Joe Biden pardons his son Hunter

 The US president intervened in the case despite saying earlier that that he wouldn’t do it

US President Joe Biden embraces his son Hunter Biden during the first day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center on August 19, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. ©  Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

Outgoing US President Joe Biden has gone back on his word and pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, who was convicted earlier this year of breaking federal gun and tax laws.

In June, the younger Biden was convicted of three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018. According to the prosecutors, he lied on his gun-purchase paperwork that he was not addicted to or using illegal drugs. 

In a separate case, the younger Biden pleaded guilty to three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses in September. The sentencing for both convictions was supposed to happen this month.

In a statement issued on Sunday evening, the president said that the “full and unconditional pardon” covers offenses, which his son “has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted.”

The president argued that his son was prosecuted “selectively and unfairly” because of his familial ties. He claimed that “people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form.” 

“It is clear that Hunter was treated differently,” he said. The president went on to state that the charges against his son were brought “only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.” He blamed Republicans for sabotaging “a carefully negotiated plea deal” that would have been a “reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” 

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” the president said. “In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

The decision is a reversal of Biden’s previous position, as he and his team repeatedly said in the past that he would accept the jury verdict and would not pardon his son. When asked by ABC News in June if he would accept the outcome of the trial and if he would rule out pardoning his son, the president replied “yes” to both questions.

In his statement on Sunday, Biden confirmed that his opinion on the matter has changed. “I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,” he claimed.

Hunter Biden released his own statement shortly after the pardon was announced. “I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction –  mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” he said. 

“I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

Hunter Biden has been the subject of much scrutiny during his father’s term in office, as Republicans claimed that he acted as the president’s “bagman” in allegedly corrupt dealings with countries such as Ukraine and China.

The president has denied the corruption allegations and publicly backed his son, describing him as “the smartest guy I know.”

https://www.rt.com/news/608532-biden-pardons-son-hunter/

Despite election losses, waning public support, climate groups, politicians say won’t change plans

Larry Behrens, director of communications for Power The Future, a nonprofit that advocates for energy, called these politicians and activists “climate election deniers.”

By Kevin Killough

Published: November 30, 2024 10:06pm on Just the News

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/despite-election-and-waning-public-support-climate-groups-and-politicians

For supporters of the climate agenda and net-zero policies, there’s been a deluge of bad news lately. The United Nations annual climate conference, COP29, failed to live up to activists’ ideals. The United Nations conceded in October that no progress has been made toward net zero. And in the United States, voters elected a president who has brazenly called climate change a hoax. 

Gabriella Hoffman, director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), told Just the News that climate change hung as a minor issue in the back of voters’ minds, while the state of the economy and inflation were the issues that influenced their decisions. 

“The American public made their voices heard and repudiated all of these net-zero climate policies of the last four years of the Biden-Harris administration,” Hoffman said. 

Undeterred

Despite signs that the climate agenda isn’t selling anymore, at least the way anti-fossil fuel advocates want, many climate-aligned politicians and activists are swearing they’ll continue the fight as if the election and public opinion were still in their favor. 

“President-elect Trump won the election, but his billionaire oil and gas cronies don’t get to rule,” Natural Resource Defense Council President Manish Bapna declared on Nov. 5, the day Trump won reelection. 

Bapna vowed that the NRDC will ramp up litigation efforts to push back against any attempts to roll back the climate agenda of the Biden-Harris administration. 

“If he [Trump] tries to roll back urgently needed climate gains, or follow his radical Project 2025 roadmap to environmental ruin, we’ll stand up for the environment and public health – in the court of public opinion and in our courts of law,” Bapna said. 

The NRDC release didn’t provide any data showing support for the organization’s anti-fossil fuel stance. 

Polls consistently show that voters are concerned about climate change, but the issue falls way down the list on their priorities. Surveys that ask Americans how much they’re willing to spend to address climate change find rapidly dropping support. A 2021 Competitive Enterprise Institute poll found only 17% would spend $1 to $10 a month on the issue. A New York Times/Siena College poll in September found that two-thirds of likely voters supported increased domestic fossil fuel production. 

Despite Trump’s campaign promise to end support for offshore wind, Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey said last week that the state will continue its efforts to build offshore wind farms. 

"Mark my words: We will show them. Because we're moving ahead. We'll show them," Healey said Tuesday at an event in Taunton, referring to skeptics generally. "We'll get this done, and people will be behind it,” Healey said, according to the Cape Cod Times. 

Two days after the election, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Democrats and co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance, said their commitment to the climate agenda was undeterred by Trump’s election victory. 

“The New York climate agenda doesn’t pause for elections,” Hochul said in a statement from the alliance. Grisham offered a similar commitment. “No matter the obstacles, our commitment will not waver, and our progress will not be stopped,” she said. 

Climate election deniers

Larry Behrens, director of communications for Power The Future, a nonprofit that advocates for energy, called these politicians and activists “climate election deniers.” 

“The fact that they are willing to ignore the voice of the American election proves that they are just as out of touch as we always knew they were. Americans went to the polls just three weeks ago, and the case for the environmental left was soundly rejected. They should be looking at ways to listen to the American public, instead of trying to subvert the election results,” Behrens told Just the News. 

The media may also continue to push the climate agenda, even as trust in media falls to an all-time low. 

Anti-fossil fuel groups directly fund many outlets, such as the Associated Press, and they fund organizations like the Covering Climate Now, which provide advocacy resources to reporters covering climate and energy. The organization partners with more than 600 news organizations and encourages reporters to be biased in reporting on climate change and energy. 

In the wake of the election, the organization doubled down on its calls for reporters to continue pushing the climate agenda. In its weekly newsletter, Covering Climate Now argued that Trump didn’t win the popular vote and therefore no voter mandate exists. 

“Climate news may get folded into existing stories more. If so, it will be more important than ever that all journalists, not just dedicated climate reporters, make the climate connection to the news of the day, whether it’s extreme weather or mass deportations, affordable insurance or public health,” the organization advised the reporters at its 600 partner outlets. 

Obstacles

Anti-fossil fuel organizations, such as the NRDC, also have a lot of money at their disposal to file lawsuits and pay for favorable press – far outspending oil and gas companies and industry groups. Hoffman said that we can expect they’ll be active in opposing any rollbacks of the Biden-Harris administration’s policies. 

“These climate election deniers are certainly going to be in resistance mode. That's to be expected for the next four years. They're not going to be partners in cooperation to President Trump's energy-abundance agenda. They're going to be obstacles,” she said. 

Hoffman added that there may be fissures within the climate movement, however. Trump and his Cabinet picks are supportive of the development of nuclear energy, which many environmental organizations, such as the NRDC, oppose. 

The heating up of rhetoric may also further alienate the public and allies. At a recent forum at the Harvard Kennedy School following the conclusion of COP29, former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said that the world needs to declare a “climate emergency.” 

“We need to get people to behave as if this really is a major transitional challenge to the whole planet, to everybody,” he said. The comments have been widely ridiculed. 

Behrens said, despite their insistence that public opinion isn’t turning against their agenda, their rhetoric won’t change the direction energy and climate policy will take under a second Trump administration. 

“President Trump's victory was so resounding that it's going to be difficult for anyone with a straight face to say the American family wants this trial subscription of the green New Deal that they've been under for the last four years to continue,” Behrens said. 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Why The NYT Latest Article About Pete Hegseth Is Pathetic

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

In yet another attempt to demoralize Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, liberal media outlets are using an email sent to Hegseth from his mother as another reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed— and if the media hasn’t lost all credibility by now, this for sure will. 

The New York Times reported on Friday that Hegseth’s mother, Penelope, allegedly sent him an email in 2018 accusing her son of “routinely mistreating women for years” and displaying a “lack of character.” 

“You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth, and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego,” Penelope Hegseth reportedly wrote in the email. “You are that man (and have been for years), and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth,” advising the former Fox News host to “get some help and take an honest look at yourself.”

Hegseth was accused of sexually assaulting and raping a woman after meeting her at a California hotel bar in 2017. The woman alleged that Hegseth took her phone, blocked the door to the hotel room, and refused to let her leave. However, she waited nearly four days after she claimed she was raped to go to the hospital and report it. Her husband, who was in another room at the same hotel at the time of the incident, told police officers that his wife did not seem drunk, nor was she slurring her words when she arrived back to the room later that night, at 4 a.m.

However, while reporting the allegations, the mainstream media purposely left out critical details of the incident, as pointed out by conservative commentator Megyn Kelly. 

Still, the mainstream media will do anything to keep Hegseth from getting confirmed. 

In a phone call with the NYT, Penelope Hegseth said she wrote the email out of “anger with emotion” over her son’s divorce. She also confirmed that she sent a second email to Hegseth apologizing for her original one. 

“It is not true. It has never been true,” she told the outlet. “I know my son. He is a good father, husband.” 

She called it “disgusting” for the NYT to have published the email. 

The letter comes as Hegseth’s confirmation hearings in the Senate begin shortly after Trump takes office on January 20. 

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told the NYT that it was “despicable” to publish “an out-of-context snippet” of Penelope Hegseth’s private email exchange with her son, adding that it does “not accurately reflect the entirety of the conversation.” 

“In subsequent emails, Mrs. Hegseth expressed regret for her emotional message and apologized,” he continued. 

X22, And we Know, and more- Dec 1st

 

The Culture The Media Is Creating Really Sucks

posted by Derek Hunter at American Thinker 

Anyone who has ever dated (sorry liberals, ask someone normal what it’s like to have a date) knows about mixed signals – “Does she like me or doesn’t she?” It’s part of the human dance for which there is no guide or good advice because you’ll never know at all until you know it all. But that’s just dating, part of growing up. What you grow up in is a big part of that experience, and what people are growing up in right now is pretty much a toilet, in no small part, thanks to the media. It’s time to flush it.

Advertisement

I’m no prude, so I don’t mean to come off sounding like one, but as an avid media consumer for work, I can’t help but notice just how horrible the media is. And while you can avoid media consumption, you can’t avoid its ramifications. Let me explain.

Whenever I tweet or write something about a movie, a TV show, or anything related to popular culture, I inevitably get messages from people proudly declaring they “don’t have cable” or “haven’t been to the movies in 30 years” because all those companies are horrible, which they are. However, someone’s ignorance of pop culture does not exempt them from its implications. You’re impacted by it, whether you like it or not. If some kid pees in a big pool you’re in, you’re going to swim through some pee, no matter how far away from that kid you were when they peed. You can say you’ll just get out of the pool, but we’re all fish…

The toys you played with as a kid or your kids played with were all a part of exposing people to popular culture – you can’t escape it (unless you’re Amish, then maybe).

That’s a big part of how the social contagion of “trans” has spread in clusters across the country. It’s a part of the culture: you may not participate but cannot escape it. 

As the trans push is receding – it is, slowly but steadily – I noticed another trend: normalizing prostitution. 

Sex has always been with us; without it, none of us would be here. And pornography is nothing new – images of sex acts litter cave walls. What is new is the media’s celebration of porn and hookers, which aren’t all that different. 

The only reason I can figure as to why the left needs to elevate and normalize deviant behavior – and that’s what it is, whether you’re into it or not (go look up the word; I didn’t create it) – is to normalize it. People who’ve had abortions insist they’re perfectly ok and normal while actively encouraging others to have them, I think, because they tell themselves the more people have them, the more they are normal and hope to alleviate their guilt that way. In fairness, the same can be said for a lot of people who are vocally pro-life – many are trying to counter the guilt they feel over having participated in an abortion earlier but don’t want to admit it publicly, so it manifests itself as activism. 

But this isn’t about how guilt motivates. This is about numbing people to deviancy. 

I will list a few stories from just the past week or so from one news outlet: The Daily Mail. And yes, it is a British company, but it’s also one of the most popular news websites on the planet. 

The first is one about an OnlyFans “star” who traveled to a college town to offer pretty much any student who wanted to have sex with her, as long as she could film it. It’s 3rd party prostitution, with “John” being her subscriber. This should almost be a police report, not news. Instead, the woman was reported on and invited to discuss it on television. Why? She got what she wanted, which was publicity and more money in her pocket from it.

Then there’s another story about another OnlyFans woman who married the stepbrother who impregnated her. While not illegal or incest, is that, by any definition of the word, “news”? Had she not been on OnlyFans, would it have been a story? I doubt it. 

Then there’s this one with the headline, “The shocking truths I learned about men when, as a 41-year-old mother, I tried to open an ‘ethical’ brothel that was safe for women.” Again, on what planet is whatever this person learned “news”? 

Every week, there are stories about young girls on OnlyFans as “stars,” treating them like they’ve accomplished something. Elevating this makes them seem like they have accomplished something, and talking about how much money they make causes more young girls to think what they do is something to aspire to. The stories get clicks because they include lots of (clothed) pictures of attractive women, so the outlet benefits and the porn stars get more subscribers. 

Does anyone else benefit? 

Of course not. Everyone else loses. 

I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home but don’t fool yourself into thinking all of it stays there. No part of a puddle is exempt from ripples when something is thrown into it. And our media is what you’d imagine would be “tossed” into a toilet. Like I said, flush it.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 

Clooney Furious About How Obama Used Him to Organize Doomed Effort for Kamala

Sundance  reporting  for  CTH 

It’s more than a little funny all things considered. Particularly funny if you know the full background {GO DEEP}.  However, as the story is now told, George Clooney is furious that he listened to his good friend Barack Obama when Clooney led the charge against Joe Biden in July.

RadarOnline – […] “Obama and Clooney have been tight for years, and George became Barack’s surrogate in leading the charge for Joe to step away”, explained the source. “Barack knew he would look like a traitor if he publicly called for Joe to be cut loose. And now, he’s trying to walk away from it all. “George feels duped and vows he’s not going to be anyone’s political water boy anymore.” Read More.

Please do read the entire short article.  The key point is the part about Obama being the driver of the op-ed letter written by Clooney that demanded Joe Biden step aside.

In an absolute repeat of the way Obama operates, Barack now disappears -saves his own ego- and leaves his friends carrying the egg on their faces.  That’s Obama in a nutshell.

However, George Clooney’s current motive is not just about his own drop in influence or affluence, George’s personal problem is the impact on his wife, Amal Clooney, the actual author of the letter who finds herself in a strange position of lost purpose while the leftist world retreats and the era of Trump dawns.

The conversation around the Clooney breakfast table in the Medieval walled town of Brignoles, France, is less about the betrayal by Obama, and more about ‘what now’ for their own interests.  Amal Clooney’s curriculum vitae is very well-known as an international human rights lawyer with big time geopolitical connections.  Amal’s WEF, geopolitical and United Nations bonafide’s are very strong.

George, who publicly threw his support behind Democrat candidate Kamala Harris, was quizzed about Republican Donald Trump emerging victorious.  “There’s one thing that’s interesting about democracy: they voted and they decided upon a candidate. That’s how democracy works,” he diplomatically told local reporters. “Sometimes it’s not the person you wanted. The good news is that democracy always wins, we’ll keep going and will present a candidate in future.”

Probed further about what he thought about Trump’s victory, Clooney replied: “This isn’t the right time to discuss that.” (link)

George and Amal did what Barack asked them to do, they helped get rid of Joe.  However, with Kamala crashing in a very visible and public way, what comes next for them?  That’s what George is ultimately angry about.

Clooney’s 425-acre home in Brignoles, is a mere ten minutes away from close friend Brad Pitt’s wine estate of Miraval.  I’m sure the joint commiseration helps.  Clooney will not be the last disposable person in Barack Obama’s life.  Yes, they’ll be fine; and yes, the sheeple masses who were influenced by their manipulative efforts will continue to be sheeple masses.

A Key Element to Understanding the Next Four Years

Sundance  reporting  for  CTH 

To understand the outcome of the next four years (and beyond) as we discuss on these pages, it is important to begin with the same baseline of information.  One key element that is not going to be discussed anywhere else, is what you will read below.

Consider this a baseline to review, consider and carry as context for what is going to come later in the world of the USA and President Trump politics.

♦ Summarized it looks like this: In late summer 2023 not only myself, but several insightful analysts in the world of high finance, had come to the conclusion that Musk’s financial effort with the purchase of Twitter was unsustainable, unless something changed.

Something did change.

In early August of 2023, understanding the dynamic at stake, and also having a strategy for his own interests, Oracle’s Larry Ellison said, ‘he would not let Elon Musk fail with Twitter’.

Billionaire Larry Ellison, a Tesla Board member, already had invested money in place, but that wasn’t the motive on this move. In hindsight, Ellison was brilliant and intensely strategic.  It is important to understand what exactly ‘board members’ are recruited for, and the stability/security reasons for why they are recruited.

Ellison pumped money into the problem, relieving Musk of the cash flow problem created by his inability to divest shares (Musk was max-limited by Board). Ellison also helped make the $1.5 billion loan made by SpaceX, (unknown at the time) go away.

Ellison essentially positioned Twitter for the same dynamic reason that Bezos bought and used WaPo.  This is the world of high finance, and these moves are all about influence, leverage and ultimately positioning.   Ellison wanted a vessel for influence, a friendship and common ideological alignment therein just made sense.

With financial breathing room and a nod in the direction he needed to follow, after a brief stint with Ron DeSantis, Musk using his platform, leaned forward into Trump. The rest of that relationship origin is history.

Oracle, specifically Larry Ellison, is now positioned as the biggest benefactor of a second Trump administration, with a very specific group of technocrats in close alignment. AWS Jeff Bezos has been trying to make up ground ever since.

♦ Now that’s the elevator speech part; that’s the encapsulated or summarized version.  But it’s in the details where things get interesting.

It should be emphasized up front that no one is a bad guy in the framework of what took place; however, neither is this altruism.

These are essentially self-interests in a common alignment.  As long as the alignment is for good purposes, then the network of billionaire allies is in a very cool place.

♦ CRITICAL MOMENT – Returning to the August 2023 remarks by Larry Ellison about not letting Musk fail.

The person Larry Ellison was talking to was Donald Trump.

Larry Ellison nets about $50 billion per year in revenue; that’s not wealth growth; that’s income or cashflow.  Pause and put yourself into that room and think about that conversation for a moment, or more.

In August 2023 President Trump understands that Twitter will survive.  Ellison will not let Musk fail and will underwrite whatever is needed in order to ensure success.  Everything candidate Trump does from that moment forth, carries that baseline.

Now, in August 2023 Larry Ellison was not saying, hey Trump I support you; instead, the reality of what the Oracle billionaire was saying was that Twitter would survive.  [Insert additional Trump thoughts of Truth Social and DWAC here]

Indeed, factually, several months later in 2024 Donald Trump is watching Elon Musk try to launch Ron DeSantis on Twitter – with much less success than his SpaceX rockets.  Trump knows this is a test flight of DeSantis by Ellison.

Donald Trump keeps moving, keeps relentlessly campaigning, keeps targeting the primary opponents and knocking them down one-by-one.  All the while knowing that in the background of Musk, is Ellison.

Strategically, Donald Trump needs Ellison and strategically Donald Trump wants to position Ellison to need him.  Bringing the interests into alignment is The Art of The Deal.

Eventually, over time, the alignment of interests takes shape.

In the spring of 2024, the broad outline of a technocratic team falls slowly into place.  By summer 2024 we see Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, David Sachs, Peter Thiel all in common alignment.  The technocratic team bring in the RFK Jr element along with the Vivek Ramaswamy element, and Peter Thiel’s background seeding of Senator JD Vance blossoms.  The rest, as they say, is now history.

However, it is important to remember, this is an alignment of common interests.  Insofar as those diverse but intertwined interests are good for the USA, then this is an extremely powerful coalition.  There is a great deal of commonality, but there is also the opportunity for some disparity – especially if the technocrats push the Office of the President too hard.

Remember, Musk faced two issues: (1) short term capital and (2) short term expenses.

Here I must give Elon Musk major credit for seriously strategic problem solving.  Ellison solved problem #1, Musk solved problem #2 with fractal computing and big-time urgency on AI as a way to reduce data processing costs.  The net result surfaced a few days ago:

[…] “Musk has given 25% of the shares in xAI, which Musk founded last year, to investors who helped fund his $44 billion acquisition of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, in 2022, sources with knowledge of the talks told the Financial Times.  XAI is set to close a $5 billion fundraising round as early as Wednesday – doubling the company’s valuation to $50 billion in just six months, according to the paper.” (LINK)

Sixteen months ago, I didn’t think Musk could pull it off.  He did and should be congratulated.  So too should Larry Ellison be admired for strategic foresight and incredible positioning for maximum benefit.  Just a brilliant outcome from both men. Well done!

♦ Now I need to bring in another metaphor:

A person could make the argument that splitting the atom was a great altruistic decision to create abundant energy. However, it must also be accepted the good decision ultimately created a serious weapon, the atomic bomb.

Thus, embedded in the argument about Musk and his chase of AI is a defense that solving the problem of data processing costs (fractal computing and AI), is a way to get rid of the inherent dependency on IC systems and massive space-consuming Server Farms previously needed to run simultaneous user social media platforms.

Fair enough.  I totally understand the upside.

However, in steps Peter Thiel and Palantir with a business model to repurpose the beneficial side of AI, add in facial recognition capabilities, and create something that Homeland Security and the Intelligence Community would gain from. That’s the downside.

AI can both split the atom (good) and create the atomic bomb (bad).

♦ When the AI search and filter capability is merged with facial recognition, “Real ID”, and ultimately the NSA metadata; then adding fractal computing power and imagine the search results.  My concern is it’s only a matter of time before an Obama-type administration take power again.  What will that merged system look like if weaponized?

Palantir agreed to cooperate with the FBI and launched facial recognition AI on behalf of their federal contract with the FBI into the events of J6 attendees. The FBI arrests followed.  Palantir’s access to the DHS/TSA database, as granted by the FBI for use in their J6 targeting operation, can be looked upon as a beta test for how artificial intelligence could scour the national biometric database and deliver results.

Three key points:

(1) Palantir doesn’t have access to the full NSA metadata library yet. Concerningly that’s another part where Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and JD Vance can come into play in (’28).

(2) Palantir (AI surveillance) is beta tested with various sub-silos (like FBI), under auspices of various legal authorities (like J6).

(3) Palantir’s product, combined with Real ID and biometrics, can also be used to identify and locate illegal criminal aliens.  Thus, the Tom Homan Deportation Operation benefits from incredible targeting efficiency.  But will DHS stop using it when the deportation program concludes?

As long as these systems are operating for good, then I look at the financial windfall to the technocrat group as no issue.  However, if those systems are weaponized for a process of targeting that violates the basic elements of our constitutional protection, then we have a problem.

“Politically Exposed Persons” outside the Big Club should be cautious.

Eyes wide open.