Longstanding U.S. Neglect Toward the Western Hemisphere Is Paying Dividends -- For China

 For more than a decade, China has been carefully and strategically making commercial, diplomatic, and even military inroads in Latin America and the Caribbean. Now, Beijing reportedly is building a military facility on the northern coast of Cuba, less than 100 miles from the United States. Our response has been less than impressive.

It is not as if Beijing’s multi-pronged strategy to increase its presence in the Western Hemisphere has escaped Washington’s attention. Even in the late 1990s, I and several other Members of Congress expressed concern that Chinese companies (all of which ultimately answer to the governing Chinese Communist Party) were establishing commercial beachheads at both entrances to the Panama Canal, just as Panama gained control of the strategic waterway pursuant to the treaty signed with the Carter Administration in 1977. Our concerns fell on deaf ears.

In 2018, a smiling President Xi Jinping was photographed next to Panama’s president, alongside the Panama Canal.

Chinese trade with countries in the region has soared in recent years, ballooning from $180 billion in 2002 to $450 billion last year. China’s investments have included everything from mining and agriculture projects to infrastructure and communications technology that has surveillance capabilities.

China’s diplomatic gains in the region have been no less significant, with Paraguay the only South American country that still recognizes Taiwan.

Even in the Bahamas, a one-hour flight from Miami, China’s presence is far larger than ours. Not coincidentally, the U.S. Navy maintains a major test and training facility in the Bahamas.

While there is little the United States can do to directly thwart China’s commercial and diplomatic moves in the region, our failure to articulate and maintain anything approaching a coherent strategic policy for the Western Hemisphere in the decades since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, has made it easy for China to make inroads.

Moreover, the relations Beijing has established in the area can negatively impact our interests.

For example, two years ago a U.S. Coast Guard cutter was refused permission to dock at a facility in Argentina. Argentina has been a long-time ally of the United States, but now maintains strong political and economic ties with China.  

Of far more immediate concern than the lengthening list of Chinese economic and political moves throughout the region, is Beijing’s growing presence in Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the southernmost tip of Florida.

President Obama giddily reestablished relations with Cuba in 2015, but appears to have secured nothing in return that might have provided some assurances that our adversaries, including China and Iran, would not be permitted to use the island nation for their own nefarious purposes.

In a move that reportedly started in 2019 but which now appears to be gathering speed, China is constructing a military facility on Cuba’s northern coastline; one that reportedly incorporates training and intelligence gathering capabilities.

U.S. military leaders, especially Army General Laura Richardson who heads the U.S. Southern Command, appear clearly to understand the gravity of these Chinese moves. In remarks during her 2021 Senate confirmation hearings, Richardson echoed her predecessor’s concerns, in telling Senators that China’s plans in the region are “very sophisticated” and clearly are designed to project “sustain[ed] military power.”

Unfortunately, the red flags raised by our own military leaders do not appear to have had a discernible impact on congressional leaders or the White House in terms of articulating any meaningful policy initiatives.

The Biden Administration does little more than repeatedly express “concern” about China’s burgeoning influence in the area.

Although some Members of Congress have raised red flags over China’s surveillance capabilities in Cuba, on the broader level little is happening on Capitol Hill. The Senate, for example, has failed even to pass a bill (S.1519, the “Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act of 2023”) that would simply direct the Departments of State and Defense to develop a “multi-year strategy” for our “diplomatic and security” policies in the hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the GOP-led select committee charged with examining strategic competition with China appears more concerned with narrow, partisan issues than with understanding and proposing measures to counter China’s aggressive moves in our own backyard.

Mention has been made recently about the “Monroe Doctrine” as a possible tool with which to address the problem. It will, however, take far more than a policy articulated in 1823 designed to thwart further European colonization in the Western Hemisphere, to address the extremely serious threats now facing us in the region, especially from Communist China.

The 'Loneliness Epidemic' That Is Hurting Americans and America

 

When the Surgeon General of the United States this month issued an official “Advisory” on  Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation, I was inclined to dismiss the paper as just another example of the federal government spending taxpayer money on an issue over which it has no reasonable jurisdiction. 

While the Loneliness “alarm” published by Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy is in fact another taxpayer-funded project over which there is no reasonable basis in the Constitution giving Uncle Sam legitimate jurisdiction, the nation’s “Top Doc” is actually onto something here, even if he fails to consider one of its primary causes.

Humans are fundamentally “social animals,” and for millennia social relationships have provided the context in which cultures develop and thrive (or not). Social discourse is the medium in which advances are made, in everything from the sciences to philosophy and from medicine to government structure. Failure to engage socially on both individual and collective levels can be, and demonstrably are, factors contributing to stagnation at the micro and macro level.

The very form of government and social structure embodied in our Constitution is framed as a “social compact.” Without social interaction, interpersonal discourse, and mutual understanding, the relationships between the citizenry and government, and the checks and balances incorporated into our constitutional republic, will no longer provide the essential ingredients for us to remain free.

There are, as Dr. Murthy describes in his Advisory, other very real benefits to social interactions.

The Surgeon General notes that isolation from fellow humans has been shown to diminish an individual’s mental and physical health, even leading to increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and dementia. The good doctor goes a bit far in declaring that loneliness can contribute to a person’s mortality to the same extent as “smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day” – a claim that led to headlines, but which lacks sourcing that clearly provides evidence for the conclusion. However, his thesis that socially active people generally are more likely to enjoy healthy lives than those who live apart from others, is well-made.

Additionally, Dr. Murthy correctly identifies that among the loneliness epidemic’s primary causes is the pervasive influence and easy availability of alternatives to inter-human interaction – namely, social media and other forms of non-personal communication. As illustrated graphically in the Advisory, over the past nearly 20 years, individuals’ “social engagement with friends” and with “others” have dropped dramatically, even as evidence of “social isolation” has increased significantly.

While the two-year long COVID pandemic increased both individual and social loneliness, the trends noted by the Surgeon General long predate the onset of COVID and the socially disastrous government responses to it (a valid topic for a far more lengthy “advisory”).

Dr. Murthy does not limit himself to identifying the problem and causes of loneliness and social isolation. In his Advisory and in subsequent interviews, he offers a number of ways to begin what will be at best a long road to recovery. Among these are recommendations to “scale back on social media” (an understatement), to actually “listen” and pay “attention” to other people (in my view, a completely lost art in today’s hyper-partisan political arena), and to “serve others” by civic volunteerism.

Kudos to Dr. Murthy for emphasizing the importance and benefits of such activities.

One factor that exacerbates the isolation and loneliness pervasive in contemporary America, but not discussed by the Surgeon General, is the divisiveness that results directly from the fact that in today’s society, great emphasis is placed on driving people and groups apart based on all manner of real or perceived factors.

It actually makes it harder for individuals to interact positively with each other when they are bombarded with signals if not demands that people must be differentiated and categorized according to artificially designated barriers such as race, gender, or political preferences. 

Dr. Murthy’s Advisory did not touch on this major cause of social disruption, and perhaps it was beyond the scope of his effort; but if we are to take his warning to heart and actually endeavor to solve the problem he identifies, it is imperative that we openly and actively resist the ongoing drive for social tribalism and ostracism.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s True Agenda Is the Destruction of America’s Culture

 

Since its founding in 1971 as an organization with the laudable mission of fighting the KKK and other white supremacy groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has raised hundreds of millions of dollars with which it has leveled countless legal and public relations attacks against various “hate groups.” 

Money aside, however, the SPLC is today a shell of its former self, beset with internal unrest and displaying a muddled focus. The Center no longer maintains the aura of invincibility that for decades made it essentially immune from serious legal challenges.

Much of the Center’s current troubles can be traced to 2019, when a major scandal centered on sexual harassment allegations forced the ouster of its co-founder and long-time leader, Morris Dees. Perhaps as a result of that major setback, the SPLC appears to have lost its sharp edge, and now appears to be targeting “hate” groups for no clear reason other than because it can.

The Dustin Inman Society, based in a northwest suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, has found itself in those SPLC crosshairs because it has, since its founding in 2005, vocally opposed illegal immigration. 

The SPLC on the other hand, has long defended immigration, so it is no surprise that for years, the Center expressed its dislike for the Dustin Inman Society and its founder, D.A. King. That changed, however, in 2018 when the SPLC decided to list the small Dustin Inman Society as a “hate group,” and noted it as such on the Center’s website.

In response to being thus targeted by the SPLC, the Dustin Inman Society sued the Center for defamation. In a decision last month, the federal judge before whom the lawsuit is pending in Alabama, ruled that the SPLC would have to submit to discovery by the Society. The judge’s refusal to dismiss the complaint likely surprised the SPLC’s lawyers, because for the first time it opened the door for a group targeted by the Center to be able to conduct extensive discovery probing how and why it decides to attach the “hate group” label to an organization. 

This move will likely have far-reaching consequences for the formerly invulnerable SPLC.

The SPLC’s problems are not limited to the setback it suffered in the Dustin Inman Society lawsuit. One of its own lawyers, Thomas Webb Jurgens, was arrested earlier this Spring and charged with domestic terrorism as one of the suspected Antifa agitators involved in violent disturbances surrounding the construction of a new police training center in Atlanta (in January, another protestor was killed by police in an exchange of gunfire at the same construction site).

