Friday, September 27, 2024

'In the Real World, She'd Be Toast': Gutfeld Slams Media for Covering Up Those Damning ICE Numbers


Teri Christoph reporting for RedState 

While border czar Kamala Harris makes a much-ballyhooed campaign stop at the southern border and pretends to care about the firehose of illegals crossing into the country every day, Fox News' Greg Gutfeld is wondering why the media isn't covering those damning ICE statistics showing how many violent thugs have made their way across the fruited plains. 

As RedState's Sister Toldjah reported earlier Friday, ICE released some truly chilling numbers revealing that a staggering 13,099 murderers, 15,811 rapists, and 425,431 convicted criminals have been let loose into the U.S. to prey on her citizens.

But all the handshakes, back pats, and tough talk from Harris Friday on border security are likely to be overshadowed by new numbers released by ICE after a Republican Congressman's request that detail how many non-detained convicted illegal immigrants are still roaming the United States despite having final orders for removal:

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with sex offenses and homicide convictions are loose on the streets, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data provided to lawmakers this week. 

The agency provided data to Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, about national data for illegal immigrants with criminal charges or convictions. The data, as of July 2024, is broken down by those in detention, and those who are not in detention -- known as the non-detained docket.  The non-detained docket includes illegal immigrants who have final orders of removal or are going through removal proceedings but are not detained in ICE custody. There are currently more than 7 million people on that docket.

The data says that, among those not in detention, there are 425,431 convicted criminals and 222,141 with pending criminal charges.

Gutfeld noted during Fox News' "The Five" that this story was "so unbelievable" that he "wanted to see if it was reported elsewhere." Unsurprisingly, he could find nary a word about what he calls "probably the biggest crime story I've ever seen" on the likes of CNN, ABC, and Drudge. And he had a special message for the Democrat "hate watchers" of Fox News: "The media doesn't want you to know this information. They don't want it to reach you. They're rather you die or be raped than Trump be right or find out the truth."

No one does Gutfeld better than Gutfeld, so here he is in his own words:

Greg Gutfeld has been around long enough to not actually be surprised that the corporate media is running cover for their preferred candidate, but he's right to point out that this isn't just your typical political move by the press. These are numbers that every American needs to know for their own safety, but that means nothing to Kamala's lapdog media. They are willing to be deliberately bad at what they do even if it means putting their fellow citizens in danger, and it's way beyond mere media malpractice.

Gutfeld gets it. Here's one of his money quotes from the clip above:

"Tell us, no, it's not 60,000 rapists. It's only 8000. It's only 7000 murderers. Cool. I'm glad you're okay with that. I'm glad. I'll take your fact check. But anybody who defends this or says it's not that big a deal is complicit. And they should be held accountable....these bastards were more offended by stories of cats being eaten than real stories. Real stories reported here of actual rape and murder....This is a huge story. Where is it?"

There is no accountability, of course. Donald Trump can bring all the attention in the world to the many crimes being committed against American citizens by foreign thugs, but, as Gutfeld points out, the media would rather see you raped or murdered than report the numbers. Thank goodness there are a few real journalists left, like Fox News' Bill Melugin, who is relentless in reporting the truth of what's happening at the border. 

Stay safe out there, friends. 



Harris' Best Option? Throw Biden Under the Bus


Vice President Kamala Harris didn't have a very good Thursday. I was waiting for Hurricane Helene to kick my kiester all over the state of Georgia and I still had a better day than she did.

One of the "highlights" for Harris was President Joe Biden's appearance on "The View," where he talked about how Harris had been knee-deep in decisions on both foreign and domestic policy.

There's just one problem with that. The Biden administration's domestic and foreign policy has been an absolute disaster.

As Harris campaigns, she's been saddled with one question that she simply ignores: What stopped you from doing all this in the last three and a half years?

Biden's comments on "The View" only made that question more salient. If she was so involved, what stopped her from addressing literally anything she says she can fix if elected?

What this means is that Kamala Harris has really one option to escape from, well... *gestures at everything*

She needs to throw Biden under the bus.

Vice presidents don't really have the authority to roll out their own agenda. Her best hope in shielding herself from criticism for what she hasn't done would be to say that Biden is a senile, old man who doesn't know what pants are most of the time so he's wrong to say she was involved in policy discussion. Harris needs to argue that she wasn't allowed to address any of the concerns of Americans with any of the things she's absolutely sure would fix the problems.

Would that win her the election?

Probably not. Not in and of itself, anyway. She'd also have to make a lot of sense in her own right, something she's shown she's pathologically incapable of doing, but at least then she might have a shot.

And really, what's the downside? Anyone who loves Biden enough to get furious is still going to vote for her because they're terrified of a Trump presidency all over again. The people on the right aren't going to buy it, but they're not going to vote for her anyway. The only people it might impact are the people Harris would need to win over.

Sure, that'll make it harder to try and leverage incumbency to any degree while also pretending to be a Washington outsider, but that's not working for her anyway.

I just don't think she'll do it.

See, Kamala Harris doesn't think about anyone but her fellow leftists. If she did, she wouldn't have picked someone like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as a running mate. She'd have gone for someone more appealing to the center, giving those folks someone to vote for. Instead, she went with Walz, a man she had to know had some baggage from his much-touted military time to say nothing of his time as governor.

Harris needs someone to talk her into it, but if the people surrounding her couldn't talk her out of Walz, I don't think they'd talk her into dumping Biden.

So, while I think Harris throwing Biden under the bus is the right play, I don't think she will ever consider it. It's not loyalty to Biden so much as she's incapable of thinking beyond her progressive bubble.



X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 27

 




Washington Post’s Incurious Philip Bump Says The Media Should Just Give Kamala The ‘Benefit Of The Doubt’

 Bump is ready to quickly move on from any issue that could be a problem for the political party he’s trying to help win this election.


Because the national news media can’t be bothered to actually scrutinize Kamala Harris’ campaign — they’re trying to help her win, after all — they instead choose to scrutinize anyone else who tries.

That’s why rather than sincerely look into Kamala’s relatively new biographical claim that she once slung Happy Meals working at a McDonald’s, The Washington Post’s most willfully obtuse writer, Philip Bump, decided that this week his energy was best spent belittling anyone who questions it — most notably, Kamala’s opponent, Donald Trump.

“Since Trump has been saying that the McDonald’s story isn’t true,” Bump wrote Thursday, “a lot of his supporters are saying it too, rushing to prove that Harris was being dishonest about her McDonald’s employment with the same intellectual rigor that they applied to uncovering voter fraud and pet eating.”

To the extent that Bump had any interest at all in the unsubstantiated “french fries and ice cream” tale Kamala relays to make herself seem humble and relatable, it was to prove that he couldn’t prove whether it’s true even if he wanted to. “Over the course of this week,” he wrote, “I spent some time looking into the story myself — not because I doubted Harris’s claim (since there’s no real reason to doubt it) but because I was curious if it was provable.”

This is what the national media do anytime a Republican or right-leaning news publication raises a legitimate issue that might be politically harmful to the Democrat Party. They dismiss the controversy as a partisan-driven affair of no consequence or otherwise run interference on behalf of Democrats by debating and disputing its merits.

It’s what the media did with the animal-snatching Haitian migrants story. Rather than investigate what Springfield, Ohio, residents had to say of the documented claims that relocated migrants were eating pets and wild animals there, the media busied themselves by asking local government officials if they could prove them. When the media got the answer they wanted — there was no proof — they wiped their hands clean and called anyone still interested liars.

It’s what the media did with the Hunter Biden foreign bribery scheme. Every development of that story, no matter how scandalous, has been brushed aside and regarded as a non-event by the media. Bump leaned into that particularly egregious round of media moral bankruptcy more than anyone. Congressional investigations, testimony under oath, and corroborated reports overwhelmingly indicate that President Biden’s degenerate middle-aged son has for years been financially benefiting from foreign entities to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — for providing no discernible product or service in return except direct access to the U.S. government, including his father. What’s more, there’s convincing evidence that Joe Biden was a key player in the dealings, an assertion made by one of Hunter Biden’s years-long business partners.

Asked last year to reconcile the irrefutable reality that there is at least an interesting possibility of obscene corruption implicating the sitting president of the United States, with the absolute lack of curiosity of the corporate media, Bump yawned.

A sample of Bump’s remarks during that interview with podcaster Noam Dworman:

“You have no evidence that Joe Biden acted on Hunter Biden’s behalf, or that Joe Biden took money!”

“Find me evidence! There is none!”

“You’ve offered no evidence beyond your parsing …”

“This conversation is silly!”

“This is why I keep saying it’s silly!”

To be fair to Bump, he did write in his column this week that he bothered to call up a couple McDonald’s locations in the city Kamala identified for the job. He tried to get the corporate office on the phone but failed in every attempt. That takes at least a few calories of effort, though rather than leave it as an open question as to whether Kamala is being honest about her early life experience, he argued that the exercise was predictably silly because — well, who cares?

“Harris, unlike Trump,” he wrote, “has earned the benefit of the doubt on assertions that may not be immediately provable.”

And just like that, Bump was done with his investment in questioning a story Kamala repeatedly tells as part of her pitch to voters. He’s ready to move on from such things because he knows it’s a problem for the political party he’s trying to help win this election.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/27/washington-posts-incurious-philip-bump-says-the-media-should-just-give-kamala-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/

Progressivism: An Arrogant and Deadly Worldview


Call me crazy, but I don’t trust government officials who believe that population growth (AKA “our carbon footprint”) is the most pressing problem on the planet.  If we had bureaucrats who were encouraging us to get married early and have lots of children, I might listen to what they have to say.  If we had politicians who spoke endlessly of cheap energy, rising wages, higher standards of living, and the potential for all hard workers to become wealthy, I’d probably throw an attaboy in their general direction.  But why would I follow anyone who wants to control what I eat, confiscate what I earn, regulate how I live, and leave me with nothing?  When “authorities” tell us that too many people are alive today, we should probably see their words as a threat worth taking seriously.

That’s why I don’t trust the experimental “vaccines” that the government’s favorite pharmaceutical companies managed to manufacture in record time (shortening a process that normally takes fifteen or more years into a miraculously innovative seven or eight months).  “Here, take this injection.  It will save your life.”  Uh, you first.  Why don’t we see how your health fares before we start playing Russian roulette with the global population?

It’s nothing personal.  Maybe there are some good, decent scientists out there who actually want to fight disease.  But there are a whole lot of other scientists who talk quite openly about why humanity must cull the herd.  “Sustainable growth” sounds hunky-dory until you realize that you are the unsustainable growth that the “experts” want to stem.  Once a person has that epiphany, the magic juice in those COVID syringes looks a little less magical.  So you’re saying you want to save my friends and me today, so that you can depopulate the planet tomorrow?  Never mind, I’m good.  I just remembered that I have to be somewhere...far away.

Last week I wrote about Ned Ryun’s excellent new bookAmerican Leviathan, in which he recounts the rise of the unconstitutional administrative state.  In describing how “Progressive Statists” took over the U.S. government, Ryun examines not only how an unaccountable bureaucracy replaced the Founders’ designs for limited government, but also how cancerous ideologies animated powerful Americans to repudiate the Constitution’s constraints against government overreach.  

Woodrow Wilson and his ilk detested “popular sovereignty” — the idea that ordinary people should be the arbiters of how their nation runs — and demanded that “the best boys from the best colleges” be in charge.  In their arrogant and prejudicial minds, early-twentieth-century “progressives” believed that it was absurd for lowly, less educated Americans to be entrusted with any say over the operations of the federal government.  The experts are meant to rule, and the riffraff are meant to obey!  That un-American motto became the government’s guiding principle to this day.

As Ryun repeatedly points out in his book, Wilson saw the U.S. Constitution as an “outdated” and “defective” document that prevented the best people from doing what they knew to be best for the nation.  (Sound familiar?)  “Living political constitutions,” Wilson insisted, “must be Darwinian in structure and practice” — which is to say that the meaning of the Constitution must “evolve” according to the needs of the bureaucrats running things.

Wilson and his acolytes wanted to build a government that operated beyond the reach of politics (and, therefore, beyond the reach of the American people).  They wanted to fill this government with bureaucrats who had been scientifically trained to diagnose and address the nation’s “evolving” challenges.  And they wanted to provide these unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with independent powers that allowed them to do what they thought best at any given time.  In this way, the original “progressives” claimed, the business of government would be conducted efficiently and scientifically.

No doubt today’s “progressives” would still cheer Woodrow Wilson’s words as their own, but after a century of unconstitutional bureaucracy run amok, ask yourself this simple question: would anyone call any part of the federal government “efficient” today?  On the contrary, government efficiency is a punch line to a common joke: if you want something done in twice the time and with ten times the cost, then let the government build it.  

After Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty,” the federal government spent trillions of dollars only to make Americans relatively poorer while greatly increasing wealth inequality.  Four decades after the creation of the Department of Education, American children have never performed so poorly on standardized tests.  Barack Obama and the Democrats insisted on “saving” Americans from high medical costs by nationalizing health care — only to give us a broken hospital system that is even more costly.  

Anything the government touches turns into an inefficient and poorly run enterprise, which is why so many Americans correctly feared that Obamacare would create the medical equivalent of the U.S. Postal Service or the local DMV.  In turn, “the best boys from the best colleges” have turned postal employees and Department of Motor Vehicle personnel into essential workers for registering voters and collecting ballots.  Nothing gives Americans confidence in the security of their elections like putting bureaucrats associated with incompetence in charge of processing votes.  Instead of building a government renowned for its “scientific efficiency,” the “Progressive Statists” have constructed a broken-down system synonymous with ineptitude and corruption.

By putting blind faith in the discriminatory idea that some Americans deserve to govern others, “progressives” have spent the last century dismantling the Constitution’s safeguards for limited government, individual rights, and economic freedom.  In their place, we have a bureaucratic “blob” that does what it wants without regard for the citizenry.  Because, after all, the blob knows best.

As Ryun articulates in American Leviathan, “Progressive Statists” have not only given us bad government but also an army of bureaucrats who place dogmatic faith in the inerrant promulgations of “Science.”  “Trust the Science” is not a modern mantra.  Wilson and his lot implored early-twentieth-century Americans to do the same.  

In a chapter entitled “When False Gods Ring Hollow,” Ryun quotes Michael Crichton: “Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.  This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world.  Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities.  The crisis is reported frequently in the media.  The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.”  As Ryun makes clear, Crichton wasn’t writing about COVID or “global warming.”  He was describing “progressivism’s” love affair with the “science” of eugenics and the U.S. government’s dalliance with forced sterilization of “inferior” races.  Wilson and his “progressive” tribe were huge fans.

If the administrative state is filled with the “best boys from the best colleges,” and those “best boys” all decide that some kind of “science” is “true,” then objections from the people must be ignored.  After all, as Ryun states poignantly, if the State’s primary goal is scientific efficiency, then “there is no individualism, no individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, and no Creator that has endowed life in all forms.  There is the state and society, which ultimately deem who and what are necessary for the health of the whole if mankind is to reach the state of apotheosis.  And for the whole to be healthy, to progress to a higher plane, anyone or anything deemed parasitical must be ejected.  Any imperfection that might slow progress and lead to inefficiency must be dealt with.”

Last century’s so-called “experts” believed in eugenics.  Today’s so-called experts believe in mandatory injections with experimental “vaccines,” anthropogenic “climate change,” and the “virtues” of depopulation.  “Progressive” government is inefficient folly; “progressive” science, however, is just plain deadly.



The Kamala Cookbook

The Kamala Cookbook

When Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in August, she said, “I’m no stranger to unlikely journeys.”

And yet voters know little about the last stage of that journey: the path that led to Harris seizing her party’s nomination after President Joe Biden had announced in July he would not run for reelection. How did an unpopular vice president catapult to the top of the list of replacement candidates? Were deals struck to protect the Biden family if Joe were to endorse Kamala? Was there any discussion of Biden stepping down as president before the end of his term? Was this, as some observers asked, both tongue-in-cheek and in earnest, a coup? In the competitive world of political journalism, the behind-the-scenes story of the machinations of Team Kamala would have been a major scoop.

It is the scoop that never was. In a lengthy interview in early August with Biden adviser Anita Dunn, Ryan Lizza of Politico asked about perceptions that Harris had effectively been installed without ever having had to win over a single Democratic-primary voter: “Do you agree with some of the people who were disappointed about this, that it was, essentially, a ‘coup’?” Dunn sought to shut down such talk immediately, saying Harris had been “terrifically loyal” throughout the upheavals of the summer. Later, when asked about the “decision to endorse Harris, and her quick consolidation of the party,” Dunn claimed there was “never a question” about Biden endorsing Harris. Lizza, like many other political journalists, simply let the matter drop.

The lack of curiosity about how Harris secured both Biden’s endorsement and the nomination so quickly is odd given what we know from media reports on Biden’s long-standing concerns about Harris’s performance as vice president. Just last year, the New York Times described it thus: “The painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and around the nation … said [Harris] had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country.” Adding insult to injury, the story noted, “Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.”

In September, reporters Mike Allen and Alex Thompson of Axios revisited the question and wondered, “Why did President Biden’s top advisers routinely leak word they found her performance as vice president disappointing or episodically problematic” before she became the nominee? Why did Biden advisers worry Harris would “struggle under the glare of national pressure”? In addition, there was the matter of her long-standing reputation as an unpopular boss with a “high turnover rate” among staff: “Of the 47 Harris staffers publicly disclosed to the Senate in 2021, only five still worked for her as of this spring.” And yet, after raising these questions, Axios shrugged, noting only that the Harris campaign repeatedly answered, “No comment.”

It is notable that the only story the media want to tell in the “first draft of history” they often boast about writing is one that avoids any discussion of Kamala Harris. Instead, it focuses on who urged Biden to get out of the race. The heroine of that story, if you are a Democrat who didn’t want Biden to run, is canny octogenarian Nancy Pelosi, who supposedly put country above her “friendship” with Biden to save the Democratic Party from itself. As Jill Filipovic described it at Slate, Pelosi “looked at the polls, saw no path to victory, and understood that the best way to get through to Biden was to confront the president in private, while remaining respectfully assertive in public.” Politico quoted anonymous Democratic sources who made Pelosi sound less like a friend than a Mafia enforcer: “Nancy made it clear that they could do this the easy way, or the hard way.”

This narrative has the advantage of allowing reporters to ignore lingering questions about what happened and instead tie up loose ends with a tidy bow. As Slate put it, “Nancy Pelosi got the one thing she always wants: a way to win.” The article quoted her as saying that her support of Harris was “official, personal, and political.” What this narrative also does, inadvertently, is make Harris seem like a non-player character in the biggest game of her life.

What little we do know of the behind-the-scenes way Biden’s announcement unfolded is pablum. A recent Associated Press story helpfully informs voters, “It is known that Harris is a foodie and likes to cook. In fact, she had just made a pancakes-and-bacon breakfast for her niece’s 6- and 8-year-old daughters on the July morning when Biden called with the news that he was dropping out of the race.”

This approach is indicative. Throughout her tenure as vice president, and more intensely since she became the Democratic nominee, reporters describe world events and domestic political challenges such as war, the border crisis, or inflation as happening to her, not because of the administration’s policies. Although voters still don’t know in her own words Harris’s views on immigration, or gun rights, or fracking, the media have made sure that we know she used to wash collard greens in her bathtub before parties. In wartime, she might or might not support our allies like Israel, but “at snack time, Harris reaches for Doritos.”

Some of this incuriosity is no doubt the result of careful cultivation of the media by Harris in the last two years. As Semafor’s Max Tani reported in late July, Harris has “invited a parade of prominent television anchors and media executives to dine with her at the Naval Observatory, given personal tours of her garden to journalists from diverse backgrounds, and shaped trips to do media appearances with the outlets serving Democratic-leaning groups the White House refers to as ‘coalition media.’” Harris has fΓͺted the hosts of Morning Joe over dinner, as well as Meet the Press’s Kristen Welker, and doesn’t discriminate between prestige and nontraditional media. As Semafor notes, “Staff from gossip site The Shade Room snagged an invite to her holiday party,” and off-the-record meetings included visits by the authors of “fairly niche abortion Substacks.” 

Instead of running down the story themselves, media outlets have scolded Republicans who posited their own theories about Biden’s departure and its resemblance to a bloodless coup. In a piece that included charts and an extended note on its “methodology,” the New York Times decried the use of words such as “coup” and “cover-up” and claimed, “A vast majority of prominent Republicans have treated the development [Biden’s exit] with suspicion or scorn.” New York magazine declared such speculation “lurid,” stating, “This line of argument is as feeble as it is loud and insistent. If Biden could be brushed aside against his will, why did it take so long, and why did the alleged orchestrators of the ‘coup’ insist that Biden himself make the decision?”

A willing media have continued to serve as the Harris campaign’s boosters by avoiding asking difficult questions about her policy positions. As New York’s Gabriel Debenedetti wrote recently, a “popular media narrative” suggests that Harris should take clear policy positions on important issues, but “people close to Harris” say “her primary job now is to win an election and that most voters need to understand her values and priorities, not her white papers.”

In her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris said, “My entire career, I’ve only had once client: the people.” Is it a good idea to keep your client in the dark about not only how you got your job but also what your plans are for leading them, given that they ultimately decide whether you get that job and pay your salary? Harris is betting that it is. And given the media’s incuriosity about her rΓ©sumΓ© and rise to power, it’s a clever gamble. For the ever-more distrusted and increasingly unpopular and unprofitable mainstream press, however, it’s just another path of indignity leading to the industry’s grave.

Photo: AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


You Are Not Safe From Your Own Government


posted by Brandon Morse at RedState 

I remember decades ago that the person saying you shouldn't trust the government while listing conspiracies to you was considered the nut job in the room. Now... well, everyone owes him an apology. 

Those conspiracy theorists got too much right, at least lately, and it's really shown us a side of the government that many of us truly hoped did not exist. Many people looked at the government as something of a necessary evil that had checks and balances. We sent our own people there to represent us and help control it. We thought that this was enough for protection from it, and we went to sleep. 

Yet, while we were asleep, elements began to creep in that saw this thing we created as a delivery system for their own whims, wishes, and ambitions. One thing led to another, and now we have a government that detests us, even to the point where it's willing and ready to put us in harm's way, opening up avenues that allow it to harm us itself if it can.  

This might sound like crazy talk, but let's look at the facts, starting with the most recent. 

You, reading this now, are probably pro-life. You respect the value of life and believe that everyone should be given a shot at it, even if the beginnings aren't the most ideal. Many of you are believers in God, and think that He created life, and as He doesn't make mistakes, believe that He has a plan for every life that comes into this world. 

Did you know that your government was training your army with your taxpayer dollars to see you as a terrorist threat? 

Here is Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) at a hearing, grilling General Patrick Matlock on the training program that trained soldiers to see the National Right to Life as a terrorist threat. Matlock admits it was a mistake to do such a thing but also admits that these soldiers haven't been told it was a mistake. 

Whose idea was this in the first place? Who honestly thinks that the National Right to Life is a terrorist threat? It's an organization that values life and wants to keep it sacred... what kind of terrorism are the people in our government afraid they're going to commit? 

The answer is none of them. The only danger the National Right to Life imposes is a threat to the leftist agenda, which is something the left sees as a solid excuse to become violent. 

Then, just a few days ago, the DOJ released a full image of a page of the letter penned by Trump's second would-be assassin, Ryan Routh, who offered a bounty of $150,000 to whoever could assassinate Trump: 

“This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.”

(Bill Barr 'Dumbfounded' by DOJ's Release of Trump Would-Be Assassin's Letter, Suggests Ominous Purpose)

As Mike Miller wrote on Bill Barr's comments: 

I don't think Barr meant to suggest that the DOJ's release of the disturbing letter was an intentional attempt to incite further violence, and neither do I, but to the former AG's point, what other purpose could it serve? To further divide the country, perhaps? 

What other point could it serve is the question everyone should be asking right now. Why would the DOJ do this? 

Keep in mind that this is the same DOJ that was so concerned about inflaming violence against people that it attempted to hide away the manifesto of the transgender Nashville school shooter. It only came to light after it was leaked to various sources. 

Your government has gone after parents, Christians, conservatives, and more, and in various ways meant to intimidate, threaten, and silence them. Our government has attempted to create entire departments whose sole purpose is to quell free speech. They recently attempted to infuse the IRS with billions and billions of dollars, most of which was meant to boost its "enforcement" capabilities. 

This is the government that attempted to coerce and intimidate you into injecting yourself with an unproven vaccine that did, in fact, harm a lot of people. This is the same government that, even now, makes stripping you of your Second Amendment rights one of its priorities. This is the same government that, as I write this, is importing dangerous illegals from south of the border and dropping them off in American neighborhoods. 

None of this that I'm saying now is hyperbolic. It's actually happening. 

Your government does not care about you. It is not concerned about your safety and well-being. It is not your friend. It is not your protector. You and the government are enemies. Do not give it the power to grow more powerful. Vote accordingly, and make sure you vote in people who will strip it of power, shrink it, and create more boundaries that stop it from becoming something it was never intended to be. 

Do not allow this government to rule you. Remember, you rule it. You are in charge. It is here to serve you. It's forgotten that. Remind it. 



Why Are Iran’s Thugs Free to Walk the Streets of New York?

 ‘The fact U.S. taxpayer dollars provided personal security for Iranian leaders trying to kill senior Americans is simply lunacy.’

NEW YORK—In many ways, Manhattan during the UN General Assembly is a choreographed show: awards dinners, media events, and grandiloquent speeches by the world’s autocrats in the land of the free. Fidel Castro once lambasted the U.S. for four hours during a speech; the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo ChΓ‘vez accused George W. Bush of being “the devil”; and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, after erecting his tribal tent in New Jersey, pinned the JFK assassination on Israel. 

In keeping with tradition, on Tuesday, Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, took to the rostrum at the General Assembly and heralded himself as a symbol of moderation and as the diplomatic partner through which to solve the Middle East’s woes. “We are confident that through this mechanism we can achieve a lasting peace with Muslims, Christians, and Jews living alongside one another,” the cardiac surgeon-turned-politician told assembled world leaders in Turtle Bay.

Across the city, the 69-year-old Iranian leader’s message of coexistence wasn’t resonating. As he was speaking, Masih Alinejad, who is among Tehran’s most outspoken political opponents in the U.S., got the news that she had been rejected by a Brooklyn co-op board.

“The co-op rejected me and my husband. Why? Because, when they Google us, they realize that they don’t want to share their building with someone being followed around by people with AK-47s,” said the 48-year-old dissident. 

 

The board didn’t overtly say that its decision was driven by fear, but Alinejad told The Free Press she’s certain that Tehran’s repeated, and highly publicized, attempts to assassinate her on American soil—including at her home—drove the board’s decision. 

Alinejad, who has lived in 21 different safe houses under FBI protection over the past three years, is constantly shifting her locations. “Because the U.S. government can’t protect us, the Iranian regime’s fear is working. They’re isolating us.”

The contrast between the Iranian president’s charm offensive, and Alinejad’s misery, offers a unique window into the geopolitical struggle playing out across Manhattan this week—both in the spotlight and the backrooms—as the global elite attend the annual UN General Assembly and Iranian officials take to American airwaves and dine at New York restaurants.

 

Pezeshkian and his delegation are being feted by UN, European, and Middle East delegations as a potential ally in stopping the regional spread of Israel’s war against Hamas, Tehran’s military proxy in the Gaza Strip. According to Iranian state media, Tehran’s president met the leaders of Kuwait, Lebanon, Sudan, and Pakistan, as well as French president Emmanuel Macron and UK foreign minister David Lammy.

Iran’s Islamist government has spent decades arming and funding a network of militias, terrorist organizations, and allied governments that allows Tehran to essentially turn on and off a spigot of violence at a whim to threaten the region’s strategic waterways and, in turn, the global economy. European and Middle East officials at the UN Assembly are panicked by the prospect of Israel invading southern Lebanon in pursuit of Tehran’s most important military proxy, Hezbollah, and potentially expanding the regional war.

That’s why, as some told me in recent days, they believe the U.S. has little choice but to test Pezeshkian’s rhetoric and see if his new government can really take steps to de-escalate tensions. “We want to grab this line,” one senior Arab official said of Pezeshkian’s overture. “I think we need to discuss it.”

Alinejad and a wider group of Iranian political activists, Γ©migrΓ© journalists, and former U.S. officials—who all talked to The Free Press this week—said they’ve been stunned by what they see as the almost purposeful naivetΓ© of the world’s leaders meeting with Pezeshkian for the first time. (He only took office in July, following the death of his predecessor, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash.)

They say the Islamic Republic’s statesmen and diplomats have mastered an ability to tailor their messaging of moderation for global audiences, even as Tehran’s security forces continue to support the very groups stoking the Middle East’s conflicts. 

The fact that American intelligence agencies in recent days have said that Iran’s spy agencies continue to pursue terrorist plots inside the U.S., including against former president Donald Trump, only underscores the hollowness of Pezeshkian’s calls for diplomacy and coexistence in these dissidents’ eyes.

But the UN’s annual gathering is also providing these Iranian dissidents a unique opportunity to confront their tormentors—a small army of Davids staring down a Goliath. And they are using the occasion of the UN gathering to highlight the regime’s perfidy and its continued assault on them, their families, and the Iranian people. 

One of the frontline actors in this week’s drama is Iran International, the 24-hour Persian language television channel that’s officially banned inside Iran. Started only seven years ago, with funding from a politically connected Saudi-British investor and media company, the network has become Iran’s most-watched independent news organization, in part, because of its confrontational approach toward the Islamic Republic.

Iran International’s coverage of the 2022 women-led uprising against Tehran’s rulers—called the Women, Life, Freedom movement—garnered it particular notoriety. It told the story of the protests, and the government’s harsh crackdown, through videos, audio recordings, and interviews smuggled out of the country, as the network’s journalists couldn’t be on the ground. (Last year, I collaborated with Iran International for a story on Iranian influence operations inside the US that originally ran on the media site Semafor.)

But Iran International’s journalism has earned it the regime’s ire, and Tehran has hunted down its journalists on foreign soil, just as it has Masih Alinejad.

In 2023, the network decided to temporarily shut its London headquarters after British security services notified management that Iranian agents were plotting to attack its Chiswick offices and assassinate senior editors and journalists. Last December, the British media outlet, ITV, disclosed that Tehran had offered $200,000 to a Syrian hitman to attack two of Iran International’s most high-profile on-air personalities. And this March, Eastern European thugs, apparently at the behest of Tehran, stabbed the Iran International anchor, Pouria Zeraati, outside his London home. (He survived.)

British officials told Iran International they couldn’t ensure its staff’s security. As a result, the network’s headquarters were briefly shifted to Washington, D.C., last year. And at last year’s UN General Assembly, a regime security agent pummeled one of the network’s journalists

But in New York this week, Iran International deployed nearly a dozen staffers to cover every move of Pezeshkian and his delegation. That includes the large number of the president’s family members who accompanied him to New York and their shopping sprees at places like Costco.

“We can’t travel to Iran. If we do, it’s a one-way ticket to Evin Prison,” Fardad Farahzad, one of the Iran International journalists named as being on Tehran’s assassination list, told The Free Press. “So, this is a unique opportunity for us to try and hold them accountable on foreign soil.”

On Wednesday night, the network tracked the Iranian Americans who attended a gala dinner Pezeshkian and his entourage hosted near the UN. Many of the attendees wore Covid masks, Iran International reported, apparently to hide their identities.

Two days earlier, network reporter Arash Aalaei, tracked Trita Parsi, a prominent U.S. think-tank leader and advocate for engaging Iran, for blocks after he left the Millennium hotel, where Iran’s delegation is staying. Peppered with questions about his meetings, Parsi simply stared blankly down the street and refused to engage in any discussions with the journalist.  

Another recent target of the Iranian regime, computer scientist Siamak Aram, also sought to confront his nemesis this week. On Tuesday, just as Pezeshkian was taking the stage at the General Assembly, the 43-year-old gathered a small collection of Iranian dissidents across the street at Dag HammarskjΓΆld Plaza. Members of his National Solidarity Group for Iran mixed between calling for the overthrow of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to mirroring the slogan of the Black Lives Matter movement by chanting, “No Justice! No Peace!”

Aram was menaced last May by an Iranian official, named Ramezan Soltan-Mohammadi, who threatened to slice the dissident’s throat after his group staged a protest outside a pro-Islamic Republic mosque in Maryland. Aram successfully filed a restraining order against Soltan-Mohammadi and is now pursuing legal action against him. But the ability of regime agents and officials to so openly operate in the U.S. stunned the political activist. “They will do whatever they can to stop the protests and activities [taking place] outside Iran,” Aram told me. “One of them is by threatening the dissidents and protesters outside.”

According to U.S. intelligence and Department of Justice officials, the regime’s operations are hardly just targeting dissidents. In recent days, they’ve described uncovering active plots against former president Donald Trump that are allegedly aimed at disrupting November’s presidential election. And the man who is accused of stalking Trump this month at a golf course with a high-powered rifle, Ryan Wesley Routh, said his animus towards the Republican politician was driven, in part, by his treatment of Tehran.

Many of these plots, U.S. officials tell The Free Press, are Iranian attempts to avenge the Trump administration’s 2020 assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of the country’s elite overseas military unit, the Quds Force.  A range of Trump advisers who took part in the operation, including former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and ex-national security adviser John Bolton, travel today with round-the-clock U.S. government-provided security details in response to threats that are still assessed as “high.” In 2022, the Department of Justice indicted a member of Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, for allegedly plotting remotely with an American citizen to kill Bolton at or near his home in Washington, D.C.

This March, the FBI’s Miami field office issued a nationwide alert seeking information on an Iranian intelligence official—based at times in Latin America—who also was suspected of trying to assassinate Trump-era officials, including Pompeo.

The July arrest of a Pakistani national, Asif Merchant, shows the elaborate nature of Iran’s plots inside the U.S. According to his indictment, Merchant traveled to Tehran to meet Iranian handlers who advised him on a scheme to kill Trump at a political rally this year. The Pakistani then flew to New York to recruit would-be hitmen at restaurants and bars to take part in the conspiracy—which allegedly involved creating a distraction at a campaign event to give an assassin an opening to fire.

Unbeknownst to Merchant, one of his contacts was a U.S. government informant whom he paid $5,000 to advance the plot. “Now we’re bonded,” the Iranian agent said to his recruit, according to the indictment. Merchant was arrested two months ago, shortly before he was scheduled to depart New York.

Pompeo told The Free Press that he traveled to Manhattan this week, in part, to warn foreign officials about the continuing Iranian threat, despite Pezeshkian’s recent rhetoric. A successful assassination of Trump or his former aides could potentially spark a war between the U.S. and Iran.  

“We restricted Iranian diplomat travels even BEFORE they threatened Americans in the U.S. with assassinations,” Pompeo said in a text message. “The streets of NYC are not the place for plotters and murderers to be given freedoms here in the USA.”

He added: “The fact U.S. taxpayer dollars provided personal security for Iranian leaders trying to kill senior Americans is simply lunacy.”

Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian addressed the UN on September 24, 2024. Iran’s terrorist plots inside the U.S. underscore the hollowness of Pezeshkian’s calls for diplomacy, writes Jay Solomon for The Free Press. (Charly Triballeau via Getty Images)

Pezeshkian departed New York early Thursday following what Iranian state media described as a highly successful final meeting with the Iranian diaspora, including scientists, investors, and manufacturers. Tehran’s most-skilled diplomat and messaging man, meanwhile—former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif—engaged in a round of media interviews with U.S. outlets and flatly denied U.S. accusations that Tehran was pursuing terrorist plots on American soil.

The U.S. Treasury Department formally sanctioned Zarif in 2019 for serving as an agent of Supreme Leader Khamenei. But the Biden administration said this week it was diplomatically bound as host nation of the UN to allow the U.S.-educated official to come to New York.

“We don’t send people to assassinate people,” Zarif told Ian Bremmer of GZERO Media. “I think that’s a campaign ploy in order to get former president Trump out of the not-so-favorable situation he’s in in the elections.”

The Iranian dissidents fumed at the freedom Zarif and other Iranian officials were continuing to be given to roam Manhattan, even while the terrorist threats against them remain active. “The only way to help Iran is that you support the people of Iran, rather than providing visas to its leaders or buying this narrative of reform,” Alinejad said. “What kind of reform is this ‘reformist’ Pezeshkian? 

This reformist is just good PR for Khamenei.”

https://www.thefp.com/p/iran-terrorism-united-nations-masih-alinejad?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=149500008&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email