After the death of her husband at the hand of what she believes to be hospital COVID-19 treatment protocols, Joanne Eyerly’s life was uprooted in grief and confusion.

She had to sell most of her belongings and their home in Oregon to move to Ohio, where today she scrambles to put the pieces together.

Of one thing Eyerly said she is certain: “They euthanized him,” she told The Epoch Times. “I know that they did.”

Greg Eyerly was admitted to the hospital on Sept. 22, 2021. Eyerly was not allowed to stay with her husband, so she stayed in communication through text.

It seemed like he was getting better, she said, until Greg reported that he hadn’t been receiving hydration for a week. “I think they are stopping taking care of me,” Greg texted her.

Eyerly called the doctor, asking for basic fluids and vitamin D, C, and zinc treatment for Greg, she said.

“This doctor yelled at me, saying, ‘I don’t know what research you’re looking at, but we’re not doing that. That’s not what we do,’” Eyerly said.

Greg texted her that he was losing body mass rapidly and that he wasn’t being fed.

“Please help make sure there is a plan to get me out of here,” Greg texted.

Throughout his stay, Greg reported that he was seeing less and less medical staff, and Eyerly said she was getting fewer updates on his condition.

‘We Had to Give Him a Chance’

On Sept. 30, Eyerly said Greg made a 39-second call to the Tualatin Police Department, though the department has no record of the call, she said.

The next day, Eyerly was told that Greg needed to be put on a ventilator or he would die.

“We said yes,” she said. “We had to give him a chance.”

On Oct. 1, staff called to tell her that Greg needed protein. Since there were no protein drinks in the ICU, Eyerly needed to go out and get one for him, she said.

With the National Guard at the front entrance, Eyerly said she still wasn’t allowed inside and had to leave it at the front desk.

When she got home, she received a call from hospital staff telling her there had been an emergency and that Greg needed to be ventilated immediately.

Later, she spoke with the doctor who ventilated Greg, and he reported to her that Greg was in no way close to death, and that “his lungs just needed a break,” she said.

However, on Oct. 5, hospital staff reported to her that the ventilator had stopped working and that she and her children needed to come to see him, she said.

“I don’t understand what happened between October the first and the fifth,” she said. “The doctors didn’t offer any information.”

‘It Makes No Sense’

None of it added up, she said, and she had no time to process any of the multiple inconsistent reports from hospital staff.

“I had to come in quickly if I didn’t want my husband of 30 years to die alone,” she said. “My kids and I watched as he took his final breath. My 21-year-old daughter was so distraught she had to be taken out of the hospital in a wheelchair.”

As they were leaving after he passed on Oct. 5, Eyerly said a hospital staff member yelled at them “to get vaccinated.”

Greg had already been hesitant to go to the hospital, Eyerly said, because he had been hearing stories describing poor treatment, specifically of the unvaccinated.

Greg couldn’t take the COVID-19 vaccine because he had a history of negative side effects from the flu vaccine, she said.

It was during this time when President Joe Biden was mandating vaccines for employees on several fronts: private businesses, federal contractors, and health care workers.

When Eyerly got Greg’s medical records, she said she found that Greg had been given a combination of drugs such as morphine and fentanyl.

“It was documented heavily how he was losing weight, and he was self-feeding,” she said. “He was also listed as a fall risk, so they tied his hands down and had him sedated. How could you be so sedated and in charge of feeding yourself? It makes no sense.”

Eyerly said he lost 25 pounds in the course of 12 days.

Now, Eyerly is seeking the truth, she said.

Eyerly connected with a nurse who heard her story and told that she had witnessed COVID-19 patients being treated similarly and that these cases almost always ended in the death of the patient.

The patients were all scorned because of their unvaccinated status and were given a combination of sedatives and the antiviral drug remdesivir. They were also kept isolated and malnourished and ultimately put on a ventilator before dying.

Though Eyerly hasn’t found in Greg’s medical records where he was given remdesivir, the pattern of treatment, combined with drugs like Ativan, Dilaudid, fentanyl, morphine, and multiple sedatives and anxiety medications, suggests to her and the nurse that Greg had been subjected to COVID-19 hospital treatment protocols that have strayed from the Hypocritic Oath of “Do No Harm.”

Though she still doesn’t fully understand what happened, she said her instincts are telling her “this was not a natural death.”

“After sorting through the medical records, it’s plain to see that he did not get his basic needs met,” she said. “Food and water are not controversial treatments. They are basic human needs and rights.”

‘I Can Prove Negligence in a Heartbeat’

Gloria Kniesler has reviewed “thousands upon thousands” of medical documents that describe cases just like Eyerly’s, she told The Epoch Times.

Kniesler, a registered nurse of 22 years in New Jersey who was terminated for declining the COVID-19 vaccine, now volunteers to review cases like Eyerly’s for protocolkills.com, a website set up to inform people on what it describes as the dangers of hospital protocols.

“They didn’t even feed some of these people,” Kniesler said. “They let them starve, and I can prove negligence in a heartbeat.”

The protocols, as described by several physicians, nurses, and families of patients, usually involve isolating the patient after admission, not allowing family contact, putting the patient on several sedatives and pain killers, keeping the patient malnourished, and finally putting the patient on a ventilator before the patient eventually dies.

The hospital then writes it as a COVID-19 death, getting federal reimbursements through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

NIH Responds

The Epoch Times reached out to the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute of Health (NIH) for clarification on which organization specifically wrote and instituted what some have deemed these “death protocols” to treat COVID-19 patients that many federally funded hospitals are reported to be allegedly following.

Though the WHO and the CDC didn’t immediately respond, the NIH responded by stating that allegations of NIH being the source of the protocols is “egregiously false,” adding that it doesn’t recommend “the use of fentanyl, sedatives, or malnourishment.”

“NIH is a research agency and does not issue hospital protocols for treating COVID-19,” NIH said. “NIH is a part of the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel whose members are appointed based on their clinical experience and expertise in patient management, translational and clinical science, and/or the development of treatment guidelines. The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines provide clinicians with guidance on how to care for patients with COVID-19.”

In its COVID treatment guidelines, the NIH said remdesivir is the only drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19.

Those who have criticized remdesivir, a drug known to cause kidney failure, cite a study found in the New England Journal of Medicine in which a safety board found it to be the least effective and the deadliest drug in this trial before it was suspended after killing 53 percent of the people who took the drug.

Kniesler has been outspoken about her medical opinion that remdesivir “is a poison.”

In New Jersey alone, CMS reimburses hospitals $17,000 for the use of remdesivir on one patient, she said, but this varies from state to state.

“That’s why this is happening in federally funded hospitals,” she said.

In most cases, the patients who undergo the protocols are unvaccinated, and their cause of death, though recorded as COVID, is multiple organ failure, she said.

‘Something Wasn’t Right’

In her review of the case of Therese Hernandez’s father, Vietnam War veteran Joseph Occhipinti, Kniesler said Occhipinti had gone to the hospital in New Jersey to get monoclonal antibody treatment.

However, when the hospital found that he was unvaccinated, the treatment protocols changed from monoclonal antibodies to remdesivir, Hernandez told The Epoch Times.

“We thought he was getting better, and all of the sudden he began telling us that they were forgetting to feed him,” Hernandez said. “They forgot to bring him food and water. I told him they’re not forgetting. Something was wrong. They were neglecting him.”

He went into kidney failure as his organs began to fail, Hernandez said.

Similar to Eyerly’s and other cases, Hernandez got the call telling her that her father needed to be put on the ventilator or he would die, she said.

“They scared us into venting him,” Hernandez said. “By that point, his kidneys were completely shot.”

Occhipinti was kept isolated from the time he was admitted on Sept. 3 to his death on Sept. 29.

“They called us and told us, ‘You better get up here now because it’s not looking good,’” she said. “Just the day before, they told me he was improving. So they pretty much lied to us the entire time he was in the hospital,” Hernandez alleged.

In addition to being devastated, Hernandez said she also felt “that something wasn’t right.”

“My father was a healthy 68 years old and had no health problems,” she said. “He had just retired and was enjoying life. That was ripped from him for no reason. He fought for this country and this country failed him.”

A Chance Encounter

Having just been fired, Kniesler was standing in line at her local UPS Store to fax paperwork for her 401(k) when she met Hernandez, who was also in line.

They began talking and Hernandez shared her story, Kniesler said.

“One of the biggest things I found with his case was that his hemoglobin was half of what it should be,” she said. “That means he didn’t have half the blood [cells needed] in his body, and they did nothing. They didn’t even acknowledge it. Why did they not give him a transfusion, which could have very well helped his breathing and prevented cardiac arrest?”

Occhipinti went into cardiac arrest, Kniesler said, because she believes his heart had to overwork itself to get oxygen to the cells, “and that can’t be sustained.”

“If they had given him a transfusion, the outcome could have been different,” she said. “But it doesn’t even matter if the outcome were different; he still deserved the top standard of care, and he didn’t get that.”

Two days before Occhipinti died, when Hernandez had been told that her father was improving, the doctor wrote an order for the nurse to contact an organ donor organization, Kniesler said.

“This shows that the doctor had no intention of saving this man,” Kniesler said. “One never does this until the patient is dead.”

Occhipinti was classified as “full code,” meaning he was to be resuscitated, Kniesler said.

“At the time he was writing that order, the patient was intubated and on a ventilator, with half the blood in his body,” Kniesler said. “So, does that show you that the doctor was trying to save him?”

‘It’s Truly Unreal’

The level of neglect Kniesler said she’s seen in Occhipinti’s and other medical records is “heart-wrenching,” she said.

“There’s a lot I can list that they are doing, and a lot of things I can list that they are not doing,” she said.

Light exercises such as deep breathing practice and walking aren’t encouraged when they should be, Kniesler said, leaving the patients forced to stay in bed even when they show signs of improvement.

“Putting COVID, these protocols, and the use of remdesivir aside, I’m seeing so many other things I can’t even believe I’m reading,” Kniesler said. “It’s truly unreal.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

As you may know, the primary “constitutional” justification for our out-of-control administrative state is a grossly bloated version of the Constitution’s Commerce Power. In a case pending before the Supreme Court, apologists for centralized authority want the justices to expand that power even more.

I have just researched and written a scholarly article (pdf) explaining the limits on the Commerce Power. In a separate post and accompanying memo (pdf), I’ve shown how one writer has abused source material to promote federal pretentions.

The public debates over the Constitution were held from 1787 to 1790. During those debates some Americans warned that, once the Constitution was in place, power-hungry federal officials and their supporters would twist the document out of recognition—that they would use “sophistry” to expand federal prerogatives. Sophistry is employing arguments that sound reasonable but really are false or misleading.

The Scope of the Commerce Clause

Congress’s “Commerce Power” derives primarily from two constitutional provisions: The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).

The Commerce Clause grants Congress authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” When the Constitution was written, the phrase “regulate Commerce” had a specific and understood meaning.

“Regulate Commerce” was interchangeable with the phrase “regulate trade.” (You can see examples of this interchangeably in James Madison’s “Federalist No. 42,” which focuses on the Commerce Clause.) Both terms were synonyms for applying the law merchant—a body of rules governing certain economic activities when they cut across political boundaries. The law merchant covered a lot of ground. It included

• bankruptcy;
• licensing and qualifications of trade professionals;
• cargo insurance;
• commercial paper (such as checks and promissory notes);
• prices and quality of goods;
• limits on imports and exports;
• navigation and some aspects of ground transportation;
• certain financial levies on traded items (“duties” and prohibitive tariffs), and
• some economic crimes.

Notice how all these are economic activities. Reinforcing the economic meaning is the Constitution’s Port Preference Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 6), which speaks of the “Regulation of Commerce” in the context of trade and navigation.

The law merchant was broad, but did have limits. It did not govern non-economic activities, such as crimes of passion and relations within families. Nor did it govern manufacturing, mining, agriculture, health insurance, or commerce wholly within state boundaries. The Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserved those subjects for state governance.

The Meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause

In a previous Epoch Times essay, I explained the meaning of the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause. That provision clarified that, when carrying out its listed powers, Congress could regulate some “incidental” activities. But as several leading Founders emphasized (including Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33), the Necessary and Proper Clause did not extend Congress’s authority. It was merely a clarification.

And to make sure everyone understood this, some of the Constitution’s leading supporters published lists of activities the federal government could not control (pdf). One of these was family law.

In a 2012 Supreme Court decision (pdf), Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not grant any power, but merely clarifies the scope of the powers that are granted.

The New Deal Supreme Court Stretches the Commerce Power

But decades before Roberts wrote, the Supreme Court already had stretched the Constitution’s Commerce Power beyond recognition. I explained how this happened in an essay in my Epoch Times series entitled “How the Supreme Court Rewrote the Constitution:” During the late 1930s and early 1940s, justices eager to accommodate President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (1) expanded the meaning of “Commerce” to include all kinds of insurance and (2) used the Necessary and Proper Clause to allow Congress to regulate “any economic activity that substantially affects commerce.”

The effect of these decisions was to let Congress dictate to almost the entire American economy—even small, local businesses. Still, the Supreme Court has retained some limits: It affirms that Congress may not use the Commerce Power to intrude on non-economic activities, such as personal family relationships.

The Indian Child Welfare Act

Congress doesn’t care about those limits. In 1978, it passed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which invades state jurisdiction over child placement and adoption.

The ICWA’s opponents assert that Congress’s phrase “Child Welfare” is Orwellian, because the ICWA hurts children more than it helps. However, the cases now before the Supreme Court will not consider whether the ICWA is good or bad. They will consider only whether it is constitutional.

The argument of Congress and its defenders is that the ICWA is authorized by the part of the Commerce Clause lawyers call the Indian Commerce Clause—the portion that grants Congress authority to “regulate Commerce … with the Indian Tribes.” They claim that when the word “Commerce” is applied to Native Americans, it magically balloons in scope, allowing Congress to regulate just about anything.

How Sophistry Works

As my new article shows, many of their arguments are pure sophistry. To supplement the article, I’ve written a separate posting and an accompanying memorandum (pdf). Here are some principal points:

First: Supporters of the ICWA contend that when the Constitution was written, “commerce with the Indians” included all relationships between European-Americans and Native Americans, not just economic ones. When you track down their historical sources, you find that those sources don’t support that contention.

Second: Supporters of the ICWA argue that because the Constitution’s framers added “and with the Indian Tribes” to the Commerce Clause later than “with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” the meaning of “regulate Commerce” somehow changed. As any competent lawyer knows, however, the order of drafting in a closed convention doesn’t affect the meaning of a document to outsiders, such as the Constitution’s ratifiers—and, frankly, it wouldn’t change the meaning even if the ratifiers had known about it.

Third: Supporters of the ICWA assert that they are considering all evidence as a whole, and not just the text of the Commerce Clause in isolation. But they disregard (1) the law merchant, (2) 18th-century laws regulating Indian commerce, (3) the Port Preference Clause, and (4) the fact that the Constitutional Convention considered—and rejected—a proposal to give Congress absolute authority over Indian “affairs.” Instead, the finished Constitution split Indian affairs authority among several branches of government: an example of separation of powers.

Fourth: Supporters of the ICWA cite (out of context) the warnings of a single opponent to the Constitution, while ignoring statements by many supporters of the Constitution.

Finally: Supporters of the ICWA defame President George Washington and other early state and federal officials. Specifically, they edit official statements to make it seem like Washington & Co. were stretching the Indian Commerce Clause. Instead, they were relying on other sources of authority.

Conclusion

The Constitution is a legal document, so good faith disagreements about its meaning are inevitable. We have courts to adjudicate those disagreements.

But sophistry should have no place in constitutional interpretation. It misinforms Americans about their Constitution, subverts the system of justice, and damages faith in constitutional government.

And as for the UCWA: It’s ’way unconstitutional.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Two senators on Monday demanded all communications about Hunter Biden’s laptop between the FBI and Facebook following a bombshell admission from Facebook and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that FBI officials told him in late 2020 that there would be reports that were actually Russian disinformation.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Monday sent a letter to Zuckerberg saying that in October 2020, “when the New York Post published articles based on evidence from Hunter Biden’s laptop, many news and social media organizations inappropriately rushed to censor and discredit the initial reporting and falsely labeled it as ‘disinformation.’”

In the Rogan interview, Zuckerberg said Facebook actively reduced the reach of posts and articles regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop, which contained messages and emails about the younger Biden’s overseas business dealings as well as communication with his family, including President Joe Biden, regarding his deals.

Earlier this year, legacy news outlets ultimately reported that the laptop was real—not Russian disinformation.

“Basically, the background here is the FBI, I think basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was, like, ‘Hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant,’” Zuckerberg told Rogan last week.

The two Republicans demanded Zuckerberg hand over any relevant information and communications by Sept. 12.

Letter

“You recently appeared to indicate that the reason why Facebook made the unwise decision to censor articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop was based off an alert from the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” said the senators, referencing Zuckerberg’s recent podcast interview with Joe Rogan. Zuckerberg made the revelation about communications between the FBI and his company in 2020 ahead of the presidential election.

“Whistleblowers have also alleged to Senator Johnson that local FBI leadership instructed its employees not to look at the Hunter Biden laptop immediately after the FBI had obtained it,” the senators continued, adding that Americans “deserve to know whether the FBI used Facebook as part of their alleged plan to discredit information about Hunter Biden.”

Communications between Facebook and the FBI should be turned over to the two Republicans because Americans need to know whether the FBI pressured Facebook to discredit information regards to Hunter Biden ahead of the election, they wrote.

“Congress and the American people require clarity with respect to the extent the FBI communicated with Facebook during the 2020 election about Hunter Biden-related information,” they said.

Over the past weekend, the FBI responded to Zuckerberg’s comment and said that it provided a general warning to Facebook and other social media firms. It did not include a call to action, the bureau said.

The FBI “cannot ask, or direct, companies to take action on information received,” said the statement.

Meanwhile, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, issued a statement saying that the FBI shared general warnings about the election and did not mention Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.

According to the letter, Zuckerberg’s revelation that “Facebook took steps to censor information about Hunter Biden on its platform based on the FBI’s guidance raises even more questions about the FBI’s actions regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop.”

“As you may know, whistleblowers have recently alleged to Senator Grassley that in August 2020, FBI officials initiated a scheme to downplay derogatory information on Hunter Biden for the purpose of shutting down investigative activity relating to his potential criminal exposure by labeling it ‘disinformation,’” it continued.

Facebook has not immediately responded to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Republicans on Tuesday responded to reports that a top-level FBI agent, Timothy Thibault, had resigned from the bureau last week.

Anonymous sources within the FBI told corporate news outlets that Thibault, the FBI Assistant special agent in charge, no longer works for the law enforcement agency. He was walked out of the building on Friday, which is the standard procedure, the reports said.

The Epoch Times has contacted the FBI and Department of Justice for comment. Neither agency issued a public statement about the matter.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), whose letters to the FBI’s leadership repeatedly referenced alleged political bias on behalf of Thibault, said the agent “undermined the work and reputation of the FBI” and cast “a shadow over all the bureau’s work that he was involved in,” according to a statement from his office issued Tuesday morning.

Grassley accused him of “opening an investigation into Trump based on liberal news articles” and “shutting down investigative activity into Hunter Biden that was based on verified information.” The senator previously referenced those allegations against Thibault in letters to the FBI director, citing bureau whistleblower complaints against Thibault and other top leaders.

Neither Thibault nor the FBI has issued responses to Grassley’s specific claims about alleged political bias.

Grassley’s statement promised more congressional investigations into the FBI and called on the DOJ’s inspector general to further look into bias at the bureau.

Thibault was one of 13 assistant special agents in charge at the Washington, D.C., field office. Reports say Thibault was not involved in the FBI raid targeting former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, although the agency has not confirmed those claims.

Political Bias

The senator signaled that he would continue to press the FBI for any “political bias,” adding that the “effort to revive the FBI’s credibility can’t stop with [Thibault’s] exit.

Previously, Thibault was flagged by Grassley in letters to the agency for previously sharing a Twitter post calling Trump “a psychologically broken, embittered, and deeply unhappy man.”

And in other letters, Grassley accused Thibault of potentially violating federal laws and rules established by the FBI. Citing whistleblower claims, Grassley also alleged that there’s evidence Thibault had partisan bias when handling investigations into the Trump campaign and Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.

“Whistleblowers have reported to me, that although the FBI and Justice Department maintain policies dictating specific standards requiring substantial factual predication to initiate an investigation, Thibault and other Justice Department and FBI employees failed to comply with these requirements,” Grassley wrote, noting that the agent was “referred to the Office of Special Counsel for potential Hatch Act violations.”

Justice Department official Richard Pilger, who has been identified as the director of the Election Crimes Branch within the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, was also targted out by Grassley’s letters in recent months. Along with Thibault, Pilger was allegedly “deeply involved in the decisions to open and pursue this investigation” against Trump’s campaign, the senator said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Corporations with backing from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are waging legal warfare to prevent Western companies from deploying new, state-of-the-art communications satellites, according to one CEO.

Wireless entrepreneur and Rivada Networks CEO Declan Ganley, in an interview with NTD’s “Fresh Look America” program, spoke about how China-backed elements within a company Rivada acquired attempted to sabotage its efforts to deploy a multi-billion-dollar constellation of 600 satellites. The interview will air at 7 p.m. ET on Aug. 31.

Those satellites make use of super high bandwidth ka band frequencies, which overlap with frequencies used by 5G technologies. Vitally, the allocation of ka spectrum covered by the company’s filing is senior to that of other constellations, such as that of Starlink, which means its satellites would take priority in the event the trajectories of satellites from both sides came into the same orbit.

“This is prime real estate,” Ganley said. “This is ultra-high priority rights. This is shared spectrum. It’s thousands of megahertz of shared spectrum.”

“This is one of the highest priority slots … It’s above Elon Musk’s Starlink constellation.”

Ganley’s company, Rivada, has been struck with numerous legal disputes of Chinese origin, however, following its acquisition of Trion Space, the shell company that held the license to use the ka spectrum.

Chinese stakeholders in Kleo, another company acquired by Rivada, also owned a minority stake in Trion, and have attempted to thwart the company’s use of the filings.

Throughout dozens of lawsuits, the Chinese faction with Kleo sought to gain control over the filings in an apparent effort to use the European company to launch Chinese satellites that could “cover every square meter of the planet with high-speed secure communications,” according to Ganley.

“You would have the highest speed network in the world, with the lowest latency covering parts of the world, covering every major city and everything else, but also, every rural area, every stretch of ocean,” Ganley said.

“This is the most state-of-the-art communications network that the planet will have ever seen.”

Strategic Interest

To that end, Ganley said that he believed the sheer scale and tenacity of the Chinese efforts to thwart his company from deploying the satellites signaled that the CCP had some sort of strategic interest in gaining control of the filings.

“The effort that’s been put into it, it does somewhat underline that this must have had some sort of strategic importance for the CCP and their friends,” Ganley said.

“Otherwise, the resources wouldn’t be available to wage the kind of very high profile and public lawfare that they are waging.”

Thankfully for Rivada, the company has its own reserves to draw on, given its financial backing from several high-profile investors like PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel.

Ganley said that the company was “moving forward with determination,” had effectively removed the Chinese faction’s claims to the filing, and requested that a U.S. court strike down the Chinese faction’s most recent lawsuit.

“The key thing is that we have amputated the Chinese involvement from those licenses,” Ganley said. “And frankly, they’ve got no bridge back to it as much as they might try to create one.”

Source: The Epoch Times

Tony Ornato, who was former President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, has retired from the U.S. Secret Service.

Ornato took on the White House post in December 2019, when the former president made the appointment saying that he was comfortable with Ornato since he had worked with the Secret Service official for three years. After President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he took on the position of assistant director of the Secret Service’s Office of Training.

His retirement now poses the question of whether he is still available to testify before the Jan. 6 committee, considering that his name came up when Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified before the committee in late June.

“I retired from the U.S. Secret Service after more than 25 years of faithful service to my country, including serving the past five presidents,” Ornato said in a statement, according to Politico. “I long-planned to retire and have been planning this transition for more than a year.”

Ornato added that his retirement enables him “to pursue a career in the private sector.”

Anthony Guglielmi, the Secret Service’s communication chief, confirmed Ornato’s retirement to the outlet.

As for Ornato’s presence before the Jan. 6 committee, Guglielmi said he “continuously made Tony Ornato available,” while pointing out that Ornato is now a private citizen and not a federal employee.

During her testimony before the committee in June, Hutchinson alleged that Trump had disputes with the Secret Service on Jan. 6, 2021. She recalled hearing from Ornato that Trump allegedly “used his free hand to lunge” at Bobby Engel, the top agent on Trump’s Service detail, when the former president was told that he could not be taken to the Capitol after his speech at the Ellipse.

Hutchinson also alleged that Trump tried to seize the steering wheel from the driver of his presidential vehicle.

Trump has dismissed Hutchinson’s testimony, calling it a “fake story.”

“Her Fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House Limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is ‘sick’ and fraudulent, very much like the Unselect Committee itself. Wouldn’t even have been possible to do such a ridiculous thing,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account in June.

Trump took to Truth Social again after the Jan. 6 committee’s decision to subpoena former White House counsel Pasquale “Pat” Cipollone.

“Now that fake storyteller Cassidy Hutchinson has been totally discredited and marginalized for making up the most ridiculous ever story that I tried to commandeer control of a moving White House Limo, and even went for a choke hold on the other very strong Secret Service Agent sitting in the front seat, in addition to her other lies, the Unselect Committee is asking to interview the former White House counsel for dirt, even though that would set a terrible precedent for future Presidents. NO!,” Trump wrote.

Ornato is not the only Secret Service official to retire in recent months.

Secret Service Director James Murray announced his retirement in July. His successor is Kimberly Cheatle, who served 27 years in the Secret Service, according to a White House press release.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Chloe Cole was 15 years old when she agreed to let a “gender-affirming” surgeon remove her healthy breasts—a life-altering decision she now deeply regrets.

Her “brutal” transition to male from female was anything but the romanticized “gender journey” that transgender activists and medical professionals had portrayed, she told The Epoch Times.

“It’s a little creepy to call it that,” she said.

Cole, who is now 18, feels more like she’s just awoken from “a nightmare,” and she’s disappointed with the medical and school system that fast-tracked her to gender transition surgery.

“I was convinced that it would make me happy, that it would make me whole as a person,” she said.

Although she feels “let down” by most of the adults in her life, she doesn’t blame her parents for following the advice of school staff and medical professionals, who “affirmed” her desire for social transitioning, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery.

Most of the medical professionals did nothing to question or dissuade her or her parents, she said.

“They effectively guilted my parents into allowing them to do this. They gave them the whole, ‘Either, you’ll have a dead daughter or a live son,’ thing. They cited suicide rates,” she said. “There is just so much complacency on the part of educators—all the adults basically. I’m really upset over it. I feel a little bit angry. I wasn’t really allowed to just grow.”

Her parents, though skeptical, trusted the medical professionals and eventually consented to their daughter’s desire for medical interventions, including surgery, which was covered by their health insurance policy.

“It shouldn’t be put on adolescents to make these kinds of decisions at all,” she said.

Transgenderism

Transgenderism, while widely celebrated in popular culture and on social media, is a much more divisive issue than people may think, Cole said.

Today, Cole is one of a growing number of young “detransitioners” who reject current trends in transgender ideology and oppose the “gender-affirming” model of care being pushed by progressive lawmakers at state and federal levels.

She recently testified against California Senate Bill 107, proposed legislation authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), that would shelter parents who consent to the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender transition surgery on their children from prosecution in other states that view such actions as child abuse.

“I think that is really dangerous for families across the U.S. It can tear families apart,” said Cole, who is expected to testify against the bill again this week.

Cole has been harassed on social media and received a couple of death threats from trans activists since she announced her detransition and took a stand against “gender-affirming” policies.

“Now that I’m completely disillusioned from all of it, it’s really shocking that we’ve even gotten to this point,” she said.

The Struggle

Diagnosed with ADHD at a young age, Cole now believes she’s “on the spectrum.”

“There is really a high comorbidity rate between gender dysphoria and autism,” she said.

Though “very feminine” as a young child, Cole was “a bit of a tomboy,” as she grew older.

“I just really hated dresses, skirts, and things of that sort,” she said.

Children’s TV shows had left her with the message “girls are less significant,” because they often depict characters who are more girly or feminine as “stupid, airheaded, and like just get in the way of things,” she said. “And that kind of imprinted on me.”

However, her real fear of femininity and early disdain for womanhood began years ago on social media and LGBT websites, she said.

“I had started puberty fairly young, about 9 years old, and I started to struggle with growing into a woman,” she said.

She started her first social media account at 11 on Instagram, and with nearly unrestricted access to the internet, she was exposed to inappropriate content, including pornography and “sexting” in online communities.

On Instagram, she was first approached by boys who identified as gay and bisexual through the platform’s messaging feature, but eventually began spending more time on recommended websites for 12- to 19-year-old “trans” teens.

“There was one particular page that stood out to me. It was a bunch of adolescents who identified as FTM [female to male]. It seemed like they were very closely knit, a very supportive community, and that just kind of spoke to me because I’ve always struggled with making friendships and feeling excluded. I’ve never really fit in with other kids my age.”

Cole seldom interacted with the transgender community in real life, but she noticed from online discussions with trans teens that many of them had deep emotional scars and mental health issues.

“Pretty much every transgender person I’ve ever met, especially around my age either has really bad family issues, or they’ve been sexually abused or assaulted at a very young age, and it’s really concerning that nobody really talks about that association,” she said.

At 11, Cole also didn’t understand she wasn’t supposed to look like the sexualized images of scantily clad women she saw online.

“I didn’t know that then,” she said. “I started to develop body image issues. I started thinking, ‘Why don’t I look like this? Am I not a woman?’ And a lot of the feminist content pushed by other girls was making womanhood out to be this terrible thing.”

The Transition

By the time she was 12, Cole told her parents she was transgender and they sought out professional medical help.

Cole went to a gender specialist, who referred her to an endocrinologist. When the endocrinologist refused to prescribe blockers or hormones, citing concerns about how they could affect Cole’s cognitive development, he became the first and last doctor to ever deny her gender-affirming care.

“It was very easy to just find another endocrinologist who would affirm me,” she said.

After two appointments, a second endocrinologist approved both puberty blockers and testosterone.

Cole was 13 when she began physically transitioning. The puberty blocker injections reduced the estrogen in her body, and about a month later, she started injecting herself with testosterone, a process medical professionals call hormone therapy.

“They put me on blockers first,” she said. “I would get hot flashes. They were pretty bad. They would happen kind of sporadically, and it would get to the point where it would feel really itchy. I couldn’t even wear pants or sweaters in the winter. It’s like an artificial menopause.”

Once on testosterone, Cole’s voice “dropped pretty low” and her breasts got smaller and lost their shape over time, she said.

Cole stayed on puberty blockers for about 18 months and testosterone for about three years.

The hot flashes ceased when she stopped taking the puberty blockers, she said.

Binding Decision

At school, Cole was “an awkward kid,” but had made a few more friends online and in person. But, because she had only come out to her closest friends, she had to deal with anxiety over the possibility of being outed.

“I never even told teachers my preferred name or anything up until high school, but I was presenting in men’s clothes and shorter haircuts,” she said.

A few months after she was prescribed testosterone, Cole was groped by a boy in the middle of her eighth-grade history class, which was so chaotic that no one noticed—including her teacher, she said. The incident sealed her decision to wear binders to flatten and conceal her breasts.

“I had a relatively small chest, but it still did a bit of damage to me. My ribs are a little deformed because of them. The way they work—it’s not like the breasts just disappear—they push the breast into the ribcage,” she said.

Cole recalls her binder sticking to her skin in the hot Central Valley California weather and her chest feeling constricted.

“It was just the most uncomfortable thing,” she said.

She used the men’s bathroom, but always feared she might be sexually assaulted.

However, she didn’t change in the boys’ locker room because she was afraid of being seen with her binder, and “that somebody would make a comment on it, and target me for it,” she said.

Most of the students, except those who had known her as a younger child, knew her as a male, but a boy in her Phys Ed class eventually noticed her feminine features.

“There was one time during P.E. when we were swimming. I took my shirt off. I was wearing a binder, and somebody pointed out my body shape. That was another thing that made me want to get rid of my breasts,” Cole said. “He said something along the line of, ‘I don’t know what it is, but you’re looking kind of feminine,’ and that kind of hurt me.”

Before the first day of her freshman year in high school, Cole went to the principal’s office with her parents and asked for her name and records to be changed to “Leo.”

‘Top Surgery’

Before her operation, Cole attended a “top surgery” class with about 15 other children and their parents to learn about the different types of incisions.

In hindsight, she said, “it kind of felt like propaganda—the words they use like ‘gender-affirming care’ and things of that sort,” she said. “It does feel like I was sold a product.”

Cole recalls looking around the room and noticing about half of the other kids appeared they were a few years younger than her.

“Looking back on it now is a little horrifying. It’s a little weird considering … they were already considering surgery,” she said.

But, at the time, seeing other kids and knowing she wasn’t alone, solidified Cole’s decision to go ahead with the most widely performed type of double mastectomy called a “double incision with nipple grafts” in June 2020. She was 15.

The surgery involved removing breast tissue and contouring the chest to make it look more masculine.

“They take off the nipple and reattach it in a more masculine position, and there are a few side effects associated with it,” Cole said.

Not only is there a loss of sensation from cutting away the breast tissue, but repositioning the nipple requires severing the duct that supplies breastmilk to the nipple, she said.

The surgery left Cole with deep muscle soreness for which she was prescribed an opioid-based medication, but because the pain from the resulting digestion problems was worse than the pain in her chest, she stopped taking the pills.

“I was actually disabled for a while. I had a really limited range of motion, especially in my arms and upper body. There were a lot of things I couldn’t do. I couldn’t even leave the house for a few weeks,” she said. “I remember that being really upsetting.”

The most devastating part of the recovery process has been ongoing post-op issues with her nipples, she said.

“It’s been two years, and I’m still having some really bad skin issues,” she said. “The way the skin heals over the grafts … is just awful. It’s really quite disgusting.”

Cole said she had trouble contacting her surgeon afterward, and although she was supposed to have a follow-up appointment with him, she ended up having a call with two nurses who were in the operating room instead.

She also worries the puberty blockers might have affected her brain development as her first endocrinologist had warned, but her greatest regret is how the surgery has permanently affected her as a woman.

“I was 15. You can’t exactly expect an adolescent to be making adult decisions,” she said. “So, because of a decision I made when I was kid, I can’t breastfeed my children in the future. It’s just a little concerning that this is being recommended to kids at the age I was, and now even younger. They’re starting to operate on preteens now.”

Detransition Dilemma

During the COVID-19 lockdowns and distance learning, Cole resorted to social media for virtual interaction and noticed girls her age were posting “super-idealized” pictures of themselves. Although she realized the images were edited and enhanced, they triggered the same body image issues she had experienced as a child.

“For a while it made me wonder, ‘Is this really a woman’s worth? If I don’t do this, does that make me not as good as these other women?’” she said.

But eventually, Cole bought some feminine clothing and makeup, which she only wore in the privacy of her room. “I guess subconsciously I started to realize like what I was losing started to miss presenting more femininely, like being pretty,” she said.

Over time, she grew increasingly more disillusioned with the idea of living as a man.

“I realized I wasn’t really up for a lot of the responsibilities that come with it,” she said. “There were times when I felt like I wasn’t good enough as a girl, but maybe I’m not good enough as a boy either, and maybe I just can’t be good enough to be either, so I don’t really know what I am.”

Over the next few months, the isolation of the lockdowns and school closures took their toll on Cole’s state of mind. She was depressed and fell into an emotional tailspin.

During the second semester of her junior year, Cole’s grades plummeted, and her parents decided to put her into an online-only school program.

“It was sort of like a homeschooling program, except I would have to go to the district office at least once per week for testing purposes,” she said. “My school performance actually got a lot worse, because now I was truly isolated.”

But Cole admits less social interaction gave her time for more introspection.

During the last quarter of her junior year, she took a psychology class for the first time and learned about child development. One of the lessons covered the Harlow experiments on infant rhesus monkeys with a theme of maternity, mother-child bonding, and breastfeeding.

“I started to realize this is what I’m taking away from myself. I’m not going to be able to bond with my children the same way that a mother does by taking on a male role and I’ve gotten rid of my breasts, so I can’t feed my children naturally or be involved with them in that way. And I think that was like the biggest catalyst in me realizing how wrong all of this was,” she said.

Embracing Womanhood

Cole announced her detransition in May 2021, about 11 months after the surgery, and has embraced womanhood.

“I am a woman,” she said.

Despite her transition, Cole said she has always been mainly attracted to masculine men and had only ever been “marginally attracted” to women. She is now “straight,” she said, and knows now that her gender confusion as a child was based on insecurity and her fear of being a woman.

Cole has enjoyed “cultivating” a new feminine look for herself, but says she still isn’t really into makeup and doesn’t have time for it most days.

“I’m almost always in a dress or a skirt because, honestly, it’s really comfy,” she said.

She’s learned to accept her body the way it is, she said, and doesn’t want to go through the process of reconstructive surgery or get breast implants.

“There are multiple options for reconstruction, but I honestly don’t think it’s worth it,” she said. “I will never get the function back no matter what I do, so there’s not really a point in doing it.”

Cole graduated from high school in May and has applied for college.

Message of Hope

Though she has been harassed on social media and threatened by activists, Cole said she’s committed to sharing her story.

“I want to prevent more cases like mine from happening,” she said.

She wonders why educators have become complicit in the “gender-affirming” process.

“The problem is they’re not really pushing back on this whole trans thing. When I told the high school to change my name, and my email, and their records, there was really no pushback or anything,” she said.

Cole urged children who may be thinking about gender transition surgery “not to get caught up in the whole romanticization” of what it might be like to be the opposite gender and suggested they consider that there may be “other reasons” underlying gender dysphoria, including autism or other mental health issues.

“I very much suggest waiting, because the brain doesn’t stop developing for most people until about their mid-20s, if not a bit later, and teenagers are known for making rash decisions. It sucks hearing that, especially as a kid, but it’s the truth,” she said. “There is a reason why you can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol or vote or rent a car under a certain age.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Washington, D.C. – All over America, as millions of children head happily off to school, many for the first time, new data has emerged showing the nation edging closer and closer to a full-blown crisis of confidence in public education.

Help Governor DeSantis Keep Florida Safe From Radical Leftists!

Data released Monday by Rasmussen Reports found more than a third of Americans – 35 percent – rate the nation’s public schools as “poor.” Less than one in ten of the 1,000 U.S. adults surveyed – 8 percent – were willing to give them a grade of “excellent.”

The findings are consistent, the polling firm said, with data going back as far as 2012, with those giving the quality of the public schools a “poor” rating ranging from 26 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage who believe the schools are functioning well, even when “excellent” is combined with “good” has never been above 30 percent., the pollster said.

Despite those dismal numbers, the survey included news that may explain why the nation’s parents are not uniformly up in arms, demanding improvements in the quality of education their children are receiving. When asked about their local school, the polling firm reported that 47 percent of those surveyed rated the schools serving their communities as either excellent (18 percent) or good (29 percent). Just 19 percent of respondents said “poor.”

As is the case with so many other surveys on diverse issues from congressional job performance to local quality of life, proximity seems to make a difference. For many years, polls have consistently shown that voters have a generally dim view of Congress as an institution but generally approve of the job their representatives are doing. Likewise with issues like healthcare. Surveys exist showing many Americans to be dissatisfied with the healthcare system, thus providing the political impetus for reforms like Obamacare but, to paraphrase the former president who pushed the legislation creating it through Congress, they like their doctor and their health plan and want to keep them.

This may be why the school reform movement is largely confined to America’s inner cities, where the schools are the worst, putting the students who attend them at the greatest risk of missing out on their share of the American Dream. A situation like that should have people marching in the streets, demanding changes that will give their kids a chance. Instead, as it is with the multiple murders that are part of daily life in places like Chicago, much of the community seems complacent.

This is, perhaps, because the political and school establishments are so deeply intertwined. The union bosses provide money and campaign support and endorsements to local elected officials, helping keep them in office. And in exchange, the local officials deliver higher salaries and better benefits when the time comes. The teachers and administrators may benefit but the children lose. And they will continue to do so until the voters insist on change by changing their voting habits.

Until they do, America’s schoolchildren will get more of the same. In a recent appearance on one of the network Sunday shows, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona responded to questions about schools going to four-day weeks with the suggestion that unspent COVID relief funds doled out by Washington during the pandemic be used to hire more teachers.

“This is a year full of promise and opportunities for students who have, for the last two years, put up with too much,” Mr. Cardona said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And thanks to the American Rescue Plan, the dollars are there to make sure that we can open up our schools with sufficient educators. Our students need more, not less.”

He’s right, up to a point. They did “put up with too much” during the pandemic when the politicians ignored the science and closed the schools, largely at the urging of the union bosses. What they need more of is not money to pay teachers but options regarding where they go to school. The solution is not complicated. If private, parochial and charter schools are doing a better job educating children, and there are plenty of studies showing they are, then the elected officials who control education policy and funding ought to be seeking out ways to make it possible for more children to attend them.

There are places where meaningful change is happening. In Arizona, outgoing GOP Gov. Doug Ducey led a successful push to change education policy after the pandemic ended that will put greater numbers of potentially at-risk students on the pathway to progress.

Before COVID, many Arizona families were unable to qualify for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, a program a state-run website describes as expanding educational opportunities for eligible students outside of the public school system by providing public funding that can be used for a wide variety of educational expenses.

In his most recent State of the State address, Ducey announced his intention to expand the program so more parents could participate. Now, thanks to his efforts, every Arizona family is eligible to use an ESA if they ever want to leave the public school system for any reason.

“On average, about $6,500 in tax dollars per student can be put into private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, online schooling, and other educational expenses such as transportation to other schools. Students who have a current IEP/MET/504 are eligible to receive additional funding,” a local Arizona CBS affiliate reported.

This plan to allow more families to have more choices when deciding where their children will go to school, which goes into effect at the end of September, has been well-received. “There’s a lot of school choice already in Arizona. 80-85 percent of students, depending on how you’re looking at it, decide to go to their neighborhood school,” Aaron Marquez, a board member for Phoenix Union High School District told Arizona’s Family in July. “It’s really important that you have high-quality options that benefit everybody in Arizona and really invest in our public schools in the state of Arizona.”

This is a change that’s real and meaningful and addresses the concerns of the 19 percent of Americans who rated their local schools “poor.” Other states should adopt similar programs as soon as possible. The expanded use of ESAs will upset the educational apple cart for sure, but it will be to the benefit of the children out there who want to learn. We owe them the chance to do so.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: Massie Introduces Bill to Restore Parental Control of Schools by Abolishing Failed Department of Education >>

Democratic Colorado State Senator and chair of the chamber’s judicial committee Pete Lee was indicted at the beginning of the month on a felony charge for allegedly lying for the purpose of voting about where he lives.

On Aug. 3, an El Paso County grand jury indicted Lee, but the state senator denied the charges, the Associated Press reported.

The grand jury indictment alleges that on March 3, 2020, Lee “voted giving false information regarding the elector’s place of present residence,” the Colorado Sun reported.

Advertisement – story continues below

Providing false information about residence is a Class 5 felony.

However, there are no allegations that Lee submitted two ballots in one election, KDVR reported.

Lee did not comment at the time of indictment but did ask to be removed from interim committees on judicial discipline and behavioral health in the criminal justice system.

He wanted “to avoid having my personal circumstances become a distraction,” according to a statement, the AP reported.

Advertisement – story continues below

“I have been informed that Republican El Paso County District Attorney Michael Allen has alleged that two years ago I violated the voter residence law for voting in a district where he claims I did not reside. There is no accusation of voting at more than one location,” Lee also said, according to the Colorado Sun.

The attorney representing Lee, David Kaplan, said in a statement that the charge “will be vigorously challenged.”

Do you think Lee will face the full 3 years in prison?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“At a time when the public expresses concern about an increase in violent crime, along with a drug abuse epidemic, it is disappointing that this district attorney expends precious resources, deploys investigators, detectives and assigns prosecutors to search for a complaint against Senator Lee,” Kaplan said, the Colorado Sun reported.

Others have spoken in support of Lee and said he has had a reputable career.

Boulder Democrat and then-Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg said that Lee is a “dedicated public servant who has spent his career supporting his community and working to improve the lives of all Coloradans.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“I trust he’ll have a fair opportunity to be heard and that the legal process will allow for an airing of all of the facts,” Fenberg said in a written statement.

“At his request, Senator Lee has been removed from his interim committee assignments until this matter is resolved,” the Senate Majority Leader added.

Related:

Therapist of Mass Murderer Reveals Disturbing Moment Before Killing that Landed Him 3,318-Year Sentence

Lee is also not seeking a second term in the upcoming November election. He was elected to represent his El Paso County district in 2018, according to the AP.

The felony charge that Lee is facing does carry a possible penalty of one to three years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

Advertisement – story continues below

After being indicted on Aug. 3, an initial hearing for Lee in El Paso County was set for Sept. 8, the AP reported.

An upcoming show starring two well-known actresses was forced to stop production after an apparent extortion attempt on Friday.

Producers for “Lady in the Lake,” a collaboration between Apple TV+ and Endeavor Content, were reportedly threatened by locals while filming near the 200 block of Park Avenue in Baltimore.

In a statement, the Baltimore Police Department said “the locals” approached producers for the show and said they would “come back later this evening [and] shoot someone” if they did not stop filming, the Los Angeles Times reported.

They also gave producers a second option: they would “allow the production to continue” for a price of $50,000.

The Baltimore Banner described the locals as “drug dealers,” and the outlet reported producers declined to pay them any money.

Instead, they decided to shut down production for the afternoon.

“The leaders of the production decided to err on the side of caution and reschedule the shoot after they found another location,” Baltimore Police Department spokeswoman Chakia Fennoy told the Times.

In a statement of its own, Endeavor Content provided additional details to the Times. The company said two men approached a driver on the production crew for “Lady in the Lake” and pointed a gun at him before fleeing.

A company representative said the rest of the cast and crew had not yet arrived on set at the time of the incident.

Have you noticed an increase in crime in your area?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The series stars both Natalie Portman and Moses Ingram, the Times reported. Portman is an Academy Award winner, and Ingram is an up-and-comer who was nominated for an Emmy last year for her portrayal of “Jolene” in the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit.”

“The safety and security of our crew, cast and all who work across our productions is our highest priority, and we are thankful no one was injured,” the Endeavor representative said. “Production will resume with increased security measures going forward.

“It has been a privilege filming ‘Lady in the Lake’ in Baltimore, working with its vibrant community across many areas. Our thanks and appreciation to the City of Baltimore, Mayor Brandon M. Scott, the Baltimore Film Office, Maryland Film Office and the Baltimore Police Department for their incredible support as we continue production in the great City of Baltimore and surrounding communities.”

Notably absent from that list was Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore’s progressive state’s attorney who has been deeply criticized for being soft on crime.

In March 2021, Mosby announced a previous policy barring the prosecution of so-called “low-level” crimes including drug possession, prostitution, trespassing and other misdemeanors would be made permanent, The Washington Post reported.

Voters Receive 2020 Election Ballots 2 Years Late After US Postal Service Makes Big Discovery

While crime went down in Baltimore during the pandemic, the opposite has been true since Mosby made her “progressive prosecution” permanent.

During the first six months of 2022, Baltimore recorded 177 homicides, WBFF reported. This would put the city “on pace for its deadliest year in more than a decade.”

In 2021, Baltimore ranked second in the country for homicide per capita, and this year’s numbers are on pace to surpass last year’s.

When woke prosecutors signal a hesitance to hold criminals accountable, the criminals will continue to push the limits. By allowing misdemeanors to go unpunished, Mosby fostered a culture of crime that escalated into more violent offenses.

The good news is Mosby will not be able to foster crime in Baltimore much longer, Fox News reported. She lost in the Democratic primary to defense attorney Ivan Bates, meaning her time as state’s attorney will be up at the end of this term.

Honoring a hero took precedence over politics this week for Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

DeSantis had been scheduled to speak Sunday at a $25,000-a-plate event in support of Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York, who is challenging Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, according to the New York Post.

However, he canceled his trip.

“An unforeseen tragedy forced Governor DeSantis to reschedule his trip to New York,” Zeldin spokeswoman Katie Vincentz said Sunday, according to the Post.

Later Monday, the nature of the tragedy was revealed. The New York Post reported that DeSantis attended the Monday funeral of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Special Agent Jose Perez.

The Post reported that Zeldon told attendees at the event that Perez had been part of DeSantis’s security detail.

On Aug. 2, Perez was responding to a call when he was struck by Javier Sandoval, 35, in Miami. Sandoval was later arrested and faces multiple charges. Perez died on Aug. 20.

“Today we mourn the tragic loss of FDLE Special Agent Jose Perez, who died in the line of duty,” Florida first lady Casey DeSantis wrote on Twitter. “With over 20 years in the U.S. armed forces & more than 30 years in law enforcement, he lived a valiant life serving our nation & state. The entire @fdlepio community is in our prayers.”

Today we mourn the tragic loss of FDLE Special Agent Jose Perez, who died in the line of duty. With over 20 years in the U.S. armed forces & more than 30 years in law enforcement, he lived a valiant life serving our nation & state. The entire @fdlepio community is in our prayers. pic.twitter.com/uLabr70SJh

— Casey DeSantis (@CaseyDeSantis) August 29, 2022

Do you think crime is on the rise in the United States?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

DeSantis communications director Taryn Fenske confirmed the governor was attending the Monday services, according to Politico.

DeSantis, Lt. Governor Jeanette Nuñez and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody were all at the church where Perez’s funeral was held, WSVN reported

Advertisement – story continues below

On Friday, DeSantis had issued an order that Florida fly flags at half-staff Monday in honor of Perez.

NEW: Gov. Ron DeSantis attended a funeral today for Florida law enforcement agent Jose Perez who died in the line of dutyhttps://t.co/5mTdTGxzpE

— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) August 29, 2022

We Now Know Who Ghislaine Maxwell Has Become Best Friends with in Prison and It’s Absolutely Chilling: Report

“On Saturday, August 20, 2022, Special Agent Jose Perez passed away 17 days after sustaining injuries from a vehicle crash while responding to a building alarm. Special Agent Perez joined the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after retiring as a major from the Miami Police Department in 2018, serving over 26 years. Before serving in law enforcement, Perez served in the United States Marine Corps, the United States Navy, and the United States Army over the course of 21 years.  He will be remembered for his dedication to public service as well as his sacrifice for the people of Florida and the United States of America,” the order said.

On Monday, Kaitlyn Perez spoke about her dad as she and her family laid him to rest, according to CBS.

RIGHT NOW: Funeral procession for Special Agent Jose Perez, who died after over 21 years of service. He died from injuries sustained after a car accident while in the line of duty. He fought for his life for more than two weeks and died Saturday, survived by his wife and 3 girls. pic.twitter.com/GupkhBx583

— Xochitl Hernández 🇲🇽 (@xochimilcatv) August 29, 2022

“Dear Dad,” she said, “When I grew up you were my best friend.

“Once I started getting older, we started going to soccer games. You are the bravest and most dedicated person I will ever meet in my life and your actions and your life are a testament to that. You have three strong daughters and I know I will continue to put my head down and work for the rest of my life to become an example for you.”

Kaitlyn Perez said she was told her father will be honored with a purple cross medal.

Biscayne Park Police Chief Luis Cabrera said Perez “was valiant. He did not live in fear. He lived life fearlessly. Jose served and protected those who could not protect themselves.”

The White House released on Friday its cost estimate for the student loan forgiveness plan Biden put forth last week.

Help “The League” Continue to Defend Our Second Amendment Rights!

As reported in USA Today, the White House believes that the plan will cost $240 billion over the next 10 years.

The White House said Friday that President Joe Biden’s action to cancel student loan debt for millions of borrowers will cost the federal government $240 billion over the next decade after refusing to give a cost estimate earlier in the week.

This is an extrapolation of an earlier number given by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre. She told CNN’s Don Lemon the following on Thursday:

Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan could cost about $24 billion per year … Assuming that 75% of folks who take this on, Biden’s student loan cancellation plan, and you look at the average monetary cash flow on that, it’s going to be about $24 billion per year,” she said on “Don Lemon Tonight.”

A White House estimate was not available on Wednesday when Biden announced the proposal.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a much more significant number on Wednesday of last week. They have put forth a middle estimate of $500 billion, with a range of $440 to $600 billion. The Committee’s estimate analyzes a number of factors, including the extension of the loan repayment pause through the end of the calendar year, the new income-driven repayment plan and finally the broad debt forgiveness of either $10,000 or $20,000 per eligible borrower and/or household.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that “the overall amount of outstanding federal student loan debt will return to $1.6 trillion (its current level) within five years.”

The centrist Tax Foundation has stated that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan would “make inflation worse by increasing the deficit by more than $350 billion, fully offsetting all of the deficit reduction resulting from the Inflation Reduction Act.”

Tax Foundation researchers Arnav Gurudatt, Garrett Watson and William McBride also wrote the following about the plan:

Biden’s debt forgiveness plan is certainly beneficial to some, but it would add to the national debt and worsen inflation. In addition, it sets a new precedent and expectation for further debt forgiveness, which would further increase the national debt and inflation. It may also push tuition prices higher, as more students treat loans essentially as grants.

After thief shoots Commanders running back, mayor blames ‘wanton use of a firearm’

Washington Commanders rookie Brian Robinson was shot on Sunday while on the streets of Washington, D.C.

Two men attempted to rob the running back after he left a store on H Street, though police have not yet said whether the men were attempting to carjack Robinson’s vehicle, ESPN reported. While Robinson was struggling with one of the assailants, the other shot him in the leg. Both men then fled the scene. While Robinson remains in the hospital, his injuries are not life-threatening, multiple sources reported.

“Surgery went well! Thanks for the prayers! God is great!” Robinson wrote on Instagram.

Carjackings in the district have skyrocketed under Mayor Muriel Bowser (D.), who in 2020 publicly sided with Black Lives Matter protesters. Bowser in March said a carjacker who murdered a doctor “probably didn’t intend to kill anybody.” According to a February Washington Post poll, 73 percent of D.C. voters say Bowser has done a poor job of combating crime.

Bowser on Monday blamed the use of a gun for the shooting of Robinson, the Post reported.

“What we saw in this case and others is just a wanton use of a firearm that hurts somebody,” the mayor said.

The news comes days after Bowser faced pushback for banning unvaccinated children from attending school. The mayor’s ban will likely hurt the district’s black students, nearly half of whom are unvaccinated, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Request comes after New York Supreme Court ruled Yeshiva University must recognize LGBT student group

The nation’s oldest Jewish university filed an emergency request at the Supreme Court on Monday to challenge a lower court ruling that would force it to recognize an LGBT student club.

Yeshiva University filed the petition after the New York Supreme Court ruled in June that the New York City school must certify the LGBT student group, claiming the school is technically non-religious because it offers degrees in secular disciplines. The university administration had denied a student-led attempt to start an LGBT pride group on campus, which the school said would violate its religious beliefs. Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, said the school is a deeply religious institution that wants the government to recognize its “freedom to apply the Torah.”

“The Torah guides everything that we do at Yeshiva—from how we educate students to how we run our dining halls to how we organize our campus,” Berman said. “We care deeply for and welcome all our students, including our LGBTQ students, and continue to be engaged in a productive dialogue with our Rabbis, faculty, and students on how we apply our Torah values to create an inclusive campus environment. ”

Religious liberty advocates have landed several victories at the Supreme Court in recent years. The Court in June ruled 6-3 in favor of a high school football coach whom school officials warned to stop praying on the field after games. The Court last year also ruled in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that claimed it could not work with same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs.

Yeshiva University was founded in 1886 under the Torah Umadda philosophy that encourages Jews to participate in secular culture as they express their religious values.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Washington Post attacks the concept of the lawn

The Washington Post in a Wednesday story attacked the concept of lawns as problematic amid global warming.

Post-World War II, reporter Dan Zak writes, lawns started to signal “privilege” and “power.” Now, though, “the planet has accelerated its revolt against us,” leading to an “anti-lawn” movement that sees lawns as “waste,” “disregard,” and “zombie Boomerism.”

The story comes as employees of Los Angeles’s Department of Water and Power, nicknamed “the water police,” patrol the streets to enforce city water restrictions, particularly on “lush, green lawns, maintained with automatic sprinklers,” AFP reported.

Lawns are just the latest American tradition to be criticized in a left-wing paper. The Post in 2020 ran a piece that said the national anthem is racist because a little-heard verse criticizes slaves who fought for the British in the War of 1812. The Philadelphia Inquirer that same year ran a piece that said picnics are racist.

Zak admits that lawns will likely remain popular, writing, “You throw a football on them, you picnic on them, you lean and loaf on them.” But activists say that young people are moving away from the concept of a lawn, with musician and activist Mel Bryant saying that “it’s attached to a more old-school, boomer generation of the idea of what an American life is.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Sens. Warren, Markey have not commented on scandal facing candidate they endorsed

Boston mayor Michelle Wu (D.) is defending her endorsement of a progressive candidate for district attorney after it was reported that the candidate was investigated for sexual assaults as a teenager.

“In light of the news coverage that’s unfolded, I am not withdrawing my endorsement” of Democratic city council member Ricardo Arroyo, Wu told Politico. The Boston Globe reported last week that Arroyo, who is running in a bitter primary race for Suffolk County district attorney, faced two separate investigations for sexual assaults as a teenager in 2005 and 2007.

Several Democratic figures, including former congressman Joe Kennedy III and city council president Ed Flynn, withdrew their endorsements of Arroyo in the wake of the report. But Wu stood by the candidate, saying she would not retract her endorsement because Arroyo was not charged with a crime.

“As documented in the news, these cases were closed after investigation by the Boston Police Department and the DA’s office,” Wu told Politico.

Arroyo, who is campaigning on “restorative justice,” an end to qualified immunity for police, and the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences, was also endorsed by Massachusetts Democrats Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Ed Markey, and “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley. According to Politico, none of those lawmakers have weighed in on the controversy or retracted their endorsements.

Arroyo denied that he ever committed sexual assault and said he never knew he was under investigation. But that statement is contradicted by police records obtained by the Boston Globe, which say a detective spoke to Arroyo and his lawyer in the 2005 case, in which the then-teenager was accused of pressuring a 17-year-old girl to perform oral sex several times over a course of months.

The candidate accused his opponent in the race, interim district attorney Kevin Hayden, of using his position to illegally leak the documents to the media and damage Arroyo’s campaign. Hayden’s office denied any role in the scandal.

Last week, city council member Frank Baker (D.) filed an order demanding Wu release any records related to the police investigations into Arroyo.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

European officials laughed at Donald Trump for saying Europe’s energy is too reliant on Russia

The cost of electricity and gas for the average British household will nearly double in the coming months as Russia slowly cuts its gas supply amid its war with Ukraine, the New York Times reports.

Britain’s independent energy regulator, Ofgem, announced on Friday that the energy price cap will increase to £3,549 ($4,152.95) per year for an average household starting October 1. The cap, which is up from £1,971 in April, sets how much suppliers can charge households for the power and gas they use.

Britain is among the many European countries facing rising energy costs as Russia tightens the screws on energy imports amid the war.

Last week Russian gas giant Gazprom announced it would temporarily close its pipeline to Germany for “repairs,” though many believe Russia means to unsettle and drive up prices in Europe, the Times reported. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine, it supplied a third of Germany’s oil, around half its coal imports, and more than half its gas.

Back in 2018, then-U.S. president Donald Trump blasted Germany’s energy imports at a NATO summit, saying Germany was “totally controlled by Russia.” German officials laughed at the claim.

Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley said in a press release that “the price of energy has reached record levels driven by an aggressive economic act by the Russian state. They have slowly and deliberately turned off the gas supplies to Europe causing harm to our households, businesses, and wider economy.”

In Europe today, natural gas is 10 times more expensive than last year.

“Natural gas is the driver for the European electricity price,” Iain Conn, a former chief executive of Centrica, a large British utility, told the Times. “When natural gas supplies get tight, the electricity market gets extremely exercised.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

National Space Council chairwoman’s ‘big day’ ruined as momentous launch postponed due to engine trouble

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over yet another humiliating failure on Monday after NASA was forced to postpone the launch of Artemis I, a giant new rocket the government hopes will play a key role in putting humans on the moon for the first time since 1972.

“Today is very much about showing the great work that happened here,” Harris told reporters minutes after the mission was scrapped due to an engine cooling issue. The vice president, who chairs the administration’s National Space Council, was at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to witness the launch. She later wrote on social media that, “While we hoped to see the launch of Artemis I today, the attempt provided valuable data as we test the most powerful rocket in history.”

POLITICO had previewed the “big day for Harris” in its Playbook newsletter. “There have occasionally been snickers about the fact that the VP chairs the administration’s National Space Council,” wrote reporters Ryan Lizza and Eugene Daniels. “What exactly does she do in that role anyway? Well, today the potential upside of that curious assignment will take center stage.”

Alas, like most endeavors involving Harris in recent years, the launch failed. The Biden-Harris ticket was a success, to be sure, but only after Harris tried to run for president herself and ended up quitting before the Iowa caucuses. Her performance as vice president has been so underwhelming that many Democrats do not want her to be the party’s nominee in 2024 if Biden steps down.

Despite the administration’s best efforts to find a leadership role for Harris—if only to help pad her résumé—it has become increasingly clear that Harris doesn’t really want to be in charge of anything. Which is just as well, because she’s not very good at being in charge. That might have something to do with the fact that members of her staff keep leaving.

After Biden tapped his VP to lead the administration’s response to the immigration crisis on the U.S. southern border, Harris proceeded to embarrass herself by refusing to visit the border and laughing about it when asked. “This whole thing about the border. We’ve been to the border. We’ve been to the border,” Harris told NBC’s Lester Holt, who corrected her by pointing out that she had not been to the border. “And I haven’t been to Europe,” Harris cackled. “I don’t understand the point that you’re making.”

Shortly thereafter, Harris was tasked with leading the Democratic Party’s push for so-called voting rights legislation, which ultimately fizzled. New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns noted in their book, This Will Not Pass, that Harris attended several meetings with activists but declined to reach out to Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), whose votes were critical to getting legislation through the Senate.

Harris was named chair of the National Space Council in May 2021, but it wasn’t long before she embarrassed herself in that role by appearing in a bizarre video discussing the wonders of “exploring the unknown” with a group of children who were later revealed to be paid child actors. “To think about so much that’s out there that we still have to learn, like, I love that,” she rambled as the children feigned excitement.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Vice president called for donations to Minnesota Freedom Fund amid George Floyd riots

A Minnesota bail fund championed by Vice President Kamala Harris helped free a repeat felon now charged with murder.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund on Thursday acknowledged it helped secure the release of Shawn Michael Tillman, who in May shot and killed a passenger on a rail platform in St. Paul. Harris promoted the Freedom Fund on Twitter during the George Floyd riots in 2020, helping the group raise $35 million in a matter of weeks, according to the Washington Post.

Freedom Fund executive directors Mirella Ceja-Orozco and Elizer Darris defended the group’s decision to post Tillman’s bail in a statement Thursday, saying, “It is neither just nor effective to respond to violence by denying bail and preemptively punishing people who are disproportionately poor, Black, brown, and Indigenous.”

Tillman’s criminal record includes multiple counts of indecent exposure, as well as assault and unlawful possession of a firearm, court records show. He is now in custody with bail set at $2 million.

When reached for comment, the Freedom Fund directed the Washington Free Beacon to its statement.

Tillman’s most recent felony conviction was in November 2018 for indecent exposure in the presence of a minor. He had seven prior counts of indecent exposure at the time. Ceja-Orozco and Darris said convictions play into their decision to fund those charged with crimes. They did not list any of Tillman’s past convictions.

Tillman is not the first person to commit murder after being bailed out by the Freedom Fund. The group helped free a man charged with domestic abuse last year. Weeks later, he murdered another man in a road rage incident, the Free Beacon reported.

The group also shelled out $75,000 in cash to release Jaleel Stallings, who was charged in May 2020 with attempted murder after shooting at police during the Floyd riots.

Minneapolis saw the highest number of homicides last year since the mid-1990s.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Internal Revenue Service just got a huge infusion of cash, and it has delinquent taxpayers in its crosshairs.

The increased IRS budget of $80 billion is part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was recently signed into law by President Joe Biden.

Touted as a lifesaver for the chronically underfunded government agency, the bill promises to help improve the IRS’ outdated technology and long wait times, but a large portion of the funds will go toward addressing the estimated $600 billion of taxes that go unpaid every year.

“By beefing up the IRS’ capacity to go after wealthy tax cheats, you’re going to be able to collect at least $400 billion of that over the course of the next ten years, and I suspect substantially more,” Natasha Sarin, a counselor for tax policy and implementation at the Treasury Department, told NPR.

Don’t Wait, Take Action Now

Thousands of Americans struggle with tax debt, but many lack the time or are too intimidated by the IRS and its bureaucracy to seek real solutions. This is where working with an experienced tax professional can help. They can negotiate with the IRS on your behalf and help you resolve your tax issues at the lowest possible cost.

If you owe back taxes or haven’t filed in several years, don’t wait for the IRS to come after you. Every day, your tax debt grows larger and larger due to penalties and fees. It is vital to act now and partner with a tax relief expert to receive the best resolution possible. Take our short quiz to see if you qualify.

Take the Survey

NFL superstar Aaron Rodgers has taken aim at the media’s “witch hunt” of both vaccinated and unvaccinated players and explained why he said he was “immunized” against the virus when he had not received any of the shots.

Rodgers made the comments during a Saturday appearance on Joe Rogan‘s podcast where he stated that he had not been vaccinated because he was in fact allergic to one of the ingredients in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines: Polyethylene glycol (PEG).

The CDC advises that individuals who are allergic to PEG should not get an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The Green Bay Packers quarterback told Rogan that he had looked into getting vaccinated in order to keep himself, his family, and his teammates safe but then read the CDC’s advice and decided not to have the shots.

Johnson and Johnson’s shot, the only other one available at the time, had also just been temporarily pulled due to the documented cases of blood clots.

Searching for other options, Rodgers said he then discovered a “protocol that I felt like was the best available,” which involved taking a diluted strand of the virus over a couple of months.

“I was doing basically what the vaccine was supposed to do. It was an oral strand,” he said, adding that he hoped the NFL would understand and grant him a waiver to its policies regarding COVID-19.

While the NFL did not mandate that players be vaccinated in 2021, they did encourage that they get the shots, and unvaccinated players were required to undergo daily testing and had to wear face coverings. The league has since relaxed rules regarding vaccinations among players.

Rodgers said that despite being allergic to the ingredient in the vaccines and being unable to get the shot, the NFL did not grant him a waiver when he presented them with “500 pages of research, from a number of people, that put together case review studies around homeopathy, and immunizations and safety in them, and then also the efficacy of them.”

No Follow Up

He claims he was also called a “conspiracy theorist” and began thinking about how he would explain his vaccine status to media outlets.

“They were doing this, I called it a witch hunt, where they were asking every single player ‘Are you vaccinated?’” Rodgers told Rogan. “You know, they were asking a bunch of big quarterbacks and some guys were saying, ‘It’s personal’ or whatever.”

“I had come to the conclusion that I was going to say, ‘I’ve been immunized,’ and if there was a follow-up, then talk about my process,” he said. “But I thought there was a possibility that, I say I’m immunized, maybe they understand what that means, maybe they don’t, maybe they follow up. They didn’t follow up, so then I go to the season with some of them thinking that I was vaccinated.”

“But I knew at some point if I contracted COVID or if word got out … it was possible I’d have to answer the questions.”

Rodgers told reporters in August 2021 that he was “immunized” against COVID-19. However, he tested positive for the virus in November of that same year and was forced to miss a game. It was then that he subsequently revealed that he had not received any vaccines against the virus.

Rodgers told Rogan that he got COVID-19 from a vaccinated player.

“That’s when the [expletive] hit,” he said, “because now I’m a liar, I’m endangering the community, my teammates, all these people. And the attempted takedown of me and, you know, my word and my integrity began.”

Rodgers apologized for saying he was “immunized” against COVID-19 last year in an interview on”The Pat McAfee Show” but stood by his decision regarding the vaccine.

“I made some comments that people might have felt were misleading,” Rodgers said at the time. “To anybody who felt misled by those comments, I take full responsibility.”

“In the end, I have to stay true to who I am and what I’m about, and I stand behind the things that I said,” the quarterback added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

State board of education holding public hearing on changes

Texas conservatives are revolting over proposed State Board of Education changes that will eliminate teaching the U.S. Constitution and founding principles in some grade levels while including ideologies on white supremacy, LBGT pride, and gender.

Parent groups and conservative groups have mobilized to attend a public hearing at the Texas State Board of Education in Austin Tuesday in opposition to changes that they feel do not accurately reflect the accomplishments of Texas and America. The board could vote on the changes this week.

Left-leaning groups praised the first draft of the social studies curriculums proposed last month as more inclusive and progressive than past education standards.

Melissa Martin, a board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, a conservative teacher’s group, told The Epoch Times the changes were “disappointing.”

“Texas is an exceptional state, and our students need to learn about our rich Texas history,” she said via text. “Rather than focusing on a globalist agenda, the curriculum should motivate our young Texans to develop into citizens who value family and citizenship of our great state and nation.”

Republican groups sent out a call to action identifying the removal of numerous Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) educational standards about America’s founding principles and the family to be replaced by more liberal ideas aligned with globalism.

Some of the high school level changes include removing “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust” from the U.S. History curriculum.

Significant American government figures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan were removed from U.S. Government studies.

A working committee drafting the rules said in notations about the deletion that the standards would be a better fit for middle school or moved into other lessons on executive power concerning government figures.

Other social studies curriculum standards that were part of a draft were just as problematic for critics.

In the 7th Grade, a standard claims that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy’s practice of federalism influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution as a nod to diversity inclusion.

However, some scholars have debunked that connection.

The confederacy is also known as the League of the Iroquois, consisting of up to six upstate New York-based Native American tribes.

An 8th-grade standard on the intersectionality of (gay) pride, civil rights, and other movements was included.

The comment section mentioned Angela Davis, who advocates Critical Resistance Theory for abolishing the prison system. Also, Texas Rangers, an elite law enforcement group, were listed as “an instrument of oppression” during the clash between Texas Rangers and Mexican Americans and immigrants during the Mexican Revolution.

On the high school level of World Geography, the new standard included the “Gender Inequality Index” and the “World Happiness Report.”

Various citations of the “history of white supremacy” were included in the middle and high school level, where one standard analyzed the effects of “the New South” on diverse populations including, “sharecropping, convict leasing, Black Codes, white supremacy, and the creation of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Julie Pickren, a Republican running for State Board of Education in District 7, told The Epoch Times the state board sped up the process of deciding the TEKS for the next 12 years.

With more conservatives likely to take seats on the board in January, the process was fast-tracked. Work groups were put in place that produced “woke content,” including the use of the 1619 Project as the foundation of the African American Studies course, she said.

Pickren said other educational standards remove the family and focus on community instead. She noted that other states with conservative governors, such as Florida, Virginia, and South Dakota, have experienced similar moves but stopped them.

State Rep. Steve Toth (R-Woodlands), who championed banning Critical Race Theory in schools, told The Epoch Times the 1619 Project is not historically accurate and prohibited by state law.

“This is a concerted effort, a uniform effort all across the United States,” Toth said.

Potentially six statutes will be violated if the revisions go through, including those required by the Celebrate Freedom law highlighting America’s founding principles and one banning CRT, Pickren added.

Pickren is concerned that if the current board, which includes nine Republicans and six Democrats, passes the new educational standards, there will be no way to correct it.

“The board’s attitude, she said, is to “pass it to see what’s in it.”

Pickren believes the National School Board Association is pushing rewrites of social studies curricula across the country. The NSBA wrote a letter to President Joe Biden’s administration led to the Justice Department targeting parents speaking out against CRT.

Toth said he intends to fight educational curriculum changes that break Texas law. He called for Texas attorney general Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott to get involved.

State Rep. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, wrote in an Aug. 29 news release that the proposed changes were unacceptable and, in many cases, illegal.

The release noted that a letter objecting to the changes had been sent to the SBOE.

“The proposed standards also eliminate Texas history as a standalone course, in favor of intertwining Texas history with other historical subjects, in effect watering down our heritage and putting it on the same level as all other cultures,” he wrote.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump said the 2020 election needs to be redone following recent disclosures about how the FBI influenced reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“So now it comes out, conclusively, that the FBI buried the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election knowing that, if they didn’t, ‘Trump would have easily won the 2020 Presidential Election,’” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social on Aug. 29.

“This is massive fraud & Election interference at a level never seen before in our Country. REMEDY: Declare the rightful winner or, and this would be the minimal solution, declare the 2020 Election irreparably compromised and have a new Election, immediately!” Trump also wrote.

A poll conducted last week that found nearly 80 percent of Americans who were surveyed said that “truthful” coverage of the laptop story would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also told podcast host Joe Rogan that FBI officials communicated with Facebook staff ahead of the election and the social media giant moved to restrict the reach of reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Last week, meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) revealed an FBI whistleblower told his office that the bureau slow-walked its investigation into the younger Biden’s laptop.

Just weeks before the 2020 general election, the New York Post published a bombshell report detailing messages regarding alleged business dealings between Hunter Biden and foreign companies, including a firm that has ties with the Chinese Communist Party. A former associate, Tony Bobulinski, told news outlets days later that emails and other messages sourced from the laptop were authentic, including one email referencing “10 held by H for the big guy” when describing percent equity allocations of a project with CEFC, a Chinese firm.

Bobulinski, a business partner of Hunter Biden, told outlets on the record that President Joe Biden was “the big guy.” Those emails and other details from the laptop were included in a presidential debate between Trump and Biden in late 2020.

But after the article was published on Twitter, the social media firm locked the New York Post out of its account for more than two weeks and blocked the article from being shared.

Months later, in March 2021, then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told a congressional panel that blocking the NY Post’s article was a “total mistake” and described it as a “process error.”

“It was literally just a process error. This was not against them in any particular way,” Dorsey told the House Energy and Commerce Committee at the time. He didn’t say who made the decision to block the NY Post’s story.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Amidst ongoing food supply chain issues and shortages in the U.S., House Democrats introduced a bill that would designate an extra $50,000,000 for food programs for migrants in addition to a baseline of $150,000,000.

The bill, H.R. 8725, was sponsored by Representative Eleanor Norton, a Democrat representing the District of Columbia, on August 16th and has since been referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

If enacted, the proposal would “provide supplemental appropriations for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to provide humanitarian relief for migrants, and for other purposes,” according to the bill text.

“There is appropriated, out of any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the ‘‘Federal Emergency Management Agency—Federal Assistance’’ account,” proposes the bill.

The funds would be “made available to the emergency food and shelter program for purposes of providing shelter and other services to families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).”

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) has already received $280 million in funding for its operations throughout 2022. The sum was broken down into $130,000,000 for U.S. citizens and $150,000,000 for migrant families and individuals encountered by DHS.

Rep. Norton’s bill appears to apply specifically to migrants who come into contact with DHS as opposed to including American citizens.

Under the Biden White House, illegal immigration into the U.S. has skyrocketed, with many migrants attempting to enter the U.S. via the porous southern border. The $50,000,000 would likely go towards these individuals, who’ve already received taxpayer-funded healthcare and cross-country flights.

MUST READ: Now They Want You to EAT Wind Turbines Artificially Turned into Gummy Bears.

The decision to allocate an additional $50,000,000 to migrant services also follows shortages of common household items and food products such as baby formula plaguing U.S. citizens, with forecasts suggesting the shortages will intensify.

It also follows the rampant inflation under the Biden White House causing a considerable increase in demand for foodbanks across the U.S.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE SUBSIDIZED.

House Republicans have introduced a bill to block any taxpayer funds from potentially supporting the activities of the World Economic Forum – the corporate dominated non-governmental organization promoting global governance and centralized, undemocratic authority.

Sponsored by Representative Scott Perry, Representative Tom Tiffany, and Representative Lauren Boebert, the legislation follows controversy over the group’s exploitation of COVID-19 to advance its corporate-leftist social agenda. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has also weaponized climate change as an excuse to implement the tenets of its “Great Reset” theory which includes the abolition of private property.

The “Defund Davos Act” would ensure that U.S. taxpayer funds don’t support the WEF’s ambitions and follows previous efforts from the Trump administration to withdraw from other international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO).

“No funds available to the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, or any other department or agency may be used to provide funding for the World Economic Forum,” reads the bill, H.R. 8748.

The bill has since been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The WEF is able to push its progressive social agenda through deep partnerships and personnel overlap with the world’s leading corporations. In addition to relying on the private sector to implement WEF-sanctioned policies including social credit score and digital banking, government officials are also crucial to the group’s mission.

Beyond hosting an annual summit in Davos, Switzerland with many high-level government officials and heads of state, the WEF liaises with younger politicians through its Young Global Leaders program.

Of the agencies targeted by the Defund Davos Act, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has come under scrutiny for sending taxpayer dollars to an American nonprofit that collaborated with a Chinese Communist Party-run lab believed to be at the center of the origins of COVID-19.

USAID supported the pandemic preparedness initiatives of EcoHealth Alliance, despite the group’s bat coronavirus research – including manipulating pathogens to make them deadlier to humans – resembling similarities to COVID-19.

Officials have completed their examination of documents that were taken during a raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and it’s possible that “attorney-client privileged information” was seized by FBI agents, the Department of Justice stated in an Aug. 29 filing.

The Justice Department (DOJ) was responding to a motion filed by Trump to request the appointment of a special master to review the seized documents.

The DOJ’s “privilege review team” was tasked with reviewing the documents, prosecutors said in the Aug. 29 legal brief (pdf), coming in response to a weekend ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon to schedule a hearing on whether an independent third party to oversee the department’s combing of evidence is needed.

That team “identified a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information, completed its review of those materials, and is in the process of following the procedures,” according to the DOJ’s filing, which noted that the review was carried out before Trump’s request. Prosecutors will provide more information this week, they said.

The procedures include asking the court to make a determination on possibly privileged material and asking Trump’s lawyers whether they will assert privilege, according to the filing.

“Additionally, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) are currently facilitating a classification review of materials recovered pursuant to the search,” prosecutors said. “As the Director of National Intelligence advised Congress, ODNI is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials.”

About a week prior in a court motion, Trump’s legal team called the FBI search of his property politically motivated and aggressive.

Trump and members of his team have said that while in office, the former president declassified a range of materials.

Cannon, in response, wrote on Aug. 27 that she’ll likely approve a special master to look at the documents and other materials. A special master—usually a retired judge or prosecutor—is a neutral third party that’s used to settle some legal disputes such as those involving attorney-client privilege.

“Pursuant to Rule 53(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case,” Cannon wrote (pdf).

However, the Trump-appointed judge stipulated that the Aug. 27 order “should not be construed as a final determination on Plaintiff’s Motion.”

Cannon isn’t the same judge who approved the FBI search warrant of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence earlier this month and who last week approved the release of a heavily redacted Justice Department affidavit used to obtain the warrant. Days before he ordered the release of the affidavit, U.S. Judge Bruce Reinhart also unsealed a warrant and property receipt in the search.

Seized Documents

Federal authorities took about two dozen boxes of materials from Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 that were allegedly classified or top secret, according to the property receipt. Avril Haines, head of the ODNI, told congressional lawmakers on Aug. 26 that U.S. intelligence officials will review the materials.

The significantly redacted affidavit unsealed on Aug. 26 revealed that agents were attempting to obtain “physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of three potential crimes.” Since the raid, neither the DOJ nor the FBI have publicly disclosed what the agents were searching for or why.

Trump’s complaint last week noted that agents and Justice Department authorities, including top intelligence official Jay Bratt, visited Mar-a-Lago about two months before the raid. The affidavit also noted that DOJ officials told Trump’s team to place additional security on a storage room that apparently held the documents.

Federal officials were greeted by Trump’s lawyers on June 8 when they arrived to retrieve some documents, Trump’s filing states (pdf). The agents were shown a basement storage room with boxes of documents and memorabilia from when Trump was president.

The filing also claimed that after one FBI agent saw the storage room, they told Trump’s team: “Thank you. You did not need to show us the storage room, but we appreciate it. Now it all makes sense.”

In the Mar-a-Lago storage room, there were “boxes, many containing the clothing and personal items of President Trump and the First Lady,” according to the complaint. Department of Justice official Jay Bratt asked the Trump team to secure that storage room and the former president “directed his staff to place a second lock on the door,” it reads.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Last week Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that Facebook censored the Hunter Biden laptop story because of warnings it had received from the FBI.

In response to Zuckerberg’s statement, the FBI issued a vague statement late on Friday, claiming that it had warned Facebook of “potential threat information.” Notably, the FBI did not dispute Zuckerberg’s account.

Any kind of collusion or cooperation between government actors and private companies to censor American citizens is a direct infringement of the First Amendment. But what the FBI did may be much worse than that as it now appears that the bureau actively interfered in the 2020 election to gift Joe Biden the presidency.

The FBI first found out about Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop in the Summer of 2019 when they were notified by the repair shop where Hunter had left it. At first, the FBI appears to have shown no interest, but then, in December 2019, the FBI seized the laptop from the repair shop.

The FBI would have quickly realized that the information contained on the laptop was extremely damaging to Hunter Biden’s father, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, as it proved that the older Biden had on multiple occasions met Hunter Biden’s business associates when he was vice president. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings.

The laptop also contained incriminating information about Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ye Jianming, the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated owner of CEFC China Energy Company Limited who mysteriously disappeared in 2018, shortly after another Hunter Biden associate, CEFC official Patrick Ho, was arrested by U.S. authorities on corruption charges.

Despite knowing that the laptop and its contents were real, FBI agent Brian Auten shut down the laptop investigation in August 2020, falsely claiming that derogatory evidence against the Biden family was Russian disinformation.

At the same time, the FBI gave Russian disinformation briefings to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) who were about to release their own report on Biden family corruption. The fact that those briefings had taken place was then leaked to the media. According to Johnson, the FBI set up the senators with the aim of tainting their report before it was published.

Then, on Sept. 17, 2020, FBI director Christopher Wray himself interfered in the 2020 campaign when he stated that Russia was working to meddle in the 2020 election by maligning Joe Biden.

It was during this timeframe that Zuckerberg’s Facebook, as well as other social media companies, were warned about the release of Russian disinformation in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

We do not know with certainty whether the FBI had advance knowledge that the laptop story was going to be made public but there are a number of plausible pathways for the FBI to have found out.

We know from a lawsuit brought by the laptop repair man, John Paul Mac Isaac, that after the FBI and Congress ignored his efforts to investigate the contents of Hunter’s laptop Mac Isaac contacted then-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani through Giuliani’s lawyer in August 2020.

At the time, the FBI had an open counterintelligence investigation into Giuliani and a number of his associates. It is possible that this investigation led to the FBI finding out that Giuliani had a copy of Hunter’s laptop.

It is also possible that Giuliani made inquiries with his law enforcement contacts, which may have alerted the FBI to Giuliani’s having the laptop. It is widely believed that it was through law enforcement contacts that Giuliani found out about former New York Democratic representative and convicted sex offender Anthony Weiner’s laptop during the 2016 election.

The FBI might also have learned that the story was going to be made public when the New York Post—the newspaper that broke the story—tried to authenticate the laptop.

There is also the infamous letter signed by five former CIA directors along with more than 50 other intelligence officials that falsely claimed that the laptop was a Russian plot. This too might suggest that there was intelligence community coordination and foreknowledge.

But even if the FBI did not have specific foreknowledge, they knew that Mac Isaac had talked to members of Congress and it was therefore likely the story would come out. Mac Isaac now claims that the FBI threatened him to keep quiet about the laptop.

Irrespective of whether the FBI’s actions were based on a general belief that the laptop might emerge or on specific foreknowledge, the FBI’s response was to preemptively shut off any discussion about whatever information might be released by claiming that it was Russian disinformation.

By doing so, the FBI infringed on the First Amendment rights of all Americans. It is simply not the FBI’s job to warn private companies about what information should or not be shared among members of the public.

As for Zuckerberg, despite his attempt to shift the blame to the FBI, his hands are far from clean.

We know Zuckerberg is not averse to censorship, having also coordinated with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci in March 2020 to suppress information that ran counter to Fauci’s narrative on COVID-19 and its origin.

In May 2020, Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook worked “very hard to make sure we have good collaboration with the intelligence community.”

Zuckerberg later spearheaded the drive to elect Joe Biden with the so-called election “fortification” efforts. Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, personally donated more than $400 million to take over government election offices—almost as much money as the entire federal government spent on the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg’s payments were supposedly made to fill so-called funding gaps from the federal government, but the reality is that the payments were distributed on a highly partisan basis with the aim of electing Biden and other Democrats.

Zuckerberg essentially mounted a private takeover of government election offices, affecting races in key swing states such as Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Zuckerberg clearly was not duped by the FBI into suppressing the Hunter laptop story. But the FBI gave him a convenient excuse to do so, as well as a heads-up that ensured that there would be no delay in censoring the laptop story.

The implications of the FBI’s actions are profound. A post-election poll found that 16 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for him had they known about the laptop. Additionally, a new poll has found that 79 percent of all Americans think that Trump would have won if voters had known the truth about the laptop

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Once people catch on to the correlation, governments stop updating the data

Currently, many countries around the world are promoting the second COVID-19 vaccine booster shots for the elderly, many of whom have already received their first booster shots. Under these circumstances, the transparency and openness of information about the safety of booster shots has become a very important issue. Amid this discussion, recently, data on the numbers of COVID-19 infections and deaths after vaccine booster injections in two Canadian provinces have been removed.

Removed Data: 76% of People Died of COVID-19 Infections Had Booster Shots?

In a Letter to the Editor published in the Prince George Citizen, a long-standing Canadian newspaper, the COVID-19 health outcomes by vaccination status data from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) was cited in a screenshot.

The screenshot shows that in mid-April 2022, 50 percent of people in BC had already received their first booster shots, that is, their third doses of vaccines. Between March 20 and April 16, 2022, 63 percent of all people with COVID-19 infection had received their first booster doses. But what stood out was that among those who passed away, 73 percent of them received booster shots.

Another screenshot was posted on Twitter, showing the vaccination status data from BCCDC for the period between May 15 and July 9, 2022. During this period, 52 percent of BC residents had received their first booster shots, and 76 percent of those who died from COVID-19 infection had received their first booster shots.

The author of the Letter to the Editor article commented, “If you look at the statistics from the BCCDC site, you will see that there is zero scientific evidence for keeping the vaccine passport in place.”

However, on July 28, 2022, the BCCDC website indicated that their “outcomes by vaccination status” data would be removed as of that date. At present, this data is no longer available on its website.

CTV News Vancouver asked the B.C. Ministry of Health for an explanation for the data removal. The Ministry of Health responded with three points:

First, as the more transmissible Omicron variant had been spreading on a large scale, more people had chosen to do nucleic acid testing at home. Therefore, the reliability of the infection data was reduced, and the data didn’t reflect the full picture of the infection.

Second, many of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients already had underlying diseases. And although they tested positive for COVID-19 infection, the reason for their hospitalization was not directly related to their infection.

Third, the temporal association between their vaccination and infection was unclear, and no accurate conclusions could be drawn from it.

However, the above official explanation was not convincing at all.  Since the vaccine rolled out at the end of 2020, it is always the situation that many hospitalized COVID patients have other underlying diseases.  Those who were admitted to hospital were tested with nucleic acid assays, not the at-home rapid test kits.  Meanwhile, it is always a challenge to pin down the exact infection time for a respiratory disease, so the temporal association between vaccination and infection is not always very accurately defined.

Therefore, their explanation didn’t clearly explain why the number of people who received the booster shots was unusually high among those who were hospitalized and died from COVID-19 infection.  In addition, the situations mentioned in the official explanation are present in all medical systems globally; why does the Canadian government take this important data down based on these excuses?

BC Situation Resembles Manitoba, UK Data

The situation in British Columbia is not an isolated case.

The provincial government of Manitoba in Canada reported (pdf) in July 2022 that the vaccine booster shot administration rate in the province was 43.8 percent in May 2022. However, people who had received booster injections accounted for more than 70 percent of COVID-related deaths.

This report (pdf) is still available on the Manitoba government website. However, in the week of July 31, the website stopped updating the chart.

Similar data are available from the UK.

On the UK Health Security Agency’s COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report (pdf) published on March 31, 2022, statistics showed that 73 percent of deaths within 28 days of infection were among people who had received their third vaccine doses, before their COVID-19 infection diagnosis was confirmed.

However, on April 7, 2022, the UK Health Security Agency announced that it would stop updating the report (pdf).

Are the Second Vaccine Booster Shots Associated With an Alarming Number of Deaths?

After analyzing the data on COVID-19 vaccination status and COVID-related deaths in the Netherlands, Dr. Theo Schetters, a leading Dutch vaccinologist, discovered that there was a high temporal coincidence between the number of people who received the second booster shots (i.e. the fourth vaccine shots) and the number of excess deaths.

He stated that if more people were vaccinated, within a week there would be more excess deaths; and if fewer people were vaccinated within a week, there would be fewer deaths.

He estimated from the data that, on average, one in 800 elderly people over 60 years of age die from the COVID-19 vaccines. He also suggested that the vaccination program should be re-examined, as the current vaccination might have caused more harm than protection.

‘Vaccine Dilemma’: Good Versus Harm

An article published in 2021 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggested that the Pfizer vaccine was “likely” to cause death in some frail elderly people.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency investigated the causes of 100 deaths of nursing home residents who received the Pfizer vaccine. About 30,000 elderly nursing home residents had received the vaccine at the time. According to the investigation, among the 100 cases, 10 deaths were “likely” to be causally related to the Pfizer vaccine; 26 were “possible” to be causally related, and 59 were “unlikely” to be related to the vaccine. The remaining 5 cases were considered “unclassifiable.”

Since vaccines may bring serious side effects and even accelerate the death of some people, why do the governments still promote mandatory vaccination for the entire population?

Their rationale is that the benefits of vaccination “outweigh their harms.” This theory seems to have been widely accepted.

This reminds us of the classic moral dilemma–the “trolley dilemma”.

A runaway trolley is traveling on a railroad track with five people on the track. If the driver pulls the lever, the trolley will switch to another track with only one person on it.

The driver has a choice: do nothing and let the trolley run over the five people, or pull the lever and let it run over the one person on the other track.

The current vaccine policy is like choosing to pull the lever and accepting that a small number of people will die prematurely due to vaccines in order to protect more people.

However, has it ever occurred to people that instead of only two options, there is also a third way?

Maybe the driver could have chosen another way to stop the trolley, rather than having to choose to run over five people or one person.

Similarly, during this pandemic, we don’t have only two options: either getting vaccinated, or getting the COVID-19 infection and becoming critically ill or dead.

We can increase our advocacy of improving the physical and mental health of the general population. We can boost everyone’s immunity–both to defend themselves against the virus and to avoid the risks associated with the vaccination.

In other words, why not “mandate” people to exercise five more minutes every day, “mandate” them to eat 100 less calories of junk food every day, and “mandate” them to go into nature for an hour every month to relieve stress? In fact, there is no need to “force” people to do so. Instead, it would be enough to raise their awareness of immunity with the same intensity as vaccination promotion.

At present, the world is facing a public health crisis. Under these circumstances, it is more important to take a cautious and thoughtful approach to medical ethics than to weigh the interests of the public’s life and health as a mere numerical model.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A newly obtained document outlines the Biden administration’s plan to give identification cards to illegal immigrants.

The document describes how a pilot program called the “Secure Docket Card” would give some illegal aliens a card with a photograph, counterfeit-resistant security features, and a quick response (QR) code.

The card would replace “the current ad-hoc system” and could save Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) time and resources by enabling officials to more quickly verify an illegal immigrant’s status and help immigrants make it to court hearings, according to the document.

Biden administration officials already confirmed that such a pilot program was being prepared, but the document sheds more light on details on the program, including its scheduled start date and estimated cost.

Key components of the program were slated to begin on Aug. 1, according to the document, including designing the identification card, developing an online portal with information for the immigrants such as court dates, and identifying personnel who will work on the program.

Those components are slated to be completed by March 1, 2023. After that, the plan calls for temporary cards to start being produced in two ICE field offices and permanent cards to start being produced at an unidentified central location.

The program is slated to run through Sept. 30, 2023.

The following month, a feasibility study is scheduled to take place to evaluate whether the pilot can be expanded. Also planned: looking at whether illegal immigrant cardholders can access basic information on the online portal without assistance; whether the pilot was having an effect on the “Fugitive Rate,” or rate of illegal immigrants who skipped their court hearing; how much the program was increasing the workload for officials; and whether any forged cards were appearing.

The estimated total costs were pegged at $2.5 million.

“It is outrageous and absurd that the Biden administration intends to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money designing and issuing identity cards for the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens they are waving in at the border,” Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that studies immigration, told The Epoch Times after reviewing the document.

“Instead of issuing these documents, they should be sending them back to their home countries,” she added.

No Update

After obtaining the document through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, The Epoch Times asked ICE for updates on the pilot, including whether parts of it began in August as scheduled and whether the estimated costs remained the same.

An ICE spokeswoman sent the exact same statement as she did in July, when the agency confirmed the pilot’s existence.

The program “is still in its infancy,” a spokesperson for the agency said when pressed on whether it had started. “There is nothing further to add at this time.”

“The ICE secure docket card concept is a pilot program that would modernize documentation provided to some noncitizens. While the specifics of the program are under development, it is important to note the secure card will not be an official form of federal identification. The secure card will indicate it is for use by DHS agencies and would be provided only after national security background checks have been performed,” ICE said in its previous statement.

“Currently, noncitizens receive paper documents from the federal government about their immigration status. Paper documents pose a security risk, are easily lost. and degrade rapidly in real-world use, creating inefficiencies for the government and noncitizens. Moving to a secure card will save the agency millions, free up resources, and ensure information is quickly accessible to DHS officials while reducing the agency’s FOIA backlog,” the agency also said.

The pilot drew criticism from top lawmakers when it was revealed, including Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee.

Comer said the program looked like “yet another Biden Administration move encouraging illegal immigration by rewarding illegal immigrants for breaking our laws.”

Vaughan, the immigration analyst, said that the documents will not authenticate a person’s identity “because we have no way of knowing the actual identity of these migrants, unless they have a passport or other legitimate travel document, in which case they do not need this document.”

The effort also indicates that the Biden administration “assumes that the migrants will be here for the long term despite the fact that most have no case for being granted residency,” she added, forecasting the next step will be letting the cards be used as a legitimate identification and demanding that banks, landlords, and other entities accept them.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A woke Illinois middle school teacher recently admitted that she routinely lies to parents about what she is teaching children in a video that should not only act as a warning to parents, but also as a road map to eliminating this dangerous, anti-American leftism that is so pervasive in our public school systems.

The teacher’s name was not made public, but according to the Post Millennial, she is a member of the faculty at Troy Middle School in Plainfield, Illinois, a town about 40 miles southwest of Chicago.

In her self-congratulatory video, the smug leftist went on and on about how she purposefully excludes parents from being informed when students claim to be “transgender.”

Constantly grinning from ear to ear, the teacher told her social media audience, “I respect their name and their pronouns, and I use them in class, but because their parents don’t know — I even say this to the students — I say, ‘I’m gonna have to use your legal name and pronouns when addressing your parents, okay?’ And this usually, again, strengthens the bond, the trust bond between me and the kid.”

Before we go on, note that last bit about “strengthening the bond” between her and the kids. This is evidence that she is purposefully driving a wedge between parents and kids and attempting to eliminate parental influence in education.

This teacher at @troymidschool explains that she tells students that she keep a secret from their parents and that it “strengthens the trust bond between [her] and the kid.” pic.twitter.com/vpPrqvLZKZ

— 👁 Inside The Classroom (@EITC_Official) August 26, 2022

The teacher egoistically begins her video by saying, “I may or may not have ruffled some feathers in today’s team meeting.”

“So here’s the situation. We’ve got kids that are trans, in our classrooms, and they are feeling safe enough around us,” she continues grinning like the Cheshire Cat. “And there’s a particular student that has been brought up in team meetings. And the reason being is because their parents do not know that they are trans.”

Notice how she goes from “we have trans kids” to only talking about one such kid. This leads to the suspicion that the school doesn’t really have multiple trans kids but only one.

The teacher then added that she threw in her “two cents” in the meeting on dealing with transgenderism in the classroom which caused the meeting to get “a little heated.”

“Should it matter to us what we call students as long as they’re learning, right?” she claims she told another teacher at the meeting. The teacher next said she “respects” a child’s new trans names and pronouns, “and I use them in class,” and then went into the point posted above about how she excludes the parents from knowing about what she is doing in the classroom.

Despite her woke suggestions, though, it appears that the other teachers and administrators in the meeting were not as enamored with the hardcore trans agenda this woman was pushing on little kids.

She then added, “The take was [from a parent’s point of view], if my kid asks you to use a different name and pronouns and then you don’t tell me you’re not honest with me, you don’t tell me that that’s what they’re doing. And they’ve told you that I don’t know. I would be pissed.”

Related:

Students in for a Surprise This Year as District Reintroduces Old-School Punishment

But this desire for parents having to be told what is going on with their children disgusted the teacher and she scolded parents for not “affirming” a pre-teen child’s claim to being transgender.

This leftist commissar began wrapping up her video by equating herself to medical doctors. “I abide by the same oath a doctor takes. Do no harm,” she bloviated in a vainglorious manner.

This behavior is not isolated to one Chicago-area school, to be sure. It is a nationwide trend that is showing up, all across the country.

At the end of her video, though, this woke teacher did say something that just might give sane people some hope.

The teacher glumly noted that one of her leaders said, “Hey, there might be a law that comes down that says eventually you could get sued for doing that.”

And on a note that might make the parents of her students cheer with delight, the teacher concluded saying that if such a law is ever passed, “Well, that will be the day that I exit teaching.”

Still, this is the perfect path toward eliminating this garbage. Sue them. Sue them. And sue them again until this dangerous behavior by woke teachers ends, and teachers like this one begin to “exit teaching.”

Once precedents are set that affirm teachers have no right to eliminate parents from education, the better it will be for the nation’s children who will finally be able to get back to learning instead of being subjected to left-wing indoctrination.

This teacher did reveal the rot infesting our public schools. But she also helped us see a way toward surgically removing it.

‘After six years in Washington it’s clear that Val is no longer the police’

Florida Democratic Senate nominee Val Demings says she can’t be criticized on crime because she is “the police.” Sunshine State sheriffs say that’s ridiculous. 

As a former Orlando police chief, Demings says she’s inherently immune to attacks from Florida’s law enforcement community: “I don’t just support the police. I am the police,” the Democrat said during an Aug. 17 interview. Roughly a week later, active Florida sheriffs are ridiculing that comment. 

Marion County sheriff Billy Woods told the Washington Free Beacon Demings “uses her title as chief to further her political agenda” but “certainly doesn’t use it to back law enforcement when she votes,” a move Woods called “shameful.” Brevard County sheriff Wayne Ivey, meanwhile, said Demings “took an oath to protect and serve, an oath she somehow forgot when she went to Washington and decided to vote with Nancy Pelosi 100 percent of the time.” And for Bradford County sheriff Gordon Smith, Demings has made clear during her “six years in Washington” that she “is no longer the police and didn’t have our backs when it counted most.”

“As a law enforcement officer, I made a promise to my community to protect and serve,” Smith said. “Our representatives in Washington promise to support us in that mission, but Val Demings has failed to live up to that promise.”

Demings did not return a request for comment. The barrage of attacks from Florida sheriffs will no doubt weaken the moderate, tough-on-crime persona she’s attempted to place at the center of her campaign as she runs in a state that backed former president Donald Trump by 4 points in 2020. Demings’s campaign site, for example, calls the Democrat a “no-nonsense, tough-on-crime leader who knows how to keep our communities safe.” But Demings’s opponent, Republican senator Marco Rubio, has secured endorsements from 56 of Florida’s 66 sheriffs, as well as the state’s Fraternal Order of Police and Police Benevolent Association.

In addition to her “I am the police” comment, Demings has dismissed those endorsements by arguing that 85 percent of Florida sheriffs are “playing political games” by backing Rubio. In turn, some of those sheriffs say Demings herself played politics when she emerged as one of her party’s top voices on police reform following George Floyd’s death in the summer of 2020, which came as she underwent formal interviews to become President Joe Biden’s vice president.

At that time, Demings refused to condemn the movement to defund police—in fact, she went as far as to defend the Minneapolis City Council the day after its far-left activist members pledged to “end policing as we know it” during a June 7 “DEFUND POLICE” rally in the city’s Powderhorn Park. The council and its anti-police activist allies, Demings said during a CBS interview, would “come out with a plan” for a new policing system that would “keep Minneapolis safe but also bring the community and the police together in a much needed and long overdue way.” Days later, the council voted unanimously to eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department.

“Val Demings chose to play party politics instead of defending our men and women in blue,” Florida Fraternal Order of Police president Steve Zona told the Free Beacon. “Demings shouldn’t be going around saying she is the police when she hasn’t been for over a decade and has failed to represent the needs of law enforcement in Washington.”

Demings on Tuesday easily emerged from her primary race, securing 84 percent of the vote. Rubio ran unopposed in his own primary contest, and the pair will now face off in November. Rubio has raised $38 million to Demings’s $48 million as of Aug. 3, though the Republican does hold a roughly $6 million cash-on-hand advantage.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Warnock made over half a million dollars in 2021—from book deals, outside employers, and speaking fees

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D., Ga.) more than doubled his income since joining the Senate last year, with most of his half-a-million-dollar haul coming from outside employers and book deals, according to his financial disclosure records.

Warnock disclosed a total income of $532,781 in 2021, a significant bump from the $221,602 he earned in the year before his election. Less than half of his income last year came from his Senate salary, which was $164,816. Ebenezer Baptist Church paid him an additional $120,964, including a $7,417-per-month housing allowance. Penguin Random House also paid him $243,750 as an advance on his memoir that was published in June, and he received $5,750 in speaking fees.

Warnock’s spike in earnings comes two years after he accused his predecessor, former Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, of “us[ing] the people’s seat to enrich yourself.” The income is likely to feed the perception that holding public office is a means to enrichment given how many lawmakers find a way to leverage their positions—over time—into multimillion-dollar fortunes. Warnock’s 100 percent income increase shows how quickly that can happen, as he’s doubled his take-home pay in just two years.

Warnock has already drawn public scrutiny for some of his unusual financial arrangements. While senators are prohibited from accepting more than $29,000 in outside income, Warnock raked in $120,000 last year from Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta—but dodged the income cap by taking most of that money as a “housing allowance.” He was also hit with election finance complaints in July for using campaign funds to fight personal lawsuits that predated his run for office.

Herschel Walker, the Republican challenging Warnock in the competitive Senate race, slammed the Democrat over his outside work, claiming he “only cares about making a better life for himself, not the people of Georgia.”

“Raphael Warnock cares more about himself than the people of Georgia. He has been trying to cash in on his job since day one,” a Walker spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon. “Warnock is always looking for another chance to use his position to make more money and misuse campaign funds.”

Warnock’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Warnock was able to avoid ethics rules that prohibit lawmakers from earning over 15 percent of their income from outside employers through a unique financial agreement with the Ebenezer Baptist Church. His campaign said $89,000 of his salary from Ebenezer Baptist Church was a “personal parsonage allowance” to pay for his housing, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Warnock’s home in Atlanta is worth around $1 million, the AJC reported.

Republicans also filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint against Warnock in July, alleging that he violated the law by using his campaign funds to pay unrelated legal fees. Warnock’s campaign paid lawyers who are representing him in a lawsuit stemming from his time as pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

“Because the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred long before Warnock was a candidate for federal office, the conduct had nothing to do with Warnock’s now-status as a candidate and officeholder,” said the complaint filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Last February, Warnock’s ex-wife Oulèye Ndoye filed a custody suit against him claiming that he left her “financially strapped” by saddling her with unpaid childcare expenses even as his “income has substantially increased.”

Warnock’s significant growth in earnings is notable after he accused his 2020 opponent Loeffler, a multimillionaire, of being out-of-touch with Georgia voters, where the median housing income is $61,000. During the campaign, he also claimed Loeffler profited as a senator by selling off millions in stocks after attending a confidential COVID briefing.

“I’m okay with the fact that she wants to make money, I just think you shouldn’t use the people’s seat to enrich yourself,” said Warnock during a debate. “You ought to use the people’s seat to represent the people.”

Warnock is locked in a tight race against Walker for the seat, which could determine party control of the U.S. Senate next year.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has failed to convince a judge to dismiss a case that could force the state to remove 25,975 deceased people from its voter rolls.

Benson moved for dismissal of a case brought against her in November 2021 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) for her failure to clean up the state’s voter registration rolls—in an alleged violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

On Aug. 25, Benson’s motion to dismiss the case was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The court also denied the motions to intervene filed by the Detroit/Downriver Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, and Rise Inc.

Additionally, PILF’s suit seeks to force Benson to provide documentation of her efforts to remove deceased registrants from the voter rolls, something she has thus far also failed to do.

Names of 25,975 Deceased Voters

PILF notified Benson of the problem in September 2020 and again in November 2020, a year before it filed its lawsuit.

The foundation provided Benson with the names of 25,975 voters who had died but were still on Michigan’s voter rolls, as were discovered by its research. Of these, 23,663 registrants had been dead for five years or more, and 17,449 had been dead for at least a decade.

The study found that 3,956 registrants had been dead for at least 20 years.

That time span encompasses the terms of Democratic and Republican secretaries of state, an indication that neither party has been serious about a voter roll cleanup.

PILF president J. Christian Adams said in a statement about the 2021 case: “For over a year, we shared specific data with the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office about the alarming problem of deceased registrants on Michigan’s voter rolls.

“Secretary Benson has done nothing to resolve the problem and is even refusing to hand over public documents related to these failures.

“The failure to remove deceased registrants creates an opportunity for fraud and makes Michigan’s elections less secure.

“This case is about ensuring that deceased registrants are not receiving ballots.”

Commenting on the current legal victory, Adams said in an Aug. 25 statement, “This initial win is the first step.”

“It’s astonishing that Secretary Benson is so vigorously opposing effective list maintenance,” he added.

Adams called it “remarkable” that, after PILF shared its data with Benson in 2020, dead people remain on Michigan’s voter rolls.

The Michigan secretary of state’s office said it doesn’t comment on ongoing or pending litigation.

PILF won a complete victory in 2021 when Pennsylvania agreed to remove more than 20,000 deceased voters from its rolls.

According to a statement, PILF will continue to assist states in the cause of election integrity and to fight against lawlessness in the conducting of American elections wherever found.

To quote a fast food catch-phrase, “I’m lovin’ it.” [US Patriot]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signaled he will accelerate the busing of illegal immigrants from the border to New York City, a sanctuary city, according to his office.

“Texas is filling the gaps left in [President Joe] Biden’s absence at our border,” the Republican governor wrote on social media. “We’ve made over 19,000 arrests, seized over 335.5 [million] lethal fentanyl doses, [and] sent over 7,400 migrants on buses to DC,” he added.

Two buses carrying about 100 illegal aliens, mostly young men with several women, arrived in New York City this weekend from the Texas border, according to a Fox News reporter.

In a statement released on Friday, Abbott’s office said Texas authorities have sent more than 7,400 illegal immigrants to the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, Abbott has sent a growing number of illegal immigrants to New York City—about 1,500—in the month of August.

“Governor Greg Abbott, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the Texas National Guard are continuing to work together to secure the border, stop the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and people into Texas, and prevent, detect, and interdict transnational criminal behavior between ports of entry,” the statement also said, adding the program, Operation Lone Star, “accelerates” busing of illegals to New York City.

“The busing mission is providing much-needed relief to our overwhelmed border communities,” it added. “Operation Lone Star continues to fill the dangerous gaps left by the Biden Administration’s refusal to secure the border.”

Since Biden took office in January 2021, around 4.9 million people have illegally crossed into the United States from Mexico, according to a report released last week.

Some 2 million illegal aliens have entered the United States in the first 10 months of this fiscal year, data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) show. And in June alone, more than 207,000 illegal immigrants, or the highest figure ever recorded in the month of June, were apprehended attempting to cross.

‘Ideal Destination’

Abbott previously said he decided to send busloads of illegal immigrants to Washington and New York City “because of President Biden’s continued refusal to acknowledge the crisis caused by his open border policies,” adding that he’s forced to take “unprecedented action,” including busing.

“In addition to Washington, D.C., New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants, who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Eric Adams has boasted about within the sanctuary city,” Abbott told media outlets earlier in August.

Both Adams and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, both Democrats, have publicly complained about Abbott’s busing program and have called on the federal government to provide federal support, including National Guard deployments. Both have been denied by the Pentagon.

Manuel Castro, the head of the New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, recently accused Abbott of “weaponizing asylum seekers.”

“It is shameful, and it is our moral obligation to condemn the use of human beings for political purposes,” he said last week, reported the New York Post.

But Abbott has said that the illegal aliens apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border have gone to New York City and Washington voluntarily.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Whether wanted by consumers or not, the federal government’s electric vehicle (EV) transition is in full swing, and Democrats hyped the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as an accelerant to this evolution.

Further, gas prices’ continual pounding of people at the pump spurred consumers’ EV interest to 36 percent, according to a 2022 Consumer Report. Thirty-six percent may not sound like much, but it’s a significant increase from 2020’s report, which showed EV interest at four percent.

Still, one of the hurdles to increased EV adoption is price. On July 12, Kelly Blue Book reported that the average cost of an EV was over $66,000. The price for an average gas-powered vehicle was $43,942—a $22,000 difference.

To help combat the above and increase EV adoption, Democrats proposed new EV tax credits in the IRA, and the tax credits went into effect on Aug. 16.

Since the IRA’s passage, however, the particulars of the EV credits have come to light, and some experts are pointing out that the new EV credits exclude lower-priced EVs and could phase out entirely in 2023.

Indeed, economically priced EVs from Toyota and Hyundai are now ineligible for EV tax credits, while Audi’s Q5 PHEV, and BMW’s 330e qualify for up to $7,500—for now.

Why? Democrats tied the EV credits to an “assembled in North America” requirement, and in 2023, that includes the battery.

Assembled in North America

Before the IRA went into effect, there were approximately 72 EVs eligible for a tax credit, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation industry trade group.

Now, just 16 2022 Model Year personal vehicles qualify for the federal tax credit, and only three 2023 models are eligible, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). If you’re looking for a commercial vehicle, two 2022 vehicles qualify.

The average manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $54,897 for the 2022 qualifying base models. That price doesn’t include taxes, fees, or other extra charges, trade-ins, or discounts.

Further, only two base models on the list are below $36,000, five are between $43,000 and $47,650, and the remaining nine are between $51,000 and $87,400.

However, starting in January 2023, zero EVs or PHEVs are eligible for the tax credits, Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports.

“The $7,500 credit might exist on paper, but no vehicles will qualify for this purchase incentive over the next few years. That’s going to be a major setback to our collective target of 40-50 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030.”

In the IRA, Senate Democrats added a $4,000 consumer tax credit for lower- and middle-income individuals to buy used- “clean vehicles” and up to $7,500 tax credit to purchase new “clean vehicles.” The new vehicle credit caps at $150,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a married couple.

Also, starting Jan. 1, 2023, the previous 200,000-car cap disappears, allowing Tesla and GM vehicles to qualify for a tax credit (they’d previously sold over 200,000 vehicles and met the limit).

The IRA’s $7,500 tax credit might sound great if you’re planning to purchase an EV. But, the IRA’s North America assembly stipulation means most previously qualifying EVs are now ineligible.

Additional provisions go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. They include the requirement that EV battery components contain a certain percentage of minerals from North America or a country with a free trade agreement with the United States.

Plus, most of the battery must be manufactured or assembled in North America.

“That’s going to be a huge burden and hurdle to overcome. We don’t have the mining, we don’t have the critical minerals that are needed in North America or from our free trade partners, and almost 90% of the refining is done in China,” Carla Bailo, CEO of the Center for Automotive Research, told NPR.

Domestic Manufacturing Push

On Feb. 22, the Biden Administration admitted that the United States increasingly depends on China to refine “cobalt, lithium, rare earth, and other critical minerals” for EV batteries. China controls about three-quarters of the market.

According to Biden, that reliance constitutes a “national and economic security” threat. To combat it, he released a statement saying that the United States would expand domestic production and transition away from its reliance on China.

Additionally, on July 28, 2021, Biden released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which directed a change to the Buy American statute.

“The Buy American statute says products bought with taxpayer dollars must ‘substantially all’ be made in the U.S. However, today, products could qualify if just 55 percent … of the value of their component parts was manufactured here. The NPRM proposes an immediate increase of the threshold to 60 percent and a phased increase to 75 percent.”

The above EV tax credit requirements in the IRA are part of Biden’s domestic manufacturing push.

Indeed, Biden stated that the IRA will “Support American workers with targeted tax incentives aimed at manufacturing U.S.-sourced products such as batteries, solar, and offshore wind components, and technologies for carbon capture systems.”

Still, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, stated: “We share the goal of increased domestic capacity and supply, but the requirements ought to be an inducement to industrial base change—not unattainable and punitive to consumers.

He added: “A more gradual phase in of the battery component, critical mineral and final assembly requirements—that better reflect current geopolitical, sourcing and mineral extraction realities—will preserve the credit for millions of Americans and keep the country focused on building domestic supply chains able to support our electrified transportation future.”

Bozzella emphasized that while the push to reduce the United States’ reliance on China is important, neither the United States nor its allies are currently capable of meeting demand.

If Democrats and the Biden administration insist on maintaining the EV tax credit requirements, it could severely impact the 2030 40-50 percent electric vehicle sales goal, Bozzella concludes.

Bozzella’s point is weighty when considering the Consumer Reports survey, which found that half of the people queried reported being unaware of federal and state tax incentives. Consumer Reports noted that awareness of this benefit “might sway someone to make an EV purchase.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Declarations in response to ‘unanticipated shutdown’ of BP Whiting refinery

The federal government on Aug. 26 declared a regional emergency affecting Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, following an “unanticipated shutdown” of an oil refinery in Indiana due to a fire.

The fire on Aug. 24 knocked out the electrical power and cooling water systems at BP Whiting in Indiana, causing it to shut down and undergo assessment, Reuters previously reported.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrations said the “unanticipated shutdown of the BP Whiting refinery” due to the fire has affected the supply of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel throughout the four Midwest states.

The declaration provides the resources to immediately transport gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to the four states, which are facing or are anticipated to face shortages. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin usually collectively receive up to 25 percent of their fuel from the BP Whiting refinery.

By executing the emergency declaration, motor carriers and drivers who are directly assisting the emergency in the affected states will be exempt from the federal regulation 49 CFR § 395.3 that limits property-carrying vehicles to a maximum driving time.

But when a driver returns to normal operations after working on emergency relief efforts, they will need to take a 10-hour-break if they have been involved in 14 hours or more of emergency relief efforts.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), drivers in the four states face average gas prices ranging from $3.62 in Wisconsin to $4.176 in Illinois as of Aug. 27.

Meanwhile, CBOB, a common grade of gasoline, went up 30.5 cents a gallon in the Chicago area on Aug. 25, a day after the oil refinery shutdown. Ultra-low sulfur diesel went up by 17 cents on the same day.

BP Whiting normally refines over 400,000 barrels of oil per day. It is the sixth-biggest by capacity in the United States, and the company’s largest in the nation, according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Executive Order in Michigan

Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer responded to the looming crisis by issuing an executive order that declares an energy emergency, which will last until the end of the emergency—defined as supply challenges related to the refinery fire—or until the end of Sept. 15, whichever comes first.

The move seeks to free up more gas supply and remove any hindrances to gas delivery to cut down wait times at stations, the governor said in a statement.

“I am taking action to help address Michigan’s fuel needs after a fire and power outage at a BP refinery in Indiana,” Whitmer said. “The impacts of the outage at the Whiting facility will be widespread across our region, and I am taking proactive steps to help Michiganders get the fuel they need to drive their cars and help businesses keep their products moving.”

The declaration of an energy emergency brings about two temporary actions in the state. The first will exempt fuel transporters from complying with the maximum weekly driving and on-duty limits. The second will “temporarily suspends certain laws and regulations to accelerate the transition to the fall fuel supply and takes advantage of existing stocks of fuel, contingent on the Environmental Protection Agency making similar changes.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A federal judge on Aug. 27 announced a preliminary intent to appoint a neutral third party to review documents the FBI seized in a raid on former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, citing “exceptional circumstances.”

The order was a response to a request from Trump’s legal team filed days earlier, seeking to have a “special master”—usually a retired lawyer or judge—independently examine the records and filter out privileged information before the government can review them.

Aileen M. Cannon, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida, said that she decided to give Trump a chance to make his case after reviewing Trump’s submissions and the “exceptional circumstances presented.”

“Pursuant to Rule 53(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case,” Cannon, a Trump appointee, wrote in a Saturday afternoon filing.

The FBI agents during the raid took more than two dozen boxes and 11 sets of documents with various levels of classified markings, according to a property receipt unsealed on Aug. 12. Most items have generic descriptions, such as “Box labeled A-1” and “Miscellaneous Secret Document.”

Cannon’s two-page order came a day after Trump’s lawyers filed another motion renewing the plea for outside supervision of the Mar-a-Lago trove, after an affidavit justifying the FBI raid was made public in a heavily redacted form.

“The Redacted Affidavit underscores why this Motion should be granted, as it provides almost no information that would allow Movant to understand why the raid took place, or what was taken from his home,” Trump’s lawyers said in a filing to Cannon. “The few lines that are unredacted raise more questions than answers.”

Trump noted the judge’s move in a post on his social media platform Truth Social, saying that the FBI raid was politically motivated.

“Federal Judge in Florida just took over the Presidential Records Act case, including the unprecedented, unnecessary, and unannounced FBI/DOJ Raid (Break-In!) of my home, Mar-a-Lago,” he wrote. “This assault was done for political purposes just prior to the Midterm Elections (and 2024, of course!). It is a disgrace to our now Third World Nation!”

A hearing will take place on Sept. 1 at 1 p.m. in West Palm Beach in Florida. The Justice Department has until Aug. 30 to file a response to Trump’s request. Cannon also directed the Justice Department to provide a “more detailed” list of properties seized from Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 and the status of the government’s review of the items. This includes the use of a “filter team” to separate privileged materials and “any dissemination of materials beyond the privilege review team.”

Cannon has also asked both Trump and the Justice Department to describe their vision for the roles of a special master.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the Justice Department for comments.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Central banks including the Federal Reserve will fail to curb inflation unless governments start to be responsible for spending, according to a study presented to central bankers at a Jackson Hole conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

The authors of the study, Francesco Bianchi of Johns Hopkins University and Leonardo Melosi of the Chicago Fed, warned that increasing interest rates would end up in stagnation without adequate constraints on government spending.

“If the monetary tightening is not supported by the expectation of appropriate fiscal adjustments, the deterioration of fiscal imbalances leads to even higher inflation pressure. As a result, a vicious circle of rising nominal interest rates, rising inflation, economic stagnation, and increasing debt would arise,” they wrote in the study (pdf).

If governments are not spending money responsibly, inflation will be driven up by the private sector’s expectations of high inflation while at the same time the economic output is reduced by hawkish monetary policy, they explained.

“The more hawkish monetary policy would have lowered inflation by only 1 percentage point at the cost of reducing output by around 3.4 percentage points,” the authors wrote. “This is a quite large sacrifice ratio.”

Spending Spree Is Back

After a short pause following the wave of COVID-related stimulus spending, government spending is back in the United States.

President Joe Biden signed the Democrat-backed “Inflation Reduction Act” on Aug. 16, which includes around $433 billion in new spending. The Democrats claimed that the bill will reduce the deficit by around $292 billion annually through stricter tax code enforcement.

The president also announced a massive student loan cancellation plan on Wednesday.

According to the plan, individuals earning less than $125,000 a year or families earning less than $250,000 will be eligible for up to $10,000 in debt cancellation. Pell Grant recipients who meet those income standards will be eligible for relief of up to $20,000.

The White House estimated that it will cost $24 billion a year over the next 10 years. However, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania said the cost will be much higher than what the Biden administration announced.

“We estimate that President Biden’s proposed student loan debt cancellation alone will cost between $469 billion to $519 billion over the 10-year budget window,” the business school said.

Factors Uncontrolled by Federal Reserve

In the last few months, the Federal Reserve has increased the federal fund rate by 225 basis points to 2.5 percent.

Data shows that inflation may have peaked.

According to a Commerce Department report Friday, consumer prices rose 6.3 percent in July from a year earlier after posting an annual increase of 6.8 percent in June.

However, economists and central bankers are worried about other factors beyond the money supply behind inflation.

One main factor is supply chain bottlenecks for some products.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell admitted at the Jackson Hole retreat that it’s not covered by the monetary policy.

“It is also true, in my view, that the current high inflation in the United States is the product of strong demand and constrained supply, and that the Fed’s tools work principally on aggregate demand,” he said during his opening remarks.

Another worrisome factor is the tightening labor market, which is apparently driving up the costs in almost all sectors.

“The labor market is particularly strong, but it is clearly out of balance, with demand for workers substantially exceeding the supply of available workers,” Powell said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

U.S. government needs to secure meat supply chain

Last line of article: “Why do we want to be dependent upon any foreign country for sustaining this country, whether it be computer chips, whether it be oil, or whether it be our food?” Awesome line !! [US Patriot]

Dr. Brooke Miller is the president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), representing grassroots cattle producers, backgrounders, and feedlot operators, and works to ensure the profitability of cattle ranching and farming in the United States. Despite the organization’s efforts, Miller points to the looming threat facing the U.S. cattle industry, mainly caused by the monopoly that large meat packing companies have.

Miller warns that more and more small ranchers are going to go out of business and a meat shortage in the future is likely because of our reliance on meat from foreign countries like Brazil and Canada, which are allowed to label foreign-produced meat as U.S.-grown.

Some of these large companies “import beef from foreign countries and label it as U.S. beef,” said Miller. They are able to do this because “our government allows them,” Miller said during an Aug. 24 interview with EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” program.

Related Coverage

‘Globalist Monopoly’ Owns 85 Percent of US Cattle Supply Chain, Destroying American Ranchers

The COOL

When the U.S. government tried to get labels requiring retailers to show the country of origin for the meat sold in the United States, “the Canadian government and the Mexican government sued the United States and the World Trade Organization saying that that was against the North American Free Trade Agreement,” said Miller.

“[The U.S. government] repealed Country of Origin Labeling [COOL] in June 2015. Immediately, within one week, we saw a 40 percent drop in live cattle prices.”

Since then, meat labeled and sold as a product of the USA in U.S. markets “doesn’t have to be born here, doesn’t have to be raised here, it doesn’t have to be slaughtered here. It can just be repackaged and relabeled.”

The U.S. cattle industry has “been losing thousands and thousands of cattle ranchers over the last several decades. And it’s all based on the fact that we have four multinational corporations that dominate the food protein industry, and they have anti-competitive practices,” said Miller.

The four largest meat packing companies, including for beef, are Cargill (U.S. based), Tyson’s beef (China and Canada), and two Brazilian companies, Marfrig and JBS.

Miller blames the U.S. government for allowing this type of monopoly to hurt U.S. cattle ranchers and urges the government to support the local agriculture and meat industry.

The Epoch Times did not immediately receive a response from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a request for comment.

“I think the COVID-19 crisis and the supply chain issues we had with that show that it’s not the most efficient way to do it. We need a more regional, diverse food system,” Miller said.

The U.S. cattle industry is in a tenuous state and it cannot withstand any major crises, including natural or economic, said Miller.

“When the pandemic initially happened, we saw shortages of meat in the beef counter and the meat counter. We saw prices go really high. And we saw a dramatic drop in what farmers and ranchers or feedlots were getting for their fat cattle, and that just trickled on down to the producers.”

Control of Meat Production by the Big Four

Miller explained the meat production process: cattle ranchers breed cattle to sell; those cattle are then purchased by a buyer and sent to feedlots where they are fattened, normally on a low-cost diet; and packers then purchase the cattle from the feedlots, slaughter the cattle, and pack the meat to sell to wholesalers or retailers.

The market “breaks down” between the feedlot and the packer, said Miller, “and [the four large meat packing companies] have such a monopoly there is really no free market in the live fat cattle marketplace.”

This has allowed a lot of meat to be sold to U.S. consumers under the guise of being domestically produced meat but is largely grown in Canada and Mexico, said Miller.

“They can control their supply and be able to force down the cash market. And the cash market has gotten so thin, meaning that not many cattle are sold on the cash market anymore—most of them are owned in advance or have these secret sweetheart deals with these large corporate feeders.”

Miller said this has been damaging rural America, causing suffering, and contributing to the addiction to opioids.

“It’s really hard in rural America because rural America is so dependent upon agriculture. And when agricultural prices are depressed, all of rural America suffers.”

US Government Needs to Do More

Miller faults the U.S. government for not doing more to support U.S. cattle ranchers and farmers and said the Department of Justice should start holding the big companies accountable for anti-competitive practices.

Congress has a key piece of legislation working its way through the legislative process, called The Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2020, which Miller said will begin to help U.S. cattle ranchers.

“What we’re trying to do is set a mandatory minimum that each one of these packers must participate in a live cash market at a certain percentage each week,” he said.

In June, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry unanimously passed S. 4030, the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2022.

“This bill is one of the much-needed solutions to an increasingly consolidated meat industry. Studies have shown that, without government intervention, negotiated trade in the U.S. marketplace will fall to zero percent by 2026 in parts of the country. When producers don’t have the ability to negotiate a fair price for their cattle based on current market conditions, it results in a vertically integrated, corporate-controlled beef supply chain. This threatens the livelihoods of producers and the security of our national food system,” said Miller in a June press statement via USCA.

Miller wants the president and Congress to do more to secure the U.S. meat supply chain so we don’t run into food shortages in the future.

“I will like to add one thing, and Congress has the power to do this, and the president has the power to do this—and that is to negotiate a trade agreement that will allow us to fairly and accurately label our beef,” said Miller. But it will be an uphill battle because the big companies invest heavily into lobbying for control over the U.S. beef market, he added.

We Must Ask

Dependency on other countries for basic commodities, such as Europe needing Russian oil and gas, never works well in the long-term, Miller said.

“Why do we want to be dependent upon any foreign country for sustaining this country, whether it be computer chips, whether it be oil, or whether it be our food?”

Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program has sparked a flurry of questions, including its effect on inflation and whether it’s fair to saddle some taxpayers with the burden of paying off others’ debts.

Now the Tax Foundation has raised another—will it trigger tax liabilities for beneficiaries of the plan?

Taxpayers will absorb up to $10,000 in outstanding student debt, with the amount forgiven doubling to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients, for individual borrowers earning less than $125,000 per year or $250,000 for married joint filers under Biden’s plan.

While the debt relief is free from federal taxes, some states have laws that treat the canceled debt as taxable income, according to Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation.

“Here’s one more question to add to the mix: Will states consider student loan debt forgiveness a taxable event? In many states, the answer could be yes,” Walczak said in a note.

Many States Will Follow Federal Treatment

Walczak explained that, in general, canceling student debt is taxable because it counts as income. However, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) stipulates that forgiven student loan debt is excluded from federal taxable income through 2025.

Many states follow the federal treatment of discharged student debt but some don’t, he pointed out. Whether discharged student debt is taxed or exempt at the state level is based on how state laws interact with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Some states conform to the IRC with ARPA or have adopted certain provisions of the ARPA that make forgiven student loans tax-exempt, while others conform to the IRC but decouple from ARPA. Others selectively conform to the IRC or have their own definition of income. In such cases, student debt discharge is taxable.

The Tax Foundation estimates that there are 13 states that could impose a tax on discharged student debt, although they may take steps to make it exempt.

“Preliminarily, it appears that 13 states have the potential to tax discharged student loan debt, though the final count could be significantly smaller if states make legislative changes or administratively determine that the debt forgiveness can be excluded, or if conformity dates are updated retroactively,” Walczak said.

The following states have the potential to impose state-level taxes on discharged student loan debt: Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, an analysis shows.

The highest such tax liability, assuming $10,000 in forgiven student debt, falls in Hawaii ($1,100) while the lowest is in Pennsylvania ($307), according to the Tax Foundation analysis.

The others fall somewhere in between, with $700 levied in South Carolina and $500 in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Mississippi, for instance.

What Cost to Taxpayers?

Walczak said it’s likely that some of these states will issue guidance on how they’ll treat discharged student debt from the perspective of taxation.

One thing to note, Walczak added, is that the potential state-level tax liability for the canceled student debt would have to be paid in the year when it’s taxed as an added part of income. If the debt is retained, however, it would normally be paid off over a period of years.

According to one analysis, Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is projected to cost taxpayers around $300 billion, economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated. The analysis also shows about 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution.

A separate calculation from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said it would cost more, between $440 billion and $600 billion over the next 10 years, with a central estimate of around $500 billion.

Biden said in a series of posts on Twitter that the forgiveness program will give working and middle-class families “breathing room” ahead of resuming federal student loan payments.

Republicans have panned Biden’s plan as unfair to people who sacrificed to pay off their student loans or never racked them up in the first place, but now have to foot the bill for other people’s debts.

“President Biden’s student loan socialism is a slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college, every graduate who paid their debt, and every American who chose a certain career path or volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces in order to avoid taking on debt,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in an Aug. 24 statement.

“This policy is astonishingly unfair,” he continued, adding that Americans with outstanding student loans tend to earn more on average, while lower-earning individuals would be saddled with the bill.

Rita Li contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A Washington D.C. superior court judge ruled Thursday that the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate that was imposed on city employees is unlawful.

An order that was handed down by Judge Maurice A. Ross was a response to a lawsuit filed by the Washington D.C. Police Union and other groups that opposed Mayor Muriel Bowser’s mandate. Bowser in August of last year ordered city government employees to provide proof of vaccination although some workers could seek a medical or religious exemption to the shot.

“A vaccine mandate is not an everyday exercise of power,” Ross wrote in his 17-page ruling (pdf). “It is instead a significant encroachment into the life—and health—of an employee. It is strikingly unlike any other workplace regulations typically imposed, as it ‘cannot be undone at the end of the workday.’ Thus, there is an expectation that a vaccine mandate must come from a legislative body.”

Ross also argued that the legal “system does not permit the Mayor to act unlawfully even in the pursuit of desirable ends,” including curbing COVID-19, adding that “the Mayor lacks legal authority to impose a vaccine mandate on Plaintiffs.”

The judge rejected city lawyers’ arguments that Bowser could impose a vaccine mandate in her capacity to regulate occupational and workplace hazards. The Biden administration made a similar claim to the U.S. Supreme Court last year on its vaccine mandate for private businesses before the court struck the rule down in January.

“Although COVID-19 is a risk that can occur in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most,” Ross wrote in his order.

Response

It means the city can’t enforce the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Meanwhile, disciplinary actions that were taken to enforce compliance can be reversed, according to Ross’s ruling.

The DC Police Union praised the decision and said it will ensure that its officers won’t be terminated or forced to take the vaccine.

“Had the Mayor just engaged the Union in good faith bargaining, we would have reached a reasonable compromise that protected everyone’s interests,” Gregg Pemberton, the chairman of the union, said in a statement. “Now, all of our members can go back to do the necessary work of trying to protect our communities from crime and violence without unlawful threats of discipline and termination.”

The office of Bowser, a Democrat, issued a statement Friday to WUSA9 in response to the ruling.

“We are reviewing the Court’s ruling, and believe that the judge misunderstood the strength and diversity of the authorities we relied upon in issuing the employee vaccination mandate,” the statement said, adding that “going forward, we will comply with the Court’s orders as we continue encouraging our community to access life-saving vaccines.”

Bowser’s statement further claimed that her office believes that “COVID-19 vaccines work” and “save lives.” Some recent studies, however, have suggested the opposite may be true.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a Biden administration statute that forced doctors to perform medical procedures, including gender-transition procedures, against their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court’s ruling in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra which protected around 19,000 health care professionals in Franciscan Alliance, a Catholic health care network, from performing medical procedures against their conscience.

The lower court’s ruling had permanently prohibited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) “from requiring Franciscan Alliance to perform gender-transition surgeries or abortions in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Becket, the legal counsel representing Franciscan Alliance, said the court explained that permanent protection from the statute was appropriate for health care workers.

“This ruling is a major victory for conscience rights and compassionate medical care in America,” said Joseph Davis, counsel at Becket, in a statement. “Doctors cannot do their jobs and comply with the Hippocratic Oath if the government requires them to perform harmful, irreversible procedures against their conscience and medical expertise.” 

The court noted that the Biden administration argued for more chances to show why it needed religious health care providers to participate in gender-transition surgeries, but that the ACLU, a co-appellant, cited a previous case that worked against their argument, according to court documents (pdf).

“For years, our clients have provided excellent medical care to all patients who need it,” Davis said. “Today’s ruling ensures that these doctors and hospitals may continue to do this critical work in accordance with their conscience and professional medical judgment.”  

Mandate

The mandate was first issued six years ago as part of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Becket noted that this applied to “virtually every doctor nationwide.”

Section 1557 of Obamacare prohibits health care programs that receive federal funds from discriminating against patients on the basis of sex.

In May 2016, HHS issued a rule interpreting Section 1557’s prohibition of “discrimination on the basis of sex.” It defined sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of “termination of pregnancy” and the disputed concept of “gender identity.”

Franciscan Alliance claimed the 2016 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by defining “sex discrimination” inconsistently with Title IX, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.

This rule was swiftly challenged by nine states and a group of religious organizations and received protection from federal courts in North Dakota and in Texas.

Franciscan Alliance also claimed that the 2016 rule violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by forcing it to perform abortions and gender-reassignment surgeries inconsistent with its sincerely held religious beliefs.

Becket says on its website that the Biden administration and the ACLU were “dissatisfied with not being able to force religious health care providers to violate their faith” and appealed the decision back to the Fifth Circuit.

The Biden administration has been accused of weaponizing Title IX to push “woke insanity” on Americans.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

University of Denver’s Nader Hashemi said Mossad lured attacker

The controversy surrounding a University of Denver professor who claimed that Israel’s secret security service, Mossad, could have been behind the attack on author Salman Rushdie is fueling a Republican investigation to root out pro-Iran regime propaganda in U.S. colleges.

Professor Nader Hashemi’s comments—which claimed that Rushdie’s alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, could have been lured into the attack by Mossad agents—are a sign of the increasing prevalence of pro-Iranian regime propaganda in U.S. academic institutions, according to Republican foreign policy leaders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

In the coming months, lawmakers associated with the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the largest Republican caucus in Congress, will launch oversight investigations into schools like the University of Denver as part of a bid to root out “anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories,” the lawmakers and senior Republican congressional officials told the Free Beacon.

“Anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories are now widespread in universities and poisoning students’ minds,” Rep. Jim Banks (R. Ind.), the RSC’s chairman and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told the Free Beacon, pointing to Hashemi’s comments as a prime example of the bias he intends to investigate. “Next Congress, House Republicans must exercise oversight on professors promoting the Iranian regime’s anti-Semitic propaganda and reform higher ed.”

Though University of Denver distanced itself from Hashemi’s remarks, university professors have been fired or disciplined for seemingly more minor offenses. Georgetown Law professor Ilya Shapiro, for instance, was forced to resign his position after he criticized President Joe Biden’s African-American Supreme Court nominee. Princeton University fired a distinguished professor, Joshua Katz, after he raised questions about the school’s racial policies.

Banks said this discrepancy shows how anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are tolerated while professors with more conservative views find themselves targeted for online harassment and, in some cases, fired.

“Universities are so rotten that professors who state scientific truths about gender are more likely to lose their jobs than those who make anti-Semitic smears,” Banks said.

The RSC is working on several efforts to counter foreign influence in academia, primarily from China and Iran, according to a senior Republican congressional official. These oversight efforts will ramp up during the next Congress, particularly if the Republican Party takes the majority and has control over the relevant committees.

Rep. Greg Steube (R., Fla.), an RSC member who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Free Beacon that Hashemi’s comments could endanger pro-Israel students on campus and feed into conspiracy theories about Jews.

“Propaganda from the Iranian regime has no place on American college campuses,” Steube said. “Elitist university professors are already the radical left’s bullhorn, but these comments by University of Denver professor Nader Hashemi are especially dangerous, untrue, and promote blatant anti-Semitism to our college students.”

Hashemi’s comments about Mossad’s supposed role in the attack were first made on the Iran Podcast, hosted by Iran analyst Negar Mortazavi, who has written for publications including the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an isolationist think tank bankrolled by George Soros and Charles Koch. The Quincy Institute is a leading supporter of the Biden administration’s efforts to provide Tehran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief as part of a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal.

A “much more likely” scenario for the attack, Hashemi said in the interview, revolves around Matar’s supposed communications “with someone online who claimed to be an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps supporter and lured him into attacking Salman Rushdie. And that so-called person online claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran could have been a Mossad operative.”

Because Israel is opposed to a new nuclear accord with Iran, it could have staged the attack to disrupt the negotiations, Hashemi said.

Israel “has taken a very strong position against reviving the Iran nuclear agreement. We were in very sensitive negotiations, it looked like an agreement was imminent, and then the attack on Salman Rushdie takes place,” he said. “I think that’s one possible interpretation and scenario that could explain the timing of this, at this moment, during these sensitive political discussions.”

A spokesman for the University of Denver told the Free Beacon earlier this week that Hashemi “does not speak for the university” but did not indicate that the university will undertake any disciplinary measures. “His comments do not reflect the point of view of the university, nor are we aware of any facts that support this view,” the spokesman said.

The school also said it remains “committed to assuring that the experience of our Jewish students, faculty, and staff is safe, supportive, respectful, and welcoming.”

Hashemi declined to be interviewed by the Free Beacon about his comments, saying the publication has “promoted odious views that I strongly object to on ethical grounds.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Rashida Tlaib, who has proposed eliminating police departments and prisons, rats out perp hiding in her backyard

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), a member of the radical left-wing “Squad,” has been one of the Democratic Party’s most vocal critics of law enforcement. She has called for an end to policing and incarceration in America. The country’s police force, she has argued, is an “inherently and intentionally racist” institution that condones “government-funded murder” and “can’t be reformed.”

Alas, the congresswoman’s allies in the movement to abolish the police and empty federal prisons will be outraged to learn that Tlaib recently snitched to the Detroit Police Department after checking her home security system and seeing that an individual fleeing the cops was hiding in her trash can.

“The congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, happened to look at her monitoring system and saw the guy in her backyard,” one of her neighbors told the local Fox affiliate in Detroit. “So once we found out where he was located, she called us back and told us where he was and we relayed that information to the police.”

The male suspect ended up in Tlaib’s yard after leading police on a high-speed chase after witnesses reported an attempted kidnapping. A woman was also found hiding in a trashcan several houses down. The pair sped off in an SUV after police orchestrated a traffic stop. Perhaps they shared Tlaib’s view that police officers are irredeemably violent and did not wish to become victims of “government-funded murder.”

By ratting out the suspect to police, some would argue that Tlaib was exposing the innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen to a violent death at the hands of law enforcement. Body camera footage of the arrest shows at least an “inherently and intentionally racist” police officer pointing an assault rifle at the terrified suspect as he emerges from Tlaib’s trash can.

Tlaib was a vocal proponent of the BREATHE Act in 2020. The legislative proposal called for “divesting federal resources from incarceration and policing,” and the abolishment of federal prisons within 10 years. Her attacks on law enforcement did not go over well with James Craig, the former chief of the Detroit Police Department. Craig, who is black, slammed Tlaib’s “disgusting” suggestion that police officers were racist murderers.

“To say policing should be abolished gives no consideration to the people who live in our neighborhoods who rely on police to provide service,” he told the Detroit News in 2021. “The people who live in our city don’t want to abolish the police, so the million-dollar question is: Who does [Tlaib] represent?” Craig added that he “would love to see [Tlaib] resign” and would even “throw her a goodbye party.”

In addition to her anti-police activism, Tlaib is best known for being an outspoken anti-Semite whose frequent tirades against Israel have been condemned by her fellow Democrats. In May, the congresswoman spoke at a rally in Dearborn, Mich., alongside a pro-Hamas newspaper publisher who urged Arabs around the world to “fight within [their] means” to ensure that “Palestine would be liberated and restored.”

Tlaib shared the stage with the publisher, Osama Siblani, who has an extensive history of praising the anti-Israel terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.”We are the Arabs who are going to lift Palestinians all the way to victory, whether we are in Michigan and whether we are in Jenin,” he said at the rally. “They will fight with stones, others will fight with guns, others will fight with planes, drones, and rockets, others will fight with their voices, and others will fight with their hands and say: ‘Free, free Palestine!'”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Mumia Abu-Jamal is serving a life sentence without parole for murdering a police officer in the 1980s

Brown University said this week it will exhibit a trove of artwork and documents from a cop-killing Black Panther serving a life sentence without parole.

The university announced it had acquired the papers of Mumia Abu-Jamal for its “Voices of Mass Incarceration” series. Abu-Jamal in 1981 shot and killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner while Faulkner was arresting Abu-Jamal’s brother. He was convicted the following year and sentenced to death, though prosecutors dropped the death penalty case in 2011.

A Brown spokesman directed the Washington Free Beacon to the university’s press release when reached for comment.

The Abu-Jamal collection includes more than 60 boxes of documents chronicling his trial and imprisonment, which “gained him global recognition as a face of the movement against the death penalty,” according to the Associated Press. Brown will not disclose the purchase price of the collection. Johanna Fernández, a 1993 alumna who advocated for years on behalf of Abu-Jamal, contributed additional correspondences.

“His is one distinct voice that, like more than two million nameless others, must be studied by future generations that wish to wrap their heads around the Goliath that is America’s prison industrial complex,” Fernández said.

Abu-Jamal has maintained his innocence, but witness testimony corroborated that he murdered Faulkner. While working as a taxi driver, Abu-Jamal saw the officer pull over his brother, William Cook. Abu-Jamal approached the stopped cars, drew his weapon, and shot five times. Faulkner died at the scene from a head wound.

“I shot that motherfucker, and I hope he dies,” witnesses reported Abu-Jamal saying at the time.

In January, Abu-Jamal appealed his murder conviction to District Attorney Larry Krasner (D.), Philadelphia’s progressive prosecutor. Abu-Jamal alleged evidence discrediting witnesses had been withheld during his trial and that the prosecutors had sought an all-white jury. Faulkner’s widow, Maureen Faulkner, has filed a petition to disqualify Krasner’s office from taking up the case again. The liberal billionaire George Soros donated millions to Krasner’s campaign in 2017.

As a journalist, Abu-Jamal covered the black commune MOVE’s violent shootout with Philadelphia police in 1978. Nine MOVE members were convicted of killing a police officer during the firefight.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #5 president John McNesby told the Free Beacon that Brown was conducting a “publicity stunt” in purchasing the records, which “only revictimizes Maureen and the entire Faulkner family.”

“It’s unconscionable that not one person from the university reached out to Maureen prior to this announcement,” McNesby said. “Convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal should remain in prison for the rest of his life.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Muriel Bowser offers no alternative options to unvaccinated students

The District of Columbia will not allow unvaccinated students to attend school and will offer no alternative learning options, Mayor Muriel Bowser (D.) announced on Thursday.

The Coronavirus Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood Workers Amendment Act of 2021 “requires students ages 12 and older to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to attend school,” the mayor’s press release stated. The act does allow people to file religious or medical exemptions. Once school begins on Monday, students have 20 days to file their immunization certification, “or they will not be allowed to attend school or school activities until the immunization certification is secured by the school,” the Office of the State Superintendent of Education said.

When asked if there would be alternative options for unvaccinated students, Bowser responded, “We’re not offering remote learning for children, and families will need to comply with what is necessary to come to school,” the Daily Signal reported.

“They can go to school on Monday. But they need to get their vaccinations,” Bowser continued.

According to the district’s official COVID-19 tracking website, 72 percent of students in the district ages 12 to 15 are fully vaccinated, but only 53 percent of 12-to-15-year-old black students are fully vaccinated.

Bowser’s announcement came on the same day that a D.C. Superior Court judge struck down the mayor’s vaccine mandate for all government employees. The D.C. Police Union in February filed a lawsuit against the mayor’s mandate. Judge Maurice Ross ruled that Bowser does not have the legal authority to issue the order.

“Going forward, we will comply with the court’s orders, as we continue encouraging our community to access life-saving vaccines,” Bowser said in response to the ruling.

D.C. is the only state or state-like government in the country to mandate vaccines this year, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy’s August 2022 report. California’s mandate is pending and would not begin until July 2023. Twenty states have banned vaccine mandates.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Joe Biden’s plan to have taxpayers pay for student loans could cost more than $1 trillion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Debt cancellation alone will cost up to $519 billion, the model found, with loan forbearance costing another $16 billion. In light of behavioral changes and program details, though, the total sum could be over $1 trillion.

The estimate is even more than the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which analyzed the budget model, expected. The foundation found that debt cancellation will cost the average individual taxpayer over $2,000, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Both Republicans and Democrats have blasted the plan, with Army colonel and congressman Mike Waltz (R., Fla.) calling the cancellation “a slap in the face to veterans.” Biden used a law intended to help veterans to justify canceling loans for all borrowers. Swing-district congressman Jared Golden (D., Maine), meanwhile, said the plan is “out of step with the needs and values of working-class Americans.”

Experts, including liberal economists, say the plan will worsen inflation, with former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman calling the move “gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Charlie Crist taps Miami teachers’ union president Karla Hernandez-Mats to be his lieutenant

Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s (R.) Democratic opponent Charlie Crist has selected as his running mate a Miami teachers’ union head who opposed school reopenings, compared concerned parents to serial killers, and even suggested that “fear of halal meat” perpetuates genocide.

Crist will unveil United Teachers of Dade president Karla Hernandez-Mats as his running mate during a Saturday campaign event, CBS Miami reported Friday afternoon. In May 2020, Hernandez-Mats emerged as a vocal critic of DeSantis’s push to reopen schools—at the time, she dismissed the Republican’s claim that the coronavirus “just hasn’t had an impact” on young people, calling the remark “completely contradictory to what we know to be the facts of this pandemic” and “dangerous for our communities at large.” Hernandez-Mats later acknowledged that students failed to learn at the same pace following the closures.

Beyond her school closure advocacy, Hernandez-Mats has attacked parents who attend school board meetings. In October 2021, she shared a cartoon that likened those parents to a range of fictional serial killers, including mass murderer Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and butcher knife slayer Michael Myers from the Halloween series. “For any of you following the school board meetings, you know that the craziness is real,” Hernandez-Mats said. “God be with us.”

For any of you following the school board meetings, you know that the craziness is real. God be with us. #antivaxxers #disinformation #misinformation pic.twitter.com/FczrhSebGb

— UTD Miami Prez (@KarlaMats) October 22, 2021

In July 2020, meanwhile, Hernandez-Mats tweeted a graphic arguing that “genocide” and “lynching” is perpetuated in part by “fear of halal meat,” “bootstrap theory,” and “celebrating Columbus Day.” “Great breakdown of the iceberg visual,” Hernandez-Mats added, along with the hashtag “BLM.”

Crist won Florida’s Democratic gubernatorial primary just three days ago, but his campaign is already off to a rocky start. Just hours after the win, Crist, who has said he’s “on the battlefield of love,” contended that the more than four million Floridians who voted for DeSantis have “hate” in their hearts and don’t care about the state.

“Those who support the governor should stay with him and vote for him, and I don’t want your vote,” Crist said. “If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there. I want the vote of the people of Florida who care about our state.”

Crist, who did not immediately return a request for comment, served as Florida’s 44th governor as a Republican from 2007-2011. Crist subsequently ran for Senate but lost his primary bid to Republican Marco Rubio, causing him to leave the GOP and endorse then-president Barack Obama (D.) for reelection in 2012.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A federal district court in California ruled Thursday that a state law requiring churches to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans is unconstitutional.

Three California churches, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, in 2015 challenged the constitutionality of California’s Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, which mandates that companies—including churches and other religious organizations—include coverage for elective abortions in their employee group health plans. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Thursday sided with the churches, stating that Mary Watanabe, the director of the California Department of Managed Health Care, “has not shown ‘[she] lacks other means of achieving [her] desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by [plaintiffs].'”

“The director’s denial of the churches’ request for exceptions to accommodate their religious beliefs, based solely on the fact that those requests did not originate with a plan, was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest,” the court wrote.

The managed health care department’s decision to include religious organizations in the mandate came in 2014, following pressure from Planned Parenthood to “fix” the policy’s religious exemptions “to ensure that employers cannot deny women coverage of abortion services,” according to emails discovered by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys. The Trump administration in 2020 withheld $200 million in Medicaid funding from California because the mandate violated federal conscience laws.

“For years, California has unconstitutionally targeted faith-based organizations, so we’re pleased the court has found this mandate unconstitutional and will allow the churches we represent to operate freely according to their religious beliefs,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jeremiah Galus said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Richard Burr (R.) says Biden administration’s lack of oversight is ‘unacceptable and baffling’

Several federal agencies have no system in place to monitor whether remote workers are actually clocking in for the job—a fact one Republican senator said is “unacceptable and baffling” as the Biden administration pushes to expand telework options for its growing number of federal workers.

Four federal agencies told the Washington Free Beacon they have no specific oversight of remote employees: the Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Housing and Urban Development. The agencies said their usual productivity measurements are adequate to track employees who shifted to remote work at the start of the pandemic. Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) received a similar response from the Department of Labor when he asked about the agency’s telework policies—and said this justification is “wholly inadequate and non-responsive.”

“Taken together, this evasiveness does not inspire confidence that the Biden administration even cares whether the federal workforce is, in fact, working while remote,” Burr wrote in an August letter to the Office of Personnel Management, which manages federal telework policies.

Burr justified his push for transparency on telework policies by citing a Free Beacon report in June that found at least a quarter of remote employees at the Department of Health and Human Services failed to log on to their agency’s software suite, which includes their email, video conference calls, and other applications needed to perform remote work. HHS did not respond to letters from Burr nor a Free Beacon request for comment on how it plans to address the lack of activity from remote workers.

The Biden administration this year has pushed to make lenient pandemic telework policies permanent as agencies prepared to return to the office. The White House plan is backed by House Democrats, who in June advanced a bill that would require agencies to notify Congress and the Office of Personnel Management if they want employees to return to the office.

The Free Beacon reached out to all 15 federal agencies about their telework accountability policies. The Department of Energy directed requests to the Office of Personnel Management. A spokesman for the State Department told the Free Beacon the department has a range of tools to assess workers who fall short of expectations or engage in misconduct regardless of whether those employees are in office or work remotely. The remaining nine agencies did not respond to requests for comment.

Kiran Ahuja, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, said in a July subcommittee hearing that she was unaware of the Free Beacon report on HHS remote work but said she would look into the matter. She added that expanded telework can “enhance productivity.” Her office has yet to respond to follow-up questions Burr sent in August and did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon.

As remote work grew more popular since the start of the COVID pandemic, companies deployed technology to track employees’ online behavior through their emails, browser activity, and use of other online work software. A survey of 1,250 employers in the United States last year found that 60 percent of respondents use some version of this online monitoring software for remote workers—and another 17 percent were considering adopting one. Roughly 15 percent of the federal government’s 2.1 million employees worked remotely last month, according to a Labor Department survey.

The leaked HHS memo tracked the online activity of remote employees through their Microsoft accounts and virtual private network. Burr said the Department of Education is the only agency that when requested provided these data, which showed that employees averaged seven Microsoft Teams calls per day. But the other five agencies that responded to the Free Beacon and Burr said the data are unnecessary to track productivity.

Nearly half of federal employees worked remotely in 2020 when then-HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison commissioned a report on online activity at his agency after he noticed poor office attendance and overall productivity. A whistleblower later leaked the memo to the Functional Government Initiative, which shared the report with the Free Beacon. Harrison said other agencies need to measure this online activity, which he fears may show similar results.

“The American people deserve complete transparency on whether they have been paying thousands of federal employees billions of dollars not to work,” Harrison told the Free Beacon.

The Internal Revenue Service, which is set to more than double its workforce through President Joe Biden’s climate and tax bill, did not respond to requests for comment on how it monitors remote employees.

Peter McGinnis, the communications director for the Functional Government Initiative, said he hopes to see Congress hold HHS accountable for its incompetence amid the pandemic.

“Shockingly, the federal agency directly responsible for responding to the global pandemic appears to have rarely, if ever, been working at full strength,” McGinnis told the Free Beacon.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

North Carolina congressional hopeful preaches bipartisanship after pledging support for group pushing ‘progressive wish list’

As a congressional candidate, North Carolina’s Wiley Nickel describes himself as a moderate seeking “bipartisan solutions.” As a state lawmaker, the Democrat partnered with a liberal policy group working to defund police and end cash bail.

Nickel in 2019 signed on to liberal advocacy group Future Now’s now-deleted “Pledge to Achieve America’s Goals,” internet archives show. The pledge’s signers agreed to “advocate for” and “work to achieve” seven policy goals with corresponding pieces of model legislation, which, according to the Atlantic, amounted to “a comprehensive progressive wish list” aimed at building “the next progressive era in American politics.” Future Now’s crime policy section, for example, included a call to “reduce the jail population by ending the practice of cash bail.” It also argued police funding “has been shown to have no connection to crime rates” and called to “increase public safety by reallocating” police funds, a move the Brookings Institution defines as “defunding the police.”

Three years later, Nickel is portraying himself as a “moderate” working to achieve “real, bipartisan solutions” in his run to replace outgoing Republican congressman Ted Budd (N.C.). In addition to his partnership with Future Now, however, Nickel holds one of the most liberal voting records in the state senate, which the Democrat joined in 2019. That year, Nickel voted against a bill that required North Carolina sheriffs to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, which came just months after a progressive sheriff ignored a detainer placed on 37-year-old Luis Analberto Pineda-Anchecta. The decision allowed the Honduran national to roam the streets on bond after he was arrested for threatening his ex-girlfriend—just four days after his release, Pineda-Anchecta kidnapped and threatened to kill the same woman.

Nickel’s progressive past could come back to haunt him as he campaigns against Republican Bo Hines in North Carolina’s newly redrawn 13th Congressional District, a swing seat with a roughly even split of Democrats and Republicans. Nickel has won his deep-blue state senate district, meanwhile, by more than 30 points in both 2018 and 2020.

Nickel, who did not return a request for comment, was one of dozens of North Carolina Democrats who faced criticism in 2020 for signing the pledge. In turn, Future Now cofounder Daniel Squadron—a former Democratic state senator in New York who also worked for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.)—argued that signing the pledge did not constitute “an endorsement of a single policy.”

But internet archives show that the group added a line to the pledge on September 17, 2020, stating that its signers did not endorse “any specific bill.” That change came days after North Carolina state house speaker Tim Moore (R.) accused state Democrats who signed the bill of “promising to defund the police.” Future Now, which has since renamed its policy arm “The Lawmaker Network” and removed some of its far-left crime policy proposals, received nearly $2 million from liberal dark money groups Hopewell Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund in 2020, according to tax filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Billionaire left-wing megadonor George Soros gave the group nearly $10 million the year before.

Nickel’s first political campaign was not in North Carolina. The Democrat in 2006 ran for state senate in his native California—a race he lost to Republican incumbent Jeff Denham by double digits, even though the district “was carved out specifically to elect a Democrat.” Nickel’s own family donated to Denham’s campaign, and Nickel put thousands of dollars of his own money into the race.

Nickel went on to work for former president Barack Obama before launching another senate campaign, this time in the Tar Heel State, in 2018. He served two terms in the state legislature before launching his congressional campaign against Hines. Both candidates have raised nearly $2 million.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

WHICH SEEMS TO BE GETTING NO COVERAGE IN THE AMERICAN MEDIA. WONDER WHY.

The United Kingdom has rolled out a financial compensation program for individuals and families who have been harmed by the COVID-19 vaccine, despite repeated claims by U.S. corporate media entities denying any negative health impacts of the vaccines created by their largest advertisers.

Under the program, the first payments, which amount to a maximum of almost $150,000, have already been made to family members of individuals injured or killed as a result of the experimental vaccine.

Vikki Spit, whose 48-year-old partner Zion became unwell eight days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine and ultimately, is believed to be the first recipient of a sum from the government’s vaccine damage payment scheme (VDPS).

The VPDS will compensate British citizens with a tax-free payment of up to £120,000, or nearly $141,000. Vaccines for roughly 20 diseases are eligible for payments under the program and archives of the British government’s website show that COVID-19 was added between November 2020 and July 2021.

To receive a payment, individuals must demonstrate that a vaccine left them “severely disabled,” which the British government quantifies as at least 60 percent disabled.

“This could be a mental or physical disablement and will be based on medical evidence from the doctors or hospitals involved in your treatment,” explains the application guidelines.

Family members can also apply on behalf of injured individuals, as the British government’s portal explains: “You can also apply for this payment on behalf of someone who has died after becoming severely disabled because of certain vaccinations. You need to be managing their estate to apply.”

MUST READ: Research Reveals COVID Lockdowns Claimed 20x More Life Years Than They Saved.

So far, the National Health Service (NHS) Business Services Authority, the body that handles the VDPS, confirmed that as of May 2022 it had received 1,681 claims related to COVID-19 vaccines.

“Based on current timescales, once medical records have been sent for assessment, we expect to receive an outcome for most cases from the independent medical assessor within 12 weeks,” explained a spokesperson.

The new program follows controversy over the flawed efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as well as massive conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical representatives and politicians pushing vaccine mandates.

Government health agencies have also helped obscure data from COVID-19 vaccine trials, which, when released, suggests the vaccines don’t confer the same level of immunity as touted by their advocates in the White House and mainstream media.

The newly released affidavit that prompted a judge to approve a search warrant for former President Donald Trump’s home in Florida shows the warrant should not have been approved, Trump said on Aug. 26.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed off on the warrant, “should NEVER have allowed the Break-In of my home,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Reinhart said during a recent hearing that he relied on the information in the affidavit, and nothing else, when he decided to approve the warrant application.

The warrant was approved on Aug. 5 and executed at Mar-a-Lago three days later.

Agents asked for the warrant months after they reviewed files transferred from Trump’s residence to the U.S. archivist, according to the affidavit. That review, which took place in May, identified classified materials, including some that appeared to include national defense information.

Trump may have violated three different laws, including one governing the handling of such materials, the agent who authored the affidavit said. That agent’s name was withheld, as were entire paragraphs of other information.

Reinhart approved all the redactions the government proposed.

The FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, confirmed in the document that it was in talks with Trump lawyers between May and the raid, including a letter from a government lawyer that asked Trump to secure a room in which other documents were being stored.

“Affidavit heavily redacted!!! Nothing mentioned on ‘Nuclear,’ a total public relations subterfuge by the FBI & DOJ, or our close working relationship regarding document turnover – WE GAVE THEM MUCH,” Trump wrote on Friday.

Some anonymously sourced reports claimed that documents relating to nuclear weapons were seized from Mar-a-Lago. Those remain unconfirmed.

Fresh Call for Recusal

Reinhart, appointed to this position by other judges, recused himself from an ongoing case brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others by Trump.

The reason for the recusal was not given, but Trump said Reinhart should have recused himself from the warrant issue as well.

“He recused himself two months ago from one of my cases based on his animosity and hatred of your favorite President, me. What changed? Why hasn’t he recused himself on this case?” Trump said.

Reinhart posted an anti-Trump missive on Facebook while he was a private lawyer. Reinhart was a U.S. prosecutor before becoming a lawyer. He joined the judiciary in 2018.

Trump has asked the court to appoint an independent party to separate privileged materials from the items the FBI seized in the raid. That case is being handled by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.

A group called Tea Party Patriots Action, meanwhile, has asked for Reinhart to be removed from overseeing the warrant matter, in part because of his Facebook post.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

They just tried to kill me!

This isn’t hyperbole. Someone just tried to “SWAT” me by calling 911 at 1 in the morning and say that I’m waving a gun, holding people hostage, etc. Anything to get the SWAT teams deployed to my home and hope that I get killed in the process.

Are you ready for the reason? Because I dared stand up against the mutilation of our children under the guise of “transgender rights.”

Thankfully, the local police Department didn’t fall for it and the attack on my life was thwarted.

But that shows how desperate the Left is in their efforts to get me out of Congress. They’re willing to see me killed to stop me from investigating Hunter Biden and impeaching the Big Guy.

I WON’T BE INTIMIDATED! But continuing to campaign with a price on my head means I need you to chip in $25, $50, or $100 to help as I must bear the additional costs to ensure the safety of my family and me as I continue my efforts to expose the radical left and their attempts to destroy our nation!

Let me tell you, this wasn’t just a schoolkid prank. People have died from SWATting.

That’s the whole goal – they hope police will think there is a gunman in that home and will shoot the victim before Law Enforcement realizes it was a hoax.

But that’s where we are right now in our country. I shouldn’t be surprised.

Assassinating your opponents is the next logical step for a Marxist dictatorship.

We’ve already seen Biden weaponize the FBI to raid President Trump’s home and seize the phone of a Freedom Caucus member. Is murdering your political enemies that far off?

That’s how desperate Biden and the Left are to get me out of their way. They’re trembling in their jackboots worried about what I will uncover in Hunter’s laptop, his secret dealings with China, and just how much money went to the Big Guy.

But the only way we can end Biden’s tyranny is to ensure I win this November and am alive long enough to see justice brought against Biden’s criminal enterprise. Donate $50, $100, or $250 TODAY and help make that happen!

Listen, I’ve been attacked in every way possible. RINOs recruited a candidate against me in the primary. Leftists are pouring millions into my Democrat opponent’s war chest, and they even filed a lawsuit to kick me off the ballot.

Now add literal murder to the long list of ways they’re coming after me, and you realize that you’re my only hope for victory in November.

Because the only way Biden and the Left are going to stop the attacks, both political and physical, is to show them that America First conservatives like you won’t tolerate their thuggery.

This is your “go big or go home” moment.

Help me stand up to the Leftist mob out to get me in any way possible with your $100, $500, or $1,000 donation today.

Do you believe in what I’m fighting for? Do you believe that taking back control of Congress is paramount to saving America from the Marxist onslaught? Then it’s time to go big.

Make no mistake, I’m enemy number 1 to the RINOs, Leftists, and the Deep State.

Please pray for me.

Please pray for my family.

Please pray for our safety.

Please pray for Donald Trump.

Please pray for our country.

And then help me save America by fighting back against the leftist mobs!

Thank you. God Bless America.

Marjorie Taylor Greene
Congresswoman (R-GA)

Former President Donald Trump criticized Biden’s executive order to “forgive” billions of dollars of student loan debt, calling it an “election enhancing money grab” as the midterms approach.

“Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats have just orchestrated another election enhancing money grab, this time to the tune of $300,000,000,000—and just like I predicted, it’s coming right out of the pocket of the working-class Americans who are struggling the most!” Trump said in a statement on Truth Social on Aug. 25.

“Crippling inflation, unaffordable energy prices, and WAR—all things that should never have happened,” he added.

“But if that wasn’t enough, now Americans are bailing out College Administrators who fleeced students, and those who opted for Degrees there was no way they could afford,” Trump continued. “America is a nation in decline, and the cliff into oblivion is within sight.”

Trump’s reaction came after Biden announced on Aug. 24 to deliver on his 2020 campaign promise, wiping out the federal student loan balances of millions of people—up to $10,000 in debt per individual earning less than $125,000 a year and $20,000 for Pell Grants recipients.

Critics deemed it a move to drum up support ahead of midterm elections this fall by boosting young voter turnout. More than 43 million Americans, or one in every six adults, currently owe money on their federal student debts, most of whom owe less than $25,000 on their debt, according to the Federal Reserve. Data indicate the median balance in 2021 among those with outstanding education debt was between $20,000 and $24,999.

White House officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“I will never apologize for helping America’s middle class—especially not to the same folks who voted for a $2 trillion tax cut for the wealthy and giant corporations that racked up the deficit,” Biden wrote on Twitter on Thursday, referring to a 2017 tax law signed by predecessor Trump.

To date, the balance of outstanding federal student loan debt increased more than eightfold since 1995, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Taxpayers

The executive action means that one-time forgiveness of $10,000 per borrower will, however, cost about $300 billion for taxpayers, or $330 billion if the program continues over the next decade, economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated. In addition, eliminating the income limit threshold would lead to a 10-year cost of $344 billion.

While some Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and activists had called on Biden to wipe out $50,000 per borrower, such a move could cost the federal government roughly $980 billion, according to the Penn Wharton report.

The new analysis released on Aug. 23 also shows about 70 percent of debt relief accrues to borrowers in the top 60 percent of the income distribution, despite Biden’s claim that “about 90 percent of the eligible beneficiaries make under $75,000 a family.”

Another calculation from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the newly announced cancellation would cost more, between $440 billion and $600 billion over the next 10 years, with a central estimate of roughly $500 billion.

“Cancellation will eliminate $550 billion of federal student loan debt,” researchers said. “However, we project that the overall amount of outstanding federal student loan debt will return to $1.6 trillion [its current level] within five years.”

The wide-scale loan forgiveness came weeks after Senate Democrats passed the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, claiming to reduce the deficit by about $292 billion annually. The national debt went beyond $30 trillion for the first time this year, according to Treasury Department data.

Biden argued that reducing the federal budget deficit will offset the student loan forgiveness.

“We pay for it by what we’ve done,” the president said upon announcing his plan. “Last year, we cut the deficit by more than $350 billion. This year, we’re on track to cut it by more than $1.7 trillion by the end of this fiscal year.”

He again extended the years-long student loan payment freeze on Wednesday, pushing back a deadline that was set to expire at the end of this month to next January.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Moderna sued Pfizer and BioNTech on Aug. 26, alleging the companies infringed on its patents for technology utilized by COVID-19 vaccines.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are built on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. The problem is that they both use key features that Moderna scientists developed, including the same coronavirus protein encoding, according to the 39-page lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. court in Massachusetts.

“Despite recognizing the importance of patents to innovators such as Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech have copied Moderna’s intellectual property and have continued to use Moderna’s inventions without permission. Moderna therefore brings this lawsuit to protect the mRNA technology platform it innovated, invested in, and patented, and to ensure that intellectual property is respected,” the suit says.

Pfizer, based in New York, did not respond to a request for comment.

“BioNTech’s work is original, and we will vigorously defend against all allegations of patent infringement,” BioNTech, a German company, said in a statement.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said during a conference in 2020 that the company’s mRNA vaccine was using an antigen “which is, I think, the same like the [one] Moderna is using,” the suit notes.

Moderna, based in Massachusetts, says it is suing over patent infringement from March 8. The time before that is not contested, because of Moderna’s pledge that it would not assert its patents because of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moderna is also not seeking damages for Pfizer sales where the U.S. government would be financially responsible, or for sales to 92 poor countries.

Moderna announced on March 7 that companies would have to start abiding by patent rules. The company said it would consider selling licenses if they were requested. But Pfizer and BioNTech have never reached out to request a license, according to the suit.

“We believe that Pfizer and BioNTech unlawfully copied Moderna’s inventions, and they have continued to use them without permission,” said Shannon Thyme Klinger, Moderna’s chief legal officer, in a statement.

Moderna also filed a patent infringement suit in a court in Germany.

“We are filing these lawsuits to protect the innovative mRNA technology platform that we pioneered, invested billions of dollars in creating, and patented during the decade preceding the COVID-19 pandemic,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a statement.

Moderna itself was sued for patent infringement earlier this year.

Two companies, Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences, said in one of the suits that Moderna infringed on a patent for technology utilized in the COVID-19 vaccine, while another company, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, accused both Moderna and Pfizer of violating a related patent.

Moderna is also embroiled in a battle with the National Institutes of Health, which says its scientists were wrongly left off of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine patent. The new suit does not concern that patent, Moderna said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A Delaware judge has ordered Twitter to turn over more data to Elon Musk in two weeks, but stopped short of giving the Telsa chief all the data he wanted, saying his requests were “absurdly broad.”

On Aug. 25, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware’s Court of Chancery ordered Twitter to reveal the data from 9,000 accounts it analyzed in a fourth-quarter audit to estimate the number of spam or bot accounts on the social media platform.

Twitter had initially claimed that the data didn’t exist and it would be hard to recreate it.

“We look forward to reviewing the data Twitter has been hiding for many months,” Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, applauded the result in an emailed statement to Reuters.

McCormick added that Musk has data and documents needed to pursue his legal battle against Twitter.

“My overall impression is that Plaintiff has agreed to produce a tremendous amount of information to Defendants, and that the information Plaintiff has agreed to produce is sufficiently broad to satisfy most of Plaintiff’s obligations,” McCormick wrote (pdf).

The judge dismissed Musk’s request to have Twitter provide data on more than about 200 million monetizable daily active users (mDAU).

“Defendants’ data requests are absurdly broad,” McCormick wrote. “Read literally, Defendants’ documents request would require Plaintiff to produce trillions upon trillions of data points reflecting all of the data Twitter might possibly store.”

“No one in their right mind has ever tried to undertake such an effort,” she added.

McCormick also asked Twitter to produce additional data—documents “reflecting discussion of any other key metric identified by Defendants, regardless of whether those documents expressly address mDAU.”

Twitter sued Musk in July after he backed out of a deal to acquire the U.S. social media company for $44 billion. On July 29, Musk filed a countersuit, arguing there are more spam accounts and bots on Twitter than the company’s longstanding claim of these accounts making up less than 5 percent of its total users.

As such, Musk wants McCormick to rule that he can walk away from the acquisition.

Whistleblower

Earlier this week, Peiter Zatko, who was Twitter’s security chief before he was fired from the company in January, disclosed in an explosive whistleblower complaint that the social media company misled Musk about the number of bots on the platform.

Zatko’s disclosure alleges that Twitter executives are “incentivized to avoid counting spam bots as mDAU” in order to make the platform more attractive to advertisers.

“If mDAU includes spam bots that do not click through ads to buy products, then advertisers conclude the ads are less effective, and might shift their ad spending away from Twitter to other platforms with higher perceived effectiveness,” the disclosure says.

The disclosure also claims that Chinese entities gave money to Twitter, raising concerns that these entities could learn sensitive information about Twitter users from around the world.

Several congressional lawmakers are now probing Zatko’s allegations, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation Subcommittee, sent a joint letter to Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on Aug. 25, asking him to respond to their questions by Sept. 8.

“What is Twitter’s plan to prioritize, remedy, and address security deficiencies raised in Mr. Zatko’s complaint?” says one of the questions that Agrawal needs to answer. “How will Twitter prioritize security upgrades necessary to combat disinformation in time for the upcoming midterm elections?”

Zatko is scheduled to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 13, according to Durbin and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the committee.

“Mr. Zatko’s allegations of widespread security failures and foreign state actor interference at Twitter raise serious concerns,” Durbin and Grassley said, according to a statement. “If these claims are accurate, they may show dangerous data privacy and security risks for Twitter users around the world.” 

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is preparing for a war, according to China analyst and author Gordon Chang.

Several recent developments in China’s policies—particularly an amendment to China’s National Defense Law—could signal that the regime is prepping for a full mobilization of its military, according to Chang.

“China’s newly amended National Defense Law takes certain powers over military matters from the civilian State Council and gives them to the Communist Party’s Central Military Commission, which controls the People’s Liberation Army,” Chang said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“That move centralizes military decision-making. Moreover, the amendment, which relates to war mobilization, signals that the regime is preparing the Chinese people for conflict.”

In addition to centralizing the authority for military mobilization, Chang noted that the CCP was making efforts to effectively sanction-proof its political elite by forbidding certain officials from owning foreign real estate or shares in offshore companies.

“If Chinese officials and their family members do not own foreign assets, foreign countries cannot strip them of their holdings,” Chang said.

“Shedding these assets, therefore, makes those individuals immune to one of today’s most commonly imposed sanctions.”

Through the centralization of authority over military mobilization and the shoring up of economic defenses against potential international sanctions, Chang believes that the CCP is preparing for the possibility of armed hostilities. The question remains, however, as to just where such a war could break out.

Waging People’s War

Following a month of unprecedented military exercises and economic retaliations, Taiwan is in the limelight.

There are numerous other flashpoints along China’s periphery—any one of which could quickly escalate to outright conflicts—such as the mountainous Ladakh border region that China shares with India, disputes throughout the South China Sea with the Philippines and Vietnam, and disputes in the East China Sea with Japan.

Indeed, Chang believes that China’s neighbors could be a potential target should the CCP believe the opportunity is on its side.

“In the past few weeks, China’s regime has put Taiwan in the spotlight, but the Chinese party-state is threatening most of its neighbors to its south and east,” Chang said. “All neighbors there, large and small, are under threat.”

“We do not know where Beijing will strike next. China’s Communist Party does not act on grievances; it acts when and where it smells opportunity.”

Beyond hostilities in pursuit of regional hegemony, Chang said there is another threat permeating the world—the CCP’s ambition to leverage an international people’s war.

People’s War is a doctrine established by communist leader Mao Zedong and later evolved by Deng Xiaoping to promote long-term revolutionary communist struggle. According to Chang, the current CCP leadership is blending the doctrine of People’s War with a global Chinese identity to weaponize the Chinese diaspora community and promote the CCP’s interests.

“China’s regime makes the ‘blood’ argument, that all Chinese are of the same blood and that all are therefore bound to support the Communist Party,” Chang said.

“The Party has recently been making the case that it must unite the world—tianxia or ‘All Under Heaven’—and that means uniting all Chinese, no matter where they live and no matter their citizenship.”

Biden Unprepared for CCP Aggression

Though the CCP has been working on weaponizing the Chinese diaspora against the West for decades, Chang does not believe the United States is prepared for conflict with China. Indeed, he said that the Biden administration failed to comprehend the CCP as an adversary.

“President Biden gives the impression that he is oblivious to China’s mobilization of Chinese society,” Chang said. “He will not even call China an ‘adversary,’ and he certainly does not use the correct term, which is ‘enemy.’”

To that end, Chang said that he feared the administration is content to watch and wait as the CCP prepares for armed hostilities that could overwhelm the United States and its ability to defend itself.

“Biden must tell the American people what China is doing, tell the American people that they too must prepare for war, and tell the armed forces to get ready for battle,” Chang said.

“Too often in the past, American presidents let enemies attack us first. The Chinese will not, with their first attack, give us the opportunity to rally ourselves.”

Whereas previous animosities in the Sino-American relationship were effectively overcome through dialogue, Chang said that CCP leader Xi Jinping now maintains a military that is superior in every way to that of China 20 years ago, and that the regime is now, after years of preparation, prepared to go to war.

“Xi is making all-of-society preparations to engage in sustained conflict,” Chang said. “China is now more ready for battle than it has been in centuries.”

“That’s what makes this moment truly different.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Pfizer cannot use the government as a shield from liability for making false claims about its COVID-19 vaccine, lawyers for a whistleblower argued in response to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit.

“Respondents claim fraudulent certifications, false statements, doctored data, contaminated clinical trials, and firing of whistleblowers can be ignored based on the theory that they contracted their way around the fraud,” lawyers for Brook Jackson, who worked as regional director at one of the clinical trials used to develop the Pfizer vaccine, wrote in their Aug. 22 response.

“A drug company cannot induce the taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a product,” they countered, “that honest data would show poses more risks than benefits, and that ignores the actual contract and the law itself.”

Jackson’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer and two of its subcontractors violated the False Claims Act by providing bogus clinical trial results to garner the FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Under federal law, individuals can sue on behalf of the government and win treble damages if they can prove an individual or company deliberately lied to the government.

One of Jackson’s attorneys, Warner Mendenhall, told The Epoch Times that the payout could be as much as $3.3 trillion.

“It would be enough to bankrupt Pfizer,” Mendenhall said.

Mendenhall, whose law firm has won multimillion-dollar False Claims Act cases, based his estimates on the more than $2 billion the U.S. government has paid Pfizer for more than 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine.

In motions to dismiss the lawsuit, Pfizer and its subcontractors argued that besides Jackson’s allegations being false, the government, not a private citizen, can initiate a False Claims Act complaint and that the lawsuit against them should, therefore, be dismissed.

“The Relator may not pursue the claims against Pfizer without the Government first pursuing them in an administrative proceeding,” Pfizer’s motion states.

The companies also argued that the FDA was well aware of Jackson’s claims for at least two years before the lawsuit was filed against them and that it publicly responded to Jackson’s allegations by expressing the agency’s “full confidence” in the data used to support the vaccine.

However, Mendenhall said a false claims action is independent of the government’s knowledge and that Jackson only has to prove Pfizer and its subcontractors presented fraudulent information to the FDA.

Jackson was third in command of the clinical trials conducted by Ventavia Research Group as part of Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine. She was there for only 18 days before being fired by Ventavia after reporting what she called “absolute mayhem” and an utter disregard for safety protocols and federal regulations in developing the vaccine.

Jackson has submitted over 400 exhibits as part of her complaint. Jackson said that a former Taco’s cashier was among those tasked with injecting patients with the experimental jab. She alleged that the trial staff falsified patient signatures on informed consent paperwork. And she has described a daily mess of unsanitary conditions.

Jackson also responded for the first time to Pfizer’s characterization of her as an anti-vaccine, anti-government individual out for money as vengeance for her firing.

Jackson has worked on a long list of government-run clinical trials for vaccines and said she is pro-vaccine. She pointed out that her children have had all their childhood vaccines and that her entire family gets the flu vaccine yearly. Jackson received the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it was available and was initially one of its biggest cheerleaders.

While she is seeking compensation for her termination as part of her actions against Pfizer and the other companies, Jackson said she plans to donate any money she receives under her legal action against the companies to those injured by the vaccine.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s blood money,” she said. “The world should be disgusted by what went on here with the shameful actions behind this dangerous vaccine.”

Attorneys representing Pfizer did not return calls seeking comment.

Pfizer is no stranger to False Claims Act litigations.

In 2009, the pharma giant agreed to pay $2.3 billion in settlement fees in the largest health care fraud case brought under the False Claims Act in U.S. history. The US Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against Pfizer for misbranding one of its drugs with “the intent to defraud or mislead.”

Originally known as Lincoln’s Law, the False Claims Act was first used to sue defense contractors who sold the Union Army lame horses, faulty rifles, and rotten food.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A California law enforcement association no longer wants Paul Pelosi as a supporter.

The California Highway Patrol 11-99 Foundation terminated Pelosi’s lifetime membership in a Wednesday letter following his DUI guilty plea earlier this week.

“After evaluating the events that led to Mr. Pelosi’s arrest and conviction, we are revoking Mr. Pelosi’s lifetime membership with the CHP 11-99 Foundation effective immediately,” the organization announced in a Thursday news release.

The charity is pointing to Pelosi’s display of his lifetime membership credentials during his arrest in May as an undue attempt to secure favorable treatment from police.

Pelosi is the husband of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“The mere presentation of his 11-99 Foundation identification credentials to law enforcement made it appear that he was presenting them for preferential treatment whether that was the case or not which violates the terms and conditions he agreed to on his membership application,” the group said.

“These actions reflected poorly on the 11-99 Foundation and undermined our important mission.”

Pelosi also claimed to be a “high-profile person” while speaking to law enforcement after the car crash in Napa County.

Court documents described the member of California political royalty as exhibiting signs of impairment, such as slurring his speech and smelling of alcohol, the New York Post reported.

The CHP 11-99 Foundation supports the employees of the CHP and their families, administering charity aid and scholarships.

It is asking Pelosi to return any membership items he’s received and said it will refund his donations to the group.

The foundation had been waiting for the adjudication of the DUI case before taking action on Pelosi’s membership.

Pelosi was sentenced to five days in jail for the DUI offense, with prosecutors dropping another charge in a plea deal.

He has already served four days of his jail time and will complete the final day in a court-ordered work program.

Related:

Police Release Footage of Paul Pelosi’s DUI Arrest: ‘I Am a High-Profile Person’

He will also have to undergo a three-month drunk driving program and serve three years of probation.

CORRECTION, Aug. 26, 2022: The headline of this article, which had claimed that Joe Biden’s “vulgar acts” with his young daughter had been “confirmed,” has been edited to remove that falsehood. The fact that such claims had been made by his daughter in her diary was confirmed by federal government court filings that, in effect, authenticated the diary as having belonged to, and therefore presumably having been written by, Ashley Biden. However, neither the government nor any other party confirmed the truth of those claims; only their existence and author. We have also corrected once sentence in the commentary that made a similar false claim. We apologize to Joe Biden for our phrasing.

A diary purportedly belonging to Ashley Biden, daughter of Joe Biden, contained a disturbing revelation about her father — and now recent legal action confirmed that it was, indeed, her property.

In this shocking and twisted tale, Florida couple Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander pleaded guilty in a Manhattan court Thursday to charges of conspiracy to transport stolen goods, The New York Times reported.

The pair allegedly took the diary belonging to Ashely Biden from a home in Florida and brought it to New York, where it was sold to Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe just weeks before the contentious 2020 presidential election.

Advertisement – story continues below

Had the story ended there, the information contained within could have been easily dismissed as a dirty political trick by Joe Biden’s political enemies, if it saw the light of day at all.

“I have always been boy crazy,” the only daughter of the president and first lady wrote in her now-famous personal account.

“Hyper-sexualized @ a young age … I remember somewhat being sexualized with [a family member]; I remember having sex with friends @ a young age; showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate).”

With the outcome of Harris and Kurlander’s case, the government has confirmed that this disturbing personal memoir indeed belonged to Ashley Biden.

Advertisement – story continues below

Of course, this is barely making waves in the mainstream media except that the people responsible for an attempt at an eleventh-hour takedown of then-candidate Joe Biden have been collared (the Times admitted former President Donald Trump’s campaign had turned the item down before it made its way to O’Keefe, however).

“Hi, media. The DOJ confirmed today that Joe Biden’s daughter wrote in a diary about how he took inappropriate showers with [her] when she was a kid and may have molested her,” political strategist Greg Price pointed out in a Thursday tweet aimed directly at the media establishment.

“Do any of you care?”

With her*

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 25, 2022

Even more disturbing than the media silence on this is the fact that Ashley Biden’s diary lends credence to the old adage that where there’s smoke, there’s fire — and Joe Biden has smoldered for years with a reputation for being creepy around women and young girls.

He’s been accused of at least one sexual assault, and countless videos have circulated the internet for years showing him sniffing the hair of young girls, awkwardly rubbing their shoulders or whispering in their ears, and being otherwise inappropriate.

Boebert Demands Biden and ‘Regime’ Answer 6 Questions on Anniversary of Afghanistan Bombing

Dad ran into Joe on a biking trail in Delaware and got a live sniffing video lmfao pic.twitter.com/qz9KuEzN9E

— martman (@big__marty) July 10, 2022

Joe Biden looks at a little girl in the audience, the daughter of a veteran, and says “I love those barrettes in your hair. Man I’ll tell you what, look at her she looks like she’s 19 years old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed.” pic.twitter.com/DbH8ihG2Mj

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 28, 2021

It also can’t be overlooked that one of the president’s other offspring, son Hunter Biden, has his own bent toward sexual deviancy as evidenced by the treasure trove of materials on his abandoned laptop.

The truth of what went on in the Biden household — if anything — that contributed to Ashley Biden becoming “hyper-sexualized” or Hunter Biden drug-addicted and sleazy may never be fully known — but perhaps the now-verified diary could be a good place to start.

The Justice Department has released a 2019 memo that put to rest any prosecution of former President Donald Trump over allegations contained in the Mueller report.

Special counsel Robert Mueller, whose investigation was criticized by Trump, was hired to probe allegations of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. He found no such connections.

However, Mueller’s report cited 10 instances in which he believed there could have been possible obstruction of justice, without saying if they merited prosecution, according to NBC News.

That prompted a DOJ review, which culminated in the nine-page memo released Wednesday. The memo said there was no justification to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.

The memo was released after the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit. The DOJ opposed the request, but lost the case in court, NPR reported.

The memo said Trump’s requests to fire Mueller were made “not for an illegal purpose, but rather because he believed the investigation was politically motivated and undermined his administration’s efforts to govern.”

The memo stressed that Trump wanted to end the distractions caused by the probe.

“The President’s public statements could be viewed as efforts to defend himself from public criticism related to the Special Counsel’s investigation or to discourage the witnesses from making what the President believed might be false statements in exchange for a lesser sentence. Those statements do not warrant a prosecution for obstruction of justice,” the memo said.

“In the absence of an underlying offense, the most compelling inference in evaluating the President’s conduct is that he reasonably believed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was interfering with his governing agenda.

Should this memo have been released to the public in 2019?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Even if the President were objectively wrong about the intentions of the Special Counsel, many, if not all, of his actions could be viewed as lacking the intent element under the relevant statutes,” the memo said.

The memo touched on Trump’s dismissal of FBI Director James Comey and a comment he made to Comey related to an investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

“The President’s expression of ‘hope’ that Comey would ‘let this go’ did not clearly direct a particular action in the Flynn investigation, and Comey did not react at the time as though he had received a direct order from the President,” the memo said.

The result, the memo said, was that prosecution was not warranted.

“A fair evaluation of the special council’s findings and legal theories weighs in favor of declining prosecution,” the memo said.

Related:

Breaking: Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Released with 11 Pages Completely Blacked Out

“While cataloguing actions that the president took, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constituted obstructive acts, done with a nexus to a pending proceeding, with the corrupt intent necessary to warrant prosecution under the obstruction-of-justice statutes.”

Mueller’s “thorough investigation did not establish that the President committed any underlying crime related to Russian interference,” the memo said, noting that “it would be rare for federal prosecutors to bring an obstruction prosecution that did not itself arise out of a proceeding related to a separate crime.”

“Having reviewed the Report in light of the governing legal principles, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, we conclude that none of these instances would warrant a prosecution for obstruction of justice, without regard to the constitutional constraint on bringing such an action against a sitting president,” the memo said.

“In addition, we believe that certain of the conduct examined by the Special Counsel could not, as a matter of law, support an obstruction charge under the circumstances.”

A Fox News White House correspondent leveled a devastating question at White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre following the announcement of President Joe Biden’s decision to unilaterally forgive billions of dollars in student loans using the HEROES Act of 2003.

Jacqui Heinrich asked about the “legal basis for canceling student debt” during a Thursday news conference.

“The HEROES Act hinges on student debt cancelation being tied to the pandemic and that being a national emergency,” Heinrich said.

“But the administration argued in court that the pandemic is over at the southern border to lift Title 42. It’s so over that the government is going to stop buying vaccines in the fall and shift to the private sector, so how is this a national emergency? How is COVID a national emergency when it comes to student debt?”

JACQUI TIME: “The Heroes Act hinges on student debt…being tied to the pandemic & that being a national emergency, but the administration argued in court that [it’s] over…So, how is…COVID a national emergency when it comes to student debt?”

KJP: “It’s a very good question” pic.twitter.com/JmwUD97jjc

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 25, 2022

Jean-Pierre’s response was verbose and difficult to follow.

“Look, we use the HEROES Act because there are going to be some people when we lift the pause that’s still going to suffer,” she said.

“They’re still going to have a little bit of a hard time, and so that’s one of the reasons that we made this decision because as we’re lifting up the pause, yes, you know, some folks may — the having not to pay for two years has been helpful to them and were able to save and are probably going to be able to pay those monthly payments.

“But there’s going to be some folks who are going to have a hard time because they’re just in a different bracket, right? They’ve probably had a hard time before. We have to remember this is a system,” Jean-Pierre said.

“So the other piece of that is a reform, right? Reforming the system as well so we can help nurses, so we can help construction workers, so we can help firefighters, and making sure that their [payments] are cut in half as well.

“Because, remember, these are some of our first respondents who also suffered so much from the past two years, so he wanted to make sure he gave them a little bit of relief, understanding that some folks are just going to have a little bit of a harder time even though we’re coming out of a pandemic and the economy has been turned back on because of the work that this president has done.”

You can watch Jean-Pierre’s entire garbled response on the White House’s YouTube channel, complete with follow-ups from Heinrich and other reporters.

Heinrich also pointed out the incongruity of the White House claiming the U.S. isn’t in a recession and touting economic growth while citing a need for massive student loan forgiveness.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the FBI told his company to be on the lookout for supposed Russian misinformation on its platform during the 2020 presidential election.

This pressure would later spur Facebook to censor reports on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop.

Zuckerberg made the revelation on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast on Thursday.

“The FBI, I think, basically came to us — some folks on our team — and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant,’” Zuckerberg said of the FBI’s communication with Facebook.

BREAKING: Mark Zuckerberg tells Joe Rogan that Facebook algorithmically censored the Hunter Biden laptop story for 7 days based on a general request from the FBI to restrict election misinformation. pic.twitter.com/llTA7IqGa1

— Minds💡 (@minds) August 25, 2022

Zuckerberg said Facebook declined to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story as aggressively as Twitter did but restricted its overall reach by a “meaningful” percentage.

The Big Tech kingpin said the FBI’s nudge was key in the company’s decision to clamp down on the story.

“We just kind of thought, ‘Hey, look, if the FBI — which I still view as a legitimate institution in this country, it’s a very professional law enforcement — they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something then I want to take that seriously.”

Zuckerberg claimed that the laptop story “basically fit the pattern” of the Russian disinformation that the FBI had warned Facebook about, according to Fox News.

His admission of FBI involvement in Big Tech censorship follows whistleblower claims of an organized operation to prevent a meaningful investigation of Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election.

NewsBusters polling suggests that as many as 9.4 percent of Biden voters in swing states would’ve reconsidered their vote if they had had full knowledge of the Hunter Biden controversy.

This pool of voters could’ve potentially reversed the outcome of the election.

Zuckerberg admitted to feeling regret about censoring a story that was ultimately vindicated as truthful.

25k Dead Voters Allegedly on Michigan’s Voter Roll – Court Gloriously Denies Dem Leader’s Attempt to Dismiss It

“It sucks,” Zuckerberg said on Rogan’s podcast, according to the New York Post. “It turned out after the fact, the fact-checkers looked into it, no one was able to say it was false.”

Numerous media outlets have verified that the laptop recovered from a Delaware computer repair shop — full of incriminating photos and videos of the president’s son, in addition to emails regarding his foreign business dealings — belonged to Hunter Biden.

Ditch the cruise-missile diplomacy and start fighting back against Iran

It’s tempting to view the U.S. airstrikes this week in Syria against an Iranian-aligned target with optimism—a signal that President Joe Biden is finally done negotiating with a regime that inspired the near murder of Salman Rushdie and is still trying to murder Donald Trump, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo. 

Who are we kidding? Joe Biden is a Democrat, and there are few legacies more precious to his party than reviving former president Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

That is why Tuesday’s airstrikes are not worth a warm bucket of spit. Consider the statement from Colonel Joe Buccino confirming the U.S. operation. The U.S. “targeted infrastructure facilities used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” he said, adding that the strikes were a “proportionate, deliberate action intended to limit the risk of escalation and minimize the risk of casualties.”

That’s the geopolitical equivalent of arresting street dealers and letting the kingpins skate. In the 1990s, this tactic was called “cruise-missile diplomacy”: Make a point, but don’t risk tit-for-tat escalation. That’s why no senior Iranian officers were targeted and why the only casualties, according to a group monitoring developments on the ground, were 10 militia fighters, whom Iran treats like cannon fodder. 

It looks even worse when one considers the escalations from Iran on nearly all fronts. The Syria strike was a response to a series of drone attacks on the U.S. base in Tanf, a critical facility that monitors Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria and is crucial to assisting local fighters in their battle against the remnants of the Islamic State.

In this respect, Biden’s airstrike is a weak man’s attempt to signal resolve in the midst of capitulation. The leaks from Vienna, where U.S. envoy Rob Malley is negotiating through his Russian counterpart with Iran’s diplomats, are not encouraging. Iran International reported last week on notes from the regime’s top negotiator indicating Iran rejected Malley’s request for a commitment to end attacks on U.S. citizens.

We’re under no illusion that Biden, Malley, and company are taking their cues from us, but gentlemen: Read the room, pack your bags, and save your last shred of dignity. The Iranians don’t want a deal. They want us dead. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Joe Biden’s plan for the government to take on tens of thousands of dollars in student debt will cost the average taxpayer more than $2,000, according to a National Taxpayers Union Foundation report.

Based on Penn Wharton Budget Model projections, the total cost of Biden’s debt cancellation is $329 billion over 10 years, the foundation found. With 158 million taxpayers in the country as of 2019, the average cost comes out to $2,085.59 per taxpayer.

The report comes as people take to Twitter to call the plan deeply unfair, with user @mfl_normal writing that Biden is “punishing people” who “do the right thing.” Republicans and some Democrats have blasted the cancellation, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) calling it “a slap in the face to working Americans” and swing-district Rep. Jared Golden (D., Maine) saying it’s “out of touch.”

Multiple economists, meanwhile, say the plan will worsen inflation, with former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman comparing the “reckless” move to pouring “gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning.”

Most Americans agree with Furman. Almost 60 percent worry that debt cancellation will make inflation worse, according to a CNBC poll published this week, as inflation under Biden remains at 40-year highs.

Student debt cancellation costs more money than the president’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act will reduce deficits in its first decade, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation noted, while doing “nothing to address the underlying causes of education costs.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

State Department proud to fund festival featuring incest, pedophilia

The State Department is standing by its decision to spend $10,000 in taxpayer funds on a film festival that featured movies with incest and pedophilia, according to communications with Congress obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The State Department is defending a $10,000 grant awarded to Queer Lisboa, an international queer film festival held in Portugal, saying that it has no problem awarding taxpayer funds to a film festival that displayed controversial movies featuring drag queens, acts of incest, and pedophilia.

“The United States strongly supports protecting and promoting the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons,” the State Department wrote to Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), who raised concerns about the grant during a July hearing. “We support freedom of expression and do not censor our grantee’s content or products.”

The State Department’s comments are fueling accusations that it is abandoning its traditional diplomatic responsibilities to drive a radical social agenda that damages the United States abroad. With threats increasing from hostile countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, the State Department is abusing taxpayer funds to push a radical woke agenda, critics like Rubio say.

“Instead of focusing on combating rogue regimes like the Chinese Communist Party, the Kremlin, or the Mullahs in Tehran, the Biden administration is using our diplomats to advance a radical, Marxist social agenda at home and abroad,” Rubio told the Free Beacon.

Rubio grilled the State Department’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, about the grant in July, asking: “How would promoting a drag queen film festival in Portugal advance our national interest?” Abercrombie-Winstanley said she didn’t know.

The grant came as part of the Biden administration’s push to “support LGBTQI+ and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility efforts” abroad, according to a State Department official.

The grant helped fund “one of the most popular LGBTQI+ film festivals in Europe since 1997,” according to the State Department. “The grant supported the screening of the iconic 1991 LGBTQI+ film My Own Private Idaho amongst other films by Gus Van Sant and influential American LGBTQI+ filmmakers, bringing an American perspective and talent to the festival.”

Other films included P.S. Burn This Letter Please, a documentary about drag culture in New York City; Saint-Narcisse, a film featuring incestuous twins; and Minyan, a movie about a 17-year-old Jewish boy who leaves his parents to explore New York City’s gay scene and later has sex with an adult bartender, as the Free Beacon first reported.

The State Department says the grant to this film festival is just one piece of efforts to promote “human rights and social inclusion of LGBTQI+” people abroad.

“This award made up one part of our overall Public Diplomacy engagement between the United States and Portugal, supporting our shared values on human rights and social inclusion of LGBTQI+ persons, while advancing our overall diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility efforts,” the State Department told Rubio.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A former American Express employee on Tuesday sued the credit card company, alleging that he was fired because he is white and objected to the company’s “racially discriminatory” policies, Fox Business reports.

Brian Netzel, who lost his job in 2020 after 10 years at American Express, filed a class-action complaint against the credit card giant. He said he and other white employees faced discrimination because of the company’s “diversity” efforts.

American Express poured billions of dollars into “antiracism” policies in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in 2020. Earlier this month, the company pledged to devote an additional $3 billion to a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Action Plan.”

According to Netzel’s lawsuit, American Express’s implementation of these “antiracism” policies “gave preferential treatment to individuals for being black and unambiguously signaled to white employees that their race was an impediment to getting ahead in the company.” Executives were given monetary incentives to “decrease the percentage of white employees in their departments.”

An American Express spokesman in a statement to Fox Business denied that the company provides any discriminatory incentives, calling Netzel’s claims “false and without merit.”

American Express is not the first corporate giant to face backlash for woke policies, nor is it the first time the company has faced this type of complaint. Coca-Cola in April 2021 was accused of violating the Civil Rights Act for implementing a racial quota for hiring outside legal counsel, the Washington Free Beacon reported. In June of this year, former American Express employee Nick Williams filed a similar lawsuit to Netzel’s, saying the company fired him for fighting against woke policies, racial quotas, and Critical Race Theory training in the company.

An anti-woke activist group in March launched a $500,000 campaign against American Express’s “antiracism” policies and pledged to support Williams’s case.

“They’ve been subjected to seminars and trainings that labeled them as bigots,” Netzel’s attorney David Pivtorak told Fox Business, “denied opportunities due to the color of their skin, and—to add insult to injury—punished and fired for asking to be treated equally.”

“Once the truth about American Express’s virulent discrimination is exposed in court, I have no doubt that it will be a clear warning to the rest of the country about the dangers of woke capitalism,” Pivtorak added.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Rep. Mike Waltz (R., Fla.), a colonel in the Army National Guard, slammed the Biden administration for citing a post-September 11 law supporting members of the military as authorization to waive tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, calling it “a slap in the face to veterans.”

The Justice Department argued this week that the 2003 HEROES Act, which allows the government to waive student loan obligations for active-duty service members and those suffering as a result of war or a national emergency, gives President Joe Biden authority to enact his massive student debt bailout in order to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. But that legislation, which Congress passed in the early months of the Iraq war, was explicitly intended to support members of the military fighting for the United States.

“The HEROES Act was intended to relieve student debt for soldiers risking their lives to fight for our country after 9/11,” Waltz said Thursday. “This is a slap in the face to veterans and Biden is using this law as an excuse for his disgraceful abuse of power.”

While the HEROES Act contains broad language on the executive branch’s authority to forgive student debt, the legislation was written with the goal of assisting active-duty service members. The text of the bill describes its intended purpose, which is to “support the members of the United States military and provide assistance with their transition into and out of active duty and active service.”

Waltz’s criticism of the administration’s student debt agenda comes as some experts argue the move will impose a massive burden on taxpayers across the country. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation issued a report this week that estimates the cost of debt cancellation is equivalent to $2,085 per taxpayer over 10 years.

Others have criticized Biden’s plan as a transfer of wealth from the working class to the college-educated and suggested it’s unfair to those who paid off their loans.

“Democrats’ student loan socialism is a slap in the face to working Americans,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said Wednesday. Maine Democrat Rep. Jared Golden called the plan “out of touch” and “out of step with the needs and values of working-class Americans.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A Denver public high school this week showed students a video that claimed police “have been trained to see people of color” as criminals.

During an assembly Tuesday, students at Denver South High School watched “Don’t Be a Bystander: 6 Tips for Responding to Racist Attacks,”  Fox 31 reported. The video also claims police target “gender non-conforming folks and Muslims,” and instructed students to “avoid the police,” who “often treat victims as perpetrators of violence.”

Denver South’s principal defended the video to parents, saying it was intended to “provide empowerment for people who may witness these types of attacks.” A spokesman for the school later said the video, produced by the liberal Barnard Center for Research on Women, was not vetted prior to the assembly.

Denver’s police chief said he was “disappointed” by the instructional material and that law enforcement are not trained to profile people based on sexual identity or race.

“That training doesn’t exist,” said Police Chief Paul Pazen. “That training doesn’t exist in this department. It doesn’t exist in any police training that I’m aware of in this state or this country.”

Public schools have increasingly incorporated leftwing ideas about race and gender into their curricula. A New York City public school in July encouraged students as young as 10 years old to keep a list of all the “microaggressions” they saw at school and at home, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Pennsylvania Senate hopeful John Fetterman (D.) opposes vouchers that let children in failing public school districts attend private and charter schools. But the progressive champion, who lives in one of Pennsylvania’s worst performing school districts, sends his kids to an elite prep school.

Fetterman’s kids attend the Winchester Thurston School in Pittsburgh, where parents pay up to $34,250 for a “dynamic” learning environment and an “innovative” approach to teaching. They would otherwise go to schools in Woodland Hills School District, where graduation rates are far below the state average. The local elementary school that serves Fetterman’s town of Braddock is in the bottom 15 percent of the state in academic performance. Fetterman and his wife Gisele have sent at least one of their three kids to Winchester Thurston for the past seven years. A 2018 news article mentioned that Fetterman sends his kids to a private school in Pittsburgh, though the school was not identified. Gisele Fetterman has been a “WT parent” since at least 2015. Last year, Winchester Thurston praised Gisele, a “WT Mom,” for her help on an art project.

Fetterman’s embrace of school choice for his own family opens him up to allegations of hypocrisy on several fronts. Fetterman, the lieutenant governor, has made his Republican opponent Mehmet Oz’s wealth a centerpiece of his campaign. He has also called for increased funding for public schools, though by sending his kids to private school he is diverting funds from Woodland Hills under a state funding formula that awards money to districts based on enrollment.

While sending his kids to Pennsylvania’s 11th best private school, Fetterman has publicly opposed vouchers that parents in poor-performing districts like his own could use to send their kids to private and charter schools. In 2018, he told an organization founded by Bernie Sanders supporters he opposed vouchers for families in Philadelphia on the grounds that they “[take] money away from public schools” and give it to private and charter schools. Roughly one-third of Philadelphia school kids go to charter schools because of the city’s dismal public school system.

Fetterman’s children will likely benefit academically from attending Winchester Thurston, though they will be deprived of the racial diversity Fetterman claims to embrace. Woodland Hills is 62 percent black and 25 percent white. Just 36 percent of Winchester Thurston’s students are minorities, though the school has a fully staffed “equity and inclusion” office.

Winchester Thurston has a 100 percent college acceptance rate, and an average SAT score of 1330, well above state averages. Woodland Hills, the district the Fetterman kids would otherwise attend, has just an 85 percent high school graduation rate, far below the state average. Woodland Hills has a 75 percent minority student body.

“Shame on him,” said David P. Hardy, a distinguished senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation and co-founder of Boys’ Latin of Philadelphia charter school.

“Fetterman could send his kids to [Woodland Hills], but he’s got money, so he can send them somewhere else,” Hardy told the Washington Free Beacon. “But the poor people there are stuck going to those schools, and he doesn’t give them any way out.”

Fetterman’s opposition to vouchers has won praise from teachers’ unions and is in line with the Democratic party’s national platform. But it puts him in tension with a majority of Americans who support school choice. Fifty-eight percent of Americans—and 69 percent of black voters—say they support vouchers, which have been linked to higher graduation rates. The Pennsylvania State Education Association endorsed Fetterman earlier this year, lauding him for “oppos[ing] tuition voucher programs.” Fetterman touted the union’s endorsement, saying he is “a proud product of Pennsylvania public schools.”

The union in April blasted a Republican effort to provide vouchers for families in districts in the bottom 15 percent of the state. The voucher program would benefit students in districts like Woodland Hills, which has three elementary schools that fit that criteria. Wilkins Elementary STEAM Academy, the elementary school that serves Braddock, is required under a separate voucher-like program to offer scholarships to students to transfer to other public or nonpublic schools because its math and reading test scores are in the bottom 15 percent of the state.

It is unclear whether all three of Fetterman’s kids—who range in age from 7 to 12 years old—attend Winchester Thurston. It is also unclear how Fetterman has covered tuition there. Winchester Thurston participates in the state program, the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program, that offers scholarships to students in poor-performing districts. Fetterman’s father may also help with the tuition. Fetterman lived off his dad, an insurance executive, until he was in his late 40s. Fetterman’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Fetterman has suggested that his kids go to public schools. “American history must be taught in America’s public schools—the good, the bad, and the horrific,” he said this year in an apparent reference to the debate over the teaching of critical race theory. “That’s what @giselefetterman and I want for our kids.”

Fetterman joins a long list of Democrats who publicly criticize school vouchers while sending their kids to private schools. Rep. Elaine Luria (D., Va.) has spoken out against school vouchers and charter schools but sent her daughter to a private middle school and served on the board of a private high school, the Washington Free Beacon reported. House candidate Christina Bohannan (D., Iowa) has criticized school choice while sending her daughter to a private school so she could receive a “personalized education.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Column: The electorate tunes Biden out—and why it matters for November

The 2022 election grows more mysterious by the day. Republicans enter this cycle with the wind at their backs: President Biden is unpopular, voters say we are in a recession, Democratic majorities are razor-thin, and midterms favor the opposition party. The issue set—inflation, border security, crime, and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan—is well-suited for Republican candidates. Many Democrats are retiring. GOP voters are enthusiastic. And did I mention the president is unpopular?

Yet Democrats are increasingly bullish about their electoral prospects. They have closed the gap with Republicans on the congressional generic ballot and lead the GOP for the first time this year. They are even or tied with Republicans in (admittedly spotty) polling averages of seven marquee Senate races. Since June 24, when the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and restored abortion law to the political sphere, Democrats have outperformed their expected margins in special elections. The reversal of Roe has mobilized an important Democratic constituency: voters, especially women, with high levels of educational attainment. On August 2, Kansans dealt pro-life forces a setback by defeating a referendum that would have forbidden state judges from reading abortion rights into the state constitution. On August 23, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Republican Marc Molinaro in a closely watched congressional special election in New York. Ryan staked his campaign on preserving abortion rights. Molinaro focused on inflation. Voters had a clear-cut choice between the two parties’ messages. Abortion won.

Suddenly, the political class is revising its expectations for the fall. “Red Wave Looks More Like a Ripple,” says the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. “Democrats sense a shift in the winds, but it may not be enough,” says the New York Times. “Democrats’ Outlook for Midterm Elections Brightens After New York Win,” says the Wall Street Journal. The Journal‘s op-ed page says the GOP has an abortion problem. The problem? Republicans have no idea what to say about abortion. Some are reticent, some are all over the place, and others support restrictions that go against public opinion. The Democrats are free to define the landscape and press the attack that Republicans will take away women’s rights. It’s a replay of past Democratic accusations that the GOP will cut entitlements such as Medicare or Social Security—except this entitlement is sexual, personal, and not a question of dollars and cents. This summer, Democrats have spent tens of millions of dollars on pro-choice television ads targeting Republicans. Why? Because it works.

There may be more behind the changing dynamics of this election than falling gas prices and abortion rights. Typically, midterm results depend on a president’s approval rating. If that were the case this year, Democrats would be running behind expectations. As it stands, Democrats are running ahead of Biden’s approval rating in the congressional generic ballot, in Senate polling, and in special elections. Voters are not translating their disapproval of Biden into disgust with Democrats in general. They are not factoring Biden into their down-ballot calculations. They have tuned him out.

Jeff Bell, the late Republican consultant, wrote an essay 22 years ago that resonates today. Called “The Politics of Bifurcation,” Bell’s article tried to explain why primary voters in both the Democratic and Republican parties during the 2000 election cycle were more interested in a candidate’s character than in political ideology. The reason, Bell argued, was that voters held a “bifurcated” view of the Clinton presidency: They disapproved of Clinton’s personal conduct but applauded his job performance. Hence, they elevated candidates who displayed honor and integrity over candidates who proposed major policy changes.

That helped figures like John McCain, George W. Bush, and Bill Bradley, and hurt the politician with the closest ties to Clinton the man: Vice President Al Gore. “Without the bifurcation,” Bell wrote in the March 13, 2000, issue of The Weekly Standard, “the Republicans would have far less chance than they do of retaking the White House, given the positive economic and social trends over which Bill Clinton and Al Gore preside.” The split decision on Clinton put Bush in the Oval Office—with an assist from the Supreme Court.

A generation ago, voters differentiated between their views of the president’s personality and of his job performance. The Democrats picked up five House seats one month before the Republican-controlled House of Representatives impeached Clinton. Might it be that voters now distinguish between their views of Biden the president and of down-ballot Democrats? In the new politics of bifurcation, voters separate their attitudes toward Biden, whom they see as a lost cause, from their feelings toward the Democratic Party. They might not be happy with either their president or the economy. But unlike last year, they see today’s Republicans as more frightening than the alternative. The upshot: a Democratic revival.

The new politics of bifurcation explains why 18 percent of voters disapprove of Biden but say they will vote for Democrats in the fall. It explains why a recent Pew survey found that Biden’s job approval is a pathetic 37 percent, but voters who disapprove “not so strongly” of Biden favor Democratic candidates by double digits. The not-so-strong disapprovers are a mix of voters who probably were never enthusiastic about Biden to begin with but accepted him as the best way to remove his predecessor from the White House. The economic mismanagement, border insecurity, breakdown of law and order, persistence of viral threats, and chaotic international scene of the past year and a half remind them of Biden’s many flaws. Still, they are not ready to embrace Republican candidates who hold marginal positions on abortion and long for a Trump restoration.

Bifurcation works in paradoxical ways. The last two Democratic presidents had terrible midterms but rebounded in time for reelection. That might not happen with Biden. The electorate views him so poorly that it may be difficult for him to recover—and his job will be more difficult still if surprising Democratic strength in November deprives him of Republican foils in Congress. CNN’s July poll found that 75 percent of Democrats want someone other than Biden to run for president in 2024. The most important number in the Pew poll was 35 percent. It’s the percentage of voters who say Biden is “mentally sharp.” He’s not getting sharper.

The safe bet is that undecided voters will swing toward the opposition party in the closing days of the campaign. In this likely scenario, Biden’s dismal approval rating will bring down the Democratic congressional majorities. That, after all, is how the world works. And yet the world hasn’t been working as expected for the last six years. The most unpopular candidate in the history of the Gallup poll became the first U.S. president with no experience in government or the military. That president became the first chief executive to lose reelection in 28 years. We have had a once-in-a-century pandemic, the largest single-year jump in violent crime ever recorded, the breakdown of the southern border, the worst inflation in 40 years, the first cross-border invasion in Europe since 1945, and a Supreme Court decision that reversed a half-century-old precedent. Things are weird. And if I am right about the new politics of bifurcation, things are about to get weirder.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

This week, First Liberty—along with Aaron Streett of Baker Botts, Alan Reinach of the Church State Council, and Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center—asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case concerning our client Gerald Groff. Gerald is a former U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee who was wrongfully forced to quit because of his religious beliefs. USPS refused to grant him a religious accommodation allowing him to observe the Sunday Sabbath. This is in direct violation of federal civil rights law that protects religious accommodation in the workplace.

Our request asks the Supreme Court to apply the law as written and require employers to grant meaningful religious accommodations to people of faith. The outcome of this case could impact the rights of religious employees in the workplace, and possibly set a precedent to stop the toxic “cancel culture” that continually threatens the livelihoods of people of faith.

We explain in our petition:

“Adult Americans spend much of their lives at work. Congress recognized that they should not be forced to surrender their religious beliefs at the office or factory door. But just a handful of years later, this Court gutted those vital protections. To ensure that the Nation remains committed to religious pluralism and the free exercise of religious beliefs, this Court should remedy that wrong.”

Our legal team is working to vindicate the rights of our client, and it’s also an important action in our ongoing fight to stop woke corporations and government employers from discriminating against religious workers. Because unless we stand up now, it will only lead to millions of Americans being forced to hide their faith or risk losing their jobs.

USPS Delivers Discrimination  

Gerald’s primary focus in life is serving on the mission field. He has shared the Gospel in many different nations. When he’s not overseas, he works a regular job. He strongly believes he should honor the Christian Sabbath. So, he specifically looked for a job that would not require him to work on Sundays. That led him to the U.S. Postal Service.

He began his career with the USPS in 2012 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, as a mail carrier. When the postal service began delivering packages on Sundays for Amazon, Gerald asked for a religious accommodation, which is protected under federal law. The postmaster granted his request, and as part of the accommodation, Gerald agreed to work extra shifts during the week. He even switched posts and accepted a lower position in order to be able to abide by his beliefs.

After initially honoring Gerald’s accommodation, the USPS changed position and started scheduling him to work Sundays. Being forced to choose between his faith and his job, Gerald sued the USPS for trampling on his First Amendment rights and violating federal law.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion in the workplace. Even further, the law doesn’t just protect against harassment and discrimination. It also requires religious accommodation, if it can be accomplished without causing undue hardship on the business, such as simply rearranging a shift. What legally defines an “undue hardship” for the employer is a major issue which will affect the protections for every person of faith in the workplace.

First Liberty argued Gerald’s case in federal appeals court this year, but the court ruled in favor of USPS. Now, we’re taking the case to the Supreme Court, asking it to clarify what federal law clearly states: Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. Specifically, our petition asks the nation’s highest court to review and overturn a poorly-reasoned case from the 1970s that tips the balance in favor of corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees.

Americans Should NOT Be Forced to Choose Between Their Faith and Their Job

Whether it’s in the boardroom of corporate America or the woke ideologies that have infiltrated many of our government agencies, there’s growing intolerance and hostility toward religion. People of faith are often put in the untenable position of choosing between their work or their beliefs.

It’s wrong and outrageous to force Americans to choose between their faith and their livelihood. They should not have to face that difficult choice.

During this time of extreme “woke” corporatism, this will be a major case for every person of faith in the workplace. Together, we must protect the rights of every American, like Gerald, to practice their faith without fear of losing their job. Join First Liberty in the fight to deliver more critical victories that safeguard your rights at work.

SOURCE: First Liberty

A federal district court recently issued a crucial order that will help protect religious liberty for thousands of military service members.

U.S. District Court Judge Steven Merryday granted a classwide preliminary injunction to protect service members in the U.S. Marine Corps from the unlawful federal COVID vaccine mandate.

Our friends at Liberty Counsel sued Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and pursued this class action relief on behalf of all U.S. Marines who were denied religious accommodations from the mandate. The judge noted that 3,733 Marines have requested religious accommodations, but only 11 have been granted, mainly to those who are due for retirement and prompt separation.

The court order included a strong statement emphasizing how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) safeguards the rights of our men and women in uniform:

“Obviously, RFRA includes everyone from the President to a park ranger, from the Chief Justice of the United States to a probation officer, from the Speaker of the House to a member’s district office staffer, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to a military recruiter—even if they don’t like it and even if they don’t agree with it. The Free Exercise Clause and RFRA are the law of the land.”

This is an important win in the ongoing fight to restore religious freedom in America’s armed forces. It extends protection to all those on active or reserve duty in the Marine Corps. This protects First Liberty’s own Director of Military Affairs Mike Berry, a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, whose religious accommodation request was denied earlier this year.

This is the third injunction issued by a federal judge granting classwide protection. First Liberty previously secured the first major classwide injunction in our U.S. Navy SEALS case. A federal judge also extended class protection to U.S. Air Force service members, which was favorable to the multiple U.S. Air Force clients we’re representing. This means service members across three branches of the military are protected as these cases move forward.

The Fight Continues for Our Navy SEAL and Air Force Clients

The district court’s order is a major step in the right direction. Even with this victory in hand, there’s still a great deal of work ahead to fully vindicate our military heroes. We’re still fighting our Navy SEALs and Air Force cases in federal court, and there are many important legal battles on the horizon.

Just this week, First Liberty submitted a crucial response brief in federal appeals court on behalf of our Navy SEAL clients. Our attorneys explain:

“The Navy is fighting to separate from service over 4,000 sailors, including 35 SEALs and Special Warfare operators, simply because those sailors will not compromise their sincere religious beliefs against the COVID-19 vaccination…The Navy has a critical job in protecting our Nation, and the judgments of military leaders should not be lightly disregarded by courts. But the Navy must comply with the Constitution and RFRA.”

Discriminating and threatening adverse action against service members because of their religious beliefs is illegal. It violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, federal law and Department of Defense regulations. The law states that all service members have a right to serve our country without having to violate their religious beliefs.

Just as they did not give up on their country, First Liberty will never give up on our service members. We will keep fighting for their First Freedom, for their right to live out their faith freely and openly.

Our U.S. Navy SEAL and Air Force clients still need our ongoing support. Every one of them—and their families—are counting on us to deliver a victory. A win for them can bring huge relief to thousands in our military who are being punished or threatened because of their religious beliefs.

Please donate today and help First Liberty keep defending our military heroes.

SOURCE: First Liberty

God bless you, young man!! [US Patriot]

Novak Djokovic, the 21-time Grand Slam champion, said he has withdrawn from the U.S. Open because of the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine-related travel restrictions.

“Sadly, I will not be able to travel to NY this time for US Open,” Djokovic wrote on Twitter. “Thank you #NoleFam for your messages of love and support.  Good luck to my fellow players! I’ll keep in good shape and positive spirit and wait for an opportunity to compete again.  See you soon tennis world!”

Djokovic had said he hoped the United States would change its restrictive travel policies after winning Wimbledon in July 2022.

The tennis star said he’s contracted COVID-19 and has been adamant in his refusal to take the vaccine. He has argued that it should be a personal decision, not a mandate.

Since October 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has required non-citizens and non-green card holders to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination before entering the country.

“If you are a non-U.S. citizen who is a nonimmigrant (not a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, lawful permanent resident, or traveling to the United States on an immigrant visa), you will need to show proof of being fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before you travel by air to the United States from a foreign country,” the agency’s website said as of July 14.

That directive was authorized by President Joe Biden “to suspend and limit entry into the United States for non-U.S. citizens who are nonimmigrants … seeking to enter the United States by air travel and are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

It’s not clear when or if the Biden administration will change the COVID-19 vaccine travel requirement. But in recent weeks, the CDC has revised its domestic guidance and has increasingly begun to treat vaccinated and unvaccinated people the same in terms of whether or not individuals should quarantine after COVID-19 exposure.

In the revised guidance released Aug. 11, the CDC explicitly said that people with a prior infection have protection against severe illness, and it also removed the six-foot social distancing advice that had been used since the early days of the pandemic.

The U.S. Open is scheduled to start next week in Flushing Meadows, New York City.

Djokovic also missed the Australian Open this year following a dispute over the country’s restrictive COVID-19 rules.

Meanwhile, when asked last year if the administration will mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.–Mexico border, then-press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed the federal government will not require them.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was sound asleep in her Floyd County home when the doorbell and knocks on her front door woke her up. There were flashlights and people outside her bedroom window.

Quickly, she jumped out of bed, got dressed, and walked to the front door. By instinct, she reached for her gun, although something told her to put it down.

The decision to not take her gun may have saved her life.

At her front porch were five police officers with their guns ready. They told the confused congresswoman that they were responding to a report of a fatal shooting at her house—a man shot five times in a bathtub, with a woman and children still in the residence—indicating violence could escalate.

“I think you got swatted,” the police told Greene after they realized what was happening. Swatting, the act of using prank calls to send tactical police to the victim’s home, is a federal crime and has previously led to serious consequences.

“So what that is is someone wanted to get me killed,” Greene said on “Capitol Report,” a program on The Epoch Times’ sister outlet NTD. “They wanted to send the police to my house, into a situation where they thought there was murder happening, in hopes the police would kill me or someone else in my home.”

The incident, which occurred in the early hours of Aug. 24, would mark the first of two successive swatting attempts in 26 hours targeting Greene over her stance on transgender issues.

In the first prank call, the caller claimed to be from a Virginia crisis line. After the police responded to the report, the suspect called back using a computer-generated voice, saying they were connected with a website called “kiwifarm.net,” a site that supports cyberstalking, according to the police report shared with The Epoch Times. The person said they were upset about Greene’s position on “trans-gender youth’s rights.”

Greene a week earlier had proposed a legislation called the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would make it a class C felony for anyone to knowingly perform medical treatment on a minor meant to alter their biological sex. The penalty under her bill is 10 to 25 years in prison with a maximum fine of $250,000.

Speaking about her bill on Thursday morning, the lawmaker appeared unflinching. “We need to protect kids and allow them to grow up before they make these life-altering decisions that can never be undone,” Greene said.

A second fake shooting call came the following day just before 3 a.m. In the call, made through an internet chat, a person claiming to be Wayne Greene said they “came out as transgender,” had shot their family members, and threatened to turn the gun on themself, according to a. Aug. 25 police report.

“If anyone tries to stop me from shooting myself, I will shoot them,” said the caller, who warned that “they would be waiting for us,” the report stated.

Two officers went to Greene’s home and alerted her to the situation at her front door.

The police couldn’t determine the caller’s location due to the person using a VPN, a tool that encrypts a user’s internet history, according to the report.

Greene expressed gratitude for the local law enforcement’s handling of the incidents.

“They are on the ball, and they definitely know what’s happening now,” she said, adding that she has deep trust in the local officers and feels “very safe” with them.

But such an abuse of police resources has to stop, Greene said, noting that her local police department is now hiring an additional 18 officers.

“They’re already undermanned, so they don’t need to be coming to my house for someone who’s trying to politically target me, they need to be able to respond to any other serious situation in our area,” she said.

Greene accused the mainstream media of being “complicit” in what happened to her. Recent news headlines have painted her as “targeting trans kids, which is such a horrible lie,” she said, noting that some former transgender youths have come out to share their regret in public.

“They went through the hormones that have changed their voices forever, puberty blockers that will give them lifelong problems like low bone density and chemical castration. These are serious things,” she said. “But the mainstream media, the way they lie about me, they are targeting me in such a dangerous way that they may get me killed.”

“It’s coming to a point where I may start having to sue them for what they’re causing people to think about me,” she added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Tea Party Patriots Action filed a federal complaint against the judge who approved the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.

“Judge [Bruce] Reinhart has a conflict of interest and a pattern and history of hostility to President Trump,” said the filing (pdf).

The lawsuit then listed several examples including purported Facebook posts that show Reinhart had criticized Trump while praising the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Reinhart also reportedly donated to former President Barack Obama and to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when he was running against Trump in 2015, the lawsuit said, citing publicly available reports.

The lawsuit seeks to have Reinhart, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida judge, removed from the case or even removed from his position.

“Judge Reinhart should be disciplined and removed as a federal magistrate because of his failure to meet the standards of ethical conduct and character necessary for the public to have confidence in the nonpartisan role of a judge in a matter of this extreme public interest,” the suit contended.

“Clearly,” it further said, “Judge Reinhart is a partisan and has publicly expressed his partisan views against former President Trump” and that his “antipathy for the former President is such that he should have recused when presented with the search warrant for the highly problematic search of President Trump’s home in Florida.”

Days after signing off on the FBI search warrant, Reinhart ultimately released the warrant and property receipt to the public.

During a hearing last week and on Monday, Reinhart suggested that he would release the affidavit the Department of Justice used to seek the warrant after the agency submits the document with redactions. He gave the Justice Department, which has sought to block the release of the affidavit, until Thursday at 12 p.m. to submit the redacted version.

The Tea Party lawsuit also cited a case involving Hillary Clinton in which Reinhart had recused himself, arguing that he should have done so with the FBI search warrant.

“The entire episode of the unprecedented search of the former president’s home, authorized by a political appointee of President Trump’s successor, and approved by a federal magistrate who has been outspoken in his opposition to and loathing of President Trump threatens the principle of ‘equal justice under law’ and the confidence of the American people in an unbiased judiciary,” the complaint said.

The Epoch Times has contacted the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Reinhart for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

THE NEWS COMES JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO DISTANCE THE U.S. FROM THE WHO.

A scientific journal article funded by the U.S. Department of Energy – which included controversial Chinese Communist Party scientists such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s top bat coronavirus researcher as authors – is calling for expanding the power of the World Health Organization over sovereign countries.

The paper – Lessons Learnt From The COVID-19 Pandemic – provides an overview and assessment of the world’s response to the virus, praising both China and the World Health Organization (WHO) for their supposed transparency.

“It is clear that both China and the WHO demonstrated dramatically improved responses to COVID-19 with the lessons learned from previous epidemics,” asserted the paper before suggesting that the origins of the virus remain “enigmatic.”

The paper proceeds to give seven “actionable recommendations” to improve the global response to future pandemics, among which is a proposal to broaden the authority of the WHO over member states. The suggestion follows a recent controversy over the WHO attempting to pass a “global pandemic treaty,” using public health as a pretext to dictate member states’ public policy and health measures.

“The WHO has to be given a much stronger role in the coordination of the implementation of the various control measures,” argues the paper.

“Given the exponential nature of pathogen spread it is imperative that we ensure the rapid mobilization of mitigation and control strategies at international scales before local epidemics can progress to pandemics,” continue the authors before concluding:

“The authority of the WHO for global coordination of pandemic responses must be strengthened.”

The notorious Wuhan Institute of Virology’s top bat coronavirus researcher Shi Zhengli – dubbed the “Bat Woman” – is among the authors of the paper.

MUST READ: Targeting America: Biden’s China Ambassador Headlines Chinese Communist Group Event on U.S. Farmland.

Dr. Shi runs the Chinese laboratory’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases and has received grants from Anthony Fauci’s National Institue of Health (NIH) agency to manipulate bat coronaviruses to become deadlier to humans. To many public health and intelligence officials, this is where COVID-19 began.

China’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director George Gao, who emailed Dr. Fauci to thank him for publicly dismissing the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s role in creating COVID-19, is an additional author.

The paper was also edited by Yong Ming Yao, a professor from the Chinese military-controlled First Affiliated Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital.

Despite counting several controversial, Chinese Communist Party-linked scientists as authors, a researcher from the taxpayer-funded University of Georgia, Guha Dharmarajan, contributed to the paper. The funding portion reveals that he was supported “through the US Department of Energy Financial Assistance Award.”

The unearthed paper follows intense scrutiny over the U.S. government sending taxpayer funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund dangerous research on bat coronaviruses. Throughout COVID-19, the U.S. government, especially Fauci’s NIH agency, has continued to fund Chinese Communist Party-run labs.

It also comes after President Donald Trump’s efforts to pull the U.S. out of the WHO by cutting funds from going to the organization given its poor track record on COVID-19 guidance and allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party.

THIS MEANS CHRISTOPHER WRAY’S FBI NECESSARILY INTERVENED IN ORDER TO SWING THE ELECTION FOR JOE BIDEN.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation appealed to his social media platform to censor stories such as those related to Hunter Biden’s hard drive during the 2020 presidential election, effectively revealing a U.S. law enforcement plot to sway the election in Joe Biden’s favor.

The admission came during Zuckerberg’s recent interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, and severely complicates the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the 2020 election cycle. The FBI had first seized the laptop of the presidential candidate’s son in 2019 – a year prior to reaching out to social media platforms to suggest the platform censor stories that could be dismissed as “Russian interference.”

The hard drive – which The National Pulse was one of the first news outlets in the world to report from – was entirely real.

The FBI, having had access to the drive for around a year before it was released publicly, would have known of its contents, which included incriminating business emails with Chinese Communist Party operatives and evidence of then-candidate Joe Biden’s involvement.

Speaking with Rogan about his platform’s approach to censoring stories related to the hard drive of President Joe Biden’s son, Zuckerberg revealed:

“The FBI, I think, basically came to us, some folks on our team, and was like hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that is similar to that. So just be vigilant.”

Rogan later inquired if the FBI explicitly referenced the hard drive, with Zuckerberg clarifying: “I don’t remember if it was that specifically but it basically fit the pattern.”

The admission comes amidst emails and text messages leaking from the hard drive which reveal the Biden family’s massive business operations in adversarial countries including China. The contents of the hard drive also appear to implicate President Biden, who would have received considerably lower support had the aforementioned stories been allowed to be shared on social media platforms, according to polls.

It also follows the Facebook founder spending over half a billion dollars to influence the 2020 election in favor of Biden.

BREAKING: Mark Zuckerberg tells Joe Rogan that Facebook algorithmically censored the Hunter Biden laptop story for 7 days based on a general request from the FBI to restrict election misinformation. pic.twitter.com/llTA7IqGa1

— Minds (@minds) August 25, 2022

It’s the height of summer, and Amos Miller has much on his mind as he surveys the bounty of the land.

The Upper Leacock Amish farmer and proprietor of Miller’s Organic Farm thinks about the field of hay he must bale before an impending thunderstorm arrives. He studies his herd of 45 dairy cows staying cool underneath a grove of trees.

Miller contemplates ongoing food shortages that have hit grocery stores for months around the country.

He also has the looming threat of a possible jail sentence and more than $300,000 in fines in relation to his years-long court battle with the federal government over food safety laws and inspections of his operations.

Miller said federal officials were last on the farm about two months ago, while the government is “holding hostage” his case that’s currently in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and another case making its way through the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

“They’re just playing their difficult games,” Miller said.

Case Update

Miller’s case has been making its way through the court system since 2016 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a civil action requiring Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm to comply with federal meat and poultry food safety statutes.

The USDA wants Miller to operate under the “Federal Grant of Inspection” before slaughtering, preparing, processing or selling for distribution certain meat and poultry products.

Miller had been slaughtering animals like cattle, chickens and pigs without federal inspections of his operation for several years. He argued that his business model of selling private club memberships to his Miller’s Organic Farm exempted him from federal regulations.

The DOJ won permanent injunctions against Miller in civil actions closed out in March 2017 and November 2019, while the FSIS later found Miller again out of compliance.

Another case was opened in 2021, and Miller was working on the compliance issues. He was eventually forced to stop selling most meat and poultry products earlier this year.

Late in 2021, Miller asked to remove his lawyer, Dallas-based attorney Steven Lafuente, from the case. Judge Edward G. Smith did not accept the motion to withdraw Lafuente.

Miller filed an “interlocutory appeal” with the Eastern District Court on May 10, which was assigned to the Third Circuit Court. In the appeal, Miller challenges Judge Smith’s decision to retain Lafuente as his lawyer.

The appeal charges that Judge Smith determined “that Amos Miller does not have the right to choose his own attorney” and that the decision was made in “error” and that the “judge was acting irrationally and beyond the confines of public policy.”

Miller and his wife, Rebecca, were originally set to appear before Judge Smith on Sept. 26 in the U.S. Courthouse in Easton for a show cause hearing to consider adding Rebecca as a defendant in the case, to examine compliance of paying $305,065 in fines and the possible incarceration of Amos “for his continuing civil contempt, until defendants make such payments.”

On Friday, the show cause hearing was ordered stayed as the Third Circuit Court case makes its way through the system, with Judge Smith “finding that good cause exists” for the delay.

In his motion for a stay of proceedings, Miller argues that the DOJ and Judge Smith violated his rights by threatening in the show cause order to “incarcerate not only Amos Miller but his spouse (an un-named party) to this action.”

“Defendant believes these actions are unconscionable actions that shock the conscience, and if RPII (real party in interest) were not Amish and being restrained by the Amish Elders, greater fear of man’s newspapers than God’s words in the Holy Bible would be actionable sounding in tort,” the motion stated.

Pete Kennedy, a Florida-based attorney who works with the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit organization promoting food freedom issues, said the Miller case stands as an important benchmark that could have widespread impacts on small farming operations.

“The meat regulations in this country favor the meat packers,” Kennedy said. “In the meantime, many people Amos’s size have gone out of business because of the regulations. People might not agree with the way he’s approaching things, but it’s an important fight. At the least you’d like to come out of this with a more favorable interpretation of the law by the USDA.”

Miller said that it’s the growing regulations that are causing some of the problems in the food supply that have appeared this year.

“One reason the food supply is getting low is because of the regulations that the government is forcing upon us,” Miller said. “They don’t allow farmers to be farmers, and it could run our country into a nightmare or chaos.”

Finding Alternatives

Not being able to sell beef, pork, chicken, turkey and other meat products has impacted his business, Miller said, but it has not slowed its growth. Miller’s Organic Farm has more than 4,000 members across the country, with products being sent to as far away as Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Miller said many farmers who have gone to a model of selling directly to customers have done well in their businesses. He said his business has almost tripled in size since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as customers sought out nutrient-dense foods and using what they eat as an alternative to pharmaceuticals.

“They like the connection and want to be connected to the farm,” Miller said.

Without the support of its members, Miller said, there was a real possibility the farm could disappear. He said it seems like the federal government “want to put them out of business.”

A GoFundMe account was created a few years ago, raising more than $115,000 from supporters to use for the farm’s legal fund. (Funds can now be donated through a GiveSendGo campaign.)

Miller said the farm’s members have also regularly reached out to comment to the government on the operation and to testify their support in court hearings. Miller said he has seen government officials impacted by the support from the community and have displayed unease about reactions from the public regarding the case.

“It’s getting in between the mother and a child by getting in the way of the people’s food supply, and they’re concerned about that,” Miller said.

Miller said his customers are actively seeking animals that are grass fed, regularly out in the fresh air and sunshine and that can enjoy the natural habitat. He said having animals outside in nature creates more nutrient dense and healthy food to consume.

The cows and other animals on the farm have access to alfalfa, hay and additional plants growing in the fields, including grass, herbs, dandelion, and burdock.

“It’s good to have diversity because each plant has its own special nutrition,” Miller said.

Besides the health benefits of allowing the animals to be outdoors, Miller said the farming process is more efficient. Instead of running tractors to harvest large fields of corn or soybeans for feed, the animals are permitted to be outside harvesting their own food by eating grasses and other crops and fertilizing the land with their own manure.

Miller said his members enjoy diverse choices for products, which has also allowed the farm to skirt some of the federal regulations.

Miller started raising water buffalo about five years ago, getting his first herd from animals raised in Arkansas. He said the water buffalo are good animals to breed because they are calm and docile if interacted with from birth, and the meat is a good alternative to beef that is less fatty.

The water buffalo can also be milked for their creamy milk used for traditional mozzarella cheese.

Since water buffalo are listed by the USDA as an exotic animal, Miller said, they are “not in their book to regulate,” allowing him to butcher them on the farm and sell to his customers. He said the water buffalo allow him to keep the meat supply of the farm better stocked.

When asked if there are any discussions in the local Amish or farming community about finding alternative farming methods to remain sustainable, Miller said there are not many talks about seeking replacements. He said most farmers are content to sell their products into the larger agricultural commodity market.

But Miller said with more and more consumers looking to buy directly from the farmers as food shortages become more regular, a new untapped market for producers is being created. He said people are looking to have connections to the people producing their food.

“They don’t trust the large corporations,” Miller said. “It’s not sustainable. For some reason the government keeps endorsing the large corporations, and it can cause big trouble.”

As for his own court case, Miller said if the USDA continues to enforce its regulations like it has done recently, the food supply will continue to get worse. He also said he fears the government is willing to do anything to win the case.

“But the truth will rise to the top,” Miller said. “Time will tell in the end what’s sustainable and what is not.”

Staff writer Michael Yoder can be reached at michael@thelancasterpatriot.com. Follow @YoderReports on Twitter.

A new group of parents, students, and others has formed to fight COVID-19 vaccine mandates at U.S. colleges.

No College Mandates is pressuring schools to rescind mandates, which have been imposed in schools across the country.

“We just believe that this decision should be between the student and his physician or her physician, and colleges should not be practicing medicine wholesale on their students,” Joni McGary, a co-founder of the group, told The Epoch Times.

The group has sent letters to dozens of colleges and over 1,000 officials, and has been questioning specific schools directly on social media.

The core argument is that the the original justification for the vaccination requirements is no longer relevant.

Mandates were originally imposed to prevent infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Students were told that getting vaccinated would protect themselves and others.

But the vaccines provide low levels of shielding against infection from newer virus variants, and are also less effective against hospitalization and death, in addition to having no effect against transmission.

“And most importantly, these vaccines do not prevent transmission so the justification that students need to take it to protect vulnerable members of the community, other members, is insupportable by any data. So there’s no rational reason to continue to force students to take this product to remain matriculated,” McGary said.

In addition, most students have recovered from COVID-19, giving them stronger protection than vaccination, according to numerous studies. Further, COVID-19 primarily affects the elderly and otherwise infirm, with the disease posing little risk to young, healthy people.

Side Effects

Some of the students who have gotten vaccinated have experienced side effects.

Harlow Glenn, a student at Santa Clara University in California, experienced a range of severe symptoms after getting Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in September 2021 in order to continue attending the school.

“I’ve never felt so sick in my life,” Glenn told The Epoch Times.

Two doctors advised Glenn not to get any additional doses of a vaccine, and Glenn contracted COVID-19 and recovered from it, but Santa Clara officials rejected attempts to obtain a mandate exemption and threatened to expel her.

Glenn sued the school. The lawsuit is ongoing, but after it was filed, Glenn was given a medical exemption.

According to emails filed in court, after the exemption was granted, the school still told Glenn that she needed to get vaccinated. Officials have claimed the emails were sent to Glenn by mistake and that her exemption is in place indefinitely.

Like many schools, Santa Clara has kept a mandate in place despite the evolution in knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and the illness itself. Many colleges have handed out limited exemptions, even in cases where doctors recommend against vaccination.

Against Mandates

So far, the No College Mandates effort hasn’t appeared to directly lead to any schools dropping mandates, but people involved with the group are hopeful that the recently updated guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which acknowledges protection from prior infection and does not recommend treating the unvaccinated differently, will prompt change.

The group is drafting a letter asking colleges why they aren’t responding to the update, given that many have cited prior CDC guidance as justification for the mandates.

The letter will say “they’ve relied on CDC guidance to date now they consistently should continue to rely on it and change their policies accordingly,” McGary said.

Some schools have rescinded mandates this year, including the University of Maryland Baltimore and George Mason University. Others have not only kept the mandates in place, but have started mandating booster shots. At least several have signaled they’ll require boosters with updated formulations, which U.S. regulators and the CDC are expected to authorize and recommend as soon as September.

Top Wake Forest University officials, for instance, told students in a recent letter that school public health advisers have recommended the university require the bivalent booster “when it becomes available to strengthen our community’s collective immunity against the virus.”

A spokesperson did not respond to emailed questions.

St. Olaf College, in Minnesota, says that employees will be required to get updated boosters if they’re recommended by the CDC. The school also did not respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Chinese Communist Party will likely become the beneficiary of President Joe Biden’s push to fill U.S. streets with electric vehicles, according to 16 Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.

The lawmakers, led by the committee’s ranking member Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), sounded the warning in a letter (pdf) to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Aug. 24. They wrote that Oversight Republicans are examining “the false claims” made by the Biden administration about the impact of electric vehicles on U.S. jobs.

To rebuke the administration’s claims, the lawmakers pointed out how Ford will cut about 8,000 jobs this summer to “boost profits to fund its push into the electric-vehicle market,” citing a July article from Bloomberg.

“Most of the 8,000 jobs will be salaried workers in the United States, representing as much as 25 percent of Ford’s American salaried workers,” they added. “Ford is focusing on eliminating employees from its gas-fueled vehicle line.”

Aside from the job cuts, Ford has turned to a Chinese supplier for battery packs. According to a press release from Ford’s website, the U.S. automaker inked a cooperation agreement with China-based Contemporary Amperex Technology Company Limited (CATL) in July. Under the terms of the agreement, CATL will supply electric batteries for certain models of Ford’s electric pickup trucks and SUVs beginning in 2023.

CATL said its agreement with Ford allows the two firms to “leverage their respective strengths to jointly explore new business opportunities worldwide.”

However, the lawmakers warned about CATL’s ties to the Chinese communist regime.

“CATL is influential in the Chinese government—being able to independently draft government safety regulations while completely dominating the EV battery market with support from the Chinese government,” they wrote.

CATL, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer, has obtained billions in subsidies from Chinese authorities, according to China’s state-run media. The company’s chairman, Zeng Yuqun, is also a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a political advisory body.

The CPPCC is currently headed by Wang Yang, former Chinese vice premier and a current member of the Chinese regime’s top decision-making body, the Politburo Standing Committee.

“This raises concerns about whether the push for EVs over gas-fueled vehicles will make America even more reliant on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) instead of American energy resources,” the lawmakers wrote.

They added, “It is troubling that the Administration-endorsed EV future is already eliminating American jobs while benefiting China.”

In August last year, Biden signed an executive order, with one of the goals being that half of all vehicles sold in the United States in 2030 be zero-transmission vehicles. In May, electric vehicles accounted for 6.1 percent of new cars sold in the United States.

The Inflation Reduction Act, a bill that Biden signed into law on Aug. 16, offers tax credits of up to $7,500 for people buying a new electric vehicle, and $4,000 for those purchasing a used one. The tax relief program has been criticized by some Republican lawmakers as benefiting only wealthy Americans given the higher cost of electric vehicles compared to gasoline models.

Also in their letter, the lawmakers questioned Buttigieg’s statement during a congressional hearing in July, when he said the rise of U.S. domestic clean energy production would be “creating a lot of jobs.”

“As the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and an advocate for Americans’ widespread adoption of EVs, your agency is in a position to explain how Ford’s actions help American workers and the economy,” the letter states.

The lawmakers wanted Buttigieg to schedule a briefing with Oversight Republicans before Aug. 31.

“We request that you provide the Republican staff of the Committee a briefing to address the loss of American jobs and industry to China and other nations,” the lawmakers wrote.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Personal information of 56 million voters shared

Your voter registration shouldn’t be used by another person to cast a ballot.

When someone moves or dies, their name should be removed from the registered voters’ roll so it can’t be used to vote. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 requires states to make a reasonable effort to remove ineligible people from voter rolls.

It’s usually handled at the county or state level, but today, 33 states and the District of Columbia, are outsourcing parts of this task to the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).

According to a report by Verity Vote, ERIC, which claims that it’s nonpartisan, is actually connected to left-leaning backers and engages in a host of troubling practices that could sway elections across the nation.

Verity Vote is a group of citizen volunteers with professional data research and investigation backgrounds who examine election integrity throughout the country.

New Jersey and Massachusetts joined ERIC in August. The other ERIC member states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, plus Washington, D.C.

In a July 13 letter, Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin gave notice that the state was officially dropping its ERIC membership. This followed a January statement in which Ardoin announced that Louisiana was suspending participation in the voter registration agreement “effective immediately,” citing concerns about questionable funding sources and the possibility of partisan actors having access to ERIC data for political purposes, potentially undermining voter confidence.

The Epoch Times has reached out to ERIC and a connected organization, the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), for comment. Neither of the nonprofit organizations responded.

Partisan Leanings

David Becker is CEIR’s director and founder. He also founded and is still a board member of ERIC. Becker didn’t respond to a request for comment.

According to its website, “CEIR’s mission is to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation and ensure election integrity and security.”

But CEIR leans to the left with its assertion dismissing the election integrity concerns of many Republicans over the 2020 election, saying: “The 2020 general election was the most secure in American history.”

It calls claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent “The Big Lie,” and the CEIR website states that the majority of the GOP and Trump supporters see conspiracies—some of which U.S. media outlets had previously raised concerns about—assume the worst about election integrity, and are pushing harmful, unnecessary new election laws.

Before forming ERIC and CEIR, Becker was a senior staff attorney at the left-leaning People for the American Way and director of election initiatives at Pew Charitable Trusts, according to Influence Watch.

In 2020, CEIR received nearly $70 million from the left-leaning Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and distributed $64 million in grants to fund “urgent voter education assistance” in 23 different states, with the largest amounts going to Pennsylvania ($13.2 million) and Michigan ($11.9 million).

On its tax-exempt 990 form, ERIC describes itself as working to improve the accuracy of U.S. voter rolls by providing member states with information on voter registration records that are inaccurate because of voters moving or dying. ERIC provides lists of possible ineligible voters, then states may contact them by mail to verify the information, then adjust the voter rolls.

Verity Vote found that states are slightly better at this than ERIC. While non-ERIC states removed an average of 2.3 percent from voter rolls, ERIC states removed an average of 1.9 percent.

Using the data that states provide, ERIC also runs a get-out-the-vote operation, giving lists of eligible but unregistered (EBU) residents to states a minimum of every 425 days. As per the ERIC agreement, states must contact every person on the list and inform them how to register to vote.

This results in a significant swelling of voter rolls. The report shows EBU additions consistently exceed suggested removals—by 10 times.

Sharing Private information

Member states give ERIC more than voter registration records. By agreement, they also hand over all records of individuals who went to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and other places where people are given a chance to register to vote.

In Pennsylvania, that includes state offices that provide public assistance or services to people with disabilities, armed forces recruitment centers, area agencies on aging, county mental health/mental retardation offices, centers for independent living, and the county clerk of court. It’s similar in other states.

In the right hands, personal information gleaned from these agencies could predict which political party a person may belong to.

Since voter registration is offered in these places, all personal information is shared with ERIC, even if the individual didn’t register to vote, Verity Vote found.

“This appears to violate federal law,” the report reads. “The NVRA prohibits states from sharing any records that relate to a declination to register to vote, or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered.”

ERIC’s website states that it has handled 56 million voters.

Although ERIC is required to protect personally identifiable information, the report documents how ERIC shares the data with CEIR.

“CEIR is creating the lists of voters who should be targeted for voter registration efforts and laundering the lists back through ERIC for distribution to the states,” the report reads.

In September 2021, Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers investigating the 2020 election subpoenaed the Department of State, requesting detailed voter lists including name, date of birth, driver’s license number, last four digits of Social Security number, address, and, date of last voting activity.

The Democratic governor, state lawmakers, and secretary of state went to court to block access, citing the protection of voters’ personal information.

In court papers, the Department of State stated that it couldn’t provide the information to investigators because “bad actors who gain access to this information would have all the data they need to control the voters’ registrations, and even their votes.”

Verity Vote noted in its report that the Department of State “was comfortable sharing data about voters and citizens who have chosen not to register to vote with Zuckerberg funded CEIR but went to court to keep that data from the Pennsylvania Senate.”

Targeted Communication

Imagine the power to text targeted voters on election day. CEIR is launching a free service for election officials called REVERE, aimed at combating disinformation in real time, according to the report.

It’s unclear who gets to define what constitutes disinformation.

In a communication from Becker to an official in Georgia, Becker describes REVERE’s power.

“REVERE will enable states to draw on phone numbers and email addresses contained in the voter file, and send texts, emails, and even voicemails to any set of voters (a particular precinct or county, older voters, etc.) rapidly. This will allow states to proactively communicate with voters about how to vote effectively (deadlines, early voting, etc.), send links to official websites (drop box and early voting locations), and rapidly respond to disinformation,” he wrote.

In its report, Verity Vote asks if it’s proper to entangle the private motivations of CEIR and ERIC with the governmental role to execute elections, placing the power to judge what’s disinformation—and whom to distribute it to—in the hands of this public/private partnership.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Aug. 24 announced it has officially put an end to the controversial Disinformation Governance Board, months after the newly-created board was paused amid widespread concern that it would be weaponized against dissenting voices and become a tool for government censorship.

The department announced that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas “has terminated the Disinformation Governance Board and rescinded its charter effective today, August 24, 2022.”

The DHS said that it “welcomes” recommendations from the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) subcommittee, which earlier in the day issued recommendations to Mayorkas, including the determination that there is “no need for a separate Disinformation Governance Board.”

“But it is our assessment that the underlying work of Department components on this issue is critical,” the HSAC report reads. “The Department must be able to address the disinformation threat streams that can undermine the security of our homeland.”

The DHS acknowledged that the HSAC “has concluded that countering disinformation that threatens the homeland, and providing the public with accurate information in response, is critical to fulfilling the Department’s missions.”

“With the HSAC recommendations as a guide, the Department will continue to address threat streams that undermine the security of our country consistent with the law, while upholding the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of the American people and promoting transparency in our work,” the DHS said.

Concerns Over Censorship

Mayorkas first announced the Disinformation Governance Board initiative in late April, when he was asked by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) at a congressional hearing what the DHS was doing to ensure election security and prevent misinformation in the electoral process, in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms.

“We have just established a Disinformation Governance Board in the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively combat this threat, not only to election security but to our homeland security,” Mayorkas said at the time, adding that the new board would also focus on stopping the spread of misinformation in minority communities.

Shortly after the announcement, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) raised concerns that the board may be used to police speech. “This new board is almost certainly unconstitutional,” he said in a letter on April 28, adding, “It can only be assumed that the sole purpose of this new Disinformation Governance Board will be to marshal the power of the federal government to censor conservative and dissenting speech.” He also accused the Biden administration of treating “competing policy views” as disinformation that has to be investigated and monitored.

About three weeks later, on May 18, Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped by the White House to head the board, said she had submitted her resignation, and confirmed that the board’s work was “paused.” The DHS later that day issued a statement confirming that the board “will not convene and its work will be paused,” but DHS officials will still carry out “critical work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security of our country.”

Jankowicz, who served as a disinformation fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, was found to have promoted false information about the alleged Hunter Biden laptop scandal; users found posts she had made on Twitter that claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Multiple media outlets including The Washington Post and The New York Times later published articles verifying and acknowledging the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Jankowicz had later defended her previous posts, writing on Twitter: “For those who believe this tweet is a key to all my views, it is simply a direct quote from both candidates during the final presidential debate. If you look at my timeline, you will see I was livetweeting that evening.”

She was also found to have made posts praising the now-discredited “Steele dossier,” which was used to smear former President Donald Trump by alleging that the Trump campaign had ties with Russia. Jankowicz has publicly issued other comments against Trump several times, including a claim that Trump’s presidency would embolden ISIS.

She has also called people who opposed speech codes on social media as “First Amendment zealots.”

A spokesperson for DHS told The Washington Post that Jankowicz was allegedly “subjected to unjustified and vile personal attacks and physical threats,” without elaborating.

Separately, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates told the Washington Examiner that Jankowicz was “smeared by bad-faith, right-wing actors against a deeply qualified expert and against efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism.”

“Neither Nina Jankowicz nor the board have anything to do with censorship or with removing content from anywhere. Their role is to ensure that national security officials are updated on how misinformation is affecting the threat environment. She has strong credentials and a history of calling out misinformation from both the left and the right,” he told the outlet.

But criticism of the disinformation board has not only come from Republicans or those on the right, but also civil liberties and human rights groups, Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, noted in a May 18 Twitter post.

“There were very good reasons to question and criticize the Biden admin’s initiative. It is not true that all of the critics were right-wing, or disinfo-mongerers, or operating in bad faith,” he said.

Increased Scrutiny

Following the pause of the Disinformation Governance Board, Republican lawmakers on May 23 demanded in a letter that the DHS release all relevant documents related to the board.

“We were pleased to read reports that you have decided to shut down the board in response to the concerns we raised. But it is important that this mistake is not repeated. We are therefore demanding transparency into the Department’s decision-making process so that we can learn why the Department ever thought creating a disinformation board would be a good idea,” reads the letter, which was signed by Hawley and five other senators.

In early June, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced that he and Hawley had obtained “internal DHS records provided through protected whistleblower disclosures” (pdf) that showed how the Disinformation Governance Board “was designed to exert powerful influence over the government’s efforts to crack down on disinformation in areas where there are ‘clear, objective facts.’”

“However, it remains unclear how DHS defines ‘clear, objective facts,’” the senators said in a release. “Documents show that DHS was not just focused on foreign disinformation but also issues at the heart of longstanding political debate such as theories about the validity of elections, the origins and effects of COVID-19 vaccines, and the efficacy of wearing masks.”

They said that they had issued the DHS an additional letter to “turn over additional materials related to the [Disinformation Governance Board] and DHS efforts to partner with big tech platforms to enforce its agenda.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the DHS for comment.

Katabella Roberts, Jack Phillips, and Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced on Aug. 24 that it will waive penalties levied against American taxpayers who failed to file their 2019 and 2020 returns in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The agency will also issue over $1.2 billion in refunds or credits to taxpayers who received the fees.

According to the IRS, roughly 1.6 million taxpayers, including individuals and businesses, will automatically receive the billions in refunds or credits by the end of September. Spread across 1.6 million taxpayers evenly, that would amount to an average refund of $750 per taxpayer.

The penalty relief is automatic for people or businesses who qualify, meaning taxpayers won’t have to apply for it.

For those who haven’t yet paid fines, the penalties will be abated.

The agency previously extended the tax filing deadline in both 2020 and 2021 to give taxpaying individuals and businesses more time to pay what they owed amid the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Throughout the pandemic, the IRS has worked hard to support the nation and provide relief to people in many different ways,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “The penalty relief issued today is yet another way the agency is supporting people during this unprecedented time.”

The decision comes as the agency faces a huge backlog of tax returns and taxpayer correspondence prompted by the pandemic. The IRS said the move will help them to focus resources on addressing those backlogs and return to normal operations for the 2023 filing season.

Who Qualifies?

A failure-to-file penalty is charged when taxpayers do not file their return by the due date; the fine is a percentage of the taxes that weren’t paid on time. It is calculated at 5 percent of unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that the return is filed late, up to a maximum of 25 percent.

For example, unpaid taxes of $10,000 could see a penalty of $500 per month, up to a maximum of $2,500.

To qualify for the refunds, taxpayers must file any 2019 or 2020 tax returns that were originally due in 2020 and 2021 by Sept. 30 of this year.

The IRS will not forgive penalties in some situations, however, such as where fraudulent returns were filed and where the penalties are part of an accepted compromise or a closing agreement. They also won’t apply to cases where the penalties were finally determined by a court, the agency said.

Other penalties, such as the failure to pay penalty, are also not eligible under the new relief program, although taxpayers in those cases can utilize other existing penalty relief procedures, such as applying for relief under the reasonable cause criteria or the First Time Abate program.

“Penalty relief is a complex issue for the IRS to administer,” Rettig said. “We’ve been working on this initiative for months following concerns we’ve heard from taxpayers, the tax community, and others, including Congress. This is another major step to help taxpayers, and we encourage those affected by this to review the guidelines.”

Additionally, the IRS is providing penalty relief to banks, employers, and other businesses required to file various information returns.

To qualify for relief, eligible 2019 returns must have been filed by Aug. 1, 2020, and eligible 2020 returns must have been filed by Aug. 1, 2021.

However, because both of these deadlines fell on a weekend, a 2019 return will still be considered under the relief program if it was filed by Aug. 3, 2020, and a 2020 return will be considered if it was filed by Aug. 2, 2021.

The relief also covers filers of various international information returns, such as those reporting transactions with foreign trusts or those with ownership interests in foreign corporations. To qualify for the relief, any eligible tax return must be filed on or before Sept. 30, 2022.

IRS Bolstering Enforcement

The announcement comes amid growing fears that the newly signed Democrat-backed Inflation Reduction Act, which provides nearly $80 billion in IRS funding, including $45.6 billion for “enforcement,” will be used to target small businesses or middle-income Americans.

A Treasury Department report from May 2021 (pdf) estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031.

Biden administration officials and Rettig have vehemently denied this, stating that the extra funding will instead help get the agency “back to historical norms in areas of challenge” and that the boosted resources are “absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.”

However, Republican lawmakers and experts, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have raised concerns that the newly-bolstered IRS enforcement funds will instead be used to “target Americans with 1.2 million new audits, more than half of which would be for people making less than $75,000 a year.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Harvard is a leader in woke investing by eschewing investments in fossil fuels, gun makers and other stocks, companies and funds it feels fail the liberal litmus test, but because of this policy, its investment portfolio is losing big time.

Meanwhile, in stark contrast, the University of Texas is raking in huge profits by selling oil drilling leases on land it owns and has made so much money that it rivals the much richer and older Harvard in revenue.

In a recent report on the oil revenue being earned by the University of Texas (UT), Bloomberg noted that the school owns 2.1 million acres in the Permian Basin situated in the Lone Star State.

UT’s land, “almost the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined,” is being leased to more than 250 drilling operations, including ConocoPhillips and Continental Resources, Inc., and the drilling leases are bringing a bounty to the school.

Bloomberg reported that the land is set to “post its best-ever annual revenue in fiscal 2022.” Much of this is due to the high prices of oil, of course.

Bloomberg added that “oil reached a high of $120 a barrel earlier this year as a result of a war-induced energy crunch. The revenue is expected to help narrow the gap between the Texas system’s $42.9 billion endowment and Harvard’s $53.2 billion as of June 2021.”

“The University of Texas has a cash windfall when everyone is looking at a potential cash crunch,” William Goetzmann, a professor of finance and management studies at Yale University’s School of Management, told Bloomberg. “Adjusting your portfolio for social concerns is not costless.”

Without a doubt, the millions that UT is earning from its oil drilling program will keep the school in cash for decades to come and will help the school weather any lean times, at least for a while.

In fact, UT has come close to toppling the Ivy League easterners in investments, Bloomberg wrote. Harvard’s “annualized 10-year returns as of June 2021 are among the lowest of its peers in the eight-school Ivy League, according to Bloomberg data.” But Texas is swimming in returns.

Do you expect banks and corporations to keep pushing wokeness despite losing money?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The University of Texas System last overtook Yale’s endowment in 2018 as the second-richest US university because of rising oil prices,” Bloomberg reported, adding that UT has topped Harvard’s fellow Ivy League school, Yale.

UT is not banking solely on revenue from its vast oil fields, granted. It also has heavy investments in wind and solar power facilities. But right now, oil is bringing in dividends.

Naturally, being a left-wing outlet, Bloomberg did its best to undermine UT by blaming it for helping fuel the climate crisis with its investments.

Bloomberg gave space in its UT story to the climate change alarmist group named Environment Texas, whose representative told Bloomberg, “This is money that’s helping to fuel the climate crisis. I think that many students and faculty don’t know where the money is coming from. And when they find out, I think they will be shocked and very much opposed to this dirty money. It’s not something we should be celebrating.”

Whatever it is or isn’t, UT’s oil concerns are bringing millions in dividends.

Related:

Test Shows Electric Truck Could Cost Over $100 to Charge – Just Like Gas-Powered Cars

Ultra-rich Harvard, on the other hand, has not been so fortunate. Its $53.2 billion endowment as of last year may seem massive, but it could have been so much more if not for its woke investing policy.

In June, the Harvard Crimson newspaper said that 41 of the 44 companies that Harvard’s investment arm, the Harvard Management Co., has thrown the school’s cash at have lost money in the first quarter of 2022. As a result, the IBL News reported, Harvard saw a decline of 43 percent in its stock portfolio during that quarter.

Worse, that first quarter decline is no outlier. In a report from last year, the Crimson told its readers that Harvard Management Co. has underperformed for the last 12 years in a row, and its investment policies left millions unearned. So, despite the outrageous base of over $50,000 a year for tuition, and its humongous $53 billion endowment, the school’s investment policies have actually hurt it.

Harvard is certainly not “broke” by any means. However, its policies prove the veracity to the idea that going woke eventually means going broke.

After U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist won the Florida Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday with a substantial 59.7 percent of the vote, he shot himself in the foot.

That was a metaphoric shot in the foot, mind you, so we didn’t include a trigger warning. And although I just used the word “trigger,” I didn’t …

Never mind.

In a November general election that commentators say will be determined by voter turnout, Crist told some voters to go away — those who supported Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The three-term congressman and former Florida governor, commissioner of education and state attorney general actually said that.

“Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him and I don’t want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there,” Crist said.

“I want the vote of the people of Florida who care about our state — good Democrats, good independents, good Republicans,” he said.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Unify with this ticket.”

Crist: “Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him and I don’t want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there.” pic.twitter.com/S0B93bw52i

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 24, 2022

Right. Unify.

At least he didn’t use the word “deplorable” — although his comments brought to mind then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s remarks in 2016, as the DeSantis War Room account noted on Twitter:

Charlie Crist kicks off his first day as Florida’s Democrat gubernatorial nominee by accusing Floridians of having hate in our hearts.

Where have we heard this before? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/6MLIQZMwPD

— DeSantis War Room (@DeSantisWarRoom) August 24, 2022

Advertisement – story continues below

Meanwhile, DeSantis’ pitbull rapid response director, Christina Pushaw, made a rapid response to Crist, tweeting, “Your terms are acceptable.”

Related:

If Complaint Is Successful, Judge Who Approved Warrant for FBI Trump Raid Will Be Removed

charlie: your terms are acceptable

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) August 24, 2022

Advertisement – story continues below

Crist’s jettisoning of potential voters is reckless; he needs every one of them. Recent polls show him down by 8 points.

Will DeSantis defeat Crist?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

That means the congressman — who left the GOP in 2010 and became a Democrat two years later — should be working to peel away every DeSantis supporter that he can, rather than writing them off.

Crist is running in a state where Republican voter registration since 2016 has increased by 14 percent to 5.2 million, while Democrats increased by only 3 percent to 5 million.

What may be more critical to the Democratic candidate is that independent voter registrations have grown by 13 percent to 3.9 million.

Winning “good Democrats, good independents, good Republicans” may be more difficult when he flatly refuses to try to win people but tells them to get lost.

A parade of telling tweets followed Crist’s statement.

See these are the things that make it clear Charlie Crist is a grifter. If you were actually trying to win in a red-tinted purple state against a popular governor, u wouldn’t say stuff like that. But if you’re just trying to play to the Twitter crowd and raise money, have at it

— Darvio Morrow (@DTheKingpin) August 24, 2022

When has this strategy ever worked?

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 24, 2022

Did @CharlieCrist just say that DeSantis voters ‘hearts are filled with hate’?!

That’s a helluva way to speak about well over 3/4’s of Florida voters! #DeSantis2022

— Michael DeStefano (@mtd10mm) August 24, 2022

But some caution is warranted. National news reports are throwing cold water on the idea of a red wave in the November midterm elections.

That skepticism might be Democrats’ propaganda to rally their troops, or it might be Republicans’ messaging to take nothing for granted and get out the vote.

It can be a lesson to Team DeSantis – it ain’t over until it’s over.

After all, in 1992, George H.W. Bush was seen to be so unbeatable that the string of Democratic presidential challengers were being likened to human sacrifices similar to the theme of a then-popular movie, “Joe Versus the Volcano.”

Well, you can ask Bill Clinton how that election turned out.

“Rules for thee, not for me,” while this quote didn’t come from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) it certainly applies to her.

– Sponsored –

Help “The League” Continue to Defend Our Second Amendment Rights!

For the second time, Ocasio-Cortez has decided to flout congressional financial disclosure laws but this time she is openly admitting to it. Ocasio-Cortez was required by federal law to submit her 2021 finances to the House Ethics Committee 11 days ago on Aug. 13 but has yet to do so.

However, when reporters reach out to AOC’s office about the blunder — instead of immediately moving to correct what could have been a clerical oversight — a spokesperson doubled down on AOC’s actions.

“The committee provides a 30-day grace period before fines are levied. The congresswoman plans to file before the period expires,” Ocasio-Cortez Communications Director Lauren Hitt told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday evening.

While the consequences aren’t all that severe if AOC ultimately passes the 30-day mark, she will have to pay a $200 fine, her devil-may-care attitude has some voters frustrated.

According to the Washington Examiner:

“Not only is she an admitted scofflaw — she’s a repeat offender,” said Paul Kamenar, an attorney for the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative ethics watchdog group. “One must wonder whether she also files her income tax returns past the deadlines.”

“Just like AOC did in 2020 when she filed her 2019 disclosure report 30 days late after the 90-day extension, she’s at it again, blowing off the deadline for filing her 2021 filing that was due on Aug. 13,” Kamenar added.

Almost all members of the House have reported their 2021 financial disclosures as required by federal law as of Wednesday morning, the New York Democrat is one of 10 House reps who have yet to report their finances.

AOC’s conscious decision to hold off on reporting her finances has drawn increased skepticism due to her very public stance in regard to her own colleagues’ finances. The congresswoman has repeatedly pushed to prohibit lawmakers from holding stocks, saying it is a “threat to democracy.”

In April, AOC called for a congressional stock-trading ban after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s success within the stock market raised alarms that she and other lawmakers could commit insider trading violations. (RELATED: Pelosi’s Husband’s Stock Trades Ahead of Key Vote ‘Stinks to High Heaven’)

“We are also tackling a crisis of faith in our institutions in the United States, and that exploitation of that crisis of faith is a direct threat to our democracy,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“It is our responsibility to ensure that we eliminate, again, that perception of impropriety because it is these perceptions that can be exploited to undermine our most sacred institutions,” she added.

READ NEXT: Biden CIA Director Linked to Chinese Communist Party During Tenure at DC Think Tank >>

North Carolina state lawmaker Wiley Nickel opposed bill to keep illegal immigrant criminals behind bars

In May 2019, an illegal immigrant in North Carolina tried to kill his ex-girlfriend just days after his release from prison. A month later, Democratic congressional hopeful Wiley Nickel opposed a bill that would have prevented the ordeal from happening again.

As a North Carolina state lawmaker, Nickel roughly three years ago voted against House Bill 370, which required sheriffs in the state to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers issued against illegal immigrants. Those detainers help ICE take custody of illegal immigrants when they’re arrested on local charges and subsequently released on bail. Just one month before Nickel’s vote, a self-described “progressive” sheriff’s refusal to honor an ICE detainer prompted a violent rampage.

On May 15, 2019, police arrested 37-year-old Honduran national Luis Analberto Pineda-Anchecta—who was deported from the United States in 2006 but reentered the country illegally—after he assaulted his ex-girlfriend. One day later, ICE placed a detainer on him, which, if honored, would have kept the illegal immigrant criminal in custody. But progressive Mecklenburg County sheriff Garry McFadden ignored that detainer, and Pineda-Anchecta was free to roam the streets following his release on bond on May 17, 2019. Four days later, Pineda-Anchecta kidnapped his ex-girlfriend, tied a rope around her head to keep her quiet, told her he intended to kill her, and took her to a secluded, wooded area near a highway. The victim escaped, and Pineda-Anchecta was later sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Three years after the incident, Nickel is running to replace outgoing Republican congressman Ted Budd in North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District. Nickel says he’s running in part to “support law enforcement” and make sure “everyone feels welcome and safe in our communities.” For the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, however, Nickel’s vote on House Bill 370 did just the opposite—the association supported the bill with “high priority,” arguing that it provided “an appropriate and careful balance under the Constitution for the rights of the accused and for the public safety of our communities.”

Nickel did not return a request for comment. His decision to vote against the sheriffs’ association-backed bill could become a flash point in his race against Republican Bo Hines, who has called to “enforce our laws, deport all criminal aliens, and save Americans from dying.”

Nickel first entered the political arena in 2006, when he ran for state Senate in his native California. Nickel lost to Republican incumbent Jeff Denham by approximately 20 points, despite funneling thousands of dollars of his own money into the race and running in a district that “was carved out specifically to elect a Democrat.” Nickel’s own family donated to Denham’s campaign before Nickel entered the race.

Nickel went on to work for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign before he launched another state Senate run in 2018, this time in North Carolina. He went on to serve two terms as a state legislator before announcing his 13th district congressional bid after Budd vacated his seat to run for U.S. Senate. North Carolina’s redistricting process made the district considerably less red, prompting the Democratic Congressional Committee to add Nickel to its “competitive ‘Red to Blue’ program.”

Nickel will square off against Hines in November. Both candidates have raised roughly $1.7 million as of June 30.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

WASHINGTON (Reuters)—U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday his administration would forgive student loan debt for many borrowers and would extend a pause on student loan repayments until Dec. 31 of this year.

Biden said on Twitter his administration would forgive $20,000 in student loan debt for borrowers who went to college on Pell Grants, and would forgive $10,000 for those who did not receive Pell Grants. The plan applies to those who earn less than $125,000 a year.

He said he would deliver remarks on the plan at 2:15 pm (1815 GMT).

(Reporting by Katharine Jackson, writing by Chris Gallagher; Editing by Rami Ayyub)

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Can their wall of white men forestall a red wave?

Proponents of racial and gender equity are fuming following the results of Tuesday’s primary election in New York state. Based on the outcome of several key House races, the Democratic Party and its voters remain as committed as ever to the perpetuation of white male supremacy in this country.

The Washington Free Beacon, a prominent female-led organization with people of color in senior leadership roles, is sickened by the Democratic Party’s hate-fueled war on diversity, equity, and inclusion. We are literally shaking right now.

New York’s congressional primaries were particularly contentious this year due to redistricting. In the state’s 12th Congressional District, for example, two incumbent Democrats—Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney—ran against each other for the nomination. Doing what comes naturally, the Democratic establishment lined up behind Nadler. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and the New York Times editorial board were among those who endorsed the white man over his female challenger.

“There is an old boys’ network that sticks together and they do not let women in,” Maloney said earlier this month. “I was friends with a lot of males that I worked with on the West Side and now they won’t even talk with me. They’re all with Jerry, just like glue.” Nadler won the primary by 30 percentage points, suggesting Democratic voters broadly support the party’s push for white male supremacy.

These disgusting racial and gender biases also influenced the outcome in the hotly contested 10th Congressional District, where Dan Goldman prevailed in the Democratic primary over a black man and an Asian-American woman. Goldman, who was also endorsed by the Times, isn’t your average white man. He’s a billionaire scion and heir to the Levi Strauss & Co. fortune who spent $4 million of his own money to ensure a person of color didn’t win the party’s nomination. He defeated state assembly member Yuh-Lin Niou and incumbent Rep. Mondaire Jones (D., N.Y.), who was widely viewed as a progressive rising star and champion of racial equity.

Goldman wasn’t the only white male Democrat who played a role in keeping Jones out of Congress. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D., N.Y.), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, invoked his white male privilege and bullied Jones out of running in the 17th Congressional District, which encompassed most of Jones’s old district prior to redistricting. Maloney’s power move forced the promising young black man to run in the 10th district where he would go on to lose. The white man proceeded to crush his female challenger, Alessandra Biaggi, by a 2-to-1 margin. Biaggi was backed by the Democratic Party’s most prominent woman of color, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), but voters were more comfortable with Maloney.

The Democratic Party’s aversion to nominating candidates of color is hardly a new development. In 2020, for example, Schumer and the party establishment spent more than $50 million on behalf of white candidates facing black challengers in Senate primaries. “Sen. Schumer, for whatever reason, did not want an African American running for Senate in North Carolina,” said state lawmaker Erica Smith, who would go on to lose the primary to “Creepy” Cal Cunningham, a white man who narrowly lost the general election after a Free Beacon alum exposed his extramarital affair.

In Texas, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also backed a white candidate in the state’s primary at the expense of Royce West, a qualified black legislator. In response, the Texas Coalition of Black Democrats denounced the party establishment’s “disrespectful” attempt to “rig” the primary. West called it a “slap in the face” and accused party leadership of “trying to lock African Americans out of the process.”

Meanwhile, Democratic politicians and their supporters continue to lash out at Republicans of color. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has been subjected to a torrent of racially charged abuse, as have Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) and Senate candidate Herschel Walker. In Pennsylvania, Democrats are backing John Fetterman, a white male trust-fund kid who once held an innocent black jogger at gunpoint, while ruthlessly attacking the Republican candidate, Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is trying to become the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Senate.

The Democratic Party’s demonstrated preference for white male candidates sends a powerful message that diversity, equity, and inclusion are little more than corporate buzzwords. Americans of good conscience are right to be outraged. Our children are watching. Shame!

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams received $150,000 in personal income from a mysterious limited liability company, Fox News reported Wednesday.

Abrams in her March financial disclosure said she is on the board of Dream Project Partners Inc., which paid her $150,000 between 2021 and 2022, according to the Fox report by Washington Free Beacon alums Joe Schoffstall and Cameron Cawthorne. The company appears to have no online presence, only appearing in Delaware business records that do not include the names of any managers or board members.

The Georgia Democrat, who is best known for falsely claiming she won the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, is on the boards of other controversial organizations, the Free Beacon has reported. While she says she opposes defunding the police, she cochaired an anti-police fund and remains on the board of a foundation that has repeatedly expressed support for abolishing police.

Abrams, who in 2018 ran as an unabashed progressive and last month blasted “out-of-state corporations and hedge funds,” has cozy relationships with shadowy millionaires and corporations. Much of her fundraising haul this year came from “wealthy coastal Democrats,” Axios reported. Abrams’s left-wing nonprofit, meanwhile, is bankrolled by a foreign billionaire’s dark money group, the Free Beacon reported.

Abrams’s campaign did not respond to Fox’s multiple requests for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Former Democrat Betsy Johnson has a history of voting with progressive opponent Tina Kotek

An independent Oregon gubernatorial candidate who pitches herself as a centrist has a history of voting with her progressive opponent.

Betsy Johnson and her Democratic opponent Tina Kotek have each served in the Oregon legislature since the mid-2000s. During that time, Johnson sided with Kotek on bills to decriminalize drugs, reduce incarceration, and impose one of the largest tax hikes in Oregon’s history.

The voting record may be a stumbling block for Johnson, who has sought to distance herself from what she’s called the “extremes” of partisan politics. The candidate has touted her “cross-party endorsements” and “no-nonsense” approach to crime and homelessness to gain an edge in a tight three-way race against Kotek and former Oregon House minority leader Christine Drazan (R.).

“Oregonians are distrustful of the radical right, and they are terrified of the progressive left,” Johnson said during the first gubernatorial debate in July. “There is a thirst for common-sense change.”

The same month, Johnson claimed she voted against Oregon’s drug decriminalization ballot measure, which she said “without question” worsened the state’s “substance abuse problem.” But she voted for a law to enforce the measure as a Democratic state senator in June 2021, months before she announced her candidacy. Johnson had served as a Democratic state representative and state senator since 2001 before she announced her run for governor in December.

A spokeswoman for Johnson’s campaign told the Washington Free Beacon that the former senator only voted for drug decriminalization “once the fate of the measure was already determined by Oregon voters.”

Overdose deaths in Oregon have been on the rise in the last few years, up 40 percent in 2021. Portland, the state’s largest city, set an all-time record for homicides last year.

In March, Johnson said her views “have not changed” since she entered the race.

“I still have my core values and those don’t change,” Johnson said. “I would describe myself as fiscally more conservative; socially very moderate, more to liberal.”

In 2017, though, Johnson joined with outgoing Oregon governor Kate Brown (D.) to push through a $5 billion infrastructure bill, which the governor hailed as one of her three biggest legislative achievements. The law added a four-cent gas tax increase. Johnson in 2019 also voted for a $2 billion corporate tax, driving up the cost of goods and services for business owners of all stripes in Oregon.

Johnson has also tried to position herself as tough on crime. In a November op-ed, she criticized Brown for signing a sweeping commutation order. But as a state senator, Johnson voted for a law that made nearly a third of the prison population—including convicted murderers—eligible for release as long as they demonstrated good behavior.

The former Democrat has said protecting “a woman’s right to choose” is one of three pillars of her campaign. She supports late-term abortions and boasts about having a stronger pro-choice record than Kotek. “I was on a Planned Parenthood board in Oregon before Tina was even an Oregonian,” she said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Jason Furman slams White House proposal: ‘Pouring roughly half trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning is reckless.’

Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $40,000 of student loan debt for households earning $249,000 a year is “reckless” and “indefensible,” former Obama adviser Jason Furman said Wednesday.

Furman, a Harvard professor who served as deputy director of the U.S. National Economic Council, denounced the administration’s proposal in a lengthy Twitter thread. “Pouring roughly half trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning is reckless,” he wrote. “Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise ($10K of student loan relief) and breaking another (all proposals paid for) is even worse.”

In response to a White House fact sheet citing examples of how the plan would help low- and middle-income Americans, the economics expert questioned why the administration would “design a policy that would provide up to $40,000 to a married couple making $249,000” and includes law and business school loans among those eligible for forgiveness. Furman also slammed the “incoherent, inconsistent [and] indefensible cherry picking” the White House used to argue the plan would not lead to increased inflation.

“There are a number of other highly problematic impacts including encouraging higher tuition in the future, encouraging more borrowing, creating expectations of future debt forgiveness, and more,” Furman wrote, adding that hardworking Americans “will pay for this either in the form of higher inflation or in higher taxes or lower benefits in the future.”

Many legal experts, including former Obama administration attorney Charles Rose, have argued that Biden lacks the authority to unilaterally cancel student debt. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) concurred with that assessment. “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” she told reporters in July 2021. “He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”

Furman noted these concerns while adding that even if Biden’s plan was “technically legal” it would not be a “reasonable” use of executive authority. “I don’t like this amount of unilateral Presidential power,” he wrote.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

‘The HEROES Act allows reservists leaving their job and family relief from making student loan payments’

Joe Biden justified his authority to forgive up to $20,000 in student loans per borrower by citing a nearly 20-year-old law for veterans, active-duty service members fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and victims of terrorism.

“All of this means people can start finally to climb out from under that mountain of debt,” Biden said in remarks from the White House announcing the loan forgiveness. “To finally think about buying a home or starting a family or starting a business. And by the way, when this happens the whole economy is better off.”

What Biden didn’t mention in his public remarks is the law he’s using to do so: the largely unknown Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. That bill was never meant to be a bailout for typical college grads, but a technical fix to benefits for active-duty troops.

The HEROES Act was signed into law by then-president George W. Bush as part of the federal government’s effort to provide financial security to soldiers fighting overseas. The bill grants the secretary of education the ability to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs … in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized.”

“By bringing a little more peace of mind to student soldiers, we are doing our part to protect them as they protect us,” said then-representative John Kline (R., Minn), the author of the bill, at the time.

The bill‘s stated purpose was to “provide assistance with [military personnel’s] transition into and out of active duty and active service.” The HEROES Act received little attention in the media. When the bill did make it into newspapers, reporters described it as support for soldiers called into active duty.

Here’s a Minneapolis Star Tribune headline:

Here’s a headline from the Daily Republican-Register in Mount Carmel, Ill.:

Then-Democratic senator and presidential candidate John Edwards (N.C.) faced criticism for delaying the passage of the bill. His reason? Edwards didn’t want the secretary of education to hold that authority.

Here’s how the Early Bird newspaper in Arcanum, Ohio, described the bill:

The Army celebrated the passage of the HEROES Act as evidence of the country’s “support for military personnel, allowing the secretary to address the needs of those serving now, and provide flexibility and relief for those who may need it in the future.”

The authority to pause or cancel student loan debt was meant to be temporary, according to a Bush statement at the time.

Source: The Washington Free Beacon

A progressive Virginia prosecutor this year dropped charges against a felon with a history of gun charges. Months later, that felon killed two innocent men.

In July, Francis Rose shot two “innocent bystanders” in the head while robbing an apartment complex in Alexandria, Va., according to police. In February, he was freed from jail by the office of Arlington County commonwealth’s attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti (D.). Rose, who was already on probation for illegally carrying a weapon in Washington, D.C., was arrested in October 2020 for possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine and fentanyl with intent to distribute.

The double murder is the latest instance where soft-on-crime Virginia prosecutors enabled violent felons. Dehghani-Tafti’s ally Steve Descano (D.), Fairfax County’s top prosecutor, released three offenders with gun charges who each went on to murder. Both prosecutors’ campaigns received over $600,000 from the Democratic megadonor George Soros. Like Soros-backed prosecutors across the country, Dehghani-Tafti and Descano have abolished cash bail and pushed for decarceration.

“What happened in Alexandria was senseless and tragic,” Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares told the Washington Free Beacon. “Unfortunately, it continues to be true that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by the same repeat offenders.”

Police announced the double homicide of Adrian de Jesus Rivera Guzman and his step-son, Juan Carlos Anaya Hernandez, on Tuesday. Rose’s victims were landscape workers who had escaped gang-led violence in their native El Salvador.

Arlington police arrested Rose during a traffic stop in 2020 after finding a loaded handgun, cocaine, and fentanyl on him. In February, a county judge ruled the search unconstitutional. The evidence was not legally admissible because the drugs and gun were “appended” to Rose rather than in the car, his defense attorney argued, according to the Washington Post. Dehghani-Tafti’s office dropped the charges following the judge’s ruling and criticized the arresting officers’ conduct.

But before the ruling, a prosecutor in Dehghani-Tafti’s office praised the officers’ conduct, according to the Arlington Coalition of Police. Her office held Rose in jail without bond for more than a year before his trial, the law enforcement group said, implying prosecutors believed the officers had acted lawfully.

Rose will appear in court on Oct. 28. He faces up to 40 years in prison for each count of second-degree murder. Juan Hernandez’s wife told the Post she hopes he will stay behind bars this time.

“I know that if he’s in prison, my son and husband, they won’t come back,” Laura Hernandez said. “But this man can’t get out. He can’t get out.”

Update 7:05 p.m.: This piece was updated to include comment from Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Nader Hashemi said Mossad agents likely recruited Rushdie attacker online

A University of Denver professor claimed that Israel’s secret security service, Mossad, could have been behind the attack this month on author Salman Rushdie.

Nader Hashemi, director of the school’s Center for Middle East Studies, said this week during a podcast that Rushdie’s alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, could have been persuaded to carry out the attack by Mossad agents posing as members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which reportedly was in contact with Matar prior to the near-fatal stabbing.

A “much more likely” scenario for the attack, Hashemi said, revolves around Matar’s supposed communications “with someone online who claimed to be an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps supporter and lured him into attacking Salman Rushdie. And that so-called person online claiming to be affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran could have been a Mossad operative.”

Hashemi’s comments drew widespread condemnation from Iran experts and those tracking the case, who said the professor’s remarks appear aimed at deflecting blame from the Iranian regime.

“Having followed Iran’s politics and the regime’s soft power for many years, I can say that one of the patterns among regime sympathizers in the West is that they usually try to downplay the regime’s guilt when grappling with a scandal,” Navid Mohebbi, advocacy director for the National Union for Democracy in Iran, a reformist group, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Instead, they propagate the probability that the regime’s foes, such as Israel, might have something to do with it to make the regime look bad. They often use dog whistles and other softer means. However, this time, it seems Mr. Hashemi slipped and said the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory part out loud.”

While Hashemi initially agreed to be interviewed by the Free Beacon about his comments, he later said via email that he had “been advised” not to speak with the publication, claiming it has “promoted odious views that I strongly object to on ethical grounds.”

Hashemi’s comments about Mossad’s supposed role in the attack were made on the Iran Podcast, hosted by Iran analyst Negar Mortazavi, who has written for publications including the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an isolationist think tank bankrolled by George Soros and Charles Koch. The Quincy Institute is a leading supporter of diplomacy with Iran and the Biden administration’s efforts to provide Tehran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Israel, Hashemi indicated during the podcast interview, is opposed to the Biden administration’s efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear accord and could have staged the attack as part of a plan to derail the negotiations.

Israel, Hashemi said, “has taken a very strong position against reviving the Iran nuclear agreement. We were in very sensitive negotiations, it looked like an agreement was imminent, and then the attack on Salman Rushdie takes place. I think that’s one possible interpretation and scenario that could explain the timing of this, at this moment, during these sensitive political discussions.”

The university distanced itself from the professor but has not yet taken any disciplinary action, citing free speech.

“Professor Hashemi spoke as an individual faculty member and does not speak for the university,” a University of Denver spokesman told the Free Beacon. “While we wholeheartedly respect academic freedom and freedom of speech, his comments do not reflect the point of view of the university, nor are we aware of any facts that support this view.”

Iran experts and pro-Israel officials told the Free Beacon that Hashemi’s comments could be seen as anti-Semitic since they feed into conspiracy theories about Israel and Jews. Though the University of Denver backed away from Hashemi’s remarks, university professors have been fired or disciplined for seemingly more minor offenses. Former Georgetown Law professor Ilya Shapiro, for instance, was forced to resign his position after he criticized President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Princeton University fired a distinguished professor, Joshua Katz, after he raised questions about the school’s racial politics.

Iranian dissidents and advocacy groups that track anti-Israel rhetoric online said Hashemi’s rhetoric is typical of those who attempt to downplay the Iranian regime’s terror plots.

Alireza Nader, an Iran expert who has worked with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the attack on Rushdie was purely fueled by Iran’s “decades-long incitement” and that “to claim that the Mossad was behind it is repugnant.”

CNN reporter Jake Tapper also called Hashemi out on Twitter, writing, “Why are you publicly suggesting Israel had something to do with the attack on Salman Rushdie? Do you have any evidence to support such an allegation?” Hashemi said in response that he made a “rational argument.”

“Hashemi’s baseless allegation of Israeli involvement in the attempted assassination attempt of Salman Rushdie is ludicrous and further exposes what many of us already knew—Hashemi is a bigot reeking of anti-Semitic bias,” said Liora Rez, executive director of StopAntisemitism.org. The group said it is featuring Hashemi in a series called “anti-Semite of the week.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon