Elon Musk Is Right About White-on-Black Crime

Musk dared draw attention to a cartoon based on 
official federal statistics.

by Jeffrey H. Anderson for American Greatness

Elon Musk recently commented on a compelling editorial cartoon, produced by someone with the Twitter handle “End Wokeness,” that highlights vital crime statistics. The cartoon features a chart showing the number of interracial violent crime incidents by race, based on numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It shows that the number of black-on-white crimes is nine times higher than the number of white-on-black crimes, yet a news media cameraman has zoomed in on the white-on-black number so that it’s the only thing TV viewers can see. 

In response, Musk wrote: “Odd, why would the media misrepresent the real situation to such an extreme degree?”

Of course, the answer is that the media is determined to portray America as “systemically racist.” Sure enough, the response from the Left is that Musk is “racist” for drawing attention to such a “misleading” cartoon. 

Marc Owen Jones, a professor in Qatar who “researches disinformation,” objects to the fact that the cartoon’s chart, which is titled “Interracial Violent Crime Incidents 2018,” shows interracial violent crime incidents in 2018. Apparently when one shows such stats, one is also obligated to show stats on intra-racial violent crime, or so Jones suggests. 

Meantime, independent journalist Aaron Rupar writes that Musk is “posting crude racism” by calling attention to the cartoon. And, naturally, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), responding to Rupar, opines, “At this rate he’s gonna be begging for MyPillow ad buys in no time.”

I was the director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) when the stats in question were released, and the cartoon captures them perfectly and accurately. In America, far more violent crimes are committed by black offenders against white victims than by white offenders against black victims. This, of course, cuts against the narrative of “systemic racism,” which is why the press makes every effort to suggest the opposite.

Jones, the Qatar prof, complains that the chart doesn’t show stats on intra-racial violent crime. But such statistics, which are included in the same BJS report on which the cartoon is based, don’t contradict the cartoon’s point but rather strengthen it. The American Main Street Initiative (of which I am president) cites such intra-racial crime stats in its most recent Quick Hits, entitled “Are Cops ‘Systemically Racist’?—and is America?”

Quoting BJS, the four-page Quick Hits observes: “Sixty-two percent of violent incidents committed against white victims were perceived to be committed by white offenders, the same portion (62%) of the total U.S. population (age 12 or older).” What’s more, “In stark contrast, ‘Among black victims, the percentage of violent incidents perceived to be committed by black offenders (70%) was 5.8 times higher than the representation of black persons in the population (12%).’”

In other words, black victims are disproportionally likely to be victimized by members of their own race. Yet the Quick Hits notes that “on the whole, black Americans are victimized by violent crime at similar rates as other Americans. The reason for this is that there are comparatively few violent crimes committed by white (or Hispanic) residents against black residents.”

All of these statistics are based on BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which asks victims about the demographics of those who committed the crimes against them. Dating back to the Nixon Administration, the NCVS is the nation’s largest crime survey and one of the largest federal surveys on any topic.

This important survey allows us to examine whether the people who cops arrest for crimes are the same as those who commit the crimes, at least in a demographic sense. The BJS report, “Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018,” which the Quick Hits summarizes, found that for serious non-fatal violent crimes reported to police, white people accounted for 41 percent of offenders and 39 percent of arrestees; black people accounted for 43 percent of offenders and 36 percent of arrestees; and Asians accounted for 2.5 percent of offenders and 1.5 percent of arrestees. None of these differences between the percentage of offenders and the percentage of arrestees of a given race were statistically significant.

Quick Hits concludes: “These BJS statistics provide no evidence to support the claim of widespread ‘systemic racism’ in our nation’s police forces . . . Far from providing evidence of ‘systemic racism,’ such statistics provide evidence of systemic justice.”

But those who are determined to divide Americans by race, rather than uniting us by our political creed (as Lincoln suggested), dismiss any and all such evidence. Theirs is not an America conceived in liberty, but rather one conceived in slavery, and anything that counteracts that narrative must be cancelled. Hence AOC’s suggestion that corporations will refuse to advertise on Twitter because Musk dared draw attention to a cartoon based on official federal statistics.

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- May 18

 

Joe Biden, the Habitual Racialist Demagogue ~ VDH

His racist commentary and demagoguery is an old story, deployed as needed and in the direction most likely to suit the moment.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

The most recent liberal ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Joe Biden’s approval rating at 36 percent—the lowest in history for a president at this point in his first term.

Biden’s low popularity is no mystery. 

He inherited energy independence, affordable gas prices, historically low interest rates, low inflation, calm overseas, a low crime rate, and a largely closed border with legal-only immigration. 

And then Biden destroyed that inheritance. 

He has begged illiberal foreign governments to pump oil he refuses to drill domestically. 

He spiked inflation at the highest rate in over 40 years. 

Home interest rates have skyrocketed from less than 3 percent to 7 percent. 

He nearly doubled the price of gasoline. 

His hare-brained retreat from Afghanistan marked the greatest humiliation of the American military in the last half-century. 

Kabul is now selling billions of dollars’ worth of abandoned American equipment to terrorists and anti-American regimes.

After that fiasco, Biden foolhardily played down a possible “minor” Russia invasion of Ukraine. He implored Russia to exempt some American institutions from its cyber-attack target list. 

No wonder an empowered Putin went into Ukraine. 

Biden’s family is corrupt from top to bottom. 

Its influence peddling schemes increasingly are targets of congressional investigations. Biden himself is explicitly mentioned by his son Hunter as the recipient of a 10 percent commission on monies the family syndicate leveraged from foreign interests. 

Biden promised “unity.” Instead, he habitually smears half the country as “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” extremists. 

Biden is cognitively challenged and often incoherent. And he is now losing support in the polls from African Americans, once his most loyal constituency.

In response, Biden does what he always had done for some 40 years: mouth wild racist demagoguery. 

This graduation season, Biden deliberately chose Howard University to scare its black graduates into believing the greatest threat to their aspirations is “white supremacy”—but that he, Joe Biden, has been their protector in fighting it. 

Note the existential threats Biden deliberately omits. 

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding over a border Biden deliberately destroyed. Millions of incoming poor will vie for limited federal and state support with Americans who are in need. 

Since Biden was elected, there have been nearly 7 million illegal entries.

Some 100,000 Americans now die each year from Mexican-produced fentanyl and other opioids shipped across a wide-open border. 

Biden did not mention that nearly 10,000 African Americans are murdered each year, over 90 percent of them killed by other African Americans. 

Biden first should heal his own racism before he fabricates it in others.

He fueled his early Senate career with homages to southern Democratic segregationists such as Senator James O. Eastland (D-Miss.). Biden even bragged that Eastland “never called me ‘boy.’” Biden gave eulogies for former Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond and former Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd. 

Of school busing, a younger Senator Joe Biden thundered, “My children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle.” 

Biden in 2008 patronized Barack Obama in racist terms as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

In 2012, Biden condescended to a group of accomplished black professionals that the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would “put y’all back in chains.” 

As a presidential candidate in 2020, he dismissed two black journalists, respectively with the putdowns “you ain’t black” and “junkie.” 

His fabricated “Corn Pop” he-man autobiographical tales are utterly racist.

As president he has referred to two prominent people of color as “boy.” He still uses the term “Negro” to refer to blacks. 

Biden never cites data to support his wild accusations that white supremacy poses the nation’s greatest threat. 

The 2020 riots, the lengthiest in our history, left up to 40 people dead, destroyed $2 billion in property, led to 14,000 arrests, spanned 120 days of mass looting, and arson, and saw mobs torching police precincts, federal courthouses, and an historic church. 

That violence was engineered by radicals in Antifa and Black Lives Matter. 

In the January 6 Captiol protests, the only person confirmed to have been killed at that event was an unarmed military veteran and Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt. She was lethally shot by a Capitol police officer for the misdemeanor of attempting to enter through a broken window.

If “white supremacy” was our “greatest” terrorist threat, surely crime statistics would reveal such an existential peril. 

Yet federal hate- and interracial-crime data show that so-called whites are considerably unrepresented demographically in such racially motivated violence. 

Far from galvanizing the public, Biden’s monotonous racial demagoguery is turning it off. 

The military suffers a vast drop in enlistments that began once Biden’s Pentagon brass, without evidence, likewise began demagoguing about supposed “white rage” in the ranks. 

Only 37 percent of independents in a recent poll now support Biden. Some 70 percent of the public in other polls opposes a second Biden run. 

So on spec, a panicked Biden now turns to what he has done for decades—inflammatory racial demagoguery.

Feminists Are Angry About American Men Increasingly Marrying Foreign Women but Won't Self-Reflect

posted by Brandon Morse at RedStateVIP 

“American woman, stay away from me.”

There’s an increasing trend among American men. Instead of seeking out women in their local gathering places or looking on dating apps, they’re doing something that used to be considered a fringe, weird thing to do. They’re finding and importing women from overseas.

There are a handful of reasons for doing this, but all of them amount to a simple idea; foreign women from various countries are still unspoiled by feminism. They value traditional marriage and gender roles, they have homemaking skills including a willingness to embrace their own maternal nature for the act of child-rearing, and they are appreciative of what they have. They are family and home-focused, not career-focused like many Western women are today.

For some reason, this has upset many a feminist who are now watching as more and more men leave the dating pool to look across the literal ocean. Some have even taken to TikTok to express their outrage about it, accusing men of everything from being “predatory” to not being able to handle American women.

Culture analyst and YouTuber Misha Petrov gathered some of these responses from American women, noting that these Western feminists are actually insulting these foreign women by claiming they’re uneducated and weak-minded due to their lack of feminist mentality and that these feminists who see themselves as being better than men are also seeing themselves as better than other women.

Petrov brings up an excellent point and her entire video about the paradox of feminists hating men while still focusing their entire lives around them should be viewed in its entirety (and possibly written about in a separate article) but for now, I want to address the accusations about men being “predatory.”

The idea that men are taking advantage of “dumb” foreign women is wholly out of touch with reality, and it’s a take born out of the ignorance modern women seem to have about men. As I’ve written before, too many young women are taught all their lives what to expect from men but never taught what to deliver in return. This can have a nasty side-effect of dehumanizing men, making them seem like tools meant for the convenience of women than people with their own emotions, hurts, wants, and dreams.

The thinking from many of today’s American women is men are supposed to desire nothing more than pleasing them and are absolutely shocked and offended when these men prove to be far more complex than what they were taught. They go on TikTok or Twitter and create content based on how awful men are for merely not measuring up to their unreasonably high standards.

Men — whom I can personally report are, in fact, human — see this and vacate the very toxic Western dating pool, abandoning Western women to the life of isolation from men they’ve been asking for all along to the chagrin of these women.

(READ: Women Want to Know Why Men Don’t Want to Marry Anymore…Allow Me)

But this “sexodus” doesn’t mean that all men are just giving up on the idea of relationships or marriage altogether. Men want to be in a loving, stable, and prosperous relationship and women from countries where more traditional marriage is valued can provide these prospects.

Is it taking advantage of ignorance? The answer is “not at all,” and I would say that men are seeking women who are more associated with reality.

Consider the fact that there has been a marked rise in the unhappiness of women over the past couple of decades and it’s no accident that it coincides with women being encouraged to leave behind traditional gender roles and embrace pursuits in academia and high-paying corporate careers. The sexual liberation movement has also caused them to give away one of their most valuable resources, their bodies, allowing them to have more sex but receiving less meaning, security, and emotional stability with every trist.

Yet women who value traditional marriages and gender roles don’t have this problem. That’s not to say that they live perfect, blissful lives. There’s no such thing in this world, but there is a deeper sense of fulfillment and happiness that traditional women seem to have as they embrace their nature and the nature of their husbands.

Feminism is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of men and, as a result, they’re seeking out traditional women who want traditional lives in traditional marriages. Don’t think that every Western woman is outraged by this. Mark the rising trend of the “Tradwife” on TikTok, which features Western women enjoying and discussing their choice to be in traditional marriages with traditional gender roles being adhered to.

(READ: There’s a Growing ‘Trad-Wife’ Trend That’s Making Feminists Furious)

What feminist women angry about the departure of men here in the West need to do is put themselves in the shoes of men in today’s day and age while leaving their own feminist-centric egos out of it. A man desires a partner, not a Queen to serve. He desires stability, and to give and receive love in a relationship that works both ways. He wants to earn for his family, and have the appreciation of his wife as he appreciates her for tending to the home he provides for her and their children utilizing basic homemaking skills. There’s nothing wrong with these desires, in fact, they’re incredibly wholesome.

Then the feminist woman must step back and ask herself what she brings to the table. If the answer is nothing but “me” then what use is she to a man?  If that makes her angry, then she should ask if she would be okay with being in a relationship with a person who continues to be useless to her by her own definition.

If she’s even a little wise or capable of disassociating herself from her ego, she’ll understand the mentality of many of today’s men.

Everyone wants love, but despite what the storybooks and Disney movies of old have taught us, love isn’t unconditional. Certain conditions have to be met for people to fall in love with one another, and while those conditions may be different from person to person, what no one wants is to be in a condition where their self-centered and overtly demanding partner makes them miserable every day.

Better to seek out better prospects.

People were kissing 4,500 years ago - 1,000 years earlier than scientists thought

 By studying clay tablets from the earliest Mesopotamian societies, researchers say kissing was common and did not start in a specific region. They believe it may even have contributed to the spread of cold sores.  

Scientists say they've found evidence ancient humans began kissing around 4,500 years ago - 1,000 years earlier than was previously thought.

Clay tablets, used in parts of modern-day Iraq and Syria, suggest kissing was practised in the earliest Mesopotamian societies and may even have contributed to the spread of cold sores.  

Researchers from the University of Copenhagen say they now believe kissing was common across many cultures rather than starting in a specific region.

This contradicts a previous hypothesis that the earliest evidence of human lip kissing came from a specific part of southern Asia 3,500 years ago.

The evidence is from clay tablets written in cuneiform script, writing used by human cultures in ancient Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in present-day Iraq and Syria. 

Among the tablets showing such a scene was a Babylonian clay model showing an erotic scene from 1800 BC, which appears to show a couple's lips touching.

Dr Troels Pank Arboll, an expert on the history of medicine in Mesopotamia at the University of Copenhagen, said: "Many thousands of these clay tablets have survived to this day, and they contain clear examples that kissing was considered a part of romantic intimacy in ancient times, just as kissing could be part of friendships and family members' relations.  

"Therefore, kissing should not be regarded as a custom that originated exclusively in any single region and spread from there but rather appears to have been practised in multiple ancient cultures over several millennia."  

Studies on bonobos and chimpanzees - the closest living relatives to humans - have shown they engage in kissing.

This suggests the practice of kissing is a fundamental behaviour in humans and explains why it can be found across cultures, the scientists said.

The researchers also said kissing may have accidentally helped spread viruses such as herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), which causes cold sores.

From a substantial collection of the Mesopotamian medical texts, they found some of them "mention a disease with symptoms reminiscent of the herpes simplex virus 1," Dr Arboll said.

But he added that ancient medical texts can be influenced by cultural and religious concepts so they cannot be read at face value.

Dr Arboll said the team found some similarities between the disease known as buʾshanu in ancient medical texts from Mesopotamia and the symptoms caused by herpes simplex infections. 

He said: "The bu'shanu disease was located primarily in or around the mouth and throat, and symptoms included vesicles in or around the mouth, which is one of the dominant signs of herpes infection."   

https://news.sky.com/story/people-were-kissing-4500-years-ago-1000-years-earlier-than-scientists-thought-12883662   

British Intelligence Repeatedly Rejected Trump-Russia Investigation ‘Evidence’

The Durham report reveals British intelligence bluntly regarded the FBI investigation into Trump as corrupt and incompetent — so much so they refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.

Mark Hemingway reporting for The Federalist

On nearly every page of the Durham report, there are shocking details about the absurd lengths the FBI was willing to go to in order to keep pursuing the Trump-Russia investigation. They doggedly continued their investigation despite the fact it was predicated on fabricated evidence and completely unreliable sources, and each new investigative avenue they explored was a dead-end.

According to the Durham report, the faulty nature of the investigation was abundantly obvious to British intelligence who were incredibly blunt in their assessment of the supposed evidence they were shown of alleged “collusion.” It was obvious starting with George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, whose loose talk to Australian diplomats was the justification for opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. On page 60 of the report, the FBI’s Assistant Legal Attache in London (ALAT-1 below) recounted that British intel was incredulous that Papadopoulos’ remarks were enough to launch the investigation:

ALAT-1 told the Office that British Intelligence Service-I did not assess the information about the Russians and Trump, attributed to Papadopoulos, to be particularly valuable intelligence. Indeed, he told the FBI’s Inspection Division investigators that “the British could not believe the Papadopoulos bar conversation was all there was,” and they were convinced the FBI must have had more information that it was holding back.

That’s not all. The FBI’s U.K. legal attache reports British intel was quite blunt about the fact that they thought the FBI’s plan “made no sense”:

UK ALA T-1 went on to tell the Inspection Division that in discussing the matter with a senior British Intelligence Service-I official, the official was openly skeptical, said the FBI’s plan for an operation made no sense, and asked UK ALAT-1 why the FBI did not just go to Papadopoulos and ask him what they wanted to know, a sentiment UK ALAT-1 told investigators that he shared.

Indeed, when the FBI did end up talking to Papadopoulos he was approached in a fairly hostile fashion. Papadopoulos eventually pled guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI, a plea bargain he was offered for cooperating with the Mueller investigation. The Mueller report eventually concluded that, despite having contacts with Russians, Papadopoulos never did anything illegal or untoward regarding asking Russia for dirt on Hillary Clinton or help with Trump winning the election. Papadopoulos maintains he was the victim of entrapment, and given the evidence uncovered in the Durham report and elsewhere on the political motivations of Mueller’s team and the FBI, that’s a credible accusation. However, the guilty plea in the fall of 2017 went a long way toward convincing the media and the Washington establishment the collusion scandal had legs, when it did not.

Aside from the Papadopoulos conversation, the Brits might have been even less impressed with the FBI’s key “confidential human source” identified as “CHS-1” in the Durham report who made supposedly incriminating recordings of another Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. While CHS-1 isn’t explicitly identified by Durham, it’s generally accepted that this refers to Stefan Halper, an American professor at Cambridge. Halper had an extensive history of being involved in two of the biggest political scandals of the 1980s — Iran-Contra and the Reagan campaign’s theft of Jimmy Carter’s briefing book for the presidential debates from the White House. Further, Halper also appears to have lied extensively about his professional accomplishments, including claims that he was a Fulbright Scholar, had a Ph.D. from Oxford, and that he worked in the White House chief of staff’s office. Despite his major credibility issues, the FBI paid Halper handsomely to gather intelligence on their behalf. And U.K. intelligence did not mince words about how worthless they thought the evidence Halper had on Page really was:

Later in the Fall of 2016, UK ALAT-1 was at FBI Headquarters with some of his British Intelligence Service-I counterparts. While there, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team played the audio/visual recordings of CHS-1 ‘s August 20, 2016 meeting with Carter Page. UK ALAT-1 said the effect on the British Intelligence Service-I personnel was not positive because of the lack of any evidence corning out of the conversation. UK ALAT-1 told the OIG that after watching the video one of his British colleagues said, “For [expletive] sake, man. You went through a lot of trouble to get him to say nothing.”

Durham further reports that British intel’s skepticism of Halper’s spycraft was quite justified:

The FBI’s own records and the recordings establish that Page made multiple exculpatory statements to the individual identified as CHS-I, but the Crossfire Hurricane investigators failed to make that information known to the Department attorneys or to the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]. Page also made explicit statements refuting allegations contained in the Steele reporting about his lack of any relationship with Paul Manafort, but the FBI failed to follow logical investigative leads related to those statements and to report to Department lawyers what they found. Similarly, multiple recordings of Papadopoulos were made by CHS-1 and a second CHS, in which Papadopoulos also made multiple exculpatory statements that were not brought to the attention of the Department lawyers or the FISC.

These failed attempts to present evidence of collusion to British intel backfired spectacularly. British intel was so convinced there was no basis for the Trump-Russia investigation that the FBI’s U.K. legal attache told Durham that when British intel was later asked to help with the Mueller investigation, “‘the Brits finally had enough,’ and in response to a request for some assistance “[a British Intelligence Service-I person] basically said there was no [expletive] way in hell they were going to do it.”

Finally, the Durham report contains an astounding array of facts showing just how unreliable the information in the Steele dossier was, which incredibly the FBI presented as credible in order to get warrants to spy on an incoming president. However, publicly at least one reason why the media and others were so credulous about the report was that it was compiled by Christopher Steele, who was allegedly a former British intel officer par excellence with a formidable reputation.

Well, Durham reports this interesting tidbit — at least some of his former colleagues in British intel didn’t want to go near Steele. The Durham report reproduces a series of internal messages exchanged by two FBI personnel working on Crossfire Hurricane [found on page 101 of the report, I’ve condensed slightly for clarity]:

Case Agent-1: What was strange was that [British Intelligence Services] don’t seem to want to deal with the guy …

Support Operations Specialist-1: If he has the sub-source network that he claims to have (and the reporting suggests), you would think they’d be interested in him. Though, maybe these are newly developed since he went to [British Intelligence Services]?

Case Agent-1: Yeah that’s the weird thing. [Handling Agent-I] said it was the OC angle and that they’re not too interested, but that still seems odd … Who knows. We may have to take a calculated risk with the reporting, if we’re pressed for time.

So, in essence, FBI employees working on Crossfire Hurricane were openly wrestling with doubts that British intel did not regard one of their own former colleagues as reliable, and the response was, “Well, we may just have to roll the dice and accept that these wild and unverified stories about Putin blackmailing the future president with a tape of him getting micturated on by Russian prostitutes are good enough for government work.”

This is truly astonishing stuff. Anyone still defending an investigation that those notorious MAGA die-hards in the British intelligence service immediately sized up as corrupt and incompetent is blindly partisan, stupid, or both.

🙄🙄 Very politically stupid CBS show bashes Texas Gov

 

And this ain't the 1st time this stupid show has been this kind of stupid with politics either. Remember that pro life bashing episode from last fall? That article I posted is still in this site's Top articles at the very bottom of this site! https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/05/18/cbs-fbi-most-wanted-attacks-texas-gov-greg-abbott-calls-busing-illegal-border-crossers-to-new-york-a-publicity-stunt/

The CBS drama series FBI: Most Wanted attacked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in its latest episode by referring to his policy of busing illegal border crossers to New York as a “publicity stunt.”

Tuesday’s episode, titled “Clean House,” focuses on two teenage girls from Venezuela who travel from Texas to New York City on a bus. The girls are illegal aliens who end up working for a cleaning service that is a front for a sex trafficking operation.

When one of the girls ends up dead, FBI special agents Hana Gibson (Keisha Castle-Hughes) and Kristin Gaines (Alexa Davalos) investigate the case.

The characters call the girl an “asylum seeker” rather than an illegal alien or economic migrant.

“Her name’s Regina Marquez, 16 years old,” Gibson says, according to a Newsbusters MRC report. “She’s an asylum seeker from Venezuela. CBP has her crossing the border in El Paso two weeks ago, and it says here she’s registered on a bus that arrived here last night.”

Gaines replies: “Well, governor of Texas has been busing migrants up from border cities in New York. Part of their ongoing publicity stunt explaining our status as a sanctuary city.”

The episode makes no mention of the Biden administration for its policies that encourage illegals to cross the U.S.-Mexico border and make it difficult to expel them. Under Biden’s presidency, illegal border crossings have soared to astronomical levels, with more than 6 million illegals believed to have crossed the border since Joe Biden took office in 2020.

Director of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh Smear Group Begs for Mercy After Releasing Confidential Documents

streiff reporting for RedState 

The leftist campaign to force Justice Clarence Thomas from the US Supreme Court let its inner clown out when the executive director of the AstroTurf smear group Fix the Court inadvertently released the names of its donors to a Washington Examiner reporter.

Fix the Court has not only been a player in the current attacks on Justice Thomas, but they were also a major participant in the smear campaign directed at Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

It all started innocently enough with Washington Examiner reporter Gabe Kaminsky taking a deep dive into the finances of the fake groups trying to give the appearance of popular demand for Justice Thomas’ resignation. Kaminsky noticed that the New Venture Fund reported giving $111,677 to Fix the Court. On the other hand, Fix the Court did not file the required IRS Form 990 but used the truncated IRS Form 990-N used by non-profits raising less than $50,000. Kaminsky queried Fix the Court Executive Director Gabriel Roth about his violation of federal tax law.

CREDIT: Fix the Court website

Roth responded on Wednesday, noting he “misunderstood the filing instructions,” and sent the Washington Examiner full copies of Fix the Court’s 2021 and 2022 financial disclosure forms. He also claimed on Wednesday that he mailed the new forms to the IRS.

As soon as it dawned on Roth what he’d done, he begged to get the documents back.

“S***, I’m not legally allowed to send you those. I really messed up. Can you call me now?”

…

…Roth further told the Washington Examiner that he “wanted to fix the mistake as soon as possible” since his “donors don’t want their names out there.”

This is not the strongest argument to make. If the disclosure were illegal,l it would be Roth, not the reporter, whose ass was in the crack, and who cares about that?

What the documents showed were two things. First, there is no widespread support for Fix the Court. In 2021, it received just over $290,000. Of that amount, $286,000 came from two grants: the previously mentioned $111,000 from the New Venture Fund and  $175,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. In 2022, Fix the Court pulled in nearly $196,000. The three main contributors ponied up $185,000. The climate alarmist Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $50,000, the Lebowitz-Aberly Family Foundation donated $35,000, and the big loser was the Weinberg McCann Foundation which was tapped for $100,000.

Why do I say big loser? Well, of the $486,000 Fix the Court has raised in the last two years, $242,000 went to its executive director as salary. In 2022, $162,000 of the $195,000 raised went into Mr. Roth’s pocket. As a result, Fix the Court looks much more like a jobs program for one guy with a website than a non-profit.

“As you can see if you’ve reviewed the forms, I’m not a good fundraiser,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court and a former vice president at the Democratic consulting firm SKDK, told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday. “I’m not a good CPA. I’m a klutz. Schedule B is not something that is sent out, right? It’s not made public. Like, if you’re donating to a 501(c)(3), the IRS gets to see who donates to you, but the general public doesn’t.”

“I mean, basically, I’ve tried to donate money; I have failed,” Roth added. “I tried to raise money; I have failed. I have only two foundations that give me money, and if their names become public, they’re never going to talk to me again, and Fix the Court is over. My screwup this morning probably cost me my job.”

The executive director added, “I really just don’t know what to do here” and that he “just f***ed up in a minute” after the group had been operating for almost a decade.

You could feel sorry for the guy if he hadn’t been making a living impugning the integrity of some Supreme Court justices to further a political cause.

6 Freshly Documented Instances Of Systemic Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption

The Durham report contains more evidence that high-level federal intelligence officials see it as routine to put powerful Democrats above the law.

Joy Pullman reporting for The Federalist

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann and others lied to the nation about the special counsel report released Monday that deeply documents years of systemic FBI corruption in favor of the Democratic Party. That report reveals and adds detail to multiple instances in which FBI employees used high-level intelligence and law-enforcement positions to promote misinformation that affected at least two presidential elections, always on behalf of Democrats.

Special Counsel John Durham’s report lists and compares multiple such instances to illustrate “Systemic Problems” that are “difficult to explain.” Many more have been uncovered in the past few years. This information key to Americans’ oversight of their government through free and fair elections has been blacked out on corporate media airwaves and censored online by private grantees and social media companies obeying funding conditions and threats from federal officials.

1. Weaponizing Democrat Party Misinformation Developed With Probable Foreign Spies

It just so happens that the false information the FBI used to immediately open a spy operation on Democrats’ opposition was developed by the Democrat presidential campaign, in conjunction with at least two potential or allegedly former foreign spies.

According to the Durham report, top FBI, DOJ, and CIA officials, as well as President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, were told “within days of its receipt” that the Hillary Clinton campaign had developed a “plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.”

CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Attorney General Eric Holder on this intelligence on Aug. 3, 2016, a few days after Clinton’s campaign developed the plan. The CIA reportedly got this info about Clinton’s smear plan from its surveillance of Russian intelligence.

This means that, in the summer of 2016, the FBI and DOJ, and the head of the Democrat Party, knew that the Steele dossier, Alfa Bank allegations, and other claims of Donald Trump being a traitorous Russian stooge “were part of a political effort to smear a political opponent and to use the resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies in support of a political objective.”

This should have gotten the FBI to question its Crossfire Hurricane operation, Durham’s report says. Instead, however, the FBI raced ahead, with FBI headquarters demanding faster pursuit of Trump under what they knew were false pretenses.

The FBI’s actions indicated a clear double standard for Republicans and Democrats, the report shows. “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information,” notes the Durham report.

The report says if the Clinton campaign knowingly supplied this false information to the government, that’s a criminal offense. Durham claims his team was unable to establish this criminal intent, but it’s obvious it existed even if it can’t be established with emails and voice recordings.

So, again, months before the press started stampeding false claims of Russian collusion into three impeachment attempts that strangled Trump’s ability to wield the power voters had given him, the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies, the sitting president and head of the Democratic Party, and Democrats’ next president were aware it was a political disinformation operation with no basis in fact. The head of that same FBI that ran a multi-year spy operation against Trump based on this claim knew it was politically motivated disinformation before the lie even got its boots on.

This goes far beyond agency “bias.” It is the complete corruption of half of the nation’s political party system and its federal law enforcement. It is the systematic disenfranchisement of Americans who don’t agree with the national security blob — or wouldn’t, if that blob allowed them to learn true facts about its evil machinations.

It is the systematic weaponization of the U.S. national security apparatus against constitutional self-government. It is the end of government of the people, by the people, and for the people in the United States of America. That’s what Durham’s report shows. Anyone who doesn’t treat this as a five-alarm fire set by saboteurs is helping fan the flames.

2. Protecting Democrats’ POTUS Pick While Slandering Republicans’ POTUS Pick

Several times, the Durham report notes that FBI and Department of Justice officials treated the Clinton and Trump campaigns completely differently. Another notable way was in regard to potential contacts with agents from foreign governments.

When the feds learned of a foreign influence operation seeking to target Hillary Clinton, they gave her campaign what is called a “defensive briefing.” That means they warned the campaign about the potential for undue foreign influence.

When the feds learned that a foreign influence operation might be seeking to target Trump, they warned almost everyone except the Trump campaign. The FBI, DOJ, and CIA not only gave Trump’s campaign no defensive briefings on such potential threats, the report says, these agencies used the threats as an excuse to surveil Trump’s campaign and boost Clinton’s disinformation operation linking Trump to Russia in the press.

“The speed with which surveillance of a U.S. person associated with Trump’s campaign was authorized … are difficult to explain compared to the FBI’s and the [Justice] Department’s actions nearly two years earlier when confronted with corroborated allegations of attempted foreign influence involving Clinton, who at the time was still an undeclared candidate for the presidency,” says the report on pages 73 and 74.

3. Dismissing Foreign Funds Transfers for Clinton, Not for Trump

In contrast to the bureau’s full-scale rush to use its powers to smear Republicans with known falsehoods, the report shows that when the FBI knew the Democrat presidential campaign might be violating federal law, the FBI stood down. When an informant told the FBI the Clinton campaign was likely accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions, the FBI told the informant to drop it and did nothing further.

“Once again, the investigative actions taken by FBI Headquarters in the [Clinton] Foundation matters contrast with those taken in Crossfire Hurricane,” says Durham’s report. “As an initial matter, the NYFO [FBI New York Field Office] and WFO [Washington Field Office] investigations appear to have been opened as preliminary investigations due to the political sensitivity and their reliance on unvetted hearsay information (the Clinton Cash book) and CHS reporting. By contrast, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was immediately opened as a full investigation despite the fact that it was similarly predicated on unvetted hearsay information.”

Another double standard was revealed in this contrasting FBI treatment of different political parties: “Furthermore, while the Department appears to have had legitimate concerns about the Foundation investigation occurring so close to a presidential election, it does not appear that similar concerns were expressed by the [Justice] Department or FBI regarding the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

4. Putting Powerful Democrats Above the Law

We already knew from the years The Federalist has spent unraveling Spygate that former FBI Counterintelligence Division Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and his mistress, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s staff lawyer Lisa Page, weaponized their government positions to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. These are the two who infamously texted that they’d “stop” Trump from becoming president.

Durham’s report shows multiple instances of McCabe, Strzok, Page, and their superiors wielding federal law enforcement positions as weapons against Republicans. The Durham report contains more evidence that high-level federal intelligence officials see it as routine to put powerful Democrats above the law.

Besides the disparate treatment outlined above and many other such instances, Durham’s report includes a telling text exchange between Strzok and Page. It shows them deciding not to apply the law to Hillary Clinton because of her powerful position. It seems that the powerful are indeed above the law in the United States — provided they’re affiliated with the Democratic Party.

5. Refusing Interviews With the Special Counsel

Key FBI figures refused interviews with Durham’s team, including Comey, Strzok, the Clinton campaign’s Marc Elias, McCabe, Page, and Glenn Simpson of the opposition research firm that cooked up the Steele dossier for Clinton’s campaign.

Add that to the many instances of “former” FBI and CIA figures being employed in social media companies to assist with government censorship demands, and going on TV to fuel the Russiagate hoax and other lies to Americans about crucial public issues. It adds up to yet another indication of an intelligence state using its vast — and unconstitutional — powers on behalf of the Democrat Party.

6. Refusing to Obey Congressional Subpoenas About Records on Biden Corruption

Durham’s report indicates that the FBI repeatedly sat on evidence the Clinton campaign was accepting bribes — payments in exchange for policy preferences. The FBI is still doing that with Joe Biden. According to several high-level members of Congress, the FBI has been refusing to release to them subpoenaed, non-classified information about how it handled documentation alleging that Biden also traded political favors for campaign donations.

“We know the FBI relied on unverified claims to relentlessly target a Republican president. What did the FBI do to investigate claims involving a Democrat President?” asked Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Numerous private and congressional watchdogs have documented that the Biden family has received millions of dollars from foreign individuals and companies connected to hostile governments including communist China.

“We believe the FBI possesses an unclassified internal document that includes very serious and detailed allegations implicating the current President of the United States,” Grassley said in a press release earlier this month. “What we don’t know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further.”

Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. Federal agencies operate at the discretion and funding of Congress, according to the Constitution. The FBI’s leadership doesn’t seem to believe, however, that constitutional checks and balances apply to them. So long as Congress doesn’t enforce its own prerogatives, the FBI’s corrupt leaders are right.

It’s been publicly known for decades that the FBI uses its surveillance, investigatory, and other law enforcement powers to manipulate American politics. Recall its surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr. and infamous FBI head J. Edgar Hoover’s spying on the Supreme Court, Congress, and presidents.

The Durham report is, in that respect, nothing new. What would be new would be punishing the FBI’s use of blackmail, smear operations, threats, censorship, illegal spying, and election rigging. If that doesn’t happen, the United States is quite simply not a free country anymore.