In contrast to its listing of the Dustin Inman Society as a “hate group” because of its lawful advocacy against illegal immigration, the SPLC steadfastly has refused to label Antifa similarly.

More baffling even than the SPLC’s double standard for deciding what groups merits the “hate” label, is the Center’s ongoing fascination with “male supremacy.” Earlier this week, for example, an opinion piece featured on the SPLC website declared that the . . . Threat Of Male Supremacy Is Growing. Interestingly, however, for a category of “hate” that is supposedly “growing,” there appears only a single such entity on the Center’s most recent national “Male Supremacy Hate Map.” 

That recent article on “male supremacy” was preceded in April of this year by a much longer piece also on the Center’s website, titled Male Supremacy Is At The Core Of The hard Right’s Agenda authored by Cassie Miller. It is this treatise that displays the true motive for the Center’s focus on such an odd topic as “male supremacy” – a vehicle by which to target traditional American culture and those who the SPLC considers to be its supporters; namely, Ron DeSantis (whose picture figures prominently in the opinion piece), Donald Trump, and the Republican Party. 

Also featured in Ms. Miller’s screed against masculinity is a photo montage of a traditional American family, consisting of a father, a mother, and two children walking hand-in-hand. That picture appears directly beneath the heading “HATEWATCH,” and it tells you everything you need to know about the true agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Note to the GOP -- Having a Clear Strategic Plan Is Far More Important Than Short-Term Tactical Wins

 There remains but two months before the current federal fiscal year ends September 30th. Half of that remaining period will be spent by lawmakers in their home states and districts during the traditional August recess.

When the Congress reconvenes after Labor Day, the Republican Party will be in a position to either strengthen its currently slim majority in the House, or risk losing it.

Much depends on whether the GOP can discipline itself to stick to a strategy that is laser-focused on the 2024 election, rather than on passing bits of legislation playing largely, if not solely to its base for short-term gain.

A key factor in this equation is whether the appropriations process -- which even in the most nonpartisan of times presents a messy picture to the American electorate – can be managed by Speaker McCarthy in such a way as to avoid a government “shutdown,” which already is being whispered in the corridors under the Capitol dome.

Some Republican budget hardliners claim to not “fear a government shutdown,” and others look to “stare down” Democrats. The fact of the matter is that in recent decades, so-called “shutdowns” rarely benefit the Party orchestrating them.

Forcing a shutdown over specific issues (even very important ones), such as spending on abortion or constructing a few more feet of a border wall, may reap short-term political gain, but likely will come with long-term political harm.

Historically, pushing the budgetary process to a stand-off with a president of the other political party rarely has demonstrably helped the party driving the process in the Congress; and then only if it is part of a coherent and consistent longer-term strategy.

The best example of this is in the late 1995-early 1996 budget showdown between the then-new GOP House majority led by Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton, who at the time was still licking his wounds after a historic shellacking in the 1994 mid-terms.

At the time, that three-week long “shutdown” was a public relations nightmare for the House GOP majority (I know, I was there as a freshman Member from Georgia). But the long-term benefit was historic.

The goal of the stand-off was not simply to pass a fiscal year budget or to force Clinton to accept as part of that budget bill a particular appropriations rider. Rather, the plan was to draw a bright line in the sand that told Clinton and the American electorate that the new Republican majority was serious about balancing the budget and putting the nation’s fiscal house back in order.

The strategy worked wonderfully, and by the middle of the very next year (1997) both the House and the Senate had passed, and Clinton had signed legislation that in fact balanced the federal budget for the first time in nearly three decades.

Contrast that strategically planned budget showdown with the much longer (at 34 days) December 2018-January 2019 stare-down between the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Donald Trump. At the time, Trump was demanding funds for his preferred border and immigration policy initiatives. The resulting impasse was part of a tactical skirmish, not of a strategic plan.

In the end, the 2018-2019 shutdown, despite being the longest in our history, achieved little if anything of lasting importance for either political party or for the country.

Whether the American people will witness yet another “shutdown” this Fall (or next year even as voters will be casting early ballots in many states) remains uncertain. It is not clear if McCarthy will agree to even a partial omnibus “reconciliation” spending bill this year if there remain one or more of the dozen appropriations bills that could not win a majority of votes before the end of September. Whether the far-right Freedom Caucus insists absolutely that favored abortion or immigration limitations be included in certain of the spending measures also remains to be seen, but the signs already are indicating moves in that direction.

Becoming bogged down in a shutdown slugfest may please former President Trump cheering from the sidelines, but it would be a strategic blunder for the Party; signaling to the electorate beyond the GOP base that the current leadership lacks the strength and the vision to effectively govern, and perhaps even to be awarded a second, two-year term in the majority.

Governing is a serious game, and maintaining and projecting a clear and consistent strategy is far more important than any short-term tactical achievements. Unfortunately, with rare exceptions in recent years, the GOP seems not to understand that principle.

Hunter Biden Is Still Under Criminal Investigation, and Now We Know What for

 When Hunter Biden agreed to a sweetheart plea deal back in June, his attorneys said they were confident the federal investigation and case against him was over.

"With the announcement of two agreements between my client, Hunter Biden, and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware, it is my understanding that the five-year investigation into Hunter is resolved," Biden attorney Chris Clark said at the time.

U.S. Attorney David Weiss contradicted that statement and said there is an ongoing investigation, but didn't specify why or what they were looking into. When Hunter's plea deal fell apart in federal court Wednesday, we found out why.

During a back and fourth with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreikam, Department of Justice prosecutor Leo Wise was asked if the government was looking at charges for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). He said yes, explaining the plea deal offered to Hunter Biden didn't protect him from future prosecution.

    🚨🚨🚨

    Today, the Department of Justice revealed Hunter Biden is under investigation for being a foreign agent.
    — Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) July 26, 2023

Recommended
‘On the Same Team’: DOJ Exposed for Colluding With Hunter Biden’s Legal Team
Katie Pavlich

    NBC's Tom Winters says on MSNBC the plea deal is in jeopardy after Hunter Biden's legal team demanded the deal also cover *future* prosecution of the First Son, even if they're not directly related to the charges filed thus far.

    Obviously, the judge & prosecutors disagree. pic.twitter.com/KIf7T2PXFn
    — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 26, 2023

Hunter made millions of dollars overseas on behalf of his family and with his father, President Joe Biden. He never registered as a foreign agent.

According to the Department of Justice, "The penalty for a willful violation of FARA is imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Certain violations are considered misdemeanors, with penalties of imprisonment of not more than six months, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both."

Democrats Try to Go After Moms

Progressives love to label people they don’t like, makes it easier to “otherize” and round them up later, and progressives love to round people up. What they call people has little to no connection to reality, but being disconnected from reality is a feature of the left, not a bug. So, who are the latest “monsters” these left-wingers have decided to demonize? Moms.

Yes, you read that right, moms. The lady who made your PB&Js, who dressed you as a child, the woman who gave you life! Now moms are the problem in politics, according to the Democrat Party.

How did moms top the list of problematic Americans? Simple: they cared about their kids.

To be more specific, they cared about what was happening in their kids’ schools, what they were being taught, and conversely, what they weren’t being taught.

Moms noticed the left-wing indoctrination while “distance learning” during COVID. They were able to pay attention and heard an endless stream of anti-American lies and gender insanity with their own ears. They were also able to see the education of their children take a backseat to these and other left-wing concerns. Kids couldn’t read or do basic math, but they knew to dutifully obey whatever pronouns some classmate in need of therapy insisted was real on a daily basis. Moms were not amused.

The thing about moms is, provided they aren’t awful or junkies or named Biden, they care about all kids, but they really, really care about their own kids. Millions of moms caring about their own kids is an army; a political force that will not take “no” for an answer.

Moms mobilized over what the political left is doing to their kids is a force Democrats haven’t faced before. The suburban mom was their backbone, their saving grace. Suburban white women carried Democrats over finish line after finish line. But that was before they were caught messing with their kids. (Note I said “caught,” not started. Democrats have been indoctrinating kids for years, parents just didn’t see how bad it was for themselves until school via Zoom. That changed everything.)

After they noticed, moms started showing up to school board meetings demanding to know what the hell was going on. Democrats lied. More insanity and denials of reality flowed from schools, Democrats lied about it. Finally, voters led by these mothers tossed out school board members across the country. That was a bridge too far for the left.

Democrats do not care if you don’t like them, they don’t care if you oppose them, it’s when you strip them of power that they take the gloves off. The number of children hurt, the amount of lives damaged does not matter as long as they maintain their grip on power. Moms, particularly white suburban moms, turning on them is not acceptable.

Enter the Southern Poverty Law Center and the media.

The SPLC, in the way a parasite protects its host, declared moms who’d rather their kids learn how to read, write and do math than how to best get their genitals removed so as to avoid the social stigma of being the only “normal” kid in class, to be “extremists.”

The Associate Press, themselves very good lapdogs for Democrats, burped up a DNC press release using the SPLC as its backbone. “‘Mama bears’ may be the 2024 race’s soccer moms. But where the GOP seeks votes, some see extremism,” the piece was titled.

On what planet is that news? How does left-wing groups not liking parents paying attention to what they’re doing to kids a shock to anyone? Roaches run when you turn on the lights, Democrats freak out when you see them clearly.

The AP wrote, “These conservative mothers and grandmothers, who in recent years have organized for ‘parental rights,’ including banning discussion of gender identity in schools, have been classified as extremists by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

In case you’re playing the home game, the score of number of people shot after being inspired to do so by either these mothers or the SPLC is 0-1. Yes, the SPLC has gotten more people shot than all these “extremist” mom groups combined. (The SPLC inspired a man to march into the Family Research Center determined to murder everyone there because they’d been declared a “hate group.” He shot a security guard who was ultimately able to stop him from following through on his mass murder plot.)

As always happens with Democrats, they drive whatever buzzword of the moment into the ground and strip it of all meaning. Everyone and everything is called “racist” so frequently that no one pays attention to it anymore. What they don’t call racist they call sexist, again to unimpressive results. Every Republican presidential candidate over the last 25 years has been called either “Nazi” or “worse than Hitler," or both.

Now “extremist” is their new scare word, only no one is scared. No one cares, at least no one with an IQ larger than their shoe size. Which means it’s the perfect motivator for the MSNBC/CNN crowd and will help Democrats keep their base in line. Thankfully, it doesn’t work on normal people anymore.

Will This Be Enough to Seal the Deal on a Biden Impeachment?

  former associate of Hunter Biden will testify in a closed-door hearing about what he witnessed working with the president’s son, specifically the sleazy government access deals that have placed the Biden White House in the impeachment crosshairs. Based on information obtained by a confidential source of the FBI, Joe and Hunter Biden each allegedly received $5 million in bribes from Burisma.

As we’ve known for months, Hunter was on their board to provide a legal shield, which they got. While serving as vice president, Joe fired the prosecutor looking into the Ukrainian energy company. The FBI’s FD-1023 report from their confidential human source (CHS) also notes that a ledger of the payment and recorded phone calls exist.

After the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated, something many of us knew back in October 2020, it revealed the entire operation, including shell companies established to funnel money garnered from some Romanians. The Biden administration continues categorically denying that Joe was aware of Hunter’s activities, a defense that was gutted by a member of Biden’s own party.

    YIKES: Rep. Dan Goldman was trying to prove that Joe Biden was not implicated in the IRS Whistleblowers' allegations, but instead accidentally showed that Joe Biden did discuss foreign business dealings with his son Hunter. pic.twitter.com/6nyEhfm36G
    — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 19, 2023

    Thank you, Democrat Representative Dan Goldman, for helping expose another lie told by Joe Biden! pic.twitter.com/Sho4zFEs2s
    — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 20, 2023

And now Devon Archer is going to hopefully shed more light on this emerging scandal (via ABC News):

    Devon Archer, a former best friend and business associate of Hunter Biden in Ukraine, is expected to testify under oath to Congress this week that President Biden met with dozens of Hunter’s business associates while he was serving as vice president between 2009 and 2017.

    Fox News Digital has confirmed that Archer has been subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee and could testify as early as Thursday, July 27. The expected testimony could cast further doubt on President Biden’s repeated claims that he had no knowledge of his son’s foreign business dealings or of having any influence on them.

    Miranda Devine, a New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor, reported Monday that Archer, 48, is expected to tell the House Oversight Committee about meetings he witnessed attended by both Bidens — Hunter and Joe — either in person or via telephone. During the meetings, Hunter would specifically introduce his father to foreign business partners or prospective investors, Archer is expected to testify.

    […]

    According to Devine, Archer, who was also a director, is expected to testify that the call between Joe, Hunter and Hunter’s business partners came after he and Hunter had dinner with the Burisma board at the Burj Al Arab Hotel. Archer and Hunter reportedly left the meeting and traveled to the Four Seasons Resort Dubai at Jumeirah Beach when Vadym Pozharskyi, a senior Burisma executive, called them and said Zlochevsky needed to urgently speak with Hunter.

    The two Ukrainians then reportedly joined Hunter and Archer at the Four Seasons, where Pozharskyi specifically asked Hunter, "Can you ring your dad?"

    According to Devine, Archer is expected to testify that Hunter called his father, who was in Washington, D.C., at the time, and introduced the Ukrainians by their first names. Then the younger Biden emphasized that the Burisma executives "need our support."

    Then-Vice President Biden acknowledged the Ukrainians, as he did in other calls with Hunter’s business partners, but kept the conversation brief, Archer is expected to testify.

Joe needed the Justice Department to interfere in all investigations into his son. The roads lead back to him. The IRS built a compelling case for charges stemming from Hunter Biden's bogus system of finding tax-deducible events, namely his trysts with hookers. Joseph Ziegler and Gary Shapley presented their case for why the DOJ meddled in their investigations.

Both men are respected and reliable sources. Ziegler is a gay Democrat. Nothing disreputable about these two IRS agents who have come forward to detail the alleged malfeasance they experienced from DOJ officials. It’s why Democrats or Hunter Biden’s attorneys couldn’t smear them.

We got a glimpse into the narrative that Joe and Hunter tag-teamed these government access deals when the latter’s WhatsApp messages to a Chinese counterpart were revealed, which caused Hunter’s attorney to lose it. It seems Mr. Archer will add more to it in the coming days.

    ...Goldman was trying to show that the witnesses did not mention a substantive role of Joe Biden, Shapley immediately noted that it did mean that he came to discuss one of the Hunter's deals. The President continues to deny that fact. https://t.co/h3KQUfI743
    — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 19, 2023

    ...Unfortunately, time ran out. With a few more minutes along this line, Goldman could well have sealed the case for the appointment of a Special Counsel.
    — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 19, 2023

Joe Biden using Saul Alinksy - Rules for Radicals on his opponents.

 

Evil In The White House

 Sound of Freedom lives up to the advance publicity, documenting “the true story of former government agent Tim Ballard who quit his job to rescue a little girl from sex traffickers in the Colombian jungle.” Ballard saved 123 people, 55 of which were children, from one mission alone.

Ballard, played in the film by Jim Caviezel, now runs Operation Underground Railroad, to continue the fight to rescue children from sex trafficking and sexual exploitation.

But the Ritter case is one more example of how the problem reaches deep into American society.

Ritter, recently interviewed by RFK Jr. about Russia’s war on Ukraine, was convicted of sex crimes in 2011 after exposing himself on a web camera while chatting with an undercover detective who identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.

In a shocking development, Tucker Carlson, formerly of Fox News, launched a new show and interviewed Andrew Tate, a so-called social media influencer who is presented as a role model for young men but has been accused of human trafficking and rape. Tate denies the charges and has sued the accusers.

The case of Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden, has also been linked to human trafficking.

Representative James Comer says one Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) at the Treasury Department “connects Hunter Biden and his business associates to international human trafficking, among other illegal activities,” involving foreign and American prostitutes. Comer and other Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform allege Biden’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,

Hunter Biden’s lawyers have denied the charges and say their client is not associated with a human trafficking ring.

The Sound of Freedom only goes so far, in that it focuses on child trafficking networks in Latin America when the movie concedes at the end that pedophiles in the United States are the biggest customers.

Jeffrey Epstein’s deepest and darkest secret was that he was a practicing homosexual and that his entourage of young girls provided a cover story that actually made him seem “respectable” to the movers and shakers in New York and Washington, D.C.

On Thursday, in Washington, D.C., a group of conservatives is putting pressure on the Roman Catholic Church in America to stop facilitating illegal immigration and child trafficking.

Sheena Rodriguez, President/Founder of the Alliance for a Safe Texas, will speak on illegal immigration and child trafficking at a news conference at the National Press Club.

Since January 2021, there have been over 356,000 UACs (unaccompanied minors) encountered at the southern border, a majority of which have been released into the U.S….” notes Rodriguez. “The Biden administration has admitted they do not keep track of their whereabouts when they are released into the U.S. With the use of taxpayer dollars, tens of thousands of children are simply missing.”

Tara Lee Rodas, a Health and Human Services whistleblower who testified before Congress, said she discovered that children entering the U.S. “are being trafficked through a sophisticated network that begins with being recruited in the home country, smuggled to the US border,” and then delivered to a “sponsor,” some of whom are criminals and traffickers and members of Transnational Criminal Organizations.

The Roman Catholic Church had a role — and still has a major role — in facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S. Indeed, in the face of declining membership, new immigrants arriving in the United States, including many Catholics from Latin America, provide new members and priests. Catholic Charities is among the NGOs which facilitate the migration of illegal aliens into the interior of the country

While one focus of the Thursday news conference is cutting off government contracts to the Catholic Church which facilitates illegal immigration, an equally serious problem is the failure by men of God and their employees to protect children in their care.

Director Amy Berg exposed the cover-up of pedophilia in the Catholic Church in her 2006 Oscar-nominated documentary, “Deliver Us from Evil.”

To put it bluntly, the Catholic Church bureaucracy in the United States has surrendered to the forces of Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism in the Catholic Church is one focus of the Thursday news conference, as participants intend to highlight the bishops’ “politicking for the Democratic/communist agenda.”

The Archbishop of Washington, Wilton Gregory, has decided that Joe Biden is a Catholic in good standing and deserves Holy Communion.

Wilton Gregory’s predecessor, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, resigned from his leadership of the archdiocese in 2018 after he was accused of covering up sexual abuse. His predecessor as archbishop of Washington was the disgraced former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic leader ever to be removed for sexually abusing a minor.

As a prosecutor and Attorney General in California, Vice-President Kamala Harris refused to take on sexual abuse by priests. As she began her presidential run, Harris announced that she supported the decriminalization of “sex work” – prostitution.

One of the main forces behind this movement is the Soros-funded “Sexual Health and Rights Project,” which pushes special “rights” for prostitutes.

The church under Pope Francis has its own playbook, with Cardinal Peter Turkson — a close adviser to Francis — telling “Axios on HBO” the Catholic Church “plans to be increasingly active on climate, refugees and racial equity.” In other words, change the subject.

Hence, at the Thursday event, Trevor Loudon will speak on the man-made climate change hoax.

With the Sound of Freedom projecting over $85 million total cumulative box office revenue through Sunday, with a strong $27 million box office draw in the second weekend of the film’s domestic release, it is clear that much more work needs to be done.

The film notes that the United States is the largest consumer of child sex in the world but it is also true that the U.S. is the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs.

Today, the U.S. has become a narco-state, with George Soros having provided $300 million to weaken or dismantle laws against illegal drugs.

“We see trafficking of illegal drugs and human trafficking often happen together,” notes the Drug Enforcement Administration.”

In fact, the failure to stop human trafficking may be directly related to the demoralizing impact of drugs as a sabotage weapon waged by our enemies, blinding the American people to the reality of evil in our midst.

Clearly, Hunter’s sexual activities, including fathering an illegitimate child with a stripper, was related to his heavy drug use, including cocaine.

Now, with the failure of the Secret Service to reveal who brought cocaine into the White House, the situation has become more dangerous.

On July 12, the agency disclosed, “the Secret Service received the FBI’s laboratory results, which did not develop latent fingerprints and insufficient DNA was present for investigative comparisons.  Therefore, the Secret Service is not able to compare evidence against the known pool of individuals,” defined as the “hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered.”

Thus, the Secret Service’s investigation was “closed due to a lack of physical evidence.”

It is apparent the investigation was closed because the agency did not want to identify the obvious culprit or his enabler.

Maoist Thugs Target Christians, With Support From Justice Roberts

 With all that’s happening in the United States and the world, you may have missed the ruling from our “conservative” Supreme Court on May 29. The “conservative” Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, joined the four liberals in ruling that churches are not entitled to First Amendment protections and that they have to obey the dictates of liberal governors.

Two days later, St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. went up in flames as rioters were threatening to attack the White House.  The more than 200-year-old church sits near Lafayette Park, across from the White House, where Secret Service agents and police fought with communist agitators.

It appears that arsonists have better access to churches than the parishioners.

In other anti-Christian actions, graffiti was written on St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York that included BLM, standing for Black Lives Matter, and “F–k F–k” in red letters. In Louisville, Kentucky, professional protesters broke windows in the rectory of the Cathedral of the Assumption. They were then boarded with plywood.

I returned to the disgraceful Roberts ruling after contemplating the Bible readings for May 31, including the Gospel of John 20:19-23, about the disciples of Christ hiding in a room because they were scared of the religious authorities of the day. Suddenly the resurrected Christ appeared and they were given the spirit of God and the authority and power to defeat the demonic forces of the secular world. The rest, as they say, is history, except that many of today’s ministers are hiding in rooms, conducting fake church services over the Internet, some with “spiritual communion,” rather than the real thing. They defend their sanitary “church services” with a camera crew while wondering when the state will decree that they can meet with real people. Many such “virtual” services conclude with requests for online donations for the invisible collection plate. After all, the religious bureaucracy that depends on the state for favors and even grants must be fed.

I watched one “virtual” service over the Internet on Sunday night, with the minister reciting the reading about Jesus appearing to his disciples after rising from the dead and showing them his hands and his side, the evidence of the crucifixion. The reading says, “The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’”

The minister reading these words didn’t seem to comprehend the significance of telling the story of disciples hiding in a room while he read the Bible from a small room himself, filmed in isolation so it could be presented to his flock through a computer connection.

It’s a fact that many of today’s ministers are afraid to challenge the secular authorities of this era, such as “Lockdown Larry” Hogan, the Republican Governor of Maryland, or Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California.

A major exception is South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California, which challenged Newsom’s lockdown order that resulted in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling against the First Amendment.

Charles LiMandri, the Chief Litigation Counsel for the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, handled the case for the church and its pastor, Bishop Arthur Hodges. He insists it was not a complete dismissal of South Bay Church’s case but was “largely based on the very high standards required for our obtaining an emergency injunction.”  LiMandri noted that Roberts’s ruling was “a solo concurring opinion with little to no precedential value.” That is true but the implications of this 5-4 opinion are nonetheless startling. This is a real decision with practical consequences.

The four dissenting justices, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, said the California restrictions were clearly discriminatory. The dissenting opinion noted, “In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.”

That’s right: the secular authorities have determined that marijuana businesses selling dope have more rights than churches. It appears that the stoners are more inclined to vote the way the liberals want them to vote.

The conservative Catholic writer, Vic Biorseth, noted that it was the “conservative” Roberts who approved Obamacare when he changed the nature of the legislation in a controversial court ruling and “illegally adjudicated it into law.” Yet, it was unconstitutional on its face, to begin with. “So it doesn’t matter what the law under consideration says, nor does it matter what the Constitution says; all that matters is the balance of the partisan division on the Court and which way the political wind is blowing at any particular moment in time,” commented Biorseth.

The wind in today’s “moment in time” is to close down churches while keeping pot shops, abortion clinics, and liquor stores open. That’s how communist riots in the streets can be termed “unrest” and “peaceful” by the secular press. But when five members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, accept this garbage, you know we as a nation are in deep trouble.

Biorseth concludes, “If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the government is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning, and America has lost it very purpose for being.”

Those are strong words. But when Roberts joins the four liberal justices to restrict Christian worship in California, can we explain it any other way? And isn’t it a fact that the churches, for the most part, have become slaves to the state, willing and even anxious to please the corrupt authorities?

Another Reason Republicans Lose

 Did you see the big “IRS Whistleblower” hearing this week? You probably didn’t, CNN and MSNBC ignored it live, ABC News didn’t bother mentioning it and even Fox cut away from it when The Five started because there’s news and then there’s ad sales they don’t want to blow out. But don’t worry, you didn’t miss much. Not that there wasn’t news, big news, to be had in the hearing, because there was. It’s just that it was buried under Democrats lying and Republicans grandstanding. If you want to know yet another reason how it is Republicans manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, look no further than that mess on Capitol Hill this week.

There’s a place for Congressional hearings, at least there used to be. There was a time when they were used to gather information to inform legislative decisions, or to expose corruption everyone knew was unacceptable. Now nothing is unacceptable, absolutely nothing. If some disgustingly corrupt act is committed by someone on “your team,” who cares?

If Hunter Biden had videos of himself murdering prostitutes, Jamie Raskin would declare they probably had it coming, and it’s a private matter anyway. These leftists truly are that disgusting.

Not a single Democrat at that hearing had any concern or serious questions for two career IRS employees who alleged the First Family has engaged in systemic corruption and tax evasion. They simply didn’t give a damn.

It wasn’t surprising that Democrats wouldn’t care, they didn’t care when Barack Obama sent the IRS after his political opponents or when Bill Clinton raked in a fortune in campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese government, including $200,000 laundered through a Buddhist Monastery populated by monks who’d taken a vow of poverty. Democrats simply do not care about corruption by Democrats any more than they care all the murders of Democrats by Democrats in Democrat-controlled cities. If something or someone can’t help them politically, they might as well not exist.

As disgusting as that is, it’s not surprising. It’s what Democrats have been for at least the last 50 years. The real problem is what Republicans have become.


 That hearing wasn’t ultimately worthless because of the witnesses, they were great, or the Democrats, who didn’t fail to be themselves. It was rendered mostly worthless because Republicans are simply horrible at messaging.

Maybe it’s because cable news only seems to have a group of about 15 Members of Congress they cycle through constantly? That leaves the rest to wither on the vine, making hearings be seen as more of an audition for cable news hits than information-exposing events?

Something has to explain why Republican after Republican asked essentially the same questions; why they each wasted time not only thanking the witnesses for being there, but pronouncing them heroes for doing so. You may think it rude that I’d suggest they skip the formalities, but each only had 5 minutes to ask questions, every second matter. Peacocking for the camera is a sign of narcissism and is not helpful.

What Republicans should do in hearings like this is every single member should cede their time to one or two Congressmen who understand how to question witnesses for maximum impact. Imagine if a skilled questioner had drilled down on the complete story with these witnesses. Morning Joe would’ve been lost to counter a thorough explanation of the entire story of how people who produce nothing raked in millions from industries they know nothing of and managed to avoid paying any taxes on that money for so long the statute of limitations ran out, meaning they’ve gotten away with it completely.

Instead, we got what? Marjorie Taylor Greene showing in-action nude sex pictures of Hunter Biden with likely trafficked, possibly under age (who knows?) prostitutes on television. Noting against MTG, they’re real pictures and Biden needs to be investigate for his part in human trafficking and possible child sex ring. (Because, honestly, would it surprise you at all?)

Yet, by showing those pictures you gave the left something to be outraged over; a distraction they desperately needed. All they’d had to that point was a few members whining about the arrest rate of black people and Donald Trump. In other words, these one-trick-ponies only had their one trick…until they were given a new one.

I get that these people want to be seen doing their jobs by their constituents, but their job is more than being seen on TV. It’s supposed to be accomplishing things, and in hearings getting information. They didn’t do any of that, at least not in any lasting way. They repeated themselves and bored their audience.

President Ronald Reagan famously said, “On my desk in the Oval Office, I have a little sign that says: There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.” He was probably the last Republican with that mentality. Now it’s “I don’t really know or care what the point of this is, I just know if I come up with a good line there’s a chance I’ll get booked on Fox.”

Trump Warns Democrats About Sending Him to Prison

 Former President Trump is warning Democrats that the implications of sending him to prison would be for the extremist party, saying it would be very dangerous.

During an interview on The Simon Conway Show, Trump was asked how his massive group of supporters would react if the 45th president were behind bars at the hands of the Left’s politically motivated scheme— sparked by Special Counsel Jack Smith.  

“I think it’s a very dangerous thing to even talk about,” Trump added, “because we do have a tremendously passionate group of voters, much more passion than they had in 2020 and much more passion than in 2016. I think it would be very dangerous.”

As Trump anticipates a third indictment over his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol Hill protests, the former president attacked Smith claiming the Democrats are trying to interfere again with the next presidential election.

“The Democrat prosecutors waited years to bring charges so that they could interfere with the 2024 presidential election. they are getting, however, big blowback!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Continuing his rant about the corrupt legal system operating under President Joe Biden, Trump said that for the first time in history, “the USA, lawyers, and the legal system itself, are under siege… all a gift from crooked Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and deranged prosecutor, Jack Smith!”

Smith is currently investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and his actions related to the January 6 insurrection. According to a letter addressed to the 2024 GOP hopeful, the far-Left Biden official told Trump that he is the target of the probe.

Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) and former Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) have reportedly been contacted by the federal special counsel instigating the matter.

In 2020, Arizona “voted” for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1996. Trump reportedly called Ducey several times, asking him to investigate the possibility of election fraud after mainstream media called the state for Biden.

At the same time, Kemp— a long-time supporter of Trump— avoided making any endorsements for Trump’s claims that the Georgia election was somehow interfered with.

John Kennedy Calls Out Dems for Their Racism Against Clarence Thomas in a Way Only He Can

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee did their markup on "ethics" legislation that is targeting the U.S. Supreme Court, all while hit pieces have come out against the conservative justices, especially Justice Clarence Thomas. Republicans have vowed to block it from passing. While the Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act did only pass out of Committee with votes from all Democrats, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) got an amendment in there that condemned racism against Thomas.

    KENNEDY: Democrats’ SCOTUS Ethics Bill “is dead as fried chicken!” pic.twitter.com/aVrC5xxy26
    — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 19, 2023

The amendment passed unanimously, which might be somewhat surprising, given that Democrats themselves are the ones who have gone after Thomas with such vitriol, as has been brought up at previous hearings. They also took some time in getting there with their support. As is the case whenever Kennedy makes a point, his remarks about the amendment are one for the ages.

Kennedy needed to dumb it down for Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who needed clarification that the amendment would only refer to Thomas, as she insisted in bringing up "we condemn racism against any justice."

"I don't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be a black man, has been the butt of a lot of racist statements. And I don't understand reluctance to condemn those. And that's what my amendment does," Kennedy pointed out, as he went on to make clear "I don't want it watered down, I don't want to bubble wrap it, I don't want to sugar coat it, I want to say, big as Dallas, the United States Senate condemns all these racist things that have been said against Justice Clarence Thomas."

Kennedy also reminded that another senator could simply put forth another amendment "to condemn every racist thing that has ever been said in the history of ever," which he would vote for.

It's not as if the examples aren't there. Less than a week before the markup took place, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who once served in the U.S. House of Representatives, likened Thomas to the house slave Stephen in "Django Unchained," who turned on his fellow slaves and was loyal to his sadistic master to the very end.


"Are there are any of the other nine justices who have been subject to such racist attack in the last few days from a sitting Democrat in the state of Minnesota, who disgusting--has anyone else been subject to those kind of attacks as frequently, as brazenly, and as unapologetically," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Kennedy during the time that had been yielded to him.

Kennedy in his response emphasized "it would be unconscionable for this Committee not to condemn this kind of rhetoric against Clarence Thomas!

    . @SenJohnKennedy offered an amendment condemning racist comments made against Justice Clarence Thomas by Democrats like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison likening Thomas to a house slave.

    *Senator Whitehouse encouraged all Democrats to vote against the amendment* pic.twitter.com/kebDR3BVyN
    — Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) July 20, 2023

Shockingly, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) "urged my fellow colleagues to vote no," since he claimed "I consider this to be not relevant to the matter at hand, and further it specifically requests the Biden administration to inject itself politically into a law enforcement decision that the Biden administration, I think quite properly, has avoided getting involved with."

Kennedy became increasingly passionate as the discussion went on, reminding that the scope of the amendment is condemning such remarks like those from Ellison. "I mean does anybody here support that kind of rhetoric? I don't! I don't think you do! And this kind of rhetoric hasn't been directed towards... John Roberts... Neil Gorsuch, it's been directed towards Clarence Thomas! And it's un-American, it's unconscionable, and I can't believe we wouldn't condemn it!"

"I don't care how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin," Kennedy said, responding to Whitehouse's callous reasons given for why the amendment shouldn't pass. "Don't-don't try to pretend that this is, uh, some sort of a, uh, technical, um, mistake in this amendment! It's not complicated! You don't have to be a senior at Cal Tech to figure it out!"

As he reminded once more, his amendment "says all of this stuff at Clarence Thomas, calling him a house slave, and all other racist, disgusting statements, we condemn! Now you either condemn it, or you don't. And that's all this amendment does."

Whitehouse, in response, claimed that he does condemn such rhetoric, but explained that his issue was with the amendment calling on the Biden administration to protect the justices.

Responding once more, Kennedy again emphasized "is a real simple amendment," and pointed out that "if you support the racist things that have been said against Clarence Thomas, then vote against this amendment. If you think the things that have been said about Clarence Thomas are racist to the marrow and you condemn them, then vote for this amendment."

Cruz would later speak to address the arguments against the amendment. When it comes to Klobuchar's concerns, Cruz offered "I would point out objectively the venom and the bigotry directed at Clarence Thomas is qualitatively different than any of the other eight justices," explaining that the resolution gave multiple instances of such examples.

In response to Whitehouse's arguments, Cruz also highlighted the absurdity of Whitehouse saying "'well, the part that is offensive of this is that it calls on the Department of Justice to enforce the law.' Just stop and repeat that to yourself again.So now it is the position of Democrats that it is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to enforce the law!"

    You either condemn the racist attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas, or you don’t.

    After a long discussion today, my Democrat colleagues on the Judiciary Committee finally agreed to condemn the disgusting racism that many have aimed at Justice Thomas. pic.twitter.com/tBptrybb0q
    — John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) July 20, 2023

With such a focus, Whitehouse reminded that the Biden administration, despite how he believes they behaved "quite properly," has taken a hands off approach when it comes to better protecting conservative justices, which has been sharply criticized, including by Cruz.

After somebody leaked the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on May 2, 2022, protests began illegally protesting at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices almost immediately. Then White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki downplayed the severity, and instead emphasized how people were upset and there was a lot of "passion" about the ramifications of Roe being overturned. She also indicated we "continue to encourage" people to picket.

In early June of last year, in reaction to Dobbs, someone showed up with the intent to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and looked to target other conservative justices.

While Whitehouse defended the Biden administration's approach, such an approach resulted in U.S. marshals being directed to "to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, any criminal enforcement."

    Oh, So That's Why Leftists Weren't Arrested Outside the Homes of Supreme Court Justices https://t.co/ExE8blnZGw
    — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 3, 2023


 

Senior State Department Officials Targeted by Chinese Hackers

 Senior State Department officials were hacked by a spying group linked to Beijing, which likely provided inside information about U.S. policy toward China amid a series of trips to the country by top Biden officials.  

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. government emails were hacked, including the U.S. ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, and the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, Daniel Kritenbrink.  

    It appeared that Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s email account wasn’t directly infiltrated in the hack, nor were those of his circle of top advisers, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Instead, the hackers appeared to focus on a small number of senior officials responsible for managing the U.S.-China relationship.

    The estimate of individual emails accessed is rough and could grow, the people said.

    “For security reasons, we will not be sharing additional information on the nature and scope of this cybersecurity incident at this time,” a State Department spokesman said. “The department continuously monitors and responds to activity of concern on our networks. Our investigation is ongoing, and we cannot provide further details at this time.”

    The White House National Security Council declined to comment.

    Kritenbrink accompanied Blinken on his trip to China a month ago, and Kritenbrink, Burns and Blinken all attended meetings with senior Chinese officials and with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Before the high-level talks in Beijing, Kritenbrink led a trip of less senior officials to lay the groundwork. […]

    The recent hack was pulled off by leveraging a flaw in Microsoft’s cloud-computing environment that has since been fixed, according to the company, which said more than two dozen organizations globally were affected. Fewer than 10 organizations were compromised in the U.S. and each of those appeared to have a small number of individual email accounts directly accessed by the hackers, a senior U.S. cybersecurity official said last week. It isn’t known whether any federal agencies beyond the State and Commerce departments were targeted. (WSJ)

While the attack was “surgical in nature,” meant to glean information from “high-value victims,” U.S. officials downplayed its impact.

“It is China doing espionage,” Rob Joyce, the cybersecurity director at the National Security Agency, said at the Aspen Security Forum on Thursday. “That is what nation-states do. We need to defend against it, we need to push back on it, but that is something that happens.”

U.S. officials said Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo’s email was also compromised in the operation.

Republican Party missing from Blue Earth County Fair

 All I see are Somalis at the DFL which is disgusting. They came from the Soviet Somali Democratic Republic. Where is the Republican Party damn it. The CIA and FBI are Stasi around Mankato. There is no basis in truth here other then they’re remaking us in Marxist-Leninist Soviet America. DFL has a Vladimir Lenin Statue in Seattle. They do 5 year plans all over Minnesota. Chinese communist party owns farmland in Blue Earth County.

WH Does Damage Control After Kamala Harris Claims ‘Reducing Population’ is Critical for ‘Climate Change’

 The White House scrambled to clean up the mess the Biden Administration left after Vice President Kamala Harris claimed “reducing the population” is needed to combat so-called “climate change.”

“When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water,” Harris initially said.

However, the White House “corrected” the transcript of the speech, claiming Harris meant to say “pollution,” despite the vice president not addressing the “error” while speaking.
1
2
    
The @WhiteHouse handlers made a slight adjustment to a speech by @VP Kamala Harris on fighting "climate change." pic.twitter.com/O3NqshFHhF
— Slay News (@Slay_News_) July 15, 2023

Democrats have a long reputation for sounding the alarm on so-called “climate change,” panicking Americans by saying a black hole will soon swallow up the Earth unless we all stop eating meat and driving gas-powered cars.

In 2019, the biggest progressive liberal of them all, Bernie Sanders, was asked by a school teacher whether it would even be possible to fight global warming given that “the world’s population has doubled over the last 50 years.”

“Absolutely, yes,” Sanders blurted out.

Many in the 2024 GOP Field Didn’t Fare Well Against the ‘Tucker Stress Test’
Matt Vespa

During her speech, Harris told the audience that the “clock is not only ticking, it is banging,” adding, “We must act.”

However, a 2022 study found that the Democrat’s repeated warnings of global warming are greatly exaggerated.

“We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing,” the study concluded. “The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century while protecting the environment as much as we can.”
1
2
    
KAMALA HARRIS: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.” pic.twitter.com/MbMiDx9Xoc
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 14, 2023

Ten Reasons Why Affirmative Action Died

 The end of affirmative action was inevitable. The only surprise was that such intentions went terribly wrong and lasted so long.

First, supporters of racial preferences always pushed back the goalposts forthe program’s success. Was institutionalized reverse bias to last 20 years, 60 years, or ad infinitum?

Parity became defined as an absolute equality of results. If “equity” was not obtained, then only institutionalized “racism” explained disparities. And only reverse racism was deemed the cure.

Second, affirmative action was imposed on the back end in adult hiring and college admissions. However, to achieve parity, remediation early at the K-12 school level would have been the only solution. Yet such intervention was made impossible by teachers’ unions, the rise of identity politics, and government entitlements. All opposed school choice, self-help programs, critiques of cultural impediments, or restrictions on those blanket entitlements.

Third, class, the true barometer of privilege, was rendered meaningless. Surrealism followed. The truly privileged Barack and Michelle Obama and Meghan Markel lectured the country on its unfairness — as if they had it far rougher than the impoverished “deplorable” of East Palestine, Ohio.

Fourth, affirmative action supporters could never square the circle of proving that racial prejudices didn’t violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the text of the Constitution.

What they were left with was the lame argument that because long ago, the 90% white majority had violated their own foundational documents, then such past bad unconstitutional bias could legitimately be rectified by present-day “good” unconstitutional bias.

Fifth, supporters never adequately explained why the sins of prior generations fell on their descendants who grew up in the post-Civil Rights era.

Nor could they account for why those who had never experienced institutionalized racism, much less Jim Crow apartheid or slavery, were to be compensated collectively for the suffering of long-dead individuals. No wonder 70% of the American people in many polls favored ending affirmative action, including half of African-Americans.

Sixth, there never was a “rainbow” coalition of shared non-white victimhood — a concept necessary to perpetuate the premise of white privilege, supremacy, and rage, so integral to race-based reverse discrimination. More than a dozen ethnicities earn more per capita than whites.

Asians have been subject to coerced internment, immigration restrictions, and zoning exclusions. Yet on average, they do better than whites economically and enjoy lower suicide rates and longer life expectancies.

The arguments for affirmative action never explained why Asians and other minorities who faced discrimination outperformed the majority white population. As a result, affirmative action ended up discriminating against Asians on the premise they were too successful!

Seventh, no one ever explained when affirmative action was to apply. Blacks, for example, were vastly “overrepresented” in merit-based professional football and basketball. Yet no one demanded “proportional representation” to address such “disparate impact” despite the underrepresentation of all other demographics.

Yet if Blacks were “underrepresented” in baseball, then reparatory measures were supposed to address that fact — even if Latino players were “overrepresented” and whites “underrepresented” as well. No one in our race-obsessed culture, of course, objected that white males died at twice their demographics in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Eighth, in our increasingly intermarried mass-immigration society, few could adjudicate who was what, or much less what standard gave one racial preference. In lunatic fashion, pink, blond Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren became Harvard’s first “Native American” law professor due to her “high cheekbones.” Light-skinned Latinos were considered marginalized, while some darker Italians or Greeks were not.

Ninth, an odious wokism absorbed affirmative action and changed it into something even more abhorrent — as the original spirit of the Civil Rights movement was trashed. So Americans were asked to stomach a return to distasteful segregated dorms, “separate but equal” graduation ceremonies, and racially exclusive workshops.

Tenth, and finally, affirmative action was insidiously destroying meritocracy. That hallmark American value of tribally-blind inclusivity had once explained why the nation outshone the world by discarding the old class prejudices of Europe. But increasingly, this value seemed to have been abandoned.

When Stockton Rush, the late captain, and inventor of the ill-fated Titan deep-sea explorer, was quoted postmortem bragging that his company had no need of “old white guys” with long military expertise in submarining, Americans realized that woke racial discrimination was not just repulsive, but could get you killed.

A nation whose pilot training, medical-school admissions, and military high command promotions were increasingly adopting racial, gender, or sexual-orientation essentialism was a country headed for the sort of Third World tribalism characteristic of failed states abroad.

Ultimately, the court finally stepped in to end this unconstitutional aberration, more like the old Soviet commissariat than our ideals of equality under the law.

The American people concurred. And the only regret seemed to be, why not sooner?

My God, Is There Nothing The Left Won’t Try To Ruin?

 I don’t like country music; it’s just not my taste. I grew up on it because my mother loved it, but at some point, it changed to be just this side of Dave Matthews Band mixed with Hootie and the Blowfish, a fake kind of “party rock,” if you can call it that, that’s just not anything that interests me. Give me Alabama, Oak Ridge Boys, Charlie Pride, Conway Twitty, Johnny Cash, Tammy Wynette, George Jones, and everything else I was forcibly marinated in while sitting in the backseat of my parent’s Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, and I could sing along all day, almost involuntarily. I like the memories more than the music, but one inspires the other, so I’m in.

Modern country, meh. I’ve never been that big of a fan of anything other than indy/alternative rock, stuff I’d only hear on Canadian radio late at night growing up in Detroit. But some things you simply can’t escape. I never liked hair bands, though some songs are ok, but I was aware of it. I had no use for folk, but I know who the Indigo Girls are, and I never attended Lilith Fair.

And I know who Tracy Chapman is, as does anyone over the age of 30, I suspect. Her song, “Fast Car,” was inescapable. It was a huge hit when it was released in 1988, got heavy rotation on MTV back when the M stood for Music, and has been around ever since. Some hits come and go, others linger. Chapman’s song has lingered.

It’s a fine song; I just find folk music boring. But I don’t find it obnoxious to the point I feel compelled to turn it off like some modern incoherent rap or techno “dance” music. It’s fine background music that allows you to ignore it as much as you want to while still knowing something is there; a useful void-filler.

Still, it’s been some time since I’ve heard the song or even thought about it because why would I? I don’t really listen to music much; I’m more of an audiobook guy now. So when I saw Tracy Chapman’s picture next to a hairy white guy in a tweet from a New York Times “reporter,” I stopped for a second out of curiosity. I’d seen enough of these “outraged-by-proxy” stories to recognize them simply by the photo.

The writer, someone called Emily Yahr, tweeted out, “As Luke Combs’s hit cover of Tracy Chapman’s “Fast Car” dominates the country charts, it’s bringing up some complicated emotions in fans & singers who know that Chapman, as a queer Black woman, would have an almost zero chance at that achievement herself.”
Recommended
Many in the 2024 GOP Field Didn’t Fare Well Against the ‘Tucker Stress Test’
Matt Vespa

To that moment, I didn’t know Chapman was “queer.” To this moment, I still don’t give a damn.

But what is the point of the story? To piss people off, to smear country music fans as racist homophobes, to divide, and to lie to do it. (You can read it here. Don’t worry, it’s an archived version so the Times won’t get the clicks.)

Yahr, either because she or her editors are incredibly dumb lap dogs for the progressive movement and decided a cover of the song by some country artist called Luke Combs (I told you, I have no use for the stuff) was newsworthy because he’s white and the songwriter is black and gay. She wrote, “One particular cover has struck a chord that no one saw coming.” Why? A good and popular song is a good and popular song. Does it really matter if someone white covers a song by someone black or vice-versa? How about someone gay covering a song by someone straight?

Of course it doesn’t; you’re not an idiot leftist. To idiot leftists, skin color or who someone screws is all that matters – the individual is irrelevant; disposable, really.

The cover is a hit, which upsets people who find joy in being upset by stupid things. Yahr reports the cover’s success “prompted a wave of complicated feelings among some listeners and in the Nashville music community. Although many are thrilled to see ‘Fast Car’ back in the spotlight and a new generation discovering Chapman’s work, it’s clouded by the fact that, as a Black queer woman, Chapman, 59, would have almost zero chance of that achievement herself in country music.”

Honestly, everyone in the country has “almost zero chance” of having a number one country or any other kind of hit. Why is it special that Chapman is black and queer? It’s not.

Lil Nas X is black and gay, and he had the biggest country hit ever with a song called “Old Town Road” a couple of years ago. It went huge worldwide and raked in millions upon millions of dollars. If only we were all so oppressed.

But Yahr never mentions any of it, as its existence would negate the entire point of her piece.

The story quotes professional victims and race-centric activists. It invokes George Floyd because it’s a required useful tool for the left to signal liberal chardonnay-swilling suburban women hoping to gain social credit points at their next school board meeting counter-protest to protect kids from learning how to read or do math at the expense of memorizing even more pronouns.

The story is stuffed full of quotes from people who have no connection to Chapman or Combs, ready to express their anger about something no one directly involved in the events discussed is remotely angry or upset over. If victimhood-by-proxy were an Olympic event, the Times would have interviewed all the medalists in this category.

Not offended in any way, shape, or form, was really the only person who should matter in the whole story: Tracy Chapman. She didn’t comment to the Times (neither did Combs), and the only thing the folk singer ever said about it was positive, issuing a statement to Billboard reading, “I never expected to find myself on the country charts, but I’m honored to be there. I’m happy for Luke and his success and grateful that new fans have found and embraced ‘Fast Car.’”

That’s it, that’s all of it. But that’s not good enough for the left. Chapman is a very private person, never having “outed” herself (something the Times curiously only casually mentions while screaming she’s gay throughout the story on her behalf), who is perfectly fine with a white guy covering her song. It’s the activist left, the people running the Democrat Party and media, who aren’t.

The same mentality that looked at polls showing only 5 percent of Native Americans even remotely offended by the name “Washington Redskins,” yet caused those offended, bored, white activist suburbanites to crusade on behalf of the people who weren’t offended to change the name to Commanders, are back on behalf of Chapman. They aren’t bothered by the fact that she isn’t bothered; she’s just a delivery device whose opinions or desires don’t matter. It’s the ultimate in opportunism and where the modern left lives.

It’s how the left governs – they declare their positions to be the will of the people without regard for all the evidence to the contrary and scream, “This is what democracy looks like,” while suing every time they lose a referendum or vote of elected representatives, decidedly the exact opposite of what democracy is.

Leftists are bad people who seek to divide everyone on issues big and small for their own advantage; they do nothing by accident. They may not ruin everything they touch, but it’s not for lack of trying.
Rate this:

Imploding Cities Will Drag All of Us Down — Even if You Don’t Live Anywhere Near One

 There is so much wrong with America’s cities, it’s hard to see why any contributing member of society would live and/or work in one of them. Some of the issues arise from far-Left local governance while others are generated by more widespread Leftist policy. These are coupled with an organic workforce evolution, as the United States transitions from an industry-based to an information-based economy. The result is urban areas caught in a downward spiral — and, as with any sinking vessel, threatening to suck everyone nearby down with them.

First, a quick refresher on the compounding problems of urban areas. Chief among them is that big cities are dark blue, and thus they’ve become crucibles of Left-wing policy failure. Uncontrolled crime, roving drug and mental-illness zombies, and swarms of sanctuary-recipient asylum scammers are crowding out reasonable people and businesses. The normals who remain to take advantage of access to cultural events (such as they are) and restaurant variety are also subject to totalitarian social controls and two-tiered justice systems that punish them when they fight back against criminals. But no matter how desperate the situation becomes, city councils can be counted on to double down on woke policies, then double down again.

Businesses are fleeing. In the ones that remain, shopping for basic goods has become a frustrating exercise in waiting for an associate to unlock the case so you can grab a razor and some toothpaste. Add in today’s high interest rates, which make owning and running a business prohibitively expensive, and the writing is on the wall. PJ Media colleague Rick Moran reported last month that large San Francisco commercial businesses, like hotels and malls, are simply walking away from their obligations, handing the keys to the banks with which their real estate is financed. Concurrently, major retailers are declining to renew leases and are simply closing their doors, unable to break even in an atmosphere where retail theft is encouraged. This process is occurring to some degree in major cities across the country.

While we conservatives point and laugh at the plight of woke cities from the comfort and safety of our suburban and rural homes, we may want to take a moment to consider a sobering issue. The effects of the imminent collapse of the commercial urban real estate market will ripple out across the financial sector and affect just about everyone in one way or another.

Remember the mortgage-backed securities crisis in 2008? And how, even if you didn’t default on your mortgage or didn’t even own a house, the entire economy tipped into what the hyperbolic media tagged “The Great Recession” and we all suffered? So, this would be kind of like that, except the problem will start with a commercial real estate collapse.

An article in The Atlantic last month called “The Next Crisis Will Start With Empty Office Buildings” paints a grim picture of what’s going down. First, the demand for office space dries up:
1
2
3
    
During the first three months of 2023, U.S. office vacancy topped 20 percent for the first time in decades. In San Francisco, Dallas, and Houston, vacancy rates are as high as 25 percent. These figures understate the severity of the crisis because they only cover spaces that are no longer leased. Most office leases were signed before the pandemic and have yet to come up for renewal. Actual office use points to a further decrease in demand. Attendance in the 10 largest business districts is still below 50 percent of its pre-COVID level, as white-collar employees spend an estimated 28 percent of their workdays at home.
 
With a third of all office leases expiring by 2026, we can expect higher vacancies, significantly lower rents, or both.

Next, the loss of commercial tenants and landlords causes urban fiscal pain:
1
2
3
    
Property taxes underpin city budgets. In New York City, such taxes generate approximately 40 percent of revenue. Commercial property—mostly offices—contributes about 40 percent of these taxes, or 16 percent of the city’s total tax revenue. In San Francisco, property taxes contribute a lower share, but offices and retail appear to be in an even worse state.
 
Empty offices also contribute to lower retail sales and public-transport usage. In New York City, weekday subway trips are 65 percent of their 2019 level—though they’re trending up—and public- transport revenue has declined by $2.4 billion. Meanwhile, more than 40,000 retail-sector jobs lost since 2019 have yet to return. A recent study by an NYU professor named Arpit Gupta and others estimate a 6.5 percent “fiscal hole” in the city’s budget due to declining office and retail valuations. Such a hole “would need to be plugged by raising tax rates or cutting government spending.”

Cities must then make choices between cutting services and raising taxes — either of which will further drive out the remaining wealthy and productive residents and businesses. The cycle can be deadly. As in the 1970s, municipalities will start declaring bankruptcy — and that will add a drain on federal resources, which will have to be used to bail them out. This will be on top of the unemployment benefits to the urban retail and hospitality workers who lost their jobs.

And the pain for the rest of us won’t stop at the high federal price tag:
1
2
3
    
[T]urmoil in office markets threatens retirement systems and the portfolios of individual people. Public and private pension funds have traditionally kept their assets in stocks, bonds, and cash. However, in recent decades, they have shifted toward so-called alternative investments, including commercial real estate and private equity. These investments now comprise a third of their portfolios, with real estate comprising more than half of these assets for many pension funds.
 
Pre-COVID, this trend included significant investment in office space, particularly in major markets such as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Boston—which are now struggling. Pensions saw this type of investment as a stable source of income, mainly through rent, and a hedge against inflation. With public pensions already underfunded by an estimated $1 trillion, a decline in the value of commercial real estate could make this bad situation significantly worse.

Yikes.

Don’t start daydreaming that we’ll have a Republican president by then who will refuse to bail out imploding cities, either. When you realize that everyone’s pensions are involved, you understand that not bailing out these banks and cities was never going to be an option. They have us over a barrel. So we can expect a cool trillion or two to flow from Big G’s coffers. This, while we are still reeling from the inflation and high interest rates from the last crisis, the Great COVID Overreaction Rescue Plan.

Related: West Coast, Messed Coast™ — 9th Circuit Judges Promise More Tent Cities for Everyone!

Yes, the shift in work styles was inevitable to an extent, once people began to move their lives online. The process was accelerated by the COVID shutdowns, as work, school, and shopping all went online. Buildings and districts built around in-person interaction simply aren’t needed to the same degree they once were. But that doesn’t let idiotic Leftist city managers off the hook.

There is much to recommend city life: museums, entertainment, fine dining, varied shopping and cultural experiences, travel hubs, and excellent medical care are all steps away. A large segment of the population prefers such a stimulating and convenient lifestyle, and they would happily live in cities regardless of whether they worked at home. Enterprising landlords could convert less-used office space to living space and continue to run a profitable business. But so long as Soros DAs, activists, and city councilors keep making urban life unlivable, America’s cities will continue to circle the drain. And we’re all going to get sucked down with them.
Rate this:

Tucker Reveals What Former Capitol Police Chief Told Him About Feds During J6

 Tucker Carlson told podcast host and actor Russel Brand during an interview that aired on Rumble that former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told him the rioting crowd on January 6, 2021 was filled with federal agents.

Carlson said he disapproved of the violence that took place during the riot, noting his son was in the Capitol during the chaos, but he said it never crossed his mind that law enforcement agencies could have played a role in the events that unfolded that day.

"I never thought it was a false flag or anything like that. I'm not a conspiracist by temperament. I never thought that," Carlson explained.

"And then I interviewed the chief of Capitol Police, Steven Sund, in an interview that was never aired on Fox by the way, I was fired before it could air. I'm going to interview him again. But Steven Sund was the totally non-political, worked for Nancy Pelosi, I mean this was not some right-wing activist. He was chief of the Capitol Police on January 6," he said.

"And he said, 'Yeah, yeah, that crowd was filled with federal agents.' What? 'Yes,'" Carlson added.
Recommended
Axios Has a New Nickname for Joe Biden and We Don't Think He's Going to Like It
Spencer Brown

Carlson said at the end of the day, the federal government has used the riot on January 6 as a pretext to obtain more power for itself at the expense of American citizens.

    🚨BREAKING: Tucker Carlson says the Chief of the Police at the Capitol told him that the crowd on J6 was “FILLED with federal agents” pic.twitter.com/joPEmioX7W
    — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 7, 2023

    TUCKER: January 6th “was used by predators in our political sphere to increase their power to disempower the population they supposedly serve” pic.twitter.com/3tQE1SWaHU
    — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 7, 2023

Mike Pence Attacked By Rally Goers: 'If It Wasn’t For Your Vote, We Would Not Have Biden’

 Former Vice President Mike Pence was caught in the crosshairs after a voter blamed him for President Joe Biden being elected.

During a small rally in Sioux City, Iowa, this week, a voter confronted Pence by criticizing him for allowing the 2020 election results to move forward for a final vote before Congress.

"Do you ever second-guess yourself? That was a constitutional right that you had to send those votes back to the states… If it weren't for your vote, we would not have Joe Biden in the White House," the woman said.

In response, the former vice president defended his actions, claiming he did not think he had such constitutional authority.

"I say this with great affection and respect," Pence began. "The Constitution is very clear. My job was to oversee a session of Congress where objections could be heard, and I made sure that objections would be recognized so we would hear whatever evidence or debate there was. But the Constitution says you open and count the votes. No more, no less."

Pence continued to defend himself, saying that rejecting or returning votes to the states has never been done before or should be done in the future.

Still, he threw his former boss, Trump, under the bus again like he has several times in the past.

"No vice president in American history ever asserted the authority that you have been convinced that I had. But I want to tell you, with all due respect, what I said before, I said when I announced. President Trump was wrong about my authority that day, and he's still wrong," he added.


However, Trending Politics pointed out several vice presidents have resolved disputed elections using constitutional authority.

    "Vice President John Adams unilaterally resolved a dispute over Vermont's paperwork for its electors and counted the votes in his favor in 1796 to become president. Vice President Thomas Jefferson in 1800 resolved technical questions over Georgia's vote (its certificate was defective) by counting the state in his own favor. Nixon, in 1960, had two slates of certificates over Hawaii, with one declaring him the winner and the other John Kennedy. Nixon elected to count Hawaii's votes in Kennedy's favor."

Pence's campaign is already off to a rocky start. He is and has been trailing far behind Trump in the polls— to no surprise. In June, the former vice president was polling at just four percent in the national polls.

WSJ Columnist: What the Hell Is Merrick Garland Doing?

 Attorney General Merrick Garland is facing a potential impeachment inquiry for what appears to be lying to Congress about the independence of the Justice Department’s investigations into Hunter Biden. Garland not only said there was no interference from the Department of Justice but that prosecuting attorneys had the authority to bring whatever legal action was required pending the results of the findings. That is not the case. IRS whistleblowers have come forward with credible testimony, citing pervasive DOJ meddling.

IRS Agent Gary Shapley has gone on record to CBS News contradicting Garland’s testimony. The IRS task force investigating Hunter was also scrapped. US Attorney David Weiss, who had been investigating the son of the former president, wanted to charge Hunter in 2022 but was blocked on multiple occasions. This development was also confirmed by The New York Times, though they did their best to bury the story.

    WATCH: Sen. Cruz’s full line of questioning and AG Merrick Garland’s under oath testimony that is now contradicted by an IRS whistleblower. pic.twitter.com/qUAn52ggQj
    — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) May 25, 2023

Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel highlighted the coming media spin aimed at protecting Garland from impeachment while adding that two key questions are on his desk right now concerning how the Department of Justice conducted themselves with the Hunter Biden investigations (via WSJ) [emphasis mine]:

    The attorney general was insistent in a Friday press conference that Justice Department brass hadn’t interfered in the probe into Joe Biden’s son, and that Mr. Weiss was “given complete authority to make all decisions,” including “to prosecute any way in which he wanted to and in any district in which he wanted to.” He said Mr. Weiss had never asked him for special-counsel authority, even as he claimed the Delaware prosecutor has “in fact more authority” than that of a special counsel.

    Mr. Garland’s statements are completely at odds with testimony from IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley. That investigator says prosecutors working for Mr. Weiss wanted to charge Hunter with felony tax offenses in the District of Columbia and California. But he says Mr. Weiss surprised him and others in an October 2022 meeting by saying he was “not the deciding official on whether charges are filed,” and explained that the Biden-appointed U.S. attorney for the capital, Matthew Graves, wouldn’t allow charges to proceed.

    […]

    The Times seemed more interested in fogging the air, suggesting the whole thing may come down to “miscommunication” or “clashing substantive judgments among agencies over how best to pursue a prosecution.” Expect more such obfuscation from Mr. Garland’s defenders and the Justice Department itself. But don’t be taken in. There are only two relevant questions here, both of which will have documented answers. First, is it true that the president’s appointed attorneys refused to bring charges against the president’s son in their districts, defying a team that had spent years building a case? Second, was Mr. Weiss ever given formal authority to bring those charges on his own?

    The answer to the first question already looks to be yes, and it alone constitutes a scandal. If the team appointed to investigate Hunter wanted cases prosecuted in certain jurisdictions, and those cases failed to proceed on the say-so of Biden appointees, it destroys Mr. Garland’s claims that the case was insulated from politics. And no one will have to rely solely on Mr. Shapley’s word or emails, already partly backed by the Times reporting. His attorneys provided the names of others present at that October meeting, and they’ll testify. Assuming the U.S. attorneys did block the effort, there will be an extensive document trail: travel vouchers by those who presented the cases in Washington and California, documents from those presentations, emails about the decision. The department might try to block production of those documents from Congress, but federal inspectors general are now also on the case.

    Then to the second question about Mr. Weiss’s own authority. U.S. attorneys can’t file charges wherever they please; they have jurisdictions. Mr. Garland’s claim that Mr. Weiss had even “more authority” than a special counsel with the ability to file “in any district” is bizarre—unless Mr. Weiss was formally given such power. As Sol Wisenberg, a former associate and deputy independent counsel, explained on Twitter, to file elsewhere Mr. Weiss would “need some kind of letter from Garland (or an [associate attorney general]) naming Weiss as a special or poo-bah counsel authorized to file charges in the relevant district.” He emphasizes that “Garland cannot give that authority verbally,” there needs to be a “written delegation.”

    So where is it?

The investigation into Hunter Biden is no longer a partisan ploy: the Department of Justice’s reported actions just magnified the case. What were they trying to hide and why? And what about this letter regarding special counsel status that Weiss requested? Did Garland sign off on it? Congressional Republicans now have all the reason they need to dig deep investigating into not just Hunter but the actions of the DOJ. The sub-committee on how the federal government has been weaponized should possibly be roped into these inquiries. The House Oversight Committee should be aggressive as well. Shapley added that he suspects the Justice Department interfered so much because some of the roads his task force were on could have led to Joe Biden.