Tuesday, November 7, 2023

FBI sets up recruiting tent at gay pride event


We called it—it was only a matter of time until “Pride” events routinely cropped up all throughout the year instead of remaining within the confines of June. And, as the FBI has apparently discovered, the unthinking degenerates who patronize such events provide the “law enforcement” agency with the perfect audience to run a public relations campaign (after an especially despicable few years), and a crop of recruitable future agents. From an article at The Gateway Pundit today:

In a post on X, the FBI’s Charlotte branch posted a photo of FBI agents with pride flags hanging on a recruitment tent in an effort to recruit attendees of the pride event.

Below, you can see the actual post:

(But of course! Where else would the agency go to meet its DIE quotas?)

There are really only three types of people who attend these LGBTQ++ festivals and celebrations:

The first are obviously the shameless perverts, the ones urinating on one another and engaging in anal sex in public, like the attendants of the Folsom Street Fair.

The second are the normal leftists, who may be “queer” or not, but their participation and attendance is chic, progressive, and most importantly, a signal that they are decidedly anti-conservative and therefore morally and culturally superior.

Third of course, are the citizen journalists documenting how very alive the transgressions of Sodom and Gomorrah still are in our modern American culture.

Naturally, the first two types of people are exactly for whom the Bureau is looking… so it makes perfect sense that recruiters would set up shop where they’d find a concentrated number of malleable misfits with an ax to grind, who are predisposed to take on the unofficial mission of the Bureau (cultural Marxism).

Also, on what planet does this FBI live? Do the social media managers behind the FBI account genuinely believe that the agency actually has a leg to stand on regarding “work the Bureau does to protect civil rights”? Only someone so utterly unthinking and uninformed could believe that were a true statement, which again, is exactly why the recruiters went to somewhere they knew leftists would be en masse.

Not like you need a reminder, but this is the FBI that “reckless[ly]” raided the home of pro-life activist Mark Houck with guns drawn on his children to arrest him for allegedly violating the FACE Act, charges for which Houck was later acquitted; it’s the same FBI that covered for Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior, to boost her chances of election in 2016; the same FBI that’s targeted peaceful protestors of J6, while ignoring the overwhelming number of instances of real domestic terrorism at the hands of abortion activists, Hamas supporters, and BLM/Antifa rioters; the same FBI that has so many taxpayer-funded informants on its roster, it’s lost count (payments generally start at $100k and go up from there); the same FBI that faithfully and loyally serves the Bidens and the rest of the political aristocracy, covering up scandal after scandal as it lies straight to the faces of the American people. (The list goes on and on ad nauseam.)

Is it just me or does this story give Nazis-recruiting-the-misfits-for-a-sinister-agenda vibes? Does the name Ernst Röhm mean anything to these people? What about “Night of the Long Knives”? Do these people know what happens when a weaponized paramilitary agency runs out of use for you? I do….

What could possibly go right when an illegally-operating and unconstitutional federal behemoth with no accountability recruits the proudly amoral and depraved?



X22, On the Fringe, and more- November 7

 



Special prayers tonight for all conservative candidates running for office today. 🙏

Destroying Robert E. Lee’s Statue Marks A Historic Low Point, But Hungary Shows It Doesn’t Have To Be The Endpoint

Even if you don’t sympathize with the Confederacy, you should see that the destruction of Confederate statues is the start, not the end, of this movement.



There is much to dissect in the barbaric removal, destruction, and eventual “remolding” of Charlottesville’s statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee. But the most astounding aspect of this destruction is the brazen and intentional publishing of a video showing Lee’s dismemberment — his face being cut off and melted.

The radical left in the United States has embarked on a path distressingly similar to Hungary’s experiences during its 40-year Soviet occupation. The left has rewritten American history and perpetrated the iconoclastic destruction of its past. Now the left desires to mold a new future. A quick comparison, however, shows that while the United States is on a tragic and dangerous path, it is not an irreversible one.

Communist Iconoclasm in Hungary

Hungary’s first experience with revolutionary iconoclasm came not with the Soviets in 1945 but with the 1919 communist uprising. Hungary, like many countries in the aftermath of World War I, endured a short-lived communist revolution. For several months, radical revolutionaries controlled Budapest, and they immediately sought to remake it into a proletariat city. As one of their first actions, they “modified” many of the existing statues.

The communist government, for example, desecrated the Millennium Monument in Heroes’ Square. The communists covered the monument, which depicted important historical figures. They replaced a statue of the original seven Hungarian chieftains, who led the Hungarian tribes into the Carpathian basin in the ninth century, with a socialist, realist statue of Karl Marx. Throughout the city, the revolutionaries covered statues with wooden structures honoring communist heroes.

The communists made these changes for two reasons. They wanted first to erase a narrative about the people’s history and second to replace it with an alternative narrative. It is also worth noting the circumstances when Hungary’s statues came down and the communist statues went up. At the time, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was engaged in a three-front war against Czech, Romanian, and Yugoslav forces. Yet the communist forces still felt that the systematic dismantling, destruction, and replacement of Budapest’s statues was worth the time and effort.

Reactionary Restoration & Soviet Revolution

The Soviet Republic, however, was short-lived. Conservative forces under Adm. Miklós Horthy defeated the revolutionary government in Budapest and installed a reactionary regime. The new government promptly restored the monuments to their previous state.

The conservative government, unfortunately, would only prove to be an intermission in Hungary’s experience with communism. With Hungary’s entrance into World War II on the side of Nazi Germany, it sealed its fate along with the rest of central Europe. Germany’s defeat led to the Soviet Union’s domination of Central and Eastern Europe. The USSR subsequently dismantled Hungary’s democratic government and established a “People’s Republic.” Soviet rule marked Hungary’s return to Marxist revolutionary governance and to socialist, realist “ideals” on public display.

Like their short-lived predecessors, the Soviet-backed government began radically changing Hungary and, in particular, Budapest’s public space. The revolutionaries renamed streets bearing the names of important historical figures, who represented the backward and classist past of Hungary, according to the communists. The streets received newer, progressive names like “Moscow Square,” “Stalin Avenue,” and “Engels Square.”

The Soviet regime did not limit itself to renaming streets. It remade or demolished statues, too. Revolutionaries even targeted Hungarian symbols outside of Hungary. In a very similar fate to Lee, a Hungarian monument in Mukachevo, Ukraine, was first torn down, melted, and remolded into a red star in 1945 before being rebuilt in 2008. The town council recently re-destroyed the monument.

New Slurs, Same Tactics

The accusations against these monuments differed. But the communists usually called them bourgeois, aristocratic, or reactionary, much like our current revolutionaries denounce statues as monuments to racism, sexism, or homophobia. Their intent matched that of the current movement in America. They wanted a revolutionary break from Hungary’s history, tradition, and heritage. They installed aesthetic representations of Marxist ideals to promote “solidarity” with the international socialist movement that all Hungarians were supposed to feel in their hearts.

The square surrounding Budapest’s grand parliament building particularly interested the communist regime. Dotted around the grand square were statues to some of Hungary’s greatest heroes — from independence fighters like Ferenc Rákóczi and Lajos Kossuth to former prime ministers such as Gyula Andrássy (1867-1871) and István Tisza (1913-1917). The most problematic public display for the communists was an allegorical monument honoring the Horthy government’s victory over the Hungarian People’s Republic.

Over the first decade, the communists went to work remodeling the square. One statue was allowed to remain, the one of Ferenc Rákóczi. The communists rewrote him as a peasant fighter against the aristocratic Hapsburgs. A reference to God on the pedestal of the statue, however, was dutifully removed. The Hungarian People’s Republic removed or replaced all others. Andrássy’s statue was removed to make room for a temporary bridge near the parliament.

“Unknown vandals” destroyed Tisza’s statue and the monument to the crushing of the people’s republic. Kossuth’s monument was demolished and rebuilt in a communist style that highlighted him as a workers’ hero.

Rebuilding After Revolution

Perhaps more shocking than the Soviet desecration of national histories was the general reluctance of countries, after the fall of communism, to change their names or rebuild their lost statues. For many nations, a widespread de-communization effort only began after the Russian annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine.

Hungary serves as a warning about the pathway America is treading, but it also can serve as a beacon of hope that damage can be undone. Beginning in the mid-2010s, Hungary began a concerted effort to rebuild and restore the statues and monuments that communists destroyed. In Kossuth Square today, you will see every monument that existed there before the Soviet invasion. What it took, however, for Hungary to accomplish this was political will: the willingness of a government to stand up for its own nation’s history and unapologetically protect its heritage, tradition, and ancestors, however controversial certain chapters might have been.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party, allegedly the party of conservatism and tradition, has remained silent or apathetic about the unprecedented destruction of historical statues in the United States. Even conservatives, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have been complicit in the removal of Confederate statues from the Capitol.

Even if you don’t sympathize with the Confederacy, you should see that the destruction of Confederate statues is the start, not the end, of this movement. Once the left eradicates the South’s heritage and culture, leftists will turn on “American” heroes. In many cases, they already have.

Restoring America’s Cultural Legacy

It is past time that our elected officials not only stand up against the removal and destruction of our historic statues but demand their immediate reconstruction, renovation, and reinstallation. If our politicians fight to rebuild our history, then one day, Lee — a war hero once hailed by Republicans and Democrats alike — can once again look out upon Monument Avenue, just as Gyula Andrássy once again looks over Budapest’s Parliament Square.



Michigan AG Demands Rashida Tlaib Retract Anti-Israel Statements


The Attorney General of Michigan is calling on Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a fellow Democrat, to “retract” anti-Israel statements that she has made in recent weeks.

As reported by Breitbart, Tlaib used the infamous chant “From the river to the sea” on Friday in a video posted to X. The line, which comes from the full statement “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” calls for the elimination of all Jews in Israel, so that the entirety of the geographic area will be “returned” to the Palestinian people.

In her own post to X, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D-Mich.) said that while she has defended Tlaib “countless times” in the past, she demanded a retraction over this particular statement, calling it “cruel and hateful.”

“I have supported and defended you countless times, even when you have said the indefensible, because I believed you to be a good person whose heart was in the right place,” said Nessel. “But this is so hurtful to so many. Please retract this cruel and hateful remark.”

Following initial backlash, Tlaib, a Muslim and a Palestinian, doubled down on her use of the phrase, declaring that “from the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”

“My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people, no matter faith or ethnicity,” she continued.

Tlaib has been one of the loudest supporters of Palestine since the war between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas broke out on October 7th. She has repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas’ war crimes, which included the mass decapitation of dozens of Jewish babies. The day after a hospital in Gaza was destroyed by a misfire of a Hamas rocket, Tlaib actively spread the lie that Israel was responsible for the bombing, and rallied anti-Israel protesters in Washington D.C. shortly before they stormed the United States Capitol.

Last week, a measure was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to censure Tlaib over her anti-Israel rhetoric, and particularly for her actions on October 18th shortly before the Capitol was stormed. The resolution failed due to 23 Republicans siding with the Democrats on a motion to table the resolution, though Greene has expressed her intentions to re-introduce the resolution again in the near future.



The Infantilization of America


When I was in the 5th Grade, I lived in a neighborhood in Pflugerville, TX., that had all the makings of a small but growing town. I would walk down the street to my elementary school by myself, and when school was out, we'd leave the house to have free roam of the neighborhood. Even as I entered middle school, I would take the hike n' bike trail halfway across the town. 

We were completely unattended by our parents. This was the '90s, so there were no cell phones for calling, texting, or tracking. If a parent wanted to know where we were, they'd have to call around to other parent's houses to find us, but there was never any guarantee that's where we'd be. If we wanted to go somewhere, we up and went. 

We'd come home with scraped knees and elbows, sweaty, and dirty, and our parents would hardly flinch. 

Nearly 30 years later that reality is gone. Cell phones have become digital leashes for kids that a parent can tug on when their anxiety gets too high. Not that kids can get too far without supervision anyway. If the wrong person sees your child alone, they can call CPS and get you into a world of hurt. 

Even if your kids are playing in their own front yard unsupervised

I often express my gratefulness for being born before the invention of the internet. Before then, stories meant to seize the people with terror were harder to come by. Kids could be freer then because the indoctrination of the media hadn't had the chance to fully set in, causing parents to keep their children unnecessarily close and monitored. I remember what freedom felt like, and it's a feeling that stuck with me in my adult years. To this day I abhor the feeling of someone looking over my shoulder, figuratively speaking. 

Sadly, I'm not confident that younger generations than mine will understand that feeling. They've been kept corralled well past the age they should be. They're used to authority figures constantly watching and correcting. The only element of danger is one they can dream up since they'll never truly face any outside the protective cocoon of their guardians. 

Being watched, judged, and guided by the hand is far more normal for them. Older millennials, like myself, and Gen X bristle at what younger generations consider just a part of everyday life. 

But thinking about it for a moment, it makes the gravitation toward authority in the modern era and the complete lack of common sense far more understandable.

Younger generations are in far more reliance on authority for guidance and the authoritarians in our society are only too happy to utilize that to their advantage. The normalized presence of a big brother figure, plus reinforcement from the internet, makes for an individual who doesn't think too much of individualism. 

Moreover, their lack of interaction with any real danger confuses them as to what danger might actually look like, and not only that, robs them of the necessary common sense to stay clear of or get out of that danger. This skewed perspective leads people to imagine dangers, having never truly experienced the freedom to encounter them before. 

A ready submission to authority and a dearth of wisdom. Emotion over thinking. It all adds up to a simple fact. 

Our nation is growing up as children. We're being infantilized and we're doing it to ourselves. 

We're letting our fears guide us to the point where we've trained our children to be little risk-averse lemmings who just do what they're told because they don't know how to do it any other way. Naturally, this isn't all of us, but I think we can see pretty clearly that it's become too many. 

If and when the authoritarians of the age come for America, future generations might not fight for it because they don't know how. They'll readily hand the nation over hoping for more of that guidance and oversight they're so used to. 

Maybe that's just an oversimplification of some of the problems we're facing, but I think the infantilization of America is a large part of why we are where we are. 



Libs of TikTok's Chaya Raichik Dismantles USA Today Over 'Insane' Hit Piece


Teri Christoph reporting for RedState 

It's always a good day when we can bring you yet another story about Libs of TikTok's Chaya Raichik completely outplaying the legacy media and putting them to shame.

It all started with USA Today "journalist" Will Carless and his article trying to tie Raichik and her tweets to threats supposedly made to people and organizations whose derangement Libs of TikTok has highlighted on social media. Carless asserts his publication "confirmed dozens of bomb threats, death threats and other harassment" that can be traced directly to Libs of TikTok posts starting in February of 2022. 

And where did Carless go to get such confirmations? Media Matters of America, of course. That bastion of truthfulness. Media Matters exists as a welfare scheme for liberal writers who failed to succeed in any other profession. Hillary Clinton co-founded MMA, so that's all you really need to know.

Back to Chaya and the hit piece. She actually agreed to be interviewed by Carless for his piece, and, smart girl that she is, recorded their call in order to have the "receipts" when he and USA Today inevitably tried to skew her words and use them against her. The hit piece hit the internet last week and in print form on Monday.

Here's a photo of Chaya proudly displaying her front page placement:

The article alleges "more than 30 possible threat incidents" can be tied to the Libs of TikTok account. "Possible" threats -- and that revelation isn't made until the ninth paragraph. 

Behold the might Will Carless attributes to Chaya Raichik, who simply republishes the radical left in their own words and whose most ferocious calls-to-action are along the lines of "sure would be awful if more people saw this":

Hospitals have been evacuated; schools and libraries have cleared classrooms and canceled lessons while police officers search for bombs. Bookstores, Pride parades, cafes, even a dog rescue center, have had to lock down for fear of reprisals – and violence.

Sure, Jan.

This isn't Raichik's first rodeo, and she went in prepared. She knew that Carless had already drawn a conclusion and found her guilty, but she spoke to him anyway. In doing so, she gave a masterclass on how conservatives should handle the mainstream media. They can't be trusted to be honest brokers, so you have to assume their ill intent and make your own recordings any time you interact with "journalists."

And that's exactly what she did. Here are her receipts:

That's fourteen times she denied calling for violence and, in fact, advocated for law enforcement to be engaged any time a threat of violence is made. None of that made it into Will Carless' article, of course, because it didn't fit his predetermined narrative. He decided ahead of time, based on garbage information from Media Matters, that Chaya was guilty, and nothing was going to dissuade him from writing the hit piece. Journalisming! 

Chaya Raichik and her Libs of TikTok account are an existential threat to leftists everywhere, and the brilliance is in the simplicity of what she does: Taking their own words and shining a spotlight on them. It's like a curated stream of content created by the criminally insane -- and it's hard to look away. Raichik doesn't need to indict them; they indict themselves daily. Her growing follower account is a testament to the fact that what she's doing is effective, which is why the Will Carless' of the world are trying to stop her.



Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back to Watching 'The View'


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

I have to admit, I didn't know who Leslie Jones was before today. Apparently, she is supposed to be a "comedian" (as though there was anyone doing any real comedy these days) and was a staff writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, which hasn't been funny since John Belushi was a cast member.

What Leslie Jones isn't is a constitutional scholar. When she recently appeared on that bastion of fair-and-balanced commentary, "The View," she admitted that she had been laboring under the misapprehension that the Electoral College was a place. As in, an institution of learning. Yes, really.

ABC’s The View has never been a place for smart and informed discussions about politics. And that certainly wasn’t the case on Monday’s episode when Daily Show guest host and so-called “comedian” Leslie Jones openly admitted that before she joined Saturday Night Live in 2014, she seriously thought the Electoral College was a real place where politicians went to school. In 2014, Jones was 47 years old.

Consider that for a moment. When I first read that, I was honestly at a loss for words. Are our educational institutions really doing that bad a job? Do they not teach Civics anymore? (That's a rhetorical question; they don't.) Miss Jones is only fifteen years younger than me, and I learned how the Constitution and presidential elections worked when I was in junior high school. Is she just ignorant? How can anyone achieve adulthood and not know some of the most fundamental things about how their country works?

But wait! There's more!

According to Jones, she wasn’t into politics before moving to New York and that New Yorkers were “really smart about politics and stuff” compared to Californians:

Well, honestly, because I just learned about it. When I went to SNL – Okay. Before SNL, just New York, period, you guys are really smart about politics and stuff. Like y'all really are on that. Like California, we’re over there smoking weed, you know, swimming pools, sun tanning. We ain't really into it, right?

“So, when I got to SNL, there were so many things I listened about that I didn't even know. Like seriously, the Electorial [sic] College, I didn't know about that,” she recalled while mispronouncing it. She then admitted: I did think it was a college-college. I thought, you know, people got to go there before they become a politician.”


New Yorkers. Really smart about "politics and stuff." So smart, in fact, that they elect leaders who promptly proceed to drive every productive person out of their state.

Leslie Jones isn't alone in her staggering ignorance. (Especially not on the set of "The View," where staggering ignorance appears to be a job requirement.) My colleague Nick Arama recently laid out the analphabetic meanderings of the Barney Fife of the House of Representatives, Adam Schiff, and Nick also brought us some ignorant statements by author James Patterson on the founders and the Second Amendment. Don't get me started on presidential press secretaries, either; although these people have the unenviable task of defending the indefensible, they are likewise famous for issuing great steaming piles of the stuff one finds in feedlots. So Leslie Jones isn't alone in her ignorance, although that is of little comfort to the rest of us.

Maybe some kind of education in the basics of how the country works would be helpful for politicians since many of them seem to have very little idea of what the Constitution says or how it works. Leslie Jones could certainly use such a course. But then, we used to have such courses; they were called "Civics," and they were required teaching in junior high schools, middle schools, and high schools across the land. Maybe a return to that would be just as good an idea?

I keep coming back, though, to the idea that Leslie Jones said this on a show that is ostensibly about discussion of the issues of the day. It's amazing that "The View" has made it this far; just when you think they've plumbed the depths of ignorance, they yank on the "DIVE" handle and explore further into the depths.

Advertisement

They say an empty vessel makes the most noise. Given that, Leslie Jones sounds like ten thousand lunatics beating on the sides of an empty oil tanker with pick handles.



Gun Control Advocates Won't Give Up - What Other Tactics Might They Try?


It's no secret to anyone who is part of, or who has sympathies to, the Second Amendment movement that the Biden administration is openly and adamantly hostile to law-abiding gun owners and shooters. Members of the media are likewise often hostile to the Second Amendment community, and even more so when they don't know what the heck they are talking about. And it's not just guns — Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Congressman Robert Garcia (D-CA) intend to come after our ammo, too.

Even so, an outright ban on all guns seems unlikely to pass either Congress or Supreme Court scrutiny in the near future, although one should make no mistake, that's the end goal; none other than the late Dianne Feinstein said as much in 1995, in a "60 Minutes" interview:

“If I could have gotten 51 votes for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in,’ I would have done it,”


She later claimed she was only talking about "assault weapons," those mysterious spooky black guns that gun-grabbers don't seem to be able to define in any coherent manner. You can color me skeptical; when a leftist/statist tells us what they want to do, it's in our interests to believe them.

Now, plenty of gun owners worry – rightly – about an outright ban and confiscation, including jackbooted thugs showing up at your door with a list of firearms they know or suspect you own.  But such a scenario would almost certainly be disastrous; with 200 million gun owners in the country, if only one percent of those folks resist with force, with the guns the government is trying to confiscate, then there is a two-million-strong rebellion in place. That's why I don't see this happening without a lot of preparatory steps. And those first steps are likely to be much more insidious than an outright ban. The gun-grabbers may be wrong, but (some of them) aren't stupid, and they'll very likely go about this methodically.

First, ammunition. There is a bottleneck in ammunition manufacturing, and it's one that hand-loaders can't easily fill. Brass cartridge cases can be used over and over, bullets (at least fairly simple lead-alloy slugs) can be fabricated. Powder may, after a fashion, be manufactured on small scales. But primers? Not so easy, and if one is a hand-loader (as am I — I use my own custom loads in all my hunting rifles and six-guns), you know how scarce primers are of late. How hard would it be for an activist administration to tamp down on the supply of the specific chemicals that go into primers, and are we already seeing the results of this? Without primers, your AR-15 – or your Belgian Auto-5 – is just an expensive club.

Second, allowing crime victims and families thereof to sue gun manufacturers for the illegal use of their wares. This is a perfectly ridiculous proposition, akin to allowing drunk-driving accident victims to sue the car companies for causing the accident, but the gun-grabbers are already trying to do this. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is supposed to prevent this, but activists are pushing, claiming that "gun companies are exempt from product liability" due to this Act. This is, of course, pure road apples; the Act only prevents the gun companies from being sued for illegal use of their products; they are as liable for flaws in their product as any other company. The thing is this: Most gun companies aren’t really big companies. Such a policy of lawsuit-enabling and a round of suits funded by well-heeled Democrat supporters (let’s very quietly mention the name "Soros" here) may well drive most or all of those companies out of business.

And finally, a “violence tax.” This may be the last straw. Say you’re in your place of employment, and the sweet little lady who runs HR drops by your desk to tell you that the federal government has just instituted a “violence prevention tax” that will take, oh, 20 percent of the income of anyone who has ever been the subject of the instant background check required for a gun purchase – which tax applies unless you surrender or dispose of all firearms that the government most assuredly has a record of your owning. This isn’t a case of government thugs showing up at your door with a confiscation order. And you can’t open fire on the little old HR lady who brought you cookies last week. If things come to this juncture, you have very few, if any, good options.

And if you think for a moment that these likely courses of action are not being considered, then you’ve got another think coming, and I think the Biden administration may well be about to disabuse you of that notion. Join up with the NRA or any of the other many and varied Second Amendment groups out there. This is a fight that will go on for as long as one can foresee.



The FBI Must Start Mass Surveillance on Those Attending These Pro-Terrorist Rallies


I say this with immense hesitancy since the FBI is compromised, weaponized by Democrats to go after its political enemies, namely former President Donald Trump. But there is no alternative agency right now with the resources to do what must be done in the wake of the October 7 attacks. 

There is no other preeminent law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency with the jurisdiction to carry out operations that are now a national security concern. And yes, I know the risks involved regarding staffing, which I’ll get to in a second. 

Hamas invaded southern Israel and butchered, raped, and beheaded over 1,400 Israeli men, women, and children. The left doesn’t care, even enabling and endorsing the barbarism. The media has memory-holed the atrocities, permitting anti-Israel activists to spew anti-Semitism, including fake news narratives like the ones involving Hamas being innocent of committing such barbaric acts. “No babies were beheaded or burned,” except they were. The lack of coverage is the “soma” from which the left wallows and is sustained by their willful ignorance. The other part is the unbridled hatred of Jews. 

Maybe these terrorist sympathizers know about Hamas, their crimes, and their agenda but don’t care because they want Jews to be annihilated. Nationwide, we’ve heard the call for the extermination of Jews. It’s the same rhetoric from Germany in the 1930s, but it’s disguised in political speak, such as, “We’re not against Jews; we’re against Zionism.” It’s all the same. 

Now, we have these pro-Hamas operatives wanting to recreate the October 7 attacks here, which is why the FBI must have files on everyone involved. 

It's from this pool of pro-terrorist trash that the recruits for the next attack will be found. It’s not just here; radical Islamists damn near overrun Europe. They’re plotting to overthrow governments and void constitutions. They must be stopped at all costs. 

The problem is they’re a significant portion of the Democratic Party br, whose power brs include some key states in next year’s election. Joe Biden must win Minnesota and Michigan in 2024, two states that have a severe radical Islam problem. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MN) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) represent these pro-terrorist enclaves. It’s why the Biden administration is pussyfooting with this “humanitarian pause” nonsense that will never happen. Hamas is a terror group—any pause will be to their benefit. Israeli forces must be allowed to wipe them out. 

In the meantime, with these rallies becoming gatherings for jihadi trash to promote violence against civilians, I want every surveillance operation and device known to man deployed in these communities. Tap the phones, track their social media, and if necessary, arrest and detain their community leaders. 

We had one Jordanian plot a terror attack in Houston, Texas, where he illegally obtained firearms on a non-immigrant visa and researched homemade bombmaking. He was plotting to attack the local Jewish community, a threat credible enough for the FBI to bust him on the weapons charges instead of waiting to hit him with more federal crimes. 

On November 3, a woman crashed into what she thought was a Jewish school in Indianapolis. She confessed to committing the attack and her intended targets. The enemy is already here, living amongst us. If the FBI can identify hundreds who trespassed on January 6, then they can find every pro-terrorist activist at these rallies, and they should. The problem is the staffing—and this is where things get hairy. If the Department of Homeland Security hires ex-PLO spokespersons to handle our asylum claims, who is working inside the FBI besides the usual pro-DNC types? 

It's a horrible situation, but what choice do we have right now?



With More Smoke And Mirrors About Hunter Biden Charging Decisions, DOJ Covers Up A Cover-Up

Stuart Goldberg’s crafty caveat might provide Weiss and Garland cover, but to Americans, the entire spectacle reeks of a cover-up.



A top government official confirmed IRS whistleblower claims that the Justice Department hamstrung the investigation into Hunter Biden. But that same government official refused to acknowledge that Attorney General Merrick Garland and U.S. Attorney David Weiss misled Congress with their claims that Weiss had ultimate authority over the investigation.

That Weiss and the Department of Justice are standing by that story is reason enough for the House to stop deferring to the Justice Department’s “ongoing investigation” excuse for withholding information from Congress. Oversight Committees should start issuing and enforcing subpoenas to expose the DOJ’s cover-up of Biden-family corruption — and its cover-up of the cover-up.

The House Judiciary Committee’s spree of transcribed interviews over the last few weeks continues to reveal new details concerning the DOJ and FBI’s obstruction of the investigation into Hunter Biden and Biden-family corruption. The recent questioning of the DOJ’s top dog for the criminal division of the tax division, Stuart Goldberg, added new texture to the previous testimony by IRS whistleblowers — confirming their many complaints about the Justice Department’s interference in their investigation.

The tax division of Main Justice, Goldberg explained during his interview, is responsible in investigations of tax crimes to decide whether to open a grand jury investigation and whether to authorize the prosecution of tax offenses. Goldberg further clarified that certain investigative steps, such as approving attorney subpoenas, require the sign-off of the tax division of Main Justice. Beyond the normal approval required by Main Justice in tax cases, Goldberg testified that in sensitive matters, such as the Hunter Biden case, there would typically be “closer supervision” of the investigation by the tax division, including authorization at a higher level than normal.

Not only did Main Justice, through the tax division, have authority over approving certain investigative steps, but Goldberg testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the tax division’s approval was required before a U.S. attorney’s office could bring felony tax charges. The tax division would even approve which specific charges could be brought, according to Goldberg. 

When pushed on what happens if the tax division refused to approve charges, Goldberg told the House Judiciary Committee that the U.S. attorney’s office could “appeal” to the deputy attorney general who would then resolve the dispute. However, when Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan asked how often that happened, Goldberg said only once in the last three years. 

This backdrop coincides perfectly with what IRS whistleblowers previously told Congress. They testified that they needed approval from D.C. before they could take various investigative steps and that Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss had said he was not the final decision-maker when it came to Hunter Biden. 

However, when pushed to confirm those claims — and, specifically, whether the DOJ tax division had authorized criminal felony charges against Hunter Biden in 2022 — the DOJ lawyer representing Goldberg directed him not to answer that question. With that line of questioning closed down, the House Judiciary Committee pivoted to a more general inquiry: “Between DOJ Tax and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware, who would you say is the primary decisionmaker on this case with regard to the tax component?”

And here the dizzying spin began in force. “So from my perspective, David Weiss in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was leading the case and running the case and were doing that and that Tax Division had responsibilities under the Justice Department procedures and policies to review certain things and approve certain things, yes,” the tax division chief responded. And if there was “any disagreement or difference of opinion as to certain perspectives,” Goldberg explained, “then it would have to be decided by somebody else in higher authority.”

While Goldberg’s explanation mirrored what the IRS whistleblowers claimed — that Weiss was not the ultimate decision-maker — Goldberg refused to acknowledge the obvious when confronted with Weiss’s letter in which the Delaware U.S. attorney claimed he was the ultimate decision-maker. 

“So the Tax Division has responsibility to authorize cases or not authorize cases. That’s what we’re required to do under the Department’s policies,” Goldberg noted. Then, to justify Weiss’s statement that he was the ultimate decision-maker, Goldberg testified, “[M]y recollection is that David Weiss in his letter qualified or recognized that” his “ultimate authority” was only such authority as was “consistent with” “Department’s rules, the Federal rules[,] the Federal Principles [—] Principles of Federal Prosecution, other departmental policies.” 

Goldberg took a similar tack when questioned about Garland’s statement that “Mr. Weiss had, as I said from the beginning[,] at the very beginning[,] that he had authority over all matters that pertain to Hunter Biden.” 

“I do believe that the Attorney General in his statements is implicitly saying that [—] when he says people have full authority[,] it’s to conduct their work subject to the standard policies and rules of the Department of Justice, unless the Attorney General specifically disagrees with that,” Goldberg told the Judiciary Committee. 

Goldberg’s crafty caveat might provide Weiss and Garland cover, but to Americans, the entire spectacle reeks of a cover-up. And it is — a cover-up of a cover-up. 



Keep Your Head on a Swivel


This is an essay about surviving.  We should be living our lives today with an expectation that something bad will soon happen.  That feeling should not dominate our existence or preclude us from pursuing rich and joyful lives, but it should keep us mentally vigilant and physically prepared before disaster strikes.  In this Obama-Biden America of open borders, out-of-control violent crime, economic fragility, and international provocations, it is only a matter of time before conflicts abroad become conflicts at home.  It is vitally important to keep your head on a swivel.

The October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israeli civilians serve as a shocking reminder that evil is raring to go when people least expect it.  One second, concertgoers were enjoying festival music, the next second they were struggling to escape slaughter.  One moment, families were asleep in their beds, and the next moment gunmen were breaking into their homes.  Life-and-death situations require critical thinking without the luxury of time; therefore, those who have already mentally prepared for the worst put themselves in the best position to prevail.

Unfortunately, Americans are at a disadvantage today because they have been conditioned to depend entirely upon government institutions for protection.  A culture that values strength and self-reliance produces citizens who are capable of defending themselves when necessary.  A culture that embraces victimhood, views masculinity as “toxic,” finds language “triggering,” and insists that only government agents should be armed with weapons is a culture ripe for swift defeat.  

Furthermore, too many official U.S. government policies are intentionally geared toward harming Americans.  No sane nation interested in the safety of its citizens would open its borders to tens of millions of illegal aliens, refuse to prosecute violent criminals, or secretly resettle anti-American, military-aged “refugees” into unsuspecting American communities.  No sane nation wastes its resources harassing patriotic citizens as “domestic enemies,” while turning a blind eye to the damage caused by Antifa and BLM riots and the very real threats from Islamic terrorism.  

FBI Director Wray admitted just the other day that his agency is not tracking “currently operating” foreign terror cells in the United States, that “the gaps in our intelligence are real, and that’s something we have concerns about.”  At this point, nobody is denying that foreign terrorists are using America’s illegal immigration crisis to slip into the country.  During Biden’s time in office, border patrol officers have “encountered” nearly seven million immigrants, while over two million “known gotaways” evaded initial detection.  Tens of thousands of Middle Easterners have successfully entered the country illegally.  In 2023 alone, nearly one thousand people on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist have been apprehended, but nobody knows the true scope of terrorist “gotaways.”  

The cold, hard truth is this: through its open border policies and refugee resettlement programs, the federal government is actively aiding and abetting the next terrorist attack on the United States.  The FBI has proved time and again that it has no interest in preventing Islamic terrorism inside America’s borders.  While it directs its funding resources and agents’ time toward targeting Trump supporters for their political beliefs, it has repeatedly failed to act on intelligence that would have prevented every Islamic terror attack since 9/11.  Neither the FBI nor the larger Intelligence Community is motivated by the prospect of saving American lives.

Why would the U.S. government see Americans as expendable?  The most straightforward answer is that it does not serve the American people but is instead interested exclusively in expanding its own powers.  What 9/11 confirmed for the Intelligence Community is that even its worst failures can be used to institute unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act, that serve to broaden government authority.  In the subsequent two decades, the federal government has created a complex surveillance system that enables it to spy on every citizen of the United States.  Not only has freedom been foolishly traded for the promise of security, but also that promise proved to be a lie.  

Every attack on American citizens is another excuse to disarm them, monitor them, and censor their speech.  The federal government has a vested interest in enabling terrorism: it provides a prepackaged rationale for eliminating Americans’ First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights.  Concomitantly, the federal government has a vested interest in targeting Trump supporters as “domestic extremists”: they represent the largest group of Americans fighting for the preservation of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

That said, the danger of our situation is stark: the U.S. government cannot be trusted to protect Americans.  We are on our own.  Accept this fact and plan accordingly.

Situational awareness has never been more important.  Be leery of large public gatherings, especially those in gun-free zones.  Approach every new setting with caution.  Immediately do two things: (1) locate every available exit, and (2) if you are not already in possession of a weapon, identify what you could use in a pinch.  A sturdy glass jar or bottle is just as deadly as a brick.  If you can legally carry a firearm, do so.  If you are comfortable with a knife, carry one that locks into place.  If you are uncomfortable with both firearms and knives, wear a thick belt with a weighty buckle.  Not only does a belt make an ideal tourniquet, but also it can be used as both a whip to keep an attacker at bay or as something to wind around your wrist and forearm for protection.

Always think about your footwear.  Before heading out in flip-flops or high heels, ask yourself if you are prepared to run away from danger.  Even when in a car, make sure you have appropriate footwear.  Should you be forced to flee your vehicle, however far away you are from home might be the distance you will be trekking during a serious emergency.

Spend time discussing various scenarios with your family.  Should communication networks go down, know exactly where each member will go during an emergency.  Should home base no longer be a safe option, have a backup location where everyone knows to go.  Plan ahead, so that you are not scrambling during chaos.

Organize gear and supplies for three different emergencies: (1) a “Get Home Bag” that will help you should you be stranded; (2) a “Go Bag” that provides you with the tools, medicines, and money to last about a day, and (3) a “Bug Out Bag” that includes sufficient food and resources for potable water to survive at least three days.  Have these ready to go at a moment’s notice.

For most people, home is a much more secure retreat during an emergency than facing potential dangers on the road.  That being the case, now is the time to stock up and fortify your castle.  Expect loss of electricity, heat, and running water.  Know exactly how many weeks (hopefully months) of food and prescription medicines you have on hand.  Know how you will get water.  Know how you will stay warm.  Know how you will defend yourself and your loved ones from home invasion.  Think through everything today, so that executing contingency plans during an emergency becomes second nature.

Run from danger when possible.  Barricade yourself behind closed doors if you must hide.  If you have no other choice, fight for your life.  Make an attacker pay dearly.  Work with others to overwhelm any threat.  Be decisive and fight dirty.  Make yourself a risky target.  Do not expect government help; you must be prepared to defend your own life.