Saturday, September 23, 2023

More Evidence that U.S. Intelligence Analysis is Broken and Politicized

Latest bribery allegations severely undermine CIA credibility and may gravely damage national security


Last week, American Greatness reporter Debra Heine reported a bombshell story that a “highly credible” CIA whistleblower has told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the CIA “bribed” six of its analysts with significant financial incentives to change their initial conclusion that the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a biolab leak in Wuhan, China and to instead conclude that the virus emerged naturally.

This is the latest of a growing number of reports in recent years of politicized analysis by U.S. intelligence agencies that are not just undermining their credibility but may also be doing grave damage to U.S. national security.

The new allegation helps explain several examples of biased Intelligence Community analysis of the pandemic’s origins that appeared to favor the natural origins theory over the lab leak theory for political reasons. It appears that U.S intelligence agencies were determined to support the view of the mainstream media, the liberal elite, and the Biden Administration on the origin of the virus and not the view of American conservatives and former President Trump that it was created by China in a biolab and leaked from that lab.

The most recent unclassified Intelligence Community report, released on June 23, 2023, said five intelligence agencies determined the COVID-19 pandemic likely emerged naturally and was not linked to a Wuhan biolab. Two other agencies, the Energy Department intelligence office and the FBI, concluded the virus originated from a “laboratory-associated incident.” CIA reported that it could not determine the origins of the COVID-19 virus due to conflicting reporting.

According to the Washington Times, Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, assessed that the June 2023 intelligence assessment appeared to be “deliberately agnostic regarding the virus’s origin” and “designed to support the Biden administration’s new policy of engagement and lowered tensions toward China.”

There also was controversy surrounding an April 2020 intelligence assessment that concluded the virus “was not manmade or genetically modified.” Not only was this assessment probably issued to discredit President Trump’s statements about the virus origins, it was reportedly hurriedly issued without White House approval to get it out before John Ratcliffe, an outspoken critic of China for its role in the COVID pandemic, was confirmed as Director of National Intelligence in late May 2020.

In a May 2021 American Greatness article, the late Angelo Codevilla, a former American Greatness contributor, slammed another Intelligence Community assessment that he claimed was written to support President Biden’s statements about the origins of the virus:

Joe Biden’s instruction to the U.S. Intelligence Community to report whether the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a comical attempt to avoid being discredited by the unraveling narrative that China’s role in the pandemic is another manifestation of racism.

As a former CIA analyst and former staff member with the House Intelligence Committee, I find the allegation that intelligence analysts have been “bought off” to support politicized Intelligence Community corporate lines to be credible. This is not a new problem. I have seen the CIA retaliate against analysts who did not provide the political conclusions their managers were looking for. In the 2000s, a senior CIA official told me there was a growing problem of the best jobs, perks, promotions, and bonuses going to analysts who dutifully stuck to the Agency’s corporate line in their analytic conclusions.

This corporate line almost has always promoted the foreign policy of Democratic presidents and undermines the policies of Republican presidents. This politicization of intelligence analysis worsened in 2016 when intelligence officers promoted a false narrative of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

One of the most blatant examples of this concerned an intelligence assessment issued just before the end of the Obama Administration in January 2017 that found Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help elect Donald Trump. This assessment was issued at the request of the Obama Administration, apparently to sabotage the incoming Trump Administration. It was later learned that Intelligence Community rules to ensure neutral and well-vetted assessments were not followed in drafting this report. This included the fiercely anti-Trump CIA Director John Brennan handpicking a small group of analysts loyal to him to write this analysis. Brennan also reportedly overruled dissents to this analysis by senior intelligence officers.

There were two major instances of political interference by U.S. intelligence analysts in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe revealed in January 2021 that CIA analysts politicized their assessments of possible Chinese and Russian meddling in the 2020 election because of their bias against President Trump and to defeat his reelection. These analysts did not want to validate Trump’s criticism of China and hoped to continue the false collusion narrative between Trump and Russia.

What may have been the worst example of meddling by intelligence officers in a presidential campaign occurred in October 2020 when 51 former intelligence officers sent a letter to the press that asserted a New York Post story about a laptop owned by President Biden’s son Hunter was Russian disinformation. Although the signers had no evidence to back up this claim, it was used by the Biden campaign to convince the press and social media to censor coverage of the laptop story. While former intelligence officers signed this letter, it was cleared for publication by the Intelligence Community’s prepublication review process.

It is important to put the new report of the CIA “bribing” its analysts to politicize their analysis of the origins of the COVID-19 virus in perspective as part of a dangerous trend inside the U.S. Intelligence Community. U.S. intelligence analysts are trusted to use their vast classified resources to provide the highest quality analysis that is truthful, objective, and nonpolitical to help the president safeguard the security of the United States. This mission is vitally important in an increasingly dangerous world with committed U.S. adversaries.

The above instances and other examples of politicized intelligence analysis and meddling in presidential elections by U.S. intelligence agencies have damaged the reputation of the U.S. Intelligence Community so severely that many Americans and Members of Congress have called for abolishing or breaking up the CIA. This includes the late Angelo Codevilla, who called for this in 2020

I don’t think we are near the point where the CIA or any other intelligence agency will be shut down because it has politicized its work. However, the self-inflicted damage to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s reputation as trustworthy and nonpolitical is significant. This damage could endanger America’s national security by discouraging presidents and senior U.S. officials from acting on, or even listening to, crucial intelligence on significant threats to our nation.

Fixing and depoliticizing U.S. intelligence will require house cleanings of intelligence agencies, cutting and streamlining massive intelligence bureaucracies, and implementing rules and standards to keep politics out of their work. To do this, the next administration must implement robust intelligence reforms and put in place a group of exceptional senior officials to implement them to ensure that America has a capable and trustworthy intelligence service that will provide the president with the intelligence he or she needs to protect our security and freedom.



Remembering NCIS on it's 20th anniversary+ the news of the day- Sept 23

 





20 years ago, the very 1st NCIS episode 1st aired. Little did most know, that despite a poorly reviewed and rated 1st Season, it would become a worldwide hit in a few years. And would later go on to become CBS's top rated show for many years, become a worldwide syndicated hit, and would span 4 spin offs (so far anyways, Fingers crossed for an eventual prequel!), and the main show is still going!! And the overall episode count for the whole franchise is going to hit 1,000 next year during the 21st Season!

I've been involved with the franchise since 2014. At first it was just LA, but then I later started loving the main show, then there was New Orleans, and Hawaii was a huge disappointment.

I've had my ups and downs with these shows over the years, mainly political wise. But thankfully, the main show's writers and producers can still see that the main core audience for the main show is still mostly conservatives, so it keeps them from really going all in on the woke crap. Hopefully that stays true in Season 21.

And the best part: This franchise is still so much better then any one of Dick Wolf's stupid, overly political franchises!!

Here's to this amazing franchise continuing for many years to come (and hopefully spanning a Hetty prequel!). 🍷🥳 And don't miss CBS's 3 hour marathon on Monday!

And now on to the news of the day. (yeah, I decided to save time and posting by just lumping this in with my daily report.) (and tonight may just be the night that the writers and studios make their deal!)

Symbolic Opposition vs. Effective Political Action

The power of the purse and prosecuting rogue intel officials are but two arrows in the Right's quiver


Republicans are famous for performing symbolic opposition. They harried Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Benghazi hearings and endless oaths to overturn Obamacare. But on Benghazi, the narrative was always incoherent, and they forgot that our Libya operation was a huge mistake. They never took a principled stand against interventionism and did not impose any punitive action for its botched execution, such as impeaching Hillary.

Similarly, on Obamacare, as soon as they had the chance to overturn this byzantine redistribution scheme after Trump’s election, the fink John McCain voted to keep it in place. This law did nothing to make us healthier and placed real burdens on middle-class Americans, but McCain earned media plaudits for his “courageous stand” in favor of the conventional wisdom. Like many Washingtonian fixtures, he loved approval from the media.

Hunter Biden’s Sham Prosecution

More recently, we see other types of distractions. Hunter Biden’s recent indictment appears, at first, to be a good news story and a triumph for the rule of law. Just a few months ago, an inquisitive federal judge noticed some real peculiarities in his plea deal, which included a diversion program for his gun crimes. Then, Republicans piled on with indignation. The deal was thrown out, and now he’s being indicted for gun crimes related to his drug addiction by the special counsel (and original prosecuting counsel), Delaware U.S. Attorney, David Weiss.

Contrary to the obsessions of Twitter and the right-wing commentariat, the big crime was not that Hunter did crack, consorted with hookers, and lived a dissolute life. This is all embarrassing for him and his family and also titillating for people looking over photos from his laptop, but it is not generally a public concern. The problem is that he was the family “bag man” for a money-making scheme, and access to his father was the scheme’s key asset. Remember “10% for the Big Guy” and “My Chairman.”

Critics are right that the statute under which Hunter is being prosecuted rarely creates a standalone basis for prosecution, and it is of at least debatable constitutionality. But this is not true of the crimes the Delaware U.S. attorney has slept on. People who commit seven figure tax evasion are routinely prosecuted. People who commit bribery overseas are as well. People who act as unregistered foreign agents also face prosecution—ask Paul Manafort.

This is all to say that the gun prosecution is nothing to get excited over, nor does it represent the triumph of the rule of law. Like the original plea deal itself, it is a symbolic punishment intended to distract the public from the fact that more serious crimes are going unpunished. Even if he is convicted, the guideline sentence probably won’t even involve jail time.

Dead-on-Arrival Impeachment

Congressional Republicans are now launching an impeachment inquiry related to the Biden family’s apparent criminal empire. From there, presumably, they will impeach Joe Biden. This is all well-deserved.  Biden is possibly the most corrupt person ever to inhabit the Oval Office. The types of activities he is credibly accused of—selling his official acts and vice-presidential office in exchange for money from foreign companies, which his son collected—are specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment, i.e., bribery.

Perhaps the inquiry will uncover some additional evidence regarding the scope and manner of Joe Biden’s corruption, and it may even hurt his reelection campaign, but it does not appear likely that the media will take much notice. The media suppresses stories like this by ignoring them. It seems unlikely this will backfire the way the impeachment of popular Bill Clinton did; Biden is profoundly unpopular right now.

That said, it appears almost impossible that the Democratic Senate will convict. There is no longer an apolitical, bipartisan standard of conduct for government officials. Both sides are so distrustful and partisan, that there will not be any aisle-crossing to get Biden no matter what he is proven to have done. This is an unfortunate sign of degradation in the republic, but we must adapt to this reality.

Tactics for a Real Opposition

Sham prosecutions like dead-on-arrival impeachments are symbolic substitutes for effective political activity. We should consider alternatives. At the federal level, Republicans may not control both houses, but they do still have control “over the purse.”

The timing of all the recent nonsense could not be better, as the continuing resolutions that fund our government are coming up for renewal on September 30. I realize a lot of elected Republicans are fake and don’t even really want to act as an opposition party, but some of the new blood does, like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, along with stalwarts like Paul Gosar. They should learn from the lackluster results of the last ten years and try something new.

Why not yank funding away from all these laughable January 6 prosecutions, as well as the lawless special counsel out to get President Trump? Why not cut FBI and DHS funding for all of their domestic spying and intelligence gathering, which is designed to suppress conservative activists? Why not pull funding from Ukraine and refugee programs and maybe give some of it back to Americans?

There are other places to do good, as well. Republicans have control of a lot of state legislatures and state governments. Why not use the power of these “dual sovereigns” to prosecute rogue intelligence community officials? They’re already having luck bringing civil suits, such as the first amendment case underway from Missouri.

If this is done, the feds will undoubtedly invoke some hoary immunity precedents rooted in the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But there has been a lot of water under the bridge since the seminal criminal immunity case was decided in 1890, not least the “dual sovereign” jurisprudence on double jeopardy and the near-elimination of federal immunity from many state taxes. Even if they do not go the distance, these prosecutions could prove very embarrassing and inconvenient, imposing the right kinds of chilling effects on run-amuck government agencies.

Symbolic gestures won’t cut it anymore. We need to hit them where it hurts.



Don’t Count On Biden’s IRS To Investigate Mark Zuckerberg’s Election-Rigging ‘Nonprofit’ Scheme



The IRS is remaining mum on whether it’s probing Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, his wife, Priscilla Chan, and several left-wing nonprofits, who may have violated tax laws by intentionally dumping financial resources into the 2020 election to benefit then-candidate Joe Biden.

Last year, the Center for Renewing America (CRA) filed a complaint with the federal agency alleging that the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and the National Vote at Home Institute engaged in a “partisan electioneering” scheme, spearheaded by Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe, by pouring nearly half a billion dollars into the 2020 election to swing the contest to Biden.

In the lead-up to that election, Zuckerberg and Chan donated $400 million to groups like CTCL under the guise of assisting local election officials in administering elections during the Covid pandemic. In actuality, less than 1 percent of CTCL’s 2020 funds were spent on resources such as personal protective equipment. Analysis from election data experts later determined that the funds were “distributed on a highly partisan basis that favored Democrats.”

These “Zuckbucks” were also used to advance unsecured Democrat-backed voting policies, such as mass unsupervised mail-in voting and the use of ballot drop boxes. Their slanted distribution towards Democrat municipalities, especially in swing states, effectively funded a giant Democrat get-out-the-vote operation.

In its September 2022 complaint, CRA demanded the IRS investigate the entities “for unlawful political activity and the receipt and use of improper personal income tax deductions for donations to one or more of those entities.” CRA also alleged that Zuckerberg and Chan “received ‘improper tax deductions’ for the massive grants to ‘organizations engaged in conduct prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code in the 2020 election cycle,'” and called on the agency to determine whether their actions constituted “tax fraud.”

As outlined in the Internal Revenue Code, donations by charities that are not motivated for altruistic reasons, such as those that attempt to illicitly assist one party versus another, are explicitly prohibited.

In the year since filing its complaint, CRA hasn’t received answers from the agency on whether it has taken steps to investigate any of the aforementioned entities over the allegations listed in the filing. According to a CRA representative, the IRS has remained silent on the status of the complaint.

“The IRS is weaponized against the American people and [is] stonewalling anyone asking for accountability or answers,” CRA Policy Director Paige Agostin told The Federalist.

When pressed for comment on the status of CRA’s complaint and whether the agency has launched an investigation into Zuckerberg, Chan, or the listed nonprofits based upon the conservative group’s allegations, IRS spokeswoman Robyn Walker told The Federalist, “Due to federal laws, we cannot comment on specific taxpayers.”

While Zuckerberg and Chan have indirectly claimed their 2020 election spending spree “was a one-time donation,” CTCL revealed its plans to interfere in future elections in April 2022 via the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence. As The Federalist previously reported, the Alliance is an $80 million, five-year initiative aimed at “systematically influenc[ing] every aspect of election administration” and advancing Democrat-backed voting policies in local election offices.

In its attempt to replicate CTCL’s 2020 strategy, the Alliance provides election officials with “scholarships” to cover Alliance membership costs. These scholarships are then “instantly converted into ‘credits’ that member offices can use to buy services from CTCL and other Alliance partners.”

In states where the acceptance and use of “Zuckbucks” by local election officials is prohibited or restricted, the Alliance’s strategy is slightly different. As the Honest Election Project’s Jason Snead previously told The Federalist, “jurisdictions that cannot receive private grants can still buy their way in for a relatively small sum,” which effectively permits the Alliance “to spread its influence even in states where lawmakers have tried to prevent it.”

While mum on whether it’s probing left-wing nonprofits like CTCL, the IRS seemingly had no problem unlawfully targeting conservative organizations during the Obama administration. Roughly 10 years ago, it was revealed that the IRS intentionally delayed applications for “tax-exempt status from right-of-center organizations” leading up to the 2012 elections. Numbering in the hundreds, these groups were “improperly subjected to baseless investigations, invasive and improper demands about their donors, and lengthy delays in processing routine paperwork.”

The Department of Justice ultimately settled with dozens of these groups over the scandal in 2017.



Robert Mueller's 'Pit Bull' Gets Sued for Libel by Former Trump Lawyer


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Once dubbed former special counsel Robert Mueller's "pit bull" during the Trump administration, Andrew Weissmann now finds himself on the defensive. 

The far-left partisan, who transitioned from the DOJ to being an MSNBC "legal analyst," is being sued for libel by former Trump White House ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino. The latter's allegation revolves around a social media post involving star January 6th committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson. 

In the post, Weissmann accused Passantino of "coaching" Hutchinson to "lie." Just a week later, Passantino has now struck back. 

Here's the opening of the complaint

Stefan Passantino is an attorney with a 30-year history of representing his clients honorably and ethically and, like all attorneys, depends upon his reputation to earn a living. Defendant Andrew Weissmann—a partisan former-prosecutor and top deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller turned MSNBC “legal analyst”—has publicly impugned that reputation, claiming that Mr. Passantino coached his client, Cassidy Hutchinson, to lie in congressional testimony. This is an insidious lie. Mr. Passantino never coached Ms. Hutchinson to lie, nor did he attempt to shape her testimony in any way.

The filing also notes that Hutchinson formerly testified under oath that Passantino never told her to lie.

Ms. Hutchinson even testified, under penalty of law: “I want to make this clear to you: Stefan [Passantino] never told me to lie. . . .He told me not to lie.” Defendant was aware of this testimony, but still chose to smear Mr. Passantino in advancement of his newfound career as a partisan political pundit.

Weissmann has long been an insidious figure to Republicans. Even before he helped lead the Russian collusion witch hunt, he had a history of questionable dealings within the DOJ. For example, he was accused of misleading a jury during the Enron saga, leading to a conviction that was overturned with a 9-0 vote by the Supreme Court. 

When Weissmann joined Mueller's team, he was seen as the primary driver, pushing to indict everyone in Trump's orbit, whether that be for process crimes or offenses typically not enforced (such as FARA violations). Perceptions of Weissmann were seemingly confirmed once he signed on with MSNBC and began to share his political opinions. At that point, his leanings became clear. 

As to the merits of Passantino's case, I can't say whether they are strong. Clearly, Hutchinson did testify that she was not told to lie. That is in direct contradiction with Weissmann's claim. Can Passantino show he suffered some kind of harm? I guess we'll find out. 

Still, it's funny to see Weissmann on the other side for once. He spent his career pushing the boundaries at the DOJ (and allegedly pushing past them) to try to intimidate people. Now, he will have to defend in court why he said what he said. 



Russell Brand Issues Statement After British Govt Target Him for Removal from Social Media Platforms



The Sunday Times, a Rupert Murdoch publication in the U.K, published a hit piece against Russell Brand accusing him of rape and sexual assault 20-years ago.  It did not take long before the accusations triggered the cancel culture and YouTube demonetized the actor and pundit.  Russell Brand has vehemently denied the allegations.

However, in a remarkable escalation the U.K Parliament is now targeting Russell Brand.  The British government has sent a letter to U.S. social media companies, including video platform provider Rumble demanding they take action against Brand.  Not only is the British government targeting an individual and demanding action over an unproven allegation, but they are also sending a letter to the U.S. company demanding acquiescence to their censorship demand.

Standing solidly on the side of freedom, Rumble said no. However, now Rumble is the subject of a global smear campaign using a variety of media outlets and constructed controversies.  Today, Russell Brand responded to the overall effort by the British government. {Direct Rumble Link}  WATCH:


“Nuts!”





Parents Defend Themselves from Violent Antifa Militants at 'Education Over Indoctrination' Protest


Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

Wherever traditional values are being fought for, you can expect the left's foot soldiers to show up and begin attempting to intimidate and assault people. When Antifa heard parents were getting together to keep political indoctrination out of their schools, they were compelled to show up in force. 

As originally reported by Post Millennial, the "Education over Indoctrination" event in Toronto attracted the attention of the radical leftists, spurring a physical confrontation that involved a 16-year-old getting punched by an Antifa militant who was eventually unmasked: 

The "Education over Indoctrination" event, which was organized by Billboard Chris and Josh Alexander to protest against radical gender ideology and LGBTQ indoctrination happening in Canadian classrooms, kicked off around 11 am at Victoria Park College Institute and Annunciation Catholic School.

Hundreds of individuals convened outside of these two adjacent schools to make their voices heard when Antifa and other far-left agitators arrived to violently disrupt the event in a militant-like fashion. They immediately started assaulting people who were peacefully protesting in the crowd, which included students, parents, and veterans.

Nick Alexander, a 16-year-old student at Annunciation Catholic School, who is the brother of event organizer Josh Alexander, was left bloodied after being violently beaten by a black-clad member of Antifa who had his identity concealed behind a mask.

The Antifa militant punching a 16-year-old was caught on camera as well. His face was then exposed by police. 

Another man was swarmed by Antifa and was later arrested himself. It is currently unclear what the police arrested him for. 

According to student activist Josh Alexander, who was interviewed by Post Millennial, his brother and the gentlemen were arrested after they were assaulted by Antifa. Alexander would later say the police arrested his brother over not following orders, though it's unclear why the other gentleman in the video above was arrested. 

"It's easier for police to arrest the two victims rather than the entire crowd of perverted and corrupted unions, so...that's what they did, I guess," said Alexander. 

This is not the first time Antifa has attacked parents protesting the political indoctrination of their children at school. In Glendale, California, parents had a physical confrontation with Antifa at a school board meeting.  

(READBrawl Breaks out at School Board Meeting as Parents Take on the Alphabet Mob)

This isn't the first time parents have been forced to confront Antifa and it won't be the last. As more and more parents become involved in removing the culture of political indoctrination from their children's schools, you can bet militants will make an appearance to intimidate and dissuade parents from doing what they need to do to keep their kids safe. 



Exposed: Homeland Security's Behind-the-Scenes Censorship Operations on Social Media

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

A recent revelation shows how the Homeland Security Department sought to justify its efforts to censor information disseminated on social media platforms. Earlier this year, the agency’s attempt to conceal efforts to squash certain viewpoints online placed it under increased scrutiny amid nationwide concerns about federal agencies violating the First Amendment.

Now, a Fox News exclusive report exposed internal DHS documents in which officials tried to justify their actions as the White House’s ill-fated disinformation board was being formed.

Recent revelations, as unveiled in a Fox News report, about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) stance on "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation" has rekindled longstanding concerns about the federal government's approach to free speech. At the core of the discussion is the relationship between national security and the First Amendment.

New documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency has authority in regulating "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation" despite the disbandment of the agency's highly criticized Disinformation Governance Board.

In heavily redacted memos obtained by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) and reviewed exclusively by Fox New Digital, the agency appeared to circulate ahead of the launch of the disinformation board justification that DHS has regulatory or statutory authority in the "the MDM Space" – short for "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.

But because DHS withheld all the substance in these memos that AFPF requested via FOIA and then by a lawsuit, the group says DHS is effectively relying on secret authorities for its work in the "MDM Space."

"If DHS believes it has the authority to police people’s online speech, it should be open with the public about what those authorities are," AFPF Director of Investigations Kevin Schmidt told Fox News Digital.

"The idea that any agency with such vast political power believes it has the authority to determine what ideas count as good or true upsets the delicate balance of power established by our founding fathers," he said.

Of particular concern is the opacity of the documents, the contents of which have been heavily redacted. This essentially means the public might never be aware of the full scope of the agency’s censorious activities. Indeed, this is not the first time DHS has been caught trying to hide its actions. Without transparency, there can never be real accountability.

Another issue is the fact that DHS sought to silence certain viewpoints online, which is problematic from a First Amendment perspective.

Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy secretary of Homeland Security during the Trump administration, told Fox News Digital in a statement that "DHS does not have censorship authority."

"Making up a new government acronym – ‘MDM’ – does not change that legal fact," he said.

Another question is related to the nature of the redactions themselves. The agency made use of an exemption that enables them to redact information related to “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.” This seems to imply that countering “misinformation” could involve law enforcement investigations. Moreover, how are they defining “misinformation” in the first place?

Alexei Woltornist, a former DHS assistant secretary, highlighted the possibility of targeting law-abiding Americans “just for saying things the government does not like.”

What is also troubling is that, according to the documents, the DHS had continued its censorship operations even after the Disinformation Governance Board had been disbanded.

The significance of these revelations cannot be understated. The DHS has been working to silence voices on social media under the guise of combating “misinformation.” This is precisely the type of action from which the First Amendment was designed to protect the citizenry.

More information will likely surface related to federal agencies using their positions to police information that is being shared on the internet. But so far, it does not appear anything will be done to address this issue.



Three Cases of Tuberculosis Found Among Illegal Immigrants in El Paso Sector


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

On top of everything else that's been going on along the wide-open southern border, now we have three cases of tuberculosis identified in illegal immigrants in the El Paso sector.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious, transmissible bacterial disease caused by the Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathogen. TB is usually present in the lungs but can appear elsewhere in the body and may be latent in a person for years — with no symptoms. What is really disturbing is that there is now a completely drug-resistant strain of the TB pathogen that appeared in Italy and India, starting in 2003.

Historically, TB has been a big killer. Until the testing of dairy cattle for the pathogen became widespread, one of the more common vectors of TB was unpasteurized milk, but these days, it's more often spread by aerosol when an infected person sneezes or coughs. TB can cause permanent lung damage if left untreated. Up to 90 percent of people who carry the TB pathogen are non-symptomatic.

There is simply no excuse for this to be happening. Immigration should be a controlled process, and at this time, especially on our southern border, it simply is not. Border-state governors, frustrated by Washington's inaction, are taking matters into their own hands. Mayors of border-state towns are increasingly lashing out at the Biden administration. The administration appears to be in denial over the entire calamity.

It's not just tuberculosis. In New York alone, a variety of diseases have been identified among illegal immigrants:

Migrants could be bringing infectious diseases across our southern border. When they are bussed to New York and elsewhere, these diseases go with them. A recent study showed that more than 4% percent of migrants from Central and South America to Europe were sick with Chagas' disease. It's contagious without the help of an animal or a blood-sucking bug and can cause serious complications, including heart failure. 

Tuberculosis is on the rise in this country, as is syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that immigration applicants with communicable diseases are inadmissible to the United States, but they can’t be stopped if they aren't routinely screened before entering the country, as is the case with undocumented migrants.

Setting aside the politically correct language (undocumented migrants), what that amounts to is that we have a potentially dangerous situation with communicable diseases crossing our southern border. Not only tuberculosis, mind you, but also syphilis and other STDs; from what we already know of the rampant sexual abuse of women and even children crossing the southern border, it would be unbelievable if STDs were not on the uptick.

Screening all these people isn't practical. Honestly, it shouldn't be necessary. Close the border. This isn't the Industrial Revolution; the country doesn't need masses of unskilled labor. It's well past time for the United States to be a little more scrupulous as to who we let in. And screening for disease? That seems an obvious hurdle that any immigrant should have to pass.

But on our southern border, as during the COVID scare, the federal government is utterly failing to carry out one of the very basic principles of public health policy: the prevention of transmissible disease. Today, it's tuberculosis. What will it be tomorrow?

John Henry Holliday was unavailable for comment.