Wednesday, July 31, 2024

24 GOP Governors Tell Biden Not to Sign WHO Pandemic Agreement

From The Epoch Times.com (May 23):

Governors from 24 states have joined together to speak out against treaty negotiations being conducted by the Biden administration that “would purport to grant” the World Health Organization (WHO) “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”

In a March 22 letter, the governors stated that they “stand united in opposition to two proposed instruments” currently under negotiation.

“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote. “If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health.”

The documents they refer to are a new treaty called the WHO pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR), which together would centralize a significant amount of authority within this U.N. subsidiary if the WHO declares a state of “health emergency.”

The letter was signed by the governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

During negotiations among member nations before the opening of the World Health Assembly on May 27, the WHO appeared to have scaled back some of the powers it had sought in hopes of finalizing a deal ahead of a vote on the treaty.

The latest IHR draft has deleted a prior provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to following the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are nonbinding.

The WHO had attempted in previous drafts to obtain powers over “all risks with the potential to impact public health,” which could include environmental and climate issues. The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority on diseases.

The WHO has simultaneously launched a public relations campaign, using politicians, celebrities, and religious leaders, to encourage member states to sign the agreements.

On March 20, WHO ambassador and former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the efforts of a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” that have come to the WHO’s defense.

“A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organization, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

He called for an international effort to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”

“No country will cede any sovereignty, and no country will see their national laws set aside,” he said.

The issue of whether or not to grant the WHO additional powers has become a partisan issue, with Democrats generally supporting the plan and Republicans generally opposing it.

GOP Senators Demand Right to Approve Treaty

On May 1, all 49 GOP senators signed a letter to President Joe Biden, urging him to either not sign the WHO Pandemic Agreement and IHR amendments or submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, as required by the Constitution. Senate Democrats have thus far not supported efforts to require Senate approval for the treaty.

“The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country,” the Republican senators wrote.

“The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic functions and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations or any new pandemic-related treaty that would increase WHO authority. We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.”

In the United States, the authority to deal with health issues is largely in the domain of states and outside the grasp of the federal government. States with Republican majorities have actively opposed the WHO agreements.

Louisiana and Florida recently passed laws stating that state officials will not obey WHO directives, and other states, such as Oklahoma, are considering similar legislation.

Attorneys general from 22 U.S. states also signed a May 8 letter to President Biden urging him not to sign the WHO agreements and stating that they will resist any attempts by the WHO to set public health policy in their states.

“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return. Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health.

“It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.” [source]

All governors should tell Briben not to sign the WHO pandemic agreement. Then again, the DNC governors (like Crooked Joe) probably don't care about America's sovereignty.

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Trump Classified Docs Case Dismissed

From Townhall.com (July 15):

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump on Monday morning, a massive win for Trump and a significant indictment of the Biden administration's legal attacks on the current president's political opponent.

In her decision granting Trump's motion to dismiss the case "based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith," Judge Cannon said Smith's appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland "violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution."

In addition, Judge Cannon found Smith's "use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appointments Clause."

The ruling means the classified documents case is now officially closed and, unless an appeals court or ultimately the Supreme Court disagree, there will be no further prosecution for Trump's handling of documents after leaving office.

Trump reacted to the order on Truth Social, saying "this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step" as "we move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday...followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts."

"The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME," Trump's post continued. "Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!"

The rationale behind Judge Cannon's ruling was raised by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with his concurring opinion in Trump v. United States. As Townhall reported on Thomas' opinion:

"To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be 'established by Law,'" says Thomas. "As James Madison cautioned, '[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.'"

Put succinctly by Thomas: "If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord."

When Attorney General Merrick Garland named Jack Smith as Special Counsel, "he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office...[n]or did he rely on a statute granting him the authority to appoint officers as he deems fit, as the heads of some other agencies have," writes Thomas. "Instead, the Attorney General relied upon several statutes of a general nature," none of which "appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose."

More from the opinion penned by Thomas on why Smith's appointment is invalid:

Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be... Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress...by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” ... So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.” [source]

This is good news! But of course, it's going to be appealed by the special counsel. If the Briben really wants to "lower the temperature", he can call off his DOJ dogs. Stop the witch hunt. No more lawfare against Trump, his supporters, and Christians. Basically anyone he feels doesn't follow the Left's narrative. That would be a good start. I doubt he would do any of my suggestions though.

Another article on the case:

Judge’s Dismissal of Classified Document Case Against Trump Explained

Monday, July 29, 2024

A Breakdown of the Assassination Attempt Against Trump


From The Epoch Times.com (July 14):

Former President Donald Trump was hustled off the stage with a bloodied face after a bullet pierced his ear during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. Authorities are now investigating what they’ve called an assassination attempt.

The attack marked the first shooting of a U.S. president or presidential candidate since President Ronald Reagan survived an assassination attempt in 1981.

Here’s a timeline of what happened at the shooting that led to the death of one rally-goer, with two more sustaining serious injuries.

6:02 p.m. —Trump Takes the Stage

Former President Trump takes to the stage to the tune of “God Bless the USA,” waving to the crowd under the scorching sun.

6:09 p.m.: Onlookers Notice Gunman on Roof

About two minutes before the first shot rings out, onlookers outside the rally are caught on video pointing out the shooter to law enforcement.

“Look, they’re all pointing,” one says.

“Yeah, someone’s on top of the roof,” another says.

The video zooms in on the shooter: “Yeah, he’s right there, you see him? He’s laying down; you see him?”

“Officer!” one shouts.

“He’s on the roof!” one woman says, sounding exasperated. “Right here, right on the roof.”

6:11:18 p.m. —Trump Speaks

In the final moments before the shooting, President Trump talks about illegal immigration, referencing stats displayed on two jumbotrons that show it was lower during his tenure.

Moments Before the Shooting: Police Officer Approaches Rooftop

Just before the shooting, a police officer with Butler Township attempts to approach the shooter by climbing onto the roof where he had positioned himself.

As the officer grabs onto the roof’s ledge to get on the roof, the shooter turns and aims his gun in the officer’s direction.

At this point, the officer lets go of the ledge, retreats, and reports the threat via radio. The shooter then opens fire on the rally below.

6:11:32 p.m. —Shots Fired

Former President Trump continues speaking about illegal immigration, and begins to say, “If you wanna see something really sad, look what happened over ...”

At this point, the first shot can be heard on camera. Six more shots also ring out in quick succession after the first.

Just milliseconds before, the former president had cocked his head slightly to the right.

6:11:33 p.m. —Trump Grabs Ear

Immediately after the shot rings out, former President Trump stops speaking and quickly grabs at his right ear.

Pulling his hand away, he then quickly drops to the ground behind his podium. The entire crowd behind him reacts just as quickly, also falling into a crouch behind the stage.

At the same moment, video footage appears to show a Secret Service sniper positioned on a rooftop behind the stage taking a shot in the direction of the shooter. In the moment before taking the shot, the Secret Service sniper can be seen looking into his scope to line up a shot.

Shouts begin to ring out from attendees.

Moments later, a Secret Service agent can be heard shouting, “Get down, get down!”

6:11:36 p.m. —Secret Service Comes Onstage

Former President Trump’s personal escort of Secret Service agents immediately bounds onstage as soon as it became obvious that something is wrong.

At this point, at least seven Secret Service agents swarm the former president, falling on top of him to cover his body from further shots.

“What’re we doing, what’re we doing?” one female agent can be heard saying. “Where are we going?” [read more]

A good play-by-play of what happened. I agree with Donald Trump Jr.: Trump is a badass. He is grazed, but not dazed.

Thank God President Trump wasn’t killed. It is still sad and terrible though that the hero fireman Corey Comperatore was murdered (RIP) and the two other rally goers were injured by the disturbed shooter. Just think Democrat representative Benny Thompson wanted to remove Trump’s secret service detail! Just horrible and evil.

Other articles and videos on the attempted assassination:

Friday, July 26, 2024

History of Slavery Part 4

When one of his slaves ran away, [Andrew] Jackson purchased an ad in a local Tennessee paper offering a $50 reward for his capture “and ten dollars extra for every hundred lashes a person will give to the amount of three hundred.” Three hundred lashes may be considered something close to a death sentence! It is this barbarism in Jackson—unthinkable for [Thomas] Jefferson—that defines his era and, weirdly enough, coexists with Democratic rhapsodies about how slavery is wonderful not only for masters but also for slaves.

No system of tyranny can be sustained, however, entirely through force. The Democratic master class recognized that it needed carrots as well as sticks, and beyond that, it needed a whole social system that would bind the slaves physically and emotionally to the plantation. So the master class created a slave system based on total dependency. The slaves, as [Frederick Law] Olmsted [travel journal writer] puts it, were encouraged to develop “a habit of perfect dependence,” so that even without the whip they could see no way out.

………..

Here, then, is [George] Fitzhugh [pro-slavery advocate] in a nutshell. He begins by noting that in every labor system there are basically two kinds of labor: free labor and slave labor. Fitzhugh concedes that at the first glance, free labor seems preferable to slave labor because the farm or factory laborer can leave his employer and go work for someone else or not work at all. By contrast, slaves cannot quit, cannot work for themselves and cannot refuse to work.

But Fitzhugh is unimpressed by this distinction, which he regards as meaningless in practice. He goes on to make an outrageous point. Free labor is actually enslaved labor, and slave labor is actually free. Free labor, Fitzhugh says, is dog-eat-dog. “The maxim, every man for himself,” he writes, “embraces the whole moral code of a free society.” The harsh competition of capitalism, Fitzhugh says, benefits the few and the strong while crushing the many and the weak. As a consequence of freedom, “the rich are continually growing richer and the poor poorer.”

………….

The beauty of slavery, according to Fitzhugh, is that it establishes an organic relationship between master and slave, not a relationship of contract but something more like a family. To those who say that slaves receive no compensation, Fitzhugh thunders that the considerable cost of maintaining a slave is the compensation. Moreover, the slave is provided for from cradle to grave. He is compensated, and his family is compensated, with food, shelter and care even when he is injured or sick or too old to work.

In a manner that echoes [Karl] Marx’s famous doctrine, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Fitzhugh contends that a farm or plantation is a sort of commune “in which the master furnishes the capital and skill, and the slaves the labor, and divide the profits, not according to each one’s in-put, but according to each one’s wants and necessities.”

The problem with the socialist theory coming into vogue in Europe and the northeastern states, Fitzhugh writes, is that it is “an ever receding and illusory Utopia.” Socialists, he says, are attempting the impossible task of changing human nature. Slavery, he declares, is an actually existing form of socialism that happens to be its only workable form because it is based on human nature as it is. Slavery achieves “the ends all Communists and Socialists desire.”

Source: Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party (2018) by Dinesh D'Souza.

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Mail fraud? Biden’s postal inspectors tracked pro-gun activists

From Washington Times.com (Sept 25, 2022):

The U.S. Postal Service monitored protesters across the country, snooping on Americans focused on issues involving guns and President Biden’s election, according to records obtained by The Washington Times.

Postal inspectors tracked the actions of gun rights activists gathering in Richmond, Virginia; people preparing to demonstrate against police in Louisville, Kentucky, after an investigation into the police shooting of Breonna Taylor; and far-right groups headed to the District of Columbia after Mr. Biden’s election.

Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Eddington obtained the heavily redacted records detailing the postal inspectors’ spying from September 2020 through April 2021, including through covert social media surveillance called the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP).

The records provide a rare glimpse into the breadth and depth of the Postal Service’s surveillance apparatus, which Mr. Eddington said was capable of reaching into every home and business in the country.

“The Postal Service cannot reliably deliver mail to my own home, yet they can find the money and people to effectively digitally spy at scale, including on Americans engaged in First Amendment-protected activities,” Mr. Eddington said.

A redacted situational awareness bulletin released in response to Mr. Eddington’s Freedom of Information Act request showed the U.S. Postal Inspection Service tracked “peaceful armed protests” by Virginians demonstrating at a Second Amendment rally for “Lobby Day” in Richmond on Jan. 18, 2021.

“The gathering lasted approximately two hours, with members identifying themselves as affiliates of the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois and Last Sons of Liberty,” the postal inspectors’ bulletin said. “Counter-protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement also attended. With heavy law enforcement presence the demonstrations stayed peaceful in nature.”

A September 2020 bulletin from an analyst working on the social media snooping program noted that Louisville was operating under a state of emergency in anticipation of an announcement regarding the state’s investigation into Ms. Taylor’s death. Details of the analysis were redacted, as was the analyst’s name.

Postal inspectors’ social media surveillance also determined that a “Million MAGA March” set for Nov. 14, 2020, would cause traffic delays in the District, Maryland and Virginia and noted that the event had been posted on a “conservative forum.”

Other bulletins from postal inspectors show analysts following social platforms including Parler and Wimkin. The Postal Service assessed on Jan. 12, 2021, that the deplatforming of Parler likely disrupted coordinated protests planned for Inauguration Day, which postal inspectors compared to the riot on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.

Multiple bulletins created by the postal inspectors include disclaimers that the reports are not intended to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights but to provide information to law enforcement about the potential for violence and criminal activity.

The postal inspectors’ reports also include a redacted threat to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and a redacted tweet threatening Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.

Asked about its surveillance of Americans, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said its inspectors are federal law enforcement officers charged with protecting Postal Service employees, infrastructure and customers.

“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service occasionally reviews publicly available information in order to assess potential safety or security threats to Postal Service employees, facilities, operations and infrastructure,” the agency said in a statement.

The Postal Service inspector general said this year that the postal inspectors’ surveillance overstepped law enforcement authority and may not have had legal approval.

The inspectors disputed that conclusion.

“We determined that certain proactive searches iCOP conducted using an open-source intelligence tool from February to April 2021 exceeded the Postal Inspection Service’s law enforcement authority,” the Postal Service watchdog said in a March audit. “Furthermore, we could not corroborate whether other work analysts completed from October 2018 through June 2021 was legally authorized.”

The audit said the Postal Service agreed to conduct a full review of the analytics team, a new name for the iCOP program, before a targeted deadline of Sept. 30, 2022, and would ensure its inspectors’ online surveillance activities were authorized.

The Postal Service watchdog’s investigation was a response to a request from the top Democrat and Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Eddington wants Congress’ oversight committees to investigate further and said he is appealing for the Postal Service to lift redactions on details of its spying on Americans.

He noted that the Postal Service kept a March 2021 bulletin largely censored, but Yahoo News already had published it without redactions. It showed postal inspectors examining “right-wing Parler and Telegram accounts” ahead of planned protests.

Mr. Eddington warned that people should not assume the Postal Service is the only federal agency snooping on their social media accounts.

Other private entities and state and local governments also have interests in tracking people’s social media usage. This week, The Dallas Morning News reported that at least 37 colleges had purchased a social media surveillance tool called Social Sentinel since 2015 and many had used it to track students’ posts, including about protests on campuses. [source]

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

The Biden administration has launched its war on pro-lifers

From The Washington Examiner (Sept. 26, 2022):

The FBI on Friday morning arrested a pro-life activist at his home for a 2021 scuffle with a Planned Parenthood activist.

The family and friends of Mark Houck said the scuffle involved an abortion activist harassing and screaming at Houck’s 12-year-old son until Houck shoved the man to the ground. In response, Houck’s family and friends have told reporters, the FBI this weekend sent a platoon of agents with weapons drawn to arrest Houck at his house.

Even if you take only the FBI’s version of the tale, the Biden administration assembled a grand jury, secured an indictment, and charged a man with a federal crime possibly carrying an 11-year sentence because he shoved another man who received “injuries … that required medical attention.” Because there is an extraordinary federal law protecting abortionists from protesters, sidewalk counselors, and rosary prayers, Houck is now charged with a federal felony.

This only makes sense in a political context. Specifically, the Biden White House and the Democratic Party on the state and federal levels have declared a legal war on pro-lifers, while vigilante abortion defenders wage a parallel war of arson, vandalism, and harassment.

“I met with many of you in my office at the White House,” Vice President Kamala Harris told Democratic state attorneys general at a conference on Thursday. “And we discussed the innovative strategies that you have used to defend women’s reproductive freedom.”

What are those “innovative strategies?” They seem to include the persecution of abortionists’ competition. The very first example Harris gave was: “You are taking on, rightly, the crisis pregnancy centers.”

The vice president, who has said she approaches abortion policy like “a prosecutor,” is siccing state attorneys general on the nonprofit organizations that serve mothers in crisis pregnancies because those nonprofit organizations don’t abort the babies that come through their doors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has said she wants crisis pregnancy centers “shut down.

That was the same day a crisis pregnancy center outside of Detroit was attacked for the second time, with death threats spray-painted. More than 70 such attacks have happened in the past few months, and the Biden administration has said and done nothing about it. It’s as if they’re fine with the threats, arson, and vandalism.

But a sidewalk scuffle brings in the full force of the FBI on one of the two men involved?

It sure looks like part of the Biden administration’s defense of abortion is to outlaw pro-life activity. [source]

Yea, the FBI shouldn’t have been involved. This scuffle is a matter for the local police not the FBI. Definitely abuse of power by the Briben regime.

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Research paper warns Biden's ESG farming campaign will cost consumers $1,300 more a year

From WND.com (Feb. 9):

It is estimated that Joe Biden's "global warming" plans for America's farm industry will push cheese costs for consumers up 78%.

And beef will go up 70%. And rice 56%. And chicken 39%. And eggs 36%.

“A typical family-of-four would have to spend an extra $1,300 per year to put food on the table,” according to a new report cited by the Daily Mail.

The details come from document from researchers at the Buckey Institute, a free-market think tank based in Ohio.

The group warns that Biden's agenda includes much higher costs for diesel, propane, fertilizer and more.

The Mail describes the Biden ideas as a "European-style climate policy," warning, "Farmers will push these costs on to consumers — meaning cheese, beef, and other everyday basics will cost as much as 80 percent more, raising a family-of-four's annual grocery spend by $1,300."

The authors of the report, Trevor Lewis and M. Ankith Reddy, noted, "'Federal policymakers are pursuing expensive climate-control and emissions policies that have largely failed in Europe."

Activists on the issue of climate change, which was "global warming" until the warming stopped, contend that farming hurts the environment, largely because of pesticides and fertilizers, and the release of methane by livestock.

Their conclusion is that farmers must lower their emissions – or they'll face "droughts, fires, floods, and other extreme weather events."

That's even though those "extreme" weather events haven't been increasing while the global warming activists say the temperatures are climbing.

The paper points to Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, the Paris Climate Accords, and his propensity for pursuing agendas that are "socially" correct, such as his "environmental, social and governance standards."

The report noted "climate" policies pushed nitrogen fertilizer, diesel and propane – all needed on farms, up 34%.

To illustrate this, they created a model of a hypothetical corn farm that had to abide by new federal environmental regulations and standards.

"'Oil and gas producers, chemical companies and the American farm will likely shoulder the heaviest compliance burden," the study said.

The report warned that would be on top of the double-digit inflation American consumers have faced under Biden's economic policies, which have surged prices some 17% or more.

"Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said it the report "confirms pir greatest fears about ESG investing." [source]

More sacrifices on the altar of the global warming cult.

Monday, July 22, 2024

EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Introduces Bill to Block Biden Administration From Closing Ports of Entry

From Daily Signal.com (Feb. 8):

Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a bill Thursday intended to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from closing critical international land ports of entry at the southern border. 

“[President] Joe Biden is harming American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, truckers and consumers by prioritizing welcoming illegal aliens over facilitating lawful commerce,” Cruz, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal in a statement.

“Joe Biden’s policy of transferring [Customs and Border Protection] agents from facilitating commercial border crossings to instead welcoming in illegal aliens has caused millions of dollars of economic damage,” Cruz said. “My bill ensures that lawful commerce will continue to invest in the Texas economy by prohibiting the Biden administration for closing ports of entry on the Southern border except in limited circumstances, such as physically assisting Border Patrol in detentions.”

The bill aims to protect U.S. commerce and trade coming across the border by prohibiting DHS from transferring staff from a port of entry along the border to assist with the processing of illegal aliens.

Republican Sens. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee are co-sponsoring the bill, the aim of which is stated to be:

To prohibit the transfer of Department of Homeland Security staff from an international land port of entry along [the] southwest border unless such transfer would not impact the processing of trade through such port of entry, such staff would be immediately replaced, or such staff are needed to actively engage in physical detentions to secure such border, and for other purposes.

Additionally, the bill requires the DHS to notify the House, Senate, and the public 24 hours before closing ports, and to explain which of the three exceptions are being used to justify the closure.

The Biden administration has previously pulled DHS staff from ports of entry to help Border Patrol agents process the thousands of illegal aliens crossing the southern border daily.  

Since Biden took office, more than 8.5 million illegal aliens have been encountered along America’s borders. In December alone, encounters along the southern border reached an all-time high of 302,000, nearly 10,000 a day.

“The Biden administration’s deliberate refusal to enforce the border isn’t just incompetence—it’s a blatant disregard for Americans’ safety,” Lee said in a statement Thursday. 

The Biden administration’s “attempts to obscure the magnitude of this border invasion are only adding insult to injury and causing significant economic damage,” the Utah lawmaker said, also noting that “before Christmas last year, President Biden closed off rail operations into the United States at various points of entry—hurting businesses and Americans, in order to process more illegal aliens through the border.”

After five days of being closed, the Biden administration reopened the rail crossings in Eagle Pass and El Paso, Texas, on Dec. 22. The crossings were reopened after Cruz sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas demanding answers as to why DHS had closed the rail crossings. 

William C. Vantuono, the editor-in-chief of Railway Age, said the railway closings were a “chokehold that cost the North American economy by some estimates as much as a quarter-billion dollars a day.” 

Cruz’s bill would prevent DHS from repeat closures in the future and, as Lee explains, “is a necessary countermeasure to hold this administration accountable for their disastrous policies and prevent them from inflicting even more damage on our country.”

The Texas Trucking Association, American Trucking Associations, Association of American Railroads, the National Feed and Grain Association, and the North American Export Grain Association have endorsed the bill.

Ricketts applauded Cruz’s bill in a statement Thursday, saying, “We cannot allow American consumers, businesses and producers to continue paying the price for President Biden’s refusal to secure our border.”

“I’m grateful to join Sen. Cruz in this effort to protect our critical trade routes,” the Nebraska senator said, “and provide critical oversight of any Biden administration staffing decisions that may impact American commerce.” [source]

Good. Instead of closing the ports, this regime should be closing the border until law and order is restored along the border.

Friday, July 19, 2024

Virtue Can’t Be Learned from Devices

From The Public Discourse.com (Sept. 25, 2022):

The COVID pandemic forced schools to manage the most rapid transformation of classrooms in our lifetimes. School administrators contended with lockdowns, quarantines, barriers, masks, distancing, and fear. The most consequential transformation was so-called “distance learning,” which sought simultaneously to impose and overcome physical absence from the classroom, substituting electronic networks and screens. Some schools have considered permanently adopting online tools and digital devices that were acquired during the pandemic. But before we accept screen-mediated schooling as inevitable or convenient, we should consider how this digital transformation might undermine schools’ educational missions.

If a core purpose of education is to help students become virtuous—intellectually and morally—then we must ask whether virtue can be learned virtually. We are not aware of any studies that even ask this crucial question. But if virtue cannot be acquired virtually, then the technological changes rationalized by the pandemic ought to be rejected.

Schools predictably adopted digital technologies to set up virtual classrooms because the standard crisis management playbook prioritizes operational recovery—i.e., restoring some version of the status quo ante. But amid the scramble for operational recovery, the educational mission and values of many schools were lost in the fog. With all the pressure to get back to delivering educational content, and to keep children occupied so parents could work from home, some schools lost sight of their core purpose—fostering intellectual and moral excellence, that is, virtue.

Cultivating Virtue

The development of virtue has long been the avowed purpose of education across public and private schools. According to a 2011 report, published by the Leonore Annenberg Institute of Civics at the University of Pennsylvania, “the role of schools as conduits for civic knowledge and virtue is deeply rooted in the American tradition.” Another report on the purpose of public education recognized the importance of developing civic character to American democracy: “A nation committed to democratic freedom requires citizens with the knowledge, skills, virtues and commitment needed for active engagement in public life.” In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.”

Private and charter schools often explain their educational missions by identifying the specific virtues they cultivate and esteem. If you survey prominent preparatory schools, you’ll notice a common aspiration that their graduates acquire through their education and exemplify in their lives such virtues as courage, generosity, wisdom, selflessness, humility, simplicity, honesty, and integrity. Similarly, the largest charter school network in the United States, KIPP Public Schools, lists “Focus on Character” as one of its five differentiating commitments, which includes an emphasis on gratitude.

Understanding Virtue

But is this central aim of schooling—helping students cultivate virtue—achievable in a virtual environment? To answer this question, first, consider the nature of virtue, which is an excellence of the soul. Specifically, following Aristotle, virtue is a state of the soul “which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well.” Cultivating virtues in children involves developing habits and dispositions to perceive, feel, judge, and act in the world in an honorable way. The foundation of any virtue, as a form of excellence, is discipline—restraining impulses, discovering and developing capabilities, and practicing behavior modeled on how a wise person acts.

We first learn virtue by developing a “kinship to excellence,” which requires guidance to recognize certain acts as noble and others as base. We learn not only by being told, but by feeling pleasure in performing noble acts and feeling shame when our actions are base. The teacher’s responsibility is to help us learn to recognize these natural feelings, and remember them, so that we can eventually use them in our own moral reasoning.

In order for students to learn these disciplines of the soul, they need a school environment in which a wide range of interactions can be practiced in a natural environment. This allows teachers to observe and interact with the students and help the students see and evaluate the natural consequences of their actions. The learning environment should also allow teachers to model virtuous behaviors to their students and, thus, to serve as exemplars. [read more]

Thursday, July 18, 2024

Biden White House facilitated DOJ's criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos

From Just the News.com (Aug. 22,2022):

Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump's estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president's claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.

The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump's Florida home.

By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor's claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.

The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump's Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.

The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump's lawyers summarizing the White House's involvement.

"On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes," Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" Wall wrote. "... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."

The memos provide the most definitive evidence to date of the current White House's effort to facilitate a criminal probe of the man Joe Biden beat in the 2020 election and may face again as a challenger in 2024. That involvement included eliminating one of the legal defenses Trump might use to fight the FBI over access to his documents.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and the committee's likely chairman if the GOP win control of Congress in November, called the Biden White House's involvement and privilege waiver "amazing news" with implications for past and future presidents.

"Look, the left, they've been out to get President Trump because President Trump's a threat to the clique, to the swamp, to the bureaucracy, to the deep state," Jordan told the "Just the News, Not Noise" television show Tuesday night. "Whatever term you want to use. And they all know it.

"That's why they were out to get him before he was in office, and they set up the whole Russia collusion hoax. It's why they tried to get him while he was in office. And of course, obviously they continue to do so now that he's left. It's just never going to end." [read more]

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

SCOTUS Delivers Major Blow to Big Government

From Townhall.com (June 28):

The Supreme Court on Friday morning announced its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and dealt a significant blow to the administrative state and the power wielded by federal bureaucrats.

The 6-3 ruling saw Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in the majority while Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

Originating with the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Stanford Law defines the doctrine as “the idea that in litigation over federal agency action, the courts will defer to the agency’s own construction of its operating statute, unless that construction is outside the range of reasonableness, usually because the meaning of the statute is clear.”

As applied over the last few decades, Chevron deference gave “the executive branch considerable leeway in determining the scope of its own power” and grew to become “a central pillar of the modern administrative state” as “a systemic thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the government’s view of the meaning of the statute, even if that view changes with political winds and even if it contradicts earlier judicial interpretation,” Stanford Law’s explanation states.

The majority’s opinion penned by Chief Justice Roberts states that "Chevron is overruled" and "[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."

"Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry," Roberts writes. "And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it." [read more]

Good!  It's about time Congress writes its own regulations instead of leaving it up to unelected, unaccountable government agencies to do their job which they can blame later on, saying it's not Congress' fault. The Left will bitch and cry, of course, because the behemoth administrative state is losing its regulatory power.

Other articles on the administrative state:

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Trump's Immunity From Prosecution

From Townhall.com (July 1):

The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 - citing Article II of the U.S. Constitution - that former President Donald Trump in his official capacity, and more broadly the office of the United States presidency, has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Elena Kagan, Kentanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party," the opinion states.

