’ class, which had about 12 Female-to-Male (FTM) kids. I was immediately struck by how early some of them seemed in their transition and how some were much younger than I was; I was 15 at the time and had been transitioning for 3 years.

In retrospect, the class inadvertently helped to affirm my decision because of the sense of community provided by seeing girls like me going through the same thing. Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making. I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op, that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that as a mother.

The worst part about my transition would be the long-term health effects that I didn’t knowingly consent to at the time. I developed urinary tract issues during my transition that seem to have gotten worse since stopping testosterone. I have been getting blood clots in my urine and have an inability to fully empty my bladder. Because my reproductive system was still developing while I was on testosterone, the overall function of it is completely unknown. I have irreversible changes, and I may face complications for the rest of my life.

I was failed by modern medicine.”

Did Chloe give informed consent to these life-changing procedures? Is her experience really different from the atrocities committed by German doctors at Auschwitz or American doctors in the Tuskegee syphilis studies?

AUTHOR

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet. He lives in Sydney, Australia. More by Michael Cook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FDA Officials Warn Of Brain Swelling, Vision Loss In Minors Using Puberty Blockers

4 Compelling Reasons for the U.S. Senate to Oppose Redefining Marriage

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

LinkedIn’s ‘Misinformation’ Policies are an Attack on Science

Citing a scientific study that undermines the government narrative can get your account “restricted!”


It is becoming a drearily familiar experience for me to receive emails from social media platforms informing me that my content has been removed for violating “community guidelines” prohibiting the dissemination of “dangerous or misleading information.” Usually, this is shorthand for any piece of evidence or analysis contradicting an official statement by a public health authority — to be precise, a specific public health authority or cluster of authorities that the platform in question has decided to treat as the Gospel of Science, very often the FDA, the CDC, or the WHO.

My latest run-in with the social media Information Tsars was an email I received on July 17 from Linkedin, notifying me that they had removed one of my posts for violating their policies on “misinformation,” and threatening to restrict my account if I continued to violate their policies. After posting a complaint about LinkedIn’s misinformation policies, I could no longer access my account, as it had been “temporarily restricted.” As I write this, I am still locked out of my LinkedIn account.

Here is the item that was deemed by Linkedin’s information Tsars to constitute “misinformation” of the sort that they cannot tolerate on their platform:

Click here for the Linkedin misinformation graphic.

So what did I say to deserve to have this post taken down by Linkedin, leading shortly thereafter to a “restriction” of my account and a threat to make the restriction permanent?

Actually, nothing more than (i) cite a scientific study being shared by a Harvard epidemiologist, corroborating many other studies that have shown, time and again, that children are at negligible risk of suffering severe disease from Covid-19, and (ii) question the wisdom and ethical propriety of an FDA decision to approve Emergency Use Authorisation for Covid vaccines for children as young as 6 months old.

Emergency Use Authorisation requires a special justification to show that ordinary protocols for approving a drug should be by-passed. The FDA has produced weak and speculative evidence about the potential benefits of the Covid vaccines for children, and no solid evidence to show children face such a serious risk from Covid as to give rise to a public health “emergency.”

This is not a quirky opinion, by the way: it is corroborated by the World Health Organisation, one of those hallowed pillars of wisdom that LinkedIn would have us revere, which affirms on its own webpage that “children and adolescents are generally at low risk of infection, and if they become infected it is likely to be mild.”

Why would someone get in trouble with a social media platform hosting debate and discussion about public affairs for raising doubts about the ethical and scientific propriety of a governmental decision affecting the lives of millions of children? How is it possible that citing a scientific study that cuts against an official government narrative can get your post taken down, or even get your account “restricted”?

The explanation is simple: Anything that puts in question an official statement by a public health authority is considered by LinkedIn to be incriminating material that can spark a corrective intervention by Linkedin’s Philosopher Kings.

In a society that prides itself on being “progressive,” “scientific,” and rational, Linkedin’s “professional community guidelines” give middle managers a license to take down your posts and eventually restrict your account for the sin of contradicting the decisions or judgments of public health authorities.

Here is the exact wording of Linkedin’s policy on “misinformation”:

Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities.

What does this actually mean, in practice? It means that some select persons, just because they got nominated to a “public health authority” or a “leading global health organization,” are protected by Linkedin from any robust criticism from the public or from other scientists.

Anyone who tries to post data or evidence suggesting that a recognised public health authority might actually have gotten something wrong, on a matter of public “guidance,” will find their post taken down forthwith by Linkedin, no matter how respectable the rival evidence or authority they bring to the table may be.

Let’s think about the implications of that: public health authorities are treated by LinkedIn as gurus, or “popes” of modern science, whose utterances should be received with unquestioning reverence. LinkedIn has thus formulated policies of content moderation that effectively quash serious debate and give automatic cover to any potential errors or poor judgment calls on the part of public health authorities.

