Jim Jordan Subpoenas Garland, Wray Over School Board Memo Used Against "Domestic Terrorist" Parents

House Republicans Plan Onslaught Of Investigations Into Biden’s China Ties, Virus Origins Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), If there is a House Republican majority when the 118th Congress convenes on Jan. 3, 2023, it will launch an onslaught of congressional investigations to expose, among much else, what they view as the Biden family’s abuse of public office to enrich themselves. The U.S. Capitol in Washington on Aug. 6, 2022. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images) Three House Republican veterans—Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, plus an unknown player to be named later—will be at the center of the tidal wave of document demands, televised corruption hearings, depositions, sworn testimonies, subpoenas, cross-examinations, and contempt citations that have been in the planning stages for months. All three promise to go wherever the facts lead. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on June 10, 2020. (Michael Reynolds/Pool/Getty Images) “Oversight Republicans are investigating the domestic and international business dealings of President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and other Biden associates and family members to determine whether these activities compromise U.S. national security and President Biden’s ability to lead with impartiality,” Comer told The Epoch Times. Comer is expected to be chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform if voters, as widely expected, return Republicans to control of the lower chamber of Congress. The Kentucky Republican, who was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2016, is presently the ranking GOP member of the oversight panel in the Democrat-controlled House. His ascension to chair one of the major House committees in only his fourth term would be among the fastest in recent memory. “Hunter and other members of the Biden family have a pattern of peddling access to the highest levels of government to enrich themselves. The American people deserve to know whether the President’s connections to his family’s business deals occurred at the expense of American interests and whether they represent a national security threat,” Comer said. Comer’s views were echoed by multiple GOP Members of the House of Representatives, and present and former congressional investigative staff veterans interviewed by The Epoch Times in recent days. Congressional plans to dig into the Biden family’s alleged brew of government duties and business dealings have been solidified in recent months as a laptop owned by Hunter Biden has been found to contain thousands of incriminating emails, photographs and other documents. The laptop materials describe multimillion-dollar deals between companies linked to Hunter Biden and James Biden, the President’s brother, and individuals and firms in Russia, China, Ukraine, and other foreign nations. Those deals were made possible in part by access occasioned for Hunter and James Biden by Joe Biden’s duties as Vice President under President Barack Obama, and possibly since his elevation to the Oval Office in 2021, investigators believe. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, during a hearing in Washington on July 27, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Former Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski has insisted that references to “the Big Guy” in the emails and documents are to the senior Biden, who he said received 10 percent of the proceeds from a deal with the Chinese energy firm, CEFC. Bobulinski is all but certain to be called to testify during the committee’s hearings next year. Jordan, the likely Judiciary Committee Chairman in a Republican-led House, told The Epoch Times he will be focused initially on two major areas, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas’ role in creating the worst immigration crisis in American history on the U.S. border with Mexico, and political abuses of the Department of Justice by Attorney General Merrick Garland and senior officials within the FBI. “Everyone knows what the Biden administration has done on the border is intentional, so we are going to look at all of that. There is just a whole host of things that are a problem that I think warrant aggressive oversight. Mayorkas knew, for example, that these guys they accused of using their whips to hit migrants, he knew that was [expletive], like we all suspected it was,” Jordan told The Epoch Times. Asked about the prospects of an impeachment effort against Mayorkas, Jordan said, “this guy certainly warrants it. He came in front of our committee and couldn’t remember when I asked him about the status of the individuals on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist arrested at the border and he sneeringly said ‘I don’t know.’ This guy is bad news.” “The other big thing, of course, is the Justice Department and how political it has become, with the 14 whistleblowers, 14 FBI agents that have come to us as whistleblowers, so we’ll look at all of that,” Jordan said. “We’ve had more whistleblowers come to us than I’ve ever seen while we’re in the minority, which means we can’t do the investigation in the proper way. But they’re willing to do it because it’s that bad over there,” Jordan continued. The Ohioan was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2006 and has been reelected seven times in the years since. The Ohio Republican remarked that the first whistleblower who came to the Judiciary panel’s GOP members concerned DOJ’s creation of a “threat tag” to be applied to concerned parents protesting at school board meetings. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) speaks during a town hall event hosted by House Republicans in Washington on March 1, 2022. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images) Two other FBI whistleblowers who have come forward to Jordan and the panel’s GOP members—Special Agents Kyle Seraphin and Steve Friend—have since gone public with descriptions of how senior bureau officials pressure agents to exaggerate the extent of violent acts by “domestic terrorists.” He also pointed to the fact former FBI senior official Jill Sanborn has agreed to sit down with Republican committee staff for a transcribed interview on Dec. 2 as evidence more whistleblowers will come forward in the coming months. Sanborn was Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and Executive Assistant Director of the bureau’s National Security Branch. She is expected to provide significant information regarding DOJ and FBI actions on a host of crucial issues of interest to Judiciary Republicans. Another individual who will be summoned to testify is Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) within the National Institutes for Health (NIH). Comer told The Epoch Times he plans to “continue our oversight of COVID origins. Our oversight has already uncovered “growing evidence” that the COVID-19 virus “likely originated from the Wuhan Institute for Virology (WIV) in China and the Communist Party of China covered it up.” Comer warned that “U.S. taxpayer dollars were being funneled to the Wuhan lab to conduct risky experimental research on bat coronaviruses” and the evidence shows that Fauci “was aware of this information at the start of the pandemic and may have acted to conceal the information and intentionally downplay the lab leak theory.” Jordan also wants to get the facts about the more than 50 former intelligence officials who signed an October 2020 letter claiming the emails on the Hunter Biden laptop were likely part of a Russian disinformation campaign. “It looks like they were working with the FBI to put together that letter. Where did that letter originate, who started it. We need to get to the bottom of all that and how the FBI was a part of that, or not a part of that. It sure looks like they were because they went to Facebook and told them to be looking for Russian disinformation.” Jordan said. McMorris Rodgers, whose congressional career began in 2005, is in line to take over the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight responsibility for a host of issues in the energy, environmental, and economic spaces. “We have a full agenda to hold President Biden and his administration officials accountable on behalf of the American people for how they’ve shut down American energy, broken trust at America’s public health agencies, made the fentanyl crisis worse, and increased our dependence on supply chains controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, among many issues,” McMorris Rogers told The Epoch Times. “Nothing is off the table,” she warned. Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, attends an event at the White House in Washington on April 18, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Both Comer’s oversight and McMorris Rodgers’ energy and commerce panels are leading extensive investigations into the origins of COVID-19 with the latter taking a particular focus in how U.S. taxpayer dollars may have helped fund potential gain-of-function research that might have caused the pandemic. McMorris Rodgers is also looking at how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mismanaged the federal response to the virus that to-date has killed more than one million Americans since January 2020. “Trust in public health has been broken by the Biden administration’s authoritarian actions to mandate vaccines, force masks on children, collude with teachers unions to keep schools closed, and urge Big Tech to shut down free speech,” the Washington Republican said. She also said her panel will look into “the flawed studies and mischaracterization of data the CDC repeatedly used to justify school closures and mask mandates on children.” On the energy front, McMorris Rodgers earlier this year introduced a bill to prevent sales of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to any entity under the control of or influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). How the Biden administration has managed the SPR will get heavy attention from the energy and commerce panel. The committee under McMorris Rodgers’ leadership is also planning an inquiry into social media giant TikTok’s relationship to the CCP. “We have been doing some investigations as to how the Chinese Communist Party is stealing our data and collecting a ton of data on Americans. TikTok is going to be at the top of the [investigations] list,” she told The Epoch Times. China’s influence on U.S. supply chains and the relationship of some environmental advocacy groups in the United States to Beijing are also on the energy and commerce agenda for 2023. An energy and commerce Republican aide said McMorris Rodgers plans to expand the oversight subcommittee staff and noted that “every member of our staff across all our subcommittees is working together on a robust oversight strategy of the Biden administration, which will inform how we take action on policies to reverse the damage they’ve caused to our economy, our global competitive edge against China, and our American way of life.” The “player to be named later” is whoever House GOP leaders designate to succeed Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) on the House Administration Committee that has oversight responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Capitol Complex, including how officials prepared for and responded to the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Read more here... Tyler Durden Thu, 10/27/2022 - 17:20.....»»

The National School Boards Association is under fire after writing to the president and comparing threats against educators to "domestic terrorism." Amy Jahr sings the Star Spangled Banner after a Loudoun County School Board meeting in Northern Virginia was halted because the crowd refused to quiet down.Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters The National School Boards Association compared threats to school leaders to "domestic terrorism." The message, and Attorney General Merrick Garland's swift response, backfired. Now state school board associations are distancing themselves from NSBA. The National School Boards Association wanted to help protect education leaders from threats of violence and acts of intimidation that were playing out across the nation.So its leaders penned a controversial letter — one they'd later regret — to President Joe Biden, asking the feds to step in against threats the group compared to "a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."That message, and Attorney General Merrick Garland's swift response, only led to more mayhem, inflaming parents, and gift wrapping talking points for Republicans eager to use the issue as a springboard back to power in 2022 and 2024. Welcome to the culture wars of 2021, where a skirmish enveloping state school board associations across the nation has education leaders fed up and finding ways to distance themselves from the group and its hot mess. "Unfortunately, the NSBA needlessly caused substantial controversy this fall, which has negatively impacted relationships among school boards, parents and community members," wrote The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, which voted in November to withdraw participation in the NSBA programs and activities.In all, associations in 27 states have distanced themselves from NSBA since that late September letter to Biden. Seventeen of those states have taken further steps, by either withdrawing membership, participation, or dues, according to the latest tracking by Parents Defending Education, an organization that says it fights "indoctrination" in the classroom. "We would have readily pointed out the mischaracterization of parents and patrons in our communities as domestic terrorists who merited federal investigation," the Idaho School Boards Association wrote in its response, which said they had not been asked for input on the letter. "We want parents and patrons engaged in our public schools – we have sought that for years," the Idaho group added.'Domestic terrorism and hate crimes'The NSBA is a nonprofit that has operated since 1940 as a federation of state associations (and the US Virgin Islands), advocating for public school board leaders. As wild parent protests at school board meetings grabbed headlines, the group and AASA, the School Superintendents Association raised alarms about threats and violence around COVID-19 guidelines at the beginning of the school year.Later, in their September 29 letter to Biden, NSBA said school boards members have been attacked for face-mask policies and threatened over false claims about "critical race theory" being taught in K-12 classrooms.The advocacy group did not characterize parents in the letter as "domestic terrorists," as has been reported, but they asked for federal assistance against threats, and requested a review examining enforceable actions under a host of federal statutes, including the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act in regards to domestic terrorism. "As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes," the letter from the group's president Viola Garcia and Chip Slaven, who was then the interim executive director.NSBA did not respond to a request for comment.Weeks later, NSBA apologized on Oct. 22 to its members for writing the letter, saying "there was no justification for some of the language" in it. But Garland, who in a memo called on the FBI to address illegal threats against public servants, defended his response during a Senate Judiciary Committee. "The only thing that Justice Department is concerned about is violence and threats of violence," he said, according to CNN.Republicans, hoping to be viewed as the party of parents in the midterm elections, have seized on the controversy. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, issued an October 5 statement in response to Garland's memo, saying Democrats want to "silence parents, and prevent them from having a say in their own children's education."Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential contender, said in a statement, "We don't need the federal government investigating and intimidating parents in an attempt to squelch dissent." The Florida School Boards Association withheld their dues in July over various concerns with NSBA and stated in an October 11 letter that they would continue to do so.Former President Donald Trump weighed in on the issue, too, with Fox News' Sean Hannity, saying parents don't want "all of this nonsense that's being fed to their children," and "they're trying to make them out to be terrorists … How crazy is this?"Erika Sanzi, outreach director for Parents Defending Education, told Insider her group had "major concerns" about what seemed like a deliberate attempt to intimidate parents and the DOJ's quick response, giving NSBA what they wanted. But she said she's glad the NSBA letter backfired."There's moms out there, right, that are like wearing domestic terrorist T-shirts now in response to that letter as a way of saying, 'I am not going to be silenced. I am going to speak out about my concerns at my kids' school,'" she said. "They're taking that domestic terrorist accusation and they're having fun with it."A crowd of angry, largely unmasked people objected to Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards' mask mandate for schools during an August school board meeting in Baton Rouge.AP Photo/Melinda Deslatte'Fractured relationships'School board associations acknowledged in their statements that education leaders do indeed face threats. The Idaho association pointed to "disruptive and – at times, frightening – behavior" at school board meetings in the state and across the country.But some groups said it was "overreach" to ask for federal law enforcement intervention when local law enforcement should handle protests, and they were angry that they were not consulted about the letter. The Missouri School Boards' Association, which withdrew from NSBA, said federal intervention in most cases shouldn't be the first step and it runs contrary to their tradition of local control. "Further, the use of inflammatory terms in the NSBA letter is not a model for promoting greater civility and respect for the democratic process," the statement said. While the apology was a "step in the right direction," the Missouri association wrote that NSBA has "significant work ahead" to prevent similar problems and repair their "fractured relationships."States may have decided to leave the group for reasons beyond their letter to Biden, Brian Farmer, executive director of the Wyoming School Boards Association, wrote in a letter to members. Farmer noted that NSBA has been struggling with "internal governance issues." Rather than withdraw from NSBA, the Wyoming association's board decided to continue to "monitor the situation" and not automatically renew their membership.The Pennsylvania School Boards Association withdrew from NSBA for multiple reasons, according to a letter to its members reported by The Hill, but the controversy over the letter "suggesting that some parents should be considered domestic terrorists was the final straw." The NSBA letter "fomented more disputes and cast partisanship" on their work on behalf of school directors, the Pennsylvania association wrote."Now is not the time for more politics and posturing, it is the time for solutions to the many challenges facing education," they wrote.  Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Chicago Dad Placed On Watchlist After Opposing Pornography In Schools Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A Chicago father has learned that he has been placed on a flight watchlist after opposing pornographic materials in his kids’ schools. Terry Newsome, a Chicago dad who found himself placed on a watchlist by federal law enforcement, speaks during Turning Point USA's AmericaFest 2022. (Courtesy of Terry Newsome) Over the summer of 2021, Terry Newsome—who described himself in comments to the Epoch Times as a “lifelong Democrat” until recently—was one of several parents in the 99th school district of Downer’s Grove, Chicago, who expressed opposition to books in his children’s library that had sexually explicit and pornographic content. In December, Newsome discovered he had been placed on a watchlist. On Dec. 16, 2022, he and his family attempted to board a plane en route to Turning Point USA’s “America Fest” convention in Phoenix, Arizona. Newsome, who travels a great deal for work, was shocked to learn that he had been placed on a watchlist and had to get substantially more screening before being allowed to board, causing him to miss his original flight. Initially, Newsome was told that he had been placed on the list by the FBI. On his return journey from Phoenix, he was informed that the classification originated from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Despite having been a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) pre-check-approved flier for over a decade, upon his family’s arrival at O’Hare International Airport, Newsome learned about the new designation. Upon arriving at the airport, Newsome’s family found that they “couldn’t check in electronically like we normally did.” Initially, Newsome and his wife just chalked it up to the fact that they had minors traveling with them that were not their children. It was only later that Newsome learned he had been given the dreaded “quad-S” designation on his ticket, an acronym standing for Secondary Security Screening Selection (SSSS). Compared to the normal security guidelines for boarding, those with boarding passes marked SSSS must get far more screening. SSSS boarding pass holders are traditionally removed from the line and brought elsewhere for additional screening. This screening is nothing if not thorough—passengers are asked to remove all items from their bags, which are then examined individually while the bag is thoroughly searched. Terry Newsome, dressed in a Downers Grove South High School spirit wear, sits in the school auditorium where he spoke up about Gender Queer last month, on Dec. 13, 2021. (Cara Ding/The Epoch Times) In addition to much stricter screening of bags, SSSS fliers are typically on the receiving end of a full-body pat down. They also have their hands (and sometimes, according to some reports) their feet swabbed to check for explosives. Just how invasive this search can be depends on circumstances, but fliers with the SSSS designation can also expect to be prodded on questions like if they packed their own bag, where they’re headed, why they’re going there, and so on. When he got to the airport, Newsome had no idea that he had been flagged with the SSSS designation. He first realized that something was amiss at the ticket desk, where he was told by the clerk that she couldn’t print his boarding pass. The issue was taking so long that Newsome told his family, who had already received their boarding passes, to go ahead without him. They did, but were pulled out of the line for additional screening. Newsome hurried over to the TSA desk when he saw this to learn what was going on. It was then that Newsome was told he had been flagged as a potential security threat. However, both he and the TSA staff, Newsome reported, assumed that the designation was an error and that the system had confused Newsome with someone else who shared his name. After the additional screening, Newsome finally got to the gate, where he was denied access to his flight because the extra screening had caused them to be late. Newsome’s family also failed to get on the flight due to the extra screening. At that point, Newsome was finally told what was going on when an airport employee told them, “Somebody put you on a list with some real bad people.” After missing their first flight, Newsome was able to find another flight for himself and his family. But before he could board, the airline had to get approval from the FBI for him to fly. The approval came through at the last moment, and Newsome’s family was finally able to start their trip to Phoenix. Newsome was the last person to board his plane. The same scene played out on the return journey, when Newsome learned he had been placed on the list by the DOJ. FBI Dismisses FOIA Request Following these experiences, Newsome sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the FBI, seeking more information about his newly discovered status as an alleged terror risk. The FBI refused to discuss details with Newsome. In the letter he received replying to his request, the FBI wrote in part: “The U.S. Government can neither confirm nor deny whether a particular person is on any terrorist watch list. Maintaining the confidentiality of government watch lists is necessary to achieve the objectives of the U.S. Government, as well as to protect the privacy of individuals who may be on a watch list for a limited time and later removed. If the U.S. Government revealed who was listed on any government watch list, terrorists would be able to take actions to avoid detection by government authorities. Thus, the FBI neither confirms nor denies the existence of your subject’s name on any watch lists pursuant to FOIA exemption.” Because the federal government refuses to so much as acknowledge that Newsome has been placed on a list, it is unclear why Newsome’s name was flagged for enhanced screening. Newsome told the Epoch Times that he thinks the addition of his name to the list is in response to his past political activities. In their response to an Epoch Times inquiry about Newsome, the FBI’s press office insisted that the agency does not open investigations solely on the grounds of protected First Amendment activity. “The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on protected First Amendment activity,” the agency wrote. “We cannot and do not investigate ideology. We focus on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security.” The spokesperson expressly refused to answer questions relating to the process of placing someone on a watchlist, including questions about oversight of the FBI’s ability to place Americans on flight watchlists. Additionally, Newsome also reached out to the TSA. In his query, Newsome requested information and attempted to be placed back on the TSA pre-check list. In its reply, the TSA said he was no longer eligible for its pre-check list, but suggested that Newsome would no longer be subject to enhanced screening. Newsome remains uncertain about his flight status. “As a result of recurrent checks and based on a comprehensive background check, TSA was unable to determine that you pose a sufficiently low risk to transportation and national security to continue to be eligible for expedited airport security screening through the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program,” the reply said. “As a result, TSA has determined that you are no longer eligible to participate in the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program. “This eligibility determination for the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program is within the sole discretion of TSA,” the letter added. “Although you have been found ineligible to continue your participation in the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program, you will continue to be screened at airport security checkpoints according to TSA standard screening protocols.” Opposition to Porn in School Library Newsome had never been involved in school board meetings or politics until mid-2021, when he attended a district school board meeting after his then-eighth-grade son came home reporting that his teacher had told him that “there is no American dream.” Newsome, a descendant of European immigrants who had lived the American dream, was shocked to hear that. He called his children’s principal to discuss the issue, and suspected that these issues would only get worse when his kids, fraternal twins, got to high school. In July 2021, Newsome attended his first school board meeting at Downers Grove’s Community High School (District 99). Newsome immediately began a crusade on several hot-button topics, ranging from mask mandates to critical race theory, becoming the unofficial spokesman for several concerned mothers who were more hesitant to speak out. “The moms are so happy to have an aggressive, type-A-personality father to join them. They had mostly fought this battle alone, against the giant system of public schools,” Newsome told The Epoch Times. Newsome’s most controversial activism came with his opposition to the book “Gender Queer” by Mia Kobabe, a book containing sexually explicit images that teaches children about oral sex and controversial notions of gender identity. After Newsome began speaking out against the book and the left-wing ideology that had inundated his children’s schools, he began facing attacks from all corners, ranging from threats by Antifa to opposition by Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). Two days after the publication of an Epoch Times article about his activism, Newsome found threatening messages against him on a locally run Twitter account called Antifascist Rumor Mill. “Action items announced soon in regard to Terry Newsome—time to Drop Pops and his hateful agenda,” the tweet read, referencing Newsome’s nickname “Pops.” “Terry trying to make a name for himself, look at his stupid face in the Epoch Times, the extreme #disinformation rag that echoed all the lies, the Big Lie, the ‘Plandemic’ lie, etc.,” another tweet from the account said. Newsome told The Epoch Times that many of those who have spoken against him and threatened him, including members of the school board, are in close league with Rep. Casten. “The school board and the superintendent are all controlled by radical, radical leftists … that are very vocal in the Downers Grove Community and all supportive of Sean Casten,” Newsome said. “So anybody that speaks out with a different opinion is brutally attacked on social media and called racist, homophobic, and so forth, no matter the truth.” “To make a point, I’ve said it from the very beginning, through now: me and the other parents are not anti-gay or homophobic—we’re anti-porn,” Newsome said. January 6 Rally Some of Newsome’s critics have in the past pointed out that Newsome was present at the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally. Newsome candidly admits that he attended the rally, but said that he had no bad intentions and broke no laws that day. “I went to January 6, with my friend, a retired police officer,” Newsome said. According to Newsome, the FBI previously investigated his friend who attended the event, retired officer Rob Waller, and had cleared him of any wrongdoing. Aside from an old Civil War-era sword, Newsome does not possess any weapons and was unarmed at the event. Additionally, Newsome was undergoing immunotherapy for cancer at the time, leaving him in a weakened state. Newsome said his only reason for attending the rally was to hear President Donald Trump speak and to ensure people were safe. “We went down there for two things, one to see our president speak. Two, because we’re both still big guys even though we’re older,” Newsome said. “We saw in November, December, families, parents overly attacked by Antifa [and] BLM in front of their hotels.” Newsome said he had left by the time order broke down at the rally, which he vindicated by providing time-stamped photos. Newsome’s photos and time stamps from that day show that he did not trespass on Capitol grounds and was gone before the Capitol breach began. Concerns of ‘Weaponization’ Of DOJ Newsome’s story comes amid concerns over the weaponization of the DOJ. In November, House Republicans unveiled a 1,050-page report detailing whistleblower findings. Since then, the party has authorized the creation of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which held its inaugural hearing on Feb. 9. In his opening remarks, Weaponization Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) read out a litany of findings from whistleblower testimony. For instance, on Nov. 18, 2021, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were told that the FBI had created a “threat tag” for parents voicing their concerns at school board meetings. In May 2022, another whistleblower revealed that dozens of parents designated with a “threat tag” were being investigated by the agency. The same whistleblower said that the leadership of the FBI is “rotted at its core.” Following this, that whistleblower had his security clearance revoked and was suspended from the FBI.   In April 2022, another whistleblower told Republicans that FBI agents “were being run out of the bureau” for attending conservative political events while off duty. Jordan also cited whistleblower testimony previously included in the whistleblower report that claimed that the FBI had manufactured domestic violent extremism events (DVEs) to hit “self-created performance metrics.” Additional testimony in September 2022 revealed that Jan. 6 case files had been altered to make it appear that DVEs were on the rise, as Democrats and President Joe Biden have long claimed. The agent was later suspended. In September 2022, yet another whistleblower revealed to Republicans that the FBI views the Betsy Ross flag, the original design of the American flag with 13 stars, “as a terrorist symbol.” Additional testimony found that the FBI accepts personal data on users from Facebook “without the user’s consent.” Cara Ding contributed to this report.  Tyler Durden Wed, 02/15/2023 - 17:05.....»»

House Creates Panel To Probe "Weaponization Of The Federal Government" Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times, The new Republican-majority House voted Tuesday afternoon to create a select subcommittee to investigate the “weaponization of the government” by federal law enforcement agencies under Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration. The special panel would have various functions, including the authority to have subpoena power to receive information on intelligence-related activity that’s typically only shared with the House Intelligence Committee. It would also have the authority to probe the federal government’s expansive role in investigations on U.S. citizens, including in ongoing criminal investigations. The panel would also have the power to probe how federal agencies communicate with private companies to collect information on Americans, according to the text of the resolution. The resolution to create the “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” passed on a straight party-line vote of 221-211. The panel is part of the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is also expected to chair it. It would comprise 15 members—nine Republicans and six Democrats—to be appointed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who chairs the House Rules Committee, said the new panel is modeled on the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated U.S. intelligence agencies. That committee “uncovered and exposed a wide variety of abuses, including many [abuses] directed against American citizens,” Cole told fellow lawmakers on the House floor on Tuesday. “Similar to the situation that confronted America in the 1970s, in recent years we have witnessed abuses of the civil liberties of American citizens committed by the executive branch,” Cole said, adding that such violations are “often for political purposes.” He said the newly-created panel “will be tasked with studying and reporting on the executive branch’s authority to collect information on or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States.” “The American people deserve to have confidence in their government,” Cole said. “They deserve to know that the broad powers granted to the federal government through the FBI, to the Department of Homeland Security, and to the intelligence agencies, are not being abused.” “They deserve to know that the executive branch is not positioning itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes truth,” he continued. “And they deserve to know that they will not be labeled a domestic terrorist for advocating for their children in front of a school board.” Rep. Jim Jordan (D-Ohio) nominates House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for Speaker of the House of the 118th Congress during a speech in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 3, 2023 in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) ‘This is About the First Amendment’ Democrats have raised concerns about a provision that authorizes the committee to probe “ongoing criminal investigations,” which are generally outside the purview of congressional oversight. “This is a violation of separation of powers, and it’s also very dangerous,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. They have also claimed that Republicans could use its broad new authority to disrupt ongoing investigations into the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as well as former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, for which the FBI conducted a raid on his Florida property in August 2022. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) derided the panel on the House floor late Tuesday, calling it “nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the party and want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.” Jordan argued against that assertion on the House floor. “A ploy? It’s not a ploy when the Department of Justice treats parents as terrorists—moms and dads simply showing up at a school board meeting to advocate for their son or daughter,” Jordan said. “It’s not a ploy when the FBI pays Twitter $3 million to censor American citizens.” “It’s not a ploy when the Department of Homeland Security tries to set up a ‘disinformation governance board’ because we all know that the department of homeland security can tell what’s good speech and what is bad speech,” he continued. “You got to be kidding me. I’ll tell you what—dozens of whistleblowers have come talked to Republican staff on the Judiciary Committee doesn’t think this is a ploy. That’s why they talked to us. They know how serious this is.” Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee in November 2022 released a 1,000-page report (pdf) titled “FBI Whistleblowers: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the Politicization of the FBI and Justice Department.” Citing multiple examples and whistleblower disclosures, the report outlined how the Justice Department and the FBI abused their authorities to target conservatives for political purposes. Jordan continued: “This [committee] is about the First amendment. Something you guys [Democrats] used to care about. I would hope we could get bipartisan agreement on protecting the First Amendment—the five rights we enjoy as Americans under the First Amendment: Your right to practice your faith, assemble, right to petition the government, freedom of press, freedom of speech. Every single one’s been attacked in the last two years.” “The government was telling people they couldn’t go to church a few years ago,” he noted. “Your right to assemble, petition the government—the Democrats kept the Capitol closed, a citizen couldn’t come to your Capitol that you pay for to redress your grievances because Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t let you in!” “Freedom of the press—I just told you what the head of the intel committee tried to do to a journalist,” he continued. “The most important right we have, though, is your right to talk. Because if you can’t talk, you can’t practice your faith. You can’t share your faith. You can’t petition your government. The right to speak is the most important, and that’s what they [the federal government agencies] are going after.” Tyler Durden Wed, 01/11/2023 - 11:25.....»»

FBI Waited Over A Year To Fully Investigate Jan. 6 Pipe Bombs: House Judiciary Republicans Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), As part of a gargantuan 1,050-page report detailing whistleblower findings from the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), Republicans found that the FBI waited over a year to begin a comprehensive investigation into the pipe bombs that were planted in front of both major parties’ headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021. Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) listens during a House Judiciary Committee mark up hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington on June 2, 2022. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) In the Nov. 5 report, Republicans argued that the FBI and DOJ have undergone “weaponization” during the course of President Joe Biden’s first term in office. Specifically, the report focuses on the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Merrick Garland and the FBI under Director Christopher Wray (pdf). Garland, Republicans said, has been “a willing participant of the Biden Administration’s weaponization of law enforcement.” The FBI too, Republicans assert, “has abused its law-enforcement authorities for apparently political purposes.” Republicans listed a series of seemingly-partisan decisions and top-down efforts by Garland’s DOJ to mislead or deceive the American people. For instance, the bombshell report found that the FBI has been incentivizing and pushing its field agents to classify certain crimes as incidents of domestic violence extremism (“DVEs”) even when the facts do not align with such a classification. Republicans contended that this is part of an effort to bolster Biden and other Democrats’ contested claims that right-wing DVEs are one of the greatest threats Americans face. The report also noted a bizarre incident in which the FBI went a step further, and actually manufactured a DVE. The event occurred in Michigan, where several men were arrested for a planned plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. At their trial, defense attorneys revealed that no less than 12 FBI assets had participated in and pushed the men toward the plot. Republicans also cited Garland’s controversial Oct. 4, 2021 “school board memo,” in which he offered federal resources and guidance for municipalities seeking to punish parents voicing opposition to their children being taught radically left-wing ideas like critical race and gender theory. Additionally, Judiciary Republicans cited Garland’s unprecedented authorization of a raid on President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Purportedly, Trump had taken classified documents from the White House that posed a national security threat. It was only after the midterms that the DOJ backtracked, and admitted that, contrary to their earlier allegations, Trump had no documents that posed any national security threat. A deeper dive into the report reveals that the FBI and DOJ, while actively targeting conservatives, inexplicably dragged their feet in investigating pipe bombs that were planted by an unknown man ahead of the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally. Specifically, security footage captured a still-unidentified man planting pipe bombs in front of both the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National A suspect in the placement of two devices that the FBI said were pipe bombs is seen in Washington on Jan. 5, 2021. On right is a closeup photograph of one of the devices. (FBI) At one point, then-Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris was even in the DNC building, meaning her life was imminently at risk. Still, Judiciary Republicans ruled, “The FBI appears to not be aggressively investigating pipe bombs placed by political party headquarters on January 6, 2021, while prioritizing other January 6, 2021-related investigations.” Specifically, Republicans learned from a whistleblower that it took over one year for the FBI to mount a full-scale investigation into the pipe bombs. According to the whistleblower, it was not until Feb. 7, 2022—more than a month and a year after the incident—that the Washington Field Office of the FBI asked its national field offices to investigate and try to identify the man. In that directive, the FBI warned agents that the suspect’s “motive and ideology remain unknown.” Speaking to The Epoch Times about the snail’s pace of the investigation, Ed Martin, an attorney for some Jan. 6 defendants, ruled “the judgment of the Department of Justice is clearly biased against certain types of people and certain types of conduct.” “It appears that the executive branch, the law enforcement branch, has been operating to facilitate a political vision of the article one branch,” Martin said later. He explained: “The Pelosi select committee [the House January 6 Committee] had a vision of what they wanted to highlight. The conduct of the executive branch, the law enforcement branch has not been to pursue truth and safety. It’s been to pursue the political agenda that’s been driven hand in glove with the select committee.” Martin, who used to work with the RNC, said that he was pleased that Republicans were giving the issue attention but said that “what we need now is to get to the bottom of what happened.” He added, “We need to know who said pipe bombs against the American leadership, right?” “We are living with a bomber, who successfully planted bombs—didn’t go off, thankfully—and who has never been caught,” Martin emphasized. “Shouldn’t that be a worry?” The FBI did not return a request for comment. Possible FBI Involvement The FBI’s slowness in investigating the pipe bombs comes amid a backdrop of suspicion that the FBI played a role in the events of Jan. 6. Suspicion that the FBI was involved in the events of that day only ramped up after Jill Sanborn, the executive assistant director for the National Security Branch of the FBI, refused to disavow agency involvement at the rally. During a Jan. 11, 2022, Senate hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) questioned Sanborn about potential FBI involvement. These questions were met with deflection by Sanborn, who avoided giving a definitive answer to the yes or no questions posed by Cruz. (L–R) Brian Brase, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) at the Senate Visitor Center in the U.S. Capitol on March 8, 2022. (Terri Wu/The Epoch Times) “How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?” Cruz asked. “So I’m sure you can appreciate that I can’t go into the specifics of sources and methods,” Sanborn replied. “Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of Jan. 6, yes or no?” Cruz asked. “Sir, I can’t—I can’t answer that,” Sanborn said. “Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on Jan. 6?” Cruz asked. “I can’t answer that, sir,” Sanborn replied. “Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on Jan. 6?” “Sir, I can’t answer that.” Questions about the FBI’s involvement have also been raised by the mystery of Ray Epps, a man who was caught on video on Jan. 5, 2021, encouraging protestors to go into the Capitol building the next day. “Tomorrow, we need to get to into the Capitol,” Epps was caught saying. “Into the Capitol,” he reiterated. Epps was immediately shouted down by cries of “Fed! Fed! Fed!,” common internet slang describing someone who works with federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI. Ray Epps tells protesters on Jan. 5, 2021, that on Jan. 6 they need to go into the Capitol. (Villain Report/Screenshot via The Epoch Times) The next day, additional video caught Epps whispering into the ear of a protestor, who proceeded to begin tearing down one of the first barricades around the Capitol. Initially, Epps was identified as the FBI’s number 16 most wanted person for their involvement in the events of Jan. 6, with the agency offering a cash reward for information that led to his arrest. But Epps was later mysteriously removed from the list—a fact that further attracted suspicion amid the largest manhunt in the history of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which saw dozens of nonviolent offenders who entered the Capitol rounded up. “Ms. Sanborn, who is Ray Epps?” Cruz asked during the Jan. 11 hearing. “I’m aware of the individual sir,” Sanborn said. “I don’t have the specific background on him.” “Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably concerned about this,” Cruz said before describing the videos captured showing Epps attempting to incite violence. “On the night of Jan. 5, 2021, Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered, and there’s video out there of him chanting ‘Tomorrow, we need to get into the Capitol, into the Capitol.’ “This was strange behavior, so strange that the crowd began chanting, ‘Fed, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed.’ “Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?” “Sir, I cannot answer that question,” Sanborn replied. Cruz then cited the other incident caught on tape involving Epps. “The next day, on Jan. 6, Mr. Epps was seen whispering to a person and five seconds later—five seconds after he’s whispering to a person—that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades,” Cruz said. “Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?” “Sir, similar to the other answers, I cannot answer that,” Sanborn repeated. Cruz noted that for a brief period, Epps was given a relatively high spot on the FBI’s wanted list before being “magically” removed. The wanted ad “was posted and then sometime later, magically, Mr. Epps disappeared from the public posting,” Cruz said. The role played by the FBI, as well as possible ties between Epps and federal law enforcement, are one of a plethora of questions left unanswered and unaddressed by the Jan. 6 panel. Read more here... Tyler Durden Sun, 11/27/2022 - 14:30.....»»

Republican Senators Warn DOJ Not To Police Speech Against Transgender Surgeries On Children Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Senate Republicans are warning Attorney General Merrick Garland not to target Americans who speak against transgender surgeries on children the way his department did to parents protesting at school board meetings. In a letter sent on Tuesday to Garland, a group of five senators said they remain concerned that he would repeat a pattern played out in his previous handling of unruly school board protesters. “In your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you promised that, under your watch, the Department of Justice would not be politicized or weaponized,” wrote Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). “You have already broken that promise more than once, and we are concerned you are poised to do so once again.” In October 2021, Garland issued a memo bringing together a coalition of federal and local law enforcement to address alleged “threats of violence” against teachers and school board members. In response to that memo, the FBI’s counterterrorism unit created the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS,” and opened dozens of investigations into the activities of protesting parents. According to Garland, the memo was based in part on a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which characterized disruptions at school board meetings as “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crime.” Specifically, the NSBA urged the federal government to invoke counterterrorism laws to quell “angry mobs” of parents, who sought to hold school officials accountable for race and sex indoctrination, and for imposing harsh COVID-19 restrictions on their children. The senators said they had to remind Garland of his promise, because the DOJ has once again been asked to censor debate, this time, over the issue of children being put through irreversible transgender procedures. On Oct. 3, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and Children’s Hospital Association sent a letter (pdf) to Garland, asking the DOJ to help with alleged “threats” and “harassment” they face because of the “gender-affirming healthcare” they provide. “From Boston to Akron, [Ohio], to Nashville, [Tennessee], to Seattle, children’s hospitals, academic health systems, and physicians are being targeted and threatened for providing evidence-based healthcare,” the organizations wrote in language similar to that of the NSBA letter. “These attacks have not only made it difficult and dangerous for institutions and practices to provide this care, [but] they have also disrupted many other services to families seeking care.” “Our organizations have called on technology companies to do more to prevent this practice on digital platforms, and we now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible,” the letter read. Censoring Speech of Critics The reason that the DOJ continues to get such requests is because Garland’s response to the NSBA letter set a very bad precedent, the senators argued. “Your actions in regard to the NSBA letter sent an inappropriate message that federal law enforcement can and will be used to aid one side of a political debate, and to either silence or chill the speech of the other,” they told Garland. “Now, in a remarkably similar fashion, medical associations have written to you asking you to again treat any speech critical of their position on a sensitive matter of public policy as a physical threat warranting a law enforcement response.” “We call upon you to reaffirm that you will faithfully protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans to peacefully debate this and all other policy questions, irrespective of viewpoint,” the senators continued. “The weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies like the DOJ, in order to produce preferred policy outcomes, cannot continue—our democracy depends on it.” The senators’ warning comes amid a growing number of pediatric health care providers embracing “gender affirmation care,” a concept rooted in progressive gender ideology. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a national organization of pediatric health professionals, in its latest guidelines encourages providers to adopt a “gender-affirmative care model” and offer services that are “oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience.” In such a model, transgender identities and “diverse gender expressions” aren’t considered to be mental disorders but “normal aspects of human diversity.” The model also recognizes gender identity as something that “evolves as an interplay of biology, development, socialization, and culture.” Meanwhile, many health professionals who hold a different view of best standard of care for those with gender dysphoria have been pushed out of their profession, like sex researcher Dr. Kenneth Zucker. Tyler Durden Fri, 10/14/2022 - 18:20.....»»

Biden Misled Public On Afghanistan; New GOP Report Finds Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClear Politics (emphasis ours), The frantic and deadly U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan was so disorganized that 1,450 children were evacuated without their parents, and senior leaders in Vice President Kamala Harris’ and first lady Jill Biden’s offices, as well as one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked private veteran groups for assistance evacuating certain people from the country. In the waning days of the evacuation, more than 1,000 women and girls waited more than 24 hours on dozens of buses, desperately circling the Kabul airport and trying to avoid Taliban checkpoints. Many of them were told multiple times they were not allowed to enter the airport. Now, nearly a year since the Taliban took control of the country, fewer than one-third of them have managed to flee the country. These are just some of the findings in a new report by Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee one year after the Taliban swept into the Afghan capital of Kabul, almost instantly rolling back more than two decades of U.S. and NATO military support and nation-building efforts. More broadly, the report, which RealClearPolitics obtained late last week, asserts President Biden and top officials in his administration repeatedly – and perhaps intentionally – misled the American people when they said the fall of Kabul came as a surprise and there was no alternative other than depending on the Taliban for security in the Afghan capital as the U.S. military evacuated hastily.   The report asserts that the chaotic withdrawal that left more than 800 American citizens stranded in the country was completely avoidable if Biden and his national security team had listened to the warnings and advice of military leaders, U.S. diplomatic officials operating on the ground, and international allies. It adds that one of the most tragic outcomes of the evacuation – the death of 13 U.S. servicemembers and 160 Afghans in a suicide bombing at the Kabul airport – could have been prevented if the administration had accepted the Taliban’s Aug. 15 offer for the U.S. to control the capital city’s security until the end of the withdrawal. Such an arrangement would have allowed American forces to extend the airport’s security perimeter, creating more space for evacuating Afghans and a far more orderly process. It also would have prevented U.S. servicemembers from being penned in amid the frantic crush of Afghans desperately trying to board U.S. military planes, leaving them vulnerable to the suicide attack, several former officials told committee Republicans, according to the report. “There were many sins if you will – there was a complete lack of and failure to plan,” Rep. Mike McCaul, the top Republican on the panel told CBS News’ Face the Nation Sunday. “There was no plan executed.” In a new memo over the weekend, the White House started defending its decision to withdraw troops, arguing that the move strengthened U.S. national security by freeing up military and intelligence agents and assets. The memo, written by National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson and first reported by Axios, is a direct response to the House Republicans’ interim report outlining their view of the administration’s withdrawal failures. It assails the House Republicans’ report as a partisan exercise “riddled with inaccurate characterizations, cherry picked information, and false claims…. It advocates for endless war and for sending more troops to Afghanistan, and it ignores the impacts of the flawed deal that former President Trump struck with the Taliban,” the memo states. Republicans are standing by their findings, arguing that a failure to plan left the State Department with only 36 consular officers at the airport trying to process hundreds of thousands of people in a matter of days. These officials were overwhelmed, McCaul said, but the lack of resources for a withdrawal of this magnitude was just one of the many mistakes involved in failing to plan for Kabul’s fall despite multiple warnings. United States of America fled Afghanistan leaving behind innocent Afghans. These shocking visuals from Kabul today describe the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Betrayal. Escape. Lack of empathy. No clarity. Failure. Chaos. pic.twitter.com/UCDMC7CffT — Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) August 16, 2021 Several top U.S. military leaders for months had warned the president that the Afghan government would likely collapse if the U.S. left fewer than 2,500 troops stationed there, the report states. The report also cites “more realistic assessments on the ground,” including a July 13, 2021, embassy cable from 23 U.S. personnel assigned to the embassy in Kabul, which reportedly contained “a stark warning” about the potential collapse of the Afghan state. The cable, which the Wall Street Journal first reported a year ago, and was sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Director of Policy Planning Salman Ahmed, called on the State Department to respond more urgently to the Taliban’s offensive. Although Blinken acknowledged the existence of the cable, he has refused to share it or disclose his response to it with congressional committees, including the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The biggest mistake of all, McCaul argued, was Biden’s rejection of the Taliban’s offer for the U.S. to take control of Kabul’s security until the evacuation was over. “Think about what that would have changed,” McCaul said. “We had to rely on the Taliban to secure the perimeter of [the airport], that led to the chaos, and it also led to the suicide bomber who killed 13 servicemen and women and injured hundreds of people.” The Biden administration also rebuffed other offers that could have helped prevent the frantic crush of Afghans at the airport and preserve America’s reputation abroad, the report states. U.S. leaders ignored a proposal from Guam for the U.S. territory to serve as an interim processing center to help evacuate interpreters and other at-risk allies. It similarly declined an offer from Pakistan to have a facility there serve as a transit center for evacuees, despite other facilities in Qatar and Germany reaching capacity. The report, which will serve as a roadmap for several lines of inquiry if Republicans win back the majority in either chamber this fall, is based on open-source information, along with interviews with U.S. officials and civilians involved in evacuating U.S. citizens and Afghan allies. Several whistleblowers who requested anonymity also played a key role, along with sworn statements by U.S. military personnel who were part of the investigation into the August 26, 2021, suicide bombing at the Kabul airport. The State Department did not comply with requests for documents and transcribed interviews with 34 administration officials involved in the Afghanistan evacuation effort. The report also criticizes the full House Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Democratic Rep. Greg Meeks of New York, for holding just one full committee hearing with senior Biden administration officials on the Afghanistan withdrawal even though it’s widely recognized as one of the worst U.S. foreign policy failures in decades. While the report says more State Department resources would have helped ease panic and confusion, it faults the agency for basic communication miscues that further exacerbated the chaos. By ignoring early warnings that they were not moving quickly enough to evacuate Americans and at-risk Afghans who had worked directly with the U.S. government, they left American citizens, green-card holders, and Afghan allies approved for departure stranded outside airport gates with no assistance. “Attempts by members of Congress and their staff to help their constituents or other would-be evacuees were often stymied by out-of-office replies to email requests and broken links to web pages mean to submit information,” according to the report. It also criticizes U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ross Wilson for going on a two-week vacation as Afghanistan was falling apart. Wilson took his summer break immediately after accompanying then-Afghanistan President Ghani to a late June meeting with Biden who promised the Afghan envoy, “We’re going to stick with you, and we’re going to do our best to see to it that you have the tools you need.” “There were no decisions made in the embassy until [Ross] returned in mid-July. This made action impossible,” a U.S. military officer told Army investigators. “Ground could have been gained at this time if the embassy had been able to do anything.” A couple of weeks later, it was Biden and Blinken who were on vacation at Camp David and the Hamptons, respectively, when alarms began sounding at the Pentagon for the need to relocate all of U.S. embassy personnel to the Kabul airport. Before the move, the personnel were being ordered to destroy sensitive documents in response to new fears of an immediate Taliban takeover of Kabul. All these hasty actions left no time for the State Department to speed up the processing of immigration applications for the Afghan allies Biden had promised to protect. There were no plans made to evacuate tens of thousands of U.S.-trained Afghan commandoes and other elite units who possess sensitive knowledge about American military operations. Also left behind: women leaders and soldiers whom Americans had promised sanctuary, along with more than 10,000 Afghans who had been employed by Embassy Kabul since it was re-established in 2001 and thousands more who worked with U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly one year after the last U.S. troops left Afghanistan, the Biden administration still lacks a plan to help these at-risk Afghan allies who fought and worked alongside U.S. forces, even though the administration has admitted that the Taliban and other terrorist groups have subjected these U.S. allies to killings and forced disappearances. And, despite Biden’s assurances that the U.S. had accomplished its original goal of expelling al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from the country, the report points to the recent U.S. strike against Ayman al Zawahiri, a top al Qaeda leader, who was living freely in downtown Kabul, as proof of the group’s presence in Afghanistan. “Thankfully, al Zawahiri was killed by a U.S. drone strike last month, but officials warn that al Qaeda and ISIS-K continue to grow their presence in Afghanistan,” the report states. Meanwhile, the withdrawal has wreaked havoc on the country’s economy, with some estimates that 95% of the country needs emergency assistance to avoid hunger. With the Taliban back in control, there are reports of targeted revenge killings against those who worked with the U.S. government or military. U.S.-based volunteer groups seeking to aid Afghan evacuees have reported nearly 500 reprisal attacks, including beheadings, hangings, severed limbs, lash marks, and car shootings. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported in July 2022 that these killings are often carried out “execution style – for example, when an individual is taken out of their house and shot almost immediately,” the report notes. One of the worst casualties of the U.S. withdrawal from the country is the dramatic regression of women and girls, who are now ordered to wear burqas and are prevented from attending school or universities or even from walking unaccompanied in public places. Child marriage is also reportedly on the rise with girls as young as nine years old being sold into marriage to pay off debts, or families being forced to marry off their young daughters to Taliban fighters, the report states, quoting PBS documentary filmmaker Ramita Navai’s comments earlier this month after two visits to Afghanistan. The report also cites a finding by Amnesty International that “many women protesters” in Afghanistan who demonstrated against the Taliban’s repressive policies “have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, enforced disappearance and torture,” including Taliban-administered beatings and electric shocks with tasers. Although Blinken acknowledged reprisal attacks and killings earlier this year, the report points out that the secretary played down the Taliban leadership’s responsibility for the deaths. “We are of course seeing retribution, attacks by Taliban against those who are part of the former government,” he told a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 28. “These seem to be, for the most part, not centrally directed, that is they – they tend to be happening at a local level, but they're happening.” Many of these allies are still sheltering in safe houses, afraid that the Taliban informants will expose their previous work with the U.S. government or NATO allies. Each passing week, they have fewer resources to purchase basic items such as food, fuel, and shelter. With the State Department unable to aid these people, the task of clothing, feeding, and sheltering tens of thousands of Afghans has fallen to outside veteran or humanitarian groups or sympathetic individuals. With almost no support from the U.S. government, some of the personnel running these groups, many of them comprising military veterans, have drained their personal retirement accounts, quit jobs, and suspended their small businesses in order to raise the funds to operate these networks of safe houses. “But these funds are not limitless, and the resource strains incurred have endangered the continued existence of these safe houses which many Afghans and Americans rely on for their very survival,” the report concludes. Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' White House/national political correspondent. Tyler Durden Sat, 08/20/2022 - 22:30.....»»

The FBI Is Now The Federal Bureau Of Intimidation Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics.com, Nothing symbolizes the decline of the American republic better than the weaponization of justice that we saw last week when the FBI raided the home of former President Trump. And nothing better represents the divide that now exists between Democrats and Republicans than the fact that some people still have faith in the FBI. Aren’t they paying attention? Heck, that's like a citizen of the old Soviet Union saying they had faith in the KGB – yeah, to crush dissent and lock up opponents of the regime in a Siberian gulag. The evidence is overwhelming. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is now the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. Or more appropriately, the Federal Intimidation Bureau, whose acronym would spell out FIB, as in the Big Lie. Face it, nothing the FBI has said for the last six years since they joined with the Democratic Party to invent the Russia collusion hoax can be taken seriously. Is there any need to go through the whole laundry list of lies and fabrications that the FBI, with the aid and comfort of the Justice Department, has foisted on the American public? You can start with the extraordinary 2016 press conference when FBI Director James Comey detailed crimes committed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to her improper use of a private email account to store classified material. Moments after saying she had broken the law, Comey announced with a straight face that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever bring a case against her. Yeah, because she was a Democrat! A couple months later, Comey set up President Trump’s National Security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, by sending agents to interview him about his supposed contacts with Russians. “What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" wrote Bill Priestap in a memo before the interview. Priestap was counterintelligence director at the FBI, and it became evident later that the agency’s goal was indeed to get him fired – and more importantly to get Trump impeached, fired, humiliated, you name it. Comey himself admitted that the FBI targeted Flynn and chose not to approach him through the White House legal counsel, but informally with a direct phone call to arrange an interview. As Comey later told a reporter, it was “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.” What about the FBI’s abuse of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos? The agency made up evidence in support of subpoenas, FISA warrants, whatever it took to get the desired result. What about the FBI and Department of Justice targeting parents at school boards as “domestic terrorists” because they demanded that their elected representatives actually represent them? What about the unilateral rescission of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege wherever it would have protected President Trump and his advisers? The purpose of all of this activity, along with the raid at Mar-a-Lago, was to intimidate not just Trump, but also his supporters. Anyone other than Donald Trump would have given up long ago. Who could possibly withstand the power of the state marshaled against you for six long years – through multiple FBI investigations, through two impeachments, through relentless persecution of your children and your friends and family? Finally, what about the double standard that allows Democrats and their government allies to go unpunished for a multitude of sins? Notwithstanding Attorney General Merrick Garland’s feigned indignation on behalf of the bureau, what about the FBI agents who lied repeatedly during the Trump-Russia investigation, sometimes under oath. Even more stunning has been the FBI’s monumental failure to investigate presidential son Hunter Biden, even though it received his laptop with extensive incriminating evidence of criminal activity in 2019. Even when the laptop was made public during the 2020 presidential election, the FBI stood silent and thus gave tacit approval to the cynical Democratic Party talking point that the laptop was somehow a GOP dirty trick. It would be interesting to know if the FBI had anything to do with the letter signed by 51 national security experts, falsely claiming that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”! Maybe, like Comey before him, FBI Director Chris Wray thought he could “get away with it.” That is certainly the only explanation for the raid on the president’s personal residence. It was not appropriate. It was not reasonable. It had no precedent. The FBI claims that the pre-dawn raid by more than 30 armed agents was for the purpose of collecting presidential papers that the National Archive wanted. The Washington Post says that Trump reportedly had documents with nuclear secrets on them, and the legacy media went ballistic with the story. But wait a minute, isn’t that the same Washington Post that won a Pulitzer Prize for collaborating with the FBI to invent the Russia collusion hoax? Don’t believe a word from either the Washington Post or the FBI. Trump had been cooperating with the National Archive and had already turned over 15 boxes of documents, all of which he could have made a claim to legally possess. If they wanted papers turned over, they could have gone through Trump’s lawyers. No, they wanted the spectacle. They wanted the sizzle. They wanted the headlines. This wasn’t about the rule of law; it was about the rule of the schoolyard. Bullies get what they want through force and intimidation, and there is no reason for any of us to believe that the raid had any purpose other than to intimidate Donald Trump into backing down from his plans to run for president in 2024. Essentially what the FBI was saying is “We know where you live, and we aren’t afraid to come for you.” They even rifled through Melania Trump’s closet, as if she might have been hiding top-secret documents in her hat box. When do we find out they also spent an hour sorting through her lingerie? This is sickening, no matter how much MSNBC and the Washington Post want you to think you can still trust the FBI. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over again, and I must be a Democrat. *  *  * Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His new book, “What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends,” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Gettr @HeartlandDiary. Tyler Durden Mon, 08/15/2022 - 18:55.....»»

Biden's 'Ministry Of Truth' Tsar: Parents Concerned About Critical Race Theory Are "Disinformers" Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Biden administration’s new disinformation chief says that parents who are upset about critical race theory (CRT) making its way into public school classrooms are “disinformers” who “weaponize” the issue “for profit.” [ZH: let's not forget the US Attorney General's son makes millions selling CRT materials] Nina Jankowicz, who was appointed to lead the newly established Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed the pushback against CRT indoctrination at an event in Ohio last October, when the debate over parents’ right to direct their children’s education had taken center stage in high-profile elections, including Virginia’s gubernatorial race. “Critical race theory has become one of those hot-button issues that the Republicans and other disinformers, who are engaged in disinformation for profit, frankly, … have seized on,” she said in a video that has recently regained attention. Jankowicz added that she lived in Virginia, where parents in Loudoun County fiercely resisted attempts to inject leftist political activism into local school curricula and policies. She called Loudoun “one of the areas where people have really homed in on this topic.” “But it’s no different than any of the other hot-button issues that have allowed disinformation to flourish,” she said. “It’s weaponizing people’s emotion.” Jankowicz then told her audience to be alert when they read news articles that make them feel emotional, adding that she supports government-funded, left-leaning institutions such as NPR and PBS, because these media outlets “get into the nuance of the issues” and “provide a balanced, nonpartisan source of information.” Jankowicz’s speech at the City Club of Cleveland took place on Oct. 29, 2021, weeks after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland released a memo bringing together a coalition of federal and local law enforcement to address alleged “threats of violence” against teachers and school board members from unruly parents. Garland has conceded that his memo was based in part on a September 2021 letter to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association. The now-notorious letter characterized disruptions at school board meetings as “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crime,” and urged the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and the FBI to invoke counterterrorism laws to quell “angry mobs” of parents, who sought to hold school officials accountable for promoting CRT and for imposing COVID-19 restrictions such as mask mandates on their children. Jankowicz’s comments resurfaced as her new post, tasked with addressing “disinformation that imperils the safety and security of our homeland,” has generated much scrutiny. Many have since compared the disinformation board to George Orwell’s fictional “Ministry of Truth,” the main purpose of which was to rewrite history to manipulate and control the population. “The Biden administration wants a government agency dedicated to cracking down on what its subjects can say, an idea popular with Orwellian governments everywhere,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a May 3 statement. “This board is unconstitutional and un-American.” Cotton has introduced a proposal that would bar any federal funds from going to the board. He was joined by 18 Republican senators as co-sponsors. Tyler Durden Mon, 05/09/2022 - 18:30.....»»

Insider interviews with the No. 2 Republican in the House and others show their plan for retaking Congress will include pitting Democrats, teachers unions, and the Justice Department against parents who want to be involved in their children's education. House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (2nd L) speaks alongside (L-R) House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik, Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida at a news conference at the Capitol July 20, 2021.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images Insider interviews with Republicans show they're sharpening attacks on education culture wars. Their messaging pits Democrats, teachers unions, and the Justice Department against parents. They see "parental involvement" in schools as a winning issue for Republicans in 2022. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise looks at the angst from parents at school board meetings across the country and sees electoral opportunities in 2022 for Republicans.Education hasn't been a top priority issue for voters on election days in the past, but Scalise said "it's completely different now.""The center of the universe has changed, where parents recognize that who you elect from the school board level to the governor to the president, can determine whether you have the ability to have a direct say in your kids' education," said Scalise, the No. 2 Republican in the House.Parents have a right to be involved in their children's education, he said."It seems like a lot of liberals and teachers unions are trying to push parents out of the school board meetings, and frankly, out of the classroom," Scalise added.Insider interviews with the Lousianna lawmaker and 15 other Republicans on Capitol Hill suggest they're sharpening lines of attack on education culture wars, pitting Democrats, teachers unions, and even the Department of Justice against parents who want to be involved in their children's education. They see parental involvement as an issue that can help them win majorities in 2022 as skirmishes over face mask mandates, controversial books, and the teaching of race and gender play out across the country. Republicans positioning themselves as the "party of parents" are calling for a ''Parents Bill of Rights Act'' after education emerged as a priority for Virginia voters in the gubernatorial election of Republican Glenn Youngkin in November over their former Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe. They point to McAuliffe's September debate statement, that parents shouldn't be "telling schools what they should teach," as evidence that Democrats are out of touch with parents' concerns. That statement helped Youngkin win because it's not what most Americans believe, Rep. James Comer, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, told Insider. Meanwhile, he added, teachers unions and liberals have alienated parents with school shutdowns, controversial teaching on race, political correctness, and "wokeness.""I think that Republicans have a great issue with education," Comer said. "We want parents to have a strong say in their children's education and we're going to campaign on that all through 2022, and in 2023, that's how we're going to govern."The message is consistent among Republican senators, as well. Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said "liberals across the country have forgotten that parents are in charge of their kids and not administrators, and it has become the focal point in our country — one of the most important ones."Anti-vaccine protesters stage a protest outside of the San Diego Unified School District office to protest a vaccination mandate for students on September 28, 2021 in San Diego, California.Photo by Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images'An intrusion by government'Controversies over these issues have led to threats against school board members across the country, prompting a response from Attorney General Merrick Garland that has also become part of Republican messaging. They are portraying his October memo, calling on the FBI to address illegal threats against school leaders, as an attack on parents."It was an intrusion by government that shouldn't occur," said Rep. Joe Wilson, a House Education and Labor Committee member from South Carolina.Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the memo struck him as "a huge overreach of his authority."The memo came after the National School Boards Association, in a letter they'd later apologize for, asked the feds to step in against threats to education leaders. The group — not DOJ — compared the threats to "a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."Though NSBA wrote the letter, Scalise blamed the Biden administration for allowing teachers unions to try to push DOJ to "go after parents as domestic terrorists" for speaking out at school board meetings. He said the memo raised alarms and got the attention of parents across the political spectrum. The Parents Bill of Rights, among other things, calls on school districts to publicly post curriculum and schools to give parents a list of books in the school library. Republican Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, a senior member of the House Education and Labor Committee said much of the legislation is "defensive," because of the Biden administration "weaponizing the FBI against parents.""Is that something that will be a political mover in elections? Yeah, I believe so," he said. "I think members of Congress should be doing their best to protect the rights of parents."Democrats say Republicans are promoting ideological issues while ignoring major concerns in education. House Education and Labor Chairman Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, said he's focused on proper funding for schools, achievement gaps, early childhood education, job readiness, career and technical education, and making college more affordable."Making up slogans and diverting attention from what issues are — people can do that if they want," he said.Republicans are also ignoring policy fixes that could help families, said Sen. Tim Kaine, another Virginia Democrat. "You would think if they cared about parents, they would want to get the child tax credit extended… They all voted against it in March."But Republicans say they're hearing from parents who learned more about what their children were being taught during the pandemic and now they're angry, either about teaching on race or gender or sex education."Sometimes parents feel a little marginalized," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican. The issues will be "significant" in 2022, though they may vary depending on location. "I think it's a significant suburban issue," he added.Education issues are registering with independent women and pushing them to the Republican Party, said Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican."What I call it is, don't cross Mama bears," Marshall told Insider. "You cross a mother bear and tell her that the federal government knows more about whether their kids should be vaccinated or not, or a mask or not, or what that education should look like — a lot of those people are really, really upset."Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, said, "I think sometimes it's suggested that we have bad values and they don't appreciate that."Republicans say some parents are reacting to race-related teaching that they think goes too far. In North Dakota, there is "big concern" about critical race theory, said Republican Sen. John Hoeven, who represents the state. The study of racial bias in US laws and institutions is most often taught in college and educators say it isn't taught in K-12 schools, but Republicans disagree. Asked whether it's being taught in North Dakota, Hoeven said, "well, parents want to make sure that it's not."Parents' primary concern is making sure kids are in the classroom learning, but beyond that, they're angry that "outward hatred of America" is being taught, either through "critical race theory" or other "far-left messages that alarmed people," Scalise said. "We're going to continue to fight," he said. "We've always been the party for more parental involvement, for school choice, for more opportunities for kids and parents. And I think there's never been more interest from parents across the political spectrum in that kind of Republican agenda."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Biden allies tell Insider they're growing frustrated with Attorney General Merrick Garland's judge-like approach to running the Justice Department. Attorney General Merrick Garland has faced criticism for not adapting his judge-like style to the political demands of his Justice Department role.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Merrick Garland has frustrated Democrats with his judge-like approach to running the DOJ. Recent House and Senate oversight hearings reveal Garland's political blind spot. Garland has tangled with the White House and been slow delivering Democrats' desired policy moves. Just a day after a violent mob stormed the US Capitol, Joe Biden stepped to the podium as president-elect and presented Merrick Garland as his pick to steady the Justice Department and steer it away from the politicization and chronic turmoil of the Trump era.Democrats have been living with that choice ever since — and they're not always loving the results.In the eight months since his confirmation as attorney general, Garland has proven himself as anything but a politically-attuned firebrand. His measured, mild-mannered approach has stuck with him from his quasi-monastic past life as a federal judge, and frustration among some Biden's allies has only grown as they experience Garland's methodical ways of running a DOJ that must reckon with the Trump years and an invigorated onslaught of partisan political attacks."He's been out of the hurly-burly for 25 years," a former top Obama administration official told Insider. "It's hard to get back into the arena. I think that's part of the problem here." Garland's political limitations were well noticed during a recent round of congressional oversight hearings. Both House and Senate Republicans put Garland on the defensive as they grilled him about a Justice Department initiative to address threats of violence and harassment against teachers, school administrators, and local school board members. His GOP critics claimed Biden's administration was seeking to silence parents concerned about school policies. Garland responded by repeatedly stressing how the DOJ was focused on keeping the public safe and not crimping speech protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. In those tense exchanges, some Democrats and former Justice Department officials told Insider they thought Garland missed an opportunity to more forcefully respond to Republicans and even challenge them on their strategy of turning local education into the latest front in the culture wars."He didn't do great, but a huge factor is that he's never been the type of individual that plays the political show that Republicans play," a Democratic Senate aide told Insider. "We learned a lot from that oversight hearing." Others agreed that Garland went on the defensive in spite of having the politics on his side. Garland "could have walked into the hearing and said, 'You're damn right I'm worried about the safety of school board members, the same way I'm worried about the safety of election workers, the same way I'm worried about your safety since your building was attacked on January 6th,'" said Matt Miller, who served in the Obama administration as the top spokesperson for former Attorney General Eric Holder."I don't think it's his natural style," Miller added, "to be a pugilistic fighter."Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, presided over an oversight hearing that exposed Garland's political limitations.Tom Brenner-Pool/Getty Images'Running it like it's a chambers'Garland's style as attorney general has only fed the perception that he still embodies the role of a federal judge who has a natural inclination to show impartiality in the face of partisan attacks. "I think he's still feeling his way in the executive branch," said Barb McQuade, a former Obama-era federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst.Not content with a high-level briefing, Garland is known to read case law himself and even inquire about the judges handling various matters. His interest in that level of detail is uncommon for attorneys general, according to people familiar with his approach."He seems incapable of making decisions," the former top Obama administration official said, adding: "He's running it like it's a chambers, where he's going to have to write an opinion or something."On his staff, Garland has surrounded himself with Capitol Hill veterans and aides recruited from the vast and loyal network of law clerks who worked for him over 23 years on the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals. The presence of past clerks has played into the impression that he's still operating like a judge. "He's been a judge, where people are super-nice to you all the time," the former Obama administration official said. "No one really questions you. Somebody might write a dissent, but it's an academic dissent."Garland's methodical approach has grated on Capitol Hill Democrats who bemoan delays that hurt their desired policy goals. For example, Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, criticized Garland's Justice Department last month for not yet rescinding a Trump era memo arguing that federal prisoners released in light of the pandemic should be returned to custody.Durbin and Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, sent Garland's Justice Department a letter urging it to rescind the memo. Six months later, they had not received a response, Durbin said. On Tuesday, Durbin called for Garland to remove the head of the federal prison system, Michael Carvajal, with a "reform-minded director who is not a product of that bureau's bureaucracy."Garland spokesperson Anthony Coley declined to address the criticism but noted that the attorney general's travel and public speaking schedule has picked up in recent weeks, notably with a trip to Mexico and a visit to the family of a slain DEA agent. Earlier in his tenure, travel and public appearances were limited by pandemic precautions and Garland's general belief that the Justice Department should speak within the four corners of a court filing.Coley said Garland has visited several US attorneys' offices and is set to stop at the outposts in Manhattan and Brooklyn on Friday. The attorney general has also paid out of pocket for ice cream socials — a more recent event featured apple cider and donuts — for Justice Department staff, Coley said."He wants to get off of the 5th floor as much as possible to meet the folks who in many cases are doing the work, on the front lines," Coley said. "He's intentional about that."President Joe Biden framed his attorney general pick as designed to restore DOJ's integrity.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFollowing Trump and Bill BarrGarland's Democratic critics acknowledge that his style is what Biden signed up for. He brought to the DOJ a reputation as an independent and fair-minded judge who sat for nearly a quarter-century on the prestigious DC-based federal appeals court. Biden himself framed Garland's nomination as the embodiment of his stated goal of restoring the Justice Department's reputation and independence after seeing Trump look to the nation's highest law enforcement agency as if it were his personal law firm.That transition from the Trump years has led to occasionally tense relations between the Garland-led Justice Department and White House. When Biden said he hoped the DOJ would prosecute those who defy subpoenas from the special House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Garland's spokesperson shot back that the department would "make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law." —Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 15, 2021Tensions have only persisted as legal experts wonder why Trump himself hasn't been charged with any federal crimes when local prosecutors in New York and Georgia keep the heat up on the former president. "Where oh where is Merrick Garland?" Laurence Tribe, a legal scholar who taught the attorney general at Harvard Law School, mused recently on Twitter. The Justice Department brought the first such prosecution on Friday with the indictment of Steve Bannon, a close Trump ally who refused to testify or turn over documents as part of the House investigation. Announcing Bannon's indictment on contempt of Congress charges, Garland said the prosecution reflects the DOJ's "steadfast commitment" to following the facts and the law.Garland made a similar defense as the DOJ continued to back Trump against a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll and later when it challenged a court decision requiring the disclosure of a memo former Attorney General William Barr cited in deciding not to charge Trump with obstructing the Russia investigation. Both decisions drew criticism from Democrats eager for the new Justice Department to hold Trump accountable.The consternation conflicts with Garland's first priority of restoring the Justice Department's reputation as an apolitical body, said Miller, the former Holder spokesman."That had to be goal No. 1 above anything else, and I think he's accomplished that," Miller said. "Where he's still learning," he added, "is in how to be the public face of the department and defend its work and defend its priorities, especially when attacked by people who have no interest in having a reasonable conversation with you. If we're having the same conversation a year from now, it will be a problem."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Biden allies tell Insider they're growing frustrated with Attorney General Merrick Garland's judge-like approach to running the Justice Department. Attorney General Merrick Garland has faced criticism for not adapting his judge-like style to the political demands of his Justice Department role.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Merrick Garland has frustrated Democrats with his judge-like approach to running the DOJ. Recent House and Senate oversight hearings reveal Garland's political blind spot. Garland has tangled with the White House and been slow delivering Democrats' desired policy moves. Just a day after a violent mob stormed the US Capitol, Joe Biden stepped to the podium as president-elect and presented Merrick Garland as his pick to steady the Justice Department and steer it away from the politicization and chronic turmoil of the Trump era.Democrats have been living with that choice ever since — and they're not always loving the results.In the eight months since his confirmation as attorney general, Garland has proven himself as anything but a politically-attuned firebrand. His measured, mild-mannered approach has stuck with him from his quasi-monastic past life as a federal judge, and frustration among some Biden's allies has only grown as they experience Garland's methodical ways of running a DOJ that must reckon with the Trump years and an invigorated onslaught of partisan political attacks."He's been out of the hurly-burly for 25 years," a former top Obama administration official told Insider. "It's hard to get back into the arena. I think that's part of the problem here." Garland's political limitations were well noticed during a recent round of congressional oversight hearings. Both House and Senate Republicans put Garland on the defensive as they grilled him about a Justice Department initiative to address threats of violence and harassment against teachers, school administrators, and local school board members. His GOP critics claimed Biden's administration was seeking to silence parents concerned about school policies. Garland responded by repeatedly stressing how the DOJ was focused on keeping the public safe and not crimping speech protected by the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. In those tense exchanges, some Democrats and former Justice Department officials told Insider they thought Garland missed an opportunity to more forcefully respond to Republicans and even challenge them on their strategy of turning local education into the latest front in the culture wars."He didn't do great, but a huge factor is that he's never been the type of individual that plays the political show that Republicans play," a Democratic Senate aide told Insider. "We learned a lot from that oversight hearing." Others agreed that Garland went on the defensive in spite of having the politics on his side. Garland "could have walked into the hearing and said, 'You're damn right I'm worried about the safety of school board members, the same way I'm worried about the safety of election workers, the same way I'm worried about your safety since your building was attacked on January 6th,'" said Matt Miller, who served in the Obama administration as the top spokesperson for former Attorney General Eric Holder."I don't think it's his natural style," Miller added, "to be a pugilistic fighter."Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, presided over an oversight hearing that exposed Garland's political limitations.Tom Brenner-Pool/Getty Images'Running it like it's a chambers'Garland's style as attorney general has only fed the perception that he still embodies the role of a federal judge who has a natural inclination to show impartiality in the face of partisan attacks. "I think he's still feeling his way in the executive branch," said Barb McQuade, a former Obama-era federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst.Not content with a high-level briefing, Garland is known to read case law himself and even inquire about the judges handling various matters. His interest in that level of detail is uncommon for attorneys general, according to people familiar with his approach."He seems incapable of making decisions," the former top Obama administration official said, adding: "He's running it like it's a chambers, where he's going to have to write an opinion or something."On his staff, Garland has surrounded himself with Capitol Hill veterans and aides recruited from the vast and loyal network of law clerks who worked for him over 23 years on the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals. The presence of past clerks has played into the impression that he's still operating like a judge. "He's been a judge, where people are super-nice to you all the time," the former Obama administration official said. "No one really questions you. Somebody might write a dissent, but it's an academic dissent."Garland's methodical approach has grated on Capitol Hill Democrats who bemoan delays that hurt their desired policy goals. For example, Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, criticized Garland's Justice Department last month for not yet rescinding a Trump era memo arguing that federal prisoners released in light of the pandemic should be returned to custody.Durbin and Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, sent Garland's Justice Department a letter urging it to rescind the memo. Six months later, they had not received a response, Durbin said. On Tuesday, Durbin called on Garland to replace the Trump-appointed head of the Bureau of Prisons, Michael Carvajal.Garland spokesperson Anthony Coley declined to address the criticism but noted that the attorney general's travel and public speaking schedule has picked up in recent weeks, notably with a trip to Mexico and a visit to the family of a slain DEA agent. Earlier in his tenure, travel and public appearances were limited by pandemic precautions and Garland's general belief that the Justice Department should speak within the four corners of a court filing.Coley said Garland has visited several US attorneys' offices and is set to stop at the outposts in Manhattan and Brooklyn on Friday. The attorney general has also paid out of pocket for ice cream socials — a more recent event featured apple cider and donuts — for Justice Department staff, Coley said."He wants to get off of the 5th floor as much as possible to meet the folks who in many cases are doing the work, on the front lines," Coley said. "He's intentional about that."President Joe Biden framed his attorney general pick as designed to restore DOJ's integrity.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFollowing Trump and Bill BarrGarland's Democratic critics acknowledge that his style is what Biden signed up for. He brought to the DOJ a reputation as an independent and fair-minded judge who sat for nearly a quarter-century on the prestigious DC-based federal appeals court. Biden himself framed Garland's nomination as the embodiment of his stated goal of restoring the Justice Department's reputation and independence after seeing Trump look to the nation's highest law enforcement agency as if it were his personal law firm.That transition from the Trump years has led to occasionally tense relations between the Garland-led Justice Department and White House. When Biden said he hoped the DOJ would prosecute those who defy subpoenas from the special House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Garland's spokesperson shot back that the department would "make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law." —Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 15, 2021Tensions have only persisted as legal experts wonder why Trump himself hasn't been charged with any federal crimes when local prosecutors in New York and Georgia keep the heat up on the former president. "Where oh where is Merrick Garland?" Laurence Tribe, a legal scholar who taught the attorney general at Harvard Law School, mused recently on Twitter. The Justice Department brought the first such prosecution on Friday with the indictment of Steve Bannon, a close Trump ally who refused to testify or turn over documents as part of the House investigation. Announcing Bannon's indictment on contempt of Congress charges, Garland said the prosecution reflects the DOJ's "steadfast commitment" to following the facts and the law.Garland made a similar defense as the DOJ continued to back Trump against a defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll and later when it challenged a court decision requiring the disclosure of a memo former Attorney General William Barr cited in deciding not to charge Trump with obstructing the Russia investigation. Both decisions drew criticism from Democrats eager for the new Justice Department to hold Trump accountable.The consternation conflicts with Garland's first priority of restoring the Justice Department's reputation as an apolitical body, said Miller, the former Holder spokesman."That had to be goal No. 1 above anything else, and I think he's accomplished that," Miller said. "Where he's still learning," he added, "is in how to be the public face of the department and defend its work and defend its priorities, especially when attacked by people who have no interest in having a reasonable conversation with you. If we're having the same conversation a year from now, it will be a problem."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Parents Demand California School Board President Step Down After 'F**k You' Hot Mic Incident Authored by Vanessa Serna via The Epoch Times, After a California school board president was caught swearing on camera towards a parent providing public comment at an Oct. 26 board meeting, parents are calling for her resignation. Marlys Davidson, president of the Los Alamitos Unified School District (LAUSD), was heard cursing at parent Lauren Roupoli after speaking out, during public comment, against the K-12 vaccine and mask mandate. Roupoli ended her speech telling the board “we are vocal because we are our children’s biggest advocates.” Following her comment, Davidson was caught saying “fuck you” while the crowd applauded Roupoli’s speech. Following the incident, Davidson issued an apology regarding her comments during Tuesday night’s meeting. “I reaffirm my commitment to serve our community with dignity and integrity, and I hope they will accept my sincere apology,” Davidson said in a statement to KTLA. While Davidson was not heard by the audience inside the board meeting, those watching online heard the president utter the cuss words towards Roupoli. “I didn’t hear it when I was up there because she was wearing a mask,” Roupoli told The Epoch Times. “There was a round of applause and you could hear it on the board meeting live online because she had the round of applause muted.” Upon realizing the incident, Roupoli was speechless and in disbelief of the comment that occurred at one of her first public comment appearances. “It just shows the amount of respect she does have for these parents, and it’s sad that it took the hot mike to expose that,” Roupoli said. “Some were saddened to just see the true colors of how they really feel about the parents because if it was the other way around, I would have been labeled a domestic terrorist, and probably escorted out.” Davidson was not immediately available for comment. Tyler Durden Thu, 10/28/2021 - 23:00.....»»

An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologizes For Letter That Triggered Controversial Federal Operation Authored by Jonathan Turley, We recently discussed the controversy following the letter of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asking the Justice Department to investigate parents causing disruptions or making threats at school board meetings. The letter included a reference to using the Patriot Act against possible domestic terrorism. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded a few days later with an order to the entire Department of Justice to monitor school board meetings around the country and coordinate a response with local officials. Now the NSBA has issued an apology.  The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo. It has the feel of an educational version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Should we reconsider our deployment in light of the false premise that triggered the escalation of hostilities? Engagement in the Gulf of Tonkin The NSBA stated “On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter . . . there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.” Notably, recent coverage indicates that the NSBA coordinated the letter with the White House before it was issued.  A significant number of people at the organization (and likely some in the Administration) saw early drafts of this letter. Not one appears to have objected to the reckless and extreme language directed toward parents, citing a handful of cases. For his part, Garland stated that none of these past disruptions would constitute domestic terrorism. However, as I discussed earlier, he further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings. However, those answers only begged the question of why the Justice Department has pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings. If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats or their interstate or federal profile. This question was picked up in a letter to Garland from half of the eight members of the Commission on Civil Rights. They requested “specific examples” of “harassment, intimidation and threats of violence” which Garland claimed as evidence for the need for federal intervention in parent protests at schools. Now even the NSBA agrees that its letter was over-the-top and extreme. Tyler Durden Sun, 10/24/2021 - 13:30.....»»

AG Garland Gaffes: Missed Leftist 'Insurrection', Admits Unions Steer Policy, Shrugs Off CRT Conflicts Attorney General Merrick Garland had a bad time on Thursday during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. For starters, while the Biden administration, Congressional Democrats and their media support complex have branded January 6th rioters as domestic terrorists - Garland had no clue about leftist Demonstrators who forced their way into the Department of the Interior just one week ago - to protest Biden's approval of fossil fuel energy projects. "They forced their way into the Department of the Interior. They fought with security and police officers, sending some of those officers to the hospital. The extremists violently pushed their way into a restricted government building in an attempt to thwart the work of the department," Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) told Garland. "Police arrested at least 55 protestors on sight, but others got away. Mr. Garland, do you believe these environmental extremists who forced their way into Interior are also domestic terrorists?" Garland appeared to have no clue what Steube was talking about. "This is the first you’ve heard about demonstrators who forced their way into a federal government building right here in D.C.?” Steube asked. “You didn’t hear about this at all?" asked Steube. To which Garland shot back: "Just because I don’t know about this particular example, it doesn’t mean the Justice Department doesn’t know about it." .@RepGregSteube: "Would you call both of these acts domestic terrorism?" GARLAND: "I'm not going to comment about particular matters." STEUBE: "You're refusing to call [Left-wing] groups...who commit the same atrocities...domestic terrorists." pic.twitter.com/M2TZNmlroz — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 21, 2021 Not an insurrection? During the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked if any defendants in the Jan. 6 riot had been charged with 'insurrection' - the Democrats' favorite phrase to describe the event. Rep. @LouieGohmertTX1: "Has any defendant involved in the January 6th events been charged with insurrection?" AG GARLAND: "I don't believe so." GOHMERT: "Well that is the word most used by Democrats here on Capitol Hill." pic.twitter.com/pWIWtJKg7U — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 21, 2021 Demonizing parents based on a letter? Next, Garland admitted that his memo directing the FBI to investigate parents who pose "threats" to school boards was based in part on a letter from the National School Boards Association - as opposed to any actual evidence. "When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick?" Rep. Jim Jordan asked Garland. "I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time—" replied Garland, before Jordan cut in. "So you read the letter? That’s your source?” Jordan asked incredulously. “Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said there’s been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?" To which Garland only dug himself in deeper - adding 'newspaper reports' to his body of evidence used to demonize angry parents. "Well, the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kinds of threats. When we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence—" he said, before Jordan interjected (via The Federalist). "The source for this … was the National School Boards Association letter..." Biden AG Merrick Garland concedes that he started targeting parents for "possible domestic terrorism" because the NSBA sent a letter. pic.twitter.com/ZDvhZ6vDzO — The First (@TheFirstonTV) October 21, 2021 As The Federalist notes: The NSBA sent a letter to the Biden administration last month begging federal law enforcement to use domestic terrorism laws to target parents who oppose anti-science mask mandates for children and the infiltration of racist curriculum in schools. The school board organization claimed federal action was warranted to “deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.” Most of the incident examples the NSBA used to justify intervention by the Biden administration did not escalate to a level that even yielded arrests or charges on the local level, yet Garland quickly directed the FBI and state attorneys to address “a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools.” Conflicts of interest? Speaking of going after parents opposed to Critical Race Theory - Garland denied that his memo directing the FBI to investigate 'threats' poses a conflict of interest, given that his son-in-law co-founded a company that sells CRT materials to schools. The company, Panorama Education, provides "Social-Emotional Learning" which includes race-focused surveys, materials on systemic oppression, white supremacy, intersectionality and unconscious bias. When Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) asked Garland if he had run the relationship through an ethics counsel, Garland repeatedly said "There are no conflicts of interest." "You don’t get to make that decision…Your impartiality is being called into question. Why would you not submit to an ethics review?" Johnson shot back. Watch: Attorney General Merrick Garland's son-in-law is the co-founder of a company that promotes critical race theory. Garland directed DOJ to investigate parents protesting CRT at school board meetings. Conflict of interest? Garland refuses to answer! pic.twitter.com/VbbOL0twcR — House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) October 21, 2021   Tyler Durden Fri, 10/22/2021 - 14:20.....»»

AG Garland "Weaponizes" DoJ Against Dissenting Parents After School Board Association Pleas One day after a North Carolina school board adopted a policy that would discipline or dismiss teachers if they incorporate critical race theory (CRT) into their teaching of the history of the United States, The Epoch Times' Ivan Pentchoukov reports that Attorney General Merrick Garland on Oct. 4 announced a concentrated effort to target any threats of violence, intimidation, and harassment by parents toward school personnel. The announcement also comes days after a national association of school boards asked the Biden administration to take “extraordinary measures” to prevent alleged threats against school staff that the association said was coming from parents who oppose mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. attorneys in the next 30 days to convene meetings with federal, state, and local leaders within 30 days to “facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” according to a letter (pdf) the attorney general sent on Monday to all U.S. attorneys, the FBI director, the director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, and the assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s criminal division. According to the DOJ, further efforts will be rolled out in the coming days, including a task force that will determine how to use federal resources to prosecute offending parents as well as how to advise state entities on prosecutions in cases where no federal law is broken. The Justice Department will also provide training to school staff on how to report threats from parents and preserve evidence to aid in investigation and prosecution. “In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools,” Garland wrote. “While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.” School boards across the nation have increasingly become an arena for heated debate over culture, politics, and health. Parents groups have ramped up pressure on boards over the teaching of critical race theory and the imposition of mask mandates. The debate is split sharply along political lines, with Democrats largely in favor of critical race theory and mask mandates, and Republicans opposing both. The amount and severity of the threats against officials are not known, but Garland’s letter suggests the phenomenon is widespread. Full AG Garland Statement (with our thoughts): MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS FROM:       THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT:    PARTNERSHIP AMONG FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND TERRITORIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS THREATS AGAINST SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS, TEACHERS, AND STAFF In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. [ZH: But intimidating parents who dare to have the view that the nation's founding fathers and the founding documents are not in fact systemically racist and does not want their children taught that is the case is ok?] Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to he able to do their work without fear for their safety. [ZH: "Dedication" to a "proper education" is admirable; indoctrination in Marxism is not] The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel. [ZH: What exactly is the crime?] Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation's nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am  directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response. [ZH: We wonder how many local law enforcement officials, while busily watching for vaccine passport offenders, and mask-mandate refusers, will acquiesce to enforcing these new laws to protect the very people who are preaching that America's systemic racism starts with the men (and women) in blue?] The Department is steadfast in its commitment to protect all people in the United States from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment. [ZH: Presumably intimidation and emotional harassment of young white boys and girls for their 'whiteness', privilege, and systemic racism is beyond that 'protection'?] As Chris Rufo (@RealChrisRufo) tweeted: "The Biden administration is rapidly repurposing federal law enforcement to target political opposition." The Biden administration is rapidly repurposing federal law enforcement to target political opposition. They want to reclassify dissent as "disinformation" and "domestic terrorism," justifying an unprecedented intervention, both directly and in partnership with tech companies. — Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 4, 2021 Rufo goes on to note that: "Neither the Attorney General's memo nor the full Justice Department press release cites any significant, credible threat. This is a blatant suppression tactic, designed to dissuade citizens from participating in the democratic process at school boards." Parents have led the charge against controversial issues such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), masking mandates and vaccine requirements. CRT holds that America is fundamentally racist, yet it teaches people to view every social interaction and person in terms of race. Its adherents pursue “antiracism” through the end of merit, objective truth and the adoption of race-based policies. This is Courtney Ann Taylor, a mother in Georgia. She’s one of the many parents who’ve HAD IT with mask mandates, especially for young kids in school. Share this video! pic.twitter.com/pyG3fYmgVI — Errol Webber (@ErrolWebber) April 22, 2021 In Loudoun County, Virginia, two parents were arrested in June for trespassing while protesting CRT and a transgender policy at the school district because they refused to leave the rowdy meeting that was declared an unlawful assembly. In July, a man was arrested at a school board meeting and charged with a felony because a gun reportedly fell out of his pocket, the Indianapolis Star reported.  In Utah, 11 anti-mask protestors were arrested on misdemeanor charges for allegedly disrupting a school board meeting in May, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The protestors entered the school board meeting and shouted obscenities, which resulted in an early end to the meeting. Senator Tom Cotton  (@SenTomCotton) tweeted his thoughts: "Parents are speaking out against Critical Race Theory in schools. Now the Biden administration is cracking down on dissent." Just this week, Ron Paul explained why it is so important for parents to control the education of their children: During last week’s Virginia gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe promised that as governor he would prevent parents from removing sexually explicit books from school libraries, because he doesn't think “parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” McAuliffe's disdain for parents who think they should have some say in their children’s education is shared by most “progressives,” as well as some who call themselves conservatives. They think parents should obediently pay the taxes to fund the government schools and never question any aspect of the government school program. School officials' refusal to obey the wishes of parents extends to the anti-science mask mandates. Mask mandates are not only useless in protecting children from a virus they are at low risk of becoming sick from or transmitting, the mandated mask-wearing actually makes children sick! Yet school administrators refuse to follow the science if that means listening to parents instead of the so-called experts. Replacing parental control with government control of education (and other aspects of child raising) has been a goal of authoritarians since Plato. After all, it is much easier to ensure obedience if someone has been raised to think of the government as the source of all wisdom and truth, as well as the provider of all of life’s necessities. In contrast to an authoritarian society, a free society recognizes that parents have both the responsibility and the right to provide their children with a quality education that reflects the parents’ values. Teachers who use their positions to indoctrinate children in beliefs that contradict the views of the parents are the ones overstepping their bounds. Restoring parental control of education should be a priority for all who believe in liberty. If government can override the wishes of parents in the name of “education” or “protecting children’s health” then what area of our lives is safe from government intrusion? Fortunately, growing dissatisfaction with government schools is leading many parents to try to change school policies. "It is shameful that activists are weaponizing the US Department of Justice against parents,” Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the memorandum. “This is a coordinated attempt to intimidate dissenting voices in the debates surrounding America’s underperforming K-12 education – and it will not succeed. We will not be silenced.” Tyler Durden Tue, 10/05/2021 - 07:00.....»»

Feds' Foreign-Corruption Double Standard: They Protected Bidens While Bearing Down On Trumpworld Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClear Wire, At the same time that Department of Justice officials were using spying and corruption statutes to aggressively pursue Donald Trump’s allies based on what turned out to be rumor and innuendo, they declined to use those same laws to investigate evidence of wrongdoing involving Biden family members and one of their corrupt Chinese business partners, DOJ documents and federal court records reveal.   In 2016-2017, the evidence shows, the FBI raided the offices and intercepted the communications of Chi Ping “Patrick” Ho, a Chinese national agents suspected of espionage even as he was negotiating business deals with former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and brother James.  DOJ later used information obtained from the searches and wiretaps – which included conversations with the current President’s son and brother – to convict Ho of bribery and money laundering, as part of a separate corruption case involving United Nations officials. But it declined to tap into its trove of evidence – including “over 100,000 emails” – to explore the connections between Ho and the Bidens, who received millions of dollars from Ho and a Chinese intelligence front and discussed sharing office space.  At Ho’s 2018 trial, prosecutors hid Hunter’s connection to Ho, redacting his name from court exhibits (see sidebar) while describing Ho as “the person who flies around the world paying bribes to advance the interest of the oil company [CEFC China Energy],” according to hearing transcripts. A federal database shows the Bidens failed to register as foreign agents while engaged in activities on behalf of CEFC, a state-owned entity suspected of being a front for Chinese intelligence. Federal anti-spying laws require anyone acting as a lobbyist for a foreign power to register with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  The DOJ did not prosecute either Biden family member for potential violations of FARA for representing the interests of the Chinese.  This stands in stark contrast to the DOJ's aggressive pursuit of alleged FARA violations involving no fewer than six Trump campaign officials. In August of 2016, shortly after receiving a tip that a low-level Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos, had allegedly been told that the Russians might have dirt on Hillary Clinton, the bureau opened FARA investigations into Papadopoulos and three other Trump associates with no clear ties to Papadopoulos: national security adviser Michael Flynn; campaign manager Paul Manafort; and campaign adviser Carter Page. The FBI subsequently investigated Manafort's deputy Rick Gates; and Trump's Mideast adviser Walid Phares under the same statute.  As RCI has previously reported, the FBI used FARA as the basis for a wide-ranging probe that included tailing them, staking out their homes, digging through their trash, and using confidential sources to secretly record them. Only one of the six was convicted for FARA-related violations, and none was charged with any espionage or conspiracy crimes involving Russia. “It’s 100% a double standard, and it’s absolutely corrupt to the core,” former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker told RCI. “And meanwhile, [current FBI Director] Chris Wray fiddles.” Other veterans of the bureau say the Obama and Biden administrations have politicized and weaponized FARA. “Starting in 2016, the Obama-Biden administration used FARA and the criminal justice system as tools to attack and eliminate the opposition,” said 27-year FBI veteran Michael Biasello, adding that many of the same officials are "back in charge and making sure those tools won’t be turned on themselves." An FBI spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on why it did not apply the foreign lobbying law equally. The Justice Department did not return requests for comment. Ho and Hunter: A Lucrative Relationship   Court records and other documents show that Hunter Biden met with Ho’s boss Ye Jianming in February 2017 in Miami, where the CEFC chief offered him up to $30 million for “introductions alone,” according to emails. Ye – who had connections to both China’s Communist Party in China and its armed forces, the People’s Liberation Army – sealed the deal with a lucrative gift to Hunter: a 3.16-carat diamond worth an estimated $80,000. (Hunter never returned the large gem.) Not long after their private dinner, CEFC began wiring millions of dollars from China to pass-through companies set up by Hunter Biden. Over the next 14 months, Hunter and Jimmy Biden (as the latter is known to family and friends) ultimately received almost $6 million from CEFC entities, according to congressional investigators, including $1 million from Ho. At the time, the FBI was tracking Ho’s and CEFC’s “bank and wire transfer records,” according to DOJ records, which indicates agents were aware of the China-based payments to the Bidens. As Hunter was meeting Ye that February, DOJ records show, the FBI renewed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting Ho. Former FBI officials say agents had a clear window into how the Chinese were attempting to cultivate the Bidens. When Hunter formally structured the CEFC deal in May 2017, text messages found on his abandoned laptop reveal, he was worried about running afoul of two federal laws: the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – which Ho was convicted of violating – and FARA.  “We don’t want to have to register as foreign agents,” Hunter texted another partner in the deal, and suggested they set up a U.S. shell company towork around it.  In the end, Hunter never registered with the Justice Department, according to a search of the FARA database. Nor did uncle Jimmy. They also did not report their activities for CEFC or any of the almost $6 million in wire payments they received, as required by law. The texts indicate Hunter was familiar with the requirements of the law. Violations carry a maximum punishment of five years in prison.  Hunter and his attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment. Attempts to reach James Biden were unsuccessful. Also that May, the uncle sent his nephew a list of “key domestic contacts” they could exploit to advance the interests of their Chinese partners. Then-California Sen. Kamala Harris and then-California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom were among the powerful Democrats listed. China has sought to influence powerful officials, particularly to gain access to U.S. energy markets, which are heavily regulated. CEFC is the capitalist arm of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “Belt and Road Initiative” to spread China’s influence around the world while gobbling up oil and gas rights. In an August 2017 email to another Ye lieutenant, Hunter guaranteed his family would follow through on the introductions as long as the money kept flowing: "The Bidens are the best I know at doing exactly what the Chairman [Ye] wants from this partnership.” And the China-based funds flowed and flowed into Biden bank accounts. The CEFC contract guaranteed Hunter $150,000 a month, with another $65,000 a month for Jimmy Biden. The vast majority of Americans do not make $150,000 in a year.  The payments, earmarked as “consulting fees," raised so many red flags at Wells Fargo and other banks that processed the funds that they notified the Treasury Department they had concerns about possible money laundering and other financial crimes. Treasury, in turn, generated some 150 Suspicious Activity Reports related to the financial transactions. The Biden administration has refused to turn over the Treasury reports to Congress, despite repeated requests for them. Congressional investigatorsare trying to determine if any of the “large wire transfers" enriched the president, either directly or through gifts-in-kind. Early on, Joe Biden appeared from emails to be cut in on a future CEFC deal, which is at odds with his repeated denials about being involved in – or even knowing anything about – his son’s business dealings. In a May 2017 meeting at a Beverly Hills hotel, Biden discussed the CEFC venture with Hunter's business associate Tony Bobulinski, according to Bobulinski, who said they spoke for more than an hour. An email that same month described the “big guy” getting a 10% cut. Bobulinski has confirmed Joe Biden was the “big guy.” An October 2017 email, moreover, identifies the former vice president as a participant in a call about CEFC’s plans to purchase U.S. natural gas.  'Take Whatever Money You Can Take' It’s not clear what the Chinese got for all their money, which didn’t appear to correspond with any actual billing for consulting work. At one point a CEFC aide simply told Hunter in a laptop email: “[T]ake whatever money you can take. Take as much as possible … to spend for your own benefit." The Bidens did virtually no “legitimate” work for CEFC, according to congressional  investigators, who question whether CEFC sought out Hunter as part of anintelligence-gathering operation aimed at his father.  Hunter appeared to know he was accepting tainted money that might compromise national security. In an audio recording found on his laptop, he described his Chinese partner Ho as "the fucking spy chief of China.” In November 2017, two FBI agents arrested Ho at JFK International Airport in New York. After seizing his Huawei cell phone and iPad from his luggage, law enforcement records show, they charged him with attempting to bribe former U.N. officials and African government officials with wire payments and even boxes of cash to secure lucrative oil rights in African countries.  Ho’s first call from jail was to James Biden, law enforcement records show. The call was made less than 10 minutes after agents read Ho his Miranda rights. The Bidens’ Chinese benefactor-turned-inmate had hoped James and his nephew would use their political clout to spring him. Hunter quickly put in some calls to the FBI on his behalf, according to an email exchange he had that day with New York defense attorney Edward Kim, who represented Ho throughout his trial. A retainer agreement found on Hunter’s laptop shows that Ho had paid Hunter $1 million for “Dr. Patrick Ho Chi Ping Representation,” even though Hunter is not licensed to practice law in New York. Kim was Ho's real attorney, not Biden. The Bidens had some powerful FBI friends, including former FBI Director Louis Freeh (who, records show, got a seat on the Beau Biden Foundation board after giving Joe Biden’s grandchildren $100,000). But they weren't able to help Ho, who stayed locked behind bars at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in downtown Manhattan. Agents subsequently raided the D.C.-area office of Ho, located about 10 minutes from Hunter Biden’s own office, which also has not been previously reported. However, agents never searched Biden’s office, to which his Chinese partners had key access, and prosecutors never indicted Biden – despite evidently knowing the president’s son failed to register as a foreign agent representing the interests of the Chinese government agents in Washington in exchange for several million dollars. The DOJ records reveal the FBI seized a massive trove of CEFC evidence, including "more than 100,000” emails, from searches of Ho's phone, computers and offices in Manhattan and Arlington, Va., including emails citing Hunter Biden. No fewer than five of Ho’s email accounts –  both business and personal – were targeted for FISA collection, according to the DOJ records reviewed by RCI. FISA surveillance is sweeping, and former FBI officials say it would have included phone conversations between Ho and CEFC and Hunter Biden – as well as his uncle, who was also a partner in the joint venture with the Chinese and also communicated with Ho. “FISAs include everything,” Swecker said, "so it definitely included his emails and texts [with the Bidens].” He said the bureau could have used the evidence to investigate the Bidens at the time, but backed off. He added that even though the FBI maintains the FISA-collected material in a classified database, he doubts investigators will use it now to go after the Bidens. “FISA material cannot be used in a criminal proceeding unless you get a special court order,” Swecker said. “I suspect the FBI would not even try to do that now given their hands-off conduct on this case in the past.” Even if Wray were to launch a probe now, it might be too late. Most federal felonies have a five-year statute of limitation. Swecker, who served as a prosecutor before joining the FBI, said FARA violation cases against the Bidens would have been a slam dunk. He noted that CEFC was a foreign principal as defined by the FARA statute. And he said the Bidens' consulting work for CEFC benefitted the Chinese government, making them potential agents of that government. He added that Ho and his CEFC bosses were no doubt targeting future presidential candidate Joe Biden, while Hunter and Jimmy Biden were peddling influence with the Chinese to generate millions for the Biden family. “It’s strange how there was no curiosity [at Justice] whatsoever about foreign influence on a potential president of the United States, especially from this country’s greatest threat – China,” Swecker said. Stranger still is that DOJ prosecutors knew the Bidens’ partner was a dangerous Chinese agent with “powerful” military and political ties, including to the leadership of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. In court filings, federal prosecutors noted Ho previously served as a Chinese government minister where he helped Hong Kong transition from British to Chinese state rule. They introduced recordings from prison, translated from Chinese, where Ho can be overheard directing Chinese allies to ask "the upper level” of the CCCP to "get involved” in his case. “He has powerful connections in mainland China,” then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a nine-page memo arguing for his continued detention. “It is difficult to overstate how well-connected Ho is.” While the defense portrayed the portly, bespectacled Ho as a harmless academic running a “think tank” promoting international economic development, the China Energy Fund Committee, prosecutors accused Ho of not only doling out bribes but trafficking arms, including grenade launchers and anti-tank missiles. After serving out his term, Ho was immediately deported back to China.  Charlie McGonigal One explanation for the FBI’s and DOJ’s lack of interest in prosecuting the Bidens in the Ho case may be the role played by former FBI official Charles “Charlie" McGonigal. FBI sources say McGonigal oversaw the initial espionage probe of Ho, including the FISA coverage of his communications, as head of the FBI’s counterintelligence wing of the New York field office, where the investigation was opened. McGonigal was recently arrested for allegedly taking bribes from an Albanian-American connected to CEFC, according to court records. He allegedly received $225,000 in cash from former Albanian intelligence official-turned-New Jersey businessman Agron Neza. Neza introduced McGonigal to Dorian Ducka, who worked as an adviser to CEFC and was trying to secure oil-drilling licenses in Albania for the Chinese. Ducka was close to CEFC chairman Ye, who dropped off the expensive diamond “gift" for Hunter Biden at his Miami hotel room. Ducka appears in emails found on Hunter’s laptop discussing CEFC business prospects. Prosecutors say McGonigal first met with Neza in August 2017 – the same month the Bidens were ramping up their deal with CEFC. The nextmonth he met with Ducka. During this time,  McGonigal was overseeing the CEFC-Ho counterespionage case. In an interview, former FBI counterintelligence attorney Mark Wauck said McGonigal may have pulled punches in the counterespionage probe of the Bidens and their Chinese bagmen because he himself was potentially compromised by the Chinese. “Keeping the PRC angle in mind is important, once you realize this guy was for sale,” Wauck told RCI, referring to the People’s Republic of China. It’s not immediately known if McGonigal was one of the FBI agents Hunter reached out to in 2017 after Ho called from jail pleading for help from his Biden payees. But the two men may have had a personal connection through their daughters. According to emails stored on Hunter’s laptop, McGonigal’s wife Pamela and Hunter both received dozens of messages related to private lacrosse clinics in 2014 and 2015, when McGonigal was working out of the FBI’s Baltimore field office. Their daughters played at lacrosse training facilities in the Maryland-D.C. area. McGonigal was a protege of former FBI director James Comey, who signed off on FISA spy warrants targeting Trump’s presidential campaign and was directly involved in the Russiagate investigation of the former president. In a May 2017 national security forum, McGonigal sang the praises of his erstwhile boss, who had just been summarily dismissed by Trump. “Director Comey was probably one of the most loved leaders that we’ve had,” McGonigal said. “I think many of us who were nominated for leadership positions by him will forever hold him in esteem." McGonigal worked on national security cases with top DOJ official David Laufman, an Obama appointee based in Washington who made the decisions in 2017 to pursue Trump and his associates over possible FARA violations, while leaving the Bidens untouched. An Obama donor, Laufman stepped down as the chief of Justice's National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in February 2018. The feds also had evidence of possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from the many suspicious financial transactions between the Chinese and the Bidens. But investigators focused instead on Chinese attempts to corrupt former African officials and their families – even thoughbribing the family of an American vice president constituted a potentially far bigger scandal. Swecker noted that counterespionage officials at the FBI and DOJ gathered far more evidence concerning the Bidens’ troubling connections to China than they ever did concerning Trump and his advisers’ alleged ties to Russia. In fact, much of the foundation for alleged Trump-Russia“collusion” turned out to be fabricated by two FBI informants who also happened to work for the Hillary Clinton campaign. In the same 2016-2017 period the FBI had Ho under FISA surveillance, it was secretly monitoring former Trump campaign adviser Page as an alleged Russian agent through a series of FISA warrants – half of which were later invalidated by the spy court. The FISAs were based on false rumors from political opposition research contained in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign. Unlike Ho, Page was never accused of criminal wrongdoing or convicted of a crime. Subpoenaing Hunter and Jimmy Biden  Another Trump-tied counterespionage target in the FBI’s Russiagate crusade was retired Lt. Gen. Flynn, who served in the White House asTrump’s national security adviser before resigning less than a month after taking office as a result of what he called a politically motivated vendetta by the FBI and DOJ. In 2016, the FBI opened an investigation of Flynn based on possible FARA violations. Though the case was later dropped, prosecutors charged him with making false statements. DOJ eventually had to dismiss those charges, as well. This month Flynn filed a $50 million lawsuit claiming “malicious prosecution” by Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe, and his counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, along with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, an Obama donor. The 51-page complaint filed in federal court in Tampa claims their goal was to sabotage Trump and prevent Flynn from blowing the whistle on the FBI’s illegitimately predicated Russiagate probe as Trump’s national security adviser, where he would have had access to intelligence across theagencies. Then-Vice President Biden is named in the scheme. In a phone interview, Flynn told RealClearInvestigations the specter of his exposing the FBI’s and DOJ’s cover-up of the Bidens’ Chinese connection was “another reason for getting me out of the way.” As former Defense Intelligence Agency director, he said he posed a direct threat to corrupt actors in the intelligence community: “There was never a national security adviser with my type of background in that key role.” In their probe of Biden foreign influence-peddling, congressional investigators are zeroing in on the CEFC connection. Last month, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer sent letters to Hunter Biden and his uncle Jimmy seeking all of their communications with Ho and other CEFC principals. After Hunter and his legal team missed the Feb. 22 deadline to turn over the documents, Comer threatened to issue subpoenas to compel them to comply with the order. Now he says he will give Hunter’s camp more time to respond, so if his committee has to subpoena the documents, it will have a better chance of winning in court by showing a "good-faith effort” to obtain them through cooperation. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched a parallel investigation of the Bidens’ dealings with CEFC. In letters to DOJ, he's complained about the uneven enforcement of the FARA statute when it comes to the Biden family. He said both Hunter and his uncle should have registered as foreign agents of the China-backed energy conglomerate. “Hunter and James Biden, based on family name and political influence, were agents of CEFC,” he said in a statement, "as both had planned roles with CEFC which would ultimately benefit the communist Chinese government.” Grassley argued that CEFC intended to alter U.S. policy and public opinion through the Bidens, and the Chinese government would have been the principal beneficiary of those actions. “The [FARA] law must be followed and enforced without regard to party, power or position,” Grassley spokesman Taylor Foy asserted in an interview. *  *  * Paul Sperry is an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations. He is also a longtime media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Sperry was previously the Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other major publications. Tyler Durden Thu, 03/16/2023 - 23:45.....»»

Chicago Dad Who Spoke Out Against Porn In Schools Faces Extra Security Screening En Route To CPAC Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A Chicago dad who found himself on a watchlist after opposing pornographic content in his kids’ school says he faced further harassment this weekend from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on the way to and from the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference in Maryland. Terry Newsome, a Chicago dad who found himself placed on a watch list by federal law enforcement, speaks during Turning Point USA's AmericaFest 2022. (Courtesy of Terry Newsome) Terry Newsome of Chicago, found out in December 2022 that he had been placed on a terror watch list when he tried to fly from O’Hare Airport to Phoenix. On March 1, Newsome attempted to fly to Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport and learned that, despite positive signs to the contrary, his name remained on the watch list. Though he is still permitted to fly, having his name on the list—which federal law enforcement agencies have not explained—means invasive and embarrassing extra screening for Newsome. In spite of his efforts to have his name removed from the list, Newsome continues to wrangle with the labyrinthian bureaucracies of the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and TSA. Ongoing Battle With Cancer Since learning that he had been placed on the list, Newsome has worked incessantly to restore his good name even as he was undergoing “brutal” radiation therapy for stage four cancer. “A week and a half ago, I finished like seven weeks of intense radiation five days a week,” Newsome told the Epoch Times in an interview. The treatment left his immune system weakened and left him fatigued, he said, adding that he was worried about flying with his immune system so compromised by the radiation therapy. “I really shouldn’t have went anywhere because my immune system is pummeled from the radiation, right?” Newsome said. Despite his usual opposition to masks—quipping “I’m a Republican” to explain—Newsome said he took precautions and wore a mask on the plane to protect his health. Though the journey made him nervous, Newsome said he felt he had to go to CPAC as part of his ongoing mission to clear his name. Thus, despite his weakened state—and defying his family’s wishes that he not go—Newsome boarded a plane to Washington last week to attend CPAC, where he hoped to find more assistance with his TSA problem. Invasive Screening On his arrival at Chicago’s O’Hare on March 1, Newsome learned that his ticket still carried the “quad-S” (SSSS) designation, despite his being a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) pre-check-approved flier for over a decade before. Earlier, the TSA had responded to a query by Newsome, indicating at the time that he would go through “standard screening protocol” moving forward. In addition to much more rigorous screening of bags, SSSS fliers are typically on the receiving end of a full-body pat down. They also have their hands (and sometimes, according to some reports) their feet swabbed to check for explosives. A photo of Terry Newsome’s boarding pass, marked with the “quad-S” classification, as he tried to board his flight out of Washington on March 4. (Photo courtesy of Terry Newsome) Just how invasive this search can be depends on circumstances, but fliers with the SSSS designation can also expect to be prodded on questions like whether they packed their own bag, where they’re headed, why they’re going there, and so on. Newsome said that the specifics of SSSS screening are minor on their own, but that the inconveniences add up. On Feb. 28, 24 hours before his flight was due to take off, Newsome attempted to check in for his flight on the American Airlines app. As an American Platinum Flier, Newsome is entitled to several cushy benefits, including the chance for his seat to be bumped up to first class depending on availability. When he tried to check in, however, Newsome realized he couldn’t—the first indication that his flight status had not been resolved. Upon arriving at the airport on March 1, Newsome found that he was still having trouble printing his ticket. As it happened in December, he was required to get federal approval before the airline could print his ticket. “For me, it’s not like I’m just an enhanced security whatever else it is,” Newsome said. “I can’t even—not only can I not enhance [my ticket], I can’t even get a boarding pass until there’s somebody from the government to give American Airlines the approval to print the ticket.” Realizing that he was still on the list, Newsome decided simply to check his bag in order to avoid the embarrassment of having all his clothing, medicines, and personal items taken out of his bag in front of everyone. After checking his bag and receiving his ticket, Newsome proceeded to the TSA checkpoint. When TSA agents began going through the line examining other fliers’ boarding passes, Newsome knew they were looking for him and told the TSA agents as much. At that point, he was pulled from the line and brought to an empty line for enhanced screening. Newsome described his experience, citing how embarrassing the extra screening was even knowing he had done nothing wrong. “They stopped the whole line,” Newsome said. “They actually made everybody get out … And they had supervisors come and took me through the enhanced screening. All these people were watching.” Newsome and his bag were brought through a metal detector and X-ray scanner, as is the norm for most fliers. However, they required much more of Newsome: “I had to take off my shoes. Then they take my bags and everything else and I stand there while they go through everything.” Newsome also had his crotch area patted down in view of other fliers. Newsome added later, “They swabbed everything for bombs.” Just 30 minutes later, a similar scene played out as Newsome was trying to board his flight. The TSA announced over a loudspeaker near his gate that they would be checking everyone’s passports, IDs, and boarding passes before they could get on the plane. At the same moment, several TSA agents, joined by what appeared to be an undercover agent wearing sunglasses and coordinating security procedures with the TSA agents, began screening all boarders’ documents. Several TSA agents crowd around Terry Newsome’s gate as he tries to board a flight at O’Hare International Airport on March 1. (Photo courtesy of Terry Newsome) “I just knew it was for me,” Newsome said. Thus, he drew attention to himself, telling a TSA agent, “It’s me, I’m the quad-S.” Newsome was pulled out of line at this point for further screening. Depriving him of yet another American Airline Platinum Flier benefit, Newsome was the last person to board; his ticket entitled him to be in the second group of boarders. Newsome said this was even more embarrassing for him than the first screening, as that could have been written off as a standard random search. ‘Anti-Porn, Not Anti-Gay’ Earlier, Newsome had been politically active in his school district after learning about sexually explicit images in a book at his children’s school library—activities which Newsome believes may be responsible for his placement on the list in the first place. Newsome had never been involved in school board meetings or politics until mid-2021, when he attended a district school board meeting after his then-eighth-grade son came home and said his teacher had told him that “there is no American dream.” Newsome, a descendant of Italian immigrants who himself had lived the American dream, was shocked to hear that. He called his children’s principal to discuss the issue, and suspected that these issues would only get worse when his kids, fraternal twins, got to high school. In July 2021, Newsome attended his first school board meeting at Downers Grove’s Community High School. Terry Newsome, dressed in Downers Grove South High School spirit wear, sits in the school auditorium where he spoke up about the book “Gender Queer” on Dec. 13, 2021. (Cara Ding/The Epoch Times) Newsome immediately began a crusade on several hot-button topics, ranging from mask mandates to critical race theory, becoming the unofficial spokesman for several concerned mothers who were more hesitant to speak out. “The moms are so happy to have an aggressive, type-A-personality father to join them. They had mostly fought this battle alone, against the giant system of public schools,” Newsome told The Epoch Times. Newsome’s most controversial activism came with his opposition to the book “Gender Queer” by Mia Kobabe, a book containing sexually explicit images that teaches children about oral sex and controversial notions of gender identity. Selections from the book show a biological female adolescent struggling over her “gender identity.” The girl is also depicted wearing a device known as a “binder,” a tight-fitting brassiere-like garment meant to reduce breast size. At some points in the book, the girl is shown engaging in oral sex with another biological female identifying as male. Newsome’s opposition to the book led to his receiving a litany of ad hominem attacks from left-wing agitators in the Chicago area. However, he has insisted throughout his activist work that he and other parents are “anti-porn, not anti-gay or homophobic.” Newsome has coordinated events in his area with Gays Against Groomers, an organization made up of homosexual and transsexual people who have been outspoken against inundating minors with gender ideology. After Newsome began speaking out against the book and the left-wing ideology that had inundated his children’s schools, he began facing attacks from all corners, ranging from threats by Antifa to opposition by Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). Two days after the publication of an Epoch Times article about his activism, Newsome found threatening messages against him on a locally run Twitter account called Antifascist Rumor Mill. “Action items announced soon in regard to Terry Newsome—time to Drop Pops and his hateful agenda,” the tweet read, referencing Newsome’s nickname “Pops.” “Terry trying to make a name for himself, look at his stupid face in the Epoch Times, the extreme #disinformation rag that echoed all the lies, the Big Lie, the ‘Plandemic’ lie, etc.,” said another tweet from the account. Newsome told The Epoch Times that many of those who have spoken against him and threatened him, including members of the school board, are in league with Casten. “The school board and the superintendent are all controlled by radical, radical leftists … that are very vocal in the Downers Grove Community and all supportive of Sean Casten,” Newsome said. “So anybody that speaks out with a different opinion is brutally attacked on social media and called racist, homophobic, and so forth, no matter the truth.” “To make a point, I’ve said it from the very beginning, through now: Me and the other parents are not anti-gay or homophobic—we’re anti-porn,” Newsome said. Judith Rose, communications director for the group “Gays Against Groomers,” told the Epoch Times that opposing gender ideology being imposed on children is not homophobic or bigoted. A Gays Against Groomers van parked is for an event in Anaheim, California. (Courtesy of Gays Against Groomers) Rose explained that the goal of the organization, a group made up of gay and transgender people, is to protect children from sexual content. “Our goals involve getting legislation put in place to make education more appropriate for children to keep adult material away from children [and] to classify drag shows like a burlesque or strip club type situation where they have to be away from children,” Rose explained. Asked about Newsome’s situation, Rose called it “heartbreaking.” “I think it’s really heartbreaking, that there’s this wedge being formed between parents and schools,” she said. “And I just think it’s awful what’s happening, trying to classify parents as terrorists for standing up for how they want their kids to be raised or educated. Sometimes it’s not always an option to homeschool your kids.” Rose argued that the gender push on children was also bad for LGBT adults, saying “it creates an even bigger wedge between our community and people who don’t necessarily approve of us,” Rose said. “I respect their beliefs; I understand. “However, I really wish that more people could see that it’s time to put our differences aside for the children—Gays Against Groomers represents a part of the LGBT community that understands not everyone is going to accept us or wants to accept us. They have their religious beliefs, whatever it is. We respect that,” she said. Rose continued, “We don’t want kids to be raised in an environment where they’re heavily saturated with ‘queer ideology’ or ‘queer culture.’ And every parent deserves the right to know what’s going on with their children.” “We have people on the far left and people on the far right who don’t like us. We’re trying to find that middle ground—that’s really all we want to do,” she stated. “At the end of the day, it’s about the kids: it’s not about us, or our feelings or our identities even. It’s about making a safe environment for children.” Jan. 6 Rally Some of Newsome’s critics have in the past pointed out that he was present at the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally. Newsome candidly admits that he attended the rally, but said he had no bad intentions and broke no laws that day. “I went to January 6, with my friend, a retired police officer,” Newsome said. According to Newsome, the FBI previously investigated his friend who attended the event, a retired Cook County police officer, and had cleared him of any wrongdoing. The officer, who asked that his name be excluded from the story, has been Newsome’s friend for decades. Asked whether he had observed Newsome committing any act that could be construed as a crime, he quickly said he had not, and that the two were together “100 percent of the time” in DC. Additionally, Newsome was undergoing immunotherapy for cancer at the time, leaving him in a weakened state. The day before, Newsome noted, “I had been on the IV for my cancer.” While, at the time, Newsome was undergoing immunotherapy rather than radiation treatments, he was nevertheless weakened by the treatments. He said at one point he felt so exhausted he had to lie down on the sidewalk for a few minutes before he could continue to the rally. Newsome and his friend said their only reason for attending the rally was to hear President Donald Trump speak and to ensure people were safe. “We went down there for two things, one to see our president speak. Two, because we’re both still big guys even though we’re older,” Newsome said. “We saw in November, December, families, parents overly attacked by Antifa [and] BLM in front of their hotels.” Newsome said he had left by the time order broke down at the rally. As proof, he provided time-stamped photos. Newsome’s companion backed up his story: “When the alleged insurrection happened we were already gone,” he said. “We were halfway to our hotel, which was approximately three quarters to a mile away. Halfway during the course of our walk, we saw a bunch of squad cars, lights and sirens on, going in the direction of the Capitol.” It was not until after the two men returned to their hotel that they learned about the Capitol breach, they said. Newsome’s photos and time stamps from that day show that he did not trespass on Capitol grounds and was gone before the breach ensued. Newsome said that he and his friend would not have attended the rally if they had known about the bad intentions some had that day. “It’s not a crime to have been in DC on Jan. 6, whatever the Nancy Pelosis and Liz Cheneys would like you to believe,” Ed Martin, a top attorney for Jan. 6 defendants, told the Epoch Times. “The American people are so disgusted by this stuff.” “If anyone that was there in Washington on Jan. 6 committed a crime in so doing, that’s a mockery of what America’s about. That’s not the standard and that’s not America.” Ambivalent Replies Newsome has gotten lukewarm or ambivalent replies, or none, from the federal agencies with which he has discussed the issue. Following his experience in December, Newsome sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the FBI, seeking more information about his newly discovered status as an alleged terror risk. The FBI refused to discuss details with Newsome. The FBI letter Newsome received in response to his request, says in part: “The U.S. Government can neither confirm nor deny whether a particular person is on any terrorist watch list. Maintaining the confidentiality of government watch lists is necessary to achieve the objectives of the U.S. Government, as well as to protect the privacy of individuals who may be on a watch list for a limited time and later removed. If the U.S. Government revealed who was listed on any government watch list, terrorists would be able to take actions to avoid detection by government authorities. Thus, the FBI neither confirms nor denies the existence of your subject’s name on any watch lists pursuant to FOIA exemption.” Because the federal government refuses to so much as acknowledge that Newsome has been placed on a list, it is unclear why Newsome’s name was flagged for enhanced screening. Newsome told the Epoch Times that he thinks the addition of his name to the list may be in response to his past political activities. In their response to an Epoch Times inquiry about Newsome, the FBI’s press office insisted that the agency does not open investigations solely on the grounds of protected First Amendment activity. “The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on protected First Amendment activity,” the agency wrote. Told about this reply, Martin immediately pointed out the key word in that reply: “solely.” “The wiggle word is ‘solely,’ so that means they have to say something else,” Martin explained. “So it’s not solely because you asked about the pornography, it’s because you got a speeding ticket when you were 18 that wasn’t resolved, or because you were in January 6. “So it’s not ‘solely’—[the FBI is saying they] would never do it solely on constitutionally-protected grounds,” Martin said, adding that the FBI had effectively named itself “the judge of what adds up to something dramatic.” The FBI reply continued: “We cannot and do not investigate ideology. We focus on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security.” After hearing this reply, Martin made another observation of what he called a “wiggle” phrase: “intend to commit.” “[The FBI is] saying here that they’re gonna read minds, and they’re gonna tell us who is intending to commit a crime,” Martin said. “They didn’t say ‘a propensity for crime.’ At least with a ‘propensity’ you can look at some factors—if you have a previous conviction, if you have were arrested multiple times, and others—so with the word ‘propensity’ you can at least make an argument. “They’re gonna be the mind readers? They’re gonna read the minds of the American people? That’s insanity,” Martin ruled. The spokesperson expressly refused to answer questions relating to the process of placing someone on a watch list, including questions about oversight of the FBI’s ability to place Americans on flight watch lists. “It’s just stupid, ya know?” Newsome said of the reply. “Clearly I already know I’m on the list, that’s why I’m writing to you.” Additionally, Newsome also reached out to the TSA. In his query, Newsome requested information and tried to get back on the TSA pre-check list. In its reply, the TSA said he was no longer eligible for its pre-check list, but suggested that Newsome would no longer be subject to enhanced screening. Newsome thought after receiving the letter that he had been removed from the list before his most recent flight. “As a result of recurrent checks and based on a comprehensive background check, TSA was unable to determine that you pose a sufficiently low risk to transportation and national security to continue to be eligible for expedited airport security screening through the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program,” the reply said. “As a result, TSA has determined that you are no longer eligible to participate in the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program. “This eligibility determination for the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program is within the sole discretion of TSA,” the letter added. “Although you have been found ineligible to continue your participation in the TSA Pre-[Check] Application Program, you will continue to be screened at airport security checkpoints according to TSA standard screening protocols.” Told about these replies, Martin sighed, “The bureaucrats will all say ‘It’s not me, it’s not me.’ At this point do we even know who has the oversight for this? Part of the problem with this government is now, when an official says ‘I’m not in charge of that,’ we can’t believe it.” Newsome has been in contact with other legal and political figures as well, and remains committed to clearing his name. Tyler Durden Tue, 03/07/2023 - 22:45.....»»

Over the last 5 decades, Musk has launched multiple companies and become a tabloid figure. He recently regained the crown of world's richest person. Hannibal Hanschke-Pool/Getty Images Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter. So far, his decisions at Twitter have drawn both criticism and support.  He was born in South Africa, has been married three times, and has nine known children.  Musk is a controversial leader who has incited lawsuits and SEC investigations.  This is an update to an article originally published in August 2016. Katie Canales, Matt Weinberger, and Mary Meisenzahl contributed to an earlier version of this story. Elon Musk was born on June 28, 1971, in Pretoria, South Africa.A general view of the Union Building is seen in Pretoria, South Africa.Siphiwe Sibeko/ReutersMusk's mother, Maye, is a professional dietitian and model. She has appeared on boxes of Special K cereal and the cover of Time magazine. In 2017, at the age of 69, she landed a contract with CoverGirl.Elon and Maye Musk.Getty Images/Charles EshelmanSource: The New York TimesAfter their parents divorced in 1979, the 9-year-old Musk and his younger brother, Kimbal, decided to live with their father. It wasn't until after the move was made that his notoriously troubled relationship with his dad began to emerge. "It was not a good idea," Musk said in a Rolling Stone interview about moving in with his father.Elon Musk as a child.Maye MuskSource: Rolling StoneIn 1983, at the age of 12, Musk sold a simple game called "Blastar" to a computer magazine for $500. Musk described it as "a trivial game ... but better than Flappy Bird."Matt Weinberger/Business InsiderSource: WaitButWhyStill, Musk's school days weren't easy — he was once hospitalized after being beaten by bullies. The bullies threw Musk down a set of stairs and beat him until he blacked out.Matt Rourke/APSource: "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future"After graduating from high school, Musk moved to Canada with his mother, Maye; his sister, Tosca, and his brother, Kimbal, and spent two years studying at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario.Michael Dwyer/APSource: Queen's UniversityBut he finished his studies at the University of Pennsylvania, earning degrees in physics and economics.Elon Musk as a 23-year-old senior at the University of Pennsylvania in 1994.RR AuctionWhile studying at the University of Pennsylvania, Musk and a classmate rented out a 10-bedroom frat house and turned it into a nightclub. The move, which Musk undertook with Adeo Ressi, was one of his first entrepreneurial experiments.University of PennsylvaniaStock Photo/Getty ImagesSource: VogueAfter graduation, Musk traveled to Stanford University to study for his Ph.D — but he barely started the program before leaving it. He deferred his admission after only two days in California, deciding to test his luck in the dot-com boom that was just getting underway. He never returned to finish his studies at Stanford.Facebook/Stanford UniversitySource: ForbesWith his brother, Kimbal, Elon Musk launched Zip2. A cluster of Silicon Valley investors helped to fund the company, which provided city travel guides to newspapers like The New York Times and Chicago Tribune.Kimbal Musk.Wikimedia CommonsSource: Rolling StoneWhile Zip2 got off the ground, Musk literally lived in the office and showered at a local YMCA. The hard work paid off when Compaq bought Zip2 in a deal worth $341 million in cash and stock, earning Musk $22 million.REUTERS/Noah BergerSource: Stanford UniversityMusk next started X.com, an online banking company. He launched the company in 1999 using $10 million of the money he got from the Zip2 sale. About a year later, X.com merged with Confinity, a financial startup cofounded by Peter Thiel, to form PayPal.Peter Thiel (left) and MuskPAUL SAKUMA/APSource: InvestopediaMusk was named the CEO of the newly minted PayPal — but it wouldn't last long. In October 2000, he started a huge fight among the PayPal cofounders by pushing for them to move its servers from the free Unix operating system to Microsoft Windows. PayPal cofounder and then CTO Max Levchin pushed back, hard.Max Levchin (left), the former chief technology officer of PayPal.Getty / Drew AngererSource: FortuneWhile Musk was en route to Australia for a much-needed vacation, PayPal's board fired him and made Thiel the new CEO. "That's the problem with vacations," Musk told Fortune years later about his ill-fated trip in late 2000.AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillSource: FortuneBut things worked out for Musk — he made another windfall when eBay bought PayPal in late 2002. As PayPal's single biggest shareholder, he netted $165 million of the $1.5 billion price eBay paid.APSource: MoneyEven before the PayPal sale, Musk was dreaming up his next move, including a wild plan to send mice or plants to Mars. In early 2002, Musk founded the company that would be known as Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, with $100 million of the money received from the PayPal sale. Musk's goal was to make spaceflight cheaper by a factor of 10.Mario Anzuoni/ReutersSource: Rolling StoneOne early SpaceX vehicle was named after the song "Puff the Magic Dragon." The name of the spacecraft, the Dragon, was Musk's jab at skeptics who told him SpaceX would never be able to put vehicles into space.Space X's Dragon spacecraft.Flickr/SpaceXSource: Elon Musk/TwitterSpaceX's long-term goal is to make colonizing Mars affordable. Musk has said that SpaceX won't file for an initial public offering until what Musk calls the "Mars Colonial Transporter" is flying regularly.Tech Insider/Recode/NASASource: ForbesMusk had also been keeping plenty busy here on Earth, particularly with Tesla Motors. In 2004, Musk made the first of what would be $70 million of total investments in Tesla, an electric car company cofounded by veteran startup exec Martin Eberhard.Martin Eberhard and Elon MuskPhoto by Chris Weeks/WireImageSource: WiredMusk took an active product role at Tesla, helping develop its first car, the Roadster. The all-electric Roadster debuted in 2006 when Musk was serving as Tesla's chairman. He's now also its CEO.Tesla Roadster.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderAs if that wasn't enough, Musk came up with the idea for SolarCity, a solar energy company. Musk gave his cousins Peter and Lyndon Rive the working capital to get SolarCity off the ground in 2006. (In late 2016, Tesla bought SolarCity in a $2.6 billion deal.)SolarCity cofounder Lyndon Rive (left) and Musk.Mark Von Holden/APSource: VentureBeat, InsiderIn 2007, Musk staged a boardroom coup at Tesla, first ousting Eberhard from his CEO seat and then from the company's board and executive suites entirely.ASSOCIATED PRESSSource: WiredIn 2008, with the financial crisis seriously limiting his options, Musk personally saved Tesla from bankruptcy. Musk invested $40 million in Tesla and loaned the company $40 million more. Not coincidentally, he was named the company's CEO the same year.ReutersSource: InsiderBut between SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, Musk nearly went broke. He describes 2008 as "the worst year of my life." Tesla kept losing money, and SpaceX was having trouble launching its Falcon 1 rocket. By 2009, Musk was living off personal loans just to survive.Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk stands on the podium as he attends a forum on startups in Hong Kong, China January 26, 2016.REUTERS/Bobby YipSource: VentureBeatMusk's personal life was in upheaval too: Musk and his wife Justine, a Canadian author, got divorced in 2008. The couple got married in 2000 — their first son, Nevada, died of SIDS at 10 weeks old (the Musks later went on to have twin and triplet boys).Justine Musk.Jason Merritt / Getty ImagesSource: Marie ClaireMusk started dating actress Talulah Riley later that year. They went on to get married in 2010, then divorced in 2012. In July 2013, they remarried. In December 2014, Musk filed for a divorce but withdrew the paperwork. In March 2016, Riley filed for divorce; that divorce was finalized in October.Talulah Riley (left) with Musk.Pascal Le Segretain / Getty ImagesSource: Vanity FairRight around Christmas 2008, Musk got two pieces of good news: SpaceX had landed a $1.5 billion contract with NASA to deliver supplies into space, and Tesla finally found more outside investors.APSource: Ars TechnicaBy June 2010, Tesla held a successful initial public offering. The company raised $226 million in the IPO, becoming the first car company to go public since Ford in 1956. To get his finances back on track, Musk sold shares worth about $15 million in the offering.CEO of Tesla Motors Elon Musk waves after ringing the opening bell at the NASDAQ market in celebration of his company's initial public offering in New York June 29, 2010.REUTERS/Brendan McDermidSource: WiredMusk's career was starting to get noticed in other circles, too, most notably in Hollywood. Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark in the "Iron Man" movies is at least partially based on Musk. Musk even had a cameo in "Iron Man 2."Elon Musk in Iron Man 2Marvel StudiosSource: VoxBy the end of 2015, SpaceX had made 24 launches on assignments like resupplying the International Space Station, setting lots of records along the way. In 2016, the SpaceX Falcon 9 made the first successful ocean landing of a reusable orbital rocket.SpaceX rocket launch.iStock/Getty Images PlusSource: The VergeThe Falcon Heavy, the successor to the Falcon 9 and the most powerful rocket SpaceX has built to date, completed a successful maiden launch in February 2018. The Falcon Heavy carried a unique payload: a dummy dubbed "Starman," and Musk's personal cherry red Tesla Roadster, which were launched toward Martian orbit.Musk's Tesla Roadster and "Starman" orbit in space.SpaceX via Getty ImagesSource: SpaceX, InsiderMusk can't stop coming up with new ideas, either, like the Hyperloop. A super-high-speed train that travels in a vacuum tube, the Hyperloop could theoretically transport passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 minutes.Mike Blake/ReutersSource: SpaceX, InsiderIn a similar vein, Musk started another company in 2016 — The Boring Company, which has a mission to dig a network of tunnels under and around cities for high-speed, no-traffic driving. The Boring Company's first tunnel network for commercial use, located in Las Vegas, opened in April 2021.Boring Company tunnel.Robyn Beck/Pool via REUTERSSource: Insider And in late 2015, Musk cofounded OpenAI, a nonprofit dedicated to researching artificial intelligence and ensuring it doesn't destroy humanity. He later announced that he would step down from the board to avoid any potential conflicts of interest with Tesla, which has made strides into artificial intelligence for its self-driving car technology.OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The company founded the viral AI chatbot, ChatGPT.JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderMusk founded one more company, this one in 2017: Neuralink, which is trying to build devices that can be implanted inside the human brain.Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks before unveiling the Model Y in 2019.AP Photo/Jae C. HongSource: The Wall Street JournalMusk dated "Aquaman" actress Amber Heard, but the two broke up in 2017 after a year of dating. Musk later said in an interview with Rolling Stone that the breakup was very hard on him.Getty ImagesSource: Rolling StoneThe year was a bit rocky from a political standpoint as well. Musk joined President Trump's business advisory council, a move that caused a huge public backlash. He initially defended the move, but he quit after Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Musk said he tried to convince Trump not to withdraw.Musk (center) with Steve Bannon (left), the former White House Chief Strategist, and President Donald TrumpAP/ Evan VucciSource: InsiderIn the spring of 2018, there was a new development in Musk's personal life — he and the musician Grimes struck up a relationship. They reportedly hit it off after they both made the same nerdy joke about artificial intelligence.Elon Musk and Grimes attend the Heavenly Bodies: Fashion & The Catholic Imagination Costume Institute Gala at The Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 7, 2018.Neilson Barnard/GettySource: InsiderMusk ran into some trouble in 2018 when he sent a tweet declaring he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share and had already secured funding. Just a few days later, the SEC sent Tesla subpoenas about the company's plans to go private and Musk's comments.Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderBy September, the SEC had formally filed a lawsuit against Musk, accusing him of making "false and misleading statements." Musk settled with the SEC, which resulted in both him and Tesla paying a $20 million fine and Musk agreeing to step down as chairman of Tesla's board. Additionally, Tesla was required to appoint a committee to oversee Musk's communications.Tesla CEO Elon Musk.Matt Rourke/AP PhotoSource: InsiderIn November 2019, Musk debuted a new Tesla vehicle: the Cybertruck, Tesla's first — and very highly anticipated — pickup truck. Since the unveiling, Musk has been spotted a few times cruising around in the truck, including on a night out to dinner at Nobu with Grimes.News: Tesla CybertruckReutersSource: Insider, InsiderOne month later, Musk won a victory in court when a jury ruled he was not guilty of defaming the British diver Vernon Unsworth. Unsworth had filed a defamation lawsuit in 2018 after Musk called him a "pedo guy" on Twitter.Cave diver Vernon Unsworth lost his defamation case against Elon Musk.REUTERS/David McNewSource: InsiderGrimes dropped a bombshell in January 2020 when she posted a photo of herself where she appeared pregnant. The musician later confirmed that she was expecting a baby with Musk.Jason Kempin/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderMusk has been outspoken about the coronavirus crisis in the US since early March 2020 when he first tweeted that panic over the virus was "dumb." Since then, he's tweeted misinformation about the virus and called US shelter-in-place orders "fascist."Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty ImagesSource: Insider Despite having a substantial real estate portfolio, Musk recently said that he "will own no house" and would sell almost all of his physical possessions. He has since reportedly sold several of his California properties.One of Musk's southern California homes.Lucy Nicholson/Reuters; Sotheby’s International Realty; Yutong Yuan/Business InsiderSource: Insider, InsiderOn May 4, 2020, Grimes gave birth to a baby boy who the couple named X Æ A-Xii Musk, or "X Ash A-12 Musk." The couple calls him "X" for short.Grimes/Instagram Stories; Business InsiderSource: InsiderSpaceX had two major milestones in 2020: First, in May, SpaceX partnered with NASA to complete its first launch of astronauts into space. Then, in November, SpaceX completed its first "operational" human spaceflight by sending four astronauts to the International Space Station for a six-month stay.Elon Musk celebrates after the launch of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft on NASA's SpaceX Demo-2 mission to the International Space Station from NASA's Kennedy Space Center on May 30, 2020.REUTERS/Steve NesiusSource: InsiderTesla also had a good year: It joined the S&P 500 in December, which caused its stock to soar, and the company's market value reached over $894 billion.Tesla's Battery Day event.TeslaSource: Markets InsiderIn late 2020, Musk announced that he had moved to Texas over a spat with the state of California over coronavirus lockdowns. He's since said he wants to create a city around SpaceX's launch facilities known as "Starbase."Tesla CEO Elon Musk during a visit to Germany.Michele Tantussi/ReutersSource: InsiderIn May 2021, Musk hosted "Saturday Night Live" for the first time. Grimes and his mother, Maye, both made appearances on the show.Elon Musk hosted "SNL" on May 8, 2021. His mother, Maye Musk, joined him during his monologue.Will Heath/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderIn September 2021, Page Six reported that Musk and Grimes had broken up after three years of dating. He said at the time that they were "semi-separated" but still loved each other and "are on great terms."RW/MediaPunch/IPxSource: InsiderMusk's longtime spat with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos reached new heights as SpaceX and Bezos' rival company, Blue Origin, have bickered over NASA contracts and their competing satellite projects. When Musk surpassed Bezos to become the world's richest person, he taunted Bezos with the silver-medal emoji.MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty/Axel SpringerSource: Insider, Insider, InsiderIn March 2022, the world found out Musk had his first daughter, Exa Dark Sideræl Musk, with Grimes via a surrogate. The baby was born in December 2021.Mike Windle/Getty Images for CoachellaSource: Insider, Vanity FairGrimes says she and Musk aren't back together, but their relationship is "very fluid," and they plan to have more children together.Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderIn April 2022, Musk became Twitter's largest stakeholder, buying up 9.2% of the company.A man uses a smartphone in New York City in this picture taken November 6, 2013.REUTERS/Mike SegarSource: InsiderAfter initially resisting a purchase attempt, Twitter officially accepted an offer from Musk to buy the company for $44 billion on April 25, 2022.Elon MuskBill Pugliano/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderHowever, on May 13, 2022, Musk tweeted that his deal to buy Twitter was "temporarily on hold" while he investigated how many of Twitter's comprise bots and fake accounts. Twitter management had claimed it is less than 5%.APSource: ReutersThat same month, Insider reported that a flight attendant for SpaceX was paid $250,000 to settle a sexual misconduct claim against Musk in 2018. The flight attendant accused Musk of exposing himself to her during a massage. Musk has denied wrongdoing and told Insider there is "a lot more to this story."Elon Musk on March 9.Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderIn July 2022, Insider reported that Musk had twins with one of his top executives, Shivon Zilis, in November 2021, just weeks before Musk and Grimes had their second child together via surrogate. Zilis works for Neuralink, where Musk is co-CEO.Sean Zanni/Patrick McMullan via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderMusk has tweeted about the falling birthrate in the US and what he calls the "underpopulation crisis," saying he is "doing my part." Musk also announced plans in July 2022 to increase childcare benefits at his companies.APSource: InsiderIn July, Musk attempted to pull the plug on his deal to buy Twitter via a letter from his lawyer. The letter cited multiple attempts by Musk to try to get more information about the number of fake and spam accounts using Twitter.Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesAs a result, Twitter sued Musk to enforce his original agreement to buy the company. Musk countersued, kicking off a months-long legal battle.Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, is pushing for a harder-driving culture at the company.Carina Johansen/Getty ImagesMusk's war with Twitter management finally ended when the billionaire offered to go ahead and buy Twitter at the originally agreed-upon price of $44 billion. The trial between Musk and Twitter had been set to begin in a matter of weeks.Elon MuskGilbert Carrasquillo/GC ImagesSource: The New York TimesElon Musk officially closed the deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, becoming the owner of the social platform in late October. His first act was to fire Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and a number of other top executives at the company.Former Twitter CEO Parag AgrawalKevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesMusk's tenure at Twitter got off to a controversial start. He introduced a plan to start charging users $8 a month for a "blue check," altering the company's verification process. He has also laid off roughly 50% of its staff and allowed formerly banned accounts back onto the platform, including former President Donald Trump.Elon Musk enters the Twitter headquarters in San Francisco carrying a kitchen sink.Getty ImagesSource: Insider, InsiderIn December 2022, Musk was de-throned as the world's richest man amid an epic decline in Tesla's stock price. LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault surpassed Musk on both the Forbes' Billionaires List and the Bloomberg Billionaire Index.Arnault's company, LVMH, owns luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Tiffany & Co., Christian Dior, and Fendi.ERIC PIERMONT/AFP/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderIn fact, Musk lost more than $100 billion in 2022, breaking the Guinness World Record for the "largest loss of personal fortune in history."NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty ImagesSource: InsiderAs Musk strived to make Twitter more profitable, he reportedly failed to pay rent on multiple Twitter offices. He is reportedly being sued by Twitter's San Francisco landlord and King Charles III's Crown Estate, which manages the company's London office.King Charles III and Elon Musk.HENRY NICHOLLS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images; Taylor Hill/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderSince agreeing to buy Twitter, Musk has grown more emboldened in voicing his political opinions. In November 2022, he urged his "independent-minded" followers to back Republican candidates in the US midterm elections.Elon Musk donated more than $1.2 million to politicians, parties, political action committees, and referendum campaigns since 2002.Theo Wargo/Getty Images, Sam Tabahriti/InsiderSource: InsiderAmid his ongoing rightward political shift, Musk was seen sitting with News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch at the 2023 Super Bowl.Elon Musk sits between Elisabeth Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch.FoxSource: InsiderElon Musk has not shied away from warning about the risks of artificial intelligence, either, even going so far as to criticize the company he helped start, OpenAI. Musk said OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, had become a "maximum profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft" – not what he intended.OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk.GettySource: InsiderMusk has hinted that he doesn't plan to remain Twitter's CEO for too long, saying that he planned to find someone to take over the top job towards the end of 2023.Elon Musk leaves Tesla's Washington office on January 27.REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstSource: InsiderIn late-February 2023, Musk's luck seemed to be turning around: he took back the title of world's richest man from Bernard Arnault as Tesla's stock soared.Elon Musk (left) and Bernard Arnault (right).Rashid Umar Abbasi/Reuters; Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesSource: InsiderRead the original article on Business Insider.....»»

"Hyper-Sexualization Of Students": Parents Rein In 'Rogue' Sex Education In Michigan Schools Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Long-standing Michigan laws have become a new weapon for a group of aspiring education reformers seeking to guard school children in the state against what they call “illegal hyper-sexualization” and other “woke” teachings. Kindsey Nelson (L) and Monica Yatooma at a parental rights meeting in St. Clari Shores, Mich. on Oct. 14, 2022. (Courtesy of Monica Yatooma) Activists concerned about what they were seeing in the state’s public schools recently formed a non-profit, non-partisan organization they call the Great Schools Initiative (GSI). They aim to help parents keep children from being exposed to teachings about gender change, sexual practices, and other concepts that they believe are harmful. Co-founder Monica Yatooma, who has no children in a public school, became alarmed when she heard friends speak of things happening at their children’s public schools. Shocking news updates also caught her attention. It sounded like an effort to indoctrinate children in her community’s public schools about sexuality. Yatooma began researching the websites of school districts in her state, where she saw evidence of programs espousing the teachings of critical race theory (CRT) and “the hyper-sexualization of students through exposure to gender ideology,” she said. “That’s where GSI came from.”  Michigan parental rights activist Monica Yatooma. (Courtesy of Monica Yatooma) Now, she and others are using the group’s efforts to help parents statewide. “Our goal is to bring back orthodox education and to improve our schools,” the group’s co-founder Nathan Pawl told The Epoch Times. “Our immediate mission is to protect the safety and privacy of every student and to restore parental control over what their child is being taught in school.” Human sexuality is “a highly sensitive” subject, Pawl said. “It often implicates family structure, religion, and the maturity levels, both physically and spiritually, of school children. “Uninvolved parents have let their schools run unchecked for years in the realm of sex education,” he said. Digging for Solutions As GSI activists began investigating, they uncovered significant problems in numerous districts. Group members began attending school board meetings more regularly, hearing stories from other parents, and researching state laws looking for solutions, Pawl said. “We discovered that Michigan has very strong and wise statutes on the books dealing with sex education and parental rights dating back to the mid-1970s.” GSI researchers found that Michigan law does not mandate that schools teach sex education, with the exception of lessons on HIV and AIDS. If sex-ed is taught, it cannot be a requirement for graduation. “These laws do not prohibit the existence of LGBTQ students, nor do they prohibit a school from teaching about a wide range of sex education topics,” Pawl said. “Rather, these laws wisely restrict sex education to specific courses and class sections, with an approved curriculum, to be taught by an instructor qualified to teach sex education,” GSI wrote in a blog posted on its website. An illustration encouraging children to think of gender as a spectrum was distributed by Gorham High School in Maine. (Courtesy of a student who asked to be identified as HB) GSI members realized that under existing Michigan law, parents must be notified before a sex-ed course is presented to their children. They have a right to preview lesson content and materials and to observe the instruction at reasonable, agreed-upon times. The laws also say that parents have the right to opt out of the class without penalty or negative ramifications to the student, such as loss of credit. An opt-out can be accomplished by filing a written notice with the school. But most parents are unaware of these provisions in the law, GSI members said. Michigan law “solidifies the role of the family, especially parents, and allows them to decide what pace to set for their children with regard to learning about human sexuality,” Yatooma said. The statutes “assert the necessary parental control that parents have. A parent always knows the child best.” It’s important, she said, to “protect the innocence of all of our children for as long as possible” and “set common-sense standards and boundaries to protect their safety and privacy.” In their digging, GSI members also realized that the Michigan statutes mandate that any school district desiring to create or change a sex-education program must form a sex education advisory board tasked with reviewing proposed plans, setting goals and objectives, and providing community input to the school board. And at least once every two years, the board must report to parents on the status of the program’s goals and objectives. Boards are to be comprised of pupils, parents, educators, local clergy, and community health professionals. At least half of the members must have children enrolled in a school in the district. Without such a board, a school district may not teach sex education, Michigan law says. GSI now is encouraging parents and others to see if their local school districts have a sex education advisory board in place, verify its makeup, and check to be sure it’s doing what the law requires. Parents Unaware of Their Rights Many Michigan parents are not aware of the power they already have under existing state law to withdraw their children from lessons, activities, discussions, books, videos, and other materials they find inappropriate, Pawl said. GSI aims to inform and educate parents, but also take “impactful actions,” he said. The group has teamed up with the Thomas More Society to draft the Michigan Parental Education Opt-Out Form. The Thomas More Society is a non-profit, national, public-interest law firm providing pro bono legal services to individuals or groups fighting to restore “respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty” and to preserve democracy through election integrity efforts. The four-page opt-out form they’ve created, which is free online, leaves school administrators with little wiggle room to dismiss parental opt-out requests on technicalities—something some school districts have already attempted to do, Pawl said. “We have provided a comprehensive list of dozens of examples of situations, topics, and items that parents may reasonably find objectionable,” Pawl said. The list includes distribution of birth control and providing references to abortion clinics; gender ideology and gender modification surgery information; sexual attraction; teachings or discussions on sensual topics; non-grammatical use of pronouns inconsistent with biology; display and distribution of LGBT materials, books, and flags; and the furnishing of clothing for cross-dressing. ‘Rogue Sex Education’ The GSI form addresses both the approved sex-education class and the informal instruction involving sexuality that goes on throughout the school day during the time allotted for other subjects, Pawl said. GSI considers such informal instruction “rogue,” because it hasn’t been reviewed and recommended by a sex education advisory board and approved by the local school board. Also considered “rogue sex ed” are class chats about sexuality with teachers not certified to teach sex education and the injection of gender identity and sexual orientation into lessons and activities outside the confines and structure of an approved sex education class. “Schools have allowed and encouraged sex education to be permeated into much more than the few classes listed on the school’s opt-out form,” reads a statement on GSI’s website. That’s why the new form created by GSI activists with the help of Thomas More Society lawyers is so needed, members told The Epoch Times. In just a few days more than 200 parents used the GSI opt-out form, and about 10 school districts have accepted it, Yatooma said. State Education Officials Respond The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) issued a memo on Feb. 2 to provide guidance to local school superintendents on how to handle the flurry of parents opting their children out of sex education. The MDE position is that the statutory parental opt-out option applies only to board-approved sex education classes. “These requirements are specific to sex education classes within a health course or unit … and should not be construed to apply to classes or course content outside that scope. “Policies and procedures for excusing a student from participating in courses and content areas other than the sex education classes within a health education program, such as an English or Social Studies course, are not provided for in … state law,” the memo reads, in part. Such policies are to be determined at the local district level, subject to any relevant state and federal conditions, the MDE memo says. In rebuttal, Pawl cited former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley’s Opinion 5881 issued on April 21, 1981, which he believes supports GSI’s position. Kelley opined that Michigan law “prohibits a board of education of a school district from including any sex education instruction in any class or course that students are required to take.” Also, in support of GSI’s position, Pawl referred to the portion of the MDE memo, which states, “By law, sex education classes must be taught by a person qualified to teach health education.” “It is clear,” Pawl said, “that a teacher that is not certified in sex education has no business infusing a math or social studies class with information pertaining to gender or sexual orientation. It is illegal.” A statement on GSI’s website characterizes these situations as violations “of privacy and a safety issue when teachers, counselors, or administrators have conversations or solicit private information through polls, quizzes, and other communications about human sexuality … This would include promotion of any and all sexual ideologies.” Pawl contends that state law requires that this type of activity be confined to sex education advisory board-reviewed and school board-approved sex education classes only. In contrast, the MDE memo advises school administrators that activities and materials outside of the approved sex-education instructional program, such as “communications, library holdings, surveys, after-school programs, and student-led non-curricular clubs … would not be subject to the sex education excusal provisions specified in statute.” Laws Being Ignored or Circumvented GSI alleges that, for a number of reasons—including ignorance—state laws on sex education are being ignored by some schools, and intentionally skirted by others. As evidence, Pawl cites an MDE informational video about a suburban Detroit 5th- and 6th-grade language arts and social studies teacher. The instructor announces in the video that every year on the first day of school he reads aloud to his class the book “I Am Jazz: The Real-Life Experience of a Transgender Child” by LGBT activist Jazz Jennings. A book bin in the classroom overflows with other LGBT titles. The teacher—also chairperson of his school’s Diversity Committee and a former Michigan Teacher of the Year—says he uses the reading to show his students that they can be comfortable talking about LGBT issues with him “whenever and wherever” they need to. The video shows his classroom door covered with LGBT pride signs, stickers, and emblems. The teacher points out the rainbow-hued gay pride flag and transgender flag on display as tools that he says he uses to stimulate discussion and help create a “safe and inclusive space” for all students. GSI members object to that. “Nobody can display a Playboy flag in the classroom and claim it is a benign symbol and conversation starter,” Pawl said. “Flags are a tool that represents something and that begs questions.” Another Michigan Department of Education video shows a consultant advising teachers not to risk “outing” students by organizing LGBT club meetings for after school, when parents will be picking up their children. Instead, the consultant suggests, teachers should hold such club meetings at lunch hour. Teachers are told to avoid club names that suggest an obvious LGBT theme, in favor of more innocuous names, such as “Diversity Club” or “Spectrum” or “Social Support Club,” according to the video. In another MDE instructional video, psychologist Amorie Robinson, known locally as Dr. Kofi Adoma, instructs teachers on how to handle things like gender identity, name changes, and personal pronouns. “Gender fluidity” is a normal process, Robinson says, and should be addressed with children aged 3–5 through something she calls “psycho-ed.” She advises teachers to employ a “psycho-ed” approach at school-wide events, such as Coming Out Day and Gay History Month. Forcing ‘Their Agenda on Students’ “A reasonable person cannot help but conclude that the LGBT agenda in our schools is being driven on purpose by the Michigan Department of Education with help from well-funded national non-profit organizations,” Pawl said. “It is evident that teachers and administrators are being taught how to cloak their activities, and, in some cases, actively circumvent the law in order to force their agenda on students. This comes at a time when so many parents tell us of the atrocious academic proficiency of their schools.” Erick G. Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society. (Courtesy of Erick G. Kaardal) GSI wants to cooperate with school boards, administrators, and teachers to “improve policies to provide the safety, privacy, and parental control which Michigan families deserve,” Erick G. Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, told The Epoch Times. “GSI hopes that most of the issues can be resolved through the parental complaint administrative process without litigation,” he said, but added that “litigation remains an option for GSI, if that doesn’t work.” The Michigan Parent Alliance for Safe Schools, an LGBT rights advocacy group, did not respond to a request for comment. GSI also will help families file complaints, the group’s members told The Epoch Times. “Those children are not the state’s property,” Yatooma said. “The system is trying to form the thoughts and mindset of the next generation. They are forcing a subset of ideologies about sex and race on these vulnerable young minds that most of their parents do not agree with.” Tyler Durden Tue, 02/14/2023 - 22:45.....»»