Live Updates: Secret Service Director Testifies Before Congress thumbnail

Live Updates: Secret Service Director Testifies Before Congress

By The Daily Signal

This article will be updated throughout the hearing.

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is testifying before the House Oversight Committee on Monday, following the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Numerous lawmakers—from both sides of the aisle—have called for Cheatle to resign after a gunman fired multiple shots at Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, about 33 miles north of Pittsburgh. A former fire chief, Corey Comperatore, 50, died shielding his family from the gunfire, and two other rally attendees were injured.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

As expected, lawmakers pressed Cheatle over the security failures during Monday’s hearing, which began at 10 a.m.

Height of Agents Guarding Protectee

UPDATE, 12:55 p.m.: Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., asked whether Secret Service agents were physically prepared to defend the protectee, asking about Trump’s height.

Cheatle said, “I don’t know. He’s over 6 feet.”

“Do you assign agents based on their ability to cover physically, and carry if necessary, the president of the United States, when you assign them to this mission?” Perry asked. “Is that a parameter that is considered?

“I assign agents to work our protectees that are capable and have been trained by the Secret Service, and are trained,” Cheatle replied.

“If somebody is 7 feet tall, and you’re 5 feet tall … that is problematic in protecting the protectee,” the Pennsylvania Republican followed up. “I am asking, is that a consideration when these agents are assigned to the protectee?”

“The agents assigned to our protectees are perfectly capable,” Cheatle said.

Perry said, “The culture is what I’m concerned about, because the primary objective here seems to be something other than securing the site, securing the principal, and securing the people at the site.”

Donalds Accuses Cheatle of ‘Gross Incompetence’

UPDATE, 12:51 p.m.: Cheatle confirmed to Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., that she has spoken to the countersniper team, those providing overwatch, and the advance team, but refused to directly answer questions about what they told her.

“We are putting together a comprehensive report that I can identify exactly where the gaps are, and the failures,” the Secret Service chief said.

“Director, it’s been nine days,” Donalds said. “Either you have the information or you do not.”

Donalds said he is sure someone from the Secret Service saw the shooter on the roof before he opened fire.

“I do not have all of those details at this time,” Cheatle said.

“If you don’t have those details after nine days, what you’re telling me is that you guys don’t have them,” Donalds said. “Is that correct?”

Donalds accused Cheatle of “gross incompetence.”

“Director, you’re in charge,” he said, “and that’s why you need to go.”

‘Go Back to Guarding Doritos’

UPDATE, 12:44 p.m.: “I believe your horrifying ineptitude and your lack of skilled leadership is a disgrace,” Rep. Pat Fallon told the head of the Secret Service.

“Your obfuscating today is shameful,” the Texas Republican continued, “and you should be fired immediately and go back to guarding Doritos.”

Prior to being appointed as director of the Secret Service, Cheatle served as the senior director of Global Security at PepsiCo, the parent company of the snack maker.

“Director Cheatle, in your leadership, your agency got outsmarted by and outmaneuvered by a 20-year-old,” Fallon said, referring to the gunman.

The congressman ripped Cheatle for comments she made during an interview with ABC News in which she said “there were safety concerns in regards to stationing agents on the roof the shooter used because that specifically was “a sloped roof.”

“Does the Secret Service have a written policy you can share with us about sloped roofs?” Fallon asked.

“No,” Cheatle answered.

“So, why did you act like there was one? Because is it your practice to comment on events of enormous national implications when you’re ignoring the facts? That’s rhetorical,” he said.

Fallon called the “sloped roof” explanation a “pathetic” excuse.

‘9 Days In, You Have No Answers’

UPDATE, 12:34 p.m.: Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., expressed how upset she was that Cheatle had so few direct answers for Congress, and said she would ask a series of “yes-or-no” questions.

At a number of points, Mace interjected, “bull—-,” to Cheatle’s answers.

Mace asked, “Would you like to use my five minutes to draft your resignation letter?”

Cheatle replied, “No, thank you.”

“Was this tragedy preventable?” Mace asked.

“Yes,” the director replied.

Cheatle answered, “yes,” when asked whether the Secret Service has been transparent.

“Would you say the fact that we had to issue a subpoena today as being transparent?”

“I have always … ,” Cheatle began to say.

“Yes or no: We had to issue a subpoena to get you to show up today. That is not transparent,” Mace said.

The South Carolina lawmaker also talked about the leak to the news media of Cheatle’s opening statement before the committee had it.

Cheatle replied, “I have no idea how my statement got out.”

Mace countered, “Well, that’s bull—-.”

Cheatle said the Secret Service is fully cooperating with the House Oversight Committee.

“On July 15, this committee sent you a list of demands of information that we wanted,” Mace said. “Has the Secret Service provided this committee with a complete list of all law enforcement personnel that were there that day?”

“I’ll have to get back to you on that,” Cheatle said.

“That is a ‘no,’” the South Carolinian said.

Cheatle also said she would have to get back to the committee on other questions.

“That is a ‘no,’” Mace said. “You are full of s— today, You are just being completely dishonest.”

Mace subsequently asked, “How many Secret Service personnel have lost their jobs because of this colossal failure?”

The Secret Service chief replied, “At this time, none.”

Mace went on to ask, “What time did law enforcement become aware that there was an individual on the roof with a clear line of sight to President Trump?”

Cheatle said, “I am still verifying timelines.”

The South Carolina congresswoman replied, “Of course. Nine days in, you have no answers.”

She then asked how many minutes went by between the time law enforcement saw and took photos of the shooter and the shooting.

Cheatle replied, “I am still verifying.”

Mace interrupted with the answer, “57 minutes.”

Cheatle Should Resign ‘Today,’ Biggs Says

UPDATE, 11:55 a.m.: “Your agency has a no-fail mission, and on Saturday, July 13, your agency spectacularly failed,” Rep. Andy Biggs told Cheatle.

The Arizona Republican said it is “unfathomable that a 20-year-old on the radar of Secret Service and local law enforcement” was able to climb to the roof of a building and shoot the former president.

Cheatle refused to speak to “specifics of the event” when Biggs questioned her about the protective perimeter of the rally.

“This is a specific that you ought to know,” Biggs said. “As someone who said, ‘The buck stops with me. I’m going to stay at my job. I’m going to give the answers to the American people, and I know what happened’—except for you’re not going to tell the American people, and you yourself said in an interview that that foments this notion of conspiracy theories.”

Cheatle’s delays in answering questions “undermine your credibility,” Biggs told the director, who repeatedly said she didn’t have information at this time about the perimeter and when the last sweep of the roof was conducted before the July 13 rally.

Biggs called for Cheatle to resign immediately.

“You should have come today ready to give us answers,” the Arizona lawmaker said. “I call upon you to resign today. Today.”

AOC: Why Was Secure Perimeter Within AR-15 Range?

UPDATE, 11:50 a.m.: It has been more than a week since the assassination attempt was made on Trump, and “there need to be answers,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said.

The building the gunman crawled onto the roof of, and targeted Trump from, was outside the Secret Service’s secured perimeter at the Butler rally.

Ocasio-Cortez pressed Cheatle as to why that was, given that the building was about 200 yards from the stage where Trump was speaking, well within range of an AR-15, a weapon that ordinarily has a range of 400 to 600 yards. (Other news reports said the shooter was 130 to150 yards from the rally stage.)

“The determination of the perimeter, I’m not going to speak to specifics,” Cheatle said, noting that factors such as the terrain, buildings, and available resources go into making the decision on the security perimeter.

“What I’m hearing is that a perimeter was not established outdoors, in an outdoor venue, that would prevent an AR-15, which is one of the most common weapons used in mass shootings, from being able to be within the range of Secret Service protection,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

A perimeter was established, the Secret Service director said, adding that there was “overwatch” to “help mitigate [the threat from] some of those buildings.”

Comparison to Reagan Shooting in 1981

UPDATE, 11:49 a.m.: “Would you agree that this is the most serious security lapse since President [Ronald] Reagan was shot in 1981, of the Secret Service?” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., asked.

“Yes, sir, I would,” Cheatle replied.

“Do you know what Stuart Knight did? He was in charge of the Secret Service. Do you know what he did afterward?” Khanna asked.

Cheatle said, “He remained on duty.”

Khanna corrected her, “He resigned.”

Reagan was shot in March 1981 in a failed assassination attempt in Washington, D.C. Knight, who had been head of the Secret Service since 1973, resigned in November of 1981.

“I just don’t think this is partisan,” Khanna said. “If you have an assassination attempt on a president or a former president or a candidate, you need to resign. That’s what Stuart Knight did. … You cannot go on leading a Secret Service agency when there is an assassination attempt on a presidential candidate.”

He asked what was the difference between her and Knight.

“I am dedicated to finding the answers to what happened,” Cheatle responded. “Like every Secret Service agent, we don’t shirk from our responsibilities. I will remain on and be responsible to the agency, to this committee, to the former president and to the American public.”

Sessions Presses Cheatle for ‘Credible Answers’

UPDATE, 11:45 a.m.: “How long do we have to wait before you give us credible answers,” Rep. Pete Sessions asked Cheatle.

The Texas Republican said he doesn’t think Cheatle understands what happened.

“I’m not going to ask you to resign, but I am going to say that you have not given us confidence that you have the ability to understand what happened, to take the responsibility in terms of understanding,” he said.

Cheatle confirmed that no employees have been disciplined for the agency’s failure to protect Trump from the assassination attempt.

Sessions pressed Cheatle as to whether she has the ability to understand what went wrong and whether she knows what she’s doing. The congressman said her 28 years of experience with the Secret Service should have prepared her to explain what happened, adding that yet she dodges questions.

“If you’ve got this experience, then you should be able to say to us, ‘We know what we did wrong,’” he said. “‘It was a failure in our system, and we’re immediately making these corrections.’ That’s why you’re having a difficult time with this group of members of Congress, because we saw it, too. We’ve seen the things, but you are the 28-year expert.”

“That is why we think what you’re doing, the answers you’re giving us, are not correct,” the Texas lawmaker continued, “and you’re not using your professional expertise.”

Cheatle said the internal investigation should be completed in 60 days.

‘Very Troubling’: Cloud Questions Lack of Answers on Unprotected Roof

UPDATE, 11:30 a.m.: Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, said it’s “very, very troubling” that Cheatle came to the hearing with no answers on how the Secret Service allowed the shooter to get on the roof.

“I think it’s troubling for a lot of us that the No. 1 question everyone in America is wondering is, why was the roof left open? And after nine days, we should at least, maybe, have a little bit of that information,” Cloud said. “And when you come to this committee hearing, and you don’t have anything to say about that, it’s very, very troubling.”

Cloud asked Cheatle whether the assassination attempt occurring on her watch warrants her resignation.

“The thing that you’ve said so far is that you want to make sure that this never happens again,” Cloud said. “The thing is, everyone in America knows that’s not the job description that you’re tasked with. The job description you’re tasked with is to make sure it never happens, period.”

Cheatle did not directly answer Cloud’s question about whether Trump’s team was notified of a suspicious person on the roof.

“We are going back and looking to make sure that we have the exact information of when those notifications were made and who those notifications were made to,” Cheatle replied.

The director said she doesn’t personally review security plans for events across the country.

Cloud said Cheatle gave a “lame excuse” about the sloped roof preventing an agent from guarding it.

“You said that local law enforcement’s job was to cover up the building before backtracking on that,” he said. “We were told that President Trump’s team did not ask for security before you backtracked on that. You haven’t provided the audio recording that this committee chairman requested that was due Thursday. You didn’t give us an advanced copy of your opening statement, but yet, there was reporting on it somewhere else.”

“And it begs the question to anyone: You’re in charge of the investigation of your own failure,” he asked. “So, how is anybody in America supposed to be able to trust the results of that investigation as being anything transparent and genuine?”

Cheatle defended herself, saying she follows the Secret Service’s values of “duty, justice, honor, loyalty, and courage.”

Suspicious Behavior or Threat? Illinois Democrat Grills Cheatle on Timeline

UPDATE, 11:20 a.m.: “Director Cheatle, as you know, the shooter began shooting at 6:11 p.m. [Eastern Time] on July 13th. NBC reported that at 5:51 p.m., 20 minutes before the shooting began, the state police informed the Secret Service of their concern, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., “Now the rally was not paused at that point. Correct?”

“No,” Cheatle answered.

“And according to NBC, just two minutes later, at 5:53 p.m., the Secret Service notified its snipers about the gunman. The rally wasn’t paused at that point, either, correct?” the Illinois lawmaker asked.

“No,” the head of the Secret Service responded.

Krishnamoorthi then played a short video of a man seen on the roof close to the rally and a woman who can be heard shouting “on the roof!” Krishnamoorthi said the video was taken two minutes before the assassination attempt.

“Ma’am, that doesn’t look like suspicious behavior. That looks like threatening behavior to me,” Krishnamoorthi said in reference to the video. “And the rally wasn’t paused at that point either, correct?”

“I can tell you … that the moment that the shift surrounding the president were aware of an actual threat,” Cheatle began before the Illinois Democrat cut her off.

“That’s a threat right there,” Krishnamoorthi said. “The guy’s on the roof, and everybody’s yelling at him.”

“The rally was not paused at that point, correct?” the congressman asked.

“We are currently still combing through communications and when communications were passed,” she said.

‘Best Person to Lead the Secret Service’

UPDATE, 11:15 a.m.: When talking about herself, Cheatle gave the most specific responses of the hearing.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., referenced news reports that Cheatle was promoted by first lady Jill Biden’s top adviser Anthony Bernal, and others in the Biden orbit.

“I would like to explore how you got the job as director of the United States Secret Service,” Foxx asked. “Is it typical for the director of the Secret Service to be recommended for the role at the behest of a president’s family and senior staff? Perhaps at the behest of Jill Biden or Anthony Bernal?”

The director defended her status.

“I got the job as director of the Secret Service because I spent 27 years at an agency with a mission that I absolutely love,” she said. “I started my career in Detroit. I worked my way up through investigations and protection.”

Foxx followed, “Was there competition for the position?”

Cheatle said, “You would have to ask those who were involved in the interview process.”

After Foxx asked if she was the right person, Cheatle replied, “I think I am the best person to lead the Secret Service at this time.”

Rep. Mike Turner Calls for Biden to Fire Cheatle

UPDATE, 11:07 a.m.: Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, called for Biden to fire Cheatle for failing to protect Trump from threats.

“Not only should you resign, [but] if you refuse to do so,” Turner said, “President Biden needs to fire you, because his life, Donald Trump’s life, and all the other people which you protect are at risk because you have no concept of the aspect that the security footprint needs to be correlated to the threat.”

Because Trump is alive, Cheatle looks “incompetent,” Turner said.

“If Donald Trump had been killed, you would have looked culpable,” the Ohio lawmaker said. “There is no aspect of this that indicates that there has been any protection of Donald Trump.”

Turner pressed Cheatle about whether the Secret Service responded to the threats on Trump’s life from Iran.

When the Secret Service director said she thinks the agency sufficiently responded to the

Iranian threat, Turner asked, “Is an Iranian assassin more capable than a 20-year-old?”

Jordan Accuses Cheatle of ‘Cutting Corners’

UPDATE, 11:00 a.m.: Rep. Jim Jordan accused Cheatle of “cutting corners” when it came to Trump’s security detail. The Ohio Republican pressed her on whether the Secret Service had denied requests from the Trump campaign for additional security personnel.

Cheatle told Jordan that “when details make a request, there are times that there are alternate ways to cover off on that threat or that risk.”

On July 14, the day after the shooting, Anthony Guglielmi, the Secret Service chief of communications, said it was “an untrue assertion that a member of the former president’s team requested additional security resources and that those were rebuffed.”

Cheatle also told Jordan that there were no denied requests for the Butler, Pa., rally.

“Well, maybe they got tired of asking,” Jordan responded. “Maybe you turned them down so darn much they said, ‘not worth asking.’ How many times did you turn them down ahead of that?

The director did not answer Jordan directly.

“It looks like you got a 9% raise, and you cut corners when it came to protecting one of the most important individuals, most well-known individuals on the planet, a former president, likely the guy who’s going to be the next president. Looks like you guys were cutting corners. That’s what it looks like to me,” Jordan said.

“Is that true?”

“I am here today because I want to answer questions,” Cheatle responded, “but I also want to be cautious.”

“You might want to, but you have not answered. I don’t think you’ve answered one question from the chairman, the ranking member, or me,” Jordan shot back.

Cheatle Says No Requests From Trump Team Denied for Butler Rally

UPDATE, 10:53 a.m.: The Secret Service is investigating how a shooter could get past the Secret Service to shoot a former president and presidential candidate, Cheatle said.

“How can a 20-year-old with his father’s AR-15 assault weapon climb onto a roof with a direct 150-yard line of sight to the speaker’s podium without the Secret Service or local police stopping him?” Rep. Jamie Raskin asked.

“So, again, sir, I will say, we are nine days out from this event,” Cheatle told the Maryland Democrat, “and I would like to know those answers as well, which is why we are going through these investigations, to be able to determine that fully.”

Cheatle again accepted responsibility for the “tragedy.”

“We are going to look into how this happened,” she said, “and we are going to take corrective action to ensure that it never happens again.”

Raskin, the ranking member of the committee, asked Cheatle if she denied the Trump campaign’s request for additional protective resources.

“There were no assets denied for that event in Butler on the 13th,” Cheatle responded.

She said requests from Trump’s campaign staff “were granted.”

The Secret Service did not know the gunman had a weapon before Trump took the stage, Cheatle confirmed.

Comer Grills Cheatle About Why No Secret Service on the Roof

UPDATE, 10:45 a.m.: Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said, “There had been reports that agents were supposed to be on the roof, but it was hot that day and they didn’t want to be on the roof.”

Cheatle replied, “What I can tell you is that there was a plan in place to provide overwatch, and we are still looking into responsibilities and who was going to provide overwatch. The Secret Service in general—not speaking specifically to this incident—when we are providing overwatch—whether that be through counter snipers or other technology, prefer to have sterile rooftops.”

Comer followed up, asking if the Secret Service used any drones.

“I’m not going to get into specifics of that day,” the director responded. “There are times during a security plan when the Secret Service does deploy an asset like a drone.”

Comer noted reports that the shoot deployed a drone before the rally.

“I am waiting for the final report,” Cheatle said.

“Do you know–I’m not asking yes or no–but do you know if the shooter used a drone before the shooting?” Comer asked.

Still inconclusive, Cheatle replied, “That information has been passed to us from the FBI.”

She did not “get into specifics” when asked how many agents were assigned to Trump’s detail at the rally.

“We feel there was a sufficient number of agents assigned,” she said.

“There were reports that several agents assigned to the rally on July 13 were temporary agents—agents not normally assigned to President Trump. Is that accurate?” Comer asked.

“The agents that were assigned to President Trump are Secret Service agents that provide close protection to him,” she said.

Comer went on to ask, “Before July 13, had the Trump detail requested additional resources?”

“For the event on July 13, the detail, the assets that were requested for that day were given,” she said.

Cheatle Takes ‘Full Responsibility’

UPDATE, 10:40 a.m.: The assassination attempt on Trump was the “most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades,” Cheatle said during her opening remarks.

“The Secret Service’s solemn mission is to protect our nation’s leaders. On July 13th, we failed,” Cheatle said, adding, “I take full responsibility for any security lapse of our agency.”

Cheatle also offered her condolences to the family of Corey Comperatore, a fire chief who died shielding his wife and daughter from sniper fire.

“We must learn what happened and I will move heaven and earth to ensure that an incident like July 13th does not happen again,” the Secret Service director told Congress.

Cheatle defended the law enforcement on the ground at the rally the day of the assassination, noting that the Secret Service can’t do “our job without them.” She also praised the Secret Service agents who shielded Trump “with their own bodies” while shots were being fired.

“We will not rest until we have explored every option and we will leave no stone unturned,” Cheatle said, referring to the investigation into the security failures that led to the assassination attempt on Trump.

Secret Service Now ‘Face of Incompetence’

UPDATE, 10:30 a.m.: The Secret Service has become the “face of incompetence” after failing to protect former President Donald Trump from an assassination attempt, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said Monday.

“The Secret Service’s protective mission is to protect us and visiting world leaders and safeguard U.S. elections through protection of candidates and nominees,” said Comer, who is chair of the House Oversight Committee. “The Secret Service has a zero-fail mission, but it failed on July 13, and in the days leading up to the rally. The Secret Service has thousands of employees and a significant budget, but it has now become the face of incompetence.”

The assassination attempt was preventable, according to Comer.

“While we give overwhelming thanks to the individual Secret Service agents who did their jobs under immense pressure,” Comer said, “this tragedy was preventable.”

Comer said the committee is concerned the Secret Service “lacks the proper management to keep protectees safe from bad actors.”

“Americans demand accountability,” he said, “but no one is yet to be fired for this historic failure.”

The hearing will provide the Americans with answers about the assassination attempt, Comer said.

“We will ask these questions because the Secret Service and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, have been unwilling to provide answers to the American people,” Comer said.

The Kentucky Republican called for Cheatle to resign. Comer said the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security has dodged the committee’s questions on the assassination attempt.

“The DHS has sought to push this hearing to a different time,” he said. “The Secret Service has suggested the hearing occur without media presence, and both agencies have provided only shallow explanations to Congress about what happened on July 13.”

“It shouldn’t take this much time or preparation for Director Cheatle to tell the truth and to be transparent with the American people,” he continued.

Raskin Pushes Gun Control, Takes Aim at AR-15

UPDATE, 10:26 a.m.: Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., made a push for gun control during his opening remarks, as Democrat lawmakers frequently do after shooting.

Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, specifically went after the AR-15, which the would-be assassin used from the rooftop.

“Some are calling it a miracle that President Trump escaped this AR-15 attack unlike so many thousands of citizens who have been killed or seriously wounded in other AR-15 shootings,” Raskin said.

Raskin said America had 655 mass shootings in 2023, which is defined as at least four people being shot during an incident.

“What happened in Butler, Pennsylvania was a double failure, the failure of the Secret Service to properly protect President Trump, and the failure of Congress to properly protect our people from criminal gun violence,” Raskin said.

“We must therefore ask hard questions about whether our laws are making it too easy for potential assassins to obtain firearms generally and the AR-15 specifically,” Raskin said.

AUTHORS

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a senior news producer for The Daily Signal and host of “The Daily Signal Podcast” and “Problematic Women.” Send an email to Virginia. On X: @Virginia_Allen5.

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief news correspondent and manager of the Investigative Reporting Project for The Daily Signal. He is the author of “The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections.” Send an email to Fred. On X: @FredLucasWH.

Elizabeth Mitchell

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell is a reporting fellow for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Daily Signal Podcast.” Send her an email. On X: @ElizTroutman.

Related Posts:

4 Senators Confront Secret Service Director at GOP Convention About Trump Shooting

House Subpoenas Secret Service Chief Over Trump Assassination Attempt

‘I Don’t See How She Survives,’ Senator Says of Secret Service Chief’s Job

Security Expert Analyzes Trump Shooting

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

Inducing Anti-Semitic Evil in The Soul thumbnail

Inducing Anti-Semitic Evil in The Soul

By Matthew Hausman, J.D.

The misuse of language induces antisemitism, to paraphrase Socrates.

The philosopher Socrates once wrote that “the misuse of language induces evil in the soul” and this maxim pretty much sums up the sanctification of Hamas and vilification of Israel since October 7th. There should be no question about the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas or its goal of exterminating Jews globally. And yet, progressive voices the world over misuse language to describe the rape of Jewish women and girls, murder of Jewish civilians, decapitation of Jewish babies, and taking of Jewish hostages as “acts of resistance.”

Even liberals who identify as moderate have urged Israeli restraint, suggested that Israel’s conduct provokes terrorism, or trumpeted concern for Gazans whom Hamas, not Israel, has put in harm’s way. If their worry over civilian safety were truly sincere, however, they would be exhorting terrorists – not Israelis – to stop using human shields. Instead, public handwringing over civilian casualties has become a dog whistle for falsely accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide.

Despite suffering unspeakable horrors that violated all bounds of human decency, Israel is demeaned, and Jewish lives are devalued by the media, by university professors and students, by mainline Christian churches, and by radical Congressional Democrats who laud Hamas and rationalize or deny its brutality. And also, by Vice President Kamala Harris, who recently complimented anti-Israel campus protestors for “showing exactly what the human emotion should be.”

Really?

Not even Socrates could have imagined such linguistic nonsense. Israel is described as “colonial” although the Jews’ presence in their homeland goes back thousands of years before any Arab occupation.

Jews are described as “oppressors” though they were the ones who were subjugated, abused, and dispossessed after the Arab conquest.

Despite lacking any documented provenance, the Palestinian-Arabs are described as “aboriginal” when in fact Arab-Muslim culture was imposed on the region through jihadist colonialism and the Jews are indigenous to the region.

And as antisemitic crime drastically increases, Jews are portrayed as “provocateurs”. One recent example was an anti-Israel demonstration outside congregation Adas Torah in Los Angeles by masked hooligans who blocked access and threatened those who came to the synagogue’s defense, while police on the scene reportedly facilitated the mob’s agenda by initially discouraging Jews from entering or leaving the building. Little was done to disperse the demonstrators, who continued to threaten and harass congregants and obstruct the use of private property.

Undoubtedly, the police would have flexed more muscle had the protestors been attacking an abortion clinic or a gay pride event.

Not surprisingly, mainstream press coverage of the incident indulged anti-Israel sensibilities, as illustrated by a Los Angeles Times article noting the synagogue was hosting a real estate marketing event “in which at least one company [had sales listings] in the occupied West Bank,” and describing the demonstration as “the latest skirmish” in a “decades-long international battle over the expansion of Jewish settlements on land seized and occupied by Israel during its 1967 Six Day war…” The article went on to contextualize the mob’s actions by stating that building “settlements on seized Palestinian land is considered by many countries to be a violation of international law…”

Such statements are highly problematic for several reasons. First, synagogues in LA do not dictate Israeli policy. Second, it is acceptable under traditional international law for countries under attack to seize land from belligerent nations that initiate hostilities. Third, the territories liberated in 1967 were never “Palestinian land” as no such country existed at any time in history.

Israel can claim lawful ownership today because she was acting defensively when she defeated Jordan, an aggressor nation that acquired these ancestrally Jewish lands by illegal conquest in the first place. Although critics cite the Law of Belligerent Occupation and Fourth Geneva Convention to accuse Israel of unlawful occupation, these standards apply to sovereign territories captured by belligerent conquerors. They do not really apply to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem because inter alia they were not sovereign lands when Jordan seized them in 1948 or when Israel liberated them while defending herself in 1967.

Jordan’s illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 was illegitimate ab initio under international law; and consequently, Jordan did not possess lawful title when it conveyed its putative land rights to the Palestinian Authority at the beginning of the ill-conceived Oslo process. Thus, Palestinian-Arabs cannot rely on derivative Jordanian rights to claim an interest superior to that of Israel or the Jews. Nor can they assert loftier ancestral claims given the 3,500-year history of indigenous Jewish habitation that long preceded Roman, Arab, and Ottoman conquests and occupations. It is Jews who are historically indigenous, not “Palestinians,” who are relative latecomers to the Jewish homeland.

Mainstream coverage blaming Israel for the Gaza war, misstating the region’s history, depicting antisemitism as political speech, or sympathizing with terror groups like Hamas, has helped normalize Jew-hatred. As a consequence, anti-Jewish gangs have become commonplace from Los Angeles to New York, London to Paris, and east to west – only to be rationalized or validated by progressives and their media lackeys. Or by leftist politicians and vapid celebrities as an understandable reaction to Israeli “apartheid,” though Israel has never been an apartheid state. Those who claim otherwise are employing the Hitlerian “Big Lie” by repeating an outrageous mistruth so frequently that people come to believe it because of its sheer audacity.

The International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute of 2002 defines apartheid as “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” This definition clearly does not fit Israel, where ethnic and religious minorities have equal rights under the law. But it does describe communist dictatorships like China, Islamist regimes like Iran, and genocidal terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are romanticized by progressives in Congress, on college campuses, and in the urban street.

American antisemitism has exploded by nearly four-hundred percent since October 7th, but this did not occur in a vacuum and has been brewing for decades. Indeed, it became politically acceptable under President Obama, when antisemitism among his party’s leftist and identity-community bases was first ignored, then tolerated, and later weaponized to slander Israel and justify appeasement of Iran and Hamas. Since the Obama years, Democratic politicians have often blamed antisemitism on Israeli policies, though it always existed among the progressive and minority demographics they traditionally courted and considered natural allies.

The flames of hatred are fanned today by mainstream journalists and commentators, who sanitize antisemitism from progressives, minorities, and Islamists, and who engage in secular taqiyya to discount Jewish historical claims and Israeli legitimacy. The media’s pervasive anti-Israel bias is reflected by its (a) disingenuous defense of Islamic extremists as inherently peaceful and mainly reactive, (b) tendency to minimize the risk, incidence, and aims of genocidal terrorism against Jews and Israel, and (c) false assurances of Palestinian “moderation” despite the extremist goals of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PA – and the repudiation of Jewish sovereignty by most Palestinian-Arabs.

Too much energy has been wasted by well-meaning advocates who justify Israel’s existence as a beacon of western democracy, political freedoms, and social equality. And while all this may be true, Israel’s raison d’Etre is that she is a sovereign Jewish nation in the Jews’ ancient homeland. No other independent nation ever existed there – from the time of the Dispersion to the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in 1948.

Israel’s existence does not depend on whether she is a democracy or republic, or whether her leaders are liberal or conservative. Israel exists as the homeland of an ancient people who maintained their religious, physical, and national connections to the land and covenantal birthright throughout the millennia. This connection is both spiritual and corporeal and remains unbroken to the present day.

Israel is first and foremost a Jewish nation regardless of governmental form. Moreover, she is not a melting pot, but rather a patchwork where individual and minority rights are respected as long as they do not threaten her security and continuity as a Jewish state. No other country would be expected to risk national suicide by submitting to mortal enemies who oppose its very existence.

When all is said and done, Israel’s Jewish character is her truth, regardless of what the world might say or think. As stated by Rambam (Maimonides) eight centuries ago: “truth does not become truer by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.” (Moreh Nevuchim, 2:15.)

©2024. Matthew Hausman, J.D. All rights reserved.

WaPo Columnist Max Boot’s WIFE IS INDICTED FOR SPYING, Working Covertly for a Foreign Government! thumbnail

WaPo Columnist Max Boot’s WIFE IS INDICTED FOR SPYING, Working Covertly for a Foreign Government!

By The Geller Report

These scumbags accuse their political opponents of what they themselves are guilty of. And yet they have extraordinary power, given massive platforms and that has not changed.

WaPo Columnist Max Boot Accused Trump Figures of Acting as Foreign Agents. Now, His Wife Is Accused of Working Covertly for a Foreign Government

By: Washington Free Beacon, July 18, 2024

During the Trump administration, Washington Post columnist Max Boot called for “ramp[ed] up enforcement” of foreign agent laws to curb “foreign influence” in American politics. The federal government has indeed beefed up enforcement of those statutes, but it may have hit closer to home than Boot expected.

Boot’s wife, former CIA analyst Sue Mi Terry, was indicted on charges this week for acting as an unregistered foreign agent of South Korea. Terry, an Asia expert at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, is accused of working covertly for South Korea’s intelligence service for more than a decade. She allegedly helped her South Korean handlers gain access to congressional staffers and other powerful Washington, D.C., figures. In 2022, she met with Secretary of State Tony Blinken and allowed her South Korean handler to photograph notes from the meeting, prosecutors allege. In exchange for her service, Terry received a $2,845 Dolce & Gabbana coat, a $2,950 Bottega Veneta handbag, a $3,450 Louis Vuitton handbag, and $37,000 in cash for an “unrestricted” account she controlled at a think tank where she worked.

According to the Terry indictment, the FBI uncovered those items and a cell phone during a search of the Terry-Boot home on June 5, 2023.

It’s an ironic twist for Boot, a prominent critic of Donald Trump who has accused a number of Trump allies of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the law his wife is now accused of breaking. In 2020, Boot raised questions about whether Trump national intelligence director Richard Grenell had violated FARA by working on behalf of the Hungarian government.

Boot, a 2019 Free Beacon “Man of the Year,” called on Washington that same year to “ramp up enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act” and to “expand U.S. counterintelligence efforts against foreign influence, not just espionage.” Boot, who was mostly concerned with Russia’s malign activities, argued the federal government should focus not on forcing foreign agents to comply with FARA, but instead on “punishing noncompliant parties.”

Boot was a leading proponent of the since-debunked theory that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. At the height of Russiagate, Boot asserted the Steele dossier, a salacious 35-page document that claimed Russia blackmailed Trump, was “credible” and had been largely “corroborated.” Since then, the dossier has been almost entirely debunked, and its primary source indicted for lying to the FBI.

Boot has not been accused of breaking the law, but it remains to be seen if he violated journalistic ethics. The Post said it is “reviewing the indictment” and remains “committed to publishing independent journalism.”

Boot wrote a number of Post columns with his wife, who prosecutors say coordinated with Korean officials on at least one of those articles. The piece, published on March 7, 2023, praised South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol as a “profile in courage” for “taking a brave step toward resolving a long-festering, historical dispute with Japan.”

According to prosecutors, Terry wrote “hope you liked the article” to her Korean government contact. “Thank you so much for your zeal and endeavors! Of course we do. Actually, Ambassador and National Security Advisor were so happy for your column,” the official replied, according to prosecutors.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Threatens Hamas Terrorists: Return Hostages Before I Assume Office or Face Severe Consequences, “You Will be Paying a VERY Big Price.”

The Shot That Changed America and the World

Trump Vows to Deport Terror Supporting Students

Whistleblowers: MOST of Trump’s Security Detail Working Assassination Attempt were NOT EVEN SECRET SERVICE

MADNESS: One-Third of Democrats Believe Conspiracy Theory That Trump Staged Assassination Attempt

Muslim Migrants Violently Rioting, Attacking Police and Burning their Communities in London and Leeds

POSTS ON X:

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

Whistleblowers: MOST of Trump’s Security Detail Working Assassination Attempt were NOT EVEN SECRET SERVICE thumbnail

Whistleblowers: MOST of Trump’s Security Detail Working Assassination Attempt were NOT EVEN SECRET SERVICE

By The Geller Report

Smelly AF. Something is rotten in Butler.

United States Secret Service was FULLY AWARE OF THREAT before President Trump took the stage.. “This all happened more than a hour before the shooting took place.” “About 10 minutes before President Trump had went on the stage they had gone from looking at this guy as suspicious to now looking at him as a threat.” (Chuck Callesto on X)

What in the world is going on inside the Secret Service? — Josh Hawley

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., joins ‘Your World’ to discuss Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s Senate Homeland Security Committee briefing, saying she did ‘hardly any briefing.’

VIDEOS:

BREAKING: Whistleblowers allege hardly any Secret Service agents at Trump rally during shooting

U.S. Senator’s Bombshell On Trump Attack: ‘Security Detail At Rally Were Not Even Secret Service’

Secret Service Director Slammed for ‘Pathetic’ Excuse

POSTS ON X:

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Team Crippled Trump’s Security To Allow Murder Attempt

Witnesses frantically tried to warn police of rifle-carrying sniper on roof before Trump assassination attempt
Inbox

Secret Service Tells Senators Shooter ‘Identified’ Roughly 50 Mins Before Trump Took Rally Stage, Sources Say

Report: Trump Rally Assassin Hid Gun On Site Before The Event

GOP Senators Confront Secret Service Director at RNC, the DEI Failure REFUSED to Answer Any Questions

Biden Regime Stonewalls Congressional Investigation into Assassination Attempt

Failed Secret Service Director Gives Absurd Reason Why an Agent Wasn’t on Roof where Assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks Opened Fire on Trump

Secret Service Had Eyes on Trump Shooter 30 Minutes Before the Assassination Attempt and Let It Happen

Democrat Powerbroker and Megadonor Who Tried to Push Narrative That Trump Staged His Own Assassination Visited White House at Least 10 Times

WATCH: Democrats Explicitly Calling for Political Violence

Secret Service Lied, Trump Was Denied Protection

Democrats Have Been Trying To Strip Trump’s Secret Service Protection Just Months Before Shooting

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

Biden Admin. Stonewalls Congressional Investigation into Assassination Attempt thumbnail

Biden Admin. Stonewalls Congressional Investigation into Assassination Attempt

By Family Research Council

The Biden administration has intervened to prevent the Secret Service from briefing a House committee investigating the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, a member of the committee told Family Research Council.

“After the Secret Service agreed to brief members of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security took over communications with the committee and has since refused to confirm a briefing time,” said a statement from the Oversight Committee emailed to FRC from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.). “The Oversight Committee has a long record of bipartisan oversight of the Secret Service, and the unprofessionalism we are witnessing from the current DHS leadership is unacceptable.”

“We were scheduled for a first briefing today,” confirmed Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas), but “DHS has stepped in between the communications now of the Secret Service and the Oversight Committee, and are now trying to control the communication between the two committees.”

“Already they’re obfuscating, it would seem,” said Cloud.

The briefing to the House Oversight Committee would precede a full committee hearing on the Trump assassination attempt with the director of the Secret Service, Kim Cheatle, next Monday, July 22, at 10 a.m. Cloud noted that Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has issued subpoenas to assure Cheatle shows up.

At least three congressional committees are now investigating the near-fatal shooting in Butler, Pa. last Saturday. In addition to the House Oversight Committee hearing, Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) announced the House Judiciary Committee plans to question FBI Director Christopher Wray next Wednesday. And the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), will interview the leaders of the DHS, FBI, and Secret Service.

“The United States Secret Service has a no-fail mission, yet it failed on Saturday when a madman attempted to assassinate President Trump, killed an innocent victim, and harmed others. … [Q]uestions remain about how a rooftop within proximity to President Trump was left unsecure,” said Comer. “Americans demand answers from Director Kimberly Cheatle about these security lapses and how we can prevent this from happening again.”

Several questions hang over the Secret Service’s handling of the near-fatal shooting by 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired eight shots from the top of the AGR International Inc. factory.

Tim Miller, a former Secret Service agent and founder of Lionheart International Services Group, told Perkins, “One of the first things you start with as a site agent, and we learned this in November of 1963,” is to ask, “‘Where are the high places where someone with a rifle could shoot and kill the president?’”

“Unfortunately, the biggest thing that we look at from day one was missed,” said Miller.

Cheatle admitted she placed agents inside the building from which the shooter staged his attempted murder instead of on top of it, because the structure had a sloped roof. Apparently, the Secret Service inside the building could not hear the shooter climbing the side of the business and walking on the roof above them.

Numerous eyewitnesses alerted law enforcement to the presence of a man on the roof with a rifle.

A policeman from the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit took a picture of Crooks and called in a suspicious presence at 5:45 p.m., 28 minutes before the shooting, according to local reporter Nicole Ford of WPXI.

Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) told CNN Tuesday morning that the Secret Service’s serial failures were so amateurish that authorities must investigate whether they were “intentional,” or merely incompetence. “The amount of negligence, the amount of mistakes that were made here, I have a very difficult time not leading myself towards [thinking] this was intentional instead of fecklessness.” He called for Congress to establish a “J-13 commission,” apparently similar to the January 6 Committee.

“These are not difficult advances,” said Mills, a former military sniper. “This is not a political thing,” he said. The American people need “a proper investigation on all levels to ensure this doesn’t happen again and our president can be safe.”

“I’ve been making my own calls to Secret Service agents that I know that are willing to talk to me off the record. And there are a lot of severe problems,” revealed Biggs on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “I would like to find out who is the lead agent who got there and ran the advance. I want to see what the agent asked for as far as material, manpower, etc., and whether he was denied some of that. The other thing I would like to know is where [were] the counter snipers? Were they green-lighted, or were they told that they were going to have to hold? And if they were told they were going to have to hold, I want to know who the supervisor was who made the determination to hold. And when they saw the actual shooter.”

Like many others, Biggs blamed a politically correct culture focused on “equity” rather than quality in hiring Secret Service agents.

“Cheatle has put a focus on DEI,” said Biggs. Cheatle announced she aimed to assure that 30% of Secret Service agents are female by 2030. In 2021, more women than men graduated from the service’s training classes. “This is all about DEI,” said Biggs. He charged Cheatle with laying aside “merit-based hirings” and becoming “willing to take anybody that she thinks” meets “her diversity goals.”

“That’s not the way their mission is designed,” said Biggs. “The DEI hires are so bad.”

Several female Secret Service agents appeared unable to cover Trump’s head on Saturday evening, or even to holster their pistols safely.

Miller said, due to the director’s laser-like focus on DEI — which the Biden-Harris administration has made a whole-of-government undertaking — members of preferred classes “are not being evaluated” thoroughly before being hired. “They’re actually saying, ‘Oh, well, you’re this particular group, so come on in.’ And I think that will compromise the mission.”

“There are a lot of problems and challenges,” said Miller. “And it starts with saying, ‘We’re not going to hire the brightest and the best. We’re only going to hire’” members of specified demographic groups.

These groups tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party.

The Biden administration doubled down on its decision to elevate accidents of birth in the hiring process. “Our strength comes from our diversity,” stated Secret Service Chief of Communications Anthony Guglielmi.

The Biden administration has strongly supported Cheatle, who spent 27 years in the Secret Service, including several years on then-Vice President Biden’s security detail, insisting her leadership is not to blame. “I have 100% confidence in the director of the United States Secret Service, a dedicated, career-long law enforcement officer,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told NPR.

But Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he posed probing questions to Mayorkas “within hours” of the shooting. “He didn’t have a lot of those answers,” said Johnson, who called the impeached secretary’s responses “concerning.”

President Trump’s security team transformed dramatically between his shooting and the moment he entered the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. On Monday evening, Trump strode into the Fiserv Forum to the strains of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” flanked by at least 10 male Secret Service agents and one female.

Critics say the Biden administration has a history of treating the American people as enemies, unworthy of knowing the inner workings of their own government. “This is coming from the same administration who was labeling Catholics as terrorists, people who go to school board meetings as terrorists, yet they fail to protect a former president of the United States and a political opponent. We’ve seen this administration target political opponents before,” said Cloud.

A Senate committee is set to receive a briefing on Wednesday. “It’ll be just the tip of the iceberg,” Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) told “Mornings with Maria” Wednesday morning.

Next Monday’s House Oversight Committee hearing will be livestreamed on the committee’s website, oversight.house.gov.

Biggs acknowledged the heroism and how “the first agent hops up on that podium right away [and] doesn’t look towards where the shot came from. He’s going in to provide cover,” he recounted, even at the potential cost of his life. Comer also saluted “the brave Secret Service members who put their lives at risk to protect President Trump and for the American patriots in the audience who helped innocent victims.”

“There was good, bad, and ugly in this incident with Donald Trump,” said Biggs.

But the bad and the ugly leave disturbing questions House Republicans promise to investigate until the end.

“What we saw play out on Saturday night is the greatest indicator that we have a problem that we are refusing to look in the eye and deal with,” said Miller, “and that’s going to lead to nothing but danger and destruction down the road.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

An ‘Affirmation of the Gift of Life’: A Christian Response to the Assassination Attempt

‘Divine Intervention’: Trump’s Survival Proves ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Do Matter

After the Party in Milwaukee, an Avalanche of Appropriations Await

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 Attempted Assassination — Part 2 thumbnail

The Attempted Assassination — Part 2

By John Droz, Jr.

This is a good time for some critical thinking.


By now there are likely a thousand articles written about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. For those who missed it, this was my initial commentary — and it still remains rather original in tone and perspective. Many of the others are quite good and I cited several examples as references (see the end of my prior post).

One that deserves special attention is the commentary by Dr. Robert Malone. Although it is too long and covers too many topics, the gist of it is important: it discusses evil. We tend to think of evil people as those who have corrupted standards (immorality, greed, etc.). Also, Thomas Crooks doesn’t really look like an evil person…

Dr. Malone’s point is that much of the evil we see is actually due to banality. This means rather than being a bad person, such an individual is “devoid of qualities that make for spirit and character.” There is a difference!

As a sideline, this is a significant part of what is missing in K-12 public education. Instead of teaching students to have Judeo-Christian values, they are taught Social Emotional Learning (SEL).

Another major consideration is about the qualifications of federal employees — like Secret Service personnel. Which is more important: to have such people be qualified, Critical Thinkers, or to have them be hired because of DEI criteria? Based on multiple reports of inexplicable behavior by various law enforcement personnel in this situation, the answer should be obvious.

Note: the only mention I could find on the Homeland Security site about Critical Thinking is that it is a part of the UDEE exam. Kudos for that being there. It’s too bad that it doesn’t get the emphasis that DEI, etc. do.

Back to Dr. Malone, who goes on to cite Hannah Arendt from her 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. Some salient parts for my readers are:

“Arendt’s intention was to highlight the fact that evil is not necessarily driven by a desire for destruction or chaos, but rather by a lack of thought and consideration for the consequences of one’s actions.

“The banality of evil refers to the fact that evil can be committed by ordinary, unremarkable people who are not driven by a desire for evil, but rather by a lack of moral imagination and a failure to think critically about the consequences of their actions.

“This concept highlights the importance of critical thinking and moral imagination in preventing evil. It suggests that individuals must be able to think critically about the consequences of their actions and consider the potential impact on others in order to avoid committing evil.”

Once again the takeaway is the profound importance of Critical Thinking, in almost every aspect of life. We simply MUST start properly teaching this in K-12 schools, quickly.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Jack Smith’s Other Big Trump Case Could Go Down In Flames After Judge Finds His Appointment ‘Unconstitutional’ thumbnail

Jack Smith’s Other Big Trump Case Could Go Down In Flames After Judge Finds His Appointment ‘Unconstitutional’

By The Daily Caller

A judge’s Monday decision finding special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment “unconstitutional” will almost inevitably end up before the Supreme Court, potentially dooming Trump’s Jan. 6 case along with his classified documents case.

Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not have the authority to appoint Smith, a private citizen who was also never appointed by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, to prosecute the case against Trump. Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case — which comes just weeks after the Supreme Court agreed that former presidents have immunity for official acts committed in office — is good news for Trump that will not be limited to the prosecution in Florida but will likely impact Smith’s other prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C.

“The Mar-a-Lago documents case has long been considered the strongest one against Trump,” former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “With this decision, it is now indefinitely prolonged and may even fall away.”

Smith will appeal the ruling, his office said Monday. Smith could appeal Cannon’s ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will take time and will likely result in a circuit split that would make a Supreme Court review almost certain.

“Although Judge Cannon will, no doubt, be attacked by the Left as a political hack who is doing Trump’s bidding, this would be a grossly unfair characterization,” John Malcolm, vice president for the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government and former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Criminal Division, told the DCNF.

Malcolm said Cannon’s 93-page ruling “should be judged on its merits, not on whether someone likes or dislikes the outcome of this particular case.”

“Indeed, the appointment of special prosecutors vested with almost unlimited authority and without any input from the legislature was one of the grievances cited against King George III in the Declaration of Independence and is the reason why the Constitution’s Appointments Clause was crafted to give Congress a role in the appointment of special prosecutors,” he told the DCNF. “Cannon’s opinion points out precisely why Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith violates the Constitution, since Congress never passed a statute giving Garland such authority.”

Trump’s case brought by Smith in Washington, D.C., where Trump was indicted on four counts for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, will likely be impacted by Cannon’s decision.

“Technically [District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan] is not bound by Cannon’s decision, and based on her hostility to Trump in the past she likely will not follow it,” Moreno told the DCNF. “But this allows Trump to raise the same issue and, again, knowing that the Supreme Court will ultimately back him.”

The D.C. Circuit previously rejected the argument Cannon accepted when it ruled on a challenge to special counsel Bob Mueller’s appointment in February 2019. This means Cannon’s ruling likely won’t have an immediate effect on Trump’s other case, Malcolm told the DCNF.

“That is the law in the D.C. Circuit, where the Jan. 6 case is pending,” he said.

“The issue of the appointment of Smith should equally impact both the [Florida] and D.C. case, but given the differing positions of the judges to date, they will likely remain in contradiction of one another until this case goes up on appeal,” former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasy told the DCNF. “Even at the Circuit Court level, there will likely remain division, and it will have to go to SCOTUS for clear direction.”

Justice Clarence Thomas weighed in on the issue in his concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, signaling his belief that Smith’s prosecution “may violate our constitutional structure.”

Cherkasky said “it’s unclear whether the other justices will agree” with Thomas since “that issue was not specifically before the Court.”

“It will be many months of discussions within the Court to arrive at a majority opinion on this issue, and there is not good precedent to predict how they will decide this issue,” he told the DCNF.

Moreno argued that dropping the case entirely would likely “be the smartest political decision” in light of Biden’s “own history in mishandling classified documents.”

“Bottom line is that based on last week’s assassination of Trump, President Biden can appear to be a conciliatory force he can drop these cases all of which have significant legal questions and political ramifications,” Moreno told the DCNF. “If he is serious about tamping down the hostility and anger in our nation today, let’s hope he actually backs his words with action.”

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judge Dismisses Trump’s Classified Documents Case Based On Jack Smith’s Unlawful Appointment

Jack Smith And Fani Willis Have ‘Little Left’ To Throw At Trump After Immunity Ruling

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

Blood on their hands: Trump’s near-assassination did not come out of nowhere thumbnail

Blood on their hands: Trump’s near-assassination did not come out of nowhere

By Center For Security Policy

The drumbeat of demonization that led to former U.S. president and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s near-assassination did not begin on Saturday, July 13, 2024.

The attempt on Trump’s life is the fruit of what billionaires and nefarious interests have been sowing for many years in both Israel and the United States.

What’s worse is that their collusion for chaos and delegitimization of popular sentiment has given the green light to political violence, all in the name of upholding “democracy.”

Caroline Glick unpacks this and more on her “In-Focus!”

AUTHOR

Caroline Glick

Caroline B. Glick is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy. She is a senior columnist at Israel Hayom and the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown Forum, 2014). From 1994 to 1996, she served as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Securing America – The attempted assassination of Donald Trump

FIRE the Secret Service Director!

RELATED VIDEO: GOD SO LOVED…THAT HE SHIELDED DONALD TRUMP

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

VA Official Says Agency Won’t Follow Law Protecting Veterans Gun Rights If Passed thumbnail

VA Official Says Agency Won’t Follow Law Protecting Veterans Gun Rights If Passed

By Royal A. Brown III

Please contact your Congresspersons and ask them about their position on this travesty of our Constitutional rights.

Call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 — ask the operator to connect you to their office. Leave a message with Staffer or answering machine if a Staffer doesn’t answer!


VA Official Says Agency Won’t Follow Law Protecting Veterans Gun Rights If Passed

By Mark Chesnut

Debate over federal legislation designed to protect veterans from having their gun rights infringed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs simply for having someone help them with their finances is getting contentious.

A U.S. House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday focused on the “Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,” which would reverse the policy for reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS)  when a veteran has appointed a financial fiduciary to handle his or her monetary affairs. The VA deems a veteran appointing a fiduciary to be mentally incompetent, barring them from purchasing a firearm as a result.

Veteran supporters and pro-gun advocates believe the VA reporting such an occurrence to NICS makes veterans in need of help less likely to ask for fear they’ll be denied their Second Amendment rights.

VA officials, however, vehemently disagree. And at the hearing, one said that if Congress should pass such a law, the VA would not comply with it.

According to a report at freebasenews.com, VA Deputy Undersecretary Glenn Powers testified that his department opposes the act. Additionally, he said the VA already provides a sufficient method for beneficiaries who have been reported to NICS to “petition for relief.”

“VA did not err in reporting, and if passed into law VA could not comply,” Powers said.

Of course, “petitioning for relief” after one has lost their gun rights isn’t what the Second Amendment is all about. “Shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean “Infringe and then see if you can get your rights back.” It’s akin to unconstitutional “red-flag” laws that allow the government to confiscate weapons because of possibly baseless accusations, then make the gun owner go to court and prove they deserve to have their firearms returned.

Speaking of such laws, Powers also said the VA would oppose a forthcoming bill that would bar the VA from joining in support of “red-flag” laws, also called extreme risk protective orders (ERPOs). Powers said that legislation “places the security and safety of veterans their families and communities at risk and ultimately prevents VA from providing appropriate care for some of our most vulnerable veterans.”

Of course, the VA undersecretary’s declaration that the agency would not follow a law if legally passed by Congress didn’t set well with supporters in the House, including Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Montana.

“Well, I’m glad everybody hears that on the record—that the VA is going to refuse to comply regardless of what we actually pass here,” Rep. Rosendale said.

©2024. Royal A. Brown III. All rights reserved.

The Boot of J6 Tyranny Crushed Veterans in 1932 thumbnail

The Boot of J6 Tyranny Crushed Veterans in 1932

By Kelleigh Nelson

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”  — John Adams, Notes for an Oration at Braintree, Massachusetts, 1772

“Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.”  — Edmund Burke

“The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised.”  — John C. Calhoun

“When all government …in little as in great things… shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power; it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”  — Thomas Jefferson


American Revolutionary, Thomas Paine, told us, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Those of us who have been blessed with more than three score and ten years have seen some of the best times in America and some of the worst.

I grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons like Mighty Mouse and Tom and Jerry, half-hour shows like Hopalong Cassidy and Plunk Your Magic Twanger Froggy with Andy Devine, Sky King, Kukla Fran and Ollie, Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop and so many more.  We still remember the jingles from the cartoon shows.  And yes, I know my telephone number from way back then, Hollycourt 5-9189.

It’s our childhood history.  Four-wheel roller skates, ice skating in winter and bicycling everywhere in the summer.  Hopscotch, jump rope and ballgames in the alleys. Thank heavens we never jumped off a third-floor landing believing we could fly with an umbrella like Mary Poppins.

In those days, TV went off air at midnight and the national anthem was played before a test pattern showed on the screen.

It was post-WWII, the country was growing with new families, jobs were plentiful and people were happy.  Our country had made mistakes, but we also tried to rectify and repair our missteps.

Underneath it all, a silent evil was growing and we’ve come to see our people change.  Proper attire is gone, profanity has become common, respect for elders has been extinguished and revolutions in psychiatry, popular culture and jurisprudence have removed nearly all sense of immoral and illegal from the notion of perversion. Squalor, disease and filth riddle America’s largest cities with vagrants, homelessness and drugs.  Phonics and cursive writing have been stricken from education along with our Constitution, American history, world history, civics, math, science, biology, English grammar and literature, foreign languages, art, geology, etc.

Worse yet, historical monuments are torn down or destroyed, southern veterans are exhumed and reinterred, and our past, both good and bad are forever erased.

That’s communism.  They rewrite history, destroy cultural artifacts, suppress dissenting voices and create false narratives.

Outward appearances were beautiful but underneath wickedness was growing.

Rebellions

January 6, 2021 was not an insurrection.  It was a gathering of 2000 to 2500 patriotic Americans in Washington D.C. to hear President Trump speak and to voice their concerns regarding the election we all knew was fraudulent.  People died that day, and others who were there have since perished.

What occurred on January 6, was planned and executed by the Culmination of Marxist Infiltration within our intelligence community. It wasn’t the first time it happened.

Ninety-two years ago, the heavy boot of the federal government came down on WWI veterans.

The following seven-minute video is an overview of the WWI Bonus Marchers.

Rebellion goes back as far as the 1786-1787 Shay’s Rebellion in Western Massachusetts with the state government’s efforts to collect taxes on both individuals and their trades due to a debt crisis.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of assembly and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  It doesn’t guarantee lawlessness on the side of protestors or government.

Incidents of civil unrest are littered throughout our history, and some include dastardly mistreatment of Americans.

Throughout its history, Washington, DC has been the destination of demonstrators seeking to promote a wide variety of causes. Most of the time, the gatherings have been peaceful.

In 1932, we saw the “Bonus Army” of WWI veterans gather in D.C.

American soldiers fought in World War I on the Western Front in France and Belgium as part of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF). The AEF was established in France in July 1917 under the command of Major General John J. Pershing.  My paternal grandfather had just graduated from the Presidio in California and was off to France for two years.

A bonus and other plans for the reward of millions of young men who sacrificed themselves at a critical age for the preservation of civilization was promised, most expected it to come from the federal government.  Many states passed legislation promising funds and education to the men who had returned from war.  Sixteen states enacted substantial legislation on the subject.  A cash bonus was to go to approximately 1,148,297 ex-servicemen in eight States.

Eleven of the 16 states encouraged the men to continue their education and gave them scholarships of several hundred per year or paid veterans for education costs.  Eight states, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island gave a total cash bonus of $119,600,000.  The funds were raised by bonds and taxes.

In 1924, the US government promised the servicemen they would receive a bonus for their WWI service in 1945.  In 1929, the Great Depression hit with the stock market collapse.  By 1932, the depression was ongoing and was taking its toll.  The fence around my grandparents’ dairy farm had chalk marks on it denoting that food could be had in exchange for help on the farm.

Sheer desperation caused many of the veterans to ask for their bonuses early.  If there was an official beginning of the march on D.C., it started in Portland, Oregon under veteran Walter W. Waters who became the Commander of the Bonus Expeditionary Force.  Waters recalled the high unemployment and low morale he witnessed on the streets of Portland, Oregon, during the first years of the Great Depression.  He said that he found family after family in the same general condition or worse. “I saw men half clad, in threadbare clothing, pacing the streets in soleless shoes.”  All they wanted was a chance at a few dollars through honest work.

In December of 1931, there was a small, communist-led hunger march on Washington; a few weeks later, a Pittsburgh priest led an army of 12,000 jobless men there to agitate for unemployment legislation. In March a riot at a plant in Michigan left four dead and over fifty wounded.

When a band of jobless veterans, led by the former cannery worker named Walter W. Waters, began arriving in the capital in May, tensions were high. They called themselves the “Bonus Expeditionary Forces,” and all they wanted was early payment of a bonus Congress had promised them.

Waters led the veterans to demand the Hoover administration paid them what they were owed.  The name, “Bonus,” was an oxymoron inasmuch as it was money that had been promised to those who went off to war.

Jobs would have helped, but there were none.  The veterans needed that lump sum from the government to pay debts, doctor bills, credit accounts and to feed their families.

Four hundred veterans had gathered in Portland and began the long trek to DC via freight train loaned to them by the rail authorities. They exited the train in Iowa and walked or hitched rides to DC.  Other groups had already reached their destination and by June 1, 1932, 1500 men, many with their families, were in DC.

D.C. police superintendent, Brigadier General Pelham D. Glassford was more sympathetic to the men.  He understood immediately the men and their families coming down the street.  For weeks the newspapers had carried stories of marchers bound for the nation’s capital.

They were heading to Washington to collect payment of the “bonus” promised eight years before to soldiers who had served in the Great War.  (Wrangling over the federal budget in 1924 had deferred the compensation to 1945.)  By 1932, the men who called themselves the Bonus Army, were dubbing the deferred payment the “Tombstone Bonus,” because they felt that by the time they got it, most of them would be dead.

When Glassford got to his office, the newspapers were reporting the progress of veterans from all over the country, many coming on freight trains from various locals.  He didn’t know where all these people would be able to stay.

He chose a tract of land known as Anacostia Flats, at the outer reaches of the District of Columbia, which could only be reached from Capitol Hill by a wooden drawbridge across the Anacostia River.

He helped with the camp as best he could, even adding $773 out of his own pocket for provisions.  Piles of building materials and boxes of nails were supplied and he solicited food from local merchants.

The first contingent arrived May 23, but over the next two months, another 25,000 with wives and children arrived to stake their claim to what they felt was their due.

They camped out in homemade shanty towns. The major sites included 12th Street and B Street, NW (the latter is now Constitution Avenue), 3rd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, and the largest, 30-acre site on the Anacostia Flats which Glassford secured for them.  It was called Camp Bartlett because the former Assistant Postmaster General and former Governor of New Hampshire allowed the men to camp on his property.

Glassford asked congress for $75,000 to feed all of them and was turned down.  In middle to late June the U.S. House of Representatives did in fact vote to provide the bonus, but the U.S, Senate rejected it and President Herbert Hoover had promised to veto the bill.

Over the next few unsettled weeks, some of the veterans left, but many more showed up. By July, more than 20,000 veterans and their families had arrived in the nation’s capital. They established a tent city and vowed to stay until their demands were met.

Against Their Own

On July 28th, the Hoover administration sent in the army and police to expel the marchers.  Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur was convinced that the march was a communist conspiracy to undermine the government of the United States, and that “the movement was actually far deeper and more dangerous than an effort to secure funds from a nearly depleted federal treasury.” But that was simply not the case.

According to journalist and eyewitness Joseph C. Harsch, “This was not a revolutionary situation. This was a bunch of people in great distress wanting help…. These were simply veterans from World War I who were out of luck, out of money, and wanted to get their bonus, and they needed the money at that moment.”

Conspicuously led by MacArthur, who would later serve in WWII and the Korean War, Army troops (including Major George S. Patton, Jr.) formed infantry cordons and began pushing the veterans out, destroying their makeshift camps as they went. His troops included infantry and cavalry and numbered 800, though an additional 2,700 were kept in reserve nearby, in case they were needed.

One of the veterans Patton rousted was Joe Angelo, who had saved Patton’s life in WWI.  He had dragged Patton into a shell hole and stayed with him through the night.

None of the veterans wanted to leave; they needed the funds the government had promised.  So, what did the army do?  They used tear gas and bayonets on them to roust them and torches to set fire to their tents and what few belongings they had.  The camp saw something new … five tanks, armed with machine guns, rumbling about the streets of Washington. Although no weapons were fired, cavalry advanced with swords drawn, and some blood was shed. By nightfall, hundreds had been injured by tear gas (including a baby who died), bricks, clubs, bayonets, and sabers.

The veterans ran to Camp Bartlett because it was privately owned land and the army had orders to clear federal land.  But it didn’t help, they had orders to clear Bartlett’s land as well.

One fatality was recorded, although I have my doubts about only one.   A veteran named William Hashka, from Chicago, was caught in police fire near the US Capitol.

The most controversial moment in the entire affair directly involved General MacArthur.  Secretary of War Hurley twice sent orders to MacArthur indicating that the President worried that the government overreach might look too harsh.  He did not want the Army to pursue the veterans across the bridge into their main encampment on the other side of the Anacostia River.

MacArthur, according to his aid, Dwight Eisenhower, “said he was too busy,” and did not want to be “bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders.”  He sent his men across the bridge anyway but paused several hours to allow many to evacuate.  A fire erupted in the camp although it’s not clear who started the blaze.  The sight of the great fire became the signature image of the greatest unrest our nation’s capital has ever known.

Although many Americans applauded the government’s action as an unfortunate but necessary move to maintain law and order, most of the press was less sympathetic. “Flames rose high over the desolate Anacostia flats at midnight tonight,” read the first sentence of the “New York Times” account, “and a pitiful stream of refugee veterans of the World War walked out of their home of the past two months, going they knew not where.”

Media Lies

After it was over, Hoover released a statement on July 28th.  He twice referred to the veterans as “the so-called Bonus marchers.”  He also claimed, “An examination of a large number of names discloses the fact that a considerable part of those remaining are not veterans; many are Communists and persons with criminal records.”

By 1932, there were plenty of active communists in America, but many of the men had brought their families, and had little with them to survive.  They just wanted what was owed them and the only way to get it was to camp on the doorstep of the people who promised them the money.  The veterans were virulently anti-communist.

MacArthur backed the government by making the statement, “it was animated by the essence of revolution.”  He then said that only about 10% of the men there were veterans.  Sound familiar?  The J6ers were called “domestic terrorists.”

Pelham Davis Glassford was a United States Army officer who attained the rank of brigadier general during World War I. He later served as Superintendent of the District of Columbia Police Department, and was in large measure held responsible for the violence that ended the 1932 Bonus Army protests.  He claimed that he had not wanted the army involved, and that there were peaceful ways to have coerced the men into leaving.  He blamed the “removal order” for causing all the trouble.

Out of 30 newspapers, 21 of them supported the administration’s orders.  The Ohio State Journal, of Columbus, Ohio wrote: “President Hoover chose the course that Lincoln chose, that presidents have always chosen.”

My how I disagree with that statement.

The Chicago Herald and Examiner, referring to President Hoover by name, called his actions “sheer stupidity” that were “without parallel in American annals.”

In 1936, Congress had to override President Roosevelt’s veto of the bonus funds to WWI vets.  They finally received the funds, 17 years after WWI.

In 1944, while World War II was still raging, Congress passed the G.I. Bill of Rights, to assist veterans in receiving a higher education.

Finally, the government promise was kept.

Conclusion

On October 30, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama stated, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  He completed his mission with the Culmination of Marxist Infiltration.

May the patriots of January 6th finally see true justice and freedom.

©2024. Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

The Assassination Attempt An inside job? thumbnail

The Assassination Attempt An inside job?

By Kelleigh Nelson

“They still have negligent auditing, they still have things going for a walk, and they have no idea where they’re coming from, and they have no idea where they’re going. And if that’s the case, how can we, as the public, trust the NSA with all of our information, with all of our private records, the permanent record of our lives?”  — Edward Snowden

“Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.”  — Isaac Asimov

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson


The cell phone was sitting on the table next to my dinner plate when it chirped with an incoming text.  Normally, I would ignore it, but picked it up to see a message from my friend in Pennsylvania.

Two words…Trump shot!

We flipped on the TV to see replay after replay of the President grabbing his ear and dropping to the ground.  The people behind him dropped as well.

One secret service agent rushed up to cover him, others ran up from the sides of the stage. The agents knew they had to get him out of there as the threat was still live.  But the president was defiant.  He raised his fist to the crowd with the flag behind him and secret service agents holding onto him.

It’s a picture for the ages.  The man of the people with blood running down his face, and his fist in the air, telling the crowd, “I’m okay, they didn’t get me.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene stated on air that had Trump not turned his head the moment before that bullet struck his ear, he would have been killed. Providence, fate or the Lord’s will, saved him.

The first thing we heard was that an audience member saw a man with a rifle climbing up to a rooftop and pointed it out to police who apparently didn’t hear, didn’t see or thought it was nonsense.  Then three shots rang out and the president was hit.

Media is reporting that people on the ground saw the shooter on the roof with a rifle. They claim it was an AR15 that had been purchased by his father six months previous.  A Trump supporter videoed the shooter on the roof of the building.

Later we heard that the shooter was dead. Then we were told he was a member of Antifa.  That was dropped and next we hear, “The FBI has identified Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, as the subject involved in the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump on July 13, in Butler, Pennsylvania,” the FBI said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “This remains an active and ongoing investigation.”

Interestingly enough, they identified the shooter in record time, allegedly by DNA.

From Fox News, “Crooks was a registered Republican, according to voting records, but he only participated in the Nov. 8, 2022, state election, due to his age. Records show that he made a $15 donation to Progressive Turnout Project, a Chicago-based political action committee that supports Democrat candidates for public office and claims to advocate for ‘key Democratic constituencies: young people, minorities and low-income people.’”  Progressive Turnout Project is connected to ActBlue Technical Services.

As of May 21, 2020, ActBlue had given $119 million to the presidential campaign of Joe Biden. The worldwide Black Live Matter protests that subsequently erupted in response to the May 25 death of a black criminal suspect named George Floyd, sparked a new surge of donations to BLM via ActBlue.  Visitors to Black Lives Matter who sought to contribute funds were transported to the web page of ActBlue Charities, an organization that facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” ActBlue is the left’s favorite “Dark Money” machine.

The big question we must ask is, “How was a sniper able to gain access?”

Anyone who believes the assassination attempt on President Trump wasn’t a set-up is, in my humble opinion, not paying attention.  Director Kimberly Cheatle is the head of the Secret Service and came from a corporate entity, PepsiCo., not from inside the Secret Service ranks.  She was appointed by Joe Biden in 2022, and reports to none other than Department of Homeland Security Director, Alejandro Mayorkas.

There is no way the Secret Service would not have had men on the rooves of buildings surrounding this arena.

Buildings are always supposed to be covered by Secret Service.  Basically, they check them out beforehand, but they did not have them covered when the president was speaking.  That roof was only 400 feet from the president and was just outside the cordon of the event.

News reports state that Crooks had an initiator in his vehicle which can supposedly be used to set off bombs.  They have moved neighbors away from Crooks’ parents’ home and are searching the home for incendiaries.

The planned and executed assassination of another president thankfully failed.  Secret Service killed the patsy with a head shot.

President Ronald Reagan

On April 4, 2000, national radio host, Roger Fredinburg interviewed John Judge.  I know the exact date because I was Roger’s executive producer and I had heard Mr. Judge speak. Judge had inside information that John Hinckley did not shoot President Reagan and I wanted Roger to interview him.

On March 30, 1981, White House press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, and D.C. police officer Thomas Delahanty were wounded. All three survived, but Brady had brain damage and was permanently disabled. His death in 2014 was considered a homicide because it was ultimately caused by his injury.

President Reagan was seriously injured.

If Roger Fredinburg was still alive today, he would tell you that John Judge’s interview was one of the most important he had ever done.  Mr. Judge’s mother was an insider at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John mentioned that she knew the truth.  Watch the 13-minute video presentation by Mr. Judge.  He has the facts, facts we never heard via mainstream media.

President John F. Kennedy

On November 22,1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.  Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the murder.  Two days later, American nightclub owner Jack Ruby, shot and mortally wounded Oswald on live television in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters and was immediately arrested. In a trial, Ruby was found guilty and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were overturned on appeal, and he was granted a new trial, but he conveniently became ill, was diagnosed with cancer, and died of a pulmonary embolism on January 3, 1967.

The full documentation of President Kennedy’s murder has not been released.  CIA Director, Mike Pompeo convinced Trump not to release all of the Kennedy information despite President Trump having ordered the unveiling of 2,800 documents related to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy.  Trump yielded to pressure from the FBI and CIA to block the release of other records to be reviewed further.

In 1992, Congress had ordered that all remaining sealed files pertaining to the investigation into Kennedy’s death should be fully opened to the public through the National Archives in 25 years, by Oct. 26, 2017, except for those the president authorized for further withholding.

In 2023, news leaks proved that CIA Director Mike Pompeo instructed the agency to make plans to kidnap and murder WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.  Barry Pollack, Assange’s US lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment, but told Yahoo News: “As an American citizen, I find it absolutely outrageous that our government would be contemplating kidnapping or assassinating somebody without any judicial process simply because he had published truthful information.”

Conclusion

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was established on June 13, 1942, through an executive order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The OSS was America’s first centralized intelligence agency and is often considered a forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which was established in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman.

Countless books have been written suggesting the CIAs involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy.  John Judge alludes to the same characters being involved in the Reagan assassination attempt.

On Monday, July 8, President Joe Biden was intense about taking the battle for the presidency to Trump. “I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate,” Biden said, according to Politico.

“It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,” he said.

No one in the Department of Justice is concerned about talk of assassinating a former president who is the opponent of America’s dementia-ridden incumbent president.

On Saturday, July 13, 2024, the attempt on former President Donald J. Trump’s life was thankfully foiled.

After living through President Kennedy’s assassination, President Reagan’s attempted assassination, the murder of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the attempt on Trump’s life looks like so many others from the past.  An inside job.

©2024. Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Veteran holding sniper world record speaks on Trump shooting

A couple of videos that when taken together offer some seeds for thought on a potential conspiracy around the Trump Assassination Attempt

‘FEAR NOT’ Trump Says, Calling on All Americans To ‘Stand United

Former Fire Chief Corey Comperatore Was Shot and Killed at Trump Rally

Explosive Devices Found in Trump Shooter’s Car and In His House

Democrats Have Been Trying To Strip Trump’s Secret Service Protection Just Months Before Shooting

Thousands of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Now Victims of ‘Taxpayer-Funded Child Slavery’ thumbnail

Thousands of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Now Victims of ‘Taxpayer-Funded Child Slavery’

By Family Research Council

Data collected between February of 2021 and January of 2024 revealed “464,922 [unaccompanied] children have been encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection police nationwide.” Some experts, such as those from the child immigrant aid organization Kids in Need of Defense, have explained this surplus of unaccompanied minors was “expected” and likely due to “U.S. measures implemented at the border during the coronavirus pandemic.” But what is shocking, experts have gone on to point out, is how the whereabouts of thousands of these children are unknown, with the biggest concern being that many are becoming victims of human trafficking.

These concerns flooded the mainstream media as whistleblowers testified in a roundtable discussion on Tuesday. The accusation laid forth is that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor are guilty “of covering up how the government and contracted companies have failed to properly care for 500,000 parentless immigrant children in government custody at the border,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Acknowledging the outcry, HHS Secretary Xavier Bacerra said, “No child has gone missing under our watch.” But Allison Dyer pointed out on X that not only is Bacerra’s statement false, but she used information collected by a New York Times report to highlight that “85,000 unaccompanied children released to sponsors in the United States by our government are unable to be accounted for,” meaning “their whereabouts or welfare are unknown.”

Emphasizing a point similar to Dyer, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who also serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, argued that the claims that these children are not unaccounted for shows a “blatant lack of transparency with the American people.” He added, “Frankly, it is hard to see this as anything other than an effort to cover up and shield the Biden administration from scrutiny for its mistreatment and mishandling of unaccompanied children, particularly in an election year where the president is behind in the polls.”

HHS whistleblower Deborah White described the circumstances as “taxpayer-funded child slavery,” and she noted that part of what led to this was the government “prioritizing speed over safety.” As a result, she stated, children are being sent to abandoned houses, unsafe homes, and even one case in which “a child was sent to an open field,” which only further proves the lack of integrity of the system. White said that even after several concerns were raised, nothing was done to stop children from being sent to dangerous locations.

“[I]t’s unbelievable that we’re … talking about government-sponsored, taxpayer funded child trafficking,” said Tara Rodas on Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” Rodas, who formerly worked for the Department of Health and Human Services and testified on Tuesday, explained how she and some of her “colleagues began reporting trafficking cases in June of 2021.” She sighed, “So, if you can imagine, it’s been more than three years” since those first reports.

Rodas emphasized how their efforts were received better “in the beginning, and [we] thought they were going to do something about it.” However, over time, they were threatened and warned from “coming forward to speak the truth.” And “this is not just one incident,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed out, further noting that she “began to see … patterns.”

Rodas explained that what it boils down to is a system that is not organized or monitored well. “So,” she continued, “you can imagine how easily a system like that is exploited.” The process, she described, is that children are brought across the southern border “from Guatemala, El Salvador, all over Central and South America with smugglers.” Then, “the smugglers give them the name and address to where they’re going, the children turn that into Border Patrol, Border patrol turns it over to us at HHS, and then we send the child to that person. It’s really end-to-end delivery.”

And the issue with this, as Perkins noted, is that there’s “no verification of relationship, family connection or anything” to ensure these children end up in a safe place. Again, he contended, “[T]his is being funded by tax dollars. I mean, we’re bringing these children to this country and allowing them to be exploited. This is … horrific.”

In many cases, Rodas explained that what leads children to these horrible homes is the fact that “there is no ultimate verification because” the government “did not even verify if the person was a legal permanent resident.” But ultimately, she insisted, no sensible “child welfare organization around the globe would send a child to an unknown person. … That doesn’t even make sense. And yet, that’s what the government is doing.” However, Rodas concluded that sitting idle is not an option. “There are children in crisis now, and we need to rescue” them.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

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.

Trump’s Documents Case Dismissed — Ruled Unconstitutional! thumbnail

Trump’s Documents Case Dismissed — Ruled Unconstitutional!

By ACT For America!

Priscilla DeGregory, Steven Nelson and Josh Christenson | NY Post | 7-15-24 | Condensed

“I am thrilled that a judge had the courage and wisdom to do this,” Trump told Fox News in an interview moments after the ruling. “This has big, big implications, not just for this case but for other cases.

“The special counsel worked with everybody to try to take me down. This is a big, big deal. It only makes the convention more positive — this will be an amazing week.”

The GOP presidential candidate, 78, faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.

Cannon seemed to indicate that the Department of Justice is free to appeal her ruling by saying she was leaving her decision up “for any applicable future review.” It was not immediately clear whether Smith and his team will do so.

The ruling also may affect the second federal case against Trump involving the Jan. 6 riots and his challenging of the results of the 2020 election. Trump’s lawyers could seek to have the DC case tossed while pointing to Cannon’s decision.

“The Florida documents case was considered the strongest legal case against Trump because it did not involve novel theories of law,” said Cornell University Law Professor William Jacobson to The Post. “For the Florida case to be dismissed is a grave blow to the government.”

Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” Cannon wrote.

The judge wrote that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed.”

The Trump-appointed federal judge cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ July 1 dissent in a ruling on presidential immunity, which suggested the special counsel appointment could be unconstitutional, in her decision.

Hours before Cannon’s ruling, Trump told The Post’s Michael Goodwin that “we hear” that President Biden and the Justice Department — rather than the judge — would be dropping the case and additional federal charges related to the 2020 election after the failed assassination attempt against him Saturday.

Politicians on both sides of the aisles sounded off about Monday’s surprise decision, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blasting it as “misguided” and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) lauding it as the “right result.”

“This breathtakingly misguided ruling flies in the face of long-accepted practice and repetitive judicial precedence. It is wrong on the law and must be appealed immediately,” Schumer said. “This is further evidence that Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned.”

Johnson said, “This is good news for America and for the rule of law.

“House Republicans repeatedly argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith abused his office’s authority in pursuit of President Trump, and now a federal judge has ruled Smith never possessed the authority in the first place,” the speaker said.

“As we work to unify this country following the failed assassination attempt of President Trump, we must also work to end the lawfare and political witch hunts that have unfairly targeted President Trump and destroyed the American people’s faith in our system of justice,” Johnson said. “This development is a critically important step towards that goal.”

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said in a statement, “Only Congress can create new officers and spend taxpayer money.

“I applaud Judge Aileen Cannon for having the courage and wisdom to dismiss corrupt Jack Smith’s unconstitutional witch hunt against President Trump.

“This dismissal is not just a win for President Trump but a triumph for the principles our nation was founded upon. Our country must come together and unite to end the weaponization of our justice system and restore equal justice under the law.”

©2024. . All rights reserved.


Visit the ACT For America! Substack.

The Woke Director of the Secret Service Must Resign Immediately! thumbnail

The Woke Director of the Secret Service Must Resign Immediately!

By Geoff Ross

A public post is being promulgated that Jonathan Willis was the Secret Service Agent in the famous photo of the two snipers on the roof at Trump’s rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

The opinion piece states that the Secret Service Agent wants to inform the public that he had the Trump assassin in his sights for at least 3 minutes, but the head of the secret service detail refused to give the order to take out this cowardly punk fraud Republican Marxist.

The Secret Service agent said as per the unconfirmed post that the top brass prevented him from killing the roof top assassin before he took the shots at president Trump hitting him in the right ear and killing an innocent Trump supporter who was peacefully upholding his 1st amendment right to gather.

The Marxist deep state has a long track record of getting Americans killed from indecision and incompetence and or deliberate treason against our republic.

My friend Billy Waugh a former CIA operative who has since passed away trusted in me and said he had Saudi Terrorist Osama Bin Laden in his rifle scope site while tracking him in the Sudan.

Billy even knew what the VIN number was on Osama Bin Laden’s Sudanese automobile parked in front of his Sudanese clay and brick home.

Billy Waugh is a legendary covert CIA operative who honed his skills in unconventional warfare during the Vietnam War, he helped the CIA hunt down Carlos the Jackal and Osama Bin Laden. When he was 72 years old he deployed and engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan.

Billy told me in confidence that he was denied the kill shot to eliminate Osama Bin Laden by impeached President Bill Clinton via the chain of command.

If Clinton had taken the necessary action and authorized the kill shot on Osama bin Laden when Bin Laden was in the Sudan there wouldn’t have been a 9/11. No invasion of Afghanistan and no invasion of Iraq with thousands of lives saved. It would have taken only one bullet from Billy Waugh.

“The CIA had a so-called ‘lethal finding’ [bill] that had been signed by impeached President Bill Clinton that said that we (as in the CIA) could engage in ‘lethal activity’ against bin Laden, but the purpose of our attack against bin Laden couldn’t be to kill him.

My brave and honorable friend of over 20 years Billy Waugh died in Tampa Florida died on April 4. 2023 He was 93. His military awards include the Silver Star and 8 Purple Hearts.

Let’s also not forget the Benghazi disaster when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Paneta and President Obama denied the US mission in Libya more military protection resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three Navy SEALs on September 11th 2012. More incompetence and weakness.

Jumping back to July 13th 2024, the responsibility for the total failure to protect former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump falls squarely on the shoulders of installed President Marxist Joe Biden who appointed the incompetent woke individual Kimberly A. Cheatle as director of the U.S. Secret Service.

Trump and his campaign have repeatedly asked for more protection only to be rebuffed by the Biden administration giving him only bare minimum security. So if the post is true the deep state either by indecisive actions or intentional treason almost got Trump killed.

The Director of the U.S. Secret Service should resign immediately and return to her job as the director of global security at Pepsi. She kept all the Pepsi machines and infrastructure secure in its North American facilities. Zero casualties no Pepsi machines lost. Great job.

God speed President Trump we patiently wait your return to the White House in January 2025. Then the real work will start to drain the swamp, prosecute the corrupt politicians and restore our republic to greatness.

©2024. Geoff Ross. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Who is the director of the Secret Service? Kimberly Cheatle has led agency since 2022

Kamala Harris is Not a Natural Born Citizen thumbnail

Kamala Harris is Not a Natural Born Citizen

By Amil Imani

Democrat Senator Kamala Harris (CA) could be in for an unwelcome campaign surprise if she faces a constitutional eligibility challenge to her bid for the presidency. Why? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution decrees that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” [Emphasis added].

While Senator Harris was born here, neither of her parents were American citizens at the time of her birth. Her father was a citizen of Jamaica, and her mother was a citizen of India. As discussed below, a patrilineal heritage is weighed heavily in determining the degree of citizenship required for anyone to become president.

While this issue has been discussed before, this article is not just another rehash of the basics of the debate over the meaning of “natural-born Citizen,” as so many have been. Nor is it an attack on Senator Harris’ political ideology. It is blind to partisanship. Instead, it’s an in-depth account based on extensive research that provides proven insights into what the phrase meant to the Framers, how it came to be included in the Constitution, and what prerequisites for presidential eligibility flow from it.

The meaning of “natural born Citizen” was hotly debated during the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential elections. It arose as challenges to the candidacies of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ted Cruz, all of whom were born abroad. In 2008, President Obama’s eligibility was questioned, not because various people claimed he was born in Kenya but because his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born. The same is true of Marco Rubio, whose father was Cuban at the time of his birth. That’s important because the Framers believed that patrilineal citizenship was the touchstone on which the citizenship of their offspring was based. It emerges from the legal concept of jus sanguinis (‘law of the blood’), which is essential for eligibility in the Framers’ view.

The debate about the meaning of “natural-born Citizen” derives from a contemporary paucity of understanding of how the Framers interpreted the phrase. How these august individuals defined it involves far more than just being born here and seems to stymy conventional political thought.

Had a definition of the clause been included in the Constitution, the confusion and debate would have been moot. However, for reasons discussed below, the Framers can be forgiven for excluding its meaning. They were brilliant men working in a very different era and with a time lexicon from which simple and arcane meanings abide in their universal understanding. Their meanings could be more consistent with the definitions we use today.

What’s obvious is that the Framers could have written, “a person born here.” But they didn’t, and “natural born Citizen” has a meaning that escapes the wisdom of many of today’s historians and pundits.

The Washington Standard provided an excellent perspective on this in an article explaining why the Framers did not need to include the definition: “The meaning of this term is not outlined in The Constitution or  The Federalist Papers, and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.”

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around [today] defining ‘pizza’ because every American over the age of two knows what a pizza is.

“Our Framers had no need to define ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic Law of Nations.”

In addition, Newsweek wrote a story that gives us greater insight into the Framers’ complete understanding of how far Vattel went in defining the clause: “According to [Thomas] Lee [a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham University], two legal theories of citizenship were popular at the time the Constitution was ratified: jus soli (Latin for ‘the law of the land’), which held that a child’s citizenship flowed from the actual, physical place of his birth, and jus sanguinis (‘law of the blood’), which held that parents passed their citizenship to their children. However, Lee argues that when the Constitution was ratified, jus sanguinis applied only to ‘patrilineal descent.’ That means that the place of birth and the citizenship of the father is what determines the child’s citizenship at the time of his birth.” Vattel, and subsequently the Framers, were ardent proponents of jus sanguinis.

The Law of Nations consists of two volumes and was written in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel, a profoundly gifted political philosopher who lived in Switzerland. The book was a source on which the Framers relied heavily during the Convention.

How do we know that? I found Vattel’s books in the reference library used by the Framers and Congress and the private libraries of the Framers and Founding Fathers (see below). Members of Congress widely used them before the convention, as Benjamin Franklin explained in a letter he sent to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas on December 9, 1775.

Dumas had sent three copies of Law of Nations to Franklin, who wrote back: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. [Emphasis added]. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.” [Emphasis added].

True, Franklin referred to Congress members in 1775, but many of them became delegates to the Constitutional Convention. According to the United States Senate: “During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives.”

Among other delegates to the convention and other Founding Fathers not present, Vattel’s book was relied upon as a blueprint for building a new nation from scratch.

My research has led me to various entities where the Law of Nations was and still is kept. It is in the Report on Books for Congress and  Book Selections of Founding Fathers. It is also in the personal libraries of John Jay, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, who relied on it throughout the convention. I also found it in John Adams’ book collection, under the category “Law,” where it is listed as “Vatel’s [sic] law of Nations.” Adams was not at the convention but certainly was a Founding Father.

While the book was originally written in French, the Framers mostly had classical education involving knowledge and understanding of French and other languages, such as Latin and Greek.

Only nominally fluent in French, I fortuitously found an English version and the specific text explaining “natural born Citizen.” It’s in Book I, Chapter XIX, Of Our Native Country and Several Things that Relate to It, § 212page 101, which states. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” [Emphasis added].

Here’s where we can better understand the role played by patrilineal descent. Vattel explains: “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. Therefore, the fathers’ country is that of the children; these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. [Emphasis added]We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right and what they owe to the society in which they were born. To be of the country, a person must be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth and not his country.” [Emphasis added].

So, how and why did the phrase wind up in the Constitution? John Jay, one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York, and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was serving as Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the convention, thus his absence from the conclave. Being involved in the foreign affairs of the budding nation didn’t keep him from providing what was to him urgent advice.

For inclusion of it in the Constitution, it first appears in Jay’s letter to Washington, which reads in part: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Washington had it added to our founding document without debate, indicating that Washington and Jay knew how Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other delegates interpreted its true meaning.

Bolstering that understanding further is the story about a little-known incident of skullduggery that motivated John Jay to write his letter to Washington in the first place.

According to the CIA, John Jay was involved as a Founding Father and high office holder. Still, he is also considered the father of American counterintelligence, a discipline he developed during the Revolution.

It was manifest in Jay’s letter to Washington in response to a tip he received about members of European royalty considering coming here to run for president and turning the country into a monarchy. Historians know that was a topic much discussed during the convention (many delegates wanted to make George Washington king, but he wisely turned it down), as stated by Thomas H. Lee, in Natural Born CitizenFordham University School of Law, Vol. 67:327, page 354,  paragraph 3.

According to historian and professor, [first name] Charles: “The name of [Baron] von Steuben is not mentioned, but there can be little doubt that it was he…with his sympathies for the followers of Shay, and his suspected dealings with Prince Henry of Prussia, whom Jay had in mind when he penned these words.”

General Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben, a low-ranking officer in the Prussian Army, came here during the Revolution and was promoted to General. Unable to understand or speak English, he was instrumental in training our rebel forces via a translator. After the Revolution, he supported Shay’s Rebellion and was angry when Washington put it down. That, and his relationship with Prussia’s Prince Henry, got Jay’s attention.

Washington’s response to Jay‘s letter indicates their mutual understanding of the plot. It was written on September 2, 1787, and concludes with: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter.” [Emphasis added]. The use of “hints” in response to Jay’s use of “hint” suggests that Washington became familiar with the potential threat in the months before he responded to Jay’s letter.

Nonetheless, Jay’s missive was intended to warn the Framers against foreigners becoming president and that divided national loyalties would handicap those born here to parents who were not citizens of the country.

In the context of Kamala Harris, at least one fact-checking site has claimed that this is all bogus and that the Supreme Court has yet to address “natural-born Citizen,” so no worries. Kamala Harris is a natural-born Citizen. One must wonder about such acquittals if, as fact-checkers, they are doing the necessary research to arrive at that conclusion. They don’t truly understand the Framers’ intent and think that without a SCOTUS ruling, anyone born here can run for president. They are mistaken.

SCOTUS has commented on the phrase. In the majority opinion in Minor v. Happersett, a case involving a naturalization law, not eligibility for the presidency, the court found that: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” [Emphasis added]

If this comes up as a challenge to Harris’ candidacy, what happens next depends on how the political party involved responds if she were to replace Joe Biden. Political parties must certify that their nominees are natural-born American citizens and thus eligible to be president.

The Republicans could mount a legal challenge to Harris’ eligibility (although it’s not likely that individuals and organizations could try to bring a case against her). That could force the Democrats to prove that she’s eligible, and that would inevitably put the issue before the SCOTUS, where the task of the justices has traditionally been divining the intent of the Framers. They must not allow themselves the luxury of relying on the contemporary national glossary but rather adhere to how the Framers defined “natural born Citizen.”

Unfortunately, that proper mindset is far from guaranteed in this era of rancorous partisanship. We can only hope and pray that our Constitution and its meaning at the time it was written is still in force and effect. If so interpreted, Kamala Harris would have to decide whether her own ambitions are more important than the good of the country. If Biden wins and she becomes President, she would be considered an interloper.

©2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

Shots Fired at Rally, Trump Wounded thumbnail

Shots Fired at Rally, Trump Wounded

By Jihad Watch

The Left gets what it wanted.


The left has finally gotten what it has longed for since Donald Trump announced his first candidacy for president in 2015: a bloodied Trump being led off a stage. But they didn’t get what they want most of all, for he is still alive.

Early Saturday evening, Donald Trump was speaking at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania when shots rang out. Trump turned, grabbed his ear, and then ducked behind the podium as Secret Service agents rushed to surround him. Moments later, he stood up and was being ushered quickly off the stage when he stopped the agents, saying: “Wait!” Then, his face bloodied, he raised his fist in defiance and said to the crowd, “Fight!”

Sound advice, succinctly stated. It is clear that if we don’t fight now, the forces of evil that so desperately want to destroy Trump will destroy us as well, as he has long warned, and the nation will be enveloped in authoritarian darkness.

Unless he was wounded more seriously than he initially appeared to be, Trump should be able to continue his campaign without serious difficulty. But nothing else should go on as usual. Amid all the tumult and confusion occasioned by this shooting, there is one certainty: this will lead to no introspection among the political and media elites. There will be no consideration whatsoever of how leftist rhetoric and media propaganda contributed to a climate of hatred that led to this happening. Yet this time, they must not be allowed to blame this shooting on Trump itself, or January 6, or climate change, or whatever new idiocy they may devise.

The New York Post is saying that law enforcement authorities have identified the shooter as a 20-year-old registered Republican, Thomas Matthew Crooks. If this is accurate, it will be the only detail the establishment media ever tells us about Crooks. But it may be a psy-op. Investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted some information that could be more illuminating of Crooks’ mindset: “NEW: FEC database shows a Thomas Crooks of 2506 Milford Dr., Pittsburgh, Pa., gave $15 to the Dem fundraising platform ACTBLUE on Jan. 20, 2021. The donation was earmarked for Progressive Turnout Project, which endorsed Biden and claims ‘Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy.’” Where could anyone have gotten that idea?

Even worse, an eyewitness stated that he pointed the shooter out to Secret Service several minutes before the shots rang out and was ignored. That’s either gross negligence or collusion, but we may never know which. Beyond that, there is no doubt: this shooting was the direct and unmistakable result of the left’s nine-year-long determination to destroy Trump. The left has been working to destroy Trump since he announced his candidacy in 2015. The left hamstrung his presidency with false charges of Russian collusion that wasted tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of taxpayer money. They impeached him twice on false charges.

They even sent agents provocateurs into the crowd at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in order to frame him for a nonexistent “insurrection.” They have made misdemeanors into felonies and multiplied one offense into 34 by charging him for each of its constituent elements in order to saddle him with bogus felony convictions so that they could howl that he was a “convicted felon.” They lied to the world that he was a rapist over the unsupported claims of a woman who couldn’t even remember what year the traumatic event supposedly took place.

Old Joe Biden has long been one of the chief offenders. He has repeated lied about Trump’s statements and positions, even in the recent debate. On September 1, 2022, Old Joe Biden notoriously warned that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Never before had an American president ruled his principal opponent, and the supporters of that opponent, outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse. Never before had a president politicized and weaponized the Justice Department to go after his opponent.

Yet Biden, the destroyer of the republic, and his fellow Democrats have repeatedly warned that Trump will destroy “our democracy,” hoping Americans will forget that Trump was president before and left the White House voluntarily on January 20, 2021. Less than two weeks ago, Biden’s campaign team claimed yet again that Trump was on January 6, 2021 “encouraging a violent mob to attack the Capitol.” This despite the fact that Trump told protestors to proceed “peacefully and patriotically.”

And on and on and on. The New Republic’s June 2024 cover features a Photoshop blend of Trump and Hitler. And all along, leftists dreamed of doing more. Just days ago, New York Times columnist John McWhorter said: “I wish somebody would kill Donald Trump.” He was just the latest in a long line. Remember Kathy Griffin holding a mockup of Trump’s severed head. Remember Madonna saying: “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House.” Remember Johnny Depp asking: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

In March 2024, longtime Democrat strategist James Carville said to Anderson Cooper: “I mean, to be candid, Anderson, President Biden is not the best attack politician I’ve ever seen in my life, and I’ll leave it at that. But there are a lot of people to do what I call ‘the wet work.’” That’s a common euphemism for assassination, and so Cooper responded: “Sounds like a mob hit.” Carville conceded the point: “Well, it’s kind of, but it’s paid TV and stuff like that. But yes, that’s a CIA term. Take a guy out.”

That was just the latest example of the left’s legitimization of political violence, and most notably of the Marxist group Antifa. Antifa is a violent, insurrectionist organization, not simply an “idea,” as Biden and others have claimed. Its premise is that government can’t be trusted to protect us from Trump’s fascists and trains its members in weapons and military strategies. This is an organization that the Democratic Party protects. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, the political and media elites coddled and even applauded the rioters. On Saturday evening, the world saw what kind of climate this created.

When the assassination attempt took place, Donald Trump was leading in the polls and — Democrat cheating aside — looked as if he had a good chance to return to the White House on January 20, 2025. Totalitarians that they are, leftists knew they had one more option. On Saturday, the world saw what it was.

And so now it should be abundantly clear that for all the media and Biden regime talk of “right-wing extremists,” the real threat of violence comes from the left, and always has. In a sane political system, Joe Biden and many others would be charged with inciting people to murder Trump. Though they will face no consequences, they still bear the responsibility. America must do everything legally possible to remove the cancer of the left from the body politic, or the parasite will most assuredly kill the host.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED VIDEOS:

BREAKING: Trump Assassination Attempt (Emergency Episode)

TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

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

Democrats Angry That Trump Assassination Failed — ‘How Do You Miss’ Trends on X thumbnail

Democrats Angry That Trump Assassination Failed — ‘How Do You Miss’ Trends on X

By The Geller Report

The Democrat party is a terrorist organization.

Leftists Lament Failed Trump Assassination – ‘How Do You Miss’ Trends on X – Others Claim It Was All Staged!

By Ben Kew, The Gateway Pundit, Jul. 13, 2024:

Radical leftists lamented the failed assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania on Saturday evening.

While full details of the incident have yet to be confirmed, it appears that Trump was not critically injured and will survive the assassination attempt.

At least one spectator is reported to have died, while the shooter has been neutralized.

However, many were left disappointed by the failure to murder the likely next president, viewing it as a missed opportunity for their political agenda.

At one point, the phrase ‘How Do You Miss’ was trending across the X platform, with thousands of users complaining that the effort had not been successful.

Why isn’t that revolting criminal fascist pedophile President Trump still alive?
— Dylan the Hermit 💚 (@rudidylan5) July 13, 2024

That shit was so #staged sounds like #LittleDonnie got hit with a paint ball. Only the women who have been forced to have sex with him are better at acting. #Trump

— John Hinze (@JohnWH72) July 13, 2024

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump Issues This Statement In the Wake of Assassination Attempt

Mainstream Media Covers Up Assassination Attempt on Trump’s Life

SHOTS FIRED AT TRUMP AT PENNSYLVANIA RALLY, Former President is Seen with Blood Across his Face

‘He Was Bleeding’: Rep. Ronny Jackson Says Nephew ‘Grazed In The Neck’ By Bullet During Trump Assassination Attempt

Photographer Appears To Have Captured Images Of Bullet Whipping By Trump’s Head

Flashback: Dems Pushed Bill To Take Away Trump’s Secret Service Detail

RELATED VIDEO: TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

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

Trump Leads In Key Swing State Where Many Voters Say Immigration Made Life ‘Worse,’ Poll Finds thumbnail

Trump Leads In Key Swing State Where Many Voters Say Immigration Made Life ‘Worse,’ Poll Finds

By The Daily Caller

Former President Donald Trump is leading President Joe Biden in Wisconsin, where many voters claimed immigration made the state’s quality of life “worse,” according to an American Greatness poll exclusively released to the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday.

Trump leads Biden 46% to 44% in a two-way race, compared to an even split at 45% in April, according to the poll. Only 13% of likely voters said that immigration has improved the “quality of life in the state,” while 34% said it made it worse.

“Wisconsin figures to be a very tight race once again, as reflected by this new polling,” Steve Cortes, former senior advisor to President Trump and polling consultant to American Greatness, told the DCNF. “In such a close election, the more we highlight the damage of Biden’s open border, the more likely battleground state voters are to return Donald Trump to the White House.”

Wisconsin has voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every year since 1988, except for in 2016 when it went for Trump.

In addition, 45% of respondents claimed that immigration had “no real effect” on the state’s quality of life and 8% were unsure, according to the poll.

Whitewater, a town in Wisconsin that has 15,000 residents, has taken in as many as 1,000 immigrants since 2022, PBS reported. Among the respondents, 53% said that immigration levels are “too high” for a community that size, while 29% said it was “about right” and 4% said it was “too low.”

“Even thousands of miles away from the US border, Biden’s reckless, radical border policies are firmly rejected by supermajorities of citizens,” Cortes told the DCNF. “Sensible Wisconsin voters know that Biden and Harris and Mayorkas prioritize unvetted foreign migrants over American citizens, and they demand a return to law-and-order.”

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has encountered over seven million migrants entering the country illegally since Biden took office, according to the CBP data.

Biden issued nearly 300 executive actions on immigration during his first year in office, 89 of which reversed or began to reverse Trump’s immigration policies, according to an analysis from the Migration Policy Institute.

The poll also asked likely voters about Biden’s mental and physical fitness for office, with 65% saying Biden is not capable of serving another term, compared to 57% in April. Nearly half of Wisconsin likely voters, 48%, think Biden is making his own official decisions in office, while 31% think it is First Lady Jill Biden. (RELATED: WSJ And NYT Polls Are Latest In String Of Surveys Showing Biden Losing Ground To Trump After Debate)

The American Greatness poll surveyed 600 likely Wisconsin voters from July 6 to July 10. The poll has a margin of error of 4%.

AUTHOR

REBEKA ZELJKO

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Majority Of Americans Approve Of Trump’s First Term More Than Biden’s, New Poll Reveals

Biden’s Illegal Immigration Problem Has Gone From Bad To Worse As High-Profile Murders Rock US

RELATED VIDEOS:

WATCH THE TRAILER: ‘Trump’s Rescue Mission: Saving America’ is Coming Soon

Democrats Support Measures Allowing Illegal Aliens to Vote

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

ICE Nabs Convicted Sex Offender And Illegal Immigrant Roaming Free In ‘Sanctuary County’ thumbnail

ICE Nabs Convicted Sex Offender And Illegal Immigrant Roaming Free In ‘Sanctuary County’

By The Daily Caller

RIVERDALE PARK, Maryland — Deportation officers apprehended a registered sex offender living illegally in a “sanctuary” jurisdiction after he was convicted of false imprisonment and sex crimes, the Daily Caller News Foundation exclusively witnessed.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents apprehended 21-year-old Honduran national Darwin Adonai Garcia-Garcia in the early morning hours of Thursday, July 11. Garcia-Garcia’s apprehension came roughly two months after a local Maryland court chose to suspend virtually all of his 30-year prison sentence relating to his conviction for sex offenses and false imprisonment of a child, according to ICE. Authorities had previously charged him with kidnapping, abducting a child under 12, abducting a child under 16, assault in the second degree and a fourth-degree sex offense.

The DCNF was on scene to witness the apprehension, which took place around 6 a.m. outside his residence in Riverdale Park, Maryland. Numerous ICE agents staked out Garcia-Garcia’s apartment complex and waited for him to exit the building, which he eventually did, allowing agents to make an arrest outside in the apartment parking lot.

He did not appear to know any English, as deportation officers communicated with him solely in Spanish during the apprehension.

Border Patrol arrested Garcia-Garcia on December 4, 2018 after he illegally crossed into the U.S. near San Luis, Arizona, the agency told the DCNF. Border Patrol served the Honduran national with a notice to appear before an immigration judge and, the next day, he was transferred into ICE custody and subsequently released into the U.S.

Several years later, Garcia-Garcia was targeted by local law enforcement for his alleged abduction and sexual assault of a minor, according to ICE. He was arrested by Prince George’s County, Maryland Police on Jan. 4 and charged with kidnapping, abducting a child under 12, second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sexual offense.

The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in Upper Marlboro, Maryland convicted him of a fourth-degree sex offense and false imprisonment on May 13, sentencing him to three decades in prison, according to ICE. However, the court subsequently suspended all but 229 days of prison sentence, allowing him to roam free in the country again.

ICE Baltimore became familiar with Garcia-Garcia’s daily activities and knew roughly when he’d be leaving his residence in Prince George’s County. The DCNF accompanied deportation officers as they staked out his residence Thursday morning and nabbed him as he was presumably on his way to work.

The apprehension took place without incident, with no apparent signs of him resisting arrest or attempting to flee the deportation officers. Garcia-Garcia remains in Enforcement and Removal custody, where he will presumably remain pending the outcome of his removal proceedings.

He is currently listed as a sex offender, according to the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Baltimore deportation officers told the DCNF that they prioritize the apprehension of dangerous illegal migrants who pose serious risks to the local community, and they are seeking to increase their number of sex offender apprehensions.

It’s not entirely clear why the circuit court in Prince George’s County chose to suspend nearly all of Garcia-Garcia’s entire 30-year prison sentence, despite the severity of his convictions. The court did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF about the case.

Prince George’s County is listed as a “sanctuary” jurisdiction by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that seeks stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration law.

In the past, ICE has publicly criticized Prince George’s County specifically for local non-cooperation policies that, they say, protect criminal illegal migrants.

“The county leadership has chosen misguided politics over public safety,” the Baltimore field office director said at the time. “We aren’t asking Montgomery County or Prince George’s County to conduct immigration enforcement, we’re asking them to honor a lawful request to transfer these individuals into our custody where they can avail themselves of due process in the immigration court system.”

A spokesperson for Prince George’s County did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

JASON HOPKINS

Immigration reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem Senate Candidate Downplayed Illegal Immigrant Crime. Then A 12-Year-Old Girl Was Murdered

EXCLUSIVE: Jim Jordan Investigating UN’s Involvement In ‘Fast-Tracking’ Migrants Into US

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

ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Biden’s DOJ Says It Will Intervene in Georgia Election Lawsuit to Ensure Election Integrity thumbnail

ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Biden’s DOJ Says It Will Intervene in Georgia Election Lawsuit to Ensure Election Integrity

By The Geller Report

The Democrats are hellbent on corrupt, rigged elections.

The Justice Department confirmed that it will intervene in a lawsuit targeting an 11-day deadline to register for mail-in ballots in Georgia.

By Jack Phillips, The Epoch Times, July 9, 2024:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed on July 8 that it will intervene in a lawsuit that challenges a Georgia state deadline for absentee ballot applications and whether it is illegal under the Voting Rights Act.

In 2023, a group of theater workers challenged a provision of Georgia state law SB 202, which was passed in 2021 and requires a voter to apply for an absentee ballot 11 days before a presidential election. Their lawsuit argues that Section 202 of the Voting Rights Act mandates that voters be able to cast ballots in presidential elections if they applied seven days before an election, arguing that the Georgia law violates federal law, and requests that a court block the law’s enforcement.

The DOJ’s filing on July 8 did not make any arguments. It was a notice that it would make a filing that “exercises its right to intervene in this proceeding to defend the constitutionality of Section 202 of the Voting Rights Act,” noting that it would “submit a brief regarding the constitutionality and interpretation of Section 202” by July 22.

Earlier this year, the DOJ filed a statement expressing interest in the lawsuit that challenges the state’s 11-day application deadline and “has a substantial interest in ensuring Section 202’s proper interpretation.” The agency also argued that private parties are able to file lawsuits to enforce the section of the Voting Rights Act, which provides a “general remedy for private plaintiffs to redress violations of federal rights committed by state actors.”

Republican state officials have defended the 11-day cutoff deadline, arguing that the group of theater workers lacks the right to sue under the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Carr said in late 2023 that the theater workers have not “come close to satisfying its burden of establishing standing.”

They instead rely “only on threadbare allegations of injury that are insufficient even at this stage,” his office wrote. “The court should … dismiss the amended complaint because Plaintiff has no private right of action under the [Voting Rights Act].”

The Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party also submitted court filings in the case, arguing that the deadline rules in question should be upheld and that the plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed.

In a separate challenge to the 2021 Georgia law, a federal judge in 2023 ruled against the DOJ and voting rights groups after they claimed that the Republican-backed law intentionally discriminates against black voters by issuing new rules on providing identification for mail-in voting, restricting drop boxes, shortening the absentee ballot request, and other provisions.

Earlier this year, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed legislation—SB 189—that made new changes to Georgia’s voting laws, including defining “probable causes” for removing voters from the rolls when their eligibility is challenged.

The measure lists death, evidence of voting or registering in another jurisdiction, a tax exemption indicating a primary residence elsewhere, or a nonresidential address as probable causes for removing voters from the rolls. It also states that the National Change of Address list can be considered, although not exclusively.

Continue reading.

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