A scientific or medical claim immune from public criticism may be true or false. But we cannot have full confidence in it, unless we know that it can be properly debated and put to the test in the public square.

When rational and scientific debate is artificially constricted, society languishes in ignorance, and public authorities become arrogant and complacent, in the knowledge that their statements are sheltered from public challenge.

Just look at how life-saving information about the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was carefully kept under wraps by the Chinese Communist Party, or how Facebook arbitrarily suppressed evidence suggesting the virus escaped from a laboratory, only to later reverse its policy in embarrassment.

Human beings crave for certainty, especially during a crisis. However, we cannot be certain, from our limited historic vantagepoint, which of our scientific beliefs will eventually be vindicated and which disproven. Only candid and open scientific debate, free from intimidation and censorship, can expose the strengths and limitations of each position over time.

Linkedin is killing the possibility of open intellectual, political and scientific debate among its members, and fostering something that comes closer to a beehive than a true human community: astonishingly, one of the conditions for remaining a member in good standing is refraining from contradicting whatever ideas come out of the CDC, FDA, or WHO.

According to correspondence I have received from LinkedIn, “We have these policies in place to help keep LinkedIn a safe, trusted and professional network for everyone” (email from “LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant,” received 19 July 2022, excerpted here).

Linkedin is indeed an incredibly safe place – if you are an official at the FDA, CDC, or WHO, or one of their devotees. If, on the other hand, you believe in serious and robust scientific inquiry, or have any genuine intellectual curiosity left in you, you are unlikely to survive the scrutiny of Linkedin’s Information Tsars for long.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder.

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

Why Biden, Schumer and Pelosi are America’s Demorrhoids!

Hemorrhoids: A disease that causes swollen and inflamed veins in the rectum and anus that result in discomfort and bleeding.


We have been carefully watching the public appearances, policies and actions of the three key leaders in America: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Charles Ellis Schumer and Nancy Patricia Pelosi since January of 2021. What we have witnessed can only be described as a disease that is causing immense discomfort for the American people and the bleeding of our strength both nationally and globally.

We searched for a proper word to describe this discomfort and bleeding we are witnessing and came up with what we believe America is experiencing today—an acute case of Demorrhoids.

Biden, Schumer and Pelosi—Leaders of the Demorrhoid Party 

Here are some examples of why the party of Biden, Schumer and Pelosi and their collectivist actions, to date, are similar to hemorrhoids. We call them Demorrhoids.

  1. Bill Clinton famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid!” We are now officially saying, “It’s the Demorrhoids, stupid!” Inflation and an imminent recession are now officially here and it’s all because of the Demorrhoids‘ economic policies. Higher interest rates added to everything is the Demorrhoids new normal. Can you say pain and suffering?
  2. Save the planet by destroying America and with it mankind. The rectal bleeding of our fossil fuels.
  3. Groom minor children for gay sex via public school classrooms, media centers, Democrat policies, featured films (e.g. a gay Spiderman) and social and legacy media propaganda. If these don’t cause rectal discomfort, no pun intended, then what does?
  4. Sending American tax dollars overseas to help our enemies (e.g. PLO, Afghanistan, Iran) thereby bleeding our coffers until they are dry.
  5. Causing supply chain shortages, higher gasoline and diesel prices, increasing costs for groceries, clothing, appliances, homes, and services. If this isn’t a pain in every American’s butt we don’t know what is.
  6. The constant and repetitive two tier justice system that punishes the innocent (i.e. J6 peaceful protesters), protects the guilty (e.g. Hunter Biden and the Biden cartel) and idolizes convicted felons (e.g. George Floyd).
  7. The Demorrhoids’ culture of death (abortion), tyranny (Democrat Socialism), government mandates (Covid, lockdowns, firing the unvaxxed) over the U.S. Constitutional ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Talk about taking it in our collective behinds!
  8. Weakening our  military by turning them into social justice robots rather than war fighters dedicated to protecting the American people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  9. The Demorrhoids policy of abandoning our most important ally in the Middle East—Israel. Thanks to the Demorrhoids the Jewish state is under siege and is at a crossroads.
  10. The Demorrhoids have not only abandoned our borders but they have also weakened us globally. History tells us that when our enemies lose their respect for America’s power and our allies lose their trust in us war is sure to follow. Those who forget history will always repeat it. The Demorrhoids hate Americans and our nation. We’re bleeding away our power to defend ourselves.
  11. Their relentless attacks on the U.S. Constitution from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment to the separation of powers to just ignoring it all together. If this isn’t Demorrhoidism then we the people are blind and dumb to it.

Time to Band and Abandon the Demorrhoids

One method to cure hemorrhoids is to cut off their blood supply, called banding.

As we approach the 2022 midterm elections it is time to cut off the Demorrhoids from the power they hold in the U.S. Congress. It is time to band them, and cut off their ability to grow and bleed Americans dry.

It is time to hold Demorrhoids accountable at the ballot box. If we don’t then America and its Constitutional Republican form of government will die.

Time for Americans to decide—Demorrhoids or Constitutional Conservatives.

Choose wisely in November or you will most definitely bleed to death.

Remember what German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazis, said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

It’s time to act! Silence is not an option!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

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

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

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

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

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


Kamala Harris

111 Known Connections

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

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

To learn more about Kamala Harris, click here.

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

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

Unimaginable cruelty in pursuit of foul leftist propaganda. The left really thinks they are G-d. They will be punished.

Fauci’s NIAID Spent Nearly $500,000 ‘to Turn Monkeys Transgender’

The shocking experiments were covered in the organization’s annual Where’s The Pork report, but were originally uncovered in January by The National Pulse. According to the report, “Fauci’s agency awarded grants totaling $478,188 in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 to inject hormones into male monkeys to make them female.”

The experiments were said to be an effort to understand why transgender “women” experience higher rates of HIV.

“Scientists planned to evaluate how the injected hormones altered the males’ immune systems to determine if feminizing hormones had an adverse effect on the strength of immune systems. If so, researchers believed this weakening of the immune system could be responsible for their increased likelihood of becoming HIV positive,” the National Pulse reported.

According to a report from the Daily Telegraph, Fauci has been linked to research injecting monkeys with HIV dating back to the mid-1980s.

AUTHOR

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

Defund UCLA

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UCLA spends over $1 million on political lobbyists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill de Blasio Blames Jews, Bashes Israel Over Political Failures

Turkey: 12th grade public school textbook promotes armed jihad

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

Barry Goldwater Correctly Predicted The Problems Afflicting America in 1980

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


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

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

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

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

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

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

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

Election Integrity Professional Demolishes Guardian Hit Piece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Are We In A Recession?

Who Really Needs a Definition of Recession? Not business or households. It really only serves one interest.


Social media is ablaze with a dispute over whether the US economy is in a recession.

The debate was prompted by the White House’s statement on upcoming GDP data. The statement claims:

While some maintain that two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP constitute recession, that is neither the official definition nor the way economists evaluate the state of the business cycle.

The debate on social media is about whether this is true, but I think a different question takes priority. Why do we care? I’m not asking why we should care about whether the economy is bad— that’s obviously important.

I’m asking a different question. Why do we care if we call it a recession, and why do we need a definition of recession at all?

Individuals trying to manage their households and businesses don’t need access to macroeconomic data like GDP to know things are going badly in the economy. When businesses are unable to secure customers, when costs are rising faster than revenue, and when individuals lose purchasing power, they know.

In business, the key data entrepreneurs need access to is profit and loss. A business making an economic profit should continue on, and a business making an economic loss needs to make a change. GDP numbers are unnecessary for these decisions.

“The individual consumer,” Murray Rothbard wrote, “in his daily rounds, has little need of statistics; through advertising, through the information of friends, and through his own experience, he finds out what is going on in the markets around him. The same is true of the business firm. The businessman must also size up his particular market, determine the prices he has to pay for what he buys and charge for what he sells, engage in cost accounting to estimate his costs, and so on. But none of this activity is really dependent upon the omnium gatherum of statistical facts about the economy ingested by the federal government. The businessman, like the consumer, knows and learns about his particular market through his daily experience.”

Not only do people know the relevant economic conditions without macroeconomic data, but they know before macroeconomic economic data has the chance to be released. If someone walks outside on a hot day, they don’t need a meteorological agency to tell them the temperature to know it’s hot. In fact, if you tried to tell a person on a hot day that your weather app says it’s only 10 degrees, they’d tell you your app is wrong.

So who exactly does access to GDP (or national income data) help? In brief: the government. Why? Because politicians and bureaucrats lack the direct, meaningful knowledge that market participants have. As Rothbard explained:

They are decidedly outside the market. Therefore, in order to get “into” the situation that they are trying to plan and reform, they must obtain knowledge that is not personal, day-to-day experience; the only form that such knowledge can take is statistics.

Statistics are the eyes and ears of the bureaucrat, the politician, the socialistic reformer. Only by statistics can they know, or at least have any idea about, what is going on in the economy.

For example, you can’t have recession policies if you can’t quantitatively identify a recession, so our planners make definitions and gather metrics.

But their definitions and metrics are meaningless from a market participant’s perspective. Their only function is political. As economist Ludwig von Mises argues, “[t]here is no nonpolitical reason whatever to proceed with such a summing up of all incomes within a ‘nation’ and not within a broader or a narrower collective.”

When GDP numbers fall below a certain level, politicians can use that data to try to push income back up. Or perhaps when the economy is “running too hot” politicians can use fiscal and monetary policy to slow down the economy.

All of these metaphors about economies running hot or stalling are based on a central planning view of the economy. In this view, the economy is like a machine which we can adjust to bring about the proper results.

Without macroeconomic statistics, central planners have fewer means by which to justify particular interventions. We can’t claim we need stimulus if we can’t point to some data indicating it’s necessary.

Why does this “two quarters of negative GDP growth” definition of recession exist so widely in the minds of economists? Well one reason, as Phil Magness has pointed out on Twitter, is there are United States laws actually triggered by having two quarters of negative GDP growth:

Notice the role GDP measurement plays here. It is presumably a metric for evoking legislation. Why else would the legislature have automatic responses to the metric?

Still not convinced that macroeconomic statistics exist to serve planners? Consider some simple questions from Mises:

Why national income of the United States and not rather “state income” of the State of New York or “county income” of Westchester County or “municipal income” of the municipality of White Plains? All the arguments that can be advanced in favor of preferring the concept of “national income” of the United States against the income of any of these smaller territorial units can also be advanced in favor of preferring the continental income of all the parts of the American continent or even the “world income” as against the national income of the United States. It is merely political tendencies that make plausible the choice of the United States as the unit.

Why is it we’re so focused on GDP of the United States rather than town GDP or world GDP? It’s because our most powerful political decision-makers are at the national level.

Ironically these tools developed in part to aid planners have become a thorn in the side of many politicians. While GDP numbers may aid in national economic planning, they may not be helpful at the polls.

This is likely why the Biden White House is trying to get ahead of the release of the most recent quarter of economic data. If you’re worried one definition of recession will make you look bad, just choose another definition.

Unfortunately for Biden, even if some arbitrary collection of economists declare we are not in a recession, you don’t need a thermometer to feel if it’s hot outside.

Economic issues, especially inflation, top the list of concerns for voters going into the 2022 midterms, and it isn’t particularly close.

So officially defined recession or not, it doesn’t really matter. When it’s hot outside people wear shorts. When the economy is bad for them, they respond accordingly regardless of what the bureaucratic weathermen say.

AUTHOR

Peter Jacobsen

Peter Jacobsen teaches economics at Ottawa University where he holds the positions of Assistant Professor and Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He received his graduate education George Mason University and received his undergraduate education Southeast Missouri State University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics. His website can be found here.

RELATED VIDEO: SPAM goes on lockdown due to inflation in NYC

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden administration redefines ‘recession’ ahead of possibly damaging GDP report

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

Biden’s TSA Becomes the Transportation False Security Administration

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only thing worse than no security is false security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Biden Administration Plans To Protect Immigration Fraudsters.

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

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

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

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

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

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

©Michael Cutler. All rights.

San Francisco Lost 6.3% of Its Population in Pandemic — Most Among U.S. Hellhole Cities

UPDATE: Short video with Pfizer crime boss, Albert Bourla


The left, who loves to change words and descriptions, should start calling these cities, shitholes to reflect the new reality they’ve wrought.

The exodus will be a stampede if the Democrats continue to rule them.

San Francisco Lost 6.3% of Its Population in Pandemic; Most Among U.S. Cities

By: Breitbart News, 537
The city of San Francisco, California, lost 6.3% of its population from July 2020 to July 2021, the most of any U.S. city.That’s according to U.S. Census data, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, amid a work-from-home trend in the tech sector:The city lost 54,813 people, or 6.3% of its population, from July 2020 to July 2021. One pandemic year erased a decade of tech-fueled population boom: San Francisco’s 815,201 residents as of July 2021 was the lowest since 2010, according to census data.

New York had the second-highest percentage drop, losing 3.5% of residents or over 305,000 people. The country’s most densely populated county, Manhattan, was the hardest-hit New York borough, losing 6.6% of its population.

[ … ]

The 15 fastest growing U.S. cities were concentrated in the west and south regions, including in Arizona, Texas, Florida and Idaho. Two suburbs north of Austin, Georgetown and Leander, Texas, added a combined 13,352 people, each growing more than 10% during the 12-month period. That was the nation’s highest two rates for cities with 50,000 or more people.

San Francisco’s rapid depopulation was also assisted by high housing costs, the Chronicle reported. San Francisco in particular has struggled to deal with homelessness, drug use, and petty crime, problems that have recently become worse.

Many cities also experienced a rise in crime and disorder following the Black Lives Matter riots of the summer of 2020.

Overall, the State of California lost 1% of its population in 2021, seeing more than 367,000 residents move to other states.

AUTHOR

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