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," the opinion continues. "At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."

The Supreme Court did not define what an official or unofficial act is and sent that question back down to lower courts.

Former President Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social, saying, "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!" [source]

Good news for Trump and any other future presidents. The Left, as always, is freaking out. He isn't going to use the Navy Seals to execute an opponent of his. He'll use the Army Rangers instead.  All kidding aside, any respectable, decent soldier would ignore the order. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution pretty much defines the "criminal" part of the ruling. The key here is "official acts." Having someone killed for personal reasons is not an official act.

Monday, July 15, 2024

Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump

From The Federalist.com (June 28):

President Joe Biden isn’t known for telling the truth. So, it came as no surprise when the Delaware Democrat got up on stage to tell some pretty tall tales during Thursday’s debate with former President Donald Trump.

From the crisis he created at the U.S.-Mexico border to manufactured hoaxes about his opponent, there was almost no subject Biden didn’t lie about. Here are the 20 biggest whoppers he told during Thursday night’s matchup with the Orange Man.

1. Border Patrol Endorsement

Biden claimed he was endorsed by America’s Border Patrol union. That is not true. In fact, the Border Patrol Union issued a real-time fact-check Thursday night stating: “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

2. Trump Bleach Lie

Biden claimed Trump told people infected with Covid to inject themselves with “bleach.” Trump did not tell people to do that.

3. Illegal Border Crossings

Biden claimed “there [are] 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally” under his presidency than Trump’s. That isn’t true, as illegal border crossings have skyrocketed to record highs under Biden’s presidency.

4. Military Deaths

Biden claimed he’s the “only president this … decade” who “doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world” under his presidency. That is false. Thirteen service members were killed during Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.

5. Inflation

Biden claimed inflation was at 9 percent when he came into office. That statistic is false. The inflation rate when Trump left office was 1.4 percent. [read more]

As a reminder to how much Crooked Joe lies. He says he "knows how to tell the truth." Well, I don't think Briben would know the truth if he tripped over it.

Friday, July 12, 2024

Being Christian When Civilization Collapses

From Breakpoint.org (May 31, 2022):

If it seems as if the world is falling apart that’s because, in some very real ways, it is.

The news has been relentless, for a while now, but especially these past two weeks. After multiple mass shootings, the nation is grieving. People are angry that nothing seems to change.

According to the FBI, there’s been a 50% uptick in “active shooting incidents” since last year, and that’s not counting the shooting that left 21 dead in Uvalde, Texas. “The two attacks (in Buffalo and Uvalde) are not outliers,” announced National Public Radio. “Mass shootings happen in the U.S. with depressing regularity.” According to their count, 213 so far this year.

A variety of things and people are being blamed: access to guns, social isolation, politicians, talk show hosts, authorities, harmful ideas, and more. Behind events this tragic are a number of contributing factors.  At the same time, we can no longer think of mass shootings as isolated incidents. They must be understood as indications of social breakdown, along with spiking rates of addiction, overdoses, violent crime, suicide, sexual confusion, and even airplane incidents.

Last week, a friend reminded me of some insightful words from Chuck Colson. One can easily imagine Chuck Colson extending a similar analysis to today’s issues, “The problem is not gun control, poverty, talk-show hosts, or race. The problem is the breakdown of moral values in American life, and our culture simply cannot respond.”

In fact, Chuck Colson is not the only thinker to have pointed to the inevitabilities of cultural breakdown. “Great civilizations are not murdered,” wrote historian Arnold Toynbee. “They commit suicide.” In other words, civilizations do not last forever, and there are rules that determine whether or not they have a future.

At the recent Wilberforce Weekend, author and social critic Os Guinness stated that we are living in “a civilizational moment”:

“All the great civilizations reach a moment when they’re out of touch with the inspiration that made them. And there’s a critical transition moment when they either go towards renewal or down to decline.“

We are at such a moment, if not already past it. For example, a civilization cannot survive if it is not preparing for the future. The dual modern realities of debt, both individually and nationally, and demographics, especially the collapse of birth rates below replacement levels, indicate that as a people we live more for immediate gratification than a strong tomorrow.

Of course, in an ultimately meaningless world, there is no sense of tomorrow. And increasingly, studies reveal that our culture suffers from a catastrophic loss of meaning. This only makes sense for a culture already detached from ultimate categories of truth and identity, but that doesn’t make life here any easier.

At the same time, life, even at a time of cultural collapse, does not come to an end. People are born and die. They gather; they buy and sell; they create and invent. Civilizational collapse is never sudden, but almost always extends over decades and even centuries.

What can we do is a civilization disintegrating around us?

First, we must remember that although the challenges of this cultural moment are real, they are never the whole story. The whole story is, instead, the story centered on the person and work of Christ, the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the cosmos. The ending of that story is sure, despite the chaos of the moment.

Second, rather than withdraw from the challenges around us, we continue to give whatever good we can to the world. William Wilberforce, for example, not only lobbied against the slave trade but also fought to advance moral values in a corrupt nation. Our best efforts may not succeed, but that’s not why we do it. We do it out of love for God and neighbor.

Third, we must reject small compromises. Hannah Arendt wrote about the “banality of evil,” how in certain cultural moments, evil advances in mundane and seemingly harmless ways. Solomon is an example of this. The last half of 1 Kings 10 reads like a ledger of his remarkable success: extravagant wealth, imported horses and chariots from Egypt, and 700 wives (with accompanying military alliances and treaties).

However, Deuteronomy 17 records that, years before, Moses had instructed the Israelites about what their king should not do:

“He must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, “You shall never return that way again.” And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.“

The author of the Book of Kings knew exactly what he was doing presenting Solomon’s “success” as he did. His telling of the exploits of Solomon was in a way Israelite readers would understand.

Now, whether we’re in a time of decline or a time of amazing success like Solomon, the same response is required from God’s people. We must be faithful to what He asks us to do, to what He asks us to believe, and to how He instructs us to live.

In all of these things, we take up life in this moment as part of our calling. We are here because it is the time and in place He ordained for us. And so we move forward, keeping our eyes on the One who perfects and finishes our faith, Who will bring history to its final culmination. [source]

Thursday, July 11, 2024

Chinese Critical Mineral Investment Has Exploded Since Biden Signed Landmark Climate Bill

From Daily Caller.com (Mar. 3):

China has seen a huge increase in investment related to critical minerals essential for sourcing green energy products since President Joe Biden signed his signature climate bill in 2022, according to a recent analysis published by Australia’s Griffith University.

By way of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI), Chinese entities in 2023 massively stepped up their investments in mining minerals like lithium, copper and nickel, all of which are essential for manufacturing products like the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EV), according to the Griffith Asia Institute’s report. Last year’s totals for BRI mining investment grew by 158% relative to 2022, and the Griffith Asia Institute projects more growth in BRI investment targeting green energy, mining and related activities through the rest of 2024.

The BRI is a CCP-backed program that aims to build out a massive network of infrastructure projects and developments that reach around the world, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Critics have asserted that BRI investments and construction contracts double as a mechanism for China to lay debt traps for developing countries that can later give the CCP significant leverage over those governments.

Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law in August 2022, promising that the law’s allotment of $369 billion for green energy-related subsidies would make the American economy cleaner while spurring a resurgence in American manufacturing driven by mass-production of products like solar panels and EVs. Many of the bill’s critics pointed out that China’s dominance of supply chains for the raw materials needed to manufacture these products could lead to Chinese entities capturing the value of taxpayer-funded green energy subsidies or otherwise benefiting from the legislation.

In the first full year after Biden signed the law, Chinese entities invested more than $19 billion in mining-related projects, with about $15 billion of that investment poured into mining nickel, lithium, copper and aluminum, according to the Griffith Asia Institute. In 2021, the last full year before the IRA became law, total BRI investment in mining did not exceed $10 billion.

Numerous reports have emerged indicating that Chinese entities are looking to cash in on the IRA’s provisions purportedly designed first and foremost to benefit American enterprise. To access IRA loopholes, Chinese entities are maneuvering to access U.S. subsidies by establishing operations in places like Morocco, an American ally that is not excluded from benefiting from the bill, while other Chinese companies are positioning themselves to cash in by opening up shop in the U.S. using joint ventures or subsidiaries.

U.S. companies have also made many substantial investments in green energy initiatives with the help of the IRA’s robust subsidies. Since Biden took office, the private sector has poured more than $360 billion into green energy-related investments, according to the White House.

“I’m not — we’re not looking to hurt China, sincerely,” Biden said during a September 10, 2023 speech in Vietnam. “We’re all better off if China does well — if China does well by the international rules. It grows the economy … we’re not looking to decouple from China.”

Nevertheless, there is some level of apprehension within the administration about Chinese green energy products. Beyond concerns about Uyghur Muslim slave labor’s alleged links to Chinese green supply chains that have persisted for years, the administration announced Thursday that it is probing certain types of Chinese EVs perceived to pose potential national security and intelligence risks.

“China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,’’ Biden said in a Thursday statement. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.”

The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment. [source]

Well, of course. Crooked Joe would rather help America's enemies than America herself.

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Biden Admin Flew 320K Migrants Into US Last Year

From Newsmax.com (Mar. 5):

The Biden administration has used secretive flights to transport migrants into the U.S., adding to the massive influx at the southern border, a Center for Immigration Studies' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit discovered.

The center's Todd Bensman first reported that the FOIA suit discovered that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) approved secretive flights that last year alone transported 320,000 illegal immigrants from foreign countries into at least 43 different U.S. airports.

"This administration is both importing voters and creating a national security threat from unvetted illegal immigrants," Elon Musk posted on X while sharing a DailyMail.com story about the secretive flights.

"It is highly probable that the groundwork is being laid for something far worse than 9/11. Just a matter of time."

While Democrat-led cities and media have focused on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's initiative that has bused migrants from the border to elsewhere in the U.S., the CBP has refused to disclose the airports where the secretive migrant flights landed.

The agency's lawyers say the airport locations can't be revealed because those hundreds of thousands of CBP-authorized arrivals have created such "operational vulnerabilities" at airports that "bad actors" could undermine law enforcement efforts to "secure the United States border" if they knew the volume of CBP One traffic processed at each port of entry, according to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

The CBP One scheduling app is part of the administration's "lawful pathways" strategy, with its stated purpose being to reduce the number of illegal border entries between ports of entry. The countries whose citizens are eligible are Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and Ecuador.

Thus, migrants who cannot legally enter the U.S. use the app to apply for travel authorization and temporary humanitarian release from those airports. The administration's parole program allows for two-year periods of legal status during which adults are eligible for work authorization.

The government characterizes these programs as "family reunification programs," according to CIS.

In 2022, the Biden administration used taxpayer money to move migrants throughout the country on overnight flights. [source]

So, the illegals just strolling across the border isn't enough, the regime has to secretly fly them in? Okay. 

Tuesday, July 09, 2024

2024 is the new 1984: The rise of the Security Industrial Complex

From John & Nisha Whitehead on WND.com (Feb. 8):

2024 is the new 1984.

Forty years past the time that George Orwell envisioned the stomping boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

Fueled by a melding of government and corporate power – the rise of the security industrial complex – this watershed moment sounds a death knell for our privacy rights.

An unofficial fourth branch of government, the Surveillance State came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military.

It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, D.C.

This is the new face of tyranny in America: all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful.

Tread cautiously.

Empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community and the private sector, the Surveillance State is making the fictional world of "1984," Orwell's dystopian nightmare, our looming reality.

What we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.

In this way, "1984," which depicted the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism, has become an operation manual for the omnipresent, modern-day Surveillance State.

There are roughly 1 billion surveillance cameras worldwide, and that number continues to grow, thanks to their wholehearted adoption by governments (especially law enforcement and military agencies), businesses and individual consumers.

Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses and homes. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices.

Stingray devices, facial recognition technology, body cameras, automated license plate readers, gunshot detection, predictive policing software, AI-enhanced video analytics, real-time crime centers, fusion centers: All of these technologies and surveillance programs rely on public-private partnerships that together create a sticky spiderweb from which there is no escape.

With every new surveillance device we welcome into our lives, the government gains yet another toehold into our private worlds.

What this adds up to for government agencies (that is, FBI, NSA, DHS agents, etc., as well as local police) is a surveillance map that allows them to track someone's movements over time and space, hopscotching from doorbell camera feeds and business security cameras to public cameras on utility poles, license plate readers, traffic cameras, drones, etc.

It has all but eliminated the notion of privacy enshrined in the Fourth Amendment and radically re-drawn the line of demarcation between our public and private selves.

The police state has become particularly adept at sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector.

Over the past 50-plus years, surveillance has brought about a series of revolutions in how governments govern and populations are policed to the detriment of us all. Cybersecurity expert Adam Scott Wandt has identified three such revolutions.

The first surveillance revolution came about as a result of government video cameras being installed in public areas. It's estimated that Americans are caught on camera an average of 238 times every week (160 times per week while driving; 40 times per week at work; 24 times per week while out running errands and shopping; and 14 times per week through various other channels and activities). That doesn't even touch on the coverage by surveillance drones, which remain a relatively covert part of police spying operations.

The second revolution occurred when law enforcement agencies started forging public-private partnerships with commercial establishments like banks and drug stores and parking lots in order to gain access to their live surveillance feeds. The use of automatic license plate readers extends the reach of the surveillance state that much further afield.

The third revolution was ushered in with the growing popularity of doorbell cameras such as Ring, Amazon's video surveillance doorbell, and Google's Nest Cam. No longer do police even have to request permission of homeowners for such access: Increasingly, corporations have given police access to footage as part of their so-called criminal investigations with or without court orders.

The fourth revolutionary shift may well be the use of facial recognition software and artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics, clothing, behavior and car, thereby synthesizing the many strands of surveillance video footage into one cohesive narrative, which privacy advocates refer to as 360 degree surveillance.

While the guarantee of safety afforded by these surveillance nerve centers remains dubious, at best, there is no disguising their contribution in effecting a sea change toward outright authoritarianism.

These cameras – and the public-private eyes peering at us through them – are re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear and, in the process, empowering "people to not just watch their neighborhood, but to organize as watchers," creating not just digital neighborhood watches but digital gated communities.

Finally, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity.

As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, "In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be."

No one knows, but it's a pretty good bet that the surveillance state will be keeping a close watch on anyone seen as a threat to the government's chokehold on power.

After all, as I make clear in my book "Battlefield America: The War on the American People" and in its fictional counterpart "The Erik Blair Diaries," the Surveillance State never sleeps. [source]

Welcome to the brave new world where Big Gov is God. At least that's the Marxist Left's dream.

Monday, July 08, 2024

SCOTUS Rules Unanimously on Trump Ballot Case


From Townhall.com (Mar. 4):

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday morning that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in its decision to boot former President Donald Trump from the Centennial State's primary ballot based on the state body's finding that Trump violated a portion of Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution dealing with insurrection.

The unanimous 9-0 opinion from the Supreme Court made it clear that "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," and therefore the "judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand."

In a post on Truth Social, former President Trump celebrated the unanimous decision as a "big win for America!!"

Trump's counsel of record in the matter said that Monday's "unanimous Supreme Court decision underscores the bedrock principles of our democracy and the rule of law," in a statement from Harmeet K. Dhillon, founder and managing partner of the Dhillon Law Group. "This victory is not just for President Trump but for the integrity of our electoral system and the rights of voters across the country," Dhillon added. "The attempt to use the 14th Amendment in this manner was a dangerous overreach that, if left unchallenged, could have set a perilous precedent for future elections."

As summarized by SCOTUS in Monday's opinion:

A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.

Former President Trump challenges that decision on several grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

The high court did find that, in a more limited situation, "[s]tates may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," but "[s]tates have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

That's because the states' "power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates. Because federal officers ‘owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,’ powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically 'delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States' ... But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates."

The Supreme Court's decision is more bad news for anti-Trump leaders in a handful of states that have sought to prevent Trump's supporters from even having the option of voting for him. Such markedly anti-democratic actions of the leftists who often lament the end of democracy were, rightfully, struck down by the Supreme Court this week.

As a result of the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, Colorado's Secretary of State acknowledged the ruling that found "states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates" and in a statement said, "[i]n accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado's 2024 Presidential Primary."

Leaders not just in Colorado but also in Maine and Illinois had run afoul of the Constitution in their attempts — betraying a lack of confidence in Democrats' ability to beat Trump — to sideline the opposition by any means necessary. Monday's ruling means no state can boot Trump from the ballot as Colorado tried to do.

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Monday's "ruling confirms what Republicans have been arguing: the American people get to pick their candidates, not activists or bureaucrats. The effort to kick Donald Trump off of the ballot was pure election interference from the left, and the RNC was proud to fight in the Supreme Court alongside President Trump’s campaign and other Republican partners to preserve voters’ right to make their voices heard," McDaniel added. "We look forward to continuing to fight and beat Democrats in court over the coming months." [source]

Good. There's still hope for America.

A video and articles on the matter: