President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is withholding key details on terror suspects who have been apprehended at the United States-Mexico border in the last three years, a new lawsuit alleges.
The White House on Thursday called for consideration of “humanitarian pauses” in the Israel-Hamas War, as Israel prepares its ground offensive against Hamas in response to the terrorist organization’s attacks on October 7 that killed more than 1,400.
“In a tactical sense, as Secretary Blinken said, we do think that there should be consideration made right now for humanitarian pauses,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said at a White House briefing.
RELATED VIDEO — Fearful Pro-Israel Students Allegedly Stuck in Library Surrounded by Angry Pro-Palestinian Mob:
“These are localized, temporary, specific pauses on the battlefield so that humanitarian assistance can get in to people that need it or the people can get out of that area in relative safety. That’s what a humanitarian pause is, and we think it’s an idea worth exploring,” he said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken raised the prospect of a humanitarian pause during a meeting at the United Nations on Thursday.
WATCH — Pelosi: We Need “Humanitarian Pause” Between Israel, Hamas that Blinken Called for:
President Joe Biden also on Thursday endorsed the idea of a so-called humanitarian pause.
He said Israeli outrage is “completely understandable” and that the U.S. would ensure Israel has what it needs to defend itself against terrorists, but said that Israel has to “do everything in its power” to “protect innocent civilians.”
He thanked Israel and Egypt for working with the U.S. to make sure food, water, and medical supplies were getting into Gaza, and said, “The flow needs to increase, and we’re working very hard with our partners to make that happen.”
WATCH — “Hearkens Back to ISIS”: Antony Blinken Describes Evidence He Was Shown of Hamas Atrocities in Israel:
Kirby on Thursday acknowledged a two-state solution was a “lofty goal,” but said Biden still believes that has to be the goal.
“We’re driving to a state for Palestinians if they can live in peace and security and justice. That is a strategic long-term goal,” he said.
The White House is pushing for a humanitarian pause the same time White House staff is holding “wellness meetings ” for aides who disagree with support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza against Hamas.
The Department of State and the Department of Defense are taking measures to calm dissent, according to Politico .
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X” , Truth Social , or on Facebook .
Joe Biden’s Donor List Includes More than 30 Executives Tied to Wall Street JOHN BINDER
Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has more than 30 business executives on his donor list that have connections to Wall Street.
Analysis of Biden’s more than 800 big donors, those who have bundled contributions for his presidential bid against President Trump, found that more than 30 of the executives listed have ties to Wall Street.
CNBC reports :
CNBC reviewed a new list of more than 800 Biden bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign, and found that several of them had links to financial firms . A few had been mentioned on the initial list of Biden fundraisers that was released in 2019 during the Democratic primary contests. [Emphasis added]
…
Beyond those from Wall Street, Biden’s campaign saw fundraising help from leaders in Silicon Valley , including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and venture capitalist Ron Conway. [Emphasis added]
Those executives with ties to Wall Street funding Biden’s campaign include:
Frank Baker, Brett Barth, Jim Chanos, Mark Chorazak, David Clunie, William Derrough, Roger Altman, Blair Effron, Jon Feigelson, Mark Gallogly, John Rogers, Jon Gray, Tony James, Jon Henes, Sonny Kalsi, Orin Kramer, Brad Krap, Brian Kreiter, Marc Lasry, Nate Loewenthall, Eric Mindich, Kara Moore, Charles Myers, Alan Patricof, Deven Parekh, Robert Rubin, Evan Roth, Faiza Saeed, Rajen Shah, Jay Snyder, Rob Stavis, and Jeff Zients.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden’s campaign is being backed by nearly “all the big banks” on Wall Street, according to CNN analysis , and Wall Street executives and employees have donated more than $74 million to elect the former vice president.
Trump, on the other hand, has accepted far less money from Wall Street — taking just a little over $18 million dollars from financial firms. This is a whopping $56 million less than what Biden has accepted from Wall Street.
Despite his Wall Street, big business, Big Tech, and billionaire donations, Biden has attempted to portray himself as a small-town fighter from Scranton, Pennsylvania.
In a post on Sunday, Biden wrote that “Donald Trump sees the world from Park Avenue,” whereas he sees the world “from where I came from: Scranton, Pennsylvania.” In fact, Biden has raised over $1 million from wealthy Park Avenue donors, more than eight times the less than $130,000 that Trump has taken from Park Avenue residents.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter
at @JxhnBinder
THERE IS NO GREATER DANGER TO
AMERICA THAN JOE BIDEN!
Too Big To Trust REVIEW: 'American Breakdown: Why We No Longer Trust Our Leaders and Institutions and How We Can Rebuild Confidence' by Gerard Baker (Amazon)
Abe Greenwald
September 24, 2023
If you're a working opinion journalist in America, you've probably spent some time in the past few years toying with a book idea about our national crisis. The atmospherics of the moment all but demand it. What was once quaintly thought of as the news cycle has become a continuous blur of despond. Political problems crossbreed with cultural ailments and split opinions along lines so fresh and inconsistent that the terms left and right lose shades of meaning with each new debate. Wild claims disseminate via digital firehose and service competing ideological camps that no longer share a base reality.
And that's before we get to the significant failings of our recent elected officials, the scandals of our billion-dollar corporations, the prejudices of our legacy media, or the lies proffered by our public and private institutions. In other words, before we can even approach our real-world challenges, Americans are faced with an impenetrable fog of interests and biases that all but precludes thoughtful contemplation.
It's no wonder we've lost trust in just about everything. According to all major polls, American trust is nosediving across the board. We don't trust government, media, education, big business, technology, or one another. And this isn't merely unpleasant background noise. Mistrust and distrust are active players in the political and cultural life of the country, shaping our days as surely as any lawmaker, lobbying group, or media behemoth.
We could really use a grand theory right about now—something ingeniously simple to capture how we got here and point us toward clear solutions. But as Gerard Baker argues in the traumatically brilliant American Breakdown , the origins of our national trust crisis are complex and compounded, and it won't be resolved in one stroke.
Baker, editor at large at the Wall Street Journal , contends that the problem began with the United States' objectively poor performance on a number of fronts. "It's not that Americans have suddenly, for no reason, started distrusting institutions that merit trust," he writes. "It is that the institutions themselves have become untrustworthy." Here Baker wisely resists the low-hanging fruit of Trump-age resentment as an explanation in itself. "To focus on the most extreme and hateful manifestations of public disillusionment is to miss the underlying cause," he writes. "It is the guided leadership of the last twenty years rather than the response to it that explains America's current plight."
The evidence is compelling. As Baker notes, long before Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the United States entered a long and dispiriting foreign war on the strength of bad intelligence, a collapse of the American financial system halved the average net worth of middle-class households, the increasing flow of illegal immigrants was serially ignored, Big Tech grew rich by trading in customers' personal data, and social mobility began to stall. As Baker puts it: "To suggest that [Trump] is the architect of collapsing faith in America would be to assign him the kind of power and influence only he thinks he really wields."
After Trump was elected, he pounded away on the entrenched political establishment as the source of these mishaps. And then the establishment did its best to prove him right with a new batch of bungling and flat-out deception: the false charge of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 presidential election, the now hyper-partisan media's daily catastrophizing about conservatives, and the mistakes and misdirection of public health officials responding to the COVID pandemic. "Leading figures in public health across the country," writes Baker, "essentially inverted the scientific method," starting with answers and culling data to match. Americans noticed.
Baker adds to this run of failure the emergence of two complementary trends that were foisted on the public at the height of our national doubt: First, the rise of an "overclass that has more in common with its counterparts in London, Paris, or Singapore than it does with its compatriots in Louisville, Peoria, or Scranton." This is the Davos crowd, the influencers, institutionalists, and billionaires who disdain national identity and embrace climate change as religion. Baker's portrayal of the Davos set is peerless and one of the book's crowning delights. Consider his summary of Davos Speak: "Wander into a Davos session and you will catch stakeholders dialoguing and mainstreaming multifaceted metrics in a cross-platform environment before actioning toward implementation mode. It's English, Jim, but not as we know it."
These mainstreaming multifaceted muckety-mucks often find common cause with another emergent class that also speaks its own language: the radical ideologues of the campus left. What the globally minded Davos folks share with the identitarians and intersectionalists is a messianic disregard for the average American's well-being and, in some cases, a hostility toward his real concerns. Most important, the two elite forces pushed our culture and institutions in bizarre and damaging directions that do real harm to ordinary people. In something like ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) investing, we see clearly how the two groups merge to shortchange everyday Americans in the name of globally minded heroism. ESG-guided funds invest your hard-earned money only in companies that meet certain environmental and social criteria, but they generally underperform funds that are still stuck on the crazy idea that making money for shareholders is paramount. "Not only are [Americans] forced to watch as their corporate overlords use their powerful positions to pursue ideological goals many do not approve of," Baker writes, "but they are actually paying for the privilege of it."
Baker astutely dismantles a slew of ailing institutions, devoting a chapter each to politics, corporate America, news media, science, education, and technology. Each is a gem packed with insight and wit. Noting, for example, in his chapter on education that a recent survey showed 80 percent of Harvard faculty identified as "liberal" or "very liberal," 1 percent identified as "conservative," and zero said they were "very conservative," Baker observes inarguably, "These are North Korean levels of political conformity."
But the book's great strength is in resisting causal reductionism and daring to approach the trust fiasco in its combined magnitude. No single factor can begin to explain it. In his chapter on social trust, Baker considers the three main causes of mistrust cited in scholarly literature: corruption, economic inequality, and racial diversity. They all appear to play some role in our present crisis, but none dispositively. After all, as Baker points out, Transparency International still ranks the United States as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And from 2011 to 2021, "on an income basis, the United States actually became a slightly more equal society, and yet, levels of social trust have continued to decline." Similarly, polls have shown a gargantuan shift away from bigotry in this country over the last half century, yet "Americans of all races seem to have become markedly more pessimistic about racial harmony in the very recent past."
Baker knows the problem is more massive than any individual grievance. Indeed, he writes movingly about the challenge of massiveness itself. "The vast scale of the institutions may be justified in terms of economies of scale, or by the larger purpose they are serving, but dealing with these Brobdingnagian entities induces a sense of smallness in us," he says. It's an underappreciated point, and it applies to our interaction with businesses, universities, and government. They've become, in some sense, too big to trust.
Baker is modest and uncharacteristically vague about offering solutions. But this is apt, as nothing elicits mistrust as surely as confidently proposed fixes. And grasping the size of our dilemma, he surely understands that the best we can hope at the moment is a good wish list. He'd like media companies and universities to be more ideologically diverse in their hiring. He suggests more transparency from technology platforms, more accountability from big business, and so on.
If there's good news here, it's that opinion writers can stop worrying about their possible books on the great American crack-up. Gerard Baker has beaten them to it with a definitive account of our complicated and uncertain times.
American Breakdown: Why We No Longer Trust Our Leaders and Institutions and How We Can Rebuild Confidence by Gerard Baker Twelve, 288 pp., $30
Abe Greenwald is the executive editor of Commentary.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
JOE BIDEN TO HIS BANKSTERS: It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
Corporate America puts its money on Biden and the Democrats
The final financial reports before the election were filed by candidates for Congress and the White House by Oct. 15 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), detailing fundraising and spending in the third quarter, July 1 through Sept. 30. These reports are limited to the funds raised directly by the campaigns themselves, and exclude fundraising through supporting PACs (political action committees) usually funded by billionaires. Nonetheless, the FEC data provides some eye-opening insights into the political calculations of the American ruling elite, where there is increasing expectation of a Democratic victory on Nov. 3.
Two preliminary observations can be made. First, large sections of big business favor a shift from Trump to Biden, partly because of differences on foreign and domestic policy, partly because they regard a second Trump term as more likely to provoke an uncontrollable social and political explosion in America. Second, the corporate elite now views Biden and the Democrats as the favorites to win the election, and campaign contributions are a form of political insurance, giving the donors a “seat at the table” when a future Biden administration is staffed and determines its policy priorities.
The Democrats hold a decided edge in fundraising in each of the major sectors of the 2020 political battlefield. In the presidential campaign, Trump’s early dominance is a distant memory. Biden has outraised him beginning in May, and his lead has grown with each passing month.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Biden campaign has raised $810 million and supporting organizations have raised $373 million, for a total of $1.183 billion. The Trump campaign has raised $552 million, supplemented by $256 million from outside groups, for a combined total of $808 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested on Nov. 3. In the 435 House contests, the Democrats hold a slightly narrower lead, $772 million to $653 million. Both figures represent a sharp departure from recent congressional elections, at least until 2018, in which the Republican Party has generally enjoyed a huge financial edge.
The presidential fundraising figures represent sharp increases from 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton raised a combined total of $770 million while Trump raised $433 million. By Oct. 1, the Biden and Trump campaigns had already spent three times the amount expended at a similar point in 2016, a reflection both of the massively increased fundraising and the need to reach early and mail-in voters.
The Democratic Party and the corporate media have generally attributed the Biden campaign’s financial edge to a surge of small-dollar contributions. There certainly has been such a surge, at least compared to the early stages of the Biden campaign for the Democratic nomination, when small-dollar internet contributions went overwhelmingly to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that point Biden was sustained by a relative handful of wealthy backers.
But according to a recent tabulation by the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains the Open Secrets database of campaign finance information, Trump and Biden have raised roughly equal amounts in contributions of $200 or less, between $200 million and $250 million apiece, mainly over the internet.
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
The Times continued:
From Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, Mr. Biden’s campaign has aggressively courted the megadonor class. It has raised almost $200 million from donors who gave at least $100,000 to his joint operations with the Democratic Party in the last six months—about twice as much as President Trump raised from six-figure donors in that time, according to an analysis of new federal records.
Million-dollar donors came from Hollywood (Jeffrey Katzenberg), Silicon Valley (Reed Hastings of Netflix and many others), and high finance. “Top executives with investment, private equity and venture capital firms like Blackstone, Bain Capital, Kleiner Perkins and Warburg Pincus all contributed handsomely,” the Times noted.
While Biden has lately attempted to sound a populist note, claiming that he represents Scranton (his birthplace, a decaying industrial city in northeastern Pennsylvania), while Trump represents the moneyed elite of “Park Avenue,” it turns out that “Scranton” has a different meaning to his campaign finance operation. Any affluent donor who solicits a total of $250,000 in contributions is considered a member of the “Scranton Circle” of elite donors, with special access to top advisers of the candidate. There is also a “Philly Founder” level for those generating $500,000 in contributions and a “Delaware Circle” for those accounting for $1 million or more.
Entering the month of October, the Biden campaign had $180.6 million in cash on hand, while the Trump campaign reported only $63.1 million, one-third of the Democrat’s total. This disparity was despite the Biden campaign’s outspending Trump’s by two to one during the month of September. After raising a record-shattering $365 million in August, the Biden campaign raised an even larger amount, $383 million, the following month.
Trump has not lacked for megadonor support, including $75 million from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, $21 million from Isaac Perlmutter, chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and $10 million from banking heir Timothy Mellon.
But these sums are dwarfed by the $100 million for Biden from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination for himself—and spent $1.1 billion in that effort—and another $106 million from the Future Forward PAC, based in Silicon Valley, whose funding includes $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, $6 million from Jeff Lawson of Twilio, $5 million from crypto-currency trader Sam Bankman-Fried and $2.5 million from Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.
Such figures make nonsense of the fascistic rhetoric of Trump, who continually denounces Biden as the tool of socialists, communists and the “radical Left.” Actually, Biden is a tried and tested tool of Wall Street and corporate America, dating back to his days as a senator from Delaware, a center of tax evasion. The tiny state has more corporations headquartered there for tax purposes, over one million, than human beings.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The financial constraints on the Trump campaign are unmistakable. In the final week of September and the first week of October, for example, it stopped advertising in four “battleground” states—Iowa, Ohio, Texas and New Hampshire. One advertising industry tally had Biden topping Trump in campaign spending in 72 out of 83 media markets where both campaigns were still competing.
The disparity between the Biden and Trump campaigns has been exacerbated by the timing of their expenditures. Trump spent lavishly in the early months of 2020, even before the Democratic nominee had been determined, and has raised less overall. The result is a cash crunch in the final weeks of the campaign.
Biden began the month of August with a three-to-one advantage in terms of financial resources and has outspent Trump in three critical battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—by that margin, $53 million to $17 million. According to figures reported in advertising trade publications, Biden has a 5–1 advantage in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, market, and more than a 2–1 advantage in Detroit and Philadelphia.
In Omaha, Nebraska, where a single electoral vote is at stake in the Second Congressional District, Biden has spent $2 million on advertising, six times the Trump total.
With Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holding an apparently comfortable lead over Trump in the polls, much of the media attention has shifted to the question of which party will be in control of the Senate after November 3. The Republicans currently have a three-seat majority, 53-47, so the Democrats must gain a net of three seats if Biden wins, as a Vice President Kamala Harris would then have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The Democrats must gain four seats if Biden loses, but that combination is highly unlikely, since a Biden defeat would signify a broader Democratic debacle.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested November 3. In the 16 seats considered competitive (two held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans), the Democratic lead is $643 million to $415 million. The average Democrat has a $40 million war chest, while the Republican, usually an incumbent, averages $26 million.
More so than Biden, the Senate candidates have benefited from a flood of small-dollar donations over the internet, which expresses, in a distorted way, the popular hatred of the right-wing policies of Trump and the Republicans. But corporate and billionaire cash also plays a significant role. Both small-dollar and large-dollar donations have fueled a record-breaking third quarter of fundraising for the Democrats, with many challengers doubling or tripling the amount raised by the Republican incumbents.
Ordinarily, incumbent senators have a huge fundraising advantage over their challengers, and this applies particularly to Republican incumbents, who usually have closer ties to wealthy donors. But in 2020 this is not the case, and the disparities are remarkable. There are at least eight Democratic challengers who have outraised their Republican opponents. Three of these Democrats have raked in more than $80 million apiece, an astonishing total for an election in a single state.
Democrat Jaime Harrison reported raising $86.9 million in South Carolina, compared to $59.4 million for three-term Senator Lindsey Graham. The combined total of $146.4 million in a relatively small state, where only 2 million people voted in 2016, means an expenditure of better than $70 a vote.
In an even smaller state, Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath has raised $84.2 million for her uphill contest against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has raised $53.4 million. In Arizona, Democratic challenger Mark Kelly has raised $82.8 million and leads in the polls against the incumbent Republican, appointed Senator Martha McSally, who has raised $50.9 million.
Several other Democratic challengers, while raising smaller total amounts, have a much larger percentage edge over Republican incumbents. In Iowa, businesswoman Theresa Greenfield has raised $40.4 million against the $21.8 million raised by first-term incumbent Joni Ernst. In North Carolina, former Army paratrooper Cal Cunningham has raised $43.4 million for his race against first-term incumbent Thom Tillis, who has raised $20.9 million. In Maine, Sara Gideon, the Democratic leader of the state legislature, has raised $63.6 million for her campaign against three-term incumbent Susan Collins, who has raised less than half that sum, $25.2 million.
In Colorado, opinion polls suggest that the contest is a runaway, and political action committees supporting the Democratic candidate, former Governor John Hickenlooper, have pulled out, regarding his victory over first-term Republican Senator Cory Gardner as a certainty. Hickenlooper has outraised the incumbent by $36.7 million to $25 million. And in Montana, Governor Steve Bullock has raised $38.1 million for his challenge to first-term incumbent Steve Daines, who has raised $24.5 million. In Alaska, millionaire orthopedic surgeon Al Gross leads incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, $13.9 million to $9.3 million.
The most lopsided financial disparity is in Kansas, where no Democrat has been elected to the US Senate in a century, but polls show a close race between former Republican state senator Barbara Bollier, who switched to the Democrats only two years ago, and Republican Congressman Roger Marshall, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Republican Senator Pat Roberts. Bollier has raised $20.7 million, nearly four times the $5.5 million raised by Marshall.
Georgia has both Senate seats at stake, because of the resignation of Senator Johnny Isakson for health reasons. The Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, have raised $46 million between them, while the two Republican incumbents, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both multi-millionaires, have raised $45.2 million.
In only one state is there a seeming Republican financial advantage in a contested race. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has the edge over his Democratic challenger, Mary Jennings Hegar, and that is not an overwhelming one, $29.6 million to $20.6 million. And even this apparent advantage is illusory. The Silicon Valley-based political action committee Future Fund is pouring $28 million into the Texas race to support the Democratic candidate, more money than Hegar has raised herself. This advertising blitz will benefit not only Hegar, but also a group of Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives and a Democratic effort to gain control of the lower house of the Texas state legislature.
Of the two Democrat seats in the Senate which are at greatest risk on November 3, one confirms and one represents an exception to this pattern. In Alabama, incumbent Democrat Doug Jones has outraised his Republican challenger, former football coach Tommy Tuberville, by $24.9 million to $7.5 million, but he is nonetheless considered a distinct underdog in the conservative state. In Michigan, Senator Gary Peters is a slight favorite over Republican challenger John James, a former paratrooper, and he holds only a narrow fundraising lead, $35.7 million to $33.9 million. Only three incumbent Republican senators have raised more money than James, who is being promoted by the Senate Republican leadership and Trump as an African American face to disguise their reactionary politics.
Finally, there is the not-insignificant question of what corporate America is buying through this flood of cash into the coffers of the Democratic Senate candidates. The beneficiaries of this corporate largesse are a collection of political reactionaries deeply committed to the defense of American imperialism abroad and big business at home. They differ only at the margins with their right-wing Republican opponents.
Of the candidates already listed, four have military-intelligence backgrounds as their principal credential: Mark Kelly is a career military pilot and former astronaut; Amy McGrath a retired Marine fighter-pilot; Mary Jennings Hegar flew helicopters for the US military in Afghanistan; Cal Cunningham was an Army Ranger, and still teaches new Rangers every year as a reserve officer. These four are the Senate equivalents of the CIA Democrats who played such a prominent role in the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2018.
Other top Senate Democratic challengers include South Carolina’s Jaime Harrison, a longtime corporate lobbyist; Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, a millionaire businesswoman; Al Gross in Alaska, a millionaire surgeon whose father was state attorney general; Montana Governor Steve Bullock and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, both failed presidential candidates who ran in the right-wing “lane” that produced Biden instead; and Barbara Bollier, who was a Republican state senator in Kansas until switching parties in 2018.
In the House of Representatives, now firmly controlled by the Democrats, 232-197, with five vacancies and a Libertarian, the Democrats are expected to increase their numbers, although by less than the 41 seats they gained in 2018. Republican hopes of retaking control, which would require a net gain of 21 seats, have virtually collapsed, as nearly all the first-term Democrats who won Republican-held seats in 2018 are considered likely victors this year.
The Democrats hold a smaller edge in fundraising for the House of Representatives than in the Senate, having raised $772 million through September 30 according to FEC filings for the 435 seats, compared to $653 million for Republican candidates.
The overall total is less significant, however, because the vast majority of House seats are in districts whose boundaries ensure the victory of one party regardless of how much money the other party spends. Republicans will spend $7 million, for example, in support of businesswoman Kim Klacik against Democrat Kweisi Mfume, in the Baltimore district held by the late Elijah Cummings, and $9.4 million to back millionaire investor Lacy Johnson against Democrat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Both Mfume and Omar will win reelection easily despite being heavily outspent.
The more important figure is how much is raised in more closely contested races, fewer than 100 of the 435 seats in the House. In these contests, there are 85 Democrats who have raised more than $3 million, compared to only 50 Republicans. This includes a number of challengers for Republican seats, including Wendy Davis and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 21st and 23rd congressional districts of Texas, with $7.2 million and $5.9 million respectively, and Nancy Goroff and Tedra Cobb in New York’s Second and 21st congressional districts, with $5.1 million and $5.5 million respectively.
In 41 congressional districts where first-term Democrats are defending seats captured from Republicans in 2018, the fundraising is lopsided in favor of the Democrats: $216.5 million to $98.2 million. Only two of the 41 Democrats have less campaign cash than their Republican challenger.
An especially financially advantaged subset is the group of 11 new Democratic representatives with military-intelligence backgrounds, whom the WSWS identified in 2018 as the CIA Democrats . In their 11 reelection contests, the CIA Democrats have raised $62.5 million. Their 11 Republican opponents have raised only $21.4 million.
All 11 CIA Democrats are favored to win reelection, and they will be joined by at least one military-intelligence candidate who won his primary in the heavily Democratic Fourth Congressional District in Massachusetts, and is a prohibitive favorite, Jake Auchincloss. Several more such candidates are likely to win on November 3: Jackie Gordon in the Second Congressional District of New York; Dan Feehan in the First Congressional District of Minnesota; Sri Preston Kulkarni in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas; and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas.
The result of the election is likely to be a greatly strengthened group of CIA Democrats, including Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, first elected in 2014 and the founder of the VoteVets political action committee that has been responsible for recruiting and funding many of the military-intelligence candidates in the last two elections. Together with the 11 elected in 2018 and another half dozen or so in 2020, this would make a “caucus” of nearly 20, enough to exercise considerable influence in the new Congress and in a future Biden administration.
REMEMBER WHEN BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS SAID OL' JOE'S FINANCES WERE ENTIRELY 'TRANSPARENT'?
This Is How the Left's Power Structure Collapses By David Prentice
Weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the issues defining the election had not come forward yet. He was correct. Not entirely, because all the issues coming out right now have existed. In plain sight.
They just weren't distilled yet.
It's now here, served up on a silver platter. No, not Hunter Biden. This Hunter Biden laptop story simply leads us to the issue. The word. One word that rules them all, and in the darkness binds them.
Corruption.
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman.
Enter Hunter's laptop. We now know that this is a family steeped in crime and corruption. Ole Corn Pop appears to be awash in money kicked back to him by his family members who have grifted off his reputation for years. Hunter's laptop has betrayed all this and more. Much like Al Capone's bookkeeper. Who would have thought Capone would have been destroyed so completely by a set of crooked books? Such delicious irony. And who would have known that this would become the October surprise of all October surprises?
Corruption. Full grown. Oozing its way into America. It's everywhere on the left. The Biden family. Clintons. The Democratic Party. The FBI. The CIA. The mainstream media. The tech giants. It's a full-out plague, aided and abetted by their demonic philosophy, all of them gone astray.
All of them corrupt.
The New York Post story has been there for about a week now. The Democrat-media complex has ignored it entirely; the tech giants went into overdrive removing all evidence from their platforms. Google. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. The whole lot of them. Covering up a story that deserved universal distribution and condemnation. Instead, they covered up the most damning story to their side, their chosen side. All of them colluded to bury this mounting evidence of wrongdoing.
How far the mighty have fallen. And are falling.
What's the word for a media establishment that won't report this story?
What's the word for the FBI having this laptop for almost a year, watching dispassionately as the Democrats impeached Trump with hard evidence in their hands of his innocence and the Bidens' guilt?
What's the word for the above group of bad actors colluding to forward the Russia lies for almost three years?
What's the word for Director Wray's involvement?
What's the word for CIA director not releasing documents of the Russia hoax, documents that have been available for a long time?
What's the all-encompassing word that has been revealed at the heart of all these colluding to hide the truth from an America that deserves to know?
Corruption.
This is an issue that won't go away. All the attempts to deep-six the truth here are failing, and miserably at that. It's causing a slow-walk of information to drip out to the American public. First the stories of Ukraine. Drip-drip-drip. Then the stories of drugs. Then the sex problems. Then the Chinese stories. The story of kickbacks to Pop.
It's as if all the smartest people in the world colluded to destroy themselves. By purposefully and unanimously excluding all information concerning this story from the American public. The smartest people in the world actually believe they can be successful in spiking one of the biggest stories to pop up in any American election cycle. Their hubris is so advanced, so viral, so awful, that they can't see what they've done to themselves. They really believe they are going to keep a cork on this.
The derogatory phrase for the establishment has been "the swamp." How bad is this, how deep is this, how criminal is this, how horrifying is it to find out the vast amount of corruption and collusion in so many of our institutions and corporations?
It's staggering. It's infuriating.
These are the most powerful among us. All rich. All corrupt. All once respected by Americans of all stripes. And here, in one fell swoop, they reveal themselves to the average American. As arrogant bullies, as deceitful liars, as evil as anything we've seen in our generation. They have revealed themselves as the cabal of darkness. Terrible motives, terrible actions, virtually unforgiveable in what they have done, and yet failed to finish. And due to the hubris of the cabal, the exposé will be slow-walked until the election.
Today, Trump had an exchange with reporters, where he said, "Biden was a criminal."
This shocked the corrupt media. Reverberations rocked the corrupto-sphere. The lion had roared. There is no way the corrupto-sphere keeps this lid on. There is also no way all these corrupt actors go back on their solemn pledge to one another. They are bound together. They're stuck with each other. And it will overwhelm them.
As this careens into the debate, as this careens into voting, as this careens into Election Day, the ultimate narrative will be set. The doomsday clock will start. All the corrupt actors will be pointed out. All of them will rue the day they couldn't get rid of Donald Trump. He, above most anyone, knows just how corrupt these people are. He above anyone knows how to handle them. He, above all, knows what's all coming out in the next weeks.
It's going to be an avalanche of material. It's going to be a number of fires even Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the DNC, the Bidens, the media, the corrupt government officials, the whole shooting match, will not be able to handle. If they all overtly held emergency meetings with each other, they'd never stop the flood. When Trump roared, you know he had one of his famous moments, that moment when he knows how and when to bring this to a head. Trump the narrative-builder, Trump the destroyer will be unleashing hell on these people.
Anyone who has seen him operate knows. This is his time. This is how the beginning of the end of the swamp, or should I say the sewer, begins. This is the kind of chaos these smartest people in the world, ever, haven't seen before. Algorithms will not help them. Censorship will not help them. It will be a rushing mighty wind, coming to destroy all those who didn't understand that their corruption could be turned on them.
This is going to be epic. Corruption will be their end; it's just a matter of time. And Trump will have four years to finish their corruption.
N.A.F.T.A. JOE BIDEN HAS WARRED AGAINST AMERICAN WORKERS HIS ENTIRE CORRUPT POLITICAL LIFE. THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE SURRENDER OF AMERICA'S BORDER IS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
The House Committee on Homeland Security says the Biden administration is abusing its immigration parole authority by issuing near blanket approvals via the Department of Homeland Security’s CBP One immigration app.
Biden Opens Doors for More White Collar Migration into U.S. Jobs MANJUNATH KIRAN/AFP/Getty 10:47
President Joe Biden told his deputies Monday to import more foreign graduates for the Fortune 500 white collar careers needed by indebted U.S. graduates and their families.
The directive is described in a White House fact sheet outlining the directive, “Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.” The sheet says:
Use existing [legal] authorities to expand the ability of highly skilled immigrants and nonimmigrants [visa workers ] with expertise in critical areas to study, stay, and work in the United States by modernizing and streamlining visa criteria, interviews, and reviews.
Biden is “setting up another wave of indentured servitude workers,” responded Kevin Lynn, the founder of U.S. TechWorkers .
The visa programs include the infamous H-1B program, which grants roughly 200,000 three-year work permits each year to low-skill and mid-skill foreign graduates.
The programs “are used to bring in ordinary [mid-skilled foreign] workers to not only displace Americans but allow [CEOs and investors] to control these people during their entire tenure in the country,” Lynn said. The CEOs and university presidents can control their indentured workers by dangling the hope of green cards and the threat of exile back home, he said.
U.S. employers keep at least 1.5 million visa workers in a very wide variety of workplaces and jobs, including fashion designers, teachers, marketing analysts, pharmacists, therapists, managers, and recruiters. Many are officially paid just $65,000 a year — not counting kickbacks to their supervisors in payment for their U.S. job — and many sleep in overcrowded apartments.
The expansion plan was developed by White House officials, Fortune 500 lobbyists, and investors such as former Google chief Eric Schmidt — even though corporations have multiple legal ways to hire or import the most skilled foreign workers.
Employer lobbies immediately began trying to cash Biden’s blank check, regardless of the obvious career damage to skilled American graduates.
“Here we offer a comprehensive analysis of potential … beneficiaries under several key provisions brought to attention by this EO [Executive Order],” said a shopping list offered by Divyansh Kaushik, an imported Indian immigrant working for a lobby group that represents white-collar employers, the Federation of American Scientists .
His shopping list includes easier visa renewals for J-1 workers and F-1 worker-students, easier procedures for H-1B and J-1 workers to get green cards, fast-track green cards for favored foreigners, and skilled O-1 visa workers.
He also called for “parole” exemptions from border laws for favored foreigners and the cancellation of embassy interviews for favored visa applicants.
The visa programs cited by Kaushik have no annual limits, no significant rules to slow the displacement of American graduates, and minimal curbs on the types of white-collar careers the foreign workers can take from Americans. Many — or most — of the mid-skill visa workers come from fast-growing India, whose government uses trade talks to demand more outsourcing of U.S. jobs to Indian graduates.
Kaushik added:
These changes would also benefit U.S. companies and research institutions, who often struggle to retain and attract international AI talent due to the lengthy immigration process and uncertain outcomes. In addition, exercising parole authority can open a new gateway for attracting highly skilled AI talent that might have otherwise chosen other countries due to the rigid U.S. immigration system.
Biden’s deputies have already begun the process of outsourcing more career-starting jobs needed by new U.S. graduates to mid-skilled H-1B workers.
Section 5 in the posted Executive Order mimics Kaushik’s wish list.
In 2016, Donald Trump promised to reform the H-1B program. But he and his top deputies got pushback from West Coast CEOs and investors, so he did little until the very end of the administration. The delay allowed Biden’s deputies to quickly block his useful reforms — and prevented Trump from bumping up his low poll ratings among white-collar swing voters.
The issue of foreign migration into white-collar jobs has gotten little mention in the 2024 race. A primary cause is that white-collar reporters at corporate-owned media have little or no authority to cover the pocketbook damage from any form of migration.
GOP leaders in Congress could block the Biden outsourcing by barring any funding for the plan.
U.S. companies now employ at least 1.5 million mid-skilled white-collar visa workers, many of them via fraud-ridden, software-sweatshop subcontractors. Most work long hours at low wages in a wide variety of ordinary white-collar jobs to get the dangled prize of government-provided green cards. That huge giveaway is a massive incentive for companies to hire foreigners over Americans who have to be paid in cash.
But their powerlessness and their dependence on ethnic networks ensure they “are less productive and less innovative ,” said Lynn. However, the visa workers can spike short-term profits by reducing payroll costs, he added.
In contrast, American professionals have the workplace and legal clout that allows them to pressure managers and investors to spend money developing better products and services, Lynn added.
Unsurprisingly, many young Americans are excluded from jobs and careers by the visa workers’ ethnic hiring networks. Those discriminatory networks are enabled and protected by visa-workers regulations, lobbyists, and lax oversight by regulatory agencies, he said.
In June 2021, the Census Bureau reported the massive rejection of U.S. graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM):
Among the 50 million employed college graduates ages 25 to 64 in 2019, 37% reported a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering but only 14% worked in a STEM occupation, according to the Census Bureau’s 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates. This translates into less than a third (28%) of [American] STEM-educated workers actually working in a STEM job.
Young citizens who do get STEM jobs are quickly flushed out after they turn age 35, according to a November 2022 report by the Census Bureau. Their forced exit damages national competitiveness because it minimizes the number of experienced American managers — but it helps the existing companies corral their technology and boost their share prices, Lynn said.
The Americans’ forced exit from STEM careers also helps to flood the non-STEM job markets. The surplus of U.S. STEM workers pushes down salaries for many graduates, including the many journalists who ignore the replacement process.
The United States graduates roughly 800,000 technically skilled graduates each year into the flooded labor market. Unsurprisingly, many U.S. graduates have difficulty finding decent jobs , Bloomberg.com reported on October 30 on one unemployed American graduate:
Laney Coletti-Saracino … [a] 36 year old from Newburgh, New York, was laid off as a senior product manager at a tech company in February. At first she was able to get a few interviews through personal contacts, but when that petered out, she started “rage applying” online. She too has applied to 500 jobs, and at least initially when recruiters responded, it gave her a confidence boost.
White-collar wages have been flat for a decade while the cost of housing has spiked. The result has been a boom for investors on Wall Street.
Lobbies are using their clout to minimize media and public recognition of the damage to American white collars. For example, investors hire lobbyists to portray migration curbs as racial discrimination.
“I wanted to work in [immigration] policy because I believed that limiting citizenship based on racial preferences harms our democracy,” said Andrea Flores, the Vice President of Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us. “If advocates for a more equitable [emphasis added] immigration system don’t speak up, we won’t make progress,” Flores told the Harvard Political Review on October 30.
Her employer, FWD.us, is the major lobbying force for cheap labor. It was created by multiple West Coast billionaire investors , including Mark Zuckerberg.
The media-aided lobbying is very successful. For example, the Supreme Court has recently rejected two lawsuits that argued the White House cannot unilaterally create visa-worker programs for foreign workers. The court has also been passive even as Biden’s deputies refused to enforce Americans’ border laws.
The core political problem is not the migrants, said Lynn, but Wall Street’s demand for short-term profits. “It’s all about what did you do this quarter?”
Investors also dominate Congress, Lynn added, and hire lobbyists to claim that “the solution [to problems] is always more immigration.”
The temptation to use immigration as an easy fix deters U.S. legislators from dealing with systemic economic problems, he said. Those problems include slow productivity growth, under-investment in foreign trade, the diversion of research dollars to Wall Street payouts, and the deliberate use of unskilled illegal migration to inflate the consumer economy, he said.
In a short speech announcing the new plan on October 30, Biden declared he was on both sides of the workplace divide.
This order directs the government to help make sure AI isn’t used to shortchange workers. I’ve also asked for a conference report on the potential impact of AI on the labor market and how to help workers whose jobs have been disrupted. We’re going to support workers in every industry by defining their rights and defending [their right] to a fair wage, to organize as these … technologies emerge.
And finally, we’re going to make sure America leads the world in innovation and attracts top talent to stay at the cutting edge.
“Worker power is critical to building an economy from the middle out and the bottom up, and so is economic growth,” said Biden, age 80.
Biden’s White House Will Not Revoke Visas of Pro-Hamas Foreign Students Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images President Joe Biden’s White House has no plans to revoke the visas of those foreign students engaging in demonstrations across United States college campuses in defense of the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas and its attacks on Israel.
After a number of Republicans urged Biden’s State Department to revoke the visas of pro-Hamas foreign students who hold F-1 visas, National Security Council (NSC) spokesman John Kirby said the administration will not do so.
An exchange at a White House briefing went as follows:
REPORTER: There’s been an uptick on the right among some Republicans who have called for students or foreign nationals who are demonstrating in some of these pro-Palestine demonstrations or, you know, allegedly pro-Hamas demonstrations to have their student visas pulled or to face deportation. What is the administration’s remark — response to those kinds of remarks and that kind of rhetoric? Is that an overreaction? [Emphasis added]
KIRBY: That … I would just tell you that you don’t have to agree with every sentiment that is expressed in a free country like this to stand by … the idea [of] the First Amendment and the idea of peaceful protest. I’ll leave it at that. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News reported, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are leading a resolution urging the Biden administration to revoke the visas of foreign nationals in the U.S. who are involved in pro-Hamas demonstrations — especially those on F-1 student visas.
“To put the security of American citizens first, President Biden must immediately revoke the visas of those who support Hamas and other terrorist groups,” Blackburn said.
A participant holds a placard as students gather during a “Walkout to fight Genocide and Free Palestine” at Bruin Plaza at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) in Los Angeles on October 25, 2023. (FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
People take part in a demonstration in support of Palestinian people, in New York on October 21, 2023. (Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL.), Rick Scott (R-FL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), J.D. Vance (R-OH), Ted Budd (R-NC), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Cornyn (R-TX), and John Hoeven (R-ND) have signed the resolution.
Meanwhile, Rubio and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have each written to top Biden officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressing them to swiftly revoke visas and deport pro-Hamas foreign students.
“I write to urge you to immediately deport any foreign national — including and especially any alien on a student visa — that has expressed support for Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israel,” Cotton wrote to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
“These fifth-columnists have no place in the United States,” Cotton wrote.
WATCH — Graphic Content Warning: Home Where Hamas Murdered an Israeli Family in Kibbutz Be’eri
Joel B. Pollak / Breitbart NewsIn Fiscal Year 2022, alone, the federal government provided green cards and nonimmigrant visas, including F-1 student visas, to foreign nationals from some of the most pro-Hamas countries in the world.
For example, more than 8,300 Iranians arrived in the U.S. last year on nonimmigrant visas. In addition, the government gave more than 8,000 green cards to Iranians in Fiscal Year 2022 — including more than 800 who arrived on the Diversity Visa Lottery and more than 520 who arrived as refugees.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here .
100 Syrians, 50 Iranians Cross Biden’s Open Border in October, Says Source Randy Clark/Breitbart Texas 4:47
EAGLE PASS, Texas — According to a source within CBP, the influx of Special Interest Migrants across the U.S./Mexico border continues early in the NEW fiscal year as nearly 100 Syrian and 50 Iranian nationals have been apprehended by the Border Patrol since the beginning of October. The source says the influx of Syrian and Iranian Special Interest Migrants is concerning, considering the turmoil unfolding in the Middle East.
The Syrian and Iranian migrants were apprehended in multiple sectors across the southwest border during October. The latest arrest of an Iranian national by the Border Patrol occurred near Eagle Pass, Texas, on Saturday. The Iranian national was discovered within a single group of more than 300 that crossed into the small border city. A debrief of the Iranian migrant is pending as of press time, according to the source.
The source says the continued encounter of Syrian and Iranian nationals is more concerning considering the recent U.S. air strikes against Iran-linked sites in Syria in response to drone and missile attacks on U.S. military bases in the region. According to the source, the arrivals of Special Interest Migrants at the southwest border are appearing with little to no advance intelligence warning.
“We are receiving no advance warning of the arrival of Special Interest Migrants from the region with any specificity,” the source explained. “We are left to sort through the grab-bag of migrants in small and large groups to figure out who is in the group and why they are coming.”
Eleven Special Interest Migrants from Middle Eastern countries were apprehended in just one sector of the border patrol in one week alone.
As reported by Breitbart Texas, during the week of October 8 to October 14, Border Patrol agents apprehended six Iranian nationals, three Lebanese nationals, one Egyptian national, and one Saudi Arabian national that made landfall in Texas on the banks of the Rio Grande in the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector that includes Eagle Pass.
The Syrian and Iranian Special Interest Migrants are mostly single adult males. Both countries are subject to travel warnings by the U.S. State Department. The State Department has issued a Level-4 advisory regarding travel to Syria due to terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, armed conflict, and the risk of unjust detention.
Iran is also subject to a Level-4 travel warning by the State Department due to the risk of kidnapping and the arbitrary arrest and detention of U.S. citizens.
The source says, absent any significant intelligence indicting a Special Interest migrant may pose a known threat to the United States, they are generally released into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims.
As reported by Breitbart Texas, more than 61,000 Special Interest Migrants were encountered by the Border Patrol in Fiscal Year 2023, which ended on September 30. The number of migrants from Special Interest countries climbed by more than 140 percent from Fiscal Year 2022, when more than 25,500 were apprehended. In all, more than 86,000 Special Interest migrants have illegally entered the United States in the previous two fiscal years.
According to a 2019 DHS fact sheet , the term “Significant Interest Alien” is defined as follows:
Generally, an SIA is a non-U.S. person who, based on an analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security risk to the United States or its interests. Often, such individuals or groups employ travel patterns known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism. DHS analysis includes an examination of travel patterns, points of origin, and/or travel segments that are tied to current assessments of national and international threat environments.
This does not mean that all SIAs are “terrorists,” but rather that the travel and behavior of such individuals indicate a possible nexus to nefarious activity (including terrorism) and, at a minimum, provide indicators that necessitate heightened screening and further investigation. The term SIA does not indicate any specific derogatory information about the individual – and DHS has never indicated that the SIA designation means more than that.
Randy Clark is a 32-year veteran of the United States Border Patrol. Prior to his retirement, he served as the Division Chief for Law Enforcement Operations, directing operations for nine Border Patrol Stations within the Del Rio, Texas, Sector. Follow him on Twitter @RandyClarkBBTX.
HOUSE HOMELAND GOP: Biden’s DHS Abusing Immigration Parole Authority with CBP One App Getty Images 6:37
The House Committee on Homeland Security says the Biden administration is abusing its immigration parole authority by issuing near blanket approvals via the Department of Homeland Security’s CBP One immigration app.
Documents obtained by the House Committee on Homeland Security after months of stonewalling by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveal 95.8 percent of all migrant applicants seeking admission to pursue asylum claims are admitted and released into the United States. The migrants are released with minimal vetting, the documents reveal. The documents covered the period between January and September 2023 and show 266,846 of 278,431 migrants were allowed entry into the United States, a percentage far greater than recorded asylum case approvals by immigration courts.
Chairman of the committee, Mark E. Green (R-TN), issued a statement saying, “Secretary Mayorkas has utterly abused the CBP One app in his quest for open borders.”
“These numbers are proof that Mayorkas’ operation is a smokescreen for the mass release of individuals into this country who would otherwise have zero claim to be admitted,” Green continued. “At a time when global tensions are rising, and our enemies are growing bolder, releasing tens of thousands of these people into our communities—especially when they have not received adequate, if any, vetting—is irresponsible. It shouldn’t take a subpoena threat from Congress to get these answers, but we are going to keep fighting for the truth.”
The approval rates for final asylum adjudication, according to TRAC , a data gathering, data research and data distribution organization at Syracuse University, stands at 37 percent. The nearly 96 percent admission rate under the CBP One application at ports of entry does not correlate with the historically lower number of asylum applications approved by immigration courts when cases are ultimately adjudicated. The number of successful asylum adjudications, which is higher under the Biden administration than in previous years, is far below the shockingly high parole rates using CBP One, according to the documents released by DHS.
According to the documents released by DHS to the House Committee on Homeland Security majority:
Overall, 95.8 percent of all inadmissible migrants who scheduled appointments through the CBP One application between January and September 2023 were ultimately issued a “Notice to Appear” (NTA) and released into the United States on parole. 278,431 appointments were scheduled, with 266,846 of these individuals released into the interior of the United States to pursue asylum claims. Migrants from the following countries made appointments through the application and were overwhelmingly released into the country:
Of 57,381 appointments made by Venezuelan nationals, 55,690 were granted parole, a rate of 97 percent. Of 20,948 appointments made by Russian nationals, 19,780 were granted parole, a rate of 94 percent. Of 2,279 appointments made by Uzbek nationals, 1,866 were granted parole, a rate of 82 percent. Of 801 appointments made by Belarusian nationals, 787 were granted parole, a rate of 98 percent. Of 246 appointments made by Afghan nationals, 229 were granted parole, a rate of 93 percent. Of 36 appointments made by Chinese nationals, 32 were granted parole, a rate of 88 percent. Of 18 appointments made by Iranian nationals, 16 were granted parole, a rate of 88 percent. According to the GOP majority in the House Committee on Homeland Security, CBP One has consistently been used to release otherwise inadmissible aliens from Mexico and Northern Triangle countries.
Of 58,772 appointments made by Mexican nationals, 55,099 were released on parole, a rate of 93 percent. Of 20,776 appointments made by Hondurans, 20,060 were released on parole, a rate of 96 percent. Of 3,939 appointments made by Guatemalans, 3,717 were released on parole, a rate of 94 percent. According to the House Committee on Homeland Security majority, other nations represented in the release statistics, according to the documents, include Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, and Yemen. The committee first requested the documents in a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in June 2023. The letter requesting the released data described the enhanced use of the CBP One application as a danger to migrants seeking admission to the United States stating:
DHS claims that the application’s continued expansion will help provide a “safe, orderly, and lawful path” for aliens to access the U.S. legal system. But the use of this application is anything but safe, orderly, and lawful. Indeed, to schedule a time to appear at a port of entry, a migrant must still make the dangerous journey to Mexico, where there is a high probability, they will be assaulted, raped, or killed. Also, the application only offers a limited number of appointments per day, creating a significant backlog of impatient migrants who are flooding into Mexico, hoping for an appointment. In addition, this application only exacerbates the security risks already plaguing our Southwest border, expediting the process for aliens to be released into the country with little vetting.
Randy Clark is a 32-year veteran of the United States Border Patrol. Prior to his retirement, he served as the Division Chief for Law Enforcement Operations, directing operations for nine Border Patrol Stations within the Del Rio, Texas, Sector. Follow him on Twitter @RandyClarkBBTX.
Biden’s White House Will Not Revoke Visas of Pro-Hamas Foreign Students Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images
President Joe Biden’s White House has no plans to revoke the visas of those foreign students engaging in demonstrations across United States college campuses in defense of the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas and its attacks on Israel.
After a number of Republicans urged Biden’s State Department to revoke the visas of pro-Hamas foreign students who hold F-1 visas, National Security Council (NSC) spokesman John Kirby said the administration will not do so.
An exchange at a White House briefing went as follows:
REPORTER: There’s been an uptick on the right among some Republicans who have called for students or foreign nationals who are demonstrating in some of these pro-Palestine demonstrations or, you know, allegedly pro-Hamas demonstrations to have their student visas pulled or to face deportation. What is the administration’s remark — response to those kinds of remarks and that kind of rhetoric? Is that an overreaction? [Emphasis added]
KIRBY: That … I would just tell you that you don’t have to agree with every sentiment that is expressed in a free country like this to stand by … the idea [of] the First Amendment and the idea of peaceful protest. I’ll leave it at that. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News reported, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are leading a resolution urging the Biden administration to revoke the visas of foreign nationals in the U.S. who are involved in pro-Hamas demonstrations — especially those on F-1 student visas.
“To put the security of American citizens first, President Biden must immediately revoke the visas of those who support Hamas and other terrorist groups,” Blackburn said.
A participant holds a placard as students gather during a “Walkout to fight Genocide and Free Palestine” at Bruin Plaza at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) in Los Angeles on October 25, 2023. (FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
People take part in a demonstration in support of Palestinian people, in New York on October 21, 2023. (Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL.), Rick Scott (R-FL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), J.D. Vance (R-OH), Ted Budd (R-NC), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Cornyn (R-TX), and John Hoeven (R-ND) have signed the resolution.
Meanwhile, Rubio and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have each written to top Biden officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressing them to swiftly revoke visas and deport pro-Hamas foreign students.
“I write to urge you to immediately deport any foreign national — including and especially any alien on a student visa — that has expressed support for Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israel,” Cotton wrote to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
“These fifth-columnists have no place in the United States,” Cotton wrote.
WATCH — Graphic Content Warning: Home Where Hamas Murdered an Israeli Family in Kibbutz Be’eri
Joel B. Pollak / Breitbart NewsIn Fiscal Year 2022, alone, the federal government provided green cards and nonimmigrant visas, including F-1 student visas, to foreign nationals from some of the most pro-Hamas countries in the world.
For example, more than 8,300 Iranians arrived in the U.S. last year on nonimmigrant visas. In addition, the government gave more than 8,000 green cards to Iranians in Fiscal Year 2022 — including more than 800 who arrived on the Diversity Visa Lottery and more than 520 who arrived as refugees.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here .
VIDEOS
32,001 views Oct 28, 2023
(Ep420) "One of my clients, first-generation immigrants from Mexico, come here to have an experience of the American dream. And they find themselves living in an American nightmare, just because a tenant refused to pay the rent, not because they couldn't afford it."
Siyamak sits down with Jonathan Madison, lead attorney at the Madison Law Firm. He explains why some counties still have the moratorium in place and how it is negatively impacting both tenants and landlords.
Ep420 Californians Losing Homes to Eviction Moratorium | Jonathan Madison #californiainsider
--------------------
California Insider is sponsored by Birch Gold Group. Protect your IRA or 401(k) with precious metals today: http://birchgold.com/california
--------------------
🔵 Subscribe to our new(old) channel: https://bit.ly/CaliforniaInsiderShow
🔵 Check out our new website 👉 https://CaliforniaInsider.com
🔵 Watch our documentary "Leaving California": https://LeavingCalifornia.com
💟 Support us: https://donorbox.org/CaliforniaInsider
🔵 Sign up for our newsletter: https://CAInsiderShow.com/
⭕️ Follow us on GAN JING WORLD: https://bit.ly/GJW_CA OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4guGq6kWxg
CA makes up third of homeless population in U.S., according to study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCZZF3_Yas
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant Welfare
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/04/study-more-than-7-in-10-california-immigrant-households-are-on-welfare/
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported , the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
California approves ‘shocking’ policy giving weekly checks to migrants: Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGCsB3LL1Nw
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”. DANIEL GREENFIELD
Liberal California Emigrants are Toxic By R. Quinn Kennedy
When Arizona, a state that has historically leaned conservative, was won by Joe Biden and now-senator Mark Kelly this week, very few were taken by surprise. Extensive polling indicated Arizona was ripe for swinging liberal and in this instance, at least, the polling was correct.
The question is why? Why has a state that held two elected Republican senators as recently as 2018 and which held a dependable stable of electoral votes for GOP presidential candidates become a purple state on its way to becoming solidly blue? Have Arizona residents suddenly awaked to the idea that liberal policies and doctrines are more sensible than conservative ones? Hardly.
The answer regarding Arizona’s swing lies in its neighbor to the west, California. Since 2012, California has overwhelmingly sent more transplants to Arizona than any other state. When surveyed, escaping Californians cite high taxes, high crime rates, unaffordable housing, out-of-control homelessness, and high unemployment rates as their top reasons for fleeing.
Who is responsible for creating such an alarming living environment within the state? California liberals. A November, 2020 report produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that California has 395,608 regulatory restrictions. The sheer volume and scope of California regulations creates such a compliance nightmare that they kill entire industries, send housing prices to unattainable heights, and restrict even commonplace liberties for which conservative leaning states are known.
Piled onto California’s endless river of regulations are its nonsensical laws and policies. Twenty major metropolitan cities or counties in California have established laws, ordinances, regulations, or other practices that shield illegal immigrants from prosecution after committing a crime. These counties brazenly safeguard illegal immigrant criminals against deportation either through noncompliance or by refusing to hand them over to federal agencies such as ICE. With over $1.5 trillion in state and local government debt, California effectively has little money to spare for conveniences such as criminal incarceration. What do sanctuary cities and counties see as the alternative to handing illegal immigrant criminals over for deportation? Release them back into the general population, of course.
Consider this: Between 2014 and 2017, the FBI reported that 49 states saw an average increase in crime annually of around 3%. After implementing “humane” alternatives to criminal prosecution, California crime increased more than 12% per year over the same time period . With irrational sanctuary policies that send a clear message of little to no consequence for offenses, is it any wonder California’s crime rate is now spiraling out of control?
Arizona is not the only beneficiary of the California exodus. The Colorado State Demography Office has published an active flow map of people moving into the state from 2010 on. Disturbingly, the state sending the most movers to Colorado since then has consistently been California. As recently as 2004, Colorado had the political trifecta of a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled House and Senate. A short ten years later, all three had turned irrevocably Democrat. The subsequent consequence? A drastic increase in state and local regulations, a dramatic increase in violent crimes, a severe shortage of home inventory and affordable housing, and a staggering increase in homelessness. Do these newfound troubles sound familiar to any other state mentioned here? The only safeguard against out-of-control tax hikes in Colorado is the TABOR Amendment passed by voters 1992, prior to the influx of California residents, that requires taxpayer approval for any new tax. Not surprisingly, emboldened liberals in Colorado are vigorously resolute in repealing this tax hike protection. As of the most recent election they are unsuccessful, yet remain undeterred.
What has coincided with Colorado’s decline? The mass inflow of Californians to the state. Californians have brought with them all the very same liberal doctrines and ideologies that forced their flight from California in the first place. Does this dissuade liberal Californians from shaping Colorado into the very image of California? Not in the least.
If there is any hope for Arizona, it is that they might learn from the resulting ruin of Colorado, however unlikely.
In the 2020 election, Texas was startlingly considered in play for liberals. Since 2015, which state has contributed the most emigrants into Texas? Not surprisingly, the state of California. The hope for liberals is that they can turn Texas into the next purple soon-to-be blue state. The coveted prize is Texas’ electoral votes. Even more insidious, if liberals are able to capture Texas as they have done in Colorado and Arizona, they will force the state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. They will then achieve their ultimate goal of a Democrat president reigning over the United States for endless generations until the point our country experiences the same collapse as other great civilizations throughout world history.
The obvious question is this: How can Texas avoid the same fate as states such as Colorado and Arizona? Simple. By being proactive.
It is much easier for liberals to enact new legislation than to argue for the removal of existing laws. With this in mind, Texas should take advantage of their current Republican-controlled Senate, House, and governor’s office by making haste and passing laws that would limit the future incursion of liberal meddling. Texas can presently enact laws that prohibit sanctuary cities, require voter approval to remove the state’s mandated balanced budget, require that any new regulation must necessitate the removal of an existing one, and compel voter approval of each new local or state tax including non-user fees. While such laws may only serve to stem the liberal takeover of the state, they would be roadblocks making it much more difficult for ideological infiltration in areas that affect inhabitant’s liberties and quality of life.
It would be absurd to suppose Californians have malintent. Rather, they are simply following the course with which they are most familiar while being blissfully ignorant of the negative unintended consequences their political ideology brings. To suggest that any act of suppression, aggression, or intimidation towards Californians moving into red states is acceptable would simply be un-American and subject to the same type of hypocrisy liberals practice. If conservatives stoop to their level, we have lost the battle and, perhaps, the war.
However, by taking aggressive legislative action in states that have not yet succumbed to liberal infiltration, Conservatives will effectively be planting our flag in a defiant refusal to hand over our institutions and our liberty.
Seamus Bruner Blows the Lid Off the Agenda of Billionaire ‘Controligarchs’ 6:05
Members of the billionaire class have an agenda to control the masses and grow their own profits, Seamus Bruner reveals in his new book, Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life .
Bruner, the director of research at Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute, spoke with SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily about Controligarchs , which hits bookstands Tuesday.
He began by reading the following quotation from billionaire David Rockefeller’s 2002 memoir, which Bruner used to open the first chapter of Controligarchs :
Some even believe we are part of a secret [club] working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Bruner said he was “stunned” to discover that this quote is authentic.
“That’s the charge — conspiring against the United States. He stands guilty and is not just guilty. He’s proud of it,” Bruner said.
He also noted that the word “club” in brackets was his word choice. The word Rockefeller used was “cabal.”
“The word ‘club’ there in brackets is actually ‘cabal,'” Bruner said, explaining that he toned it down so as not to sound “too crazy.” But indeed, the original word is “cabal” rather than club.
Bruner explained that this supposedly good “club” of billionaires is the “most exclusive club in the world” with about 15 members. He recounted how in May of 2009, following President Barack Obama’s presidential victory, a dozen or so billionaires–including Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, George Soros, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, and the heads of major corporations like Cisco, Blackstone Group, and Tiger Management– had a meeting at Rockefeller University in Manhattan “to figure out how they can pool their resources to spend on priorities that are important to them.”
At the time, they identified “overpopulation” as one of the major cause they could pour their resources into under the guise of green initiatives. This fear of “overpopulation,” Bruner explained, is what the green movement is really all about to them.
“They’re all very concerned that there’s too many of us around breathing their air. And out of that really grows a lot of this climate change hysteria, which is a central theme in the book,” he said, noting that climate change hysteria is also great way for them to get rich and also gain control of the masses.
LISTEN:
“The book proves, I think in great detail, is that climate change is a method of getting very rich and also gathering more and more control over the masses,” he said, explaining that with control comes profit.
“These guys have a god complex on steroids,” he said. “They’ve got more economic power than the U.S. and China, which are the two obviously wealthiest countries in the world. And it’s really more than just money that they control. You see this with tech influence in elections. They can steer all of society.”
He noted, for example, Bill Gates’ interest in gaining control of the public’s diet by buying up farmland and investing in alternate proteins.
“On the farm stuff, it’s not just the diversification of his holdings. He’s been investing in all of these alternative proteins and alternative fertilizers. And these companies hold the new patents, new monopolies over proteins and over food and over the fertilizers, and then he uses his influence to ban traditional forms of farming,” he explained.
Bill Gates speaks at a news conference during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, 0n May 25, 2022. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)
“When you hear Alexandria Ocasio Cortes say that the earth is going to end in 12 years because of cow flatulence, she didn’t just think that up or dream that up. That comes from a white paper funded by a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or a World Economic Forum group,” Bruner continued.
Bruner also highlighted very revealing comments that hedge fund billionaire George Soros wrote about how he “fancied” himself “as some kind of god… If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.” When Soros was asked about this quote by an interviewer in 2004, he said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
“George Soros does not want an open society,” Bruner said. “He’s the kingpin of one of the largest dark money networks in politics, and nobody elected George Soros.”
Bruner also highlighted the technocracy movement, which he describes as an “inherently anti-democratic movement that says that the engineers and the scientists need to run society.”
“The peasants and the unwashed masses are not quite smart enough to make decisions for themselves,” he said of the movement, briefly touching on the dangers of Elon Musk’s neuralink and Microsoft’s 060606 patent, which he described as an “esoteric type technology … [a] blockchain, but it is effectively a chip in your body so that it’s a way of generating currency while you do certain activities.”
According to Bruner, these “Controligarchs” want to control people’s lives while expanding their own profits. Bruner said that this is why it is so important for people to “jealously guard your wallet,” “jealously guard your personal data, especially that of your kids,” and “talk to your legislators and Congressmen and tell them to ban your taxpayer money from funding these initiatives.”
Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, Their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life is available now is hardcover , e-book , and audiobook . Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
No comments:
Post a Comment