154 Scientists at Los Alamos Nuke Lab Sold Military Secrets to China

A security firm called Strider Technologies published a report this week that said China paid leading scientists at America’s Los Alamos National Laboratory hefty sums of money to conduct research for the Chinese Communist government, including research with military applications that could threaten U.S. national security.

The report, titled The Los Alamos Club: How the People’s Republic of China Recruited Leading Scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory to Advance its Military Programs, offered a rather straightforward answer to its titular question — China recruited those scientists by offering them up to a million dollars each, and at least 154 of them accepted.

Weren’t the Rosenbergs executed for this?

The Strider report is an extraordinarily detailed look at a problem that has been discussed at length in recent years, China’s extremely aggressive “talent recruitment” programs. The People’s Republic of China puts a great deal of effort into recruiting talented foreigners to serve its purposes, often without emigrating to China or leaving the positions they hold in free nations. Often, but not always, these recruitment programs target foreign citizens of Chinese heritage.

The most notorious of these initiatives is called the Thousand Talents Program (TTP). Many of the scientists in the Strider report were involved in TTP or its youth wing.

China’s recruitment activities often look a lot like espionage or technology theft, and sometimes participants are prosecuted for such, including employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Other scientists and academics have been disciplined or fired by U.S. institutions for failing to disclose the full extent of their work for China. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in April 2021 told a Senate committee that over 500 federally funded scientists were under investigation for possible links to China and other foreign powers. (Breitbart)

154 Scientists at Los Alamos Nuke Lab Defected to China

By Daniel Greenfield. September 24, 2022:

Defected of course implies that they ever worked for any nation other than China.

It’s a good thing that the Biden administration corruptly shut down the Trump administration’s attempt to stop Communist China from spying on us, manipulating us and robbing us blind to avoid offending anyone… like Beijing.

“We have heard concerns from the civil rights community that the “China Initiative” fueled a narrative of intolerance and bias. To many, that narrative suggests that the Justice Department treats people from China or of Chinese descent differently. The rise in anti-Asian hate crime and hate incidents only heightens these concerns.”

Goodbye China Initiative and U.S. National Security.

At least 154 Chinese scientists who worked on government-sponsored research at the U.S.’s foremost national security laboratory over the last two decades have been recruited to do scientific work in China — some of which helped advance military technology that threatens American national security — according to a new private intelligence report obtained by NBC News.

The report, by Strider Technologies, describes what it calls a systemic effort by the government of China to place Chinese scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons were first developed.

Many of the scientists were later lured back to China to help make advances in such technologies as deep-earth-penetrating warheads, hypersonic missiles, quiet submarines and drones, according to the report.

We are literally financing our own destruction in every possible way. It’s not surprising that Communist China would want to plant its own people at Los Alamos. The mindboggling thing is that they were able to plant over 150 of them. No waiting.

For instance, according to the report, Zhao Yusheng received nearly $20 million in U.S. taxpayer grants during an 18-year career at Los Alamos, where he held a top-secret Q clearance and led a defense project developing bombs that can penetrate deep underground.

Then, in 2016, Zhao joined a talent program, Strider found, and left the U.S. for a job at a research center in China. The report notes that before that, while he was at Los Alamos, he hired another Chinese scientist who worked with him on the bomb research. That scientist filed a patent in China in 2007 for an “ultra thick penetrating warhead,” according to the report.

Zhao is now a vice president at China’s Southern University of Science and Technology, known as SUStech, which conducts defense research. He did not respond to requests for comment.

The baffling question here is why we keep hiring people coming from an enemy state and then expected different results? What exactly are the qualifications for a secret Q clearance? An ability to wear pants? A solid grade point average? Technical ability with no regard to obvious issues? It used to be that people with family in enemy nations or even foreign nations had trouble getting security clearance. And that was over the top. But now all the barriers are gone.

“The correct number of Chinese or Russian citizens at our weapon labs should be zero,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

But that’s crazy talk. We need cheap foreign labor in our labs so we can be ripped off by our enemies.

“U.S. officials and experts say most Chinese scientists who immigrate to the U.S. remain here — and many have made significant contributions to U.S. defense technology.”

Except the tradeoff doesn’t seem to be worth if they go on to use what we know in the service of our leading enemy.

There’s a huge difference between Chinese immigrants opposed to the regime and those who are supportive or loyal to it. We used to make those distinctions with Russia, we threw them away with China. Does anyone even bother asking the folks with top clearance to denounce the regime? Or would that also be too offensive?

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

BRUTAL: Biden Crushing Iran’s Freedom Revolution Just Like Obama Did

Venezuela Empties Prisons and Sends Criminals To Biden’s Invasion US Border

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

Reagan’s Goal to End the Department of Education Is Finally Gaining Momentum

Ending the Department of Education may seem like a radical idea, but it’s not as crazy as it sounds.


The debate over the federal role in education has been going on for decades. Some say the feds should have a relatively large role while others say it should be relatively small. But while most people believe there should be at least some federal oversight, some believe there should be none at all.

Rep. Thomas Massie is one of those who believes there should be no federal involvement in education, and he is actively working to make that a reality. In February 2021, he introduced H.R. 899, a bill that perfectly encapsulates his views on this issue. It consists of one sentence:

“This bill terminates the Department of Education on December 31, 2022.”

This position may seem radical, but Massie is not alone. The bill had 8 cosponsors when it was introduced and has been gaining support ever since. On Monday, Massie announced that Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) decided to cosponsor the bill, bringing the total number of cosponsors to 18.

Though it may be tempting to think Massie and his supporters just don’t care about education, this is certainly not the case. If anything, they are pushing to end the federal Department of Education precisely because they care about educational outcomes. In their view, the Department is at best not helping and, at worst, may actually be part of the problem.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,” said Massie when he initially introduced the bill. “States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students.”

Massie is echoing sentiments expressed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, who advocated dismantling the Department of Education even though it had just begun operating in 1980.

“By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created,” said Reagan, “we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children.”

Before we rush into a decision like this, however, it’s important to consider the consequences. As G. K. Chesterton famously said, “don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

So, why was the federal Department of Education set up in the first place? What do they do with their $68 billion budget? Well, when it was initially established it was given 4 main roles, and these are the same roles it fulfills to this day. They are:

  • Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds (which comprise roughly 8 percent of elementary and secondary education spending).
  • Collecting data on America’s schools and disseminating research.
  • Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
  • Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

Now, some of these functions arguably shouldn’t exist at all. For instance, if you are opposed to federal funding or federal interference in education on principle, then there is no need for the first and fourth roles. As for the middle two roles, it’s clear that we need people collecting data, disseminating research, and pointing out educational issues. But the question here is not whether these initiatives should exist. The question is whether the federal government should pursue them.

On that question, there’s a good case to be made that leaving these tasks to the state and local level is far more appropriate. Education needs vary from student to student, so educational decisions need to be made as close to the individual student as possible. Federal organizations simply can’t account for the diverse array of educational contexts, which means their one-size-fits-all findings and recommendations will be poorly suited for many classrooms.

Teachers don’t need national administrators telling them how to do their job. They need the freedom and flexibility to tailor their approach to meet the needs of students. It is the local teachers, schools, and districts that know their students’ needs best, which is why they are best positioned to gather data, assess their options, and make decisions about how to meet those needs. Imposing top-down national ideas only gets in the way of these adaptive, customized, local processes.

The federal Department of Education has lofty goals when it comes to student success, but it is simply not the right institution for achieving them. If we really want to improve education, it’s going to require a bottom-up, decentralized approach. So rather than continuing to fund yet another federal bureaucracy, perhaps it’s time to let taxpayers keep their money, and let educators and parents pursue a better avenue for change.

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.

Freedom Is Essential For True Morality

And having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty.


What is the role of human freedom in morality? It’s a question I’ve been pondering and researching since graduate school.

C.S. Lewis once explained the different aspects of morality by using the metaphor of a flotilla. Every ship must be well run on its own, but each must also coordinate with all the others so that they avoid collisions and stay in formation. Finally, the fleet must be set on a destination, which constitutes the purpose of their journey. This is a helpful way to think about morality regarding self, others, and our ultimate end.

The personal aspect of morality—which might more properly be called ethics—is about the cultivation of virtue: the development of character traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit.

An efficient and well-run ship is like a virtuous person: both have regularized the internal practices necessary to be a good example of what it is. There is one crucial difference, however: a ship’s crew is run hierarchically, under the command of a captain. But a person, in order to be truly virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.

There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to indulge. There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give up what is yours. Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and social institutions, but it cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a free man.

The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These rules are important because, like the rules governing ships in a fleet, they prevent us from “colliding” with each other. They permit us to live together in harmony, and they also make us recognize, apart from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of others. Here too, liberty is essential.

When some people are permitted to dominate others, they treat others as merely a means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. Not only does this fail to honor the basic dignity within each person, it also stifles the flourishing of human potential and creativity. A society of domination will be a society that never reaches its full potential in the human sciences, physical sciences, and creative arts. Liberty affords us the greatest space possible to pursue our projects, in a way that enables us to live well with one another.

Finally, there is the question of ultimate ends. Why are we all here? Where are we going? This will necessarily be the most contentious since the idea of a final end for man often goes in tandem with a specifically religious view of man’s vocation. As a Christian, this is the position I hold.

But having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains essential. To paraphrase Lord Acton, freedom is so precious that God will not override it, even when we badly misuse that freedom. In other words, we can’t get where we’re going if we’re not free to walk the road. I think this is a point on which religious, spiritual, agnostic, or even atheist persons can agree.

Thus, freedom is essential to a genuinely good human life at all the levels of morality. In my view, the classical liberal tradition remains the keeper of the flame of liberty, and I want to spend the rest of my career advancing classical liberalism as a research program. I look forward to sharing with you what I find.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

AUTHOR

Alexander William Salter

Alexander William Salter is an associate professor of economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU’s Free Market Institute, and a senior fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project. Follow him on Twitter @alexwsalter.

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

Equal Justice, They Called It

Victor Davis Hanson writes for future historians so that they might understand how The United States of America went from a premise of ‘exceptionalism’ to ‘exceptional failure-ism’ otherwise known as ‘social justice’ and ‘equity’.

Equal Justice, They Said

We are now a revolutionary society in decline using the courts, prosecutors, the administrative state, and the law itself to punish enemies, help friends, and declare such asymmetry “social justice.”

By Victor Davis Hanson, September 18, 2022

What once distinguished the United States from illiberal regimes following the Orwellian mantra “some are more equal than others” was the hallowed American idea of “equal justice under the law.”

The phrase is engraved above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court—an ideal that took centuries to achieve. Yet it is an ancient concept—what the Greeks called isonomia that distinguished classical democratic Athens from its anti-democratic rivals. Isonomia later became enshrined as the central criterion of all Western consensual governments.

Does it still exist in Joe Biden’s America?

In many ways, no—due both to state and private vendettas as well as state efforts to destroy rather than merely defeat political opponents.

Is the law equally applied at the border?

Ask yourself whether you are more likely to be hounded by the federal government for not being vaccinated if you are a citizen in the U.S. military, or illegally violating federal immigration law as you storm the southern border?

Who needs a passport to leave and enter the United States—a citizen or an illegal alien?

If you nullify federal law and refuse to hand over a detained illegal alien to federal immigration agents, are you more or less likely to be prosecuted than someone who likewise deliberately seeks to nullify federal law by bulldozing on his property a nest of federally protected squirrels?

What tradition of Western jurisprudence allows violent criminals in America’s largest cities to be released upon booking?

What law states they are instantly free to commit more crimes without worry of incarceration or punishment, while those accused of illegally parading sit in jail for years awaiting charges?

Is it a greater crime in this republic to walk peacefully through an open door into the Capitol, as at least some who were charged as a result of January 6 did, or to beat to near death an innocent bystander as many do who are released after arrest?

As far as that reprehensible, buffoonish January 6 riot, compare the treatment accorded to those hundreds—many guilty of “illegally parading or “demonstrating in the Capitol”—with some 14,000 who were arrested in 120 days of rioting, looting, arson, assault, and murder during the spring and summer 2020 riots.

Did the FBI spend over a year tracking down the names of those known from videos who torched federal buildings, murdered those in the street, sought to storm the White House grounds, and set up no-go zones in downtowns?

To incite the January 6 riot was prosecuted as a crime, but Kamala Harris, who was soon to be a vice-presidential candidate in the summer of 2020, could incite with impunity. Even more, she helped to raise bail for violent offenders during those riots and said of the summer-long “protests” shortly after the violent attempt to storm the White House grounds:

But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up—and they should not. And we should not.

What do those who had recently torched the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church take away from Harris’ adolescent greenlighting?

After all, Harris essentially promised continued protests, which she knew had so often turned terribly violent and descended into death and destruction. Were her insurrectionary calls a crime or at least worthy of a cell phone grab? A leg iron? A squad of FBI vehicles swarming her car?

Is questioning an election outcome a crime? Or even taking steps to challenge the elections?

That is, did a John Eastman have the power of former Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and current January 6 committee chairman Benny Thompson (D-Miss.), who, with little or no evidence, took far more dramatic measures in 2004 to reject the Ohio electors and thus attempt to nullify that year’s presidential election results?

Did Stacey Abrams “undermine democracy” by touring the country denying she had been beaten in the Georgia gubernatorial election by some 50,000 votes? Did Hillary Clinton again undermine election integrity when she publicly urged Joe Biden not to concede the 2020 election if he lost the popular vote, or claim that Donald Trump was not the legitimate president of the United States?

Does Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply to some, none, or all retired high-ranking military officers?

What are we to make of retired lieutenant colonels who urged the military well before the 2020 election to remove Trump from office if they thought he questioned the election?

When generals and admirals called their commander-in chief a Mussolini-type character, a liar, like the Nazis, akin to the architects of Auschwitz, or wrote that the “sooner the better” he should be removed, were those violations to be prosecuted?

Did retired officers have their businesses or employers’ contracts with the Pentagon nullified?

Or was it only a more obscure retired officer, such as Lt. General Gary Volesky? He was a conservative who tweeted that the first lady (not the commander-in-chief) sounded hypocritical on the issue of abortion—and thus was fired as a Pentagon consultant. Was that equal administrative justice?
Report Ad

Is there really a Logan Act, the ossified 18th-century statute under which no one has ever successfully been prosecuted? It depends.

In 2016 James Comey’s FBI and the Justice Department interim head Sally Yates used that ruse as a pretext to set a perjury trap for National Security Advisor designate retired Gen. Michael Flynn. But did not former Secretary of State John Kerry meet stealthily with Iranian high officials during the Trump Administration to reassure them that the Iran Deal could be salvaged after the Trump tenure—a deliberate Logan Act subversion of his then government’s foreign policy?

Is it a crime to withhold presidential papers from the National Archives? Was that Donald Trump’s sin: that he did not more carefully and officially declare documents at his residence as unclassified or his own personal papers?

Was that a clumsy way of doing what George W. Bush did in 2001 when he simply issued an executive order allowing an ex-president or his heirs to veto release of presidential papers? Did FBI agents with guns enter one of the Obama mansions to discover why ownership of thousands of pages of his personal papers was still in dispute?

Did the FBI raid the home of the late Clinton-Administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to see whether he sought to hide or erase other documents, in addition to those he stole from the National Archives and destroyed? Was he ever frog-marched or put in leg irons?

What were minor celebrities and politicians trying to do in December 2016 when they cut commercials begging the electors not to follow their federally mandated roles in voting in accordance with their states’ popular votes? Were they pointing a “dagger at the heart of democracy”? Were they “insurrectionists”?

Conspiracy is a word that the Biden Administration reintroduced to the American discourse after a hiatus since the 1950s and 1960s. And the Left was eager to charge hundreds with conspiracy for storming the capitol or “colluding” with Russia to rig the 2016 election.

But Molly Bell in a 2021 Time essay proudly also used that word in the scariest sense in modern memory. She outlined how the Left, quietly with the DNC, unions, the anarchic left-wing street, and corporate help, all modulated the violent protests to ebb before the election and to be ready to flow again should Biden have lost.

She bragged how nearly $500 million of Silicon Valley dark money was funneled into key preselected precincts to essentially absorb the work of state and local registrars. She gushed how the Left conspired with Silicon Valley to monitor and censor any expressions and opinions on social media felt to be detrimental to the Biden campaign.

Did federal prosecutors pursue racketeering charges against any she named?

Speaking of “conspiracies,” was it legal for Hillary Clinton to hire a foreign national as a campaign helper to spread lies and dirt on her political opponent, even as she hid her role through the DNC, Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS? What did she have to hide?

Did James Comey’s FBI likewise conspire to interfere in an election by also hiring members of Clinton’s opposition hit team, specifically Christopher Steele and Igor Dyachenko, as FBI informants?

Was all that “democracy dying in darkness”?

That illegal effort to use the federal government to disrupt an election makes the clownish attempt of the Trump keystone cop team to question the electors look like child’s play. Will current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan be pulled over driving home by an FBI fleet eager to seize his cell phone to ascertain fully his conspiratorial role in 2016 pushing the phony Trump Tower pings, Steele dossier, and collusion hoax to warp a federal election?

How about using equal justice in investigating supposed conspiracies and real violent demonstrations?

Did the FBI team, which monitored school kids’ parents to report back to Merrick Garland about their supposedly racist opposition to critical race theory, also ever monitor Twitter and Facebook to anticipate the next planned riot location of Antifa and BLM? Is it now investigating all the stolen money and diverted funds used for personal extravagance by BLM’s fraudulent leadership?

Donald Trump is continually audited for possible tax violations. Fine, but, given Hunter Biden’s laptop and the testimony of the Biden family co-grifters, has any Biden ever been under serious investigation for not reporting tens of millions of dollars in shake-down money, or gifting millions to Biden children?

How about lying under oath or to federal investigators? Are those activities still crimes?

Could a citizen swear under oath to IRS investigators, as James Comey did under oath to Congress on 245 occasions, that he did not know what was asked or could not remember?

In that context, what do ex-CIA head John Brennan, ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and ex-FBI interim director Andrew McCabe all have in common?

1) They all lied either under oath to Congress or to a federal investigator. 2) They all faced no criminal liability by committing such felonies. 3) Their animus and zeal in pursuing enemies were seen to be useful to the Left and thus they were rewarded by being hired as analysts at either MSNBC or CNN.

Is leaking or improperly possessing classified or confidential government information still a crime?

It seems that is one of the accusations against Donald Trump: that he had in his possession classified federal property that might have been insecure.

In contrast, was it a felony to leak to the media a rough draft of a confidential Supreme Court opinion—with the intent of helping to either undermine or change it? Was the unidentified, unprosecuted leaker a felon or a hero?

Were Trump’s boxes at home as insecure as the confidential, memorialized memos that James Comey wrote on FBI devices shortly after a confidential one-on-one conversation with the president of the United States, which he then deliberately leaked through a third party to the New York Times?

Was all that a conspiratorial gambit to fuel public pressure for a special prosecutor for the Russian collusion hoax? Was that not a clandestine effort that worked brilliantly in the appointment of his friend, former FBI Director Robert Mueller?

As special counsel, Mueller went on to waste 22 months and $40 million to prove that Russian collusion was a Clinton-FBI generated hoax as critics had insisted from the very outset of the appearance of the Steele dossier. Mueller was successful only in wounding an administration through the deliberate, daily leaked rumors that instantly became “walls are closing in” and “bombshell” media lies.

Is it a crime to threaten a Supreme Court justice?

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) did just that in front of the Supreme Court doors, when he riled up protestors by threats to individual justices:

I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Had Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) done the same and warned both Justices Sotomayor and Kagan that the two “won’t know what hit you,” what would the Biden Administration have done?

It is a felony to mass at a justice’s home, and threaten his person, in attempts to warp a judicial ruling? Attorney General Merrick Garland saw no problems when a left-wing mob descended on the homes of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. No one was arrested or indicted. No wonder an admitted would-be assassin later felt he could approach, with impunity, the Kavanaugh residence or that a mob could, with impunity, drive him out of a restaurant.

Again, would Garland have stood by had a MAGA crowd swarmed the home or the dinner table of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson? For that felony, most would likely still be sitting in jail awaiting charges.

Is it a crime to destroy subpoenaed property?

Currently, that is one of many unproved charges floated to justify the raid on the Trump home. If it is, Hillary Clinton destroyed thousands of subpoenaed and likely improper or illegal emails. She even ordered her assistant to destroy devices that might have risked leaving electronic prints of them.

The Mueller investigation’s FBI team simply shrugged that its phone data of its employees under federal subpoena were “mistakenly” wiped clean. Were any of these miscreants tried for defying a court order? For obstruction of justice?

In today’s America, it is a far greater sin to illegally parade at the nation’s Capitol than to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland.

A policeman who recklessly puts his knee on the neck of an ex-felon suspect, contributing to his death in custody, will be known to the nation in 24 hours as the most hated man in America and destined for a life behind bars. To add that the suspect was high on fentanyl and methamphetamines, violently resisting arrest, apprehended after committing a felony, striking officers, and in the past a convicted home invader who stuck a gun to the womb of a pregnant woman is irrelevant.

But not the same case is a Capitol policeman, with his own record of reckless conduct, who lethally shoots an unarmed female suspect and military veteran, for the misdemeanor crime of unlawfully entering through a window.

Unlike the former, the latter will not be immediately identified. His picture will not be splashed over the media. The results of the investigation into his conduct will instead be suppressed for months. And his critics will be smeared as racists. And the deceased? She will be slandered postmortem as a nut and pervert, while George Floyd was memorialized with a halo and angelic wings.

So, what has happened to blind Lady Justice?

The new Antifa/BLM/Squad/socialist Left filtered into government and absorbed the Biden Administration. It knows it lacks majority public support, so it has weaponized the justice system to punish enemies and ignore the crimes of allies—all to be excused by its morally superior ends that justify the use of such discreditable means. And the Left wishes to send a message to Americans: We are serious and mean business. So, join us, and receive indemnity from the federal government; oppose us and watch your back.

The result of all this is that America is not quite America anymore. We are now a revolutionary society in decline that uses the courts, prosecutors, the administrative state, and the law itself to punish enemies, help friends, and declare such asymmetry “social justice.” There is no equality under the law, but simply “some are more equal than others.”

AUTHOR

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

If Matt Walsh’s Reporting On Child Castration Is ‘Dangerous,’ What Is Biden’s ‘MAGA Extremism’ Rhetoric That Got A Teen Killed?

The Democrats are the party of murder, child castration and political oppression. Who would vote for these savages? This isn’t merely a political division. This is life and death. Perhaps a national divorce is the only peaceful resolution.

If Matt Walsh’s Reporting Is ‘Dangerous,’ What Is Biden-Backed ‘MAGA Extremism’ Rhetoric That Got A Teen Killed?

By: Elle Purnell, The Federalist, 

‘Matt Walsh is inciting a terror campaign against a hospital,’ one blue-checkmark raged on Twitter. ‘He will get people hurt or killed.’

Journalist Matt Walsh uncovered videos showing that Vanderbilt University Medical Center has been mutilating sex-confused kids and bragging about the profit margins of doing so since 2018, and some left-wingers came away with the impression that Vanderbilt, not the children it manipulated and maimed, was the victim. Accusing Walsh of “terrorism,” “harassment,” and “behaving dangerously,” they’re claiming Walsh is inciting violence against the medical center and are trying to shut down his reporting as a result.

But while a journalist publishing what the corporate media refuses to gets accused of stirring up hypothetical violence, an 18-year-old kid was just killed when he was run down by a man who said he thought the “teen was part of a Republican extremist group” — just weeks after the president of the United States ominously smeared “MAGA Republicans” as a “threat to the very soul of this country.”

Leftists weren’t wailing about “incitement to violence” then, and the national press almost universally ignored the slaying of 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson. They saved their outrage for Walsh, who merely published information, screenshots, and videos he’d obtained from Vanderbilt to reveal the medical center’s mutilation of minors’ healthy organs, the calloused financial incentives of which the center boasted, and the steps the center had taken to silence internal dissent.

Noah Berlatsky, a writer with bylines in The Washington Post and The Atlantic, flagged Walsh’s reporting for Twitter Support and accused the tech platform of being “complicit in terrorism” and potentially “murder” if it didn’t shut Walsh’s reporting down.

Leah Torres, an abortion center director who had her medical license suspended two years ago, said Walsh was “behaving dangerously” and “is going to get people hurt and/or killed.” She also claims to have reported the post, saying “that hardly feels like enough,” and tagging the FBI.

Alejandra Caraballo, an instructor at Harvard Law School, claimed without evidence that “Vanderbilt medical center has had to shift medical appointments for its trans clinic to virtual telehealth appointments as a result of threats being made.”

“Matt Walsh is inciting a terror campaign against a hospital and disrupting care,” she added. “He will get people hurt or killed.”

She also cited an equally slanted NBC News article that framed the topic this way: “Several children’s hospitals, most notably Boston Children’s, have been the targets of a far-right harassment campaign for months, led by anti-trans influencers with millions of collective followers who have spread misinformation about the hospitals’ gender-affirming treatment for minors.” NBC failed to say what part of the reporting on hospitals’ abuse of minors was “misinformation.”

Self-described “woke social justice warrior” Zack Hunt, another Twitter user to flag Walsh for the FBI, accused Walsh of being a “terrorist” and running a “terrorist campaign,” and called for a stop to his supposed “efforts to terrorize our city before he incite[s] more threats of violence.”

Keep reading….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Blasted by Doocy and Rivera Over Silence on Republican Teen’s Murder

POLITICAL MURDER: Democrat Who Murdered Teen Acted On Biden’s ‘Republican Extremism’ Rhetoric, Cited It To Justify His Act

Biden Regime Pressuring FBI to Fabricate ‘Extremist’ and ‘White Supremacist’ Cases, Agents Say: Report

Jew-Hater Rashida Tlaib: You can’t hold “progressive values” and support the Jewish state

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

Pennsylvania County Sues Dominion Voting Systems for ‘Unauthorized Python Script’ & ‘Foreign IP Address’

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

We. Will. Get. There.

Pennsylvania County Sues Dominion Voting Systems for ‘Unauthorized Python Script’ & ‘Foreign IP Address’

Fulton County, Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems this morning for a “breach of contract”.

By: Kanekoa The Great, September 21, 202:

The county says that it became “aware of severe anomalies” with Dominion Voting Systems during the 2020 election after it was unable to reconcile “voter data with votes actually cast and counted”.

An investigation by Wake Technology Services of West Chester, Pa. into the machines at the county’s request in February 2021 found numerous significant issues with the machines.

These included ballot scanning errors and non-certified database tools installed on the system.

Speckin Forensics Laboratories based out of Lansing, Michigan, was retained to acquire forensic images of six hard drives in Fulton County, Pennsylvania on July 13-14, 2022.

The private forensics firm, whose “examiners have presented testimony in over 30 states”, produced a county commissioned a report on September 15, 2022, which revealed “several deficiencies” that directly contradict the “contractual terms and conditions” provided to Fulton County by Dominion Voting Systems.

The report alleges that Fulton County’s log files show “an external IP address” located in Quebec, Canada, and that an unauthorized “python script” had been installed after the certification date.

Moreover, the system’s security patch had not been updated since April 10, 2019, and default usernames and passwords had not been changed since the time of installation.

The report says, “This python script can exploit and create any number of vulnerabilities including, external access to the system, data export of the tabulations, or introduction of other metrics not part of or allowed by the certification process.”

What’s more, an “external IP address that is associated with Canada” was found on the very same adjudication workstation that contained the “post certification python script”.

Read the lawsuit and report.

AUTHOR

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

Joe and Hunter Biden Selling U.S. Natural Gas and Drilling Assets to China

Rep. Comer recently obtained new documents that show Hunter and Joe Biden were working to sell American natural gas and drilling assets to Communist China.Rep. James Comer (R-KY) went on with John Solomon from Just the News on RAV on Thursday.

The Biden regime has banned energy for Americans. But plenty for their paymasters

Treason as policy.

From the Committee on  Oversight and Reform:

House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) today is pressing Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for information about the Biden family selling American natural gas to China in 2017 and Joe Biden’s involvement. Documents and communications obtained by Committee Republicans reveal Joe Biden was involved in the arrangement as a business partner, had office space, and may have benefitted financially from his family’s transaction selling American energy to a Chinese business closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Ranking Member Comer is calling on Secretary Yellen to provide all suspicious activity reports for the Biden family’s transactions with Chinese entities.

“Documents obtained by Committee Republicans show that the Biden family received millions of dollars from a Chinese business closely affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the Chinese government, to ship American natural gas to China. According to additional information provided by a whistleblower, Joe Biden was involved with this arrangement as a business partner, and documents reveal he even had office space to work on the deal. This comes to light at a time when the cost of natural gas is at a 14-year high and Americans struggle to pay their energy bills. The President has not only misled the American public about his past foreign business transactions, but he also failed to disclose that he played a critical role in arranging a business deal to sell American natural resources to the Chinese while planning to run for President,” wrote Ranking Member Comer. “We are concerned that the President may have compromised national security in his dealings with the country most adverse to U.S. interests—China.”

Under the Biden Administration, the Treasury Department changed its policy for releasing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs)—a tool provided in the Bank Secrecy Act—to Congress. According to media reports, Hunter Biden and other Biden family members have racked up at least 150 SARs related to their foreign business deals. On May 25, 2022, Ranking Member Comer wrote to Secretary Yellen requesting all SARs generated for Hunter Biden and other Biden associates and family members’ financial transactions. He reiterated his request on July 6, 2022. In the Treasury Department’s September 2, 2022, letter to Committee Republicans, Treasury stated that SARs may be provided “upon a written request stating the particular information desired, the criminal, tax or regulatory purpose for which the information is sought, and the official need for the information.”

“Multiple whistleblowers have confirmed to Committee Republicans that from 2017 to 2021, the Biden family made promises to business associates that: (1) Joe Biden would run for President in 2020 and, (2) those who worked with the Bidens in 2017 onward would reap the rewards in a future Biden Administration. As America now struggles in an energy crisis, it is critical to understand why the Biden family was selling American energy reserves to the Chinese, if that is affecting President Biden’s decision making today, and why President Biden has never disclosed his relationship with the Chinese to the American public,” continued Ranking Member Comer. “If President Biden has worked to enrich not only himself but his family by promising, in exchange for millions of dollars, access or policy influence in a future Biden Administration, Congress and the American people are entitled to that information. Particularly since the Biden family promised business partners similar access to a future Biden Administration in other business deals, all while President Biden continues to deny any knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business dealings.”

The letter to Secretary Yellen and associated documents can be found here.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ron DeSantis Shows Biden How It’s Done, Blocks China From Buying Land Near US Military Bases In Florida

GOP reps seek Treasury reports on ‘millions’ paid to Biden family by Chinese company

Biden Regime Pushing For NUCLEAR WAR

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

Biden Admin To Continue Draining Oil From Strategic Reserves Through Election Day

The Biden administration announced Monday that it is auctioning 10 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) which it will deliver throughout November, according to a Department of Energy (DOE) notice of sale.

The DOE announced that it will extend the period in which it aims to sell 180 million barrels of crude oil by auctioning 10 million barrels from Sept. 19 to Sept. 27 and delivering the oil from Nov. 1. to Nov. 30, according to the notice. The deliveries of the reserves, which aim to bring down gas prices, will take place during the same month as the midterm elections that take place on Nov. 8.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Sept. 14 that gas prices had fallen for 90 straight days, touting Biden’s efforts to bring down prices at the pump after gas prices peaked at over $5 per gallon in June 2022. The White House is eager to continue lowering gas prices ahead of the midterm elections as it believes prices at the pump most directly affect voters’ everyday lives and their perception of the economy.

The average national gas price is $3.68 per gallon, which is 49 cents higher than it was in September 2021, according to AAA data. Biden’s Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said on Sept. 8 that the administration may continue to auction off oil barrels from the SPR past October to ward off increasing fuel prices in late 2022.

Biden has released 155 million barrels of oil so far, and the November sale will bring the total to 165 million barrels out of the 180 million barrels that he sought to sell from March to October. The emergency reserve fell to its lowest level since Nov. 1984 on Sept. 6 after consistent monthly releases of crude, according to DOE data.

SPR oil is sold to the highest bidder, and some of the businesses entitled to make bids are foreign companies. Biden announced in late March that he would approve SPR sales to bring down gas prices and increase the global supply of oil that is being disrupted by “Putin’s price hike,” according to a White House press release.

The DOE did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JACK MCEVOY

Energy & Environmental Reporter.

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

TREASON: Joe and Hunter Biden Selling US Natural Gas and Drilling Assets to China

‘Playing With Fire’: Biden’s Energy Secretary Says Admin Considering Extending Oil Releases Past Election Day

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.

VIDEO: Soros Propaganda Org. Offers TikTok Influencer $400 To Create Video To Spread Anti-Trump Lies

“I’m not a Trump supporter,”  said Attorney and TikToker @TrialByPreston as he revealed in a video that the Soros-funded Good Information Foundation attempted to pay him to spread lies and misinformation about President Trump, and his 2020 presidential campaign.

“I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true,” Preston Moore, Esq. said in the video. The Good Information Foundation, headed by Rick Stengel, Former Under Secretary of State in Obama administration, emphasizes that “America is in an information crisis,” and that “disinformation is threatening public health, safety, social trust and democracy.”

Moore emphasized that he’s not a Trump supporter to “give a little bit of context,” and noted that he’s an attorney who posts legal news on TikTok. Other videos on his channel include discussions of the special master that was appointed to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, on the Parkland school shooter, on the Constitution, or other matters.

Then he launched into what happened, saying: “I get an email from somebody at the Good Information Foundation.” That person, he said, obscuring the name, “sent me a message letting me know she represented the Good Information Foundation and that she was willing to offer a paid collaboration to discuss some topics related to January 6.

Watch this.

Here is the press release for this mockingly named,  “Good Info”:

A new public benefit corporation backed by billionaires Reid Hoffman, George Soros, and others is launching Tuesday to fund new media companies and efforts that tackle disinformation.

Why it matters: Good Information Inc. aims to fund and scale businesses that cut through echo chambers with fact-based information. As part of its mission, it plans to invest in local news companies.

The group will be led by Tara McGowan, a former Democratic strategist who previously ran a progressive non-profit called ACRONYM.

  • ACRONYM invested in for-profit companies that built media and technology solutions for progressive causes. It ran one of the largest digital campaigns to defeat President Trump in the 2020 election, totaling $100 million.
  • Good Information Inc. will invest in new businesses and solutions that tackle the disinformation crisis. That could mean funding new or existing companies that boost news from existing news outlets.

The company’s advisory committee consists of nearly two dozen political, media and tech experts, including former White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Civic Signal Founder Eli Pariser, Check My Ads co-founder Nandini Jammi, former Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, Accountable Tech co-founder Nicole Gill and others.

Influencer says he was offered money to spread anti-Trump Jan 6 lies on TikTok, brings receipts

“I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true,” Preston Moore, Esq. said in the video.

By: Post Millennial, September 18, 2022:

Influencer says he was offered money to spread anti-Trump Jan 6 lies on TikTok, brings receipts

Attorney and TikToker @TrialByPreston revealed in a video that the Good Information Foundation attempted to pay him $400 to spread unsubstantiated rumours and misinformation about January 6, President Trump, and his 2020 presidential campaign.

“I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true,” Preston Moore, Esq. said in the video. The Good Information Foundation, headed by Rick Stengel, Former Under Secretary of State in Obama administration, emphasizes that “America is in an information crisis,” and that “disinformation is threatening public health, safety, social trust and democracy.”

Moore emphasized that he’s not a Trump supporter to “give a little bit of context,” and noted that he’s an attorney who posts legal news on TikTok. Other videos on his channel include discussions of the special master that was appointed to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, on the Parkland school shooter, on the Constitution, or other matters.

Then he launched into what happened, saying: “I get an email from somebody at the Good Information Foundation.” That person, he said, obscuring the name, “sent me a message letting me know she represented the Good Information Foundation and that she was willing to offer a paid collaboration to discuss some topics related to January 6.

“I said ‘sure, why not,’ I’ll learn some more,” he said. He learned that the Good Information Foundation would pay him $400 to make a post on his page and share it to Instagram, and that there were specific bullet points that they’d like him to hit to earn that fee.

The Good Information Foundation allegedly sent him “Important Notes” as to what to say in the video.

“Say ‘criminal conspiracy’, not ‘attempted coup,’ ‘treason’ or ‘insurrection’.

“Say ‘Trump Republicans’, not ‘Trump and his allies.’

“Say ‘January 6 investigation’, not ‘hearing’ or ‘trial.’

“Call this an ‘attack on our country’ or an attack on ‘America’ or on ‘Americans’ and a ‘criminal conspiracy,’ ‘committed crime.’

“Talk about ‘MAGA Republicans’ etc.

“Make clear this is ongoing and unresolved, not past and done.

“Show voter agency, turn the anger into defense.

The correspondence asked additionally for “key messaging,” including to “Remind your followers about the images and scenes from the January 6th insurrection.” The Good Information Foundation gave an example of what should be said as regards this, suggesting “Example: ‘You probably saw this [greenscreen of Jan 6th violence] happen but what a lot of people don’t know is that the violence on January 6 was actually planned and paid for by Trump Republicans.’”

“Talk about the many aspects of their plan and the broad involvement of Trump officials, members of Congress [redacted]…” The Good Information Foundation suggests the example “The Trump campaign paid literally millions of dollars to make January 6th happen.”

They also suggest that Moore say “It’s important to know that this wasn’t a one day thing—there is an ongoing threat of political violence or MAGA Republicans trying to overturn elections.” He is also meant to emphasize the ongoing hearings of the January 6 Committee, with more coming up in September.

“And most importantly,” Moore said, the Good Information Foundatiuon said that he “must channel all of this on to the manipulation of voter agencies so that I could turn their anger around this event into defiance that would make people more likely to vote in midterms.”

Moore pushed back against the Good Information Project, asking his contact “what is the basis for the claim that the Trump campaign itself paid millions of dollars to make the January 6 seat at the Capitol happen?”

The Good Information Foundation didn’t answer that question, instead saying that he didn’t have to say that if he didn’t want to. It’s evident, however, that the Good Info Foundation hasn’t just asked one TikTok lawyer to engage in this kind of video-making, but that this is a concerted effort to push false information onto the American public via social media influencers.

“Let me know if you are interested and the rate works for you,” the contact wrote to Moore.

For his part, Moore was not interested. He noted that “They boast on their homepage that good information is the lifeblood of a democracy.”

Indeed, they do. The Good Information Foundation, an IRS designated not-for-profit charitable organization, engages in what they call The Civic News Initiative, which is likely what their reach out to Moore was in support of. “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office,” the IRS specifies.

“The Good Information Foundation will build a network of local freelance editors, reporters, content producers and community organizers,” they write, “committed to producing and distributing factual, value-driven news and content to the communities in which they live. The Good Information Foundation will compensate them to publish their original reporting online and offer the content free of charge to any global, national, state or local news organizations looking to bolster their reporting capacity and coverage within those communities and geographies.”

Additionally, they claim as their mission that they intend “to increase the flow of good, factual information online to counter and rebut the spread of misinformation and disinformation. We do this by creating, incubating, funding and lifting up fact-based solutions, voices, programs and initiatives that can be quickly developed, tested and deployed at scale. We are on offense against disinformation.”

Despite the communciation sent to Moore about spreading unsubstantiated misinformation— for a fee— the Good Information Foundation states they they “Develop and deliver factual, relevant and local information to specific populations who live in news deserts, are under-reached by trusted news organizations, and who are vulnerable to being reached with bad information; Develop training programs and curriculum for young journalists, content creators and organizers committed to building a better internet and fact-based media ecosystem; Produce new research, case studies and thought leadership that identify, measure and elevate new solutions to countering and diluting the effects of disinformation on vulnerable communities.

“Develop civic education, training and communication programs that help increase informed civic participation among lower-voting and non-voting communities.

“Provide direct support to mission-aligned organizations and individuals working at the forefront of the information crisis to scale tested efforts to increase the flow of good information online.” They continue to say that they are “committed to restoring social trust and strengthening democracy by investing in solutions that counter disinformation and increase the flow of good information online.”

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Vows to Fight Back Against Political Persecution During HUGE Ohio Rally

DeSantis SHATTERS All-Time Fundraising Record, Gives Money To Republican Candidates

Federal Court Against Big Tech, Social Media Companies Do Not Have ‘Right’ To Censor’

Economic Freedom Plummets in the US During Biden Rule, New Ranking Shows

New Orleans Becomes Murder Capital of America, Overtaking St. Louis

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

Special Master Order Reveals BIDEN’S DIRECT INVOLVEMENT In Trump Raid And Six Other Bombshells

Now what?

Special Master Order Reveals Biden’s Direct Involvement In Trump Raid And Six Other Bombshells

By: Margot Cleveland, 

The federal judge’s 24-page order further calls into question the DOJ’s targeting of Trump.

A federal judge on Monday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for the appointment of a special master to review the documents seized by the FBI during a raid on his Mar-a-Lago home last month. Presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, further held that the Department of Justice cannot review or use for criminal investigative purposes any material seized pending the review process.

Besides handing Trump a victory in his battle for some oversight of the Biden administration’s digging into his documents, Cannon highlighted several significant facts over the course of her 24-page order that further call into question the DOJ’s targeting of Trump.

Here are the seven top-line takeaways:

1. PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED

In the order granting Trump’s request for the appointment of a special master, Cannon began by providing a summary of the backdrop that led to the search. Throughout 2021, Trump and the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”), “engaged in conversations concerning records from [Trump’s] time in office,” the court noted. Those discussions resulted in Trump in January 2022 transferring 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago to NARA. NARA subsequently informed the Department of Justice that some items in the boxes contained markings of “classified national security information.”

Following the archive’s outreach to the Justice Department, NARA notified Trump on April 12, 2022, that it intended to provide the 15 boxes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Trump’s attorneys sought a delay in the transfer to assess whether any documents contained privileged material. But then, as Cannon wrote, after obtaining a short delay, on May 10, 2022, NARA informed Trump it would proceed with “provid[ing] the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.”

In including this quote in her order, Cannon cited the letter the NARA’s acting archivist sent to Trump’s lawyer. That letter explained that Biden had decided to defer to the archivist’s “determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not [the archivist] should uphold the former President’s purported ‘protective assertion of executive privilege.’” Acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall then explained in the letter that based on her consultation with the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, she had decided not to honor Trump’s claim of privilege.

While the media has previously highlighted those aspects of the letter, Monday’s order highlighted a key sentence in that same letter that went less noticed by the press: “NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022” (emphasis added).

This language indicates that Biden did not merely defer to the NARA but asked the NARA to give the documents to the FBI. Of course, deferring to the NARA’s judgment equated to Biden authorizing the hand-off to the FBI, but this passage suggests a more direct connection between Biden and the investigation into Trump.

2. TIMELINE OF THE TRUMP TARGETING IS SUSPECT

A second significant detail revealed by Monday’s order concerns the timeline of events, which the court exposed by providing a clear chronology. On May 10, 2022, the archivist informed Trump’s lawyers that the “NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.” And on May 11, 2022, before the DOJ received possession of the 15 boxes from NARA, the DOJ “obtained a grand jury subpoena,” for “[a]ny and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings.”

But why would the DOJ seek a grand jury subpoena for any and all documents in Trump’s possession bearing classification markings before reviewing the material provided by the NARA? And given that the DOJ obtained the subpoena the day after the NARA told Trump’s lawyer “the incumbent President” had requested the archive provide the documents to the FBI, one must ask: Did Biden direct the DOJ to obtain the grand jury subpoena?

3. NOT SO FAST JOE — TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN’T BE SO QUICKLY SIDESTEPPED

Another important detail from Monday’s order concerned the court’s handling of Trump’s request for a review of the seized material to address issues of “executive privilege.” In opposing Trump’s request for a special master, the Biden administration argued that Trump lacked the right to assert “executive privilege” against the current executive branch. The court concluded that the Biden administration’s “position arguably overstates the law,” noting that the Supreme Court has not “rule[d] out the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters.”

“Further, just this year,” Cannon continued, “the Supreme Court noted that, at least in connection with a congressional investigation, ‘[t]he questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.’” To protect former President Trump’s ability to raise a question of executive privilege, then, a special master should review the documents and make an initial assessment, the court concluded.

This analysis tees up the possibility that Trump will later assert executive privilege, prompting a showdown with the Biden administration.

4. MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM SAW CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT DOCUMENTS

Keep reading…..

AUTHOR

RELATED PODCAST: Joe Biden – The big liar

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mike Lindell suing U.S. Government and the FBI

DeSantis SHATTERS All-Time Fundraising Record, Gives Money To Republican Candidates

Economic Freedom Plummets in the US During Biden Rule, New Ranking Shows

Trump Vows to Fight Back Against Political Persecution During HUGE Ohio Rally

NYC FIRES Another 850 Teachers For Not Getting Controversial Covid Vaccine

Iranian woman dies after being beaten into coma by cops over ‘improper hijab’

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

Soros-Backed Immigration Group Suing DeSantis Over Martha’s Vineyard Flights Called To ‘Defund’ Border Patrol, ICE

A George Soros-backed immigration nonprofit that’s suing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other officials after the state flew illegal migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, has repeatedly called to “defund” two agencies responsible for protecting the U.S. border.

The group, Alianza Americas, has supported defunding Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The nonprofit, which Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) network donated almost $1.4 million to between 2016 and 2020, notably launched a “Freedom for All” campaign in February that urged the U.S. government to “abolish immigration detention & defund private prisons that hold the majority of detained migrants.”

“@ALIANZAAMERICAS is out on the Capitol with #DefundHate @UNITEDWEDREAM & others to call for cuts in funding for CBP’s massive border enforcement operations, including Border Patrol agents, invasive border surveillance technologies, and physical walls & barriers,” Alianza Americas tweeted Sept. 12. “#FreedomForAll.”

Alianza Americas and the advocacy law firm Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of “Vineyard migrants and all similarly situated people who are fraudulently induced to travel across state lines by DeSantis and the State of Florida.”

Last Wednesday, DeSantis sent two flights with illegals to Martha’s Vineyard. Democrats as well as liberal activists have called the move “inhumane,” and Alianza Americas’ lawsuit on behalf of the illegal migrants alleges officials in Florida “intentionally targeted only individuals who are non-white and born outside the United States.”

“It is opportunistic that activists would use illegal immigrants for political theater,” a spokeswoman for DeSantis told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

As part of its Freedom for All campaign, Alianza Americas in September met with the office of Democratic Illinois Rep. Dick Durbin “to share about the urgency of defunding” both CBP and ICE, according to Twitter posts.

In 2018, Alianza joined over 200 groups to demand Congress reject additional funding for ICE. The groups sharply criticized the Trump administration for its border wall construction.

Mark Morgan, the former acting CBP commissioner under former President Donald Trump, said “it’s absolutely absurd” that groups such as Alianza Americas want to defund federal agencies responsible for safeguarding the U.S. border from violent crime and drugs.

“It’s pure politics and it’s pure ideology,” he told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The only thing they do is focus on illegal immigration. What these advocacy groups won’t be honest with the American people about is that when you facilitate and you encourage illegal immigration, that drives our borders to be insecure.”

Alianza America in 2019 called on Congress in a roughly two-minute video to “defund ICE and CBP, two agencies who are directly complicit in the abuse and death of thousands.” It criticized the policy of deportations in the video and pointed out examples of individuals dying in ICE detention facilities.

Alianza Americas did not respond to a request for comment nor did OSF.

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s CDC Awarded Millions In Tax Dollars To Soros-Funded Nonprofit Suing DeSantis Over Martha’s Vineyard Flights

PATEL: Ron DeSantis Found A Way To Finally Get People To Focus On America’s Open Border Catastrophe

Venezuelans Expected To Flood US Border Due To A ‘Perception’ They Can Stay Indefinitely, Internal DHS Report…

Biden Admin ‘Appears’ To Have Deported Nearly Seven Times Fewer Illegals Than Obama Admin Did A Decade Ago, Top ICE Offi…

George Soros Network Bankrolled Activist Group Suing DeSantis Over Martha’s Vineyard Flights

‘Walking Away From The Democratic Party’: MSNBC Contributor Paola Ramos Warns About Latino Voters

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.

The Politicization of the Department of Justice

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on September 16, 2022, in Washington, D.C., at Hillsdale College’s Constitution Day Celebration.


The seal of the U.S. Department of Justice reads, “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur”—“Who prosecutes for Lady Justice.” Depictions of Lady Justice are as familiar as they are instructive: she stands blindfolded while holding the scales of justice, representing her unyielding devotion to equal justice under the law. Contrary to this ideal, the DOJ today appears to be increasingly motivated by partisanship. Compounding the problem, it has access to the powers of the modern surveillance state. As someone passionate about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I believe there is no higher priority than addressing this danger. 

The tragic events of 9/11 marked a turning point in our nation’s recent civil rights history. First the terrorists attacked us—and then, in the name of national security, we began to attack ourselves. It has become almost cliché to say that we live in a surveillance state, but we do. Ever since Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, enacted the Patriot Act six weeks after the attacks on 9/11, the ever-present eye of the government has been searching for new and creative ways to spy on American citizens. The government has the technology to monitor all of our electronic devices, listen to our phone calls, and read our emails and text messages—all under the auspices of national security. 

This special law designed for an emergency has become a permanent addition to the government’s investigatory toolbox. The unfortunate reality is that the bulk of the actions taken by law enforcement under the Patriot Act have almost nothing to do with combating terrorism. Once-rare applications for surveillance warrants to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have multiplied many times in relative peacetime. Most of the spying conducted under the Patriot Act is for run-of-the-mill crimes that we’ve long expected law enforcement to address without special surveillance authority.

Now, it is bad enough to have a politically-neutral surveillance state controlled by the national security crowd and their DOJ cousins. But take that panopticon and put it in the hands of an executive branch willing to weaponize its reams of information against its perceived political enemies, and we’ve got a frightening problem on our hands.

Laws such as the Patriot Act were designed to fight the unique problem of terrorism. But they quickly morphed into a mechanism by which the government keeps constant tabs on law-abiding Americans and threatens to disrupt their lives if they dare act contrary to those in power. And it’s within this world of omnipotent oversight and control that the U.S. Department of Justice now operates. They have all the tools of the surveillance state at their disposal, and the only thing standing in their way is an independent judiciary willing to enforce our constitutional rights. But we all saw how easy it is to spy on Americans—with virtually no judicial oversight—from the disgraceful episodes of broad surveillance applications, on flimsy and sometimes falsified pretexts, against citizens such as Carter Page.

Let me discuss three recent examples that illustrate the threats we face from a politicized DOJ: the DOJ raid on Project Veritas journalists, the DOJ raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the DOJ’s efforts to undermine election integrity and chill free speech. 

Project Veritas Raid

In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo forbidding federal prosecutors from seizing journalists’ records. He did this with much fanfare, hauteur, and virtue signaling. But even as Mr. Garland was decrying the seizure of journalists’ records as a “wrong” his department would “not let . . . happen,” the DOJ was in the midst of a year-long campaign of spying on Project Veritas—a campaign that involved no fewer than 19 clandestine subpoenas, orders, and warrants obtained from nine magistrate judges. The secrecy of this spying campaign was maintained through the use of wide-ranging gag orders, including at least two that were obtained without notice to the judge overseeing the Project Veritas case. Through this spying campaign, we now know that the DOJ obtained approximately 200,000 Project Veritas emails from Microsoft and countless text messages (and heaven knows what else) from Apple, Google, Uber, and other still unknown companies.   

Only six months after Mr. Garland’s memo was issued, the DOJ raided the homes of three Project Veritas journalists, seizing 47 electronic devices. And how did the world learn about this? Conveniently, someone leaked information about the raids to The New York Times—which Project Veritas happens to be suing. Indeed, The New York Times called Project Veritas for comment as the raids were still in progress.

What was the pretext for the raids? In the fall of 2020, confidential sources had approached Project Veritas journalists with a diary and other materials supposedly belonging to Ashley Biden, the President’s daughter. The sources said that the materials had been in their possession prior to contacting Project Veritas. The Project Veritas journalists proceeded to investigate whether the materials were authentic and whether the allegations they contained against Joe Biden were true. Ultimately, Project Veritas decided it could not sufficiently verify the allegations and that it would not publish the diary’s contents. It then turned the items over to local law enforcement in Florida.

The DOJ claims that Ashley Biden’s belongings were stolen. Project Veritas was told they weren’t, but even this is legally irrelevant. In the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper, the U.S. Supreme Court held unequivocally that as long as journalists did not commit an alleged theft themselves, they were entitled to receive, investigate, and publish (or not publish) supposedly stolen materials. In the more recent case DNC v. Russian Federation, a federal court made it clear that the reporter could even ask for the stolen materials. This is not a crime—it’s called journalism.  

Compare the DOJ’s treatment of Project Veritas to the DOJ’s inaction earlier this year when a Politico reporter was given a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. The Politico reporter behaved precisely with this purloined document as the Project Veritas reporters had behaved with the diary, except that the Politico reporter did decide to publish the draft opinion. The different reactions on the part of the DOJ seemed to hinge entirely on whose ox was being gored.

But to repeat, the Garland Justice Department was rifling through the emails and phone messages of Project Veritas journalists before Project Veritas even knew of Ashley Biden’s diary. These documents contain donor information, source communications—including communications from whistleblowers within the federal government—and attorney-client communications. In its actions, the DOJ was not only ignoring court decisions and its own policies, it was violating the Privacy Protection Act, the common law Reporter’s Privilege, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

The Project Veritas matter is ongoing. Thanks to the DOJ’s leaks to The New York Times, which themselves violate federal law, Judge Analisa Torres overruled the DOJ’s objections and ordered the appointment of a special master to review the seized materials for various privileges. It’s a hollow victory, because Project Veritas has to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, so to speak, of being able to protect its own privileged documents.

Mar-a-Lago Raid

Although I have represented and continue to represent President Trump in several matters, I do not represent him on the matter of the DOJ’s raid on his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago. But that raid is significant and worth some attention.

Consider first the raid’s timing. President Biden’s approval ratings have been abysmal, and it is a mid-term election year. Bloomberg reports that the DOJ will likely delay “charging” Trump with anything arising from the raid on his home until after the mid-terms. The effect of this is to create a cloud of perceived guilt running up to November 8, and use that as a political tool to smear pro-Trump voters and candidates. The DOJ hides behind its longstanding policy of not taking politically portentous actions close to an election—but how could the raid itself be construed as anything but such a portentous action? 

President Trump and his lawyers were engaged in a cooperative dialogue with both the DOJ and National Archives representatives on the issue of storing and archiving confidential documents. He went as far as to invite the DOJ to survey the documents he had on his property, and the DOJ seemed to have expressed little urgency in pursuing the matter.

This latest episode of G-men gone wild is not all that different from the FBI strategy before and after Trump’s election in 2016, when the FBI was weaponized to investigate claims of Russian collusion that ultimately proved to have been made up by Democrat operatives. But more importantly, the raid raises serious constitutional objections.

The Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The American Founders were intensely concerned about government intrusion. Breaking into the homes of political opponents and depriving them of their possessions was common practice under the rule of the British king in colonial America. The use of general warrants and writs of assistance by the Crown was the ultimate interference with the colonists’ right to political and personal autonomy. Such invasions were so pervasive, and so universally despised, that the Founders saw fit to ensure that the Constitution expressly forbids such practices.

For over 180 years after the Founding, the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment’s protections largely to places and things. Unsurprisingly, this meant that dwellings were given a heightened sense of protection against government intrusion. The Supreme Court has reiterated, in the 1980 case Payton v. New York, that “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

In addition to where and what receives Fourth Amendment protection is the question of how the government can conduct searches and seizures without offending the Constitution. Searches are only permitted if they are “reasonable,” and a search is generally considered “reasonable” only when the government first obtains a properly issued warrant. “Properly issued” means the warrant must describe with specificity the places to be searched and the things to be seized, must be supported by probable cause, and must be issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Taken together, this is colloquially known as the “warrant requirement”—and it is central to any honest analysis of the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

At its core, the problem with the FBI’s search of President Trump’s home is its inconsistency with the letter and the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The shroud of secrecy surrounding the probable-cause affidavit used by the FBI to obtain the warrant prevents the public from judging whether the government had a valid reason for this unprecedented search. Even more, the list of places to be searched and things to be seized contained in the warrant application comprised a blanket sweep of the former president’s entire private residence and offices, targeting “any evidence” supporting a potential violation of a handful of federal statutes that are the usual suspects when it comes to politicized prosecutions. 

While this alone doesn’t make the warrant defective, the Justice Department’s “just trust us” approach to support the raid makes it nearly impossible to determine the legitimacy of the government’s unprecedented actions. This leaves us no choice but to speculate. And based on the information publicly available, the DOJ’s actions have all the trappings and appearances of a vindictive and politically-motivated fishing expedition.

As in the Project Veritas case, the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case has issued an order appointing a special master. In doing so, the judge pointedly observed that some of the resultant delay the government complains of is caused by the government’s cutting corners, suggesting implicitly that the government abused the warrant process. 

Election Integrity and Free Speech

As has been widely reported, the DOJ is currently issuing subpoenas to individuals who have dared to question the 2020 election results. This is occurring against the backdrop of President Biden’s vendetta against what he calls “ultra MAGA Republicans.” This is the type of behavior you’d expect in a third-world dictatorship.

Included in the DOJ’s crosshairs are those who participated in the political process as alternate electors; those in Congress who voted against certifying the election results; those who organized or peacefully attended a permitted rally on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, even if they had nothing to do with the activities at the Capitol on that day; and those who have raised funds from donors with a promise to investigate and challenge election fraud. 

All of these activities have long historical precedents in our country and are protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, it was Democrats who challenged the presidential election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Let’s review the evidence.

In 2000, 15 House Democrats objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes. Several members of Congress called the 2000 election “fraudulent,” and Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson vowed that there would be “no peace” because of the allegedly stolen election. 

In 2004, Democrats in Congress forced a vote to recess the joint session of Congress counting electoral votes in order to debate perceived election irregularities in Ohio. Thirty-one House Democrats voted to reject Ohio’s electoral votes and were applauded for doing so by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, among others. 

In 2016, several Democrats objected to the certification of Trump electors based on “overwhelming evidence of Russian interference” in the election. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin objected to ten of Florida’s electors based on a Florida statute that prohibits state legislators from being electors. Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee proclaimed, “If in that voting, you have glaring matters that speak to the failure of the electoral system, then it should be challenged.”

No DOJ action was taken in any of these previous years. What has changed, if not the politicization of the Justice Department?

Elections are the engine of our republic. They ensure the peaceful transfer of power and are the primary method for the people to influence their government. And our Constitution’s elections clause—Article I, Section 4, Clause 1—gives states the primary duty of regulating the time, places, and manner of elections for federal office. The DOJ’s role is very limited in this regard. It has the power to administer the Voting Rights Act, a power that was once necessary to push back on Jim Crow laws. But the era of Jim Crow is long gone, and it shouldn’t be up to a politicized DOJ to dictate what election integrity looks like.

The 2020 election was rampant with reports of irregularities. Some of these reports were more accurate than others. But states were right to take appropriate steps to increase the security of their elections in the wake of such reports. And yet, from its first days, the Biden administration has been bent on waging an intimidation campaign against states attempting to bolster election integrity. 

Consider Georgia. The midnight ballot dump that pushed Biden ahead of Trump had all the appearances of manipulative ballot stuffing. That was followed by days of uncertainty about who won. Reports soon surfaced of massive ballot harvesting—illegal in Georgia—as well as deeply concerning evidence that Mark Zuckerberg-funded nonprofits had placed personnel in election operations in blue counties with the effect of decreasing signature-matching efforts. 

Given the backdrop in which the 2020 election took place—with new and expansive vote-by-mail procedures—it’s not surprising that alarms went off and that many citizens questioned the final vote tally. So rather than allow this scenario to repeat itself in future elections, Georgia’s legislature took action, enacting a package of election-reform legislation designed to bolster ballot security. 

President Biden denounced these reforms—which, as many commentators noted, made voting easier than in Biden’s home state of Delaware—as “Jim Crow 2.0.” The DOJ sued Georgia to block the new law and issued two new guidance documents intended to put states including Georgia on notice of potential violations of federal election laws. It has used similar tactics in Arizona and Texas.

It is not just political activists who are subject to DOJ intimidation. Attorney General Garland recently issued a guidance document prohibiting DOJ employees from speaking directly to members of Congress. This was plainly in response to at least 14 FBI whistleblowers reaching out to members of Congress—including Ohio Representative Jim Jordan and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley—about misconduct within the DOJ. Garland’s action was highly improper, but it pales in comparison to the intimidation of concerned parents at local school board meetings. 

On October 4, 2021, Garland issued a memorandum directing the FBI to address “threats” at local school board meetings. This was in response to a request from the National School Boards Association that the DOJ leverage the Patriot Act and other counterterrorism tools to investigate moms and dads who were voicing their displeasure with school policies at local school board meetings.

Despite Garland’s sworn testimony denying the use of counterterrorism tools to investigate concerned parents, whistleblower evidence tells a different story. 

On October 20, 2021, Carlton Peeples, the Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division, sent an email directing FBI personnel to use the tag “EDUOFFICIALS” for all school board-related investigations. Whistleblowers say that the FBI opened investigations into parents in every region of the country. These included an investigation of a “right-wing mom” based on her participation in a “Moms for Liberty” group and personal ownership of a gun. Another investigation was opened when a dad was deemed to “fit the profile of an insurrectionist” after complaining about school mask mandates.

It is time to wake up to the danger.

On November 11, 1762, King George’s men had a warrant when they stormed and raided the home of pamphleteer John Entick. They broke open locked doors, boxes, chests, and drawers and seized his private papers and books—all because the Crown suspected Entick of fomenting political opposition against the King. If the FBI’s raid on Project Veritas journalists’ homes or President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago teaches us anything, it’s that the political oppression of the eighteenth century remains a threat today. But today, in addition to brute force, our government has the power of the modern surveillance state.

As a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, I would be remiss in speaking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without quoting Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “the most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” We must find a way to return our Department of Justice to that central principle of American constitutionalism, as it carries out its duties in the name of Lady Liberty. 

AUTHOR

Harmeet K. Dhillon

Dhillon Law Group, Inc.

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

Larry Elder: BLM is ‘Destroying What Made America Great’

Thursday on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily, talk radio icon Larry Elder, writer and executive producer of Uncle Tom II, stated that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is “destroying what made America great and using blacks as a means to do so.”

Elder said his latest film details the political weaponization of race-based grievance — including “white guilt” — as a tool to undermine America by advancing communist ideology.

“The co-founders [of Black Lives Matter] are self-described ‘trained Marxists’ who do not believe in capitalism,” Elder recalled. “They want to bring down the American system as we know it. They want to bring down capitalism. They want government ownership of property, even as they’re out buying mansions with the money that Patrisse Cullors described as ‘white guilt money.’”

Elder maintained that black Americans benefited “a strong belief in the values of America” following the American Civil War, including high rates of marriage and commensurate low rates of divorce, entrepreneurship, Christian faith, and patriotism. The Black Lives Matter operation, he added, amounts to “a very assault on what made black people survive and thrive after slavery.”

“Slavery and Jim Crow are the excuse for a lot of white liberals to enact policies that have hurt the very people that they claim to care about,” he stated. “My friend, the late Walter Williams, once wrote a column where he issued a proclamation — a pardon for white people — so they would stop doing things that were antithetical to the best interests of black people. Most notably, the welfare state, race-based preferences, set-asides, affirmative action.”

Elder highlighted the news media’s selective hyping and suppression of incidents of violent crime based on racial criteria of suspects and victims.

“It is a filthy disgusting lie that America is systemically racist and the police are engaging in systemic racism,” he held. “Just the other day, there were three Arkansas cops beating the stuffings out of a white suspect. It was a one-day story. Nobody cared. They kneeled on him. They pounded him. We’re talking about three people beating the crap out of this guy, and it was a one-day story. Nobody cared. Why? Because the suspect was the wrong race. Had he been a black guy, we’d know his name. The cops would be flashed all over the newspaper. They’d be prosecuted.”

Elder concluded by emphasizing the partisan political aspect of the Black Lives Matter campaign and enterprise.

“This is just such a fraud done by the Democrats in order to make sure black people are angry and pissed off, so they pull that lever to the tune of 90 to 95 percent [for Democrats] every four years for the presidency,” he said.


Black Lives Matter (BLM)

172 Known Connections

“We’re Never Gonna Be Satisfied!”

On the afternoon of April 21, 2021 — moments after a jury had convicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of murdering George Floyd 11 months earlier — BLM activists on the streets of Minneapolis made it clear that the three “guilty” verdicts against Chauvin would have absolutely no effect on their determination to condemn and transform the allegedly racist criminal-justice system that they viewed as an emblem of the permanent and irredeemable racism that typified America as a whole. They repeatedly chanted, “Burn it down!” and made statements like the following:

  • “Yes, we can defund the police. And maybe one day we will abolish the police, but we ain’t gonna do shit unless we have control over them. That is the number one thing right now. … We’re not gonna let these pigs in these buildings have any more control over our lives today. That shit ends today.”
  • “We need to go way beyond voting at this point. We need to be coming out here every single day if that’s what it takes, until we get justice for the people that they murdered a week ago that they’ve already forgotten about. … The only reason once again, that we got this conviction, is because we showed up. And if we don’t keep showing up, and if we don’t change laws, and we don’t attack this system, from every single fucking angle we can, we will be here again.”
  • “We’re not, we’re never gonna be satisfied. Black Lives Matter isn’t a trend. It’s a movement. Black Lives Matter forever, okay? So, we’re not gonna stop just because we’ve got one conviction. We’re happy with the conviction, but we’re gonna keep going. … This is a black genocide. This is more than one case. We’re not satisfied.”

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here.

RELATED VIDEO: A Nation in Decline

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC: Young People Not Having Kids Due to Burden of Capitalism

Soros-Funded Group Behind Lawsuit Targeting DeSantis

Planned Parenthood Stealth-Edits Fetal Heartbeat Fact Sheet

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

The Stock Market Officially Collapses Into Bear Market Territory

The stock market closed out a week of intense losses with the Dow Jones falling more than 750 points Friday, entering bear market territory amid a wave of investor fears.

At time of writing, the index had, at its lowest point, fallen more than 2.7% during the day to around 29,300 points, with the Nasdaq and S&P 500 down by 2.7% and 2.64% respectively at time of writing. With the Dow Jones officially falling more than 20% from its recent peak in June, stocks will have entered a slump known by investors as a “bear market” if the losses hold when trading ends Friday, according to CNBC.

The Nasdaq was down by 30.92% this year, with the S&P 500 down 22.98% this year, as of close of business yesterday, according to data from MarketWatch.

“Stocks were overvalued because their nominal price has been fueled by the inflation of the Federal Reserve,” Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “As soon as the Fed took away the punch bowl… what happened? Stocks immediately took a nosedive and are continuing to do so, because the only thing that has been fueling this economic recovery hasn’t been real growth, but again, money creation.”

After wavering early this week as investors awaited the Federal Reserve’s Wednesday announcement of a third interest rate hike in just four months, stocks tumbled, with Goldman Sachs warning clients that investors are preparing for recession and slashing its expectations for the S&P 500 stock index by 16%.

After wavering early this week as investors awaited the Federal Reserve’s Wednesday announcement of a third interest rate hike in just four months, stocks tumbled, with Goldman Sachs warning clients that investors are preparing for recession and slashing its expectations for the S&P 500 stock index by 16%.

“Now we’re faced with the reality of having to do it the hard way, of having to actually grow the economy and not just grow the money supply.” Antoni said.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Stocks Stay Volatile As Recession Fears Loom

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.

Election Fraud: The Jig Is Up

UPDATE: Texas Democrats Paid Homeless Man to Falsify Ballots | Police Body Camera Footage Charles Jackson


There’s so much Democrats believe about elections that just ain’t so.  They yap all the time about election deniers, but never seem to worry about the election deniers in their own party.  The list of Democrat election deniers includes Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, Al Gore, Senator Patty Murray, and countless others who questioned election results.  One journalist compiled a list of 82 Democrat election deniers.  Republican researchers found 150.  So spare me the phony narrative about Republicans being election deniers.

And spare me the whole mythology Democrats have built up that election integrity laws are Republican attempts to suppress the vote.  The fact of the matter is election integrity laws were passed in 2021 in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Iowa.  Voter turnout went UP, not down, in all five states in subsequent elections compared to 2018.

The Democrats are bitter clingers when it comes to election denier and voter suppression mythology.  This whole charade is meant to deflect attention away from Democrat attempts to rig elections.  The Democrat Secretary of State in Michigan is in court trying to keep dead people on the voter rolls.  You gotta ask yourself why she would want to do that.  Because it makes it easier to steal elections.  When the votes are counted, you have to match up fraudulent votes for Democrat candidates with records of voters who haven’t voted.  The dirtier the voter rolls are, the easier it is to find people who haven’t voted – like dead people.  The easier it is to commit election fraud.

But ordinary people have had enough of Democrat cheating.  Ordinary people just want free and fair elections back, and they’re working hard to achieve it.

One group discovered how easy it is to forge signatures on mail-in ballots. Just circulate a petition – ‘Mr. President, Save the Whales’ – scan the signatures, and drop them into real mail-in ballots you grabbed from apartment buildings or got from your Democrat buddies who work for the Post Office.  Automate the process and, viola!, you have thousands of fake ballots you can drop into any old drop box, which the Democrats justified creating in the name of preventing COVID transmission  but, somehow, we still have.  When the people who signed the petition go to vote, they’ll be told they already voted.  Folks, that’s how easy it is to steal your vote and how loose the Democrats want our elections to be.

A citizens group in Florida examined voter rolls and found thousands of instances where people did not live at the stated address, many addresses that weren’t residences, and hundreds of dead people on the rolls.

An activist in Wisconsin brought a criminal complaint against a Milwaukee election official for setting up a tent in a back alley to accept ballots from cars, no questions asked and no poll watchers present.

Republican and conservative groups filed suit in Pennsylvania over Democrat counties contacting voters to cure defects in their mail-in ballots in violation of state law.

After an activist in East Lansing, Michigan found nonexistent addresses, votes from closed college dorms, and other problems with the voter rolls, the County Clerk and willing accomplices in the media tried to discredit the work.  Not a good look, resisting the cleaning of voter rolls.  Don’t you Democrats realize how suspicious you look when you do that?

You also look suspicious when you defy laws that require the appointment of an equal number of Republican and Democrat poll workers.  Kalamazoo hired 132 Democrats but only 60 Republicans for the August primary despite more than enough Republican names being submitted for consideration.  In Flint, the ratio was even worse. [details here]

Connect the dots and the picture is unmistakably clear: Democrats try to rig the game and steal elections.  So forgive me when I look at Democrat election so-called ‘reform’ proposals and see attempts to rig elections on steroids.  One proposal – recently rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court for failing to collect enough signatures to put it on the ballot – would have gutted voter ID, eliminated safeguards against noncitizen voting, removed constraints on mail-in balloting, and facilitated vote trafficking by political operatives.  A similar super-scam is pending in Michigan.

The Democrats, predictably, claimed the Arizona court was “suppressing democracy”.  That’s all the Democrats have – empty rhetoric.  But the jig is up.  We see right through you.  And we’ll go right on challenging election results and passing election integrity laws until every election in this country is free and fair, again.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York’s Voter Matrix: An Alternate Structure Within ‘Weaponized’ Voter Rolls, Hundreds of Thousands of Cloned Voter Records

IRS Gave Tax-Exempt Status to Soros-Backed Group That Targets Trump Republicans

RELATED TWEET: