‘A Pretty Open-And-Shut Case’: Former MSNBC Commentator Predicts Hunter Biden Conviction thumbnail

‘A Pretty Open-And-Shut Case’: Former MSNBC Commentator Predicts Hunter Biden Conviction

By The Daily Caller

A senior writer for National Review and former MSNBC commentator said the case against Hunter Biden was “pretty open-and-shut” and predicted a conviction Friday.

Special counsel David Weiss secured a nine-count indictment of Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, for failing to pay over $1 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019 on Dec. 7; Biden also faces charges of illegally possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs and for making false statements in the course of purchasing the firearm, and entered a “not guilty” plea in a federal court in Wilmington, Delaware Oct. 3. “The whistleblowers who alleged that Hunter Biden had defrauded the government and that that there was a certain amount of exposure that he should face that he was not, in a conspicuous fashion, I thought to be true,” Noah Rothman told “America’s Newsroom” co-host Bill Hemmer.

WATCH:

“We’ve seen now that these charges that are coming out of California against Hunter Biden probably wouldn’t have happened in the absence of that testimony,” Rothman continued. “So there’s a certain amount of credibility that Mr. Shapley has, and I wouldn’t defer to him.”

Rothman also said that Hunter Biden’s defiant press conference Wednesday, when he ignored a congressional subpoena, would probably hurt President Biden.

“Hunter Biden is attempting to help his father, who’s facing a congressional investigation for obstructing Congress, by refusing to abide by a congressional subpoena. You are not helping, Hunter! You are making things a little bit worse,” Rothman said. “And Hunter Biden is facing charges now that are very easy to convict on. This is a pretty open-and-shut case.”

“There are no extenuating circumstances that say, ‘Well, I should have paid $1.4 million in taxes, I instead spent it on fast cars, fancy clothes, women and illicit narcotics,’” Rothman continued. “That’s a sort of thing that gets a conviction, which presents a profound political conundrum to his father.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley similarly said President Biden lied about his knowledge of Hunter Biden’s business dealings. “The fact is that this indictment shatters years of denials by the Bidens and frankly, by an enabling media,” Turley told Fox News host Sean Hannity in a Dec. 7 appearance on Fox News.

AUTHOR

HAROLD HUTCHISON

Reporter.

POST ON X:

A staffer for a Democrat senator starred in an amateur anal s—x porn video that was recorded in the U.S. Capitol, Senate room Hart 216–The Judiciary Room. Daily Caller scoop: https://t.co/6HbhmF8Iet

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) December 16, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Legal Self-Immolation’: Jonathan Turley Says Hunter Biden Is In ‘Flagrant Contempt Of Congress’

IRS Investigators On Hunter Biden Case Were Denied Opportunity To Interview Key Business Associate, Testimony Shows

‘Middle Finger To The House’: Joe Biden Said Subpoena Defiers Should Be Charged. Will His DOJ Arrest Hunter?

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.

If Republicans Want To Govern, They’d Better Learn How To Hold The Left Accountable thumbnail

If Republicans Want To Govern, They’d Better Learn How To Hold The Left Accountable

By The Geller Report

The Republican reluctance (more like refusal) to hold Democrats accountable, uphold rule of law, and enforce the law made it possible for the Democrats to run roughshod over The Constitution, our freedoms, nothing short of a coup.

For too long, conservatives have been loath to use government power to defend the republic from enemies within. That has to change.

By: John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist, December 15, 2023

Amid the controversy following recent congressional testimony on the problem of campus antisemitism by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio has introduced a bill that would drastically increase the tax rate on the largest university endowments.

This is something Vance has been talking about for some time now, and while it’s a good idea on the merits, it’s also a good example of how conservatives should be willing to use whatever political power they have to fight back against the left. Simply put, unless the right starts treating the left and its institutions like the hostile entities they are, our republic will not likely survive.

This is especially true when it comes to higher education, where the wealthiest and most elite schools have long enjoyed preferential treatment even as they poison the body politic by actively promoting not just antisemitism, but racism, gender ideology, and every other brand of cultural Marxism you can imagine.

The recent spectacle in Congress is a case in point. During their testimonies last week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn refused to say the blatant antisemitism on their campuses since the Oct. 7 attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists — including explicit calls for genocide of the Jews — violates their schools’ policies on harassment.

Their equivocation, insisting that whether such antisemitism constitutes harassment depends on the “context,” elicited understandable outrage from donors. After a major Penn donor pulled a $100 million gift to the school that was made in 2017, Penn President Liz Magill was forced to resign — a rare instance of a leftist elite facing real-world consequences for defending her appalling ideology in public.

Vance, for his part, rightly sees these schools as threats to American values and our way of life that in no way deserve special treatment. Currently, the tax rate on endowments at places like Harvard and Penn is just 1.4 percent, making them effectively slush funds for the ultra-rich. His two-page bill would increase the rate to 35 percent on all endowments worth $10 billion or more.

The endowments at Penn, Harvard & MIT have a combined $95B+ in assets – yet only pay a 1.4% tax rate on net investment income.

Then they use these funds to push DEI and woke insanity.

My bill would tax the largest endowments at 35% – it’s going to the Senate floor right now. pic.twitter.com/NtSuUtzluL

— J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) December 14, 2023

The point here isn’t to raise additional tax revenue (although the money raised could be used to pay down the deficit or help working, middle-class families or just be given back to the American people as dividends). The point is to acknowledge, through federal tax policy, that in their current form, these universities don’t serve the national interest. If they can’t be reformed, at least they can be punished.

That’s the right approach, not just to higher education but to every facet of what has become an all-consuming cultural and political war in this country. Conservatives can no longer afford to shy away from using the institutions they control to defend Western civilization and the Christian values that undergird it.

State legislatures that responded to the overturning of Roe v. Wade by passing strong restrictions on abortion, like Texas and Florida, have the right idea. Same with states that have imposed restrictions on transgender interventions and surgeries for minors (they need to take the next step, though, and impose those same restrictions on adults).

A crude but no less effective version of this posture toward the left is what one man did on Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa. Michael Cassidy, a Christian and former military officer, tore down and beheaded an altar to Satan in the state capitol. Why was a Satan altar even there? Because the left has managed to insinuate itself everywhere — even into the Iowa Legislature, despite a Republican supermajority. Under the banner of diversity and tolerance, we’re told we must accept altars to Satan in our legislative halls.

Cassidy begged to differ. “The world may tell Christians to submissively accept the legitimization of Satan, but none of the founders would have considered government sanction of Satanic altars inside Capitol buildings as protected by the First Amendment,” he told The Sentinel.

Keep reading

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

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson with Owen Shroyer on his treatment by the U.S. state and comparisons to actual criminals thumbnail

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson with Owen Shroyer on his treatment by the U.S. state and comparisons to actual criminals

By Vlad Tepes Blog

Sorry, that is a really bad title. But what I want to say would be worse:

Tucker Carlson and Owen Shroyer demonstrate perfectly how a dialectically operated system works, even as the public still imagines they have rule of law.

Even Tucker and Own seem not to get it here. They remain amazed at the consistent selective enforcement against people who are ‘for Trump’ etc.

We see it as a revolutionary state applying revolutionary standards against anyone who is a counter-revolutionary.

The more effective that person is, the harsher the treatment. Which explains what is happening to Trump perfectly.

WATCH: Tucker Carlson Uncensored | Owen Shroyer — January 6th Political Prisoner

POST ON X:

🚨 MASTER TROLL: Tucker Carlson parks trucks in front of The New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post that say “Corporate Media is Dead” pic.twitter.com/uokqjrBM8n

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 14, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Typical Biden Fashion’: James Comer Says Hunter Defying Subpoena Reveals ‘Arrogance And Entitlement’ thumbnail

‘Typical Biden Fashion’: James Comer Says Hunter Defying Subpoena Reveals ‘Arrogance And Entitlement’

By The Daily Caller

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said that Hunter Biden defying a congressional subpoena was “typical” of the Biden family in an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Thursday.

Comer and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan announced Wednesday that they will initiate contempt of congress proceedings against Hunter Biden after he failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. Hunter Biden delivered a press conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday, denying President Joe Biden’s financial involvement in his foreign business dealings.

WATCH:

“He did it in a typical Biden fashion,” Comer told Bartiromo. “He showed the world the amount of arrogance and entitlement that he believes he has because he’s a Biden … he doesn’t think the rules apply to him. We issued him a lawful subpoena. We’ve spent 10 months building a case of corruption against the Biden family. We have their bank records. I think everyone in America knows by now, even the people that are all in for Joe Biden, that the family was influence peddling.”

Hunter Biden denied the legitimacy and accuracy of the investigation into him at his Wednesday press conference. The U.S. House voted Wednesday night to launch an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden in a 221-212 vote.

“We want to now bring him in and ask him what exactly he did to receive the tens of millions of dollars from our enemies around the world,” Comer added. “And, most importantly, we want to know about Joe’s role. We already know from Devon Archer that the Bidens were selling the Biden brand. We want to know exactly what that entailed. He goes and he tries to play the sympathy card with the reporters. Said he was there to talk, then got in his car and drove off. Typical Biden fashion.”

AUTHOR

JASON COHEN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOJ Prosecutor Accused Of Protecting Joe And Hunter Biden Departs Her Post

‘Unforced Error’: Jonathan Turley Says Hunter Biden’s Refusal To Testify Could Massively Backfire

KJP Insists Five Times In A Row There’s ‘No Evidence’ Of Biden ‘Wrongdoing’ In Impeachment Inquiry

First House Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Lays Out Potential Next Steps Of Biden Investigation

Ana Navarro Claims Many People Cheat On Their Taxes And Influence Peddle Just Like Hunter Biden

Jill Biden’s White House Christmas dance troupe are radical BLM-loving activists who have demanded prison abolition and defunding the police

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 Case for Ken Paxton’s Right to Back Pay thumbnail

A Case for Ken Paxton’s Right to Back Pay

By Amil Imani

The crux of the matter in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s quest for back pay during his suspension lies in interpreting the Texas Constitution regarding the compensation of impeached officials during the suspension.

The ongoing legal dispute underscores the need for a nuanced examination of constitutional provisions. While Paxton’s office contends that the Texas Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of withholding pay during impeachment, their argument gains strength when considering analogous situations where state law permits leave without compensation.

Paxton’s office is arguing that while being impeached does require an officeholder to be suspended from official duties; the Constitution does not clearly state whether that officer should go without pay. This crucial gap in explicit language has allowed for interpretation, and it can be argued that the principles applied to other state employees should also extend to him.

Drawing parallels to situations where state law allows employees to take leave without deducting pay, a similar approach should be extended to the Attorney General during his suspension. We can see a need for consistency in interpreting legal provisions across different scenarios.

Paxton’s office highlights the financial strain imposed on him during the suspension. Denying his salary raises questions about fairness and impacts his ability to maintain financial stability. The argument here is not just about legal technicalities but also about ensuring a reasonable and just outcome for an elected official.

Another angle to Paxton’s case is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. With the constitution being silent on withholding pay, denying Paxton his salary during the suspension period may be considered a premature judgment, significantly when he was cleared of all charges by the Senate. This perspective aligns with the fundamental principle of justice that individuals are entitled to their full rights until proven otherwise.

Resolving the ambiguity in the interpretation of the constitution regarding pay during suspension is about more than just Paxton’s case. It sets a precedent for future instances involving state officials. Paxton’s office argues that a clear ruling in his favor would contribute to establishing guidelines for the treatment of elected officials during impeachment proceedings.

On the other hand, Hegar’s office relies on two specific state laws, maintaining that these laws don’t extend the same provisions to state officeholders. The contention centers around whether these laws are comprehensive enough to cover the unique circumstances surrounding an impeached official like Ken Paxton.

The impasse has reached a point where legal action is on the horizon. Paxton’s threat of legal action against Hegar reflects the seriousness of the dispute. The decision to seek a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court adds another layer of complexity to the matter. If the court rules in favor of Paxton, it could have far-reaching consequences for Hegar and potentially impact future cases involving suspended state officials.

Then, there are these potential consequences for Hegar:

Loss of Public Trust:

If the court deems Hegar’s decision to withhold Paxton’s pay a violation of state law, it may erode public trust in Hegar’s leadership. The perception of flouting legal obligations could undermine his effectiveness as a Comptroller.

Legal Consequences:

A ruling favoring Paxton could entail legal consequences for Hegar, possibly requiring reimbursement of the withheld salary. This financial repercussion could extend beyond Hegar’s professional reputation.

Potential for Future Lawsuits:

The court’s decision could set a precedent for future cases involving suspended officials. This may lead to increased scrutiny and potential lawsuits against the state in similar situations, complicating legal matters surrounding impeached officials.

Impact on the Texas Legislature:

The ruling might influence the Texas Legislature, prompting discussions on potential reforms to state laws or regulations related to the pay of suspended officials. This could lead to a reassessment of existing legal frameworks governing such situations.

Hegar’s Action Is political:

Indeed, Hegar’s refusal to pay Paxton’s back pay could also be politically motivated, possibly in collaboration with the Texas House. Indeed, this is a significant angle – Hegar’s political aspirations may play a role in this drama.

The legal battle between Ken Paxton and Comptroller Glenn Hegar raises crucial questions about the rights of impeached officials and the interpretation of the Texas Constitution. As the case awaits a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court, the outcome can shape not only Paxton’s financial restitution but also the landscape for future cases involving the suspension and pay of state officials.

As this legal battle unfolds, it becomes evident that Paxton’s request for fair compensation is not just a personal matter but has broader implications for constitutional interpretation and the treatment of elected officials during challenging legal proceedings.

©2023. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

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.