Judge Hands Trump Major Victory In 2020 Election Case thumbnail

Judge Hands Trump Major Victory In 2020 Election Case

By The Daily Caller

Obama-appointed District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election trial schedule while the appeal for his presidential immunity claim is pending.

In early December, Chutkan rejected Trump’s bid to have his case dismissed based on presidential immunity, prompting Trump to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Chutkan agreed Wednesday to pause pre-trial deadlines and further proceedings pending the appeals court’s decision.

The pause could throw Special Counsel Jack Smith’s targeted March 4 trial date into jeopardy and increase the chance that the former president is not put on trial until after the November 2024 presidential election.

“[T]he court agrees with both parties that Defendant’s appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case towards trial or impose additional burdens of litigation on Defendant,” Chutkan wrote Wednesday.

Judge Chutkan just put a hold on further proceedings in the federal case against Trump. Smith has worked doggedly to keep the trial scheduled for just before Super Tuesday. This could endanger that date and make it more difficult to try Trump before the election…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 13, 2023

Smith asked the Supreme Court to take up the presidential immunity question Monday before the D.C. Circuit reaches a decision. The Supreme Court agreed to expedite its consideration of his petition, asking Trump’s attorneys to weigh in by Dec. 20.

The Supreme Court Just Threw A Wrench Into Jack Smith’s 2024 Plans@DailyCaller https://t.co/HMZa1yKJq8

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) December 13, 2023

Chutkan said she would re-consider whether to maintain the March 4 trial date after the appeal is resolved. She noted that the pause does not strip her of jurisdiction to “enforce the measures it has already imposed to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings,” including the gag order imposed on the former president.

“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will—consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties—consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” Chutkan wrote.

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung called Chutkan’s decision to stay proceedings in the case a “big win” for the former president.

“This is a big win for President Trump and our rule of law, as it derails Deranged Jack Smith’s rush to judgment strategy of interfering in the 2024 Presidential Election in support of Joe Biden’s campaign,” Cheung said. “They waited almost three years to bring this hoax ‘case’ and are now desperately trying, and failing, to rush it because they know President Trump is dominating the election.”

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLE: The Supreme Court Just Threw A Wrench Into Jack Smith’s 2024 Plans

RELATED VIDEOS:

CNN Poll Reveals Trump Leading Biden In Both Michigan & Georgia

Des Moines Register Poll Shows Pres. Trump With More Than 50% Support In Iowa

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


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

A Litmus Test of Free Speech thumbnail

A Litmus Test of Free Speech

By Dr. Rich Swier

The following article from Austria is an example of what I have termed the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers. This case, however, is more than just social ostracism or media hysteria: the stigmatized victim lost his basic right to travel outside the country.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff sends this introduction to the case:

Gottfried Küssel is not a sympathetic man. He is a convicted neo-Nazi who appears to be a true believer in National Socialism.

However, he is now a free man, having served his sentence. And as a free man he has a right to travel, which entails owning a passport. So far, so logical. Not in the Republic of Austria, governed by a center-left coalition that has been going after anything and anyone resembling a right-of-center political view for the past four years. Mind you, there are no definitions of what is allowed to be uttered in the public sphere, and one only knows after the fact that one shouldn’t have said “that”, whatever “that” is. Free speech certainly looks different.

Gottfried Küssel has now decided he wants to travel, and applied for a passport, which was denied by the authority citing a perceived “security threat” emanating from Küssel. The security threat was not explained further, other than referring to Küssel’s attendance at Covid rallies, where “conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic stories” were propagated, and his being a critic of the government and still “part of a right-wing network.” This should make freedom-lovers shudder for the following reasons:

  • Küssel is denied a passport for crimes yet to be committed, for words yet to be uttered. How is this rationale considered worthy in a liberal democracy?
  • Küssel is denied the right to travel because he attended a rally. He has the right to protest, just like everybody else in a liberal democracy. This is called freedom of assembly, guaranteed by numerous human rights conventions.
  • Küssel merely attended the rallies. He apparently never uttered a word. How is this a reason worthy of denying the right to travel?
  • Küssel was critical of a government that has denied a substantial part of the population their human rights. How is denouncing the government’s rules worthy of denying a passport?

Finally, if the government can easily deny Mr. Küssel, a law-abiding citizen, a passport simply because he “might endanger” the “internal and external” security of Austria, it can happen to you and me. This is how it starts. This is a warning.

You might wonder why I defend Mr. Küssel, whose political beliefs are abhorrent to me. The answer is simple: Mr. Küssel’s case can be considered a litmus test of free speech: you may not like what Mr. Küssel has to say or what he stands for, but he must have the right to say whatever he has to say. It’s not easy to be a free speech activist as it entails defending the indefensible. But it must be done to preserve the right to free speech.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from OE24. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

The city of Vienna does not give Gottfried Küssel a passport

MA 62 fears that convicted right-wing extremists could endanger Austria’s internal or external security abroad

The city of Vienna refuses to issue Gottfried Küssel a passport. The passport authority relies on a provision in the Passport Act, which stipulates that an applicant for a passport must be refused the document if it can be assumed that a stay abroad would endanger Austria’s internal or external security. For the lawyer Michael Dohr, Küssel’s legal representative, this justification is outrageous. He wants to fight the decision.

Küssel applied for a passport from MA 62 [Registration Office] in mid-August of 2023. In connection with his last of a total of three convictions for National Socialist recidivism, his passport and identity card were confiscated in the summer of 2016. The Administrative Court (VwGH) later confirmed this decision. When Küssel — a key figure in the neo-Nazi scene in German-speaking countries — was released from prison in January 2019 after serving seven years and nine months in prison, he had no opportunity to travel abroad legally.

Security of Austria [And I’m pretty sure that importing millions of hostile Muslims without passports is good for security.]

From the point of view of MA 62, nothing will change for the time being. The authority not only points to the passport applicant’s tarnished past, which suggests a threat to the security of the republic if he were to be allowed to travel abroad. In addition, the passport authority obtained a statement from the Directorate of State Security and Intelligence (DSN). [Directorate of State Security? Sounds like something from the time of the TERROR in France 200+ years ago.] It initially states that since spring 2020, Küssel has taken part in numerous events critical of the government, particularly those aimed at the Covid-19 measures. In particular he appeared at demonstrations in Eisenstadt as a “declarant and person in charge”: “At these rallies, among other things, conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic stories were propagated.”

In addition, Küssel coordinated with other organizers of anti-Covid-19 protests, whereby “violent actions were also considered or propagated,” the DSN notes. Küssel is also active on the Internet and in social media and stands out as a critic of the government and with right-wing radical views, “which, however, have not yet resulted in any complaints under the StGB (penal code, note) or VG (prohibition law, which makes National Socialist recidivism punishable. Annotation)”. The fact that the man, who has been convicted several times in this line, is still part of a right-wing network is undisputed, at least according to the DSN: “Finally, it should be noted that Küssel has demonstrably maintained contacts with other people from the Austrian right-wing extremist scene over the last few years (especially since the spring of 2020).”

Legal representative wants to fight against it

Küssel’s legal representative Michael Dohr counters that the now-65-year-old has behaved well since his release: “He has experienced an intensive lifestyle and has been a law-abiding Austrian citizen for years now.” Küssel is therefore entitled to a passport “like all of his fellow citizens”. The fact that he was critical of the government because of the Covid-19 measures is not in itself cause “to deny a law-abiding citizen the issuance of an ordinary passport”. At no time did Küssel propagate violent actions and he was not involved in the considerations of opponents of the measures. Rather, “a peaceful approach is particularly important to Küssel,” emphasizes Dohr, who also assures that his client uses the Internet “exclusively within the framework of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.”

Dohr confirmed to the APA that he would continue to campaign for a passport for Küssel, who has recently become an ASVG [social insurance] pensioner. An attitude that is merely critical of the government should not be suitable for denying someone a travel document: “Otherwise we would have authoritarian conditions, which fortunately are not to be expected in a democratic republic.” [Where has this lawyer been living for these last few years?]

Afterword from the translator:

The hypocrisy of the Austrian government is not even shocking any longer. On the one hand they let in millions of hostiles from Islamic countries who throw their passports away so that they can’t be checked up on, then they give them as a reward free housing, food and health care, squeezed from the hard-working Austrians via excessive taxation. Then, as a “thank you”, these piles of camel manure perpetrate all kinds of crimes against the native population with near impunity. But a native Austrian cannot express his ideology, no matter how distasteful that ideology is, or simply criticize the ruling puppeticians’ ideology, for then that person becomes a persona non grata and is denied his or her basic human right. A human right they happily grant anyone who is a real existential threat to Austria and its native population. Go figure.

AUTHOR

 Baron Bodissey

EDITORS NOTE: This Gates of Vienna column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

MUST WATCH: If I Were the Deep State I Would… thumbnail

MUST WATCH: If I Were the Deep State I Would…

By Dr. Rich Swier

We have seen many short videos about the “Deep State” but this one beats them all, by a long shot.

WATCH: If I were the Deep State… Paul Harvey? No, but sure sounds like him.

Since the inauguration of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. he, and the deep state, have:

  1. Pulled out of Afghanistan while leaving Americans to die.
  2. Demonstrated and demanded the Murdering of babies – through abortion.
  3. Arrested people for praying and quoting the Bible.
  4. Cancelled people for saying the most qualified should get the job.
  5. Cancelled people for claiming there is only 2 genders.
  6. Lied about pornography and child mutilation in schools.
  7. Lied about our Borders being secure.
  8. Lied about the economy being the best with low inflation.
  9. Lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
  10. Lied about the Inflation Reduction Act and its $2 Trillion cost.
  11. Lied giving subsidies to Green Company donors that do nothing.
  12. Lied about manipulating stock market for power and gain.
  13. Lied about large corporations with the banking money power, imported cheap foreign labor, resulting in countless labor riots.
  14. Lied about indoctrinating Marxism in all education programs.
  15. Lied about race and dividing the Americans – its the curricula.
  16. Lied about how the money power took control of the influential colleges and universities lowered standards and forced Affirmative Action incompetence in ALL government and industry.
  17. Lied about Conservation easements and other programs that eliminate private property and force foreclosures through regulations and taxes.
  18. Lied about allowing foreign entities to buy America while outsourcing America’s jobs and industry.
  19. Lied about the money and power of globalists to create starvation and suffering in America, the nation of plenty and how small family farms are set up for foreclosures.
  20. Lied about selling our resources to our enemies and allowing them to own American industry.
  21. Lied about illegals and Marxists committing crimes, doing drugs and burning our cities without consequences.
  22. Demonized fiat money so people will be forced into digital currency based on carbon credits, a disaster for all Americans resulting in sustainable poverty for all Americans.
  23. Lied about climate change and the human and carbon affect.
  24. Lied about J6 refusing to allow the photos and films to be shared to learn the truth.
  25. Lied about federal spending and pushing a phony CR to push Americans into further debt.
  26. Lied about working to push Americans in further bondage.
  27. Lied about weaponizing the American government to go after Americans instead of our enemies.
  28. Lied about giving American sovereignty to the United Nations.
  29. Lied about COVID, masks, Ivermectin, lockdown of small business while leaving big biz donors open.
  30. Lied about sending people to jail for J6 and speaking about the stolen election.
  31. Lied to Congress and the American people.
  32. Lied about controlling the legacy and social media, forcing censorship.
  33. Lied about giving illegals #2200 per month. BTW, how much have you gotten?

And much, much more.

The Bottom Line

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 we the people must answer with our votes the following questions:

  • Do we want a bigger and bigger government or not?
  • Do you want to continue to send billions in our tax dollars to dictators or not?
  • Do we want open borders or not?
  • Do we want billions of taxpayer dollars going to illegal aliens or not?
  • Do we want parents to have control of what their children learn in public schools or not?
  • Do we want control over the type of automobile we own or not?
  • Do we want to make more money in order to pay our mortgage, feed and cloth our family or not?
  • Do we want to have available the cheapest and most reliable sources or energy or not?
  • Do we want the right to speak freely or not?
  • Do we want a Constutional Republican form of government or not?
  • Do we want to choose our sex or believe in the science that states there are only 2 genders, male and female?
  • Do we want America to be great or do we want the swamp to control America?
  • Finally, do we want a president who loves America or one that hates America?

If you want less government, control over your children’s education, the ability to choose your car, pay your mortgage, feed and cloth your family, use cheap reliable power, speak freely, restore our Constitutional Republican form or government, be a man and a woman, drain the swamp and have a president who truly loves American then your know what to do.

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 use your vote to take back America and return power to the people.

We wish all of our readers a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

POST ON X:

Today, the House is voting to formally open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
 
The facts don’t lie.
 
It’s time to get the American people answers. pic.twitter.com/O0Jtxx9J2u

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) December 13, 2023

TAKE ACTION: The Myth of Gaza’s Innocent Civilians thumbnail

TAKE ACTION: The Myth of Gaza’s Innocent Civilians

By ACT For America!

74% of Gazans and 83% in the West Bank Strongly Support the Oct 7th Sabbath Massacre!


TAKE ACTION: Stand with Israel!


Poll Shows the Vast Majority of “Palestinians” Supported the Oct. 7 Massacres.

Daniel Greenfield | JNS | November 23, 2023

Ever since Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, along with ordinary Arab Muslims from Gaza, invaded Israel, murdered, raped, and kidnapped women and children, the debate has been about how innocent they are. And how easy Israel should be willing to go on them.

In the weeks since, Israel has been lectured about a “disproportionate” response and the urgent need to avoid civilian casualties. That’s a little tricky when fighting an Islamic terrorist group whose only real defensive strategy is hiding behind civilians. Fighting Islamic terrorists without killing civilians is like trying to invade Russia while avoiding cold weather. It’s impossible.

Ninety-eight percent of the Arab Muslim settlers in the West Bank hate America, as do 96.8% of those in Gaza. Next week we launch a call to stop all taxpayer foreign aid! Read on for SHOCKING statistics.

But ever since the Bush administration decided that the real problem in Afghanistan and Iraq was not a cult and a culture of death, but a lack of democracy, our elites have been busy pretending that over a thousand years of terror was due to a lack of free and fair elections.

The Bush administration got its elections in the West Bank and Gaza. And Hamas won. Then Obama got his elections in Egypt and across North Africa, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda, won. We’re still dealing with the fallout from that.

“Democracy” handed over Iraq and Gaza to Iran. And as a result ISIS emerged.

As Hamas uses ICU patients and babies in NICUs as human shields for its bases, what do the “ordinary Palestinians,” the ones liberals are convinced are innocent parties in all this, think?

recent poll of Arab Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza, known as “Palestinians” circa 1967, conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) asked them.

Seventy-four percent supported the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7. Of these 59% “extremely” support them and another 15% only “somewhat.” Only 7% were “extremely against” and 5% somewhat against.

That’s 74% in favor of murdering, raping and kidnapping Jews and only 12% against.

Only 7% were “extremely” against murdering and abducting children.

Is this a moral or a tactical objection? Let’s look at the breakdown by region.

Eighty-three percent of those in the West Bank, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, said that they supported the Hamas atrocities. Only 7% were opposed. In Gaza, there was notably less enthusiasm at 63%. But after weeks of bombings and raids, only 20% seem to have decided it was a bad idea.

Why were only 7% of those in the West Bank, but 20% of those in Gaza opposed?

Do those extra 13% of Gazans reflect a people (slightly) more likely to value human life or terrorist supporters who, like their comrades in the West Bank, like it better when someone else is doing the fighting? If the attack had come from the West Bank, would 83% (instead of just 63%) of those in Gaza be enthusiastic about the massacre and beheading of Israelis?

The survey asked a few more questions that got to the heart of it.

A majority believed that the Hamas atrocities were an Islamic response to the “defilement of Al Aqsa” by allowing Jews to set foot on the former site of the Jewish Temple.

Ninety-eight percent of respondents in Gaza and the West Bank said that they felt “pride” as “Palestinians” over the war.

Seventy-four percent expect the fighting to end with the defeat of Israeli forces in Gaza.

Only 17% support a two-state solution while 77.7% want to destroy Israel and replace it with a “Palestinian” state.

Are there innocent civilians in Gaza? Probably a lot fewer than in Berlin or Tokyo in 1944.

The Germans supported Hitler and the Japanese backed the Imperial war machine. Those dissidents and opponents who disagreed not just on tactical grounds, but on moral ones, were a small minority. They’re a far tinier minority among the so-called Palestinians.

The “Palestinian” majority wants a war to destroy Israel fought by Islamic terrorists.

They’re not complaining and crying for a ceasefire because they don’t want a war, but because they’re losing the war that they wanted. They still want the war, they just want to be winning it.

When you spend all of your time dreaming of invading and destroying another country, you may be a civilian, but you’re no more innocent than your average Nazi Party member.

Currently, Hamas is a good deal more popular in the West Bank (88% approval rating) than it is in Gaza (59% approval rating). The Al Aqsa Brigade, the military part of Hamas, scores big in the West Bank (86% approval) and (69%) in Gaza. Those are numbers Biden would kill for.

And don’t mistake even the nearly 9 out of 10 in the West Bank and 7 out of 10 in Gaza as a lack of enthusiasm for Islamic terrorism.

The Al Qassam Brigades, the direct terror arm of Hamas, is at 95% approval in the West Bank and 78% in Gaza.

Islamic Jihad scores 93% in the West Bank and 72% in Gaza.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is at 88% in the West Bank and at 70% in Gaza.

But let’s go back to democracy. Who do they want running the place?

Seventy-five percent of those in the West Bank and 68% of those in Gaza want a national unity government of the various Islamic terrorist groups that would naturally include Hamas.

Isn’t democracy a beautiful thing? The “Palestinian” people want to be ruled by terrorists. They want war. And then they cry to the cameras when the war they demanded actually happens.

That’s what “Palestinians” want and who they like. Who don’t they like? Everyone.

Ninety-eight percent of the Arab Muslim settlers in the West Bank hate America, as do 96.8% of those in Gaza. That’s still better than the United Kingdom, which is hated by 100% of Arab Muslim colonists in the West Bank and Gaza. They actually hate America and the United Kingdom more than Israel, which is only at 97.3%.

But don’t feel too bad, Americans, Israelis and Brits, because they hate everyone.

Not a single country, and that includes Iran, gets even a 5% “very positive” rating. Sixty-three percent don’t like Iran, 27% like it and only 4% really like it, even though it bled itself dry financing their terrorism.

Sixty-four percent don’t like Turkey even though Erdogan, its Islamic dictator, pulled out all the stops for them.

Eighty-five percent don’t like Egypt, 86% don’t like Jordan, 95% don’t like Saudi Arabia and 95% don’t like the United Arab Emirates, even though these are the fellow Arab Muslim countries that provide aid to them.

Proving that ingratitude is the one consistent “Palestinian” characteristic: 92% don’t like the European Union, 88% don’t like the United Nations and 69% manage to be against the Red Cross.

Russia, which created the entire “Palestinian” cause and continues to back them, gets some of the best numbers. Only 57% don’t like Russia; 60% don’t like China.

Even more ungratefully, 85% don’t like Western media.

The “Palestinians” have their own dedicated U.N. agency (UNRWA) and have billions of dollars lavished on them. Their needs are taken care of by the people they hate—America, Israel, Egypt and the UAE, not to mention the United Nations and the Red Cross, whom they repay by hating them.

If you give them free food, they will really hate you. If you give them free rockets, they will hate you a little less. The only things they want to do are kill people and then kill some more.

This isn’t a culture or a country: it’s a xenophobic death cult that hates the entire world.

You don’t want them as neighbors or as refugees. Israel is stuck with them. The rest of the world doesn’t have to be. Stop giving them money, stop listening to their propaganda, and stop caring.

Our faith in democracy convinced us to waste blood trying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we handed Afghanistan to the Taliban on the understanding that they’d run for public office. The State Department is still asking the Taliban to open up elections.
What’s behind this insanity? We refuse to come to terms with the fact that some people are bad. No matter what horrors they commit, we’re certain that it’s only a “tiny minority of extremists” who have “misunderstood Islam” and are surely not representative of the vast majority of peace-loving people who want the same things we want and just haven’t been given the opportunity.

The troubling question they don’t like to think about is what if none of that is actually true?

In the Book of Genesis, Abraham pleads with God to spare Sodom. The Lord agrees if some righteous people can be found in the infamous city. The patriarch bargains with God for increasingly smaller numbers of righteous people until it turns out there is only one. And he has to run for his life before Sodom is destroyed. Modern people are uncomfortable with the story.

We don’t really believe in evil. Even when we come face to face with it we make excuses for it. And evil is then able to manipulate us, to play on our sympathies when it has none for us.

You see, there is one piece of good news from that poll.

Ninety percent of “Palestinians” would like a ceasefire in the war that 77.7% of them would like to see conclude with the destruction of Israel.

How stupid would anyone have to be to give it to them?


TAKE ACTION: Stand with Israel!


EDITORS NOTE: This ACT! for America column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Takes Case With Major Implications For Trump, Jan. 6 Defendants thumbnail

Supreme Court Takes Case With Major Implications For Trump, Jan. 6 Defendants

By The Daily Caller

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear a case with major implications for hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, as well as former President Donald Trump’s indictment on charges stemming from alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In a brief order, the justices agreed to hear a case stemming from Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer’s request to dismiss a charge against him for obstructing an official proceeding. His case provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on the scope of a statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which he argues has been used to charge hundreds of other defendants in an “unprecedented extension of the statute’s reach.”

“Hundreds of cases have been and will be affected by the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), including a case against the former President,” Fischer’s petition notes. “In addition, the use of Section 1512(c)(2) outside evidence impairment crimes is an extraordinary and unprecedented extension of the statute’s reach.”

The statute threatens to levy fines or up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.” Jan. 6 defendants, including Fischer, have been charged under Section 1512(c)(2) for obstructing Congress’s certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump also faces the obstruction charge in his indictment for alleged efforts to interfere with the 2020 election.

BREAKING: Supreme Court will hear case on Jan. 6 obstruction charges, taking up appeal of Fischer v. United States pic.twitter.com/nsWx8xqTKu

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 13, 2023

Fischer argues that the government seeks to sever the statute “from its legislative, historical, and textual moorings.”

“The D.C. Circuit’s expansion of Section 1512(c)(2) beyond evidence impairment to protests at the seat of government thus conflicts with the interpretations of other courts of appeal limiting the scope of the same statute,” Fischer’s attorneys wrote in a court filing.

Two other defendants, Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, also earlier asked the Supreme Court to dismiss obstruction charges against them.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

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


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

Biden DOJ Taps Group Funded By Deep-Pocketed Left-Wing Orgs To Guide Gun Violence Reduction Efforts thumbnail

Biden DOJ Taps Group Funded By Deep-Pocketed Left-Wing Orgs To Guide Gun Violence Reduction Efforts

By The Daily Caller

  • President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice released a roadmap for addressing violent crime Monday based on priorities identified by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), a think tank with ties to liberal nonprofits.
  • CCJ is funded by left-of-center charitable ventures like the Ford Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts, groups that have supported embedding racial justice initiatives in the criminal justice system.

  • “Our policy task forces are established by our team, and funders have no opportunity to influence their findings or recommendations,” CCJ President Adam Gelb told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Biden administration is utilizing a think tank funded by left-wing charitable foundations to guide its national gun violence reduction strategy.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) released its Violent Crime Reduction Roadmap Monday, a collection of resources meant to “assist local jurisdictions in developing, implementing, and evaluating the right set of strategies to prevent, intervene in, and respond to acts of community gun violence.” The DOJ said the strategies presented in the roadmap are based on a report produced by the “nonpartisan” Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), a think tank that received around $3 million from left-of-center organizations like the Ford FoundationArnold VenturesThe Pew Charitable Trusts, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Just Trust and the David Rockefeller Fund between 2020 and 2022, according to tax filings.

The DOJ produced the roadmap in response to what it called “substantial increases in community gun violence” occurring across the country.

While violent crime has declined modestly since the initial spike that followed the George Floyd-inspired racial justice movement, rates remain above pre-pandemic levels in many Democrat-run cities, according to a CCJ study.

Homicide rates remained 24% higher in 2023 than they were in 2019 across the 30 cities that reported data to CCJ. Some crimes, like motor vehicle theft and drug use, increased further in 2023 according to the study.

The DOJ roadmap is based on actions recommended by the CCJ such as heightened community engagementtargeted investments to reduce crime and implementing diversity initiatives in police forces to improve retention, among other things.

“As murder and other violent crimes spiked in 2021, we assembled a nonpartisan group of police leaders and community violence experts to examine what was driving the trend and how best to address it,” CCJ President Adam Gelb told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “They produced a comprehensive 10-point strategy for enforcement and prevention that can help reduce bloodshed in American communities.”

Some of the organizations that fund the CCJ promote initiatives to embed racial justice in the criminal justice system, shorten the amount of time criminals spend in jail and reduce the number of people put in jails after committing crimes.

“We are grateful for the support we have received from organizations and individuals across the ideological spectrum who are committed to evidence-based approaches to improving safety and justice,” Gelb told the DCNF. “Our policy task forces are established by our team, and funders have no opportunity to influence their findings or recommendations.”

A spokesperson for the MacArthur Foundation echoed the CCJ, telling the DCNF that it is “not involved in decisions or recommendations its experts make.”

Not all of the organizations that fund CCJ are liberal. CCJ received $185,000 in support from The Charles Koch Institute in 2021, which is generally seen as libertarian-leaning.

CCJ got at least $1.3 million from left-of-center sources in 2021, making up 20.3% of all grants received by the organization that year, according to its 2021 tax forms.

Some of the recommendations and resources offered in the DOJ’s report reflect the priorities of CCJ’s left-wing foundation donors.

One such resource provided by the DOJ was a 2023 report on improving retention for law enforcement agencies. The report recommends that law enforcement “recruit for diversity” and to “address diversity, equity and inclusion” to improve performance.

Specifically, the report advises agencies to commit to having 30% of their recruits be female by 2030, to “ensure the skill sets possessed by officers from diverse backgrounds are considered as part of the promotional process” and address policies “that may erect barriers to establishing a culture of equity and inclusion.”

The DOJ also recommends law enforcement “emphasize healing with trauma-informed approaches” to address violent crime, directing law enforcement agencies to the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, a “network builds and connects violence intervention programs and promotes equity for victims of violence,” to help them achieve this action.

Health Alliance for Violence says “racism is a public health crisis and a root cause of community violence” and promises to work toward “enacting policies and practices that advance equity, eliminate structural racism, and return power and resources to people of color.”

The DOJ also touted the recent availability of grant funding to improve racial equity through prosecutorial reform. Some grants highlighted by the DOJ intended to help prosecutors “reduce crime and increase public safety” by developing tools to increase racial equity in the criminal justice process.

Not every recommendation issued by the DOJ had to do with racial justice or diversity.

The DOJ also recommended that law enforcement agencies “invest in anti-violence workforce development,” “engage key people with empathy and accountability” and “set aside funding for new stakeholders and strategies,” among other things.

CCJ’s funders have supported racial justice initiatives similar to those found in the DOJs roadmap.

Arnold Ventures, a for-profit philanthropy outfit and one of the largest funders of the CCJ, donated $175,075 to the Bail Project between 2018 and 2019, according to its grant database. It also  gave more than $2.3 million to CCJ between 2020 and 2024.

The Bail Project is a group that bonds people out of jail. The organization’s Indianapolis chapter bailed out a man with an extensive criminal history who went on to commit a homicide in 2021, Fox 59 reported.

Bail funds across the country have released individuals who later went on to commit violent crimes.

Arnold Ventures has also poured millions into other efforts promoting racial equity in the criminal justice system, according to its grant database.

The organization, for example, gave $512,500 to the University of Pittsburgh in 2022 to “support the advancement of racially equitable policies and practicies [sic] in prosecutors’ offices.” One of the grants Arnold Ventures gave to the CCJ was to aid it in “identifying reforms that can safely reduce incarceration and racial disparities.”

The Ford Foundation, another major supporter of the CCJ, has been working to reduce the number of people sent to prison in light of “the disproportionate and brutal impact of the criminal justice system on poor, Black and Latinx communities.” The foundation doesn’t focus on reducing the number of crimes committed but rather on reducing the number of convicts sentenced to prison, according to its website.

The Ford Foundation gave the CCJ $200,000 in 2021 “for research and communications … to simultaneously reduce racial and ethnic disparities and correctional populations,” according to the organization’s tax filing.

Pew Charitable Trusts, another of the CCJ’s backers, boasts about working on “reducing admissions to and the length of time people spend in jail” and “identifying and reforming policies and practices that contribute to disparities based on gender, race, class, ability, and ethnicity.”

The MacArthur Foundation, similarly, funded a program dedicated to reducing jail populations across the country by 50% by 2025. Cities that received funding to reduce their incarcerated populations saw significant increases in violent crime.

The DOJ, Pew Charitable Trusts, the David Rockefeller Fund, the Ford Foundation, Just Trust and Arnold Ventures did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SCHMAD

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UC Berkeley Gave Hundreds Of Thousands To Left-Wing Charity That Has Funded Groups Trying To Empty Prisons

Al Gore: Ban Free Speech, Just Like Guns, to Save the Planet

VIDEO: Kerry Slone on guns, liberty, and the absolute right to self defence

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


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

RED ALERT: Dangerous Legislation to Expand Surveillance on American Citizens thumbnail

RED ALERT: Dangerous Legislation to Expand Surveillance on American Citizens

By Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

he march towards government control over the lives of every citizen in America continues with the proposed legislation mentioned below. Similar to the days of the colonists who brought the United States into reality in 1775, present-day citizens (colonists) better push back against every level politician; regardless if they are local, county or state and clearly national who does not measurably demonstrate their commitment to defending the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the freedoms granted to the citizens of this exceptional nation. Push back against every politician who seeks office for their own agenda, rather than to serve and represent We The People. Do not regard the mere words of those already in public office or seeking such, but demand examples of their dedication to serve others first by demonstrating what they have already accomplished in their present sphere of influence.

Buried in the U.S. House Intelligence Committee’s Section 702 “reform” bill, which is scheduled for a floor vote today or tomorrow, is the biggest expansion of surveillance inside the United States and against citizens since the Patriot Act. The below link will provide a brief but clear example of this most intrusive act working its’ way into our lives unless killed!

The Global Elites and Uniparty club members are determined to bring down the sovereignty of the United States, and to push our nation into the global community, the New-World Order where national sovereignty is a thing of the past, as well as the freedoms Americans have enjoyed. Don’t read this and think you can do nothing. Pray…seek true wisdom and guidance as to what role YOU can take in keeping America “the shining city upon a hill” as President Reagan said in his farewell address in 1989.

RED ALERT: Buried in the House intelligence committee’s Section 702 “reform” bill, which is schedule for a floor vote as soon as tomorrow, is the biggest expansion of surveillance inside the United States since the Patriot Act. 1/11

— Elizabeth Goitein (@LizaGoitein) December 11, 2023

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

‘It’s “Me Too” Unless You Are a Jew’: Why Won’t Women’s Groups Condemn Hamas’s Rapes? thumbnail

‘It’s “Me Too” Unless You Are a Jew’: Why Won’t Women’s Groups Condemn Hamas’s Rapes?

By Family Research Council

Why won’t so-called “women’s groups” condemn Hamas terrorists for raping Israeli women on October 7? This is what a growing number of people are asking, including Former Miss World and Miss Israel 1998, Linor Abargil, who gave a very moving and emotional speech before the United Nations on December 4.

Abargil appeared on Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday. She said, “It’s ‘Me Too’ unless you are a Jew.” She observed, “It’s not about political, it’s not about ‘Free Palestine, it’s not about which side you’re on on the map: to use rape as an act of war is unbearable. I mean, what happened to humanity?” She then became very emotional and had to take a moment to compose herself before she shared:

“One of my friends… told me a story about this young woman — that he saw a video of her — she was raped by three Hamas people, one after another raped her. . .Screaming they beat her, spit at her, they then butchered her, and one of them took her cell phone and just send everything to her mother. Her scream just haunts my friend every night he’s tried to sleep. And her screaming should be out there for all the world to shout out for this girl that is not here to shout herself. But instead, all of the organizations are just silent. …I mean, I’m telling you, I’m just speechless.”

In the second hour of Thursday’s program, Dana Perino interviewed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) who also called out the women’s groups that are usually her political allies. They include Emily’s List, Democratic Women’s Caucus, Women’s March, I Stand With Her, and American Association of University Women.

Gillibrand said, “When I saw the list at the U.N., I couldn’t believe it. I was so aghast, I was so furious. I don’t understand how we cannot have solidarity amongst all women in the United States and globally — that using rape as a weapon of war is unacceptable. It has to be condemned. The fact that the U.N. has not called Hamas a terrorist organization and condemn[ed] the horrific violence on October 7 is unacceptable. And they’re not even enforcing international law.”

She went on to say, “I think women’s rights groups in the United States should care deeply about women around the globe and should not turn a blind eye. They should not keep their head in the sand. They have a moral responsibility to have moral clarity…”

Perino asked Gillibrand if she watched the video of the October 7 massacre that the Israeli government provided for Congress to watch. She responded, “I did. It’s unspeakable. The horrific acts that were committed in the most heinous and evil ways you can imagine: beheadings, dismemberments, mass rapes, shooting of babies and children. It’s something that should never, ever happen. And it has to be called out not only by the U.N. but by the world community. … They did not show us the victims of rape, and they did not show us the videos of rapes happening because they thought it was too horrific for Congress to see, but we should see it. And these films and these photographs should be made public because the world has to condemn this…”

Abargil’s and Gillibrand’s emotional pleas stand in stark contrast to the cold words of Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, December 3. When CNN host, Dana Bash, asked her why women’s groups are “downright silent” about Hamas raping and mutilating Jewish women on October 7, Jayapal shockingly downplayed Hamas’s evil acts, continually trying to compare those acts to Israel’s justifiable right to defend itself.

Bash said, “With respect, I was just trying to talk about the women, and you turned it back to Israel. I’m asking you about Hamas…”

Jayapal interrupted, “I already answered your question, Dana, I said it’s horrific. I think that rape is horrific — sexual assault is horrific. I think it’s horrific. I think that it happens in war situations. Terrorist organizations like Hamas obviously are using these as tools. However, I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians…”

Bash pointed out, “And it’s horrible, but you don’t see Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women.” To which Jayapal responded, “Well, Dana, I don’t want this to be the hierarchy of oppressions…”

Although U.N. Women finally condemned Hamas on December 1 (almost two months after the October 7 attack), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still pleading with groups such as the United Nation’s own World Health Organization and women’s groups around the world to be vocal advocates for the many Israeli women and girls that were raped on October 7 (and for the hostages that likely continue to be abused). He said, “I heard heartbreaking stories of abuse. I heard, as you have heard, about sexual abuse and unprecedented cases of cruel rape.”

He then asked, “Did you remain silent because it was Jewish women? … I say to the women’s rights organizations, to the human rights organizations, you’ve heard of the rape of Israeli women, horrible atrocities, sexual mutilation? Where the hell are you? I expect all civilized leaders, governments, nations to speak up against this atrocity.”

Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Education Studies, Meg Kilgannon, is not surprised by women’s groups’ lack of attention to this horrific issue. She told The Washington Stand, “National women’s groups have been part and parcel of the Democratic Party for years. For women who pay attention, we know that these groups will never represent our values or the real interests of women. The example of excusing depraved behaviors of terrorists is just another of many ways the leaders of women’s groups serve the interest of progressive and authoritarian men.”

FRC’s Director of the Center for Human Dignity, Mary Szoch, agreed and added, “The terroristic actions of Hamas are pure evil and should be denounced by everyone — especially those claiming to speak for women. Failure to speak out against members of Hamas raping Jewish women is inexcusable.”

AUTHOR

Kathy Athearn

RELATED VIDEO: Hostility to Mother Mary – and the Role of Feminism

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


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

Washington, D.C. Removing 103,000 Ineligible Names from the Voter Rolls in Response to Judicial Watch thumbnail

Washington, D.C. Removing 103,000 Ineligible Names from the Voter Rolls in Response to Judicial Watch

By Judicial Watch

Washington, D,C. – Judicial Watch announced today that it sent notice letters to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. The letters point out that these jurisdictions publicly reported removing few or no ineligible voter registrations under a key provision of the NVRA. The letters threaten federal lawsuits unless the violations are corrected in a timely fashion. In response to Judicial Watch’s inquiries, Washington, DC, officials admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.”

The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).

Federal law directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to submit a report to Congress every second year assessing how states are complying with the NVRA. Federal regulations require states to provide data to the EAC for use in this report. On June 29, 2023, the EAC posted data from the most recent surveys it sent to the states and the District of Columbia for the reporting period from November 2020 through November 2022.

Based on the data contained in this report, Judicial Watch contacted a number of states and Washington, DC, to inquire about their compliance with federal law and to request public records. After processing the responses to these communications, Judicial Watch sent notice of violation letters to Washington, DC, California, and Illinois, detailing their non-compliance with the NVRA.

The notice letter to the District of Columbia, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch and the District of Columbia Republican Party, reports:

  • DC reported removing zero voter registrations in the last two-year reporting period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote for two consecutive general federal elections.
  • DC flatly admitted in correspondence with Judicial Watch that it was failing to remove registrations as required by the NVRA, citing data conversion, staffing, and other issues.
  • DC’s total registration rate—its total number of registrations divided by the most recent census estimates of its citizen voting-age population—is greater than 131%.

The notice letter to California, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, states:

  • California’s survey responses to the EAC show that 27 California counties reported removing five or fewer—and, in most of those counties, zero—voter registrations in the last two-year period for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections.
  • Another 19 California counties simply did not report any data about such removals.
  • Twenty-one California counties had more voter registrations than citizens over the age of 18, based on the most recent census estimates.

In all, 46 California counties reported removing only a handful, or no registrations under the NVRA’s change of address rules, or else failed to report any data at all. These 46 counties contain more than 14 million registered voters.

The notice letter to Illinois, sent on behalf of Judicial Watch, Illinois resident and voter Carol J. Davis, and Illinois Family Action, states:

  • In Illinois’ responses to the EAC’s survey, 23 Illinois counties reported removing fewer than 15—and, in almost half of those counties, zero—voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 for failing to respond to an address confirmation notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections.
  • Thirty-four Illinois jurisdictions simply did not report any data about such removals.
  • Fifteen Illinois jurisdictions have more voter registrations than citizens of voting age.

In total, 57 Illinois counties that either reported removing 15 or fewer registrations or failed to report any data at all under the NVRA’s change of address removal procedures. These 57 counties contain over five million registered voters.

Last month, the District of Columbia admitted in correspondence to Judicial Watch that it removed 65,544 inactive voters, will soon remove an additional 37,962 inactive voters, and that it has designated another 73,522 inactive names for potential removal.

California provided some public records and promised a further, substantive response. Illinois provided some public records and promises a further, substantive response. Ultimately, however, if Judicial Watch is not satisfied with the jurisdictions’ responses to its notice letters, Judicial Watch plans to sue under the National Voter Registration Act to ensure the jurisdictions take certain reasonable steps to clean up their voter rolls as the law requires.

“Dirty voter rolls increase the potential for voter fraud,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “As Washington, DC’s, quick cleanup of tens of thousands of names in response to Judicial Watch shows, there are potentially hundreds of thousands of names on the voter rolls that should be removed by California and Illinois. Indeed, Judicial Watch litigation resulted in the removal of four million names from voter rolls in various states recently.”

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

In July 2023 Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, supporting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s voter registration list (Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna Bellows (No. 23-1361). According to a national study conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of eligible voters.

Judicial Watch in July 2023 also settled a federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and its director, which grants access to the current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state for the past 15 elections.

In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled with Judicial Watch and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258 ineligible registrations in response to communications from Judicial Watch. The settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll clean-up efforts for the next five years.

In March 2023, Colorado agreed to settle a Judicial Watch NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch with the most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years.

In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017.

Judicial Watch settled a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists.

Kentucky also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive registrations from its voter rolls.

In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional-districts gerrymander.

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

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Shot Between The Eyes’ — Border Patrol Chiefs Testify On Cartel Violence Against Border-Crossers thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Shot Between The Eyes’ — Border Patrol Chiefs Testify On Cartel Violence Against Border-Crossers

By The Daily Caller

Several Border Patrol sector chiefs testified to Congress in recent months that migrants who cross the southern border without the help of human smugglers are often retaliated against by the cartels in Mexico, according to a transcript of closed-door testimony exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Border Patrol chief of the Laredo sector, Joel Martinez, for example, testified in June to the House Homeland Security Committee that in one instance, migrants who chose to not use the cartels were shot in between the eyes and had half their head blown off. Border Patrol agents along the southern border have seen a record increase in recent years, recording more than 2.2 million encounters of migrants crossing illegally in fiscal year 2022 and more than 2 million in fiscal year 2023, according to federal data.

“For starters, if you go down the river without their permission—every section of river has a boss that owns that particular part of the river. If you go down there without their permission, they can either beat you or hit you with, like, a paddle, and they’ve been known to shoot people, you name it. That’s how they—they rule through intimidation, so that’s a very common practice,” Martinez testified.

“The other day, we had two people wash up to our shores, and they had no identification on them, but we’re thinking they were migrants that went down there without permission. One of them had his head halfway blown off, and the other one was shot between the eyes,” Martinez added.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have blamed the Biden administration and its Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for the sharp rise in illegal crossings. Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene reintroduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas for a third time at the end of November, citing the crisis at the southern border.

House Homeland Committee Chairman Mark Green has been investigating Mayorkas because he’s allegedly been derelict of his duty in handling the southern border.

“Thanks to Secretary Mayorkas’ policies, criminal cartels now exercise unprecedented control of the Southwest border. They have taken advantage of his refusal to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress, strategically overwhelming Border Patrol agents with illegal crossings in one area so they can push record numbers of people and deadly drugs across in another,” Green said in a statement to the DCNF.

“It’s no wonder that the former chief of the Border Patrol told Congress earlier this year that the cartels ‘control the border today’ because of illegal immigration ‘to a level that they’ve never had.’ And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the consequences have been disastrous not just for American citizens suffering from fentanyl poisonings and families shattered by illegal alien crime—the migrants themselves are suffering and dying in record numbers,” Green said.

The cartels control the traffic crossing the southern border into the U.S., making it extremely difficult to traverse the area without soliciting their help, the chiefs testified. Crossing without them often comes with a cost.

“The organizations that own those lanes get paid for every thing and person that crosses in that area. So they are afforded a payment for everything that goes through, and they don’t want to lose that payment. And so we have run into individuals who have been robbed or beaten when they’ve tried to make it through without contacting one of the people in charge of that area,” Chief Patrol Agent for the San Diego Sector Aaron Heitke testified to the committee on May 9.

Chief Patrol Agent for the El Centro Sector Gregory Bovino testified on July 12 that while it’s “uncommon,” crossing without the help of cartels would result in “consequences” for migrants.

“The transnational criminal organizations would apply a consequence to an individual that tried to cross without going through them,” Chief Patrol Agent for the El Paso Sector Anthony “Scott” Good testified on June 29.

Chief Patrol Agent for the Tucson Sector John Modlin testified on July 26 that agents in the area have come across migrants who have been “beaten” for trying to cross the southern border without paying the cartels.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICE Nabs Fugitive Wanted For Assaulting Child Who Was Previously Released By Border Patrol

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


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

Senate Republicans Block Key Vote for Foreign Aid Package without Border Security thumbnail

Senate Republicans Block Key Vote for Foreign Aid Package without Border Security

By Federation for American Immigration Reform

Last Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of President Biden’s foreign aid package because congressional Democrats refused to include meaningful provisions to secure our own borders.  Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) attempted to bring the package to the floor for a key procedural vote — a vote to proceed to debate, which requires a 60-vote threshold – but was unable to secure any Republican votes.  The final tally was 49-51, with two Democrats also voting no for unrelated reasons.

The foreign aid package included funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, along with more money to continue processing and releasing illegal aliens at the southern border.  The bill largely follows the Biden Administration’s supplemental funding request from October, including money for the border that would do nothing but reinforce the broken system without changing the policies that have fueled the crisis.

Schumer’s move followed several weeks of border security negotiations that saw Republicans pushing for commonsense reforms to end asylum abuse and stop unlimited parole authority.  Democrats meanwhile, were attempting to paint the discussions as “hard-right” while raising the idea of amnesty once again. The negotiations stalled right before the vote, with both sides expressing frustration.

The Senate group leading border security talks, in coordination with Senate leadership, restarted discussions on Thursday, noting that a new proposal is now on the table. That group is made up of Republicans James Lankford (R-Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), along with Democrats Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Krysten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

Senior Senate Republicans also held a press conference Thursday, making clear their continued commitment to border security changes as part of the foreign aid package.  Attending senators included Graham, Cotton, Tillis, John Thune (S.D.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John Cornyn (Texas), and Katie Britt (Ala.). Following introductory comments from Sen. Graham reiterating that amnesty is not being considered, Minority Whip Thune said Republicans are “dead serious” about ending the Biden Administration’s border crisis.

The comments echo those from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who after the vote stated: “It is profoundly unserious to pretend that national security priorities don’t include securing our nation’s borders… Right now, the crisis created by the Biden Administration’s neglect is bringing illegal aliens to the United States at a rate of 300,000 a month. That’s roughly the population of Lexington, Kentucky, arriving every month. And thanks to an asylum and parole system that desperately needs fixing, many of them are just brought straight in.” For his part, Schumer referred to last Wednesday as a “sad night,” continuing to say, “I hope that [Republicans] come up with something serious instead of the extreme policies they’ve presented thus far.”

The Senate vote came the same week that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded more than 12,000 illegal aliens attempting to enter the country illegally in a single day – the largest number ever recorded.  And, over the weekend, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs sent a letter to the Biden Administration demanding more than half a billion dollars be reimbursed for “ongoing border operations resulting from the federal government’s failure to secure the Arizona border.”  That development continues the trend of Democrat leaders calling out the Biden Administration on the issue, after Democrats in New York and Chicago also had criticism for the Administration in recent weeks.

Having demonstrated a united front last week, congressional Republicans have a real chance to deliver a win for the American people by standing firm. Three years into the Biden Border Crisis, this foreign aid package is perhaps the best opportunity to end the border surge by ensuring policy reforms are included to detain and remove illegal aliens, curb massive asylum fraud and halt the Administration’s rampant abuse of parole authority.  Fortunately, a blueprint to do that already exists in the FAIR-supported H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, passed by the House of Representatives in May 2023.  Throwing more money at the border crisis won’t solve it. We need real policy reforms and H.R. 2 is the solution.

To learn more about H.R. 2 and FAIR’s efforts to support strong measures to secure our borders, visit our activist toolkit here.

AUTHOR

Joe Chatham

Joe Chatham joined FAIR in 2022, bringing significant congressional, campaign, and nonprofit experience to the organization. As part of FAIR’s influential government relations team, he helps manage Capitol Hill outreach and policy, advocating for a secure border and a just, equitable legal immigration system.

Before joining FAIR, Joe worked with a large range of organizations, from congressional offices and political campaigns, to intergovernmental organizations and think tanks. Most recently, he served as counsel to a member of congress, where he handled the representative’s immigration portfolio for the House Committee on the Judiciary.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan, a Master in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School, and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illegal Immigration Surges Months After Biden, Trudeau Make Deal To Crack Down On Northern Border Influx

Lukeville, Arizona Point of Entry Forced to Close under Crush of Illegal Migrants

Immigration Court Backlog Sits at Nearly Three Million; Biden’s Policies Piling on More

Bill Seeks to Tip the Scales in Legal Immigration, Favoring Some Nationalities over Others

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © COPYRIGHT 2023 FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

VIDEO: What’s the worst thing that can actually happen to you? thumbnail

VIDEO: What’s the worst thing that can actually happen to you?

By O’Keefe Media Group

I hope you saw my conversation with a reverend at the University of Pittsburgh. Fear is usually the the thing that holds people back, and I took it head on, by asking the ultimate question, “What’s the worst thing that could actually happen to you?”

Maybe the worst thing is not the worst…

Please give this video a watch and the transcript below. 

WATCH ON YOUTUBE /  ON X

And stay tuned for Monday as our next Whistleblower was inspired by the exchange:

“We’re the same age. I admire the hell out of you for what you do. I want to become less afraid. 

Well, what are you afraid of? 

Losing my job. And then I have two little kids at home. We have a house. I have a wife. We like a lot of what we do. But we feel like there’s so much truth to tell. 

So what’s holding you back? 

Fear. It’s irrational. 

What are we actually afraid of? Especially Christians. talk about eternal life and they’re worried about losing their stuff and their money.(…) I don’t get that at all. Because you don’t take any of that stuff with you when you die. None of it.(…) And when we’re on our deathbed, I’m willing to bet we’re probably not thinking about our stuff and our money or what type of house we lived in.(…) I think we think about whether we followed our conscience. I don’t have children. So I can’t fully empathize yet. I hope to have children. But I would think that if I did have children, my little boys would appreciate the fact that I followed my conscience. Even if it meant I lived in a smaller house. Or I had to rent instead of own. So you have to really evaluate why is it… What’s the worst thing that could actually happen to you? And maybe the worst thing is not the worst. Maybe it might be the best thing.(…) Because they can stop me and maybe they will.(…) But they can’t stop me and you and like a couple hundred other people.

So they can’t stop all of us. So what we need to do is awaken a sleeping giant.”

In Truth.

©2023. O’Keefe Media Group. All rights reserved.

Hunter Biden Indicted On 9 Tax-Related Charges In California thumbnail

Hunter Biden Indicted On 9 Tax-Related Charges In California

By The Daily Caller

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is facing new criminal charges, according to a criminal indictment in the Central District of California.

A federal grand jury in California indicted Hunter Biden on nine counts related to his alleged failure to pay over $1 million worth of taxes over a four year period. The younger Biden hauled in more than $7 million in total gross income from foreign business dealings involving Ukrainian, Romanian and Chinese entities, the indictment lays out.

READ THE FULL INDICTMENT:

“At times relevant to this Indictment, the Defendant served on the board of a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate and a Chinese private equity fund. He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements for business and legal services that paid millions of dollars of compensation to him and/or his domestic corporations, Owasco, PC and Owasco, LLC,” the indictment reads.

“The Defendant engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019, from in or about January 2017 through in or about October 15, 2020, and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns in or about February 2020,” the indictment adds.

Hunter Biden is being charged with three felonies and six misdemeanors including failure to pay taxes and failure to file taxes. The indictment proceeds to lay out Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, Chinese infrastructure company CEFC and a Romanian oligarch previously thought to be Gabriel Popoviciu.

The evidence contained in the indictment related to Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings was previously disclosed by House Oversight Committee lawmakers and IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. Bank records released by the Oversight Committee beginning in March show the payments to Hunter Biden and his business associates from foreign entities exceeded $24 million.

Both IRS whistleblowers came forward to the House Ways and Means Committee with allegations the Department of Justice (DOJ) gave Hunter Biden special treatment during the criminal investigation. In a statement released Thursday evening, Shapley and Ziegler said they were vindicated by the new indictment.

The fresh indictment provides details on Hunter Biden’s book deal for his memoir and expenses paid by his “Personal Friend” adding up to over $1 million. The third party financier was identified by Ziegler as Hollywood attorney Kevin Morris, who is believed to have paid roughly $2 million of Hunter Biden’s tax burdens.

Hunter Biden spent more than $4 million during the 2016-19 time period on a lavish lifestyle featuring drugs, prostitutes, girlfriends, luxury vehicles and other expensive goods, the indictment shows on page 13. Even after he became sober, Biden still failed to pay his overdue taxes and spent large sums of money to maintain his high powered lifestyle, according to the indictment.

“Notably, in 2020, well after he had regained his sobriety, and when he finally filed his outstanding 2016, 2017, and 2018 Forms 1040, the Defendant did not direct any payments toward his tax liabilities for each of those years. At the same time, the Defendant spent large sums to maintain his lifestyle from January through October 15, 2020,” the indictment asserts.

He spent over $600,000 on payments to various women and over $180,000 on adult entertainment. His rehab stint set him back around $70,000 and his spending on clothing and accessories approached $400,000, expenses from his Owasco P.C. bank account show.

Special counsel David Weiss had been investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes with help from a California grand jury. Biden has lived in the Los Angeles, California, metropolitan area since 2018, the new indictment says.

Court documents were not initially publicized when the news of Hunter Biden’s criminal charges was reported by multiple outletsCNN first reported the federal charges against Hunter Biden were imminent, citing people briefed on the matter.

A spokesperson for Weiss declined comment to Fox News and a White House spokesperson declined to comment to NBC News. Hunter Biden’s defense attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

BREAKING: DOJ files new criminal charges against Hunter Biden. SCOOP from @evanperez. More on @cnn momentarily

— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCNN) December 8, 2023

Hunter Biden was indicted in September on three federal gun charges, to which he pleaded not guilty at an October arraignment in Delaware.

Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California E. Martin Estrada previously refused to cooperate with Weiss on the Hunter Biden case, both men confirmed when they testified before the House Judiciary Committee, according to transcripts reviewed by the Daily Caller. Estrada’s conduct was first brought to light by the IRS whistleblowers.

In August, Weiss withdrew previously filed Delaware tax charges against Hunter Biden in order to prosecute him in California or the District of Columbia. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss special counsel in August following the collapse of Hunter Biden’s guilty plea deal for the two Delaware tax charges and a pretrial diversion agreement for a felony gun charge.

U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Delaware Maryellen Noreika derailed the plea deal when she discovered a prosecutorial immunity provision inside of the pretrial diversion agreement. DOJ prosecutor Leo Wise admitted to Noreika the immunity clause had no precedent.

“Two brave IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, placed their careers on the line to blow the whistle on misconduct and politicization in the Hunter Biden criminal investigation,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said in a press release.

“The Department of Justice got caught in its attempt to give Hunter Biden an unprecedented sweetheart plea deal and today’s charges filed against Hunter Biden are the result of Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler’s efforts to ensure all Americans are treated equally under the law. Every American should applaud these men for their courage to expose the truth.”

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32.

RELATED ARTICLES:

James Comer, Jim Jordan Threaten Hunter Biden With Contempt Of Congress

Hunter Biden’s Financial Backer Feared Political ‘Risk’ Caused By Delinquent Tax Returns, Docs Show

‘He’s Going To Plead The Fifth’: Ex-US Attorney Says Hunter Biden Indictment Could Sink Deposition, Protect Joe Biden

Jonathan Turley Says New Hunter Indictment ‘Shatters Years Of Denials’ About Biden Business Dealings

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

‘I Love You’: Illegal Alien Thanks Biden After Crossing Into U.S. thumbnail

‘I Love You’: Illegal Alien Thanks Biden After Crossing Into U.S.

By The Daily Caller

A young male African migrant expressed his gratitude to President Joe Biden for the opportunity for a better life in the United States in an interview with Fox News in Arizona on Tuesday.

Thousands of illegal immigrants have been entering the United States in the area of Lukeville, Arizona, according to Fox News. One of the young male migrants from Africa told Fox about his intention to live in the United States in front of the southern border wall.

“I love you Joe Biden, thank you for everything, Joe Biden!” he told Fox. “I’m a good person, I want to be good person here in the United States.”

The migrant wants to live in New York City, which has received well over 100,000 migrants and is anticipated to spend $12 billion on them over the course of three years.

“I came here because I want [a] quality life, America is a land of opportunity,” another male African migrant planning to live in New York City told Fox.

The migrants were part of an influx of thousands of migrants in Arizona, coming from countries including Egypt, Guinea, Mauritania and Senegal, as well as the Middle East and Asia, according to Fox. Neither of them intends to seek asylum.

Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman said that he does not understand why people focus on New York City’s migrant crisis at a Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday.

“I would expect that this would be a really powerful hearing for the New York City Council but not clear why it’s one in the Congress of the United States, which seems to be fixated on New York,” Goldman said.

AUTHOR

JASON COHEN

Contributor.

POST ON X:

SHOCK REPORT: Sheriff Mark Lamb reveals illegals are receiving $5000 VISA GIFT CARDS, a plane ticket to wherever they want to go and a cell phone after entering the country illegally..

HOW MANY HOMELESS VETS DO WE HAVE? pic.twitter.com/wEGYUSRjeh

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) December 6, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

National Monument Covered In Feces, Trash Thanks To Surge In Illegal Immigration

Illegal Alien From Romania Released By Feds After Committing Crimes Globally Went On To Commit More In The US

Poppy Harlow Tells Mayorkas Point-Blank Not Even Democrats Are Supporting Biden’s Border Policies

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


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

Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown: All Non-Muslims Had To Do To Be Equal Was Convert to Islam thumbnail

Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown: All Non-Muslims Had To Do To Be Equal Was Convert to Islam

By The Geller Report

All non-Muslims had to do to achieve equality under Islam was to stop being non-Muslims teaches Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown. Is that all? Under Islamic rule, he’s not wrong. But that he is teaching that it’s a good thing is the problem.

The left has utterly co-opted and destroyed the world’s finest education institutions.

By Daniel Greenfield Jihadwatch

All non-Muslims had to do to achieve equality under Islam was to stop being non-Muslims.

You may remember Prof. Jonathan Brown, a Muslim convert who teaches Islamic civilizations at Georgetown, from his prior defense of Islamic rape and slavery.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody,” Jonathan Brown explained to attendees at his lecture. “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.”

To a man who argued that slavery was wrong, Brown retorted, “How can you say, if you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

When Brown had been asked in the past about the women and girls sold and raped by ISIS based on Islamic law, he defended the Islamic practice of sex slavery, “There is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.”

So too when defending Mohammed’s sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl, Brown insisted, “You cannot say from a Sharia perspective that what the prophet did was wrong because the prophet can’t commit sins.”

“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her… her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave,” Brown had also explained in the past.

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he appears to have written on Facebook.

Had anyone tried to justify southern slavery, they would have been canceled until the end of their days, but defending Islamic slavery is okay and so Brown remains a respected scholar.

Now, Brown decided to pontificate on Islamic discrimination against non-Muslims. “So, in general, it’s correct to say that in Islamic civilization, both in theory and in practice, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were called dhimmis and were lower in status than Muslims. But all they had to do to become part of this elite was say ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.’”

(Quote corrected to properly identify the deity worshiped by Muslims as ‘Allah’ without the misleading use of ‘God’ to imply commonality with pre-existing monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity.)

All non-Muslims had to do to achieve equality under Islam was… to convert and stop being non-Muslims. Conversely, then Muslims can’t complain about discrimination since all they have to do is convert. But we know that logic only works one way.

Brown’s job is to argue that it’s no big deal that Islam had slaves or oppressed non-Muslims, but the shoe is never meant to go on the other foot.

Then Brown argued that discriminatory clothing was actually beneficial to non-Muslims. “In various eras and places Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and Buddhists had to wear certain colors or items of clothing to identity themselves, but this was completely normal in a pre-ID world and was often embraced by those minorities as means of preserving/policing their own communal boundaries.”

Completely normal. Like slavery, genocide and oppression. What are you guys complaining about anyway?

Much of the postmodern business of evil is this sort of relativism. And Islamists turn that to their advantage. Rape, genocide and oppression are no big deal. But a cartoon of Mohammed? Now that’s an atrocity.

Read more.

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

Records Show Federal Agency ‘Real-Time Narrative Tracking’ to Take Down Social Media Posts During 2020 Election thumbnail

Records Show Federal Agency ‘Real-Time Narrative Tracking’ to Take Down Social Media Posts During 2020 Election

By Judicial Watch

Washington, D.C.Judicial Watch announced today it received 44 pages of records in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that show a close collaboration between DHS’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and the leftist Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to engage in “real-time narrative tracking” on all major social media platforms in the days leading up to the 2020 election.

The records discuss “takedowns” of social media posts and the avoidance of creating public records subject to FOIA.

The records also show that the EIP, which was initially called the Election Misinformation Partnership in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020, election, tasked staffers with monitoring online election content 24 hours a day with a priority being “disinfo that is going viral.”

Judicial Watch obtained the records thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DHS failed to respond to its October 5, 2022, request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:22-cv-03560)). Judicial Watch is asking for:

  1. All records of communication between the CISA and the EIP. This includes all “tickets” or notifications to the Partnership regarding election-related disinformation on any social media platform.
  2. All records regarding the July 9, 2020, meeting between DHS officials and representatives of the EIP.
  3. All records of communication between the CISA and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public and/or Stanford University’s Internet Observatory regarding any of the following:
    • The Election Integrity Partnership
    • The 2020 U.S. election
    • Online misinformation and disinformation
    • Any social media platform

The Election Integrity Partnership was created in July 2020, just before the presidential election. According to Just the News:

The consortium is comprised of four member organizations: Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and social media analytics firm Graphika. It set up a concierge-like service in 2020 that allowed federal agencies like Homeland’s Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State’s Global Engagement Center to file “tickets” requesting that online story links and social media posts be censored or flagged by Big Tech.

Three liberal groups — the Democratic National Committee, Common Cause and the NAACP — were also empowered like the federal agencies to file tickets seeking censorship of content. A Homeland-funded collaboration, the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, also had access.

The newly obtained records include an undated PowerPoint presentation titled “Election Misinformation Partnership.”

Several pages in the presentation discuss “takedowns,” including:

Example Flow 5: Sourced from Platform [formatting in original]

Days after 11/03, Facebook notifies EMP of an impending takedown of a group of pages exhibiting coordinated inauthentic behavior. Since the election, these pages have consistently pushed a narrative encouraging Americans in key states to call for invalidation of election results. Facebook will take these pages down in one hour, and is already briefing relevant state and local election officials.

[ *** ]

Notes: Given that information is platform-verified, and Facebook has a direct relationship with local election officials, EMP’s involvement can be smaller with the initial dump. EMP should follow up with election officials and the platform in case either stakeholder wants for further research.

The presentation discusses the avoidance of creating public records subject to FOIA:

Best way to collaborate

What’s the best way to collaborate?

  • CISA can’t create their own Slack channels, but can participate in others’.
    • Listservs are bad (public records requirements).
  • Jira is fine.
  • CISA has privacy concerns: can’t monitor people’s individual accounts; ensure CISA doesn’t participate in discussions or notes concerning U.S. persons.
  • Setup:
    • SIO will have dedicated Slack, something like Jira or Salesforce (will ask for donation), separate from Stanford and destroyed once over.
    • We’ll intake info by email, but direct people to private forms SIO and CISA have distributed.
    • Info from there will go into queue -> be triaged, assigned SLA.

A slide in the presentation titled “Stanford Internet Observatory Calendar” details its monitoring plan: “November: Full Time, Election: 24/7 monitoring in shifts. Heightened monitoring during voting times. Emphasis on voter suppression tactics. Election November 3, 2020. December: Full Time, Post-Election: Full time monitoring continues, but not 24/7. Emphasis on narratives around election legitimacy (EX: mail in ballot theories). Release brief post-mortem.”

A portion of the presentation labeled “Summarized notes” states:

Overview: CISA has limited capabilities to identify, track disinfo narratives + attempts to undermine confidence in elections

  • SIO does = good partnership
  • Major goal: prevent a crisis of confidence in 2020 elections
    • E.g., where Russia doesn’t change any votes (or changes just a few), but claims they changed many more and hysteria is blown out of proportion

Scope: Keep scope narrow: focus on election-related disinfo that has the potential to impact the public’s voting patterns

Partnerships and Relationships SIO [Stanford Internet Observatory] would be the coordinators, working w/ Graphika [https://graphika.com], DFRLab [Digital Forensic Research Lab], and [redacted’s] team at UW [University of Washington].

  • Mutual trust is key: don’t want to need NDAs, legal red tape.
  • Need to build out workflow management system: JIRA/Slack/other communications channels, shared processes and definitions, etc.
    • [Redacted] envisions Tier 1 and Tier 2 partners:
    • Tier 1 is intake (of tips, disinfo reports, etc.): consisting of people either digging for narratives, or processing info received from other partners.
      • Think students, election officials, etc. who are looking for disinfo.
      • Workflow: check that info against protocols, do some initial data aggregation, triage it into the workflow management system.

o Tier 2 is the 4 orgs [redacted] I team at Stanford, Graphika, etc.

      • Workflow: take stuff off the workflow management queue, process it.
      • Need to sketch that out.
      • SLA for different times of the calendar based on the level of severity obtained by triage.

E.g., a report from the general public will have less priority than a report from an on-the-ground election official; a report for disinfo that is not popular will have less priority than disinfo that is going viral.

General public = more turnaround time, but election officials = less turnaround time: need to get back to them fast.

  • SIO has good relationship w/ platforms who already care.
  • See the Secondary Infektion (Russian disinfo op) report.

Think through all the platforms that might have been useful there (e.g.,

communicating with Twitter at stage x would have stopped the spread).

  • Meanwhile, CISA has strong relationships w/ election officials.
    • CISA is happy to introduce SIO to them, do outreach.
    • Just keep CISA in the info-sharing pipeline.

[ *** ]

CISA’s concern starts 45 days out operationally, when military/overseas voters start mailing.

  • Start hunting, messaging at beginning of September.
    • Lower SLA (higher turnaround time/less priority), but start looking for search terms and taking tips.
  • The days leading up to/right after Election Day will be much more intense.
  • It’ll be an effective SOC, maybe a physical one, but in a much larger space.

A July 10, 2020, email sent from a redacted sender to CISA officials Allison Snell, Brian Scully, Matthew Masterson, Geoffrey Hale, and several other persons whose names are redacted, states:

July will be big to get things going on both the CISA and SIO front, so we will be sure to keep open lines of communication. Thank you again for everyone’s help in getting this going, looking forward to getting to work here!

Action Items:

CISA (@ who I will be reaching out to).

  • El-ISAC [https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/groups/join-ei-isac] connection: introduction to (redacted) heading social media reporting (@Masterson, Matthew)
  • CFI plug-in: discussions how to best integrate reporting into CISA/CFI’s ops center and send tips back to SIO (@Scully, Brian).
  • Legal: get an initial proposal for OCC (@ Snel, Allison).”

The presentation includes a slide regarding the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO):

The Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) is a cross-disciplinary program of research, teaching, and policy engagement for the study and abuse in current information technologies, with a focus on social media.

Key capabilities:

  • Experienced disinformation research team of analytical and technical talent.
  • Real-time narrative tracking capabilities for all major platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, potential for TikTok).
  • Additional API or historical access to ‘fringe’ platforms (Gab, Parler, 4Chan).
  • Established and collaborative node within the third-party misinformation research ecosystem.”

The presentation gives an example of a scenario the CISA-EIP collaborators could be faced with:

Example Flow 3: Stickier [formatting in original]

#BidenStoleMichigan is trending on Twitter on election day. Groups of seemingly-local accounts tweet @MISecofState to demand the Michigan election results be declared invalid, citing a fresh Epoch Times article alleging shady connections between Michigan’s SoS, Bill Gates, and Joe Biden. Their tweets are relatively few, but see high engagement shortly after posting and spread around right-leaning Twitter. Researchers trace the origin of the article to posts on 4chan and Parler encouraging Michiganders to confront @MlSecOfState on Twitter over the story and calling for the Michigan results to be declared invalid.

[ *** ]

Notes: This scenario has a geographical component, but seems targeted to ideological groups online. While particular election officials are targeted, the political nature of the content makes counter-messaging difficult. A government-only response would be even stickier however.

In a June 26, 2023 report, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government writes about CISA:

Founded in 2018, CISA was originally intended to be an ancillary agency designed to protect “critical infrastructure” and guard against cybersecurity threats. In the years since its creation, however, CISA metastasized into the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media. By 2020, CISA routinely reported social media posts that allegedly spread “disinformation” to social media platforms. By 2021, CISA had a formal “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation” (MDM) team. In 2022 and 2023, in response to growing public and private criticism of CISA’s unconstitutional behavior, CISA attempted to camouflage its activities, duplicitously claiming it serves a purely “informational” role.

“These records show the lengths to which a ‘Homeland Security’ Deep State agency went in its effort to censor and suppress Americans during and after the 2020 election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That it took a federal lawsuit to extract these disturbing records should raise additional worries about what else this Biden administration is up to.”

 Separately, in August 2023, Judicial Watch filed two FOIA lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies for communications between the agencies and Facebook and Twitter regarding the government’s involvement in content moderation and censorship on the social media platforms.

In June 2023, Judicial Watch sued DHS for all records of communications tied to the Election Integrity Partnership. Based on representations from the EIP (see here and here), the federal government, social media companies, the EIP, the Center for Internet Security (a non-profit organization funded partly by DHS and the Defense Department) and numerous other leftist groups communicated privately via the Jira software platform developed by Atlassian.

In February 2023, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department Homeland Security (DHS) for records showing cooperation between the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) and social media platforms to censor and suppress free speech.

Judicial Watch in January 2023 sued the DOJ for records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and social media sites regarding foreign influence in elections, as well as the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In September 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Secretary of State of the State of California for having YouTube censor a Judicial Watch election integrity video.

In May 2022, YouTube censored a Judicial Watch video about Biden corruption and election integrity issues in the 2020 election. The video, titled “Impeach? Biden Corruption Threatens National Security,” was falsely determined to be “election misinformation” and removed by YouTube, and Judicial Watch’s YouTube account was suspended for a week. The video featured an interview of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch continues to post its video content on its Rumble channel (https://rumble.com/vz7aof-fitton-impeach-biden-corruption-threatens-national-security.html).

In July 2021, Judicial Watch uncovered records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which revealed that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies.

In May 2021, Judicial Watch revealed documents showing that Iowa state officials pressured social media companies Twitter and Facebook to censor posts about the 2020 election.

In April 2021, Judicial Watch published documents revealing how California state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election.

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

FAIR Applauds Senate Republicans for Holding Firm and Demanding that National Security Starts at Home thumbnail

FAIR Applauds Senate Republicans for Holding Firm and Demanding that National Security Starts at Home

By Federation for American Immigration Reform

Democrats’ Insistence on Open Borders Blocks Assistance to Allies Abroad


December 6, 2023, Washington, D.C. — The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) commends Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for insisting that national security begins at home and for demanding that Congress incorporate immigration policy changes as part of any aid package to allies who are defending their own sovereignty.

Today, Senate Majority Chuck Schumer attempted to proceed on a foreign aid package that ignores the crisis raging at the southern border. The budget supplemental legislation offered by Senate Democrats merely seeks to throw more money at the problem so border agents can process and release illegal aliens into the country faster. It does nothing to address the ruinous policies that have created the greatest surge of illegal immigration in U.S. history. “It makes no sense to allocate billions of dollars to help other countries defend their security, while leaving our borders wide open. Senate Republicans are right to insist that meaningful changes to Biden administration policies that have created this national security crisis be attached to the aid package,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

Fortunately, Senator Schumer’s efforts to move this legislation forward failed as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Whip John Thune and the entire Republican caucus were united in stopping the motion to proceed on the legislation. That motion required 60 votes to pass; Democrats could not even get a majority, as it failed 49-51.

In blocking this vote, Senate Republicans demonstrated that they understand how important reforming immigration policy is to Americans and how Americans understand that border security is national security. In a letter sent to congressional leaders today, a broad coalition of public interest groups and policy experts representing millions of Americans demanded inclusion of H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, passed by the House in May, in the bill. Policy changes set forth in H.R. 2 must be “the bare minimum required to regain control of America’s southern border and provide credibility for our nation’s immigration system,” states the letter to which FAIR is a signatory.

“Intransigence on the part of the Biden administration and congressional Democrats about stopping the border crisis is the impediment to approving foreign aid,” charged Stein. “To be clear, it is not Senate Republicans who are standing in the way of this assistance. Rather, it is the administration’s insistence on keeping America’s borders wide open and blocking any meaningful policy changes that might end the rampant abuse of our asylum system that is holding up approval of the foreign aid package.

“Without real reforms to asylum policy, expedited removal of people attempting to defraud our asylum system, and an end to the Biden administration’s wholesale abuse of humanitarian parole authority, the chaos at our borders and in our cities, and threats to national security, will grow even more dire,” continued Stein.

“There is bipartisan support for approving an assistance package to help our allies fight the same enemies and adversaries that threaten our own security. But tragically, that aid is being held hostage to the narrow, ideologically-driven agenda of the Biden administration and its allies in Congress whose policy is open borders and mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, no matter the danger or the cost to the American people,” Stein concluded.

POST ON X:

SHOCK REPORT: Sheriff Mark Lamb reveals illegals are receiving $5000 VISA GIFT CARDS, a plane ticket to wherever they want to go and a cell phone after entering the country illegally..

HOW MANY HOMELESS VETS DO WE HAVE? pic.twitter.com/wEGYUSRjeh

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) December 6, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Love You’: Illegal Alien Thanks Biden After Crossing Into U.S.

National Monument Covered In Feces, Trash Thanks To Surge In Illegal Immigration

Illegal Alien From Romania Released By Feds After Committing Crimes Globally Went On To Commit More In The US

Poppy Harlow Tells Mayorkas Point-Blank Not Even Democrats Are Supporting Biden’s Border Policies

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR press release is republished with permission. Copyright (C) 2023 Federation for American Immigration Reform. All rights reserved.

BLM Arsonists Receive No Jail Time, Only $500 Fine thumbnail

BLM Arsonists Receive No Jail Time, Only $500 Fine

By Family Research Council

A pair of arsonists who burned down a fast-food restaurant during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots are only being given a $500 fine and no jail time. Chisom Kingston and Natalie Hanna White pleaded guilty last week to two counts of first-degree arson and one count of conspiracy to commit arson related to an Atlanta-area Wendy’s they torched in June of 2020. The pair were sentenced to five years on probation, 150 hours of community service, and a $500 fine.

Fulton County’s far-left District Attorney Fanni Willis previously said, “It is unacceptable to burn down a building in our community even in the name of a protest,” just a few months before offering the arsonists a plea deal with no jail time. She added, “We certainly know it’s one of your constitutional rights but what we do not tolerate is violent protest.”

On June 12, 2020, police attempted to arrest Rayshard Brooks for exceeding the legal limit on a breathalyzer test, outside the Wendy’s. Brooks then assaulted Atlanta Police Department officer Devan Brosnan, stole his taser, ran, and shot the taser at officer Garrett Rolfe, prompting a defensive reaction from the officer. In August last year, a Georgia special prosecutor determined that Brosnan and Rolfe “acted in accordance with well-established law and were justified in the use of force regarding the situation.”

However, media outlets reported that police had shot an “unarmed black man,” prompting riots from Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors. The night after Brooks was shot, protestors stormed the Wendy’s and began setting fire to the restaurant and nearby cars. One of the rioters explained, “We burned this one specifically because of what happened here … This goes back to what our mission is, making sure that there is justice served for the person that died over here at this Wendy’s.” White, who was Brooks’s girlfriend, and Kingston were identified by police in video footage of the riot. A third arsonist, John Wesley Wade, was also identified and has pleaded guilty to federal arson charges, having also burned several postal trucks after setting fire to the Wendy’s.

Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, commented to The Washington Stand, “Laws must not be enforced based on ideological trends, and prosecutions must never be determined by what is politically palatable for the Left.” She added, “Some have suggested that by selectively enforcing laws like the FACE Act, the Biden administration is signaling what kind of politically motivated protests will and will not be tolerated. Under Biden, the Department of Justice has brought more than a dozen FACE Act cases, most of them against peaceful pro-life protesters.”

For example, several pro-life protestors were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in August and were immediately remanded into custody. A total of nine pro-life activists affiliated with the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) group had blockaded a Washington, D.C. abortion facility in 2020, distributing pro-life pamphlets and advocating against the slaughter of the unborn. The PAAU members face up to 11 years in prison. Del Turco noted, “We need to think about what it means for our society when pro-lifers trying to save babies are dealt harsh punishments while leftist rioters face almost no consequences.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge Hands Bigtime Victory To Conservatives

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


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

Riley Gaines Torches the Dems’ Gender Deniers in House Fight for Girls’ Sports thumbnail

Riley Gaines Torches the Dems’ Gender Deniers in House Fight for Girls’ Sports

By Family Research Council

If Riley Gaines had it to do over again, the All-American swimmer says she’d have never raced against Lia Thomas. It would’ve meant giving up everything she’d trained for — but some things, she’s decided, are more important than titles. “I believe everything happened for a reason, but I wish I realized what a slippery slope this was when we were told to smile and step aside so a man could have our place at the podium,” Riley insisted. “My actions would be different now, and I wouldn’t compete. I know it’s easier said than done, but sacrifices are necessary for the greater good.”

More than a year and a half after the moment that changed her life forever, Riley has made plenty of sacrifices. As the face of the movement to save women’s sports, she’s been targeted, harassed, and mocked — and that was just Tuesday.

Though Gaines wasn’t surrounded, punched, or held hostage, she was openly demeaned by people claiming to be leaders in Congress. As a witness in the Republicans’ hearing, “The Importance of Protecting Female Athletics and Title IX,” Riley talked about what it was like to be a pawn in the NCAA’s political game. Despite tying with Thomas, a biological male, Gaines was intentionally elbowed out of the spotlight. “I was denied the trophy because the NCAA claimed it was necessary for Thomas to hold the trophy when photos were being taken,” she explained.

But if anything was worse than being forced to “validate the feelings and the identity of a male,” Riley fumed, it’s that she and the other girls were forced to share an intimate locker room with the same man. “And as I’ve testified previously, we were not forewarned of this arrangement,” she said of being confronted with Thomas’s “fully intact male genitalia.” “We were not asked for our consent, and we did not give our consent to this exposure and to be exploited.”

Female Democrats (and their chosen witnesses) shrugged off Gaines’s concerns, insisting that anyone trying to keep men out of girls’ sports is a bigot. “It’s disappointing to me,” leftist Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) said, “that although the title of this hearing implies a much-needed discussion we’re likely going to be forced to listen to transphobic bigotry. Because actually protecting female athletes and Title IX is important. Participating in sports provides so many benefits to our young people.”

“… [If] my testimony makes me a transphobic bigot,” Riley fired back, “then I believe your opening monologue makes you a misogynist,” she declared to Lee, who, ironically, tried to have Gaines’s comment scrubbed from the record. Like most Republicans, Doug LaMalfa (Calif.) was appalled by the exchange, pointing out the absurdity that Lee would move to have Riley’s response stricken “because she cared to disagree with the [Democrats’] name-calling…”

“I believe being called transphobic for saying that women deserve privacy, that we deserve safety, that we deserve equal opportunities, that we deserve to maintain our dignity — I believe that is certainly an attack on my character,” Riley interjected.

Another “squad” member, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) leaped into the ridiculous by suggesting that the people protecting girls’ sports would be “opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are underage, potentially just because someone can point to someone and say, ‘I don’t think you are a girl.’”

In one of the hearing’s more jaw-dropping moments, Fatima Goss Graves, president of the so-called National Women’s Law Center, suggested that girls like Riley “learn to lose gracefully,” a statement roundly mocked on social media. “I don’t know what the National Women’s Law Center does,” Christian Collins tweeted, “but if this is their president, they aren’t helping women.” Tennis great Martina Navratilova was equally infuriated. “I think National Women’s Law center needs to change their name and just be called National Law Center,” she posted. “No point calling it women’s law center since according to the president there are so many variations of women?”

Ranking Republican Lisa McClain (Mich.) was appalled, calling Graves’s “lose gracefully” advice a “slap in the face of any athlete who worked so hard.” “I am a woman,” she insisted, “and let me tell you, hear me roar, because I will not stop protecting women. You want to know why? Because we have rights, too. … And our daughters have rights, too. Let me be explicitly clear on that — I will never stop protecting our daughters. I will never stop protecting women. That is my job as a mother, and it is the right thing to do.”

Graves, unfortunately, did little to dig herself out of the hole she’d created, at one point outing herself as a graduate of the Ketanji Brown Jackson School of Biology by saying she couldn’t answer if men and women are different because, after all, she’s “not a scientist.” Instead, she accused Gaines and others of making the hearing “about attacking and dehumanizing transgender people” — a charge Riley didn’t take lightly.

“There’s a place for everybody to play sports in this country,” Gaines said, noting transgender Americans were included in her view. “But unsafe, unfair and discriminatory practices must stop.” All the Left cares about, she argued, is “minimize[ing] harm to trans-identified athletes.” “But what about the harm to us?” she demanded. “Who was working to minimize the harm done to female athletes?”

Macy Petty, a former Family Research Council intern, is one of the growing chorus of athletes affected by the Left’s march through girls’ sports. As an NCAA volleyball player, she’s had to face off against a male player — despite the obvious advantage the women’s game provided. “When the rule-makers ignored the basic biological differences, they ignored the fact that women’s volleyball nets are over seven inches shorter than men’s volleyball nets,” she pointed out. “Simple things like that that acknowledge the differences between sexes and allow us to also pursue athletic excellence. But in ignoring that, they allowed this male athlete … [to] use so many biological advantages against us as female athletes. And at this point of my life, I was trying to compete in front of her recruiters for an athletic and academic scholarship one day.”

Macy was catapulted into the spotlight when she decided to speak out about the injustice of it all, walking a path blazed, in large part, by Riley Gaines. Like so many female athletes, she’s watched Gaines do battle with everyone from members of Congress to talk show hosts and extremist students without giving an inch.

“I thought that Riley did a fantastic job today,” she told FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” after the hearing. “I know that I was among many who were praying for her, just that she could relay truth and light into Congress. And I think that’s exactly what she did. She went in with a clear message and simply said, ‘We cannot keep elevating this, this inclusion message and leave behind so many female athletes who have been fighting their entire lives to be collegiate athletes, to be high school athletes. And this message that they keep pushing is definitely reversing the clock 50 years and going against the original intent of Title IX.”

As she’s linked arms with women and girls across the country, Macy says that “something that has been increasingly clear to me is that this is a spiritual battle, and that this is a war on the creation and the Creator Himself, and an attack on what it means to be male and female.” But as she’s exposed to more hostility, she says she’s equally encouraged by the light starting to shine through the darkness. “Thankfully, I’ve seen more and more people lean into the Word of God and just the confidence that He can bring throughout the fight.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Stand Up Against Child Abuse’: GOP Candidates Clash Over Trans Surgeries for Minors at Fourth Debate

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


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

House Republicans Release Text Of Impeachment Inquiry Resolution For Joe Biden thumbnail

House Republicans Release Text Of Impeachment Inquiry Resolution For Joe Biden

By The Daily Caller

North Dakota Republican Rep. Kelly Armstrong introduced a 14-page resolution Thursday that would authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

“Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Joseph Biden, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes,” the resolution reads.

The resolution is set to be marked up Tuesday, Dec. 12 and a vote could occur Wednesday.

“It’s time for the House to take the next step in the Biden impeachment investigation and adopt an impeachment inquiry resolution. The White House and multiple witnesses have repeatedly refused to cooperate with the investigation and have rejected subpoenas. Despite this refusal, the investigation has uncovered alarming details that demand further scrutiny,” Armstrong said in a statement.

READ THE RESOLUTION HERE: 

(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — BILLS 118hres918ih 0 by Henry Rodgers on Scribd

“The Biden family and associates received more than $24 million from foreign nationals. Joe Biden received $200,000 from his brother, James Biden, the same day James received a $200,000 loan from a failing rural hospital operator. Joe Biden also received $40,000 in laundered Chinese money from his brother and sister-in-law. It’s become clear that the Biden family sold influence around the world using Joe Biden’s name as the product. An investigation in any jurisdiction around the country would move forward if it had these facts. A vote on an impeachment inquiry puts the House in the best position to prevail in court and uncover the truth,” Armstrong continued.

This is a developing story. More information will be added as it becomes available.)

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Removed From Office Immediately’: More Republicans Are Warming To Impeaching Joe Biden

MTG Introduces Articles Of Impeachment Against Joe Biden

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