BARACK OBAMA'S LAWLESSNESS HAS ONLY BEEN SURPASSED BY JOJO BIDEN'S!
Chief Justice Roberts and the Erosion of the Judiciary
When historians review the decline of American judiciary in the 21st century, they may have difficulty evaluating the role of one of its most important figures, Chief Justice John Roberts. His responses to a multitude of challenges have been inconsistent, and at times baffling.
In his 2010 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama broke the event’s longstanding rules of decorum by hectoring the Supreme Court, six members of which were sitting right in front of him. Obama was peeved by the Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which he alleged would “open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." Obama had a captive audience for one of his straw-man arguments, and made the most of it. It was too much for Justice Samuel Alito, who muttered sotto voce “That’s simply not true.” Sitting right in front of him was Chief Justice John Roberts, who said and did nothing.
Obama’s verbal assault was a preview of serious problems to come. Obama would eventually go beyond rhetoric, as he and his minions deceived the nation's most secret judicial body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Later, the Left would launch a multifaceted assault on the Supreme Court. Since both are under the supervision of the chief justice, his responses became a critical factor in combating the erosion of the judiciary.
Obama’s abuse of the FISC began during the 2016 presidential campaign when, in collusion with the Clinton campaign, he authorized “Crossfire Hurricane,” an effort to spy on Donald Trump and his staff. The Obama administration, through the FBI and intelligence agencies, submitted misleading and fraudulent information to the court, including the infamous “Steele Dossier,” to convince the court that surveillance was needed. Obama’s henchmen knew the information they were submitting was tainted. The FISC repeatedly accepted their arguments without ever even convening a hearing.
It’s important to note that the proceedings of the FISC are “ex-parte,” meaning that only the government is represented. Those whom the government wishes to surveil aren’t even notified, much less represented. The integrity of the proceedings is the responsibility of the 11 FISC judges, all appointed and supervised by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Abuse of the FISC continued after the election and into the Trump presidency, resulting in the multi-year “Russian Collusion” hoax, the Mueller Investigation, and Trump’s impeachment.
It is a matter of record that the FISC repeatedly authorized surveillance of the Trump administration based on lies concocted by political opponents. Though the Justice Department and legacy media ignore it, no one disputes it. So egregious was the perversion of the FISC that Inspector General Michael Horowitz subtitled his April 27, 2023 House testimony “Fixing FISA: How a Law Designed to Protect Americans Has Been Weaponized Against Them.”
Horowitz’ outrage unfortunately does not appear to be shared by the Chief Justice. To date, Roberts has offered no apology or announced any sweeping changes to the personnel and procedures that failed so spectacularly. Roberts’ passivity, coincident with a somnolent Justice Department, has left the failed FISC unchanged, and all but one of its violators escaping scot-free. Former FBI agent Kevin Clinesmith was convicted of knowingly submitting false information to the court. For his deception of the nation’s “most sensitive” court, and violation of the constitutional rights of President Trump, Clinesmith received one year of probation and no prison time. The prosecutors had recommended jail time to no avail. Chief Justice Roberts had no comment.
Encouraged by their successful trashing of the FISC, the Left began applying unprecedented pressure on the Supreme Court. At an abortion rights rally in February, 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer made a personal threat against the justices. On the steps of the Supreme Court building, he screamed: “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
This time it was too much for the Chief Justice. That same day Roberts issued a response excoriating Schumer: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” Roberts' reaction forced Schumer to recant on the Senate floor the very next day.
Unfortunately, Robert’s rebuke to Schumer did not deter those responsible for the subsequent leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in the Dobbs case, which was eventually to overturn Roe vs. Wade. With the Supreme Court’s precedents and ethical standards so egregiously violated, Roberts responded once again: “To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way… I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”
Marshal Gail Curley had been in the position for less than a year. By assigning the investigation to the Court's own Marshal, Roberts guaranteed that the entire process would be under his supervision and control. It also meant that the investigation would be conducted by the least experienced and equipped police agency that he could have chosen. The outcome was predictable, and perhaps predetermined. On January 19, 2023 the Court issued a report: alas, the assailant could not be found: “the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of evidence.”
A careful reading shows that the Marshal’s “investigation” failed to include even interviewing the nine justices themselves. Several current justices are notorious for leaks which occasionally come from their chambers, though never before of a draft opinion; but the Marshal didn’t even round up the usual suspects. So critical an omission could only have been intentional.
The Dobbs leak, an obvious attempt to intimidate justices during the Court’s final days of deliberation, emboldened abortion proponents to try more direct methods. Protesters gathered outside the homes of justices thought to support overturning Roe. The protests, though in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1507, provoked no counteraction from the Justice Department. After a few days, some officers were dispatched, not to arrest the protesters, but to keep the unlawful protests orderly.
As the Justice Department stood by, the Biden White House cheered. Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre supported lawbreakers who hounded Justice Bret Kavanaugh out of a Washington restaurant: “Peaceful protest -- people should be allowed to be -- to be able to do that.” Even after a foiled attempt to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh, Jean-Pierre said: “We have not weighed in on where people should or should not protest.”
The Chief Justice once again called on Marshal Curley, this time to issue the Court’s objection. Curley wrote to Maryland governor Larry Hogan: “Earlier this week, for example, 75 protesters loudly picketed at one justice’s home in Maryland for 20-30 minutes in the evening, then proceeded to picket another Justice’s home for 30 minutes, where the crowd grew to 100, and finally returned to the first Justice’s home… This is exactly the kind of conduct that the Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit.” Tellingly, the Marshal described the protests as violations of state and local laws. No mention was made of federal law, which might have implied a criticism of the Biden administration’s inaction.
There can be no doubt that in recent years the two courts under the direct supervision of Chief Justice John Roberts have been maligned, deceived, abused, and threatened. The Chief Justice has responded with silence, inaction, and restraint, interspersed with occasional expressions of outrage. His responses are hard to understand, and history might find them harder to forgive.
Griff Hogan is a retired educator living in Charleston, South Carolina
US government’s checks and balances are not working well
The system of checks and balances in the United States government was designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to ensure that the government operates in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and the will of the people. Here are some of the ways in which the checks and balances in the U.S. have been criticized as not working well:
Increased political polarization and partisanship in recent years have led to gridlock in the legislative branch, making it difficult for Congress to pass necessary legislation. This can undermine the ability of Congress to check the executive branch effectively.
Some critics argue that recent presidents have overstepped their authority by using executive orders and other means to bypass Congress, potentially undermining the legislative branch’s role in checking the executive. Joe Biden is a perfect example of executive order overreach.
As of May 9, 2023, Biden has signed 115 executive orders, many of which are unconstitutional and need judicial intervention. Executive order 14008 makes a phony claim that there is a climate crisis at home and abroad which threatens national security, and orders all government agencies to prioritize net-zero emissions by 2050. Just by declaring that climate change is a crisis does not give you the authority to order such draconian government measures. Read a sample of Biden’s executive orders to see how unconstitutional they are.
In Trump’s case you can even argue that Biden, through the executive branch’s DOJ (Department of Justice), compelled government bureaucrats to go after Trump with criminal charges amounting to 4 indictments with a total of 91 criminal charges. Whether Trump will survive this weaponized onslaught of lawfare and survive financially is still in question.
Congress is responsible for overseeing the executive branch, but in some cases, it has been criticized for failing to conduct thorough oversight of the executive branch’s actions, leading to an unchecked expansion of executive power.
Some believe that the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, has at times engaged in “judicial activism,” making policy decisions that should be in the purview of the legislative branch. This can undermine the legitimacy of such institutions. In 2022, we saw the reversal of a longstanding court decision, Roe v. Wade, and abortion advocates cried “judicial activism.” However, this change could more accurately be described as judicial conservatism, stressing the right to life and not activism which the left claims. However, it’s added fuel to the fire, as Democrats want to increase the number of judges and politically pack the Supreme Court with activist leftist judges so their dysfunctional progressive ideas are supported legally too.
