Tuesday, May 24, 2022

America Should Bring Back Public Executions

To make America great again, we need to make murderers, drug dealers, and rapists afraid again.


Crime is out of control. Murders are up 40 percent since 2019 in America’s big cities. Violent assault is up 12 percent. Last November alone saw 3,000 car break-ins in San Francisco—a massive rise from the year prior. 

The George Floyd riots, COVID lockdowns, and the media stoking the fires of racial resentment have produced the intended effect. This state of affairs cannot continue. America does need criminal justice reform.

We can start with public executions of the most vicious and bloodthirsty convicted criminals in our midst.

Peel away the interminable blather—that ocean of words, processes, and legal jargon that permeate our lives—and the true purpose of the state becomes clear: protecting life and property. Not providing school lunches, not fighting “hate,” not ending poverty—protection. A state that does not protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic will cease to exist. 

To achieve this purpose, the state possesses power over life and death.

In foreign policy, this means the state can declare war in the name of self-defense. Domestically, it means the state has the power to execute criminals.

Unfortunately, our current crop of political elites is uninterested in protecting the citizens. Politicians in D.C. would never dream of actually trying to fund a border wall in order to stem the flow of illegal drugs. The 100,000 overdose deaths a year aren’t even a blip on the Congressional radar. Our rulers are much more interested in sending taxpayer money to Ukraine to fund an idiotic proxy war against Russia in the name of vague abstractions like “democracy.” The most recent aid package to our eastern European puppets contained $40 billion. It passed the Senate 86-11. 

American politicians don’t really care about blacks in inner cities getting gunned down or poor whites shooting up fentanyl in the rust belt. What really matters is geopolitical intrigue in the middle of Asia. 

Politicians and ordinary people alike need a firm and striking reminder of what government is actually supposed to do. That is why we need to start executing criminals in public. Every town square in every little town in America should have a gallows—a stark reminder of the power of the state to enforce order and decency. As a country, we need a heavy dose of reality to counteract the soporific effect of endless propaganda and life in the virtual world.

To make America great again, we need to make murderers, drug dealers, and rapists afraid again. They’ve gotten too comfortable reclining in the soft, uncalloused hands of liberal pity. No more. Pain and fear are powerful incentives. Decent and patriotic Americans need to learn to use these weapons in the name of preserving a civilized way of life. 

Letting vicious killers and thugs run amuck is not humane. It isn’t kind. It is certainly not Christian. The Biblical God is a God of justice. It was Christ himself who said in Matthew 18:6 that he who corrupts children deserves to be cast into deep waters with a millstone around his neck. This is a Sunday school lesson more pedophiles need to learn firsthand.

To ameliorate injuries done to victims and to restrain evildoers are the two purposes of criminal justice. The point of executing criminals is not primarily to bring closure to the victims’ families, nor is it to satiate blood lust. Instead, the aim is to discourage others from committing particularly horrific crimes. Killing a pedophile won’t undo the rapes he has committed. It most certainly can, however, serve as a stark reminder to others not to abuse children.

Most criminals have lower than average intelligence and poor impulse control. But even they can grasp basic self-interest if they have help. Public punishment is that aid. But executions only have a deterrent effect when there is a clear connection between the crime and the punishment. Otherwise, killing criminals is basically pointless. The goal of executions is not gratuitous killing but to lower the overall number of criminals through deterrence and restraint. A murderer can’t kill again if he’s dead.

The last public execution in America is a useful object lesson in this regard. On June 7, 1936, a man named Rainey Bethea brutally raped and murdered an elderly woman by the name of Lischia Edwards in Owensboro, Kentucky. Bethea was on parole at the time and left a black celluloid prison ring with his name on it at the scene of the crime. He also left fingerprints at the crime scene that police later used to verify his presence in the room.

A few days later, Bethea was discovered by a local day laborer hiding in some bushes. He was captured by police and made his first confession on the way to being transported to the jail house. On June 12, Bethea made a second confession, revealing where he had placed jewels he had stolen from Edwards. Police found the jewels at the stated location, again confirming his presence at the scene of the crime. 

On June 25 the jury convened. The trial lasted only three hours. The jury deliberated for only four minutes before giving its verdict: death by public hanging. All attempts at appeals were dismissed out of hand. Both federal and state judges, unlike today, respected the will of the jury. At sunrise on August 13—two months and a day after his heinous crime—Bethea was put to death in front of a crowd of 20,000 people. 

Today, the average length of time served on death row is 18 years

In the decades in between, our justice system has lost all common sense. The will of the jury no longer matters. The people have been systematically excluded from the legal system. What matters now is the administrative process carried out by unelected bureaucrats. The Rittenhouse trial is a good example. It was 15 months between the shooting and his self-defense trial. That was 15 months of nervous waiting—with Kyle Rittenhouse not knowing whether he would live a free man or lose his liberty for decades. The trial itself lasted for two weeks. The jury instructions were a mind-numbing 35 pages long. In America, the process is the punishment. 

Judges and lawyers dominate this administrative complex—not the people. The legal system has become so byzantine that some 95 percent of cases are settled by plea deal in which alleged criminals plead guilty to lesser charges in order to avoid trial and the possibility of greater penalties.

This is unacceptable. Americans have a right to a speedy trial for a reason. Trials should be swift and the punishments themselves should be carried out quickly so that the connection between crime and its consequences is not lost. Juries, not lawyers, should be at the center of our legal system.  

America needs a moral reckoning. Instead of the slow torture of solitary confinement and life sentences, our justice system should utilize our fear of intense, but swift, pain to deter the worst criminal elements. Flogging and public executions are superior and more moral deterrents than the lives lived by prisoners in America’s harshest penitentiaries.

Robert Hood, the former director of the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado described conditions in his prison as a “clean version of Hell.” If we play out this metaphor, that would mean Hood himself must have been the Devil. Here again the satanic impulse rears its ugly head. The prisoners in the Supermax have no human contact. They are denied even the opportunity to look at the nearby Rocky Mountains. 

These prisoners are vicious and brutal men, of course. They deserve to be punished, but this system of interminable prison sentences is both cruel and unusual. Public execution was common at the time of the founding. Life sentences in solitary confinement were not. Spiritual torture through unending imprisonment serves no purpose but mindless vengeance. Florence Supermax is not open to the public eye, either. Here again the people—the society to which a debt is supposedly being paid—are excluded from the real process of punishment. Long prison sentences move the locus of punishment away from the public life of the people into the secretive and opaque machinations of the administrative state.

This is an inefficient and ultimately inhumane system of punishment. It is not nearly effective enough, yet it comes at a great cost. Public executions are a necessary kind of harshness. We cannot have civilization without violence and pain. Human beings possess a natural inclination toward brutality and viciousness. This impulse cannot be eradicated, but it can be tempered. The question is not whether we will have punishment but what kind. That which is swift and harsh is, in the long run, far better than that which is slow, cruel, and invisible.



X22, And We Know, and more- May 24

 



Primary day in a few states again! Good luck to all conservatives out there. Here's the list of endorsed candidates to keep an eye out (via Breitbart):

Alabama-01: Carl, Jerry
Alabama-02: Moore, Barry
Alabama-03: Rogers, Mike
Alabama-04: Aderholt, Robert
Alabama-06: Palmer, Gary

Arkansas-Senate: Boozman, John
Arkansas-Governor: Sanders, Sarah Huckabee
Arkansas-Attorney General: Griffin, Tim
Arkansas-01: Crawford, Rick
Arkansas-04: Westerman, Bruce

Georgia-Governor: Perdue, David
Georgia-Lieutenant Governor: Jones, Burt
Georgia-Secretary of State: Hice, Jody
Georgia-Attorney General: Gordon, John
Georgia-Insurance Commissioner: Witt, Patrick
Georgia-Senate: Walker, Herschel
Georgia-01: Carter, Buddy
Georgia-06: Evans, Jake
Georgia-09: Clyde, Andrew
Georgia-10: Jones, Vernon
Georgia-11: Loudermilk, Barry
Georgia-12: Allen, Rick
Georgia-14: Greene, Marjorie Taylor

Texas-Attorney General: Paxton, Ken
Texas-Land Commissioner: Buckingham, Dawn
Texas-State House-61: Frazier, Frederick
Texas-State Senate-24: Flores, Pete
Texas-Tarrant County-District Attorney: Sorrells, Phil

Here's tonight's news:


The Economic Doom Loop Has Begun

No communist was ever as dedicated to economic suicide as the current class of idiots who rule us.


High inflation, overregulation, and a general sense that things are going in the wrong direction remind us of the late 1970s and early ’80s. But today the underlying problems that were responsible for our woes in that time are vastly worse. The coming reckoning for Washington’s insanely irresponsible monetary policy may dwarf the troubles from all recent recessions and periods of inflation. 

The Federal Reserve has created a doom loop between the housing market and inflation. For years it has printed tens of billions of dollars each month to buy sketchy securities meant to subsidize the housing market and favor bond traders. This continues even now, in spite of inflation and a red-hot housing market. But the housing market has become dependent on unearned, newly printed money, and stopping the flow might cause a catastrophic correction. If it doesn’t stop, however, inflation will explode. 

Let me walk you through some of the math.

Inflation closes the gap between money earned and money spent. Since the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve expanded M2 money supply from just under $8 trillion to around $22 trillion today. During that time GDP has increased from around $14.6 trillion to around $24.5 trillion today. We’ve gone from a ratio of one dollar chasing $2.75 in goods in services to an almost 1 to 1 ratio today. Inflation during the same period, according to the government, has eroded the dollar by a mere 33 percent. 

You think 8 percent inflation is high? Prices need to double, almost triple to restore any semblance of balance between currency and the things you can buy with currency. We have a long way to go.

To understand how dire the situation has become, we need to review a curious practice the Fed began shortly after the 2008 crash. In November 2008, the Federal Reserve began an extraordinary program of purchasing mortgage-backed securities (MBS) Using newly created money (not tax dollars or private investments), the Fed dumped billions of dollars per month with the stated goal of helping the government stimulate the economy. 

A mortgage-backed security is simply a pool of mortgages. As homeowners pay their mortgages, the money then flows to bondholders. The 2008 financial crisis resulted from problems valuing these securities. In order to sell a MBS, the buyer had to gain some confidence in the likelihood of repayment. Because this involved so many complex and unknowable factors relating to each of the individual mortgages, the debt could sometimes turn “toxic” or drop in value quickly when buyers lost faith in the future performance of homeowners. 

Years passed and a recovery seemed to abate the emergency. Yet the Fed just kept buying more and more. Traditionally, the Fed stimulated the economy by purchasing U.S. treasuries. This avoided the sticky problem of establishing a fair price for the security because the treasury’s value is relatively easy to establish. An MBS, however, cannot be easily valued because reasonable minds can make different predictions about the likelihood of individual homeowners repaying their loans. Thus, unlike purchases of treasuries, bulk purchases of mortgage-backed securities are ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. There’s no easy way to audit whether the Fed is overpaying for the securities. 

The sheer scale of the Fed’s involvement in the mortgage market caused an unstable bubble. As the president of the Kansas City Fed recently said, “by owning roughly one-quarter of the MBS market along with a significant portfolio of longer-term Treasuries, our presence in financial markets muddies price signals, encourages excessive risk-taking, and can foster financial instability. Asset prices remain historically high and remain vulnerable to economic and policy uncertainty.” 

In other words, lenders don’t need to worry about lending to risky borrowers because the Fed is buying all the crap nobody else will touch.

Although the Fed promised it would stop buying mortgage-backed securities by March of this year, the promise came with a giant asterisk. As old bonds mature and disappear from its balance sheet, “monthly purchase schedules will continue to be issued to reflect reinvestment of principal payments . . .” In other words, when the Fed receives a dollar from an MBS payout, it just uses it to buy another bond. 

Thus, in the face of red-hot inflation, the Fed bought another $38 billion in mortgage-backed securities in March. In April, it bought another $40.1 billion. This month, the Fed is in the process of buying another $34.5 billion. 

Until recently, the Fed has been on an unprecedented buying spree. It increased its total MBS holdings from $1.7 trillion in 2020 to $2.7 trillion today. Indeed, the Fed made roughly $400 billion of those purchases after its chairman’s June 2021 testimony in which he famously labeled 5 percent inflation “temporary.” It was obvious then that inflation was just getting started.

So all of this might seem like terrible news. But it’s nothing compared to the doom loop that has begun to turn. The coming reckoning could be savage and apocalyptic. Let’s walk through what might happen next.

The problem with inflation is not just how high it is, it’s how quickly it is increasing. Again, the money supply has increased so much that prices would have to almost triple to restore balance between goods and the dollars chasing them. So the Fed’s mandate requires it to intervene to stop inflation. It typically does that by raising interest rates and selling back its bonds. When the Fed sells a bond, the cash flows out of the economy relieving the inflation pressure. 

To fight inflation, interest rates need to exceed the inflation rate. That means a dollar saved loses purchasing power unless savings interest rates climb from less than 1 percent to something over current inflation (now around 8 percent). One rule of thumb provides that savings interest rates should reach 150 percent of inflation in order to reverse the trend. The theory holds that high interest rates encourage saving cash thus slowing down the speed at which money chases assets. If interest rates are less than inflation, it makes holding cash a losing proposition.

But in this environment, raising interest rates will cause a cascade of problems. The higher interest rates will slow the economy and cause unemployment. It will also swallow up tax revenue as the government has to pay interest on its massive debt. But more critically, it will increase the rate of default on home mortgages. Those defaults will make mortgage-backed securities less valuable and more unpredictable. That’s how the 2008 housing market seized up. 

Thus, the doom loop. 

The more the Fed props up the mortgage industry, the more it encourages inflation. The more inflation increases, the more urgent it becomes to stop printing money. When the printing press stops and interest rates rise, those MBSs likely will turn toxic again, freezing the market at the exact moment the Fed needs buyers for its bonds.

Alternatively, the Fed could just let inflation rip as it continues to pour gasoline on the fire. At this point, the latter scenario appears more likely as the Fed engages in half-hearted symbolic inflation-fighting measures. Not surprisingly, the inflation numbers get scarier and scarier. At some point, runaway inflation will force the Fed to take real action. One thing is certain: the longer it waits, the more it will hurt.

Closing the gap between money earned and money spent means cutting government spending, raising interest rates, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes. Government can and should facilitate increases in productivity by reducing its interference in every private transaction. More Americans get a check from the government than pay taxes. The labor participation rate is dangerously low. There just aren’t enough people pulling their weight to make the things needed to sop up all of this excess money. 

Even communist countries have resorted to my suggested reforms when markets smash their utopian plans. But no communist was ever as dedicated to economic suicide as the current class of idiots who rule us.



It’s Long Past Time For Congress To Break Up The FBI

The D.C. bureaucracy and specifically the intelligence agencies have long become powers unto themselves, and a threat to our democracy.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s long history of abusing its power is once again prominent amid the continued expose by Special Counsel John Durham. His prosecution is demonstrating the FBI’s use of its power to deploy federal intelligence assets against political opponents of Democrats.

The FBI routinely intervenes in politics, such as when the FBI assisted the Hillary Clinton campaign in painting former President Donald Trump as a Russian intelligence asset, as Durham’s investigation is emphasizing with more evidence. By getting a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on Carter Page, the FBI also likely spied on Trump and his inner circle via something called the two-hop rule.

Stunningly, it appears the FBI’s animus for Trump was rooted in disagreements about the foreign policy that Trump campaigned on. Spygate, however, is only a more recent manifestation of a long history of FBI abuses that Congress must rein in as soon as possible.

A Long History of Impropriety

The FBI has a long history of impropriety. Ever since the War on Terror started, the FBI has targeted Muslim communities with informants, who receive $100,000 or more for their work and may be engaged in illegal activities that go unaddressed.

Trevor Aaronson analyzed thousands of FBI cases and found that, “Of these defendants caught up in FBI terrorism sting operations, an FBI informant was the person who led one of every three terrorist plots, and the FBI also provided all of the necessary weapons, money, and transportation.”

The most infamous example is when an FBI agent told a soon-to-be shooter to “Tear up Texas,” right before that person shot up a crowded hall. Even the San Bernadino shooter had contact with people “on the FBI’s radar.” More recently, there were allegations that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend was an FBI informant.

Since Trump was elected, the FBI’s focus has shifted away from Islamic terror toward supposed far-right terror. Even Sen. Ted Cruz called the January 6 attack “terrorism” (he later apologized for this terminology).

Just like the FBI’s role in Muslim communities after 9/11, the plot involving Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, timed to take place heading into the 2020 election, involved mostly FBI informants and agents. Journalist Glenn Greenwald has asked similar questions about the FBI’s involvement in the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot, given the number of persons named in government court documents who are not being prosecuted.

In a major abuse of power, the Biden administration mobilized FBI counterterrorism resources to investigate parents for expressing concerns at local school board meetings. Now, the FBI’s 2022 budget has the largest funding increase request under the category of combatting “domestic terrorism,” which includes the addition of many more agents and informants.

To top all this off, the FBI has a reputation of protecting the powerful and trampling on justice. The latest example is the FBI protecting sex predator Larry Nassar because of his powerful position in the U.S. gymnastics program. And don’t forget the likely intelligence agency involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein affair, where Epstein’s predations were allowed because this allowed blackmail to increase the power of U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI.

Break Up the FBI

To preserve our democratic republic, the FBI needs serious reform. But serious reform ideas are lacking on the conservative right. Meanwhile, Democrats, who traditionally questioned intelligence agency power, are increasingly aligned with these intelligence bureaucracies against their political enemies.

While many right-wing politicians call for “investigation,” regular folks need to realize that these are useless fundraising ploys. History-minded traditionalists might believe that in a perfect world the FBI would be ended entirely, with its duties given back to state police forces, but try finding support even among Republican House and Senate members for that idea.

A radical, impactful, but also politically workable solution is to instead break up the FBI into many smaller components—at least one-dozen separate agencies. These smaller components would have less power and prestige, and allow Congress greater oversight over the specific results and actions at each newly independent organization. Further, Congress would have far greater ability to tweak funding for these separate smaller agencies based on results, and the priorities of the American people.

Most important, splitting the FBI into smaller and more focused organizations would allow the White House—the president, elected by the people—direct control over the goings-on of each individual agency. This is more desirable because politicians are answerable to the people, while the bureaucracy is not. The smaller agencies would also carry far less weight and prestige than the former behemoth that was the FBI, which limits their ability—even that of the standalone counterterror or counterintel agencies—to intervene in domestic politics.

Some will argue that breaking the FBI into smaller organizations just creates more problems. But this ignores the benefits of less complexity and the additional oversight and control granted to Congress and the executive, respectively.

Others will argue that greater presidential control is dangerous. Yet this is already the status quo, but only if the president is a Democrat. And the whole problem with our intelligence bureaucracies today is that the bureaucracy is a government unto itself, unaccountable to elected officials.

Here’s the Roadmap

When breaking up the FBI, locate the headquarters of those agencies across America, especially in the Midwest, rustbelt, and southeastern United States. The organized crime agency can be placed in Indiana, the counterterrorism agency in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the anti-human trafficking agency in Kansas City. The heads of all these new, smaller, agencies will still be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The upside is obvious. The FBI’s roughly $10 billion budget can be apportioned across these agencies, but the creation of separate agencies allows Congress much more control over funding.

For example, relative to the problem, fighting human trafficking and child exploitation and abuse is completely under-resourced in the FBI. Yet the FBI’s politicization has it adding agents to go after political opponents, instead of adding more resources to protect children.

Specifically, create a separate anti-trafficking agency altogether, headquartered in the heartland. The FBI’s additional “domestic terrorism” agents should be removed and replaced with new roles in the anti-trafficking agency.

In other words, this new framework would create more direct and less opaque accountability to Congress and the president. This then would allow the public—who are actually smarter than the politicians—to better hold the government accountable.

The public would be stunned to know how little our federal government spends on measures to fight against trafficking and child exploitation. The public would also be stunned to know how much more we are spending on entrapping people in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism,” which the public would rightly judge far less a problem than the human trafficking problem. So let the sunlight in.

Finally, if Republicans are dissatisfied with this plan, let them come up with something better. But too often our elected politicians hide behind rhetoric of outrage while failing to craft any real hard-nosed policy solutions to fix the thing they are supposedly outraged about. Now is the hour for action, and talk is incredibly cheap.

The whole point of America’s founding documents is that too much power concentrated in too few hands is always corrupting, especially when this power is unaccountable to the people. The D.C. bureaucracy and specifically the intelligence agencies have long become powers unto themselves, and a threat to our democracy. The FBI is a poster child for this perversion of our system, and no political movement will save our democratic republic without reforming it.



A Nothingburger Lawsuit by DoJ Points to an Attempt to Minimize Hunter Biden's Criminality Before the 2022 Election


streiff reporting for RedState 

Last week, the US Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against casino mogul, GOP donor, and friend of President Trump, Steve Wynn. The lawsuit claims that Wynn made several attempts to get President Trump to act in a way beneficial to the government of Communist China, for which Wynn was acting as an unregistered agent. If successful, Wynn will be forced to register as an agent of China under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

According to the lawsuit, Sun Lijun, then the Chinese vice minister for public security, first approached three people in May 2017 with a request that the Trump administration cancel the visa of the Chinese businessman. The suit names Elliott B. Broidy, a former R.N.C. finance chairman and a top Trump fund-raiser; Nickie Lum Davis, another Republican fund-raiser; and the rapper Pras Michel. (Mr. Broidy and Ms. Lum Davis both pleaded guilty in 2020 to charges related to their roles in a covert campaign to influence the Trump administration on behalf of Chinese and Malaysian interests. Mr. Trump pardoned Mr. Broidy shortly before leaving office.)

In June 2017, Mr. Broidy passed the request from Mr. Sun to Mr. Wynn, according to the suit, and later, Mr. Sun made the case directly to Mr. Wynn. Mr. Sun had told Mr. Broidy that he wanted Mr. Guo placed on the national no-fly list and to have his application for a new visa denied, the suit stated.

After Mr. Wynn passed along the request during a dinner with Mr. Trump in June 2017, Mr. Broidy told Mr. Wynn that Mr. Sun and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, were thankful for his help. Mr. Wynn also reportedly brought up his business interests in Macau over several phone calls with Mr. Sun.

The businessman is thought to be Guo Wengui, a friend of Steve Bannon and all that entails. However, Wynn’s conversations with President Trump, whatever they were, did not result in Guo Wengui being turned over to the ChiComs.

Whenever the New York Times runs a story that wouldn’t make a pimple on BeltwayScandal™’s fat hairy butt, the first thing that you need to ask yourself is why?

The precipitating incident took place in June 2017; in other words, President Trump had been in office less than six months. The Department of Justice raised the issue in 2018. Wynn ignored the demand to register under FARA, and DOJ left the issue alone until 2021 and followed it up with this lawsuit. Wynn no longer holds any position within the RNC, he has retired as head of Wynn Resorts, and he has been beset with sexual harassment lawsuits; some have produced classic defenses:

Steve Wynn sued attorney Lisa Bloom and her law firm for defamation on Thursday, calling accusations that he leered at female performers false, an effort to pressure him into paying money and further stating he was legally blind at the time.

So we have a totally unimportant individual who arguably engaged in a technical violation of an administrative regulation five years ago. Even at the height of DOJ’s hatred for President Trump, when that organization was actively promoting a narrative it knew to be false about President Trump’s nonexistent ties to Russia and perjuring themselves to nail Michael Flynn, that agency just ignored Wynn telling them to FOAD. Yet, somehow now, a civil action to force Wynn to retroactively register as a Chinese agent, a story that can’t hurt President Trump or Republicans in 2022, rates a New York Times story. Does any of this make sense?

As I write this, a New York grand jury is investigating Hunter Biden’s financial dealings. In addition to tax fraud, the items under investigation include him acting as a foreign agent to bring business deals to the “Big Guy.” Much of the evidence comes from the laptop computer Hunter Biden left behind in a repair shop. That would be the same laptop that 50+ doofuses who used to run our national intelligence apparatus declared a Russian disinformation product. Thanks to Matt Gaetz entering the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop into the Congressional Record, the contents of that device can no longer be hidden; we all now have access to the contents.


You can find a searchable database of Hunter Biden’s emails at this link.

I suspect that this New York Times story has more to do with the Biden Crime Family than with Steve Wynn. The last thing the Biden White House wants to deal with during what is shaping up to be a wave election year is Joe Biden’s criminality. Hunter Biden is the point of entry into that burgeoning scandal.

Based on the public record, there is no doubt that Hunter Biden was acting as an unregistered agent of the ChiComs and anyone else who could afford his rental fee. The best way to explain this away is using the “Trump did it, too” defense. By targeting Wynn with a civil suit that would force him to register, they create an easy out to prosecuting Hunter.



No Matter What Happens To Biden’s ‘Disinformation’ Board, The Feds Are Spying On Americans

A long line of suppressed disclosures has shown that the federal government is indeed spying on Americans, and Congress still hasn’t done anything about it.


Facing an increasing backlash against the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governing Board (DGB), Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas promised it would not monitor Americans. It was not enough. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was forced to put the DGB on “pause,” and its director, Nina Jankowicz, resigned under public pressure.

Now DHS says it is “reviewing” the board while “continuing” its “critical work…to address disinformation.”

No matter what happens with the board, it is hard to take Mayorkas’s promise not to monitor Americans seriously. Several recent cases of the federal government spying on Americans as well as DHS’s own actions were certain to make people skeptical.

For example, in February of this year, DHS issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin, a memo prioritizing “false or misleading narratives” as a top domestic security threat. The bulletin states that “there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.”

This bulletin clearly referenced Americans inside our borders. Also, unlike with the DGB, DHS made no promise to not monitor Americans’ speech. (My organization, the Center to Advance Security in America, submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests for records regarding the NTAS bulletin and the DGB.)

Don’t forget Carter Page, either. Page was an advisor to the Donald Trump 2016 campaign. In 2016-17 the government investigated him on suspicion of being an intermediary between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. A later inspector general’s report identified “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in the application for a warrant to surveil Page. A Department of Justice attorney was convicted of falsifying a document that led to a Page warrant.

Also recall the James Clapper spying scandal. Clapper, the director of national intelligence under President Obama, responded, “No, sir” and “not wittingly,” when asked at a Senate hearing if the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans without a specific warrant. About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed Clapper’s answer was untruthful, as the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.

There is also the CIA spying scandal. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who are privy to classified information, have warned about the existence of a secret bulk collection program that the CIA has operated “outside the statutory framework that Congress and the public believe govern this collection,” and without oversight by the courts or Congress.

The secret program appears related to bulk data swept up by the CIA in terrorism operations, including information on Americans, according to a heavily blacked-out report from a CIA oversight board that was declassified at the urging of the two senators.

Then there is Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland’s infamous school board memo. The memo directed the FBI to involve itself in local school board meetings under the auspices of anti-terrorism statutes due to supposed threats and violence directed against board members.

However, concerns that the FBI and DOJ were actually targeting the speech of parents were heightened, when, on October 14, 2021, another memo, released by the U.S. attorney in Montana, directed law enforcement to “contact the FBI” if a parent calls a member of a school board simply “with intent to annoy.” He claimed that “may serve as a basis for a prosecution” under federal law.

Garland and the Biden Department of Justice and FBI were forced to disavow the latter memo, since it appeared to directly target simple and non-threatening speech. During testimony, Garland assured Congress the memo would not be used to target parents for policy disagreements. Yet information recently obtained from FBI whistleblowers indicates the FBI had targeted and labeled dozens of investigations into parents with a threat tag, based on their associations and speech, including statements opposing mask and vaccine mandates.

As if to pour fuel on this fire, the woman DHS chose to lead the DGB was proven to be a proud and vocal proponent of censorship. Jankowicz has a history of attaching the “disinformation” label to speech she doesn’t like, regardless of its veracity.

With a record like this, would you trust Mayorkas’s promise that the DGB won’t monitor the speech of the American people? Neither would I.