FBI Whistleblower: The Direction of the Bureau ‘Troubles a Vast Majority of the Agents’

Debra Heine reporting for American Greatness

A whistleblower from the Federal Bureau of Investigation told Project Veritas founder and President James O’Keefe in a recorded interview posted late Wednesday that the FBI’s “direction” in recent months “troubles a vast majority of the agents.”

The source—a current FBI agent with counterintelligence, counterterrorism and criminal experience—came forward with new information about the FBI’s investigation into Project Veritas over Ashley Biden’s lost diary.

Armed FBI agents raided and ransacked two Project Veritas journalists’ homes on November 4, on the orders of federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and raided O’Keefe’s apartment in Mamaroneck, N.Y., a couple of days later in connection with the allegedly stolen diary.

The whistleblower provided O’Keefe with internal FBI documents concerning his case, and told him Project Veritas “appears to be a victim of political undertakings.”

He said  the documents were given to him by a sympathetic colleague who also believed there was a “political vendetta” against O’Keefe’s organization.

O’Keefe has contended that he and his journalists were targeted because of their investigative journalism.

The special agent told O’Keefe that investigations into news organizations are “not common,” and the few that are investigated are almost always tied to “threat countries.”

The documents show that the Bureau labeled Project Veritas as “news media” in its investigation, even though the government said in a court filing that Project Veritas does not engage in journalism. The government’s filing specifically stated, “Project Veritas is not engaged in journalism within any traditional or accepted definition of that word,” because its reporting is “non-consensual.”

Under this non-media classification, government lawyers argued that the actions taken by the feds “to surveil, raid and seize materials from Project Veritas journalists were appropriate.”

The whistleblower said it was “alerting” that the FBI categorized the investigation into Project Veritas internally as a Special Investigative Matter (“SIM”), which is an investigation into a public figure, political official (involving corruption or a threat to national security), a religious or political organization, someone in academia, or the news media. All SIMs have to be signed off on by an supervisor and legal counsel, he explained.

The investigation was also classified under Threat Band I, which is usually reserved for “threat issues that are likely to cause the greatest damage to national interests or public safety in the coming year,” the agent said.

The document, which lacks certain information due to the restricted classification of the file, also shows the investigation was launched the same day Ashley Biden’s Attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said, “This is insane. We should send to SDNY,” in response to a request for comment on the contents of Ashley Biden’s diary.

The FBI also used its Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST) tools, which includes cellular geolocation tracking of phone devices, to secretly surveil Project Veritas journalists, according to the whistleblower and as revealed on the leaked document.

The FBI Special Agent told Project Veritas that he came forward because “there are a number of very troubling things that are happening within the FBI, and I would say that the direction the agency is headed troubles a vast majority of the agents.”

He stressed that the FBI wields an “incredible” amount of power, and if used wrong “the country cannot sustain its largest law enforcement agency.”

The agent explained to O’Keefe the difference between a criminal investigation and an intelligence investigation.

A criminal investigation is pretty straightforward, he said. “There’s an allegation, information that indicates a crime happened. We either have a victim, or a subject that engaged in it and you  try to prove that case.”

An intelligence investigation, according to the G-man, is much more open to abuse. “The intelligence investigation is meant for information,” he explained. “And the knowledge doesn’t have to be actionable. It doesn’t have to be operational in what we call tactical information.”

And even if a subject hasn’t done anything wrong, he said, knowledge about him could be “forever logged in a computer system” at the FBI.

“I would hope that we could end up with a nonpartisan law enforcement agency in this country that’s not doing things that seem to be inappropriate for the power that it wields,” the whistleblower told O’Keefe.

“We cannot have partisan investigations and using a piece of the executive branch as a weapon,” he added.

“Tyranny happens incrementally, and it happens by a bunch of people agreeing to small injustices over and over simply to keep their paycheck and their pension,” the whistleblower said.

“It’s a really really dangerous step that if you’re willing to accept incremental tyranny and small abuses of your authority, you take the pensions, and you’ll walk it to wherever that dark end is,” he continued.  “I don’t have a problem with people who think they’re doing the right thing. I have a problem with people who are doing the wrong thing, and they know it.”

When asked what his message would be to other FBI agents, he said, “You took an oath, you gotta live it. You’re the only one who’s going to answer for it.”

X22, On the Fringe, and more- May 13

 

Busy day with being obsessed with another old show on DVD. Here's tonight's news:

Did Russiagate Enable the Invasion of Ukraine?

Even though Vladimir Putin was unsuccessful in getting Hillary Clinton elected in 2016, because he supported the Russiagate deceit, Putin got an even weaker U.S. leader in Joe Biden.

by John D. O’Connor for American Greatness

That the fraudulent, media-hyped Russiagate fiasco was a colossal waste of civic energy is now beyond doubt to all but the most bitter partisans. But scant attention has been paid to the way it enabled the tragic Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

The premise of “Russian collusion” was that Vladimir Putin was assisting Donald Trump in defeating presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Even though there was no evidence of collusion, the Left still clings to the narrative that Putin wished Trump to win. 

If, to the contrary, the truth was that Putin actively sought to defeat Trump, we may garner some insight into the whys and wherefores of his Ukraine invasion. 

To be sure, the trivial and ineffective Russian bot farm postings were laughable and likely done for private profit, not geopolitical effect. But whatever the motivation, they were admittedly inconsequential. But what did move the needle in our domestic politics was the Russiagate scandal itself, interfering with Trump’s agenda while magnifying his contentious style, and perhaps causing enough marginal diminution in his support to affect the 2020 U.S. election outcome.

So, yes, the Clinton campaign may have unwittingly caused the election of Joe Biden in 2020. But was this collusion hoax solely the action of Clinton and her domestic supporters in the media and government? More to the point, was Vladimir Putin a willing ally of Clinton in this fabrication? Let’s examine the evidence.

Prior to 2016, Clinton had been nothing but a seemingly corrupt and compromised patsy of Putin, a fact ignored by the media. One of the first acts of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton was to unilaterally, without quid pro quo, remove military installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that had been pointing sophisticated defensive missiles toward Russia. This technology could have been used as an effective deterrent or a weapon in defense of Ukraine.

Clinton also encouraged, as part of the “Russian Reset,” the transfer of dual-use technology to the “Russian Silicon Valley” at Skolkovo, over the objection of the U.S. Defense Department, enriching Clinton Foundation supporters in both Russia and America. Then, when Clinton’s State Department held the sole “equity” vote, it approved the sale of Uranium One, quickly transferred to Putin’s Rosatom. Now Putin had enhanced military power as well as uranium pricing power, including to America’s nuclear power industry. The financial beneficiaries of the Uranium One deal contributed between $150 million and $350 million to the Clinton Foundation, which housed many of her campaign staff. Eleven Russian intelligence agents hovering around the Uranium One deal were arrested and quickly sent back to Russia without any attempts to cajole the inside story of a seemingly corrupt transaction. 

Clinton’s heirs then pushed the destabilizing Iran Nuclear Deal, with Russia as the major nuclear contractor for Iran, using Russia as an intermediary for the negotiations. Of course, this same State Department approved of Putin’s march across Ukraine to take over Crimea in 2014. Our government provided only non-lethal assistance such as blankets and MREs (meals ready to eat) in support of Ukraine. 

And let us also not forget that in 2010, Clinton’s State Department encouraged and facilitated Ukraine’s surrendering of over 1.1 million light arms and shoulder-fired missile launchers in exchange for vaguely worded security assurances. 

So, when the 2016 U.S. presidential election came around, would any rational person believe that Putin wished Trump to defeat the highly compromised and highly compromisable Clinton? But what evidence is there that Putin sought to help Clinton and defeat Trump? 

Hired by the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, ex-spy Christopher Steele (author of the infamous Steele dossier) had as a longstanding client Oleg Deripaska, Putin’s close friend and aluminum oligarch. For years, Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence had touted Deripaska as a “good oligarch” in over 100 intelligence reports to U.S. government agencies. 

In 2016, Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS to perform lucrative work for Prevezon Holdings, a Russian company owned by the family of oligarch Denis Katsyv. Prevezon was fighting a U.S. court seizure of $230 million taken by the American government under the Magnitsky Act, an anti-Putin law caused by the killing of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. 

Who did Steele hire as his primary subsource to prepare his dossier? One Igor Danchenko, who was suspected and never exonerated of being a Russian spy. Danchenko received a crucial piece of his false narrative from close, longtime Clinton ally Charles Dolan, connected to him through seeming Russian intelligence asset Olga Galkina. But was Dolan also a Russian agent? Yes, he was a publicly disclosed Russian PR agent whom the Washington Post reported had the trust and respect of Putin’s inner circle. While Danchenko hid Dolan’s involvement, Dolan at the time of the dossier was actively working with Russian embassy officials (read: intelligence agents). 

Steele also informed the State Department that he used as his sources Vyacheslav Trubnikov, the former director of Russian intelligence service SVR, and Vladislav Surkov, “Putin’s Rasputin,” working closely with Putin in the Kremlin. 

Were these Russian agents working against Putin’s wishes in exposing a Putin-Trump conspiracy? If they were doing so, wouldn’t their faces soon be found in their cereal bowls? 

So it seems obvious that, completely contrary to the cartoonish narrative adopted by the media, this Russian collusion story was actively assisted by Vladimir Putin, and that there was indeed collusion . . . between Putin and Clinton.

Recall that as of July 28, 2016, John Brennan’s CIA had already gained Russian intelligence showing that Clinton’s foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, had been the author of the hoax, and revealing that Russia was up to the minute on it. 

What was Putin’s motive in assisting Clinton by allowing his close allies to participate in the hoax? There is no reason to believe anything other than that in 2016 Putin wished to make Ukraine a vassal state. He knew then that Clinton would likely willingly play ball, and in any case could be so compelled by strong kompromat. 

While in office for barely three months, Trump lobbed missiles into the joint Syrian-Russian Shayrat airbase in retaliation for Syria’s use of chemical weapons. He also ordered a successful drone strike against Iran (Russian ally) General Qassim Soleimani, seemingly planning terrorist action. During Trump’s term, Putin did not even dare speak of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

But, as soon as Joe Biden was elected, Putin amassed troops on the Ukraine border. Meanwhile, Biden, through National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the chief author of the Russiagate fabrication, sought Russian and Iranian oil to backstop dwindling American fossil fuel production while seeking Russian aid to restart the Iranian nuclear talks.

Almost immediately, Biden and Sullivan paused a large package of lethal American weapons aid to Ukraine, later halting the transfer to Ukraine of MIGs from Poland, while doing nothing to rattle sabers at Putin in advance of the invasion. Indeed, Biden seemed to be offering Putin an engraved invitation, assuring him that America would not take action in Ukraine’s defense.

In short, Putin did not suddenly, in early 2021, begin to wish for a Ukraine invasion. Even though he was unsuccessful in getting Clinton elected in 2016, because of his support of the Russiagate deceit Putin got an even weaker United States president in Biden.

So, the Russiagate canard had far more than domestic partisan effect, as wished by Clinton, American intelligence agencies, and the partisan media. Our nation’s global security, and that of our allies, as well as food and energy security, have all been catastrophically impacted by a media hungry to accept uncritically any leftist partisan narrative, no matter how obviously fabricated. 

This media malpractice has harmed our country profoundly. Will there be any media self-reflection or at least criticism of Clinton and Biden for their long-standing weakness toward Russia? 

Don’t count on it. 

‘Supply Chain Disruptions’ Are Not An Accident, They’re The Logical Result Of Stupid Lockdowns

No, the cowardly politicians who enabled foolish and unprecedented lockdowns do not deserve to blame the results on anything but themselves.

Joy Pullman reporting for The Federalist

In Joe Biden’s painful and inaccurate speech about inflation on Tuesday, he finally shifted from blaming racism for everything to blaming Covid for everything to now blaming “the supply chain” and “Mr. Putin’s war in Ukraine” (that Biden baited Putin into) for everything.

These “supply chain disruptions,” as everyone is painfully aware, are doing everything from starving babies to shooting up the price of everything, as Wednesday’s 8.3 percent annual inflation number affirmed again. They are also not random, and they’re not a virus’s fault. They’re the direct and foreseeable consequence of ill-advised global lockdowns that nearly all of our nation’s political leaders refused to take into account when they and corporate media colluded to gaslight the world into accepting them.

Our historic “supply chain problems” are not the result of happenstance. They are the result of cowardly, ignorant, and just plain malevolent leadership throughout the entire Covid era.

Lockdowns never needed to happen. Global lockdowns were never before advised or attempted for much worse pandemics, they were based on faulty models, and the Information Age doesn’t change their imprudence. The “supply chain” consequences alone, as well as many of the other horrific medical and social consequences, should be enough evidence for all rational people to conclude that we must never, ever lock down again.

Focused protection of the most vulnerable during the next pandemic? Absolutely. Voluntary prudential health measures that allow societies to keep normal life going? Sure. But never, ever again lockdowns of the kind Americans were forced to endure in Covid-tide, which have resulted in massive, evil social consequences that are only now beginning to be visible.

The supply chains are only the tip of this dark iceberg. As I pointed out this March on the two-year anniversary of the beginning of this human rights catastrophe, there are many consequences, including:

A June 2021 study by world-renowned scientists across 43 countries, for example, found that lockdown length and strength were correlated with excess deaths, often due to delayed or missed medical care. A January 2021 study also by world-class scientists found that lockdowns did not reduce Covid deaths.

Besides their at best negligible effect at reducing Covid hospitalizations and deaths, lockdowns caused additional and completely unnecessary deaths from delayed or foregone medical care, as well as through starvation due to drastically increased world poverty. According to also-vindicated legitimate experts like Dr. Martin Kulldorff, lockdowns may have also caused additional Covid deaths due to prolonging the outbreak. In short, lockdowns cost lives, while at best saving none.

Various studies estimate lockdowns will have caused millions more malaria and tuberculosis deaths, as well as untold increases in cancer severity and deaths, hundreds of thousands more AIDS deaths, and likely millions more starvation deaths and children living hungry long-term. One study in The Lancet estimated up to 2.3 million additional deaths of children globally per year from lockdowns.

The reality is, it is impossible to just hit “pause” on an economy. An action like this must have millions of unforeseeable effects, and the phrase people are using to summarize some of these butterfly effects now is “supply chain issues.” Justin Hart gives an example of the effects of shutting down the manufacture of just one item — toilet paper.

Now imagine you’re an executive down at the fictitious TP supplier ‘Wipe World.’ The call comes in for the shutdown and you have some serious decisions to make. Production managers at the Big Roll Mill (your supplier for industrial reems of TP) have shut down and will eventually furlough most of the staff. Your shipping contracts will go into default, trucks with slabs of TP rolls tightly wrapped and ready to be dispensed will be called back or even mothballed. The proverbial target of your product is about to hit the fan.

…So a national shutdown leads to a run on toilet paper, caused by a sudden drop in at-work wiping, leading to massive manufacturing rework, supply-chain shifts, and a janitorial staff  forced to walk the halls of vacated buildings like Jack Torrance from The Shining, simulating a proxy population doing their business to keep everything from falling apart.

Anyone who had any familiarity with the insane complexity of making anything or any cooperative activity such as education should have logically deduced that “pausing” an entire society is entirely impossible and idiotic to even suggest. The pause will always have its own effects that make a restart at best really complicated and possibly never able to occur.

That’s already visible in the labor market. We all see the evidence that the shutdowns dampened working-age Americans’ already weak willingness to work. There are “help wanted” signs everywhere and yet another record high number of able-bodied, working-age people refusing to fill positions needed to resolve the problems lockdowns created.

Yes, the “stimulus” hush money played into that — another Covid response failure perpetuated by those in power — but so did the insane panic and the refusal to tell the truth that most working-age people were not at high risk from contracting Covid. So did the lockdowns, which like masks were used not as a health tool but as a manipulation tool, to frighten and control people. That’s also going to have effects that can never be fully undone, including deepening distrust of authorities and public institutions among the minority who were aware of the truth and its mass manipulation in the era of Covid.

This foolish Covid “cure” of lockdowns will end up being much, much worse than the disease. And it never needed to have been foisted on Americans and the entire West in the first place.

All it would have taken was a few more courageous leaders or a less demonic press to protect the American people from responding to a natural disaster with even bigger man-made disasters. But we don’t have either, so Americans punished themselves by suffering 10 times what was in store had we just followed common sense and ridden out the storm with more courage and honesty.

The least we can do to help rectify and correct our shameful behavior is be honest about what we’ve done. Acknowledging that one did wrong is the first essential step towards repentance, which is the first essential step towards restoration and wholeness.

One way would be to stop blaming Covid-19 for our irrational response to it. Instead of saying Covid or “the pandemic” caused the supply chain issues, like Biden does, we can start saying that lockdowns did so. To go a step farther, we can stop calling them “supply chain” issues at all, and call them “lockdown consequences.” That is the truth.

We can all also etch in our memories who exactly was complicit in leading us into panic and devastation, and hold them accountable. That is going to require some electoral changes, starting with the man at the top and going right down through state and federal “health” agencies. No funds for them until they clean house.

It also includes never again believing in any media outlet or writer who proved willing to lie and coerce others with lies. These people have forfeited their moral and professional authority.

Until there is accountability rooted in truth, which starts with telling the truth now and going forward and acting upon it prudently, our society’s vulnerability to mass hysteria will only get worse. That should keep up at night every person who has the power to hold these charlatans accountable and hasn’t yet used that power for its just ends.

 

Article by Margot Cleveland in The Federalist

If You Don’t Care About Election Integrity, You’re A Bad American

 In 2005, bipartisan leaders cautioned that systemic problems plagued American elections. The 2020 general election saw every problem they warned about come to fruition.

 

Recent polls confirm the majority of Americans care about election integrity. And history proves that if you don’t, you’re a bad American.

The 2020 general election revealed this reality—and not because Joe Biden prevailed or because the election was stolen from Donald Trump, but because our constitutional republic cannot survive without election integrity. That is not just the judgment of the MAGA crowd, or even conservatives or the political right—or at least it didn’t use to be.

Less than two decades ago Americans so universally believed that election integrity mattered that when the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform issued its 100-plus page report, “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” the twin goals of election integrity and voting access received equal treatment. While Co-Chairs Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Jim Baker explained that not all members of the Commission “necessarily support every word or recommendation,” all members, they stressed, “endorsed the judgments and general policy thrust of the report in its entirety.”

The bipartisan-endorsed fundamentals underlying the report included two unanimously accepted judgments related to election integrity. First, “elections are the heart of democracy” and “if elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.” Second, and a corollary to the first: confidence in elections matters equally, and in fact “is central to our nation’s democracy.”

On this latter principle, the commission elaborated: “Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly.” “Little can undermine democracy more than a widespread belief among the people that elections are neither fair nor legitimate,” the report stressed.

That same bipartisan report also recognized that while the losing side may be “unhappy with the results,” there is something “new and dangerous” taking place in the United States: “Supporters of the losing side are beginning to believe that the process is unfair. And this is true of both parties.”

Yet, while the Carter Commission declared that having a fair electoral process “transcends any individual partisan interest,” today, Democrats have not just abandoned any care over election integrity, they have declared such concerns racist, and that is with voting access never higher.

In light of the left’s attempt to castigate election integrity, every citizen should revisit the bipartisan judgments and policy pronouncements that formed the foundation for the “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections” report, which hold even more true today than in 2005. That report proves vital to exposing both the current lack of election integrity in America and the danger our nation faces absent a quick correction.

Further, because the Carter Commission’s report came when Democrats held a heightened concern over election integrity because of Al Gore’s loss in 2000, and because the analysis spoke to Americans without the shadow of Trump obscuring the danger, the lengthy report’s discussion of election integrity reveals the reality of the situation facing our country today that partisans seem unable to see.

Specifically, the 2005 report reveals that every concern the commission identified as threatening the legitimacy of elections played out in November 2020, notwithstanding the bipartisan commission’s declaration more than 15 years ago that the need for “election reform” was urgent. Likewise, the aftermath of the 2020 election reveals that the problems and concerns that the Carter Commission proclaimed more than 20 years ago that needed immediate redress have instead multiplied and mutated.

While the anti-Trump contingency blame the former president for prompting distrust in the 2020 election results, the Carter Commission recognized that a fair electoral process was vital to “assure[] the winning candidates the authority to legitimately assume office,” and that the losing candidate can accept the decision “as the will of the voters.” If you juxtapose what happened in 2020 with the defects in our electoral system of which the commission warned, the reality becomes clear: Trump was not the problem—systemic defects in our electoral system were.

Bloated and inaccurate voter rolls, nonexistent or faulty voter-identification procedures, and a lack of private voting—all issues the bipartisan commission warned threatened elections and our democracy—tainted the last election. Misconduct by partisan election officials, the use of inconsistent procedures in different precincts, and an overall lack of transparency added to the problems in 2020.

Again, these are issues the Carter Commission stressed threatened our democracy. The 2005 report also warned that absentee and mail-in voting come with the risk of fraud which, without limitations and adequate protections, would undermine the faith in our elections.

The widespread and chaotic use of mail-in and absentee voting in 2020 proved the bipartisan commission prescient. And while today’s Democrats blame Trump, less than two decades ago both sides of the aisle saw “the ultimate test of an election system is its ability to withstand intensive public scrutiny during a very close election.”

Our current electoral system fails that test, and every citizen who loves this great country should demand reform. If you don’t, you are a bad American.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/12/if-you-dont-care-about-election-integrity-youre-a-bad-american/ 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Tucker Carlson's Latest Takedown of the GOP Is Must-See

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

As of Thursday afternoon, Sen. Rand Paul was blocking the passage of a $40 billion bill ostensibly meant to help Ukraine defeat Russia. That followed on the heels of Rep. Chip Roy absolutely lambasting the spending package, noting that he and his colleagues didn’t even get a chance to read it.

Per my prior write-up on the matter, that anger is righteous and justified. The bill in question is full of unrelated expenditures and provides essentially no accountability or safeguards regarding money that does go to Ukraine.

With that backstop, Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves on Wednesday evening and delivered what I believe to be his best monologue of the year. In a takedown for the ages, the Fox News host not only took the bill itself to the cleaners, but he also lit into Republicans who pushed for it when far more responsible, nuanced approaches were available.

I don’t often watch cable news, but when I saw this clip pop up on YouTube, I watched all 20 minutes of it. It’s that good.

I won’t recap everything Carlson says because again, it’s much more satisfying to actually watch the video. But as an overview, he begins by critiquing the urgency with which Congress is moving to send tens of billions of dollars to Ukraine in a manner that offers no real oversight. On the domestic front, Americans are told we can’t afford to secure the border or solve the overdose crisis, both things Carlson mentions, but the moment Ukraine needs more money than we spent in Afghanistan over the course of the last year we were there, suddenly, we’ve got it.

Certainly, that rubs some people the wrong way. That’s not because supporting Ukraine isn’t a worthy cause, but because the way Congress is going about it is unsustainable and irresponsible. As Carlson notes, $40 billion is more than Russia spends on its entire military in a year. It’s $7 billion more than Joe Biden even asked for. And a lot of that money isn’t even going to Ukraine.

But after mocking Pelosi’s citing of the Bible to justify sending more missiles to Ukraine (the Bible need not apply in regards to abortion, of course), Carlson then turned his sights on congressional Republicans. Why? Because a majority of them jumped on board of this massive spending bill, with no debate and not a single care about whether we could afford it or if it was responsibly administered.

Carlson lit into Sen. Mitch McConnell, who earlier in the week called Ukraine the world’s “top priority.” A border wall, though? McConnell couldn’t be bothered to use reconciliation to get that done when he had the chance. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham is proclaiming “there is no off-ramp” for Russia, a ridiculous notion given the alternative could be a prolonged, deadly war. But, when has that ever bothered Graham?

From there, Carlson hit Dan Crenshaw, who had recently said that the Ukraine bill was necessary to fight a proxy war against Russia. When did we declare war on Russia?

I’ll stop there so as to not spoil the entire thing, but needless to say, Carlson was at his peak in this monologue. And while I’m openly supportive of Ukraine against Putin’s invasion, there are smarter ways to go about it than this. Unfortunately, Washington is not full of the nation’s best and brightest.

 

SCOTUS Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Article by Eric Mack in NewsMax

 

Justice Barrett's Neighbor to Protesters: 'Go Home and Get a Family'

A neighbor of Supreme Justice Amy Coney Barrett's denounced protesters outside the associate justice's home amid the leak of a draft decision that might overturn Roe v. Wade.

The unnamed man tells a reporter on his front lawn that the abortion rights activists should "go home and get a family," according to a video posted Wednesday to Twitter.

The reporter was speaking to the purported neighbor of a conservative justice who may have sided with Justice Samuel Alito, whose draft majority opinion seemingly overruled the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion a constitutionally protected right. Alito's decision would in effect kick the issue of abortion back to the states, which Republicans argue is where it belongs.

Republicans are also pointing to laws on the books that make it a crime to "picket and parade" at a judge's home in a threat to influence a decision. The White House and some Democrats have still supported the demonstrations at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, despite the law.

"It's none of their business," Barrett's neighbor tells the reporter in the Twitter video. "Why are they here?

"They live here. This is where she lives. They have the right to protest, but not in front of someone's house.

"They shouldn't be doing this."

 Most of the protests have been directed at the steps of the Supreme Court and the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts, Alito, and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-protest/2022/05/12/id/1069679/ 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Food Security is National Security

Yesterday ultra-MAGA representative Marjorie Taylor Greene delivered remarks about the failures of the Biden administration as they are reflected in the continual food security and pricing crisis.   I strongly recommend watching these brief remarks, very impressive.

MTG accurately identifies the origin of the current baby formula crisis, as an outcome of stress within the supply chain caused by government intervention into the overall system.  MTG then notes that FDA rules and regulations make supply interruptions worse.

Additionally, in the background of the federal DHS and HHS contracts for food products, including baby food/formula, most of those federal contracts contain a ‘first right‘ or ‘prioritized continuity‘ provision, creating a distribution outcome (via contractual mandate) where illegal aliens end up with preferential allocation.  WATCH (2:55 mins):

 

Article by Matthew Continetti in The Washington Free Beacon

Pop Goes the Presidency

 Biden gets desperate

 

A wise man once said: "When the economy is bad, people blame the party in power. When the economy is good, people look at other issues."

Well, the economy is bad. Nice-sounding growth, job, and wage numbers do not count for much when the American standard of living is in decline. Inflation has outpaced income gains since last year. It remains at a 40-year high. Gas costs more than four dollars per gallon—sometimes much more—in every state. Americans under 40 years old are experiencing consumer delays, shortages, and scarce necessities, including baby formula, for the first time in their lives. According to the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of Americans say that inflation is "a very big problem."

It's also a very big problem for the party in power. President Biden’s economic approval rating is 34 percent in the most recent CNN poll. His overall job approval rating is 41 percent in the FiveThirtyEight average of polls. Republicans have held a slight but durable lead in the congressional generic ballot since last October. The midterm election is less than six months away. To preserve their narrow majorities in Congress, Democrats need to change the trajectory of this campaign. Right now.

Their solution? Pretend that the election isn't a referendum on Biden's job performance but a choice between Biden and Donald Trump. Scare voters with references to the extremism of the right. Invoking Trump alone is not enough, however. Terry McAuliffe tried that approach during last year's Virginia gubernatorial campaign and it flopped. McAuliffe lost. Running against Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement doesn't work when Trump is neither president nor on the ballot. Democrats have convinced themselves that victory in the fall requires something scarier than MAGA. It requires Ultra-MAGA.

On May 10 Biden contrasted his policies with the "Ultra-MAGA Agenda." Haven't heard of it? According to Biden, it's the brainchild of Senator Rick Scott of Florida, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (In his remarks, Biden erroneously said Scott hails from Wisconsin.) Back in February, Scott released a policy document that remains controversial within the Republican Party and that few Republican candidates have endorsed in full.

Biden isn't subtle. He wants to use Scott's proposals as an electoral cudgel, just as Barack Obama campaigned against Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" in 2012. Hence Biden's description of "the ultra-MAGA plan put forward by congressional Republicans to raise taxes on working families; lower the incomes of American workers; threaten the sacred programs American count on like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and give break after break to big corporations and billionaires." Biden says that his foes are not ordinary Republicans. They are not run-of-the-mill Trump voters. They are "Ultra-MAGA Republicans."

Someone has been spending too much time in focus groups. The Biden administration and congressional Democrats must think that the prefix "ultra" makes a noun sound spooky. But the president and his underlings will have to specify who really counts as an Ultra-MAGA Republican, what the Ultra-MAGA agenda entails, and when "ultra" should be capitalized before voters stop worrying about rising prices, violent crime, insecure borders, and craziness in schools. In its current usage, "ultra-MAGA" comes across as comical. It's a hackneyed slogan. Some people may even find it appealing.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters the other day that "ultra-MAGA" is the president's coinage for Republicans who support Rick Scott's plan, Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion returning abortion law to the states, and Governor Ron DeSantis's (R., Fla.) fight with Disney. "And so," said Psaki, "to him, adding a little ‘ultra' to it, give it a little extra pop."

 A little extra pop? What is Psaki talking about—a new flavor of Pringles?

The Democrats are unable or incapable of running on their accomplishments. Their economic agenda is discredited among voters grappling with inflation. Their traditional advantage on education has narrowed because of parental fury at school closures, mask rules, confusing COVID guidance, and politically correct school boards. They have fallen back on scaremongering and name-calling.

Not for the first time. Nor for the last. Expect the alarm bells to ring louder as autumn approaches. By Election Day, Biden will have moved from "Ultra-MAGA" to "Mega-MAGA," "Super-Duper MAGA," "MAGA Deluxe XXL," and, in homage to his love of ice cream, "All-Out Triple Scoop Chunky Monkey MAGA with Extra Deplorables." Voters will respond as they usually do when Biden speaks. They will ignore him.

https://freebeacon.com/columns/pop-goes-the-presidency/ 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage