Biden’s Curious Choice to Lead Customs and Border Protection

As Tucson Police Chief, Chris Magnus refused to assist Border Patrol.

The disaster on the U.S./Mexican border has catapulted the issue of border security to new levels of importance. Therefore, the Biden administration’s pick for the Director of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an always important position, has taken on additional significance.

On April 12, 2021 the Washington Post reported:  Biden picks Tucson police chief to run U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

That article began with this excerpt:

President Biden is preparing to nominate Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus to be commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, selecting a critic of the Trump administration’s immigration policies to run the country’s largest federal law enforcement agency as it contends with the biggest increase in migrants arriving at the southwest border in two decades.

Magnus has led the Tucson police department since 2016 and has prominently associated himself with the movement favored by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that emphasizes a less-aggressive, community-based policing model.

Magnus opposed efforts to make Tucson a “sanctuary city,” but he generally eschewed cooperation with federal immigration authorities, placing him at odds with the Border Patrol union — and many of the agents and officials who will potentially be under his command.

Here is another important excerpt from the Washington Post article:

Relations between Magnus and the Border Patrol have been frosty, according to three current and former CBP officials, particularly following an incident in 2017 when the Tucson police declined to assist the Border Patrol after a suspect escaped from custody.

The Border Patrol’s union officials called him “an ultraliberal social engineer who was given a badge and a gun by the City of Tucson,” in a 2018 Facebook post.

Magnus is a member of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is a partner to the National Immigration Forum and says on its website that local police should not be involved in federal immigration enforcement.

It is beyond outrageous that Biden would pick a leader for CBP who opposes cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration law enforcement. This alone should disqualify him from becoming the director of CBP.

It is more than a bit ironic that on April 21, 2021, Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a news release, “ICE officers arrest citizen of the Czech Republic in Illinois,” which began with the following statement:

CHICAGO — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers arrested a Czech Republic national convicted of attempted homicide and other crimes outside his residence in Lyons, Illinois April 19.

Tomas Ruckschlos, 34, was released into the community after serving time in prison for his crimes, without notification to ICE.

It is incredible that while ICE noted, with obvious frustration, the lack of cooperation by local police in Chicago that enabled an alien sought by ICE to be released into the community without making appropriate notification to ICE that Mr. Biden now seeks to have Chris Magnus lead CBP considering that he had similarly refused to cooperate with immigration law enforcement in the past.

The concept of various law enforcement agencies working cooperatively together has been a standard means of enabling various law enforcement agencies on all levels, to achieve common goals to enhance public safety and national security.

Such cooperation creates synergy, which is defined as:

The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

For decades various law enforcement agencies on the local, state and federal level have created a variety of task forces to achieve vital common, shared goals.

Consider the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) that includes a wide variety of law enforcement agencies to combat both international and domestic terrorism and operates under the aegis of the FBI includes ICE agents along with local and state police. In point of fact, the number of ICE agents who are assigned to this important task force is second only the FBI.

Virtually all international terrorists violate multiple laws comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) is another important multi-agency task force that, not unlike the JTTF includes law enforcement officers from various local, state and federal agencies including ICE.

Smuggling organizations frequently smuggle aliens as well as narcotics into the United States. Furthermore, many of the leaders of drug trafficking organizations are aliens who also violate numerous statutes found in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I was promoted to the position of INS Senior Special Agent and assigned to OCDETF for the final ten years of my 30-year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), so I speak from professional personal experience.

For the four years immediately preceding my promotion and assignment to the OCDETF I was assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Unified Intelligence Division (UID) in New York City, where I worked with a number of local and state police agencies as well as with other federal agencies and even law enforcement agencies of other countries.

In both of those assignments my unique authority as an INS agent was frequently a factor in our efforts to identify co-conspirators, when appropriate, to seek to bring criminal charges concerning violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, against those who engaged in drug trafficking and related crimes that frequently included human trafficking and various crimes of violence that are most often perpetrated within the various ethnic immigrant communities, with the immigrants most often suffering the most violence at the hands of these thugs.

In addition to assisting with narcotics investigations as a law enforcement agent, I was specifically able to contribute to major investigations and prosecutions by using my unique authority, as an INS agent, to cultivate confidential informants and cooperating witnesses in various ethnic immigrant communities in furtherance of our investigations of major international drug trafficking organizations.

Contrary to the claims that having immigration law enforcement personnel cooperating with local and state police would undermine community policing in ethnic immigrant communities, in my personal experience, quite the opposite was true.

Indeed, Mr. Magnus has made such fatuous claims in the past to justify his opposition to having his police department cooperate with immigration law enforcement agencies.

As an INS agent I was able to arrange for cooperating illegal aliens to remain in the United States if they assisted with law enforcement officers to identify criminals as well as criminal organizations. Various visas are now available for such cooperating aliens that, may even facilitated the admission of they family members from foreign countries if their assistance was deemed to be particularly instrumental.

My colleagues in other agencies such as the FBI, DEA and ATF frequently told me that my authority as an INS agent was frequently more effective in gaining the trust and cooperation of members of ethnic immigrant communities than was their ability to provide huge financial rewards for cooperating witnesses and informants.

In many cases, our investigations depended on the ability to cultivate such informants and cooperating witnesses.

Furthermore, criminal aliens and members of transnational criminal organizations generally live and operate within the ethnic immigrant communities, thereby posing a direct and immediate threat to the safety and wellbeing of these immigrants no matter where they originally came from.

Strong cooperation between all law enforcement agencies, especially ICE and CBP and local and state police can help to rid these communities of these violent and sociopathic predators, thereby making the lives of those in these various ethnic immigrant communities safer.

The goal of true “Community Policing” must be to safeguard the safety of the residents of the community and restore faith in our system of justice.

This is why there is a clear nexus between Interior Enforcement And The Border Crisis.

Additionally, there are a number of immigration-related criminal charges that can bring pressure to bear against foreign criminals and members of transnational gangs and international criminal and terrorist organizations.

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens, criminal aliens who are deported and then illegally reenter the United States face up to 20 years in prison. I worked with then-U.S. Senator Al D’Amato to create this enhancement for criminal aliens back in the early 1980’s.

Alien smugglers / human traffickers, whether they are United States citizens or aliens, may be prosecuted for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

Under the provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) any alien illegally present in the United States who is found to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce faces a maximum of 10 years imprisonment upon conviction for this crime.

Under the provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 1546 – Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents an alien who violates the provisions of this statute faces up to 20 years in prison if the violations were involved in drug trafficking and up to 25 years on prison if such crimes were related to international terrorism.

These laws were enacted to protect national security and public safety, yet Mr. Biden and his administration refuse to do what is necessary to live up to their oaths of office and protect America and Americans.

The next leader of CBP must fully embrace the notion of cooperation between all law enforcement agencies including CBP and ICE with local law enforcement and not seek to obstruct it.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Knots: “Roe v. Wade,” the Movie

Brad Miner reviews the new film about the case that legalized abortion and concludes you’d be better off watching “Gosnell” or “Unplanned”.

In a 1989 TV movie, Roe vs. Wade, Holly Hunter played “Ellen Russell” and Amy Madigan was Sarah Weddington, the plaintiff’s attorney who argued the infamous 1973 abortion case before SCOTUS. “Ellen Russell” stood for Norma McCorvey, the real Jane Roe, who by then had become a pro-life champion (and a Catholic). Hunter and Madigan won Emmys.

This was years before Ms. McCorvey recanted her “conversion,” saying she’d been paid to be a pro-life spokesperson and had never really abandoned her pro-abortion views. Operation Rescue officials admitted Norma was paid well; her public comments scripted. She should have won an acting award.

I mention this because it’s interesting and because a new movie, Roe v. Wade (PG-13), is not. Greer Grammer, daughter of Kelsey, plays Sarah Weddington this time but won’t win an Oscar – not because her performance is bad, but because the movie is.

It’s hard to untangle this knotted mess but I’ll try.

Written, directed, and produced by Nick Loeb and Cathy Allyn, it’s a vanity project for Mr. Loeb, who’s also the star. That’s the first knot: he’s a lousy actor.

Second knot, related to the first: The central conceit of the film is to focus less on the landmark case and more on the life of Bernard Nathanson, a role Mr. Loeb unwisely gave to himself. Nathanson was the notorious abortion doctor (and NARAL co-founder), who – via ultrasound imagery – had an epiphany about the truth of life in the womb, and became an anti-abortion campaigner and Catholic convert. His conversions were genuine.

The film owes much of its background to Nathanson’s post-conversion writing, especially his book, Aborting America. But the film does not make clear that he was still performing abortions as late as 1978-79 or that his religious conversion came in 1996 when he was 70.

Third knot: casting. On a limited budget, you don’t have all of Hollywood available: most actors are liberal and unlikely to appear in a pro-life film. There is a shortlist of pro-life conservatives in Tinseltown.

But not so short as to explain some of Roe v. Wade’s casting decisions: Roger Stone, political consultant and convicted felon (pardoned by President Trump) as a reporter; the My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell also as a reporter; pro-life activist Alveda King as the mother of Dr. Mildred Jefferson; auto dealer Troy Duhon; all-around activist Milo Yiannopoulos . . . If I’ve missed any member of this Conservative Community Theater troupe, I apologize.

Third knot: the script. Stacey Dash (as Dr. Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School) says to the priest (Fr. James T. McHugh, played by Tom Guiry) trying to cull her into the pro-life cause: “I won’t be used for the color of my skin. I do what I do on principle. Like Don Quixote.” I had to rewind the film to make sure I heard that non sequitur correctly.

The priest then quotes Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous “First they came for the Jews . . .” epigram against political cowardice. That scene transitions into another with Ms. Dash and Joey Lawrence (as Fordham University legal scholar, Robert Byrn) in which he quotes Ben Franklin’s aphorism about the futility of giving up liberty to gain security (incongruous in the context of the film), to which Ms. Dash replies with a citation from Susan B. Anthony, and you begin to think the screenplay was cadged from Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.

Some background about the state of thinking in the U.S. in the 60s and 70s makes sense, as does exposition about how pro-life leadership coalesced. But does that have to be established with such pedantry and incongruity? This is never more so than in the leaden narration that accompanies the drama, spoken by Mr. Loeb, and that’s the fourth knot.

In more “literary” films, narration can be effective. More often it’s deployed by filmmakers unable to propel a story subtly: to show not tell. Like good teachers, good writers and directors lead audiences to conclusions of their own. Not Loeb and Allyn, whose approach to storytelling is about as subtle as the cartoon anvil that was always dropping on the head of Wile E. Coyote.

It’s a film that might have been a documentary or even a docudrama with dramatic scenes interspersed with interviews of experts or actual witnesses to the events portrayed. Roe v. Wade blurs the distinctions. It wants to be dramatic, but Mr. Loeb and Ms. Allyn are simply not up to the task, which is why narration is used to compensate for their inability to otherwise craft a compelling story.

Knot five is the premise that ratification of abortion was solely the result of a conspiracy. Without question, there was subterfuge by pro-aborts, especially – as the film suggests – in statistics about the extent of “back-alley” abortion deaths, but is it right to suggest Nathanson and Larry Lader, “father” of the “pro-choice” movement (played by Jamie Kennedy), were master manipulators who led the media and the legal establishment where they would not otherwise have gone?

There is a scene in which Henry Wade (James DuMont) scolds Jay Floyd (Andrew Vogel), who represented Texas in the case, for not emphasizing the embryological science. There was a brief in the original case heard in Dallas that did so superbly. It was in the material before SCOTUS, and I have it on good authority that at least one justice may not even have read it.

The best the two dissenters could do in the 7-2 decision was argue that the matter belonged in the States. Pro-life advocates were stunned by the outcome, which was unsuspected given that the Court had not long before sustained state restrictions and because opinion polls showed wide opposition to abortion.

So much better would have been a film just about Nathanson’s transformation, which might have begun with his elation at the Roe decision, then chronicled his transformation, and concluded with the production of his documentary, The Silent Scream and his death at peace with Christ.

Suggestion: Watch Gosnell or Unplanned instead.

Brad Miner

Brad Miner is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and a board member of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is a former Literary Editor of National Review. His most recent book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with George J. Marlin, is now on sale. His The Compleat Gentleman will be published in a third edition by Regnery Gateway on May 11, 2021.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2021 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Why Indiana’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Failed to Stop the FedEx Shooting

The failure of Indiana’s gun law to prevent the FedEx shooting reveals the inherent problems with red flag laws.

Last week 19-year-old Brandon Hole did the unthinkable. He stormed into an Indianapolis FedEx facility with a Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle and killed eight people.

He then took his own life.

CNN recently pointed out that Indiana is one of several US states that have so-called “red flag” laws—also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders—that allow courts to seize firearms from individuals suspected of being a danger to themselves or others. Furthermore, it was revealed that Hole, who was interviewed by the FBI last year, was allowed to purchase a firearm months after being served with an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“[Hole’s] mother told law enforcement in March 2020 that her son told her he would attempt ‘suicide by cop,’” CNN reported. “At the time, officials took a shotgun found at his home into custody, Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said Monday. And yet, later that year, Hole was able to legally purchase assault rifles.”

The revelation cast a shadow over Indiana’s red flag law, a policy that lawmakers have argued is essential to stopping mass shootings.

The failure of Indiana’s gun law to prevent the FedEx shooting “shows the limits” of the state’s red flag, Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears told CNN.

In the Hoosier State, people who have their firearms seized are not automatically designated as violent or mentally unstable. Instead, the state has two weeks to file a petition requesting the court to designate the offender mentally unsound or violent. In Hole’s case, the firearm had been secured and the family made no effort to reclaim the weapon, so prosecutors determined they had “achieved” the law’s objective.

The seizure of the weapon did not stop the crime, however. And the failure highlights two reasons I’ve argued Americans should be wary of red flag laws. For starters, there is little evidence to support the claim that red flag laws reduce gun violence.

“The evidence,” The New York Times reported in 2019, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”

There’s a reason for this. As Indiana’s law shows, red flags are complicated. In many cases, the laws appear to be more about providing political window dressing than reducing gun crime.

For example, California’s red flag went effectively unused for years after its passage in 2016, The Washington Post reported. Washington, D.C.’s law went entirely unused, the Post said. Meanwhile, states such as Maryland and Florida have seized hundreds of firearms—yet it’s unclear if these confiscations actually stopped a shooting.

This leads to my second point. Red flag laws are essentially a form of “pre-crime,” a theme explored in Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi novella The Minority Report (which Steven Spielberg adapted into a pretty great movie in 2002).

In the book, police exploit precognitive powers to stop crimes before they happen. In the real world, of course, authorities do not have the power of precogs to help them fight crime, yet that has not stopped them from trying—even though Dick’s story explores the serious ethical problems of using the law against people who have not committed any crime (but might!).

Some argue that Indiana’s red flag failure isn’t evidence that red flag laws don’t work, it’s simply evidence that this particular law didn’t have enough teeth.

“In Indiana, they have the red flag law … but they don’t have the mechanism to make it difficult to get out and get more guns,” Michael Lawlor, a professor at the University of New Haven, told CNN.

Lawlor, who in 1999 helped write Connecticut’s red flag law—the first in the United States—as a member of the state legislature, said it should have been a “no-brainer” in Connecticut to prevent a person like Hole from purchasing a firearm.

In other words, we simply need a more effective bureaucracy. This is, of course, a perennial rejoinder from those who believe the state would run smoothly if only the proper managers were executing the plan. But as the economist Ludwig von Mises has observed, this is a fantasy.

“It is a widespread illusion that the effi­ciency of government bureaus could be improved by management engineers and their methods of scientific management,” Mises noted in Bureaucracy. “What they call deficiencies and faults of the management of administrative agencies are necessary properties.”

In other words, per Mises, these types of inefficiencies and dysfunction are inherent in bureaucracies, which lack the incentive structure that makes markets so efficient.

“A bureau is not a profit-seeking enterprise; it cannot make use of any economic calculation, Mises wrote. “It is out of the question to improve its management by reshaping it ac­cording to the pattern of private business.”

Mises’s point is actually driven home by CNN. The network points out there have been numerous instances of red flag laws failing in precisely the manner seen in Indiana, including in November 2018, when a gunman killed 12 people and injured more than a dozen more at a bar in California not long after he was visited by law enforcement authorities for erratic behavior. Authorities could have easily executed a red flag law, but they did not.

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s say the system does work and a would-be shooter is denied a firearm purchase. What is to prevent that person from simply obtaining a firearm on the black market?

The reality is that black markets do exist. And an abundance of research shows that the vast majority of the people committing gun crimes are not lawful gun owners. One University of Pittsburgh study, for example, found that lawful gun owners accounted for just 18 percent of gun violence.

“The top-line finding of the study — that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes aren’t committed by lawful gun owners — reinforces a common refrain among gun rights advocacy groups,” The Washington Post said of the study. “They argue that since criminals don’t follow laws, new regulations on gun ownership would only serve to burden lawful owners while doing little to combat crime.”

It’s difficult to fathom that a person determined enough to kill strangers in cold blood will be deterred after being denied a firearm purchase at the local gun store.

The bottom line is that Brandon Hole was a deeply disturbed person whose bizarre interests and behavior reportedly included an obsession with “Bronies,’ a subculture of the internet for male fans of My Little Pony.

His life ended tragically and claimed the lives of others in an even more tragic fashion. But to think that his crime could have been prevented if only the bureaucratic system had worked more efficiently defies reason and empirical evidence.

Moreover, if we convince ourselves that bureaucracy can truly prevent crimes before they happen if we only push a little harder against civil liberties, we don’t just delude ourselves.

We may end up creating a world that’s even more terrifying than Philip Dick’s dystopian vision.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Rich Hollywood Elite Turns Oscars Into Far-Left Hate Speech Targeting Cops

This is why police officers are retiring in droves. The fact that our cities will become far less safe means nothing to these untalented clowns. Why would it? Many of them have very elaborate security details, and don’t have to worry about their safety. Hopefully few Americans will watch this crap.

Hollywood is dead. Finished. They destroyed America’s film industry – once the unparalleled world leader in entertainment.

They’ve been shoveling their communist crap down our throats and Americans have had it.

Oscars 2021 presenter Regina King announces awards as ‘maskless’ movie, references Derek Chauvin conviction

The 93rd Academy Awards are expected to be the lowest-rated yet despite several opportunities to make history

By Fox News, April 25, 2021

Sunday night’s Oscars kicked off with its first presenter of the night, actress Regina King, declaring the film industry’s biggest night is maintaining its producers’ promise: to provide an intimate ceremony with “maskless” guests amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“Oh, live TV here we go, welcome to the 93rd Oscars. Oh, Jesus, I made it,” King said.

Noting that it’s “been quite a year” for presenters, nominees, performers, and the rest of the world as we are “still smack dab in the middle of it,” the 93rd Academy Awards is a night “to celebrate,” she said.

“And yes, we’re doing it maskless,” King declared. “Well, think of this as a movie set, an Oscars movie with a cast of over 200 nominees. People have been vaxxed, tested, retested, social distanced and we are following all of the rigorous protocols that got us back to work safely. So, just like as a movie set masks off and when we’re not rolling, masks on. Ok, that’s how we do it.”

The “One Night in Miami” director added that it would have been quite a different celebratory night for her had Derek Chauvin not been convicted in the May 2020 murder of George Floyd.

“I have to be honest if things had gone differently this week in Minneapolis, I would have traded in my heels for marching boots,” she said.

The first two awards of the night went to Emerald Fennell who won the award for best original screenplay for the film “Promising Young Woman,” starring Carey Mulligan, and the best adapted screenplay then went to Florian Zeller and Christopher Hampton for “The Father.”

In accepting his award for best director, Thomas Vinterberg, paid tribute to his daughter, Ida, who he said died in a car accident days into beginning filming for “Another Round.”

“She loved this. She was supposed to be in this. You’ll be able to see her clapping and cheering with us. We ended up making this movie for her, as her monument. So, Ida, this is a miracle that just happened and you’re a part of this miracle. Maybe you’ve been pulling some strings somewhere, I don’t know. But this one is for you,” Vinterberg said.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fact Check: Oscar Winner Claims Police Killings Happen ‘Disproportionately’ to Black People

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

NEW YORK CITY: Muslim migrant gets life in prison for jihad bombing on subway in 2017

“Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh…”

Why was he here at all? Why did vetting procedures, if any, fail? What is being done to make sure this doesn’t happen again? Why, nothing, of course. Just the opposite.

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for ISIS-inspired Bombing in New York City Subway Station in 2017

Department of Justice, April 22, 2021:

WASHINGTON – A New York man was sentenced today to life in prison for detonating a bomb in a New York City subway station. He admitted that he conducted the terrorist attack on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh, was convicted by a federal jury of offenses related to the detonation and attempted detonation of a bomb in a subway station near the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City on Dec. 11, 2017. According to court documents, on Dec. 11, 2017, at approximately 7:20 a.m., Ullah detonated a pipe bomb strapped to his chest in a subway station near the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan. Shortly after the blast, first responders located Ullah lying on the ground in the station where he had detonated the improvised explosive device, and he was taken into custody. Surveillance footage captured Ullah walking through the station immediately prior to the explosion and then detonating the bomb.

“Ullah constructed a pipe bomb and detonated it in a mass transit hub in the heart of New York City to harm and terrorize as many people as possible – and he admitted that he did it on behalf of ISIS,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers for the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This case reminds us that the threat of ISIS-inspired terrorism remains real. This sentence holds Ullah accountable, as he will spend the rest of his life in federal prison for his crimes. I want to thank all of the agents, analysts, and prosecutors whose outstanding work made this result possible.”

“Akayed Ullah, previously convicted in a New York federal court of carrying out a lone-wolf bombing attack on behalf of ISIS at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a bustling transit artery in New York City, admittedly intended to murder as many innocent Americans as possible,” said U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss for the Southern District of New York. “Ullah’s motive was clear and unambiguous: a deeply held ideological hatred for America. Ironically, Ullah’s actions resulted only in reaffirming the greatness of America by displaying the fairness and impartiality for which our justice system stands. Ullah received a speedy, fair, public trial, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Akayed Ullah’s message of hatred clearly backfired; his just sentence of life in prison only exemplifies that cowardly acts of terrorism will be met with law enforcement’s unwavering resolve to protect our core values of freedom and democracy.”

“The defendant sought to attack innocent Americans who were going about their daily lives,” said Acting Assistant Director Patrick Reddan for Counterterrorism at the FBI. “He will now spend the rest of his life in prison, where he will not be in a position to attempt another attack. While the terrorism threat continues to evolve in this country, groups like ISIS remain committed to attacking America, and the FBI will continue to work with our JTTF partners across the country in our commitment to track down and disrupt terrorists who seek to harm our homeland.”

According to court documents and the evidence presented at trial, Ullah began radicalizing in approximately 2014. Ullah disagreed with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and began seeking out online materials promoting radical Islamic terrorist ideology. In particular, Ullah was inspired by ISIS propaganda, including a video in which ISIS instructed supporters to carry out attacks in their homelands if they were unable to travel overseas to join ISIS. Ullah began researching how to build a bomb about a year prior to his attack. He built his pipe bomb in the weeks leading up to the attack at his Brooklyn apartment.

Following the attack on Dec. 11, 2017, law enforcement located remnants of the pipe bomb on Ullah’s person and strewn across the attack site in the subway station. Law enforcement found, among other things: (i) a nine-volt battery inside Ullah’s pants pocket, which he used as the power source for triggering the bomb; (ii) wires connected to the battery and running underneath Ullah’s jacket; (iii) plastic zip ties underneath Ullah’s jacket, which he used to strap the bomb to his body; (iv) several fragments of a metal pipe, which Ullah had filled with an explosive substance that he made using sugar and match heads; (v) fragments of Christmas tree lightbulbs attached to wires, which Ullah used to ignite the explosion; and (vi) numerous metal screws. Ullah filled his pipe bomb with dozens of metal screws to function as shrapnel, for the purpose of causing maximum damage.

On the morning of the attack, shortly before detonating his bomb, Ullah posted a statement on Facebook referring to the then-President of the United States, stating: “Trump you failed to protect your nation.” Ullah also posted an ISIS slogan so that ISIS would know that he had carried out the attack on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization.

After Ullah was taken into custody following the attack, he waived his Miranda rights and spoke to law enforcement. Ullah was inspired by ISIS to carry out the Dec. 11 attack, and stated, among other things, “I did it for the Islamic State.” He also said that he chose a busy weekday morning for the attack in order to “terrorize as many people as possible.” One commuter who was inside the station when Ullah detonated the pipe bomb suffered a shrapnel wound to his leg, and two other victims partly lost their hearing as a result of the blast. Ullah’s attack caused the Port Authority subway station and bus terminal to shut down temporarily, disrupting the lives of commuters across the New York City area.

After the attack, law enforcement searched Ullah’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant. Agents recovered, among other things, Ullah’s passport, which contained the handwritten statement, “O AMERICA, DIE IN YOUR RAGE.” Less than two weeks before carrying out the attack, Ullah had watched and drawn inspiration from a particular ISIS propaganda video that proclaimed, “die in your rage, America,” with an image of the U.S. Capitol in the background.

Later in December 2017, while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the charges in this case, Ullah began chanting “more is coming” at a correctional officer, and then told the officer: “You started this war, we will finish it. More is coming, you’ll see.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer had Qur’an and prayer rug in his scooter

Turkey’s foreign ministry summons US Ambassador to protest recognition of Armenian Genocide

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer watched videos glorifying jihad before attack

France: Muslim migrant who stabbed police officer to death was screaming ‘Allahu akbar’

Finland: Muslim migrant gets four years in prison for bringing his 13-year-old wife to the country

Bangladesh: Muslim mob tears down newspaper office, attacks Hindu homes

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

Biden Administration Prioritizes “Wokeism,” Critical Race Theory In Schools

There is no constitutional role for the federal government in education.

The Biden administration is taking new steps to promote Critical Race Theory and The New York Times’s controversial 1619 Project in US education programs. In a proposed federal rule issued on Monday, the US Department of Education indicated that it will be using taxpayer funds to award millions of dollars in American history and civics education grants that prioritize the belief that America is systemically racist.

The grant program seeks “projects that incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse perspectives into teaching and learning,” and refers to President Biden’s Inauguration Day executive order that explains how our country is plagued by “systemic racism” and “deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” to address this issue.

The new federal proposed rule refers to the 1619 Project and related curriculum resources as a “landmark” model for US history and civics education, despite its agenda-driven hostility against capitalism, its flawed historical analysis that many scholars have deemed false, and the Times’s own correction of the project.

The grant prioritization also pushes for greater emphasis on “anti-racism” training in schools, and quotes the work of Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist.

Successful applicants will demonstrate how their projects emphasize “systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history,” and promote “identity-safe learning environments.”

When former President Trump issued his call for a “1776 Commission” last September to advocate for widespread “patriotic education” in schools across the country, I warned that this was a bad idea. There is no constitutional role for the federal government in education. If one president decides to use the power of the federal government to push one particular educational paradigm, then another president could use the same power to push a different one. In my FEE article, I wrote:

“Emboldening the federal government to execute education policy may seem appealing when your preferred politician or party is in power, but that power remains when leadership inevitably sways to another politician or party. If you wouldn’t support a Biden ‘1619 Commission,’ then you shouldn’t support Trump’s ‘1776 Commission.’ If you wouldn’t support mandatory ‘critical race theory’ taught in your local schools, then you shouldn’t support mandatory ‘patriotic education’ either.”

But, here we are.

Decentralizing power away from the federal government and towards the state and local levels allows for greater taxpayer influence over public policy. It also makes it easier for citizens to choose where to live based on policy. For instance, if parents in Illinois don’t like the new teaching standards that the legislature recently passed to incorporate Critical Race Theory into state teacher training programs, they can always move to another state. If the federal government passes such a law, parents have far fewer options.

The Founders’ belief in federalism, or avoiding the concentration of power at the federal level, is crucially important. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, no. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” States can make education policy. The federal government cannot.

While the federal government should not be involved in education policy, there is much to debate at the state and local levels in terms of curriculum and learning standards. Critical Race Theory is penetrating classrooms across the country, and parents and teachers are increasingly speaking out against this leftist ideology of “wokeism,” even if it costs them their job.

We should absolutely celebrate diversity, show tolerance for difference, and acknowledge the deeply racist parts of American history, including government-sponsored racism through Jim Crow laws and redlining. We should also recognize that racism still exists today.

But Critical Race Theory seeks to view all social and cultural issues through the lens of race and racial identity, and to cast all human relations in terms of power structures related to that identity. It is a collectivist notion that puts the group above the individual and pigeonholes people as either oppressor or oppressed.

Indeed, the history of Critical Race Theory is rooted in Marxist thought and began to gain traction in academic circles in the early to mid-20th century through the “Frankfurt School” before spilling over into the broader culture near the turn of the millennium.

Last fall, FEE’s Dan Sanchez, Tyler Brandt, and Brad Polumbo wrote an excellent, in-depth explainer article on Critical Race Theory (CRT), discussing how it threatened the important progress made by the Civil Rights Movement. “The pre-CRT Civil Rights Movement had emphasized equal rights and treating people as individuals, as opposed to as members of a racial collective,” they wrote. “In contrast, CRT dwells on inequalities of outcome, which it generally attributes to racial power structures.”

They argued that the Civil Rights Movement was in line with the broader classical liberal movement, whose harmony-oriented vision stands in stark contrast against the Marxian conflict-oriented view of Critical Race Theory.

“The classical liberal ‘harmony doctrine,’” they explained, “was deeply influential in the movements to abolish all forms of inequality under the law: from feudal serfdom, to race-based slavery, to Jim Crow. But, with the rise of Critical Race Theory, the cause of racial justice became more influenced by the fixations on conflict, discord, and domination that CRT inherited from Marxism. Social life was predominantly cast as a zero-sum struggle between collectives: capital vs. labor for Marxism, whites vs. people of color for CRT.”

The antidote to this Marxist framework is to prioritize individualism over collectivism, in both schools and society more broadly. It’s to focus on the content of one’s character rather than the color of one’s skin, as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. urged.

Critical Race Theory does the opposite. “‘Antiracist’ training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising,” math teacher Paul Rossi wrote last week in his letter objecting to the adoption of Critical Race Theory at his elite private school in Manhattan. “It requires teachers like myself to treat students differently on the basis of race.”

As more parents and teachers speak out against Critical Race Theory and “wokeism” in their schools, education policy and pedagogy will hopefully reject group antagonisms and embrace individual liberty and social harmony.

COLUMN BY

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald is a Senior Education Fellow at FEE and author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019). She is also an adjunct scholar at The Cato Institute and a regular Forbes contributor. Kerry has a B.A. in economics from Bowdoin College and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard University. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with her husband and four children. You can sign up for her weekly newsletter on parenting and education here.

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

VIDEO: The Lynching of American Cops

What happens when good cops are driven out by political lynch mobs?

©Wild Bill for America. All rights reserved.

House passes bill stopping any future president from imposing ‘travel ban on the basis of religion’

The list of countries of concern that the Trump administration outlined in an executive order was based on the document devised by the former Obama administration. Despite the fact that it was Obama who set the foundation, it is Trump who is persistently criticized as being discriminatory against Muslims. Obama restricted visa waivers for seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The restriction was based on security issues. But we didn’t hear any Leftist outcry about Obama being “racist” against Muslims or discriminatory.

This new bill is nothing but virtue-signaling, and wouldn’t even have stopped Trump’s bans, for they were not based on religion, but on security.

It just happens to be the case that among the world’s most egregious violators of human rights and hotbeds of terrorism are many Muslim countries. Does this new bill now mean that such countries when they are Muslim-majority are no longer dangerous? Does it mean that America should permit open immigration from any country, no matter how violent, as to not offend Muslims and the woke crowd?

As absurd as all this is, it is the premise of the irrational policies that are being instituted by the Biden administration. The administration is willing to put national security at risk as to not offend Islam. America continues a rapid descent downwards; Sharia tenets are being institutionalized, while the strictures and policies of Communism are being increasingly normalized.

US House passes bill to prevent another ‘Muslim ban’

by William Roberts, Al Jazeera, April 21, 2021:

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would limit the ability of any United States president to impose a travel ban on the basis of religion, a move that was welcomed by civil rights advocates as “a major step forward”.

The legislation, known informally as the NO BAN Act, comes in response to former President Donald Trump’s controversial “Muslim ban” that barred travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries.

The bill, which must also pass in the US Senate to become law, was approved by a 218-208 vote in the House on Wednesday.

“The Muslim ban tore families apart, put lives on hold for years and labelled Muslims, Africans and other targeted people as threatening outsiders,” said Madihha Ahussain, counsel to Muslim Advocates, a US civil rights group.

“We must ensure that no president can enact discriminatory bans like this ever again and with the passage of the NO BAN Act in the House, we are taking a major step forward to ensuring that they won’t,” Ahussain said in a statement as the bill was passed…

COLUMN BY

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Biden’s Handlers to Bring In More ‘Refugees’

CENTCOM top dog: it will be difficult to battle terrorism in Afghanistan without U.S. troops in the country

Bangladesh: Muslim leader arrested for instigating violence, attempted murder, assault and vandalism

Iran: Advanced centrifuges discovered at nuke facility, again proving Islamic Republic violated 2015 deal

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

Election Integrity Recommendations Report — Official Release

Today we are proud to announce the official public release of our Election Integrity: Recommendations Report.

Although our team of independent experts has written eight other major reports pertaining to US elections, this is the most important one, by far. (Please pass on the link to this one-page document to anyone interested in the election integrity issue.)

We’ve been working on this for about two months, and set for ourselves four (4) standards that this report should meet:

Competent, Comprehensive, Collaborative and Creative.

Regarding collaborative, there is no shortage of partisan ideas regarding the US election process (e.g. HR.1/S.1). We are attempting to reasonably bridge the currently cavernous divide. To say the least, that is a Herculean challenge!

For those who favor brevity, we have also posted a one-page document listing our thirty recommendations.

Let me know any questions, or improvements to this report.

Please pass this information onto your social media sites, friends & family, and anyone else who values America. If we don’t have election integrity, every other aspect of our life will be adversely affected.

TY for your support and assistance on this extraordinarily important national matter!

Note 1: How does our Recommendations Report differ from the dozens of reports done on the election issue to date?

a) It is written by independent scientists, outside the election analysis field,
b) It is a meta-analysis of dozens of election related reports, extracting the best ideas from each,
c) It is an exceptionally comprehensive report, with thirty (30) election integrity recommendations,
d) Among these thirty recommendations are ideas never suggested before,
e) It aims to be reasonably non-partisan, with concessions made to both camps, and
f) It takes advantage of the latest election developments that happened through April 2021.

Note 2: What is urgently needed, is for election integrity allies to come together to aggressively support a package of improvements such as we are formally proposing today — then to agree on effective messaging, plus a quality plan-of-action.
Note 3: Our Recommendations Report is a living document, and will be updated as improvements are warranted.

‘Squad’ members spent up to $32,000 on private security while championing defunding the police

How long will Americans tolerate this corruption and depravity?

‘Squad’ members spent up to $32,000 on private security while championing defunding the police

By Washington Examiner, April 20, 2021

Members of the “Squad” spent thousands on personal security despite calling for the police to be defunded in the last year.

Federal Election Commission data show that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and Rep. Cori Bush each spent thousands of dollars for services listed as “security” or “security services” in the last few months.

Ocasio-Cortez spent $3,000 per month in January, February, and March on security from one firm out of New York City.

Omar, meanwhile, spent a total of $3,103.61 on security during those same months, and Pressley spent $4,186.75 on “Security Services.”

Bush, who is a freshman congresswoman, spent the most on security, to the tune of more than $32,000, according to an April quarterly 2021 financial report.

All four women joined the chorus of Democrats and Black Lives Matter activists who demanded that law enforcement be defunded after George Floyd’s death last May.

Ocasio-Cortez, for example, rebuked New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio last June for proposing a $1 billion cut to the New York Police Department, saying it wasn’t nearly enough.

“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”

That same month, Omar tweeted that the “‘defund the police’ movement, is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, claimed to have been murdered by Trump supporters, actually died of a stroke

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

PODCAST: Packing The Court

During the 2020 campaign, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden proposed developing a bipartisan dialog regarding the number of justices to sit on the Supreme Court. This occurred following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice, thereby putting conservatives firmly in control of the Court. Biden’s proposal was all part of his “unity” themed campaign he promised to America which, of course, was a bald faced lie. Instead of such a dialog, the Democrat controlled Congress has jumped the gun and is now proposing four more seats being added to the court which would enable the Democrats to take political control of the Court.

This legislation is being introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY17), and Hank Johnson (D-GA4), all Democrats. Republicans, of course, were never consulted. So much for “unity.” If enacted, this would allow the court to grow from nine seats to thirteen. In reality, this is a thinly veiled attempt to politicize the supreme court in favor of leftist doctrine and a genuine threat to our Republic.

This is certainly not the first time politicians have tried to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. Let’s begin with this fact; the Court’s size had been set at nine since the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869, over 150 years ago.

As a point of history, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) also tried to change the makeup of the court during his administration. Prior to this, his government work programs during the Great Depression were regularly rejected by the Court, thereby infuriating the President. To overcome this problem, FDR introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. This would have allowed him to appoint a justice for every current justice over the age of 70 which, at the time, was six, thereby expanding the court to fifteen and presumably giving the president the votes needed to pass his legislation.

Fortunately, the Bill was defeated as it was considered by Congress as nothing more than an attempt by FDR to pack the court. Both Republicans and Democrats voted against it, including FDR’s Vice President at the time, John Nance Garner.

Just as in 1937, the 2021 Bill is based on political bias and is rightfully considered a court packing scheme by the Democrats. It will be interesting to see how Democrats vote on this legislation this go around. I suspect they will vote along party lines.

My question is simple; if the Democrats insist on doing this, why stop at a thirteen seat Court? Why not 99? Suppose the legislation is passed and thirteen becomes the magic number. What would the Democrats do if the Court is taken over by conservative justices? Increase the number of seats again? Frankly, any number other than nine would be considered a farce.

In other words, let’s uphold the Judiciary Act of 1869 and Keep It Simple Stupid.

Keep theFaith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Interior Enforcement And The Border Crisis

The one issue intentionally ignored by our corrupt political elites.

There is no shortage of news coverage about the immigration crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border, with much of the coverage focusing on the horrific conditions in which unaccompanied minors are being kept.

What is almost never discussed, however, is how the lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws within the United States fails to deter and actually serves to encourage massive levels of illegal immigration. What is also ignored is how this lack of interior enforcement undermines national security, public safety, public health, and the jobs and wages of Americans.

Consider that if you ask most folks how many “border states” the U.S. has, you are likely to be told that there are four: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

In reality the United States has 50 border states. Any state that lies along the northern and the southern border or along America’s 95,000 miles of coastline is also a border state, as are those states that have international airports. As I have written about before, the breakdown of the Southwest border is only the tip of the iceberg.

Meanwhile, radical Democrats are now calling for the dismantling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Biden administration has taken the unprecedented measure of issuing an executive order prohibiting ICE agents from making warrantless arrests of illegal aliens. Given this and the Biden administration opposing other such security measures, it can truly be said that “Biden Cripples Immigration Law Enforcement” because his executive orders handcuff agents and set law violators free.

On February 18, 2021 the Washington Post reported that a “Biden memo for ICE officers points to fewer deportations and strict oversight.” According to the Post, ICE agents “will need preapproval from a senior manager before trying to deport anyone who is not a recent border crosser, a national security threat or a criminal offender with an aggravated-felony conviction.” The Biden administration expects this policy “to result in a steep drop in immigration arrests and deportations.”

In other words, with a mere stroke of his pen, Biden has virtually eliminated the statutory authority that ICE agents have to make warrantless arrests of suspected illegal aliens. This sends a clear message to the agents, that anything they do can (and likely will) be used against them.

Furthermore so-called “sanctuary” policies implemented by numerous mayors and even some governors further undermine any remaining vestiges of interior enforcement and hence undermine national security and public safety. Sanctuary states now provide driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. New York state even went so far as to block ICE and Border Patrol access to its DMV database, Cuomo’s gift to ISIS, the drug cartels, and human traffickers.

Under Biden’s policies, the Border Patrol is once again engaged in the “Catch and Release” of aliens they arrest. Upon release, these aliens head to towns and cities across the United States. Some have been told to appear for hearings years from now and some have not even been given court dates. Aliens who fail to appear for immigration hearings will have nothing to fear from immigration authorities because of the Biden executive orders and policies.

For decades the interior enforcement mission of immigration law enforcement under both Democrat and Republican administrations has been all but ignored. This has, in my judgement, been the biggest failure of the immigration system and is really a failure by design. It has suffered from an abject lack of resources that has done untold damage and, in my judgement and even in the judgement of the 9/11 Commission, contributed to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and other terror attacks mounted in the United States by international terrorists.

This lack of interior enforcement also hobbles efforts to combat human trafficking, transnational gangs, and drug trafficking organizations. ICE agents are supposed to investigate and penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. ICE agents are assigned to various multi-agency task forces such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, where I was assigned for the final ten years of my career with the former United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In November 2001, just weeks after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, I testified before the House Immigration Reform Caucus, then chaired by Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. On December 10, 2001, he entered my prepared testimony for that hearing into the Congressional Record. The focus of that hearing, and consequently my testimony, was to explore the failures of the immigration system that contributed to the ability of the terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves in our country, and prepare to carry out the most horrific terror attack in our nation’s history.

Among the issues that I raised was my concept of the “Immigration Enforcement Tripod.”  Under this concept, the Border Patrol enforces our immigration laws between ports of entry, interdicting illegal immigration and the smuggling of contraband into the United States; the Immigration inspectors (now known as Customs and Border Protection inspectors) enforce our immigration laws at ports of entry by applying the immigration laws during the inspections process; and, finally, comprising the third leg of the enforcement tripod are the Immigration special agents (Now Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents) who enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, backing up both the Border Patrol and the CBP Inspectors by arresting aliens who evade the Border Patrol and the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by entering the United States without inspection. ICE agents are also supposed to arrest aliens who violate their terms of lawful admission into the United States.

ICE agents also conduct investigations into immigration fraud where aliens may enter into fraud marriages with U.S. citizens or lawful immigrant aliens in order to acquire lawful immigrant status or seek visas by concealing or altering material facts in their applications. The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified immigration fraud and visa fraud as the key methods of entry and embedding employed by not only the 9/11 hijacker terrorists, but other terrorists as well.

Immigration fraud enables aliens to circumvent measures that are designed to combat illegal immigration. The border wall that has received so much attention can be easily defeated by an item that you can place in their jacket pocket or hold in your hand: a green card.

Similarly, while so many have, over the years, asked me if mandatory E-Verify would end illegal immigration once and for all by forcing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens, the answer is that through immigration fraud, an alien who acquires a green card or other appropriate visa can legally work in the United States, enabling them to fly through the E-Verify program.

The only way to combat immigration fraud is to have an adequate number of ICE agents who have the resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Today ICE has only about 6,000 agents for the entire country and most of them are engaged in non-immigration related investigations.

The official commission report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel,” included several observations that are important to consider. Page 61 warned that “human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.” Page 98 observes that immigration fraud is a primary method for terrorists to remain in the U.S. after securing entry. For example, “Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Moreover, the report warns, simple immigration benefit fraud can and has been used by terrorists to prolong their residency in the U.S. “In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated.”

Consider how so many of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and expectations of privacy have been sliced away in the name of “national security” in the post-9/11 world while a succession of administrations have ignored the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Harry Truman understood accountability when he placed that placard on the desk in the Oval Office that read, “The Buck Stops Here!” Today it would appear that the Biden administration is obstructing the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act undermining national security, public safety, public health, and in direct opposition to those critical findings and recommendations of the commission that was convened to protect us from future terrorist attacks. It needs to be held accountable.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

Why America’s Founders Didn’t Want a Democracy

In his book “Liberty in Peril,” Randall Holcombe challenges the presumption that liberty and democracy are complementary.

When I took history and government in school, many critical issues were misrepresented, given short shrift, or even ignored entirely. And those lacunae undermined my ability to adequately understand many things. Randall Holcombe’s new book, Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History, fills in some very substantial gaps, particularly with regard to American constitutionalism and how it has morphed from protecting liberty to advancing democracy at the expense of liberty. It does so with a host of novel and important insights rather than the disinterest generated by the books I suffered through in school.

The Role of Government

Holcombe gets right to the main point:

The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically allowed by the Constitution. This book describes how the fundamental principle underlying American government has been transformed from protecting individual liberty to carrying out the will of the people, as revealed by a democratic decision-making process. (p. xxii)

Holcombe begins by laying out the case that “the Founders had no intention of creating a democracy, in the sense of a government that would be guided by popular opinion,” (p. 5) in sharp contrast to current “understanding.” And what makes the transformation from a central focus on liberty to a central focus on democracy that routinely invades liberty particularly significant is that

the powers embodied in America’s twenty-first-century democratic government are those that eighteenth-century Americans revolted against to escape. (p. 7)

Since I do not have the space to dissect all of the issues in Liberty in Peril, I would like to highlight a few particularly noteworthy things.

Holcombe starts with John Locke, which is a common place to start for those interested in advancing liberty. But he also calls attention to Cato’s Letters, which was one of the most influential—but now almost completely ignored—influences leading to the birth of the American Revolution. I have long been struck by how many of the insights our founders are credited with that actually trace back there (see the first major chapter of my book Lines of Liberty), and I echo Holcombe’s invitation for more people to discover it.

Liberty in Peril challenges the typical current presumption that liberty and democracy are complementary.

The principle of liberty suggests that first and foremost, the government’s role is to protect the rights of individuals. The principle of democracy suggests that collective decisions are made according to the will of the majority…The greater the allowable scope of democracy in government, the greater the threat to liberty…In particular, the ascendency of the concept of democracy threatens the survival of the free market economy, which is an extension of the Founders’ views on liberty. (pp. 14-15)

This is reflected in the changing nature of elections.

At one time, elections might have been viewed as a method of selecting competent people to undertake a job with constitutionally-specified limits. With the extension of democracy, elections became referendums on public policy. (p. 20)

The book also challenges commonly held presumptions that our Founders wanted democracy. But while “the Founders wanted those in charge of government’s operations to be selected by a democratic process,” they “also wanted to insulate those who ran the government from direct influence by its citizens” because “[b]y insulating political decision-makers from directs accountability to citizens, the government would be in a better position to adhere to its constitutionally-mandated limits.” (p. 15)

“Thus, the Constitution created a limited government designed to protect liberty, not to foster democracy.” (p. 16) But the United States “consistently has moved toward more democracy, and the unintended side effect has been a reduction in liberty.” (p. 25)

Holcombe lays out issues of consensus versus democracy, with consensus illustrated by market systems in which all those whose property rights are involved agree to transactions, (p. 29) but in government, “a group is able to undertake more extensive collective action if it requires less consensus to act.” (p. 30) And the slippery slope is that

[t]he more citizens want to further national goals through government action, the less consensus they will demand in the collective decision-making process. (p. 33)

Another notable aspect of Liberty in Peril is how far beyond the typical discussion of constitutional issues it goes, substantially expanding readers’ understanding in intriguing ways. For instance, how many Americans know of the Iroquois Constitution, which focused on unanimity? How many are aware of the Albany Plan of Union, drawn up in 1754, or how it was influenced by the Iroquois Constitution? How many know that a “clear chain of constitutional evolution proceeds from the Albany Plan of Union to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States”? (p. 43)

How many have noticed that “when compared with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution clearly less constraining than the document it supplanted…the Constitution did not limit the powers of government; it expanded them”? (p. 48) Yet,

[w]hile the authors of the Constitution did deliberately expand the powers of the federal government, they just as deliberately tried to prevent the creation of a democratic government. (p. 52)

How many are aware of what the Confederate Constitution tells us about the US Constitution and the drift from its principles since its adoption, especially because “the problems that the authors of the Confederate Constitution actually did address were overwhelmingly associated with the use of legislative powers to impose costs on the general public to provide benefits to narrow constituencies”? (p. 107)

The Constitution often is portrayed as a document that limits the power of the federal government and guarantees the liberty of its citizens…When compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution places less constraint on the federal government and allows those who run the government more discretion and autonomy and less accountability. The adoption of the Constitution enhanced the powers of government and laid the foundation for two centuries of government growth. (pp. 66-67)

Holcombe’s section on “The Elitist Constitution” is fascinating. It lays out the case for why “[t]he Constitution devised democratic processes for collective decision-making, but the Founders had no intention of designing a government that would respond to the will of the majority,” (p. 70) as illustrated by the fact that citizens “had almost no direct input into the federal government as the Constitution was originally written and ratified.” (p. 70)

The section on the Electoral College is even more striking, as it stands in sharp variance from the presumptions behind almost the entire current debate over the National Popular Vote compact:

[A]t the time the Constitution was written the Founders anticipated that in most cases no candidate would receive votes from a majority of the electors. The Founders reasoned that most electors would vote for one candidate from their own states…and it would be unlikely that voting along state lines would produce any candidate with a majority of the votes. (p. 75)

Consequently,

The Founders envisioned that in most cases the president would end up being chosen by the House of Representatives from the list of the top-five electoral vote recipients…Furthermore, there was no indication that the number of electoral votes received should carry any weight besides creating a list of the top five candidates…The process was not intended to be democratic. (p. 76)

I found the issues discussed above to be of particular interest. But there is far more in the book to learn from, and often be surprised by, in comparison to what history courses usually teach.

Such issues include the evolution of parties, the influence of Andrew Jackson, who “fought for democracy, but, ironically, the result of making the nation’s government more democratic has been to expand the scope and power of government in response to popular demands for govern programs,” (p. 91) which “the Founders foresaw and tried to guard against by limiting the role of democracy in their new government,” (p. 91), the War Between the States (“the single most important event in the transformation of American government,” (p. 93) including the elimination of state succession as a real possibility, the Reconstruction Era amendments, the origins of interest group politics, the evolution of federal regulatory power, the evolution of the incentives of civil servants, the Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) as “a response to the demand for a larger federal government,” (p. 149) a different take on the 1920s, in which “[f]ar from representing a retreat from progressivism, the 1920s extended the now-established orthodoxy, (p. 154) added insight into the New Deal and the courts, Social Security as the “one New Deal program for the responsibility for fundamentally transforming the historical, constitutional role of the federal government,” (p. 175) how “The Great Society represents the ultimate triumph of democracy, because for the first time a major expansion in the scope of government was based on the demands of the electorate, with no extenuation circumstances” (p. 205), and far more.

In sum, there are very many good reasons to recommend Liberty in Peril. In it, Randall Holcombe provides not just a powerful and insightful look into crucial aspects of America’s evolution away from the principles of the revolution that created it but also an important warning:

Unfortunately, many Americans do not appear to fully understand these dangers as they continue to push the foundations of their government away from liberty and toward democracy. (p. 225)

COLUMN BY

Gary M. Galles

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education faculty network. In addition to his new book, Pathways to Policy Failures (2020), his books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014), and Apostle of Peace (2013).

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

PODCAST: Dem’s HR-1 and The Jim Crow Shtick

When it comes to voting reform, Democrats gleefully point at their pending H.R.1 “For the People” Act which they claim will make voting accessible to more people, most of whom are illegal aliens. When the Republicans push for voter reform, such as what was recently implemented in Georgia, the Democrats accuse them of implementing racially designed “Jim Crow” laws. Even President Biden called the Georgia law, “Jim Crow in the 21st Century,” as well as many other Democrats and left-leaning media personnel.

Some of us are old enough to remember Jim Crow laws, but most of the voters today haven’t a clue regarding its background and it’s applicability today. Let’s try to clear this up.

Following the American Civil War, the country entered a period of “Reconstruction” of the South. This consisted of laws devised by northern Republicans to get the South back on its feet economically while securing the civil rights of the former slaves. Over time, federal troops withdrew from the South and Democrats took control of the State Assemblies and governor mansions. To combat Republican policies, these “Dixiecrats” implemented sweeping rules and regulations depriving blacks of their civil rights, particularly in the areas of segregation, land ownership and voting, thereby catering to white control. In effect, they were able to turn the clock backwards to before the Civil War without having to enslave anyone.

Over time, “Dixiecrats” power grew in parallel with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In particular, both groups grew to prominence during the Wilson administration and beyond. It finally ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act under President Lyndon Johnson.

The rules devised by the southern Democrats came to be referred to as “Jim Crow,” which was named after a theater character stereotyping blacks from the early part of the 19th century. Such laws defined where a black could go to school, where to eat and drink, shop, reside, ride a bus, vote, and many other oppressive stipulations.

Interestingly, now the Republicans are being accused of enacting similar laws. It is rather ironic the party of Lincoln, who fought for the freedom of slaves, is being falsely accused of such nonsense. Let us not forget, not one Republican president owned a slave. The Democrats cannot claim otherwise.

Today’s Republicans are simply angling to stop illegal voting, such as fraudulent and duplicate voting. This is why they are in favor of such things as Voter Identification, verifying signatures, review of voter rolls, etc., none of which is in the Democrats’ H.R.1 Bill. In fact, H.R.1 would simplify voter cheating if enacted. Instead, Democrats claim Republican voter initiatives would prohibit people from voting, hence they claim it is “Racist” and akin to “Jim Crow.” Of course, this is an old tactic used by the radical left to try and bully people and has nothing to do with reality. It is a familiar shtick to falsely cast dispersions on others while they, themselves, are the true culprits trying to undermine the system for political gain.

What we have to realize is those who falsely claim others are racists, are truly the racists themselves. You can call the Republicans whatever you want, but you cannot distort the truth, especially when it comes to “Jim Crow.” Frankly, this tactic has been used so many times, I doubt if it is effective any longer. However, as long as the populace remains ignorant of our history, such as who the true designers of “Jim Crow” laws were, we will continue to produce a sucker every minute. Then again, some people like to be deceived.

For more info, see; “Voter Fraud is Dirty Business” – July 09, 2020

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

PODCAST: Actually, Everything the DEMOCRATS do is Racist!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

RACHEL ALEXANDER

Rachel Alexander is a political columnist and the founder and editor of Intellectual Conservative. She is a regular contributor to Townhall, the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research and The Christian Post . She frequently appears on TV and news radio as a conservative commentator, and also hosted a radio show in Phoenix. She previously served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, corporate attorney for Go Daddy Software. Rachel was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists and is a recipient of Americans for Prosperity’s RightOnline Activist of the Year award.

TOPIC: Actually, Everything the DEMOCRATS do is Racist!

CATHERINE MORTENSEN

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government. She can be reached at cmortensen@getliberty.org. Mortensen is a former TV news anchor in New Mexico, elected official in Southern Colorado, and Capitol Hill communications director for Congressman Doug Lamborn. She also served as a spokesperson at the National Rifle Association. She has bachelor’s degrees in journalism and political science from Boston University and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

TOPIC: Fight to protect judicial independence ought to be bipartisan, where are the Democrats?

©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Utah Governor Defends Racism As Long As It’s Against White Kids

If America has a ‘race problem’, this is it.

Utah Governor Defends Racism As Long As It’s Against White Kids

By Jordan Davidson, The Federalist, April 16, 2021

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox defended racism against white kids during a question and answer session with constituents on Thursday.

During the session, live-tweeted by the governor’s official Twitter account, one Utah citizen asked “if it’s racist that the Utah Jazz excludes white children from the team’s scholarship program.”

The program created by the NBA team allots a scholarship to a new “underrepresented student of color enrolling as a freshman for the 2021-22 school year” for every team win during the 2020-21 season basketball season. To qualify for the funds, students must have graduated from high school and be a “person of color.” Since the program’s start, the team has handed out nearly 50 full-ride scholarships to black and minority students only.

Despite the team’s deliberate exclusion of white students from the program, Cox said the scholarship requirements are not racist.

“It’s not racist. Ryan Smith and the Jazz can do what they want with their funds. All kids should have equal opportunities, and we’re proud of the Jazz,” he replied.

When asked if Cox believes that excluding white people from amenities, finances, and programs is racist, the governor’s office reiterated his former claim but said it did not apply to government scholarships.

“Gov. Cox believes the Utah Jazz has every right to act according to their own corporate values and issue scholarships to whomever they choose. Government scholarships, on the other hand, are not based on race,” a spokesperson from the governor’s office told The Federalist.

The Utah Jazz also did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.

In addition to his comments about racism during the question and answer session, Cox claimed, without evidence, that masks are still required in Utah schools because education facilities “had high transmission rates early in the pandemic.” Cox also told a citizen concerned about the governor’s amassed power during the pandemic that he doesn’t support “reining in executive powers — especially on health and safety issues.”

https://twitter.com/GovCox/status/1382762842965766145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1382762842965766145%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2021%2F04%2F16%2Futah-governor-defends-racism-as-long-as-its-against-white-kids%2F

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Get the f*** out!’: Black protesters in Brooklyn Center eviscerate white protester, tell him ‘you’re white, you already don’t belong!’NEWS

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Says There Won’t be police Reform Until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

More reprehensible anti-police propaganda from CNN. This is why attacks on police officers is skyrocketing. This is why police officers are retiring en masse. CNN is a disgrace. Americans need to stop watching this disgusting and dangerous network.

Chris Cuomo says there won’t be police reform until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

‘What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police’ Cuomo said, pretending to be a White parent

By Fox News, April 17, 2021

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Friday during “Cuomo Primetime” said that police and gun reform won’t happen until  “White people’s kids start getting killed.”

“Shootings, gun laws, access to weapons. Oh, I know when they’ll change,” said the anchor. “[When] your kids start getting killed. White people’s kids start getting killed.”

Cuomo put on a hypothetical accent and pretended to be a White parent. “What’s going on with these police? Maybe we shouldn’t even have police,” he said.

“That kind of madness. That kind of mania. That will be you. That will be the majority. Because it’s your people,” Cuomo said, apparently directed at the White members of his audience.

“How many more?” Cuomo asked. “Die of the pandemic, dying from police shootings. George Floyd, Daunte Wright. I wonder if you’ll remember their names six months from now because they’ll be replaced by so many others.”

Cuomo pointed out that some focus on the past of the victims in police shootings.

“Why do that? Because you wanna make the problem them,” he said. “Takes the onus off the idea that you’re wrong about policing needing to change.”

“Forget that police are trained to deal with non-compliance with force that is not lethal. Hey, comply or die,” Cuomo said.

The U.S. has faced multiple major shootings over the past month, most recently in Indianapolis where a gunman opened fire at a FedEx facility, killing eight.

At the same time, tensions have reached new heights in some areas of the country where protesters and rioters are on edge as they await the verdict of the Derek Chauvin trial and demand justice in the police-involved killing of Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and 13-year-old Adam Toledo in Chicago, among others.

RELATED ARTICLE: LEFTWING RIOTS: Portland IN FLAMES overnight as ANTIFA sets Apple store, other buildings on fire

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

Gunmen Open Fire on National Guard Troops in Minneapolis After Democrat Maxine Waters Incites BLM Rioters To Violence: “Get More Confrontational.”

Murderess. Arrest Waters and charge her with attempted murder. Prosecute these bloody Democrat seditionists.

BREAKING: Gunmen Open Fire on National Guard Troops in Minneapolis, Two Injured

By Todd Starnes, Apr 18, 2021

Gunmen opened fire on National Guard troops in Minneapolis injuring at least two soldiers.

The Minnesota National Guard said the shooting happened in the early morning hours when security teams were providing neighborhood security.
The attack happened just hours after Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told an angry crowd in nearby Brooklyn Center to “get more confrontational.”

https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1383859904155316230?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1383859904155316230%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F04%2Fdemocrat-incite-to-murder-national-guartd.html%2F

“We’ve got to get more confrontational,” Waters told the crowd. “We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

“We’ve got to stay in the streets, and we’ve got to demand justice,” she declared.

Two members of the National Guard sustained minor injuries from shattered glass.

“I am relieved to know none of our Guardsmen were seriously injured,” said Maj. Gen. Shawn Manke, the Adjutant General of the Minnesota National Guard. “This event highlights the volatility and tension in our communities right now. I ask for peace as we work through this difficult time.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) blamed the attack on Waters.

“BLM terrorists took her orders and took action,” she wrote on Twitter. “She should be expelled from Congress.”

Republicans were right to be stunned and alarmed at Waters’ unhinged comments.

“The Radical Left don’t care if your towns are burning, if there’s violence in your streets, or if the police are too defunded to defend their communities. As long as the Left appeases their anti-America base, their job is done,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1383557652047826950?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1383557652047826950%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.toddstarnes.com%2Fcrime%2Fbreaking-gunmen-open-fire-on-national-guard-troops-in-minneapolis-two-injured%2F

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Fredo’ Cuomo Says There Won’t be police Reform Until ‘White people’s kids start getting killed’

Democrat NYC Mayoral Antisemite Candidate Labels Jewish State ‘Apartheid State’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permenently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadowbanned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on social and with your email contacts.

2020 Election Post-Mortem

Part 1: High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Now that the putative Biden-Harris administration is going full tilt, as we catch our breath and reflect on what has transpired in our country, we would do well to consider the wider implications of the theft of this election. So let’s return to the scene of the crime—actually, to the scenes of the multiple crimes inflicted on our nation.

Election Theft Crime #1

By now we know about the Dems’ rampant and shameless vote fraud, and the gigantic CCP cyber attack on our election through Dominion and other voting machines. We have hard evidence of foreign interference in our election in the 270 pages of evidence compiled by attorney Sidney Powell, as well as a treasure trove of incriminating evidence recently made public by Mike Lindell in his documentary “Absolute Proof!” In that documentary, we actually got to see the forensic data, including computer time stamps, and all manner of specificity: from computer X to computer Y in this or that location, etc. The data entries are all unique, but they coincidentally all show the exact same vote shift: from President Trump to Beijing Biden. And we have paper evidence as well. You may recall that back in early January, Patrick Byrne—former CEO of Overstock who joined Sidney Powell and others to aid Trump in attempting to prove his election win—wrote about a shredding company given 3,000 pounds of ballots from Georgia to dispose of, pieces of which remained and were subsequently analyzed. In their midst, authorities discovered a shipping receipt…wait for it…from China! Of course, the ballots themselves were not legitimate—they were phony Chinese knock-offs, all marked for…guess who? Let’s call that Crime #1.

Election Theft Crime #2

Crime #2 is the false flag event before, during and after the peaceful Trump rally in D.C. on January 6th. You better believe the radical Left, aka Democrats, had war-gamed January 6th down to the last detail. In fact, there’s a video by brilliant young journalist Millie Weaver, that, in my opinion, puts the Watergate journalists Woodward and Bernstein to shame. In that video, we hear the Leftists planning and plotting their on-the-ground destructive strategies through conversations Millie’s undercover reporter recorded in real-time, à la Project Veritas. It is an eye-opener for sure.

Here are the names of some of the Marxist/revolutionary organizations infesting our nation and busily planning its demise: The Sunrise Movement, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Momentum, Extinction Rebellion, Shutdown DC, and United for Peace and Justice, which is a coalition of over 1,000 Leftist groups. And as everyone witnessed on live TV, they were all on fire to wreak havoc on January 6th! In the undercover video, they are planning for every contingency, including a Trump win. That possibility, in their minds, called for the literal takeover of D.C., like Seattle’s CHAZ on steroids.

And in case you think these Leftists/Marxists are just fringy aging hippies and clueless young radicals operating in a fantasy world of their own, here’s some more bad news for you: these radical organizations boast many government officials among their ranks! That’s right: people who for all we know are nameless, faceless bureaucrats conducting the nation’s business for their fat paychecks and handsome retirement benefits, are colluding with the Soros-funded minions hell-bent on overturning the freest and most prosperous nation in human history. One such woman worked at DHS Headquarters. Another still works in National Security. Go figure!

They war-gamed for every possible outcome—if only Conservatives did that! If Trump were to win they’d use Plan A. If Biden won but Trump wouldn’t concede, Plan B. If the results were unclear, Plan C, etc. And they took strategy lessons from a real pro: Lisa Fithian, of the National Steering Committee of United for Peace and Justice, an organization which, in true Orwellian fashion, seeks war rather than peace, and the destruction of the rule of law under our Constitution, rather than justice.

Originally, these folks planned to actually physically seize the White House and take over major cities all over the country on election night. I suppose as the Big Steal proceeded apace, they were told they could wait it out. Then came their new plan, “On the 5th we’re going to shut down the White House.” They managed to procure a military-style “target map” that is far more detailed than Google Earth maps, to use for spotting the police stations, key government buildings, bridges, places to blockade and disrupt transportation, etc. Spooky. Creepy. Malevolent.

Watching Communists at work is not for the faint-hearted.

Election Theft Crime #3

Crime #3 took place in the Capitol Building in the aftermath of the false flag “insurrection” in which Antifa thugs masquerading as Trump supporters broke some windows and instigated chaos. By the way, it now seems that the only deaths during the “storming of the Capitol”—which was more like a spontaneous sightseeing tour for folks who got waved in by the Capitol police—were from medical emergencies, not violence, with the exception of the death of Ashli Babbitt, who was purportedly shot and killed by a Capitol policeman. Funny thing about that point-blank shooting death, though. Some have pointed out that there was hardly any blood although Babbitt was shot at close range in the neck, which would normally have resulted in copious bleeding and splatter. Just sayin’.

Let’s now examine what transpired as our heroic Congressional Representatives finally emerged from their safe-space bunker. And notice how the Deep State performs many of its most egregious acts of destruction under cover of darkness, in the middle of the night. That’s what they did with their fraudulent vote-counting, and that’s what they did vis-à-vis the Joint Session of Congress. Some of the Congressional members may not have known the “insurrection” was basically Leftist preplanned theater, and so really felt threatened and frightened. Of course they’d be quick to believe the MSM narrative, which was also propounded by their colluding colleagues.

But ask yourself this: Why didn’t VP Pence send everyone home and announce a plan to reconvene on Friday, or maybe Monday, to conduct this all-important business for the nation? Would any of us have been in a proper state of mind to intelligently and dispassionately decide the fate of our Republic under those chaotic circumstances? They’d had a shock, and were likely tired and hungry and wanting to go home, have dinner and a stiff drink, and go to bed. Perhaps that’s why they stopped the proceedings after hearing from only two of the four states whose legislatures had submitted requests for time to conduct forensic audits. In any case, once again, at 3:40am, after we’d all gone to sleep—the same way they’d counted up the fake votes in the wee small hours of the morning—they sold out America by certifying the results of the Color Revolution against our nation. We must never forget this final travesty was performed by American citizens on American soil—predominantly by those we trusted and employed as our elected representatives.

Part 2: The Biblical Resonance

What makes the stolen 2020 election Biblical is not only that it may well spell the end of the American experiment in liberty, but that the fate of the entire world seems to hang upon it. For while members of the unholy alliance among the Chinese Communists, the Deep State, the Republicans in Name Only (RINOs), the Democrats, the radical Left (but I repeat myself)—may have sought to take down America for their own reasons, the ultimate goal of the Davos Cabal is nothing short of enslaving all the people of the world under their planned and tyrannical One World Government. The good news is that millions of people worldwide have awakened to this danger—another reason the cabal is moving at lightning speed, and taking so many big risks in the process. This battle is spiritual as well as physical, moral as well as political—a battle ultimately for our bodies, minds, and very souls.

The Power of MAGA

And as some of us see fit to describe Pence as Judas, or perhaps Pontius Pilate, this simultaneously implies the analogy of Trump as Savior. Of course we’re well acquainted with Trump’s shortcomings and foibles, and understand that as human  beings, we’re all imperfect, so I’m certainly not comparing Trump to Jesus in any literal sense. Nevertheless, President Trump, as he himself has stated, stood between us and our enemies, and many have looked to him as our champion and protector. For those who haven’t read my article “Trump is My President!”, here’s a small sample of the national and international reverence for this man:

“I’m from Malaysia, and Trump is my President!”
“I’m from Japan, and Trump is my President!”
“I’m from Canada, and Trump is my President!”
“I’m from Wisconsin and Trump is my President!”
“I’m from Singapore, and Trump is my President!”
“I’m from Ireland, and Trump is my President!”

“BAHAMAS HERE— GO TRUMP!”

So much love and appreciation for this man worldwide!

The massive following for Trump, the enthusiasm, loyalty and especially the renewed passion for freedom he inspired, is what the globalists/elites/liberals/Leftists/Progressives want desperately to snuff out. Trump awoke the Sleeping Giant: America’s patriots. He brought love of country and pride in the USA back to us. And he brought God back into the conversation, doubtless much to the consternation of Leftists who thought they’d successfully excised Him permanently from public discourse.

And as the Romans and Sanhedrin viewed Jesus as a danger to the status quo, so too does our ruling class view Trump as a danger to their plan for a New World Order. That’s why, on the night of January 6th, sometime after midnight, they chose to crucify our Republic along with our President, since Trump had become not just the leader of our nation and our Commander-in-Chief, but also the symbol of our liberty under God. That they followed this evil deed with another sham impeachment is tantamount to placing the crown of thorns on Trump’s head and mocking him after the fact.

The godless Left vs. the Christian right

What we’ve witnessed playing out is to some extent a battle between the godless Left and the Christian/Conservative Right. Consider Founding Father John Adams’ words: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And for a more modern day example, how about Solzhenitsyn’s famous quote that summarizes what he learned after the terrible ordeal of his imprisonment under Soviet Communism: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” The Democrats’ hatred of President Trump is a reflection not only of their hatred of America, but also of God Himself.

It is no accident that Trump was so popular with Conservatives, or that Evangelical Christians voted for him in great numbers. How many times did President Trump invoke the name of God? And when he ended a speech with “God bless you, and God bless America!” people knew he meant what he said. You could see it in his actions, and hear it in his voice.

President Trump may have referred to God in his speeches nearly as often as Obama referred to himself when speechifying during his destructive eight years in office. As history demonstrates, if you take God out of the equation, morality often vanishes as well. Man then becomes his own god, and as such, there’s no stopping him should he seek absolute power. This paves the way for the State to become all-powerful, and the eradication of people’s liberty soon follows. Perhaps that’s why Karl Marx said, “The goal of the Communists is to enter into men’s minds and cast God down from his throne.” Then the Politburo can place itself on that throne, and woe to the newly dispossessed serfs thereafter.

An alternative Biblical analogy for President Trump’s role may be that of the restrainer who keeps the burgeoning evil at bay. Trump certainly did that by standing up to Communist China, Iran, North Korea, the G20 Davos elites, and the deeply corrupt United Nations, while taking America out of pro-globalist trade deals, the disastrous Iran deal, and the ruinous Paris Climate Accord, among others. President Trump stood between us and those who wish us harm, and we owe him immense gratitude for all he accomplished and all he endured on our behalf. Now it is up to us to wrest our Republic out of the hands of the treasonous conspirators who snatched it from our grasp.

© 2021 Cherie Zaslawsky – All Rights Reserved.

E-Mail Cherie Zaslawsky: cherzz@sbcglobal.net

Arizona community college must pay $155,000 to professor it forced to apologize for criticizing Islam

A slight pause on American academia’s out-of-control-freight-train rush to submit to Sharia. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is still flogging this case in court, hoping to use it to destroy the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

Arizona community college to pay $155K settlement for directing professor to apologize for Islamic terrorism quiz question

by Katlyn Patton, FIRE, April 13, 2021:

Maricopa County Community College District will pay professor Nicholas Damask $155,000 in exchange for his agreement not to sue district personnel, who last year violated his expressive rights in an attempt to quell criticism of his quiz questions on social media. The district also pledged to strengthen its commitment to academic freedom.

Damask, who teaches political science at Scottsdale Community College, came under fire on social media last May after a student complained that quiz questions in Damask’s world politics course were offensive to the student’s religious beliefs. Damask said the college suggested it would require him to meet with an Islamic religious leader to review the content of his course because a student complained that three of Damask’s quiz questions about Islamic terrorism were “in distaste of Islam.”

In response, the college directed Damask to issue an apology — pre-written for him by a communications staff member — and implied that he would be investigated. The college ultimately backed down after an urgent letter from FIRE.

Now, the district is finally paying for SCC’s unconstitutional knee-jerk reaction to online criticism….

A lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (A district court judge dismissed the lawsuit in August for failure to state a claim, and CAIR appealed.)…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Quotes ‘Holy Qur’an’ in Ramadan Greeting, says ‘Muslim Americans Have Enriched Our Country Since Our Founding’

UK: Muslim migrant rape gang members who were ordered deported six years ago launch another appeal to stay

Sweden: Almost 700,000 migrants are receiving state benefits

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

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.