The impeachment process, which is a constitutional check on the executive, has at times been criticized for being politically motivated or ineffective, as demonstrated by the outcomes of some recent impeachment proceedings on Trump during his tenure as president. The impeachment inquiry into Biden will probably fail in landing an actual impeachment of Biden just as in Trump’s case.
Concerns have been raised about the expansion of national security and surveillance powers in the executive branch, sometimes without adequate checks to protect civil liberties.
Special interest groups and lobbying can exert undue influence on the legislative branch, potentially compromising its ability to serve as an effective check on executive and legislative power.
Some argue that unelected bureaucrats and agencies within the executive branch have too much influence and operate with limited transparency, undermining accountability.
The lack of transparency and competence in the CDC and the FDA were major reasons for the Covid disaster which resulted in economically hurtful lockdowns, vaccine mandates, small business failures, ineffectual mask mandates for school children hampering their educational progress, censorship of contrarian Covid information, and false claims about the protection offered by the vaccine and subsequent booster shots. It was oppressive bureaucracy run amok, all justified with a declared national emergency for a pandemic—which in Sweden was ignored without dire economic consequences or endangering public health.
The president’s ability to appoint individuals to key positions, including federal judges, can lead to long-lasting policy and ideological shifts, potentially impacting the balance of power within the government.
It’s important to note that these challenges to the checks and balances system are not unique to any one political party or administration. They reflect ongoing debates and concerns in the U.S. political system, and addressing them is a complex and ongoing process that requires careful consideration of constitutional principles and the will of the people.
So, in conclusion, the checks and balances of the United States government are out of whack. A nightmare scenario would be a government ruled by executive order and a one-party system or authoritarian tyranny by any other name.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.
The system of checks and balances in the United States government was designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to ensure that the government operates in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and the will of the people. Here are some of the ways in which the checks and balances in the U.S. have been criticized as not working well:
Increased political polarization and partisanship in recent years have led to gridlock in the legislative branch, making it difficult for Congress to pass necessary legislation. This can undermine the ability of Congress to check the executive branch effectively.
Some critics argue that recent presidents have overstepped their authority by using executive orders and other means to bypass Congress, potentially undermining the legislative branch’s role in checking the executive. Joe Biden is a perfect example of executive order overreach.
As of May 9, 2023, Biden has signed 115 executive orders, many of which are unconstitutional and need judicial intervention. Executive order 14008 makes a phony claim that there is a climate crisis at home and abroad which threatens national security, and orders all government agencies to prioritize net-zero emissions by 2050. Just by declaring that climate change is a crisis does not give you the authority to order such draconian government measures. Read a sample of Biden’s executive orders to see how unconstitutional they are.
In Trump’s case you can even argue that Biden, through the executive branch’s DOJ (Department of Justice), compelled government bureaucrats to go after Trump with criminal charges amounting to 4 indictments with a total of 91 criminal charges. Whether Trump will survive this weaponized onslaught of lawfare and survive financially is still in question.
Congress is responsible for overseeing the executive branch, but in some cases, it has been criticized for failing to conduct thorough oversight of the executive branch’s actions, leading to an unchecked expansion of executive power.
Some believe that the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, has at times engaged in “judicial activism,” making policy decisions that should be in the purview of the legislative branch. This can undermine the legitimacy of such institutions. In 2022, we saw the reversal of a longstanding court decision, Roe v. Wade, and abortion advocates cried “judicial activism.” However, this change could more accurately be described as judicial conservatism, stressing the right to life and not activism which the left claims. However, it’s added fuel to the fire, as Democrats want to increase the number of judges and politically pack the Supreme Court with activist leftist judges so their dysfunctional progressive ideas are supported legally too.
The impeachment process, which is a constitutional check on the executive, has at times been criticized for being politically motivated or ineffective, as demonstrated by the outcomes of some recent impeachment proceedings on Trump during his tenure as president. The impeachment inquiry into Biden will probably fail in landing an actual impeachment of Biden just as in Trump’s case.
Concerns have been raised about the expansion of national security and surveillance powers in the executive branch, sometimes without adequate checks to protect civil liberties.
Special interest groups and lobbying can exert undue influence on the legislative branch, potentially compromising its ability to serve as an effective check on executive and legislative power.
Some argue that unelected bureaucrats and agencies within the executive branch have too much influence and operate with limited transparency, undermining accountability.
The lack of transparency and competence in the CDC and the FDA were major reasons for the Covid disaster which resulted in economically hurtful lockdowns, vaccine mandates, small business failures, ineffectual mask mandates for school children hampering their educational progress, censorship of contrarian Covid information, and false claims about the protection offered by the vaccine and subsequent booster shots. It was oppressive bureaucracy run amok, all justified with a declared national emergency for a pandemic—which in Sweden was ignored without dire economic consequences or endangering public health.
The president’s ability to appoint individuals to key positions, including federal judges, can lead to long-lasting policy and ideological shifts, potentially impacting the balance of power within the government.
It’s important to note that these challenges to the checks and balances system are not unique to any one political party or administration. They reflect ongoing debates and concerns in the U.S. political system, and addressing them is a complex and ongoing process that requires careful consideration of constitutional principles and the will of the people.
So, in conclusion, the checks and balances of the United States government are out of whack. A nightmare scenario would be a government ruled by executive order and a one-party system or authoritarian tyranny by any other name.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.
“San Diego Field Office Intelligence Unit (SDFO-FITU) assesses that individuals inspired by, or reacting to, the current Israel-Hamas conflict may attempt travel to or from the area of hostilities in the Middle East via circuitous transit across the Southwest border,” said the memo.
“Foreign fighters motivated by ideology or mercenary soldiers of fortune may attempt to obfuscate travel to or from the U.S. to or from countries in the Middle East through Mexico.”
So, how many Hezbollah — or Hamas — terrorists are in the United States today? Since our southern border is not secure and many people cross it illegally every day, our federal government has no way of knowing.
Boots on the ground...Reports of alleged illegal aliens buying ammunition in stores.
GAMER LAWYER MAYORKAS DEFENDS BIDEN'S OPEN BORDERS FOR MUSLIMS/PALESTINIANS
BREAKING NEWS: Josh Hawley Absolutely Explodes On Alejandro Mayorkas Over 'Despicable Performance'
Earlier this month, Breitbart News reported on a senior Hamas official admitting the ultimate aim of the Palestinian war with Israel is to conquer the planet, so the world could finally be rid of “Zionism” and “treacherous Christianity.” JOSHUA KLEIN
DHS Chief Mayorkas Will Not Commit to Deporting Pro-Hamas Foreign Students from U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas will not commit to revoking visas and deporting those foreign students participating in pro-Hamas rallies on college campuses across the United States.
Since Hamas terrorists carried out attacks on Israel on October 7, rallies and protests in support of the foreign terrorist organization and Palestinians have broken out across U.S. college and university campuses.
Many of those participating in the pro-Hamas rallies are in the U.S. on F-1 student visas, which has prompted a number of Senators to urge DHS to use its statutory authority to revoke their visas and have them quickly deported from the country.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Mayorkas if he would commit to revoking F-1 visas for those pro-Hamas foreign students in the U.S.
Mayorkas, though, said the issue is “a matter of legal interpretation of the statute” and that he is currently “not in a position to provide that legal interpretation.”
The exchange went as follows:
HAWLEY: My question to you is, should students who are here on a visa who gather and chant [from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free] and advocate for the elimination of Israel and attacks on Jewish individuals — whether in the Middle East or here in the United States, which we’re seeing on college campuses — should those students have their visas revoked?
MAYORKAS: Senator, I believe you are referencing a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act about which you have written to me and I am very familiar with your assertion that the statutory provision requires the revocation of their visas.
HAWLEY: Should they have their visas revoked? I’m asking you.
MAYORKAS: We are assessing your legal assertion. It is a matter of legal interpretation of the statute.
HAWLEY: Well, just as a moral matter, should students who are here — foreigners who are here in this country — accessing our university system and advocating for the killing of Jews, should they be allowed to stay here at our leisure?
MAYORKAS: Senator, it is a matter of law and it requires a legal interpretation and I am not in a position to provide that legal interpretation. And let me add something–
HAWLEY: My time is very limited. I think your answer is disappointing.
Biden’s National Security Council (NSC) spokesman, John Kirby, made clear last week that the administration would not, in fact, revoke visas for pro-Hamas foreign students in the U.S., which would make them eligible for deportation by DHS.
“… 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,” Kirby said when asked about GOP calls to revoke visas for pro-Hamas foreign students.
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.
Similarly, Rubio and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) have each written to top Biden officials at the State Department and the DHS pressing them to swiftly revoke visas and deport pro-Hamas foreign students.
In 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 federal government gave more than 8,000 green cards to Iranians in Fiscal Year 2022 — including more than 800 who arrived via 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
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.
Boots on the ground...Reports of alleged illegal aliens buying ammunition in stores.
GAMER LAWYER MAYORKAS DEFENDS BIDEN'S OPEN BORDERS FOR MUSLIMS/PALESTINIANS
BREAKING NEWS: Josh Hawley Absolutely Explodes On Alejandro Mayorkas Over 'Despicable Performance'
Earlier this month, Breitbart News reported on a senior Hamas official admitting the ultimate aim of the Palestinian war with Israel is to conquer the planet, so the world could finally be rid of “Zionism” and “treacherous Christianity.” JOSHUA KLEIN
House Republicans Subpoena Biden Administration For Afghan Refugee Records Amid Rising Terror Threats
House Republicans on Tuesday subpoenaed the Department of Homeland Security for information about Afghan refugees as intelligence officials warn of increased threats of a terrorist attack in the United States.
The Biden administration has stonewalled congressional inquiries into security screenings of the almost 90,000 Afghan refugees who have entered the United States since 2021, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee say in a Tuesday letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
"In the wake of the Biden administration’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the country has once again become a breeding ground for foreign terrorist organizations under Taliban rule," Homeland Security Committee chairman Mark Green (R., Tenn.) said in a statement. "The Committee is still seeking answers on how the Biden administration vetted those entering the United States following the withdrawal."
The Homeland Security Committee’s inquiry comes as intelligence officials warn that recent Hamas attacks could inspire other Islamic extremists to plan attacks. FBI director Christopher Wray testified to the House on Tuesday that "the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole other level."
Republicans initially asked the Department of Homeland Security for a full accounting of the Afghan refugee vetting process in 2021. Since then, Green said, those requests "were met with insufficient responses from the Biden administration."
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
Republicans have long contested that the Biden administration had no protocol to vet the Afghan nationals who were granted refugee status following the United States’ botched withdrawal from the country. Many of the Afghans granted entry to the country, internal government communications show, did not own a passport when they landed in the United States.
In response to repeated requests from congressional Republicans, the Biden administration has turned over reports with 150 pages of redactions and other edits. Other data provided by the Biden administration, Green says, were "nothing more than scanned printouts from spreadsheets of data that were provided in a format that rendered them indecipherable."
Republicans are now using their legal authority to get a full picture on how those Afghan refugees were admitted. The subpoena covers all communications for more than a dozen agencies related to the vetting of Afghan refugees. The Department of Homeland Security has until Nov. 7 to comply.
Biden administration officials informed lawmakers in a classified December 2021 briefing that "not all security and vetting measures have been taken to ensure the safety of our homeland."
Since the United States exited Afghanistan, the Taliban has taken full control of the country.
Reader Interaction
Boots on the round...Reports of alleged illegal aliens buying ammunition in stores.
GAMER LAWYER MAYORKAS DEFENDS BIDEN'S OPEN BORDERS FOR MUSLIMS/PALESTINIANS
BREAKING NEWS: Josh Hawley Absolutely Explodes On Alejandro Mayorkas Over 'Despicable Performance'
Earlier this month, Breitbart News reported on a senior Hamas official admitting the ultimate aim of the Palestinian war with Israel is to conquer the planet, so the world could finally be rid of “Zionism” and “treacherous Christianity.” JOSHUA KLEIN
How Many Hamas and Hezbollah Terrorists Have Crossed the Southern Border?
"We have a continuing concern about Iranian influence, actors and Hezbollah."
When then-FBI Director Robert Mueller testified in the House Judiciary Committee on May 9, 2012, Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly of California asked him about the threat of terrorists entering the United States by crossing the Southern border.
“First of all, as it relates to our Southwest border,” said Gallegly, “do you see any growing evidence of al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization working to exploit our border with the attempt of launching another terrorist attack on our own soil?”
Mueller indicated he was more concerned about Hezbollah doing that than al-Qaeda.
“As to the Southwest border and al-Qaida, we have not seen an increase of effort by al-Qaida to come across the Southwest border,” said Mueller. “On the other hand, when you open the question up to other terrorist groups, I would say that we have a continuing concern about Iranian influence, actors and Hezbollah.”
In fact, Mueller had testified in the Senate Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 16, 2005, about a Hezbollah fundraiser from Lebanon who had been discovered in Michigan. “In 2004,” Mueller said in a statement to the committee, “we had some success in uncovering individuals providing material support to Hezbollah.
“In Detroit, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani was indicted in the Eastern District of Michigan on one count of Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Hezbollah,” Mueller said. “Kourani was already in custody for entering the country illegally through Mexico and was involved in fundraising activities on behalf of Hezbollah.”
A staff report on “9/11 and Terrorist Travel” published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States provided information about a smuggler who smuggled “Lebanese nationals sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah into the United States.”
“In July 2001,” said the report, “the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.”
“One smuggler, Salim Boughader-Mucharrafille,” said the report, “smuggled Lebanese nationals sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah into the United States and relied on corrupt Mexican officials in Beirut, Mexico City and Tijuana to facilitate their travel. Specifically, Boughader obtained Mexican tourist visas from an official at the Mexican embassy in Beirut to facilitate the travel of humans to Mexico.”
“Boughader was charged with human smuggling and sentenced to 11 months in prison,” said the report. “After serving his sentence he was deported to Mexico where he was arrested along with several other members of his smuggling ring.”
“In May 2006,” the Congressional Research Service reported in 2007, “a Mexican judge reportedly sentenced Boughader-Mucharrafille to fourteen years in prison for his role in the smuggling ring and on organized crime charges.”
So, after discovering that “Lebanese nationals sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah” had been smuggled into the United States from Mexico, did the United States secure its southern border?
No.
Over each of the past four years, Customs and Border Protection has encountered an increasing number of individuals on the “Terrorist Screening Dataset” trying to sneak into the United States between the ports of entry on the Mexican border. This dataset, according to CBP, includes “known or suspected terrorists” and “additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals.”
In fiscal 2019, as this column has noted before, CBP did not encounter a single individual on this terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across the Mexican border. In 2020, it encountered 3. In 2021, it encountered 15. In 2022, it encountered 98.
In fiscal 2023, which ended in September, it encountered 169.
This February, the State Department issued its “Country Reports on Terrorism 2021.” What did it say about Hezbollah?
“Lebanon-based and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah continued its long history of activity in the Western Hemisphere, including fundraising by its supporters and financiers in places like the tri-border area, where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet,” said the State Department. “Hezbollah supporters generate funding through licit and illicit activity and donate undetermined amounts to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which uses the funds to advance its broader agenda. In recent years, Hezbollah supporters and members have been identified in Chile, Colombia, Panama, Peru and the United States.”
Jennie Taer of the Daily Caller News Foundation (where this writer is investigative editor) published a report this week that Customs and Border Protection had issued a memo on Oct. 20 warning that “(f)oreign fighters” from the Middle East might try to enter the United States from Mexico.
“San Diego Field Office Intelligence Unit (SDFO-FITU) assesses that individuals inspired by, or reacting to, the current Israel-Hamas conflict may attempt travel to or from the area of hostilities in the Middle East via circuitous transit across the Southwest border,” said the memo.
“Foreign fighters motivated by ideology or mercenary soldiers of fortune may attempt to obfuscate travel to or from the U.S. to or from countries in the Middle East through Mexico.”
So, how many Hezbollah — or Hamas — terrorists are in the United States today? Since our southern border is not secure and many people cross it illegally every day, our federal government has no way of knowing.
Pentagon Sends 300 More Troops to the Middle East as Attacks on U.S. Bases Continue
The Pentagon on Tuesday announced it was deploying an additional 300 troops to the Middle East region, amid an increasing number of attacks against U.S. bases and the beginning of a new war between Israel and Hamas.
“I can announce the decision to deploy an additional 300 troops to the U.S. Central Command region from home stations in the continental United States,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said at a briefing.
Ryder said the troops will not be deployed to Israel and are intended to support “regional deterrence efforts” and “further bolster U.S. force protection capabilities.”
“These additional troops will provide capabilities and explosive ordinance disposal, communications and other support enablers for forces already in the region,” he said, referring to U.S. troops already deployed to the Middle East.
The 300 new troops adds to the 900 the Pentagon announced would deploy last Thursday.
Those 900 forces included a terminal high-altitude area defense (THAAD) battery from Fort Bliss, Texas; Patriot batteries from Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Patriot and Avenger batteries from Fort Liberty, North Carolina; and associated air defense headquarters elements from Fort Bliss and Fort Cavazos, Texas.
Ryder said those forces were not deploying to Israel, either, and also intended to “support regional deterrence efforts and further bolster U.S. force protection capabilities.”
There have been a total of 27 attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria since October 17 by Iranian-backed proxy forces. At least 21 U.S. troops sustained minor injuries in those attacks.
The Pentagon said it views the attacks against U.S. forces as “separate and distinct” from the war between Israel and Hamas — despite the spate of attacks in the last several weeks and the Pentagon previously acknowledging that Iranian-backed groups publicly warned that if Israel conducted a ground incursion, they were going to scale up attacks.
Ryder previously said on October 23, in response to a question about the Pentagon moving assets to the region for force protection, “I think we are concerned about escalation based on, you know, you’ve seen several groups throughout the region publicly say, ‘Hey, you know, if there is a ground incursion, we are going to scale up our attacks.'”
On Tuesday, Ryder again insisted that the war in Israel and the attacks on U.S. troops were not linked.
Asked what has led to the increase in attacks over the past few weeks, Ryder responded, “Well, certainly this is not the first time we’ve seen these Iranian proxy groups do these kinds of things for a multitude of purported various reasons that in and of itself is not unusual.”
Ryder attributed responsibility for the attacks to Iran.
Last Thursday, the Pentagon conducted airstrikes against weapons and ammunition storage facilities in Syria in response to the attacks on U.S. bases, saying that there were no casualties from the strikes.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) slammed the airstrikes as weak and said they could invite more attacks against U.S. forces.
“Retaliation against expendable proxies — especially unoccupied proxy warehouses — merely validates Iran’s strategy to use proxies to attack Americans. They are laughing at us in Tehran. Iran will continue to target Americans until President Biden gets serious about imposing severe costs on Iran,” he said in a statement.
Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment