Tag Archive for: national security

China Funnels Machine Gun Parts into U.S. while Expanding Space Weapon Arsenal

A new book has revealed that the Chinese government is inundating the U.S. with illegal gun parts that transform handguns into fully automatic machine guns as part of a strategy to create chaos within America. The news comes as a report has surfaced indicating that the communist regime is pursuing a plan to use weapons in space to threaten U.S. satellites.

On Monday, Breitbart revealed that a new book by Senior Contributor Peter Schweizer details how Chinese manufacturers, under the watchful eye of the regime, are shipping “thousands” of boxes of illicit “auto sear switches” to America, which are small metal devices that can convert semi-automatic handguns into fully automatic machine gun-style weapons. The devices are illegal for virtually all gun owners in the U.S.

As Schweizer argues in “Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans,” the auto switch shipments are part of the regime’s “Disintegration Warfare” strategy, which seeks to undermine the U.S.’s “national will, values, and cohesion” by flooding the black market with the devices, which then fall into the hands of criminals, gangs, and drug dealers.

After U.S. authorities began discovering and blocking direct shipments of the switches from China, Schweizer observes that the porous southern border resulting from the Biden administration’s lax policies is aiding China’s efforts to get the switches into the U.S. via Mexico, just as the crisis is also aiding the distribution of Chinese-manufactured fentanyl. In recent years, the number of switches seized by law enforcement rose “570% during a period of 2017 to 2021, compared to the previous five years.”

Illegal auto switches aren’t the only illicit gun parts making their way into the U.S. via China, Schweizer writes. He reported that a “huge influx” of firearm suppressors, or “silencers,” began to hit America beginning in 2019. “[C]landestinely imported Chinese suppressors enabled criminal gangs and drug cartels in America to get around those requirements and buy them in large quantities,” he wrote. “And over the next three years, federal officials traced an astonishing 42,888 suppressors arriving from China. Those were only the devices they traced. How many more got through?”

Despite the high volume of illegal gun parts originating from China ending up on the streets of the U.S., Schweizer noted that the Biden administration and congressional lawmakers have been curiously silent on the topic. “President Biden has pressed for gun restrictions on ordinary Americans but has never publicly discussed this problem,” he writes, nor has Biden brought up the issue with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping during his recent visits. Similarly, a bill introduced by 11 senators to restrict the switches did not propose any action against China, nor did Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in their 2021 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland expressing alarm over the switches.

Similarly, lawmakers have so far not expressed alarm over a Washington Times report published Monday that China is pursuing deploying weapons in space that threaten American satellites, including a nuclear warhead that currently orbits the Earth. The lack of reaction stands in stark contrast to what occurred two weeks ago with the uproar surrounding reports of Russia’s intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space.

The Washington Times story, based off of a U.S. Air Force think tank report, details how the Chinese military has adopted a “space coercion” strategy that includes the use of both ground-based missiles “capable of hitting satellites orbiting at all altitudes,” as well as orbital missiles — including nuclear warheads — which would target “reconnaissance and early warning systems, communication hubs, and command centers; logistics systems, military-industrial bases, electric power and energy systems, and other infrastructure; and counter-force targets, including missile positions, airfields, naval bases, nuclear bases, and information warfare installations.”

While reducing conventional U.S. military power, the report notes that the biggest threat of China’s “space coercion” strategy would be its ability to undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence through a precision-strike nuclear warhead “backed by spaced-based intelligence and tracking,” which would give China’s military “a greater ability to track, target and attack American nuclear forces.”

In addition, the strategy calls for non-nuclear “electronic warfare strikes against satellites, radars, and communications nodes and computer network attacks.” These “[k]inetic attacks would be conducted suddenly, used in short duration, and limited,” according to the report.

During testimony before the House in January, FBI Director Christopher Wray gave a succinct summary of the threat he believes the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses to the U.S. “The CCP’s dangerous actions — China’s multi-pronged assault on our national and economic security — make it the defining threat of our generation.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Exposing Chinese Organized Crime Rings Operating in Maine | TIPPING POINT

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


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

The TikTok Tussle of Concerns and Legislation

The TikTok Tussle of Concerns and Legislation

BY SUZANNE HARP

Currently, the TikTok ban debate is swirling through the USA and raising concerns about national security and parental frets. Like vigilant conductors, the concerned moms lead the chorus against TikTok’s potential negative influence on their children.

The composition includes worries about inappropriate content, age appropriateness, psychological impact, behavior influence, and safety, as well as the content maestros at TikTok potentially exposing their little ones to unsuitable tunes. Indeed, on the parental front, it is the age-old melody of parental anxiety that echoes, questioning the appropriateness of content and its potential influence on the impressionable minds of children.

A trio of lawmakers is tuning their instruments to legislate a ban on TikTok. The proposed bill to ban TikTok, known as the RESTRICT Act, aims to prevent transactions with social media giants from countries deemed foreign adversaries. The bill seeks to empower the Secretary of Commerce to decide which technologies Americans can or cannot access, and it could potentially exempt lawmakers from providing details about their decision process.

A new movement begins as lawmakers draft legislation forcing app owners to disclose ownership information. Transparency becomes the critical refrain, potentially harmonizing trust among users and attracting a larger audience to the app.

In the ongoing symphony of the TikTok debate, the security movement takes the lead, orchestrating concerns about data safeguarding from the Chinese government. The FBI has also raised the curtain on national security concerns surrounding TikTok’s U.S. operations. The potential for the Chinese government to sway American users or gain control over their devices is immense. FBI warnings give rise to apprehensions about data collection, algorithm manipulation, and the ominous prospect of device compromise on a massive scale.

The ability to compel data sharing upon request and concerns about gathering intellectual property and personal data add a dissonant note to the melody. TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance, acknowledges a potential breach in fortifying U.S. user data by allowing non-U.S. employees access – a revelation that resonates like a haunting refrain.

However, there are several legal and constitutional challenges to this bill. The First Amendment protects American freedom of speech, and the Berman Amendment restricts the President’s power to regulate or forbid the free flow of information in and out of the country. These laws make banning TikTok for all American citizens an unconstitutional decision. Another critical point is who owns the data garnished from these apps or any other platform? I strongly believe Congress should pass laws or a Data Bill of Rights into the constitution as inherent no different than our identity or image.

Moreover, the RESTRICT Act could be used to challenge these constitutional protections. It would require any ban to be justified by a significant governmental interest and would have to be narrowly tailored to address that interest. This means that ByteDance, the Chinese-based company that owns TikTok, could easily challenge a possible ban in court on constitutional grounds.

China’s National Intelligence Law, a law with an absolute stance on supporting national intelligence efforts, injects an element of suspense. Skepticism surrounds the law’s potential for punishment, raising questions about the compliance dance that foreign and domestic firms may be forced to perform.

The symphony turns unexpectedly as critics argue that the data issue is merely a prelude. The genuine concern lies in TikTok’s potential to manipulate opinions, a potential front-runner in controlling political discourse. The platform’s influence on shaping public sentiment becomes a haunting refrain in the minds of skeptics.

The accusation that TikTok allows access to American data, including sensitive biometrics, heightens the concerns about national security. The risks posed to individual privacy and the broader national security landscape amplify the circumstances surrounding this digital symphony.

Amidst the security overture, proposed legislation emerges as a regulatory intermezzo, introducing potential impacts on app owners and their operations. This legislative sonata could reshape the tech industry’s landscape in significant ways.

The curtain rises on the Increased Transparency Act. App owners may need to pull back the curtains on their ownership structures and operational bases, creating a more transparent tech industry. This shift could harmonize trust among users, potentially attracting a larger audience to the app.

The demand for increased regulatory compliance will only increase, and due to this, App owners may find themselves at the center of this regulatory maelstrom, necessitating robust data security measures and policy updates and potentially altering their business models. Like echoes through the concert hall, the impacts could be felt across financial, operational, and strategic dimensions.

The concerns and legislation continue as the TikTok turmoil reaches its zenith, leaving audiences anticipating the final movement. Will the security overture find a resolution, or will the discord persist, impacting the digital stage? Only time will tell as this intricate symphony unfolds its final notes.

ABOUT SUZANNE HARP

Suzanne Harp (Republican Party) candidate for election to the U.S. House to represent Texas’ 3rd Congressional District. She declared her candidacy for the Republican primary scheduled on March 5, 2024.

©2023. . All rights reserved.

Border Patrol Calls In Reinforcements To Help Area Overwhelmed By Migrants

Border Patrol called in reinforcements to help as agents grow increasingly overwhelmed by migrants in an area of southern Arizona, according to an internal Sunday message to agency officials obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Border Patrol agents from the Douglas, Arizona, station are being called up to help agents at the Tucson migrant processing center, which temporarily holds migrants who illegally cross the border. Border Patrol has roughly 4,600 illegal migrants in custody as of Sunday evening in all of the Tucson sector compared to nearly 20,000 nationwide, two Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly, told the DCNF.

The agents in Douglas are being called up for “processing and transportation support,” according to the memo. The assignments will also entail sending specialized units, such as horse patrols, and manning sensors for illegal aliens running from law enforcement.

“Until further notice, all specialty units (Sensors, HPU, BCL) will report to the Douglas Station and attend musters on their scheduled shifts,” the memo reads. “HPU will maintain one agent to care for the horses, but all others will be deployed as needed by the Watch Commander.”

The situation in the Tucson sector has become so dire that the Tucson Border Patrol announced Sunday it was temporarily shutting down its social media.

“At this time, all available personnel are needed to address the unprecedented flow,” John Modlin, Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson Sector, tweeted late Sunday. “The social media team will return once the situation permits.”

Border Patrol has recorded record illegal immigration at the southern border in recent years. In fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol encounters topped 2.2 million, followed by more than 2 million in fiscal year 2023.

“This is embarrassing,” one of the DHS officials said, adding that the blame is on the Biden administration.

“Everybody is getting pulled off the line for processing,” the official added.

CBP didn’t immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Illegal Chinese Pot Grows Are Taking Over Rural Blue State And Law Enforcement Isn’t Stopping Them

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©2023. All rights reserved.


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

7 Lies, Distortions, or Abominations in Joe Biden’s 9/11 Speech

On the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, Joe Biden once again made history for all the wrong reasons — ignoring grieving families, lying to U.S. soldiers, and attempting to cut a plea bargain with terrorist masterminds while sending billions of dollars to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Here are seven examples:

1. Location

Joe Biden became the first president not to take part in ceremonies in one of the three cities associated with the 9/11 attacks: New York City; Washington, D.C.; or Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Instead, he spoke at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a location his remarks attempted to tie to the attacks. Add Biden — whom NBC News dubbed the “consoler-in-chief” — skipping this 9/11 memorial to his historic firsts of admitting the most illegal immigrants into the United States ever and the highest number of Americans to die of drug overdoses (problems which are correlated), and it paints the picture of a president who does not care about U.S. citizens or their losses.

His handlers blamed a scheduling conflict for Biden’s whereabouts — but who sets the president’s schedule? In any previous administration, the question would be rhetorical. Biden, or his handlers, felt it more important for the president to attend the G-20 Summit in India (or “the G7,” as Biden called it), followed by a trip to Vietnam — conveniently putting a younger, more “diverse” Democrat center stage during the event. (Biden’s disastrous performance at his Vietnam press conference may explain why.) Still, the president’s absence seemed anomalous enough that Biden felt required to explain the trip constituted “an essential part of how we’re going to assure the United States is flanked by the broadest array of partners and allies who will stand with us and deter any threat to our security.” If Biden thinks Vietnam will send troops to defend the United States, much less join a future U.S.-led nation-building exercise, he’s delusional — which may explain…

2. Joe Biden Lied about His Location on September 12, 2001

During his speech, Biden shared vividly invented memories of “Ground Zero in New York — I remember standing there the next day and looking at the building. I felt like I was looking through the gates of Hell, it looked so devastated.” In reality, video footage proves that Joe Biden attended a session of the Senate in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 2001. But self-aggrandizing fables hardly surprise coming from Joe Biden, who has embellished his past more than anyone since Walter Mitty. He also falsely “remembered” being “shot at” during a trip to Iraq (a shot landed outside his hotel) and searching for Osama bin Laden over “the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down” (due to a snowstorm), as well as being arrested in the 1980s while trying to meet future South African President Nelson Mandela (they met in 1990 in the Senate Foreign Relations executive committee room), taking part in sit-ins in the 1960s, meeting with members of the Tree of Life Synagogue after a mass shooting, and presiding over an America thriving due to Bidenomics.

3. Biden Praises the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden — Which He Opposed

During his remarks, Biden tied himself to “heroes like the 9/11 generation … who followed Osama bin Laden to the ends of the earth and ultimately send him to the gates of Hell 12 years ago. And then last year, I made the decision to take out [Ayman al-]Zawahiri, the number two, who met the same fate.”

But Joe Biden opposed the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, as he boasted to an audience in 2012. Once again, video footage captures Biden telling a different audience a different tale:

“The president, he went around the table with all the senior people, including the Chiefs of Staff. And he said, ‘I have to make this decision. What is your opinion?’ He started with the National Security adviser, the Secretary of State, and he ended with me. Every single person in that room hedged their bet, except Leon Panetta; Leon said, ‘Go!’ Everyone else said ‘49/51,’ this …

“It got to me. He said, “Joe what do you think?” And I said, ‘Ya know, I didn’t know we have so many economists around the table. We owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there.’ He walked out, and he said, ‘I’ll give you my decision.’” (Emphasis added.)

Barack Obama dithered for 16 hours while the military waited for his decision. The Navy’s SEAL Team 6 succeeded in raiding bin Laden’s compound on May 2, 2011. Then-Vice President Biden blurted out that Navy SEALs killed the terrorist mastermind at a Washington dinner one day later. That August 6, a Taliban RPG blew up a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, killing 38 U.S. soldiers, including 17 members of SEAL Team 6. “In releasing their identity, [the Obama-Biden administration] put a target on their backs,” said the father of one of the soldiers killed that day.

4. Biden Seeks a Plea Bargain to Spare 9/11 Masterminds the Death Penalty

Just weeks before the speech, the Biden administration quietly initiated proceedings to cut a deal that would spare the death penalty for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four other co-conspirators currently held at Guantanamo Bay. The families of 9/11 victims expressed outrage that they learned of the impending plea deal in “a form letter.” Sparing the terrorists a trial would suppress “information that no doubt would shed light on the identity of the 9/11 conspirators — secret and hidden — not only from the 9/11 families but from the American public.” Even now, as U.S. officials have just identified two more of the victims at the Twin Towers, the Biden administration seeks to conceal the identity of its perpetrators.

5. Biden Gave $6 Billion to Iran on 9/11

As Biden rhetorically crusaded against terrorism from a military base, his administration released billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Under the terms of an agreement announced last month, Biden transferred $6 billion and five imprisoned Iranian assets in exchange for five American prisoners. Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, notified Congress he had authorized the payment on 9/11.

“We used to call funding a terror state an act of treason,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). No one denies Iran remains the global leader in terror sponsorship — including the Biden administration. “Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its support for terrorist-related activity in 2021, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various terrorist and militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and elsewhere throughout the Middle East,” according to the most recent terrorist report from Biden’s State Department.

Iran’s terrorism barely outdates Joe Biden’s desire to send the Ayatollah U.S. taxpayers’ dollars. Biden also wanted to send Iran a check for $200 million with “no strings attached” immediately after 9/11/2001 to prove America’s goodwill. The New Republic reported in October 2001:

America needs to show the Arab world that we’re not bent on its destruction. “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

The Obama-Biden administration went on to give Iran $1.7 billion in 2016.

6. Biden Boasts of Protecting the Troops

During his remarks, Biden reassured the troops, “I will never hesitate to do what is necessary to defend the American people, just as I will never forget our sacred duty to those of you who serve.” Can anyone believe Joe Biden will protect Americans from another Taliban attack when his precipitous withdrawal abandoned possibly thousands of U.S. citizens to the Taliban’s tender mercies, and left soldiers so vulnerable that a suicide bomber killed 13 U.S. servicemembers? The Taliban incorporated numerous terrorists into its newly minted government — much as the Obama-Biden administration’s unconstitutional war put al-Qaeda affiliates in charge of Libya and its machinations installed a regime favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood, the fundamentalist group where Osama bin Laden met Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Egypt.

Yet the Biden administration seemed more interested in firing the Marine who criticized the collapse of Kabul, Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, than the political advisers who engineered it.

To the extent Biden intends to keep a “sacred duty,” he certainly defines it differently than any of his predecessors: Pentagon spokesman John Kirby called funding abortion-related travel the “foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders.”

7. Praising ‘National Unity’ while Sowing Division

As the bipolar Biden administration frequently does, Biden mouthed the right words about “national unity” — fluffy phrases that belie his dedication to Balkanization, division, and enacting a racial spoils system for his supporters while demonizing, surveilling, and imprisoning his political opponents. Biden waxed nostalgic that after 9/11, “American flags sold out in every store and were placed in front of seemingly every home. … This day reminds us we must never lose that sense of national unity, so let that be the common cause of our time.” Americans must resist being “pulled apart by petty, manufactured grievances” inflamed by “the poisonous politics of difference and division.”

Such inspiring words make one wonder if the president remembers his “Dark Brandon” speech, flanked by soldiers, in which he denounced his political opponents as an existential threat to American survival in front of a black-and-red colored Constitution Hall. That speech flowed more naturally from the Biden administration, which has placed intersectionality and “equity” at “the center” of a “whole-of-government” plan to redistribute wealth and respect toward solidly Democratic-leaning voting blocs.

One need look no further than actions taken by Biden’s Department of Homeland Security last week — again, on the eve of 9/11. The DHS doled out Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention grants, which are intended “to prevent targeted violence and terrorism,” to:

  • The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League ($530,000) to provide “in-school” indoctrination “for LGBTQ+ youth ages 6-24” in D.C.-area schools. (You can read the details here.);
  • American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab, or PERIL ($784,276), for “teaching children in grades K-5 how to recognize harmful online content.” PERIL (get it?) partners with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the pro-gun control Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Anti-Defamation League. To “prevent radicalization,” PERIL encourages teachers to have “classroom conversations” about “the Movement for Black Lives and protests against systemic police brutality, to the far-right insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th.” PERIL’s leader, MSNBC columnist Cynthia Miller-Idriss, also claims that young people who “are more committed to a kind of gun culture also have higher scores on racial resentment and male supremacist ideas” and worries that Americans might be “easily persuaded by false information … about why they need a gun”;
  • Boston Children’s Hospital ($820,990), which carries out transgender surgeries on children as young as 13, to train mental health practitioners how to identify and deal with people allegedly at “risk for targeted violence and terrorism”;
  • University of North Dakota ($386,682.78) for an “educational module [that] expands understanding of Indigenous culture”;
  • Columbia University ($820,332) to develop “an interactive program focused on storytelling”; and
  • Michigan State Police Michigan Intelligence Operations Center ($425,485) to “raise awareness of how the community can identify and properly refer individuals who may demonstrate behaviors that suggest they may be going down a path toward violence.” This comes after investigators exposed an alleged kidnapping plot targeting Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), creeping with allegations of entrapment involving more than a dozen FBI agents or informants.

Such “anti-terrorism” grants seem more intended to target the soldiers Biden addressed than Osama bin Laden’s spiritual progeny.

Taken together, the picture of Joe Biden that emerges is one of an exhausted vessel shafted by his handlers, whose decades of foreign policy experience have created a more dangerous world — and whose victims will receive either his animus or indifference.

AUTHOR

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Admin Violated Americans’ Free Speech Rights during Pandemic, 5th Circuit Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.


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

Drone Video of Illegal Aliens on Rio Grande Setting up Camps Before Biden Ended Title 42

I wish to thank the Texas Department of Public Safety for the drone footage contained in the below article. May I further thank each and every law enforcement officer, National Guardsman and fireman/medic standing post along what use to be America’s southern Border. The southern Border of the United States which helps define the national sovereignty of this exceptional nation, has, by all accounts, collapsed. This has been the plan, written and spoken about by Obama when he declared that he would “forever change America.” The well-stated and written plan is to collapse the United States into the New-World Order, a global community where nations no longer have sovereign status but are part and parcel of the global community which is divided into ten regions world wide.

Not only are approximately 1 million illegals from 160 countries coming into America commencing with the abolishment of Title 42, but you need to add the approximate 6 million illegals already here. These numbers are law enforcement and threat assessment close working estimates, minus the “get aways” who could not be interdicted, recorded, checked or even detained. It is well known that hardened criminals and gang members along with military age Chinese males have made their way across the border already, NOT counting what is now crossing. The danger being allowed into America is beyond comprehension. May 6th at the Douglas, Arizona border crossing, US Customs discovered and IED (explosive device) being smuggled into our country. Cartels and Chinese military have been sending weapons and munitions for many months securing them in storage lockers at various locations across America.

Another dimension not even discussed is the medical crisis looming. My national show ARIZONA TODAY will have a presentation on this sobering and alarming dimension shortly. I already did two shows on this subject, but as I write this report one of my nationally recognized medical specialists contacted me with updated medical concerns of a serious nature now landing on our lands.

Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and each elected office holder who has not vigorously fought to protect and defend the sovereignty of the United States should be impeached or arrested for treason. Deliberately, publicly and consistently pushing to weaken our national sovereignty is a High Crime and Misdemeanor – Treason as outlined in our Constitution. Such acts are far and above political rhetoric or grandstanding. Very shortly, within days even, Americans will witness, firsthand, the effects of said treason as 1 million pour into America. Do your very best to get ready…an ugly human tidal wave is about to become reality, and quite possibly in your city or community as they are deliberately transported across America, especially into historically conservative communities and regions. That is the well thought out plan to bring disruption and even chaos to America.

Drone footage shows makeshift camps built along Rio Grande by migrants waiting for Title 42 to end

Drone footage taken along Rio Grande, the river that serves as the natural border between most of Mexico and the United States, shows sprawling tent encampments stretching out all over the border.

Hundreds of people reside in a massive camp made of tents and other dwellings with thin blue plastic sheets acting as roofs right outside of Brownsville, near the southern tip of Texas. (Related: Thousands of migrants set to flood the US once Title 42 expires this week.)

The drone footage also shows an “enormous line” of illegal immigrants who recently crossed into Brownsville. Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin, who shared the footage, noted that a large majority of the illegals are single adults.

Nonstop flow of illegal crossings here in Brownsville. Working on scripts in my car and look at the window and see another large group gathering for processing after crossing over,” wrote Melugin on his Twitter account. “Border Patrol buses have been coming and going constantly. It’s going to be a very busy week.”

Brownsville is one of the key spots along the border where officials have noted that the illegal immigrants are congregating in the thousands in order to cross, with the other notable crossing points being El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona. But similar situations are developing and getting worse all along the nearly 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

[ … ]

Watch this clip of Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson Lt. Chris Olivarez talking about the illegal crossings along the Rio Grande.

Read more.

©2023 Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS Colluding/Coordinating Illegal Immigration In-Flows with Mexico While Illegals Given Free Smartphones and Absurd Court Dates Years Away

BIDEN BORDER CRISIS: Migrants Storm The Border As Fears of Rioting Escalate

Trump’s Indictment Damages the U.S. in World Politics

A fundamental aspect of politics is that domestic events impact international ones and the reverse.

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s meeting with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen deserves praise for demonstrating that the House leadership stands with Taiwan. That is an important deterrent message to communist China as its leader, Xi Jinping, weighs his consideration of an attack against Taiwan.

Half a world away, New York prosecutor Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Donald Trump is another seemingly wholly domestic event. But it is not solely a domestic matter—it has major international consequences for U.S. global interests, its allies and partners, and its enemy, the Chinese regime.

The United States is a valuable ally for three reasons.

First, due to its power, it possesses the military, diplomatic, and economic might to advance the interests of allies and partners for security and prosperity.

Second, the United States is also respected and prized as an ally due to the health of the U.S. political system. Global allies and partners understand that the United States has been a reliable ally since it entered World War II in 1941.

To be sure, at times of domestic political turmoil, U.S. credibility has waned, as former President Richard Nixon’s fall due to Watergate emboldened China in 1974 to conquer from South Vietnam all of the Paracel Islands. A year later, it did the same for North Vietnam. Hanoi knew that the United States was paralyzed, and so it could conquer South Vietnam without fear of U.S. intervention to save Saigon.

The “fear of another Vietnam” hindered the U.S. response to the Cambodian genocide, the Angolan civil war, the Iranian Revolution, Somoza’s overthrow in Nicaragua, and support for El Salvador’s effort to defeat a communist insurgency. Most importantly, it aided the expansion of the Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc power in the Third World. In the 1980s, it also weakened Washington’s ability to support insurgents fighting Soviet-supported regimes.

Third, the United States is an example to the world due to its ideology and political culture. The Washington Consensus model of democratic governance, free market capitalism, and low levels of political and economic corruption serve as the template for developing states to follow, unites allied governments, and distinguishes the United States from its adversaries. Washington’s model for the world demonstrates that states can be democratic, prosperous, and stable—all of which provide better allies for the United States and better protection for human rights.

Thus, the U.S. example is important for the values that the country projects but also as a political lodestar. It is a force multiplier in ideological warfare with China. This is significant as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has realized that its grand strategic goal of dominance is hindered by the absence of a strategic narrative that will allow it to advance its ambitions while minimizing balancing and other forms of resistance against it. Beijing’s new strategic narrative, the “common destiny of mankind” or Xi’s Global Civilizational Initiative announced in March is intended to advance that aim and legitimize the CCP’s tyrannical surveillance state as the model for world governance. Thus, as it did during the Cold War, the world has two competing ideologies and worldviews.

Although these considerations were probably far from the minds of those who authorized the indictment of a former president, that act weakens that distinction and violates American principles and political culture. The world expects Xi to employ every means against his domestic political enemies. The United States is different. Its political culture did not allow current presidents to indict their political enemies, particularly a former and possible future president. Those who came close to violating this understanding—however indirectly like Nixon’s cover-up after the Watergate break-in—were disgraced and hounded from office.

The political culture and history of the United States forbade such an act. Now it seems possible, thus eroding important distinctions between the United States and most countries. U.S. political principles and culture are thus eroded. The distinction between the political systems and their respective claims to global leadership is not as sharp as before.

Through the indictment against a former president, the Biden administration has handed the CCP a weapon to expand its influence in international politics and challenge the position and legitimacy of liberal democracy in the minds of the Chinese people and others around the world.

The indictment and likely trial, and possible additional indictments in other cases in Georgia and by the Special Counsel for Trump Inquires, Jack Smith, have multifaceted domestic effects that will play out between now and the Republican Party nomination process, and if Trump is the nominee, to November 2024. Moreover, these events have myriad and adverse international ones. The great strength of the United States in its competition with communist China is that its ideology, political culture and values, rule of law, and respect for human rights stand in direct contrast to an odious and repressive regime that is the CCP.

No administration should be allowed to jeopardize U.S. values and global image. The Biden administration did this with a raid on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 and by not stopping the indictment. The administration just gave the CCP an unearned and undeserved victory in the ideological fight. The raid at Mar-a-Lago, the indictment against Trump, and his future trial, likely in January 2024, now have a life and legacy in global politics that is to the detriment of the United States and its allies in the struggle against the Chinese regime.

Originally published by the Epoch Times

AUTHOR

Bradley Thayer

Director of China Policy

RELATED ARTICLES:

Military expert warns China is waging low-level war on America

Stop US enabling of CCP belligerence

Securing America – A look inside the mind of Vladimir Putin


Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore  is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0


EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

House Unanimously Votes To Declassify COVID-19 Intelligence

The House of Representatives unanimously voted Friday to declassify intelligence detailing the emergence of COVID-19.

All 215 present Republicans and all 204 present Democrats voted to pass Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley’s legislation, which previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The White House has not signaled whether or not President Joe Biden will sign the bill, but it passed both chambers by more than the two-thirds support necessary to override a presidential veto.

Covid-19 pandemic wreaked havoc across the country with almost every household feeling its effects. The United States death toll from this virus has surpassed one million people. Although concrete data is hard to lock down, millions of people are suffering from the long-term effects directly attributed to this virus. It is becoming increasingly clear that school-aged children face hurdles because of long-term school closures. The American people need to know all the aspects, including how this virus was created and specifically, whether it was a natural occurrence of the result of a lab-related event,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Turner of Ohio said in a floor speech.

The U.S. intelligence community is split on whether or not COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Department of Energy recently concluded with “low confidence” that the virus emerged from WIV, joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its assessment. The FBI views a lab leak with “moderate confidence,” while four other intelligence agencies view natural spillover as the virus’ likely origin. Two agencies are undecided.

The Chinese embassy reached out to Hawley’s office Wednesday to object to his bill, asserting that its only purpose is to “politicize and stigmatize China.”

“The move by the U.S. Congress just shows that the U.S. is going further and further down the wrong path of political manipulation. The so-called traceability report by the U.S. intelligence agency is an attempt to ‘presume guilt’ on China. It is an attempt to shift the blame from its own failure to fight the epidemic to China,” government attorney Li Xiang wrote.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elon Musk Receives Ominous Warning From China After Endorsing Lab Leak Theory

House Votes To Overturn ‘Overreaching’ Biden Water Rule

Reps. Clyde, Garbarino Introduce Joint Resolution To Block DC’s Anti-Cop Law, Endorsed By DC Police Union

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

The Question Isn’t if Biden Will Fund the Taliban, The Question is How Will He Fund the Taliban

The question isn’t if Biden will fund the Taliban, the question is how will he fund the Taliban.

There’s a split on that with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggesting that US aid may go directly to the Taliban. (Whether it goes directly or indirectly, the Taliban will still unquestionably cash in.)

Sullivan also would not rule out giving the Taliban aid in the future. He said that the US will continue to provide humanitarian assistance “directly” to the Afghan people, which, he said, would not flow through the Taliban but through international institutions like the World Health Organization and other nongovernmental organizations.

But, going forward, aid to Afghanistan through the Taliban directly will be conditioned upon the Taliban’s behavior, including whether the remaining Americans are able to safely evacuate.

“That will be about the Taliban’s actions. It will be about whether they follow through on their commitments, their commitments to safe passage for Americans and Afghan allies, their commitment to not allow Afghanistan to be a base from which terrorists can attack the United States or any other country, their commitments with respect to upholding their international obligations. It’s going to be up to them. And we will wait and see by their actions how we end up responding in terms of the economic and development assistance,” he said.

Then it was Jen Psaki’s turn to insist that Sullivan hadn’t said what he had said.

Q    And then on — on the future aid to the Taliban that Jake Sullivan was talking about this morning.

MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.

Q    He said, when it comes to economic and development assistance, the relationship with the Taliban will be about Taliban actions.  Should we understand that to mean that economic and development assistance could translate to taxpayer money eventually going to the Taliban at some point?  I know that’s different from the humanitarian aid we’ve been talking about — the World Food Programme and things like that — but these specific references that Sullivan made this morning.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would — I would just go back to kind of the earlier question on this.  There’s an enormous amount of money they have at the federal — in the Federal Reserve — I shouldn’t say “they” — the government of Afghanistan has in the Federal Reserve, which they don’t have access to right now.  That’s actually their money that’s being held there.  So that’s one of the questions here.

There are also sanctions that are in place on a number of leaders.  Obviously, that prevents them from doing business in various parts of the world.  I think that’s really what Jake Sullivan was referring to.

That’s not what Sullivan was referring to since he mentioned “economic and development assistance”.

But few in the media bother calling out Psaki on her constant stream of lies.

Psaki calls the money in the Federal Reserve, “their money”. As I reported in, “Biden Tried to Send Pallets of Cash to the Taliban as Kabul Fell”, that’s not really accurate.

Ahmady estimates that $7 billion of DAB’s assets are being held by the Federal Reserve which includes the gold, the bills and bonds, $300 million in cash, and another $2.4 billion in World Bank funds for aiding developing countries.

A whole lot of money came from us in the first place.

The question is whether Biden is bargaining with the Taliban using the money we already had been giving to Afghanistan or whether he’s playing with new taxpayer monies.

As I wrote…

The Taliban were hoping to get their hands on Afghanistan’s money, but much of it is in the United States. The most tangible part of Afghanistan’s assets, $1.3 billion in gold, is sitting in downtown Manhattan, a little bit south of Ground Zero, in the vaults of the Federal Reserve. If there were any justice, that money would be used to compensate the police officers, firefighters, and workers who died on that day or later on from ailments related to 9/11.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Idiots: After Pakistan Helps Taliban Take Power, Biden’s Handlers Ask Pakistanis to Help Fight Jihadis

Some Afghan Evacuees Brought Their Child Brides to the U.S. With Them

Taliban holding US citizens on six planes, demanding payment to allow planes to leave Afghanistan

British Border Force admits some Afghan evacuees have forged papers

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

The Constitutionality of A Presidential State of Emergency

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question de jour: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?”

I am certain that is not the right question, or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government. Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations. The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution. For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label — “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate.

Recall that the 10th Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature. The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because — “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.S

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously No.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, which they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer — if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebellion, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later. 

Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78 — Alexander Hamilton

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

The Constitution, as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to a monarchy.

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border

EDITORS NOTE: This column from The Revolutionary Act is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

Relegating Radical Islam to the ‘Ash Heap of History’

On June 8th, 1982 in a speech before the British Parliament President Ronald Reagan blazed forth with his belief that ”[T]he march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxist Leninism on the ash heap of history.” Nine years later, on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet flag flew over the Kremlin in Moscow for the last time.

Fast forward to February 15th, 2017 and the meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.

During a press conference Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Trump,

“Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam, and in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you. Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity because for the first time in my lifetime and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but increasingly as an ally.”

Breitbart’s Edwin Mora reports:

President Donald Trump’s deputies intend to overhaul President Barack Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program to focus only on Islamist extremism, says Reuters.

The shift is not finalized, but is expected to reduce federal focus on non-Islamic extremism, reports Reuters, citing five unnamed people briefed on the matter. The shift may also cut off pending federal funding for Islamic groups.

The pending reorganization comes after widespread reports that Obama’s program has already failed, largely because of opposition by resident Muslim activists and groups, say some Republican lawmakers and news outlets.

Reuters notes:

The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

The news outlet cites Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who said she learned of the push to refocus the CVE program “from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism” from unnamed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials last week.

MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has previously advocated for the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. State Department list of designated terrorist groups.

Read more…

President Trump has now named the evil empire bent on stopping the march of freedom and democracy in the world. That neo-evil empire is lead by radical Islamic supremacists. It is called “the Caliphate.” The restoring of the caliphate has been and remains the ultimate goal of radical Islamists.

Marxism, Leninism and radical Islam share a common ideal, the replacement of freedom with subjugation and replacing democracy with a totalitarian ideology based upon a fanatical world view.

President Trump understands this, others do not. The others are the followers of Marx, Lenin and Mohammed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

New Hamas Leader, a Vicious Killer, Portends New Rounds of Violence by Yaakov Lappin

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

President Trump’s Immigration Challenge: To undo Obama’s catastrophic damage

On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.

For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine.  They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored

When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.

Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”

On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”

I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing.  In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.

Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

It was clear that the Bush administration was eager to de-emphasize immigration law enforcement.  What was not noted in the testimony is that most of the management at ICE came from Legacy Customs and not from Legacy INS.

However, as bad as things became when the DHS was created by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, once again, caused ICE agents to become nostalgic about “the good old days” of the Bush administration.

While nature’s laws are immutable, legislated laws are not.  Law enforcement personnel are essential to the enforcement of laws.

The incoming Trump administration must make effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws a key priority if his immigration policies are to be successful.

Additionally, because of the policies of the Obama administration, there is an abject lack of managers and agents who have any actual experience or understanding of effective immigration law enforcement.

Institutional memory about effective immigration law enforcement has been all but expunged from the DHS.

Furthermore, most federal prosecutors lack experience in bringing criminal charges for violations of immigration laws.

I would recommend that the Trump administration make training a key priority for all prosecutors and immigration enforcement programs as well as for the employees of USCIS.

They all need to work cooperatively and collaboratively.

The culture of the adjudications program that is the realm of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is to not cooperate with the ICE agents.  This culture was created and nurtured by the Obama administration.

The Trump administration must swiftly remove or reassign any USCIS managers who refuse to cooperate fully and collaboratively with ICE enforcement personnel.

Consider a particularly egregious case involving the manager of the San Bernardino office of USCIS obstructed ICE/HSI agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force from entering her facility.  They were seeking to locate and arrest a suspected co-conspirator of the San Bernardino terror attack less than 24 hours after that attack.

She was subsequently nominated for the prestigious Secretary’s Award.

My article about this insanity included this excerpt:

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, requested an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

This is how the OIG report described the outrageous confrontation between the USCIS manager and the ICE agents:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) also accused her of lying to their investigators.

President-elect Trump’s has focused on immigration.  He will have the unique opportunity to address the multiple failures of the immigration system, many of which are decades old while some were created by the Obama administration.

Trump’s leadership can undo the madness foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration and even correct the errors inherent in the way that the DHS was created in response to the terror attacks of 9/11.

What a way to start the new year and a new administration.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in Frontpage Magazine.

Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America

If you had just arrived from Mars to observe the Republican and Democratic conventions, one after the other, you undoubtedly would conclude that they were talking about two different countries.

One America recognizes real threats from foreign jihadi fighters who seek to eradicate our existence and to replace our freedoms with Islamic sharia law. It believes that economic revival — through tax reform, trade reform, and enforcing our borders and immigration laws – holds the key to future prosperity.

The other America believes we face no real foreign threats, the economy is doing great, and that our biggest challenge comes from crop failures, rising seas, and monster storms caused by — you guessed it, climate change.

It wasn’t by chance that the Democrats made no mention of ISIS on the first day of the convention and scarcely mentioned it on the next two days.

Terrorism and Islamist ideology that seek to replace our democratic republic with a “superior” law written by Allah are a distraction from the real mission of Democrats in Philadelphia. As former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley put it: “to hell with Trump’s American nightmare.”

In his first year in office, President Obama directed the Central Intelligence Agency to divert significant assets from the war against real threats from terrorists and enemy nations to the hypothetic dangers of “climate change.”

The Defense Department was ordered to follow suit, and under Obama’s direction, launched massive building programs at American naval bases to shelter them from rising seas.

President Obama squandered billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left’s faith in its new religion that man-made climate change would destroy the earth, or significant portions of it.

Cyclical changes in our climate have always occurred and have had dramatic impacts in the past, long before the carbon emissions the Left blames for today’s droughts and tsunamis.

Hollywood actress Signourey Weaver, hair on fire, introduced a “scare-me” video by James Cameron and claimed that farmers in Kansas were losing their crops today because of climate change.

I understand that Ms. Weaver is too young to have lived through the Dust Bowl — so am I. But I would hope she isn’t too dumb to have read about it and to have understood that these things have happened before, and will happen again.

Government’s role, in such circumstances, is to extend a helping hand of solidarity to individuals who lose their livelihoods to disasters they had no way of foreseeing. Its role is not to preemptively cripple the nation with fantasy-driven regulations and shut down entire sectors of the economy.

Incapable of a sustained conversation about national security, we’re left with Sen. Harry Reid suggesting that the Director of National Intelligence should “fake” national security briefings to Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump suggested that perhaps the Russians might be able to find the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton admitted she deleted from the private server even President Obama warned her not to use.

In Senator Reid’s mind, entrusting Mrs. Clinton with our national security secrets is just fine, even though FBI Director James Comey acknowledged she had been “extremely careless” by transmitting highly-classified intelligence information on her personal email server. Let’s not forget that the FBI still hasn’t found more than 2,000 classified emails Mrs. Clinton deleted.

Bill Clinton thought he had found a “trump” card that would earn his wife a place in the pantheon of national security heroes.

“She launched a team — and this is really important today — she launched a team to fight back against terrorists — online — and built a new global counterterrorism effort,” he said.

Think about that for a moment. In the words of her own husband, Mrs. Clinton’s main achievement in the war against the terrorists attacking us was to hire a few social media analysts whose advice she didn’t consult and in fact ignored when they informed her the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with a YouTube video insulting Mohammad.

I’ve got news for the Clintons: our intelligence community has been focusing on social media for years. The biggest growth industry among the Beltway bandits is foreign language experts who can mine Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for evidence of jihadi connections.

That’s great, but it isn’t enough.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went overboard in his support for Mrs. Clinton, claiming that, if elected, she would take office as someone who “has the trust of our troops who know she will always have their back.”

Four men died in Benghazi because Mrs. Clinton didn’t have their backs. Instead of rushing to the rescue, she spent hours in meetings trying to keep Panetta from sending reinforcements to their rescue.

But that’s the other America. The America of facts.

The differences of our two Americas are many. One America lionizes the mothers of young black men killed by the police – often after they had committed assaults of one sort or another. The other celebrates as heroes police officers gunned down by snipers seeking vengeance.

One America believes that women, illegal immigrants, invalids, minorities, and people with kaleidoscope glasses constitute grievance classes who deserve special treatment. The other believes that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity under our system.

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

Fitting, Trump Clinches GOP Nomination on Memorial Day Weekend

The Associated Press reported on Thursday [May 26, 2016] that Donald J. Trump has exceeded the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot at the party’s convention next month.

Mr. Trump had 1,229 delegates after winning the state of Washington on Tuesday, but since then has received commitments from enough unbound delegates to put him over the top. Trump is expected to expand his now insurmountable lead next month, when the last five states to vote—South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, and California—hold their primaries.

Fox News reports, “Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.” The NRA endorsed Mr. Trump last week.

Meanwhile, though Clinton is still favored to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got worse, following the release of a State Department Inspector General’s report, which described Clinton’s manner of handling her emails as “not an appropriate method.” Clinton refused to speak to the Inspector General’s investigators.

Asked about the news during a press conference in North Dakota, Trump said the report shows that Clinton suffers from “bad judgment,” an assessment that would be equally appropriate if the report had assessed Clinton’s position on gun control.

DHS Whistleblower’s Open Letter to Congress: No Confidence in Administration’s Vetting Process

Today,  13-year Department of Homeland Security veteran, Philip B. Haney, released an open letter to Members of Congress, writing that he, “no longer [has] the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.” (full text below)

Since becoming a whistleblower, Haney has met repeatedly with Members of Congress and their staffs in closed-door sessions, warning them of both the inadequacies of the Obama administration’s screening processes and the shut down of his investigation into extremist groups tied to both perpetrators of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

On Fox News, Haney described an ill-advised action by DHS’ Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to terminate an investigation into groups associated to the Deobandi Movement and other Islamist groups. “This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.”

An Open Letter to Members of Congress:

In the aftermath of the most devastating and lethal jihadist attack in the United States since 9/11, Americans are rightly angry their government will not face the problem of Islamic terrorism honestly. I know this first-hand.

During my 13 years at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked tirelessly to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. As a recognized “founding member” of DHS, it was among my responsibilities to raise concern, not only about the individuals primed for imminent attack, but about the networks and ideological support that makes those terrorist attacks possible.

I investigated numerous groups such as the Deobandi Movement, Tablighi Jamaat, and al-Huda as their members traveled into and out of the United States in the course of my work. Many were traveling on the visa waiver program, which minimizes the checks and balances due to agreements with the countries involved. But the scrutiny we were authorized to apply was having results. This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups.

Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by the State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa—and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result.

The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated. When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity? Based on what I have seen in the Department of Homeland Security, I no longer have the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries.

I took my story to the American people last week. Remarkably this week, DHS’ former acting under-secretary for intelligence and analysis, John Cohen, told ABC News that under the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, potential immigrants’ social media activity was off-limits to those responsible for screening.

Just as they did when they halted my investigation in 2012—which could have provided key intelligence and potentially saved over a dozen lives—DHS described a potential “civil liberties backlash” if the law enforcement officials tasked with keeping our country secure did the most basic checks on potential travelers, immigrants and refugees. Parents checking on someone their child may be dating look at social media, but our law enforcement officials can’t?

This administration has a deadly blind spot when it comes to Islamic terrorism. It is not willing to allow proper vetting and screening of refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries; Congress must take action to defend the security of the American people.

I understand the desire to welcome as many immigrants and refugees as possible, especially those fleeing dangerous conflict zones. However, this administration has handcuffed law enforcement officials tasked with vetting these individuals appropriately and that places the American people in danger.

Philip B. Haney

philip haney

Philip B. Haney

ABOUT PHILIP B. HANEY

Philip Haney served in Passenger Analysis Units at the Department of Homeland Security in Atlanta and at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center. His responsibilities included in-depth research into individuals and organizations with potential links to terrorism.

After almost a year of research and tracking the Deobandi movement, Department of Homeland Security stopped the investigation, at the request of the Department of State and its own Civil Rights Civil Liberties Division, claiming that tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travellers’ civil liberties.

Haney says, “The administration was more concerned about the civil rights and liberties of foreign Islamic groups with terrorist ties than the safety and security of Americans.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservatives ‘Shocked’ by Change to Immigration Law Tucked Inside Omnibus Spending Bill

How Well Is US Vetting Social Media of Immigrants? San Bernardino Attack Sparks Debate

Marco Rubio: ‘We Can’t Accept Refugees That We Can’t Truly Vet’

Star Wars Episode 10: Donald J. Skywalker v. Darth H. Obama [Video]

Pat Condell, noted commentator from the UK, in a video titled “We Want The Truth” explains from a British perspective why Donald Trump is the favored candidate in the Republican Party.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. confidence in protection from attack lowest in over a decade
http://www.military.com/daily-news/20…

Government missed red flags on San Bernadino killers
http://www.breitbart.com/national-sec…

San Bernadino killer passed three background checks to gain entry to the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

FBI admits there is no way to screen all the Syrian refugees Obama plans to accept into the US
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic…

Donald Trump calls for a temporary ban on Muslims coming the the US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca…

Trump still winning despite Muslim backlash
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20…

Trump wins more support as petition reaches half a million signatures
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Trump is right. Police say parts of Britain are no-go areas
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6255…

U.S. report warns of ISIS ability to create fake passports
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/11/pol…

Obama bows to the Saudi king
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…