Hunter Biden owes massive credit card debt after living like a high roller with access to millions of dollars linked to business dealings overseas that proved insufficient to satisfy his ravenous appetite for drugs, prostitutes, and luxury cars, the Daily Mail reported Friday.
The Daily Mail published a bombshell report surrounding the potentially incriminating contents of a laptop purportedly owned by Hunter that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and eventually given to the FBI.
On Friday, the Daily Mail unveiled contents of the laptop that go well beyond the emails first reported by theNew York Post in October 2020 detailing Hunter’s lucrative overseas business deals that helped him lead a drug-addled lifestyle, with prostitutes, and luxurious rides.
Ultimately, his lifestyle left him broke, unable to support his drug and prostitute habit and support his family.
The Daily Mail summarized its long bombshell report, noting:
Hunter Biden’s wild spending left him with huge debts to credit card companies and desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes, DailyMail.com can reveal
Pictures, documents, emails and texts obtained by DailyMail.com from Hunter’s laptop reveal he spent thousands of dollars on strippers and prostitutes
Biden even threatened to take $20,000 out of his daughter’s education savings account
Pictures found on the laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack bagged up on a scale, and Hunter naked and in bed with women
The numerous expenses left him strapped for cash when it came to supporting his new family
In an April 2017 email, [Hunter’s company] Rosemont Seneca Vice President wrote to Hunter detailing how he faced total bills of $476,231.60, including $60,467 on three credit cards and $320,417.85 in unpaid federal taxes
In 2019, the FBI seized the laptop in connection to a money-laundering scheme. Last December, Hunter and his then-president-elect father admitted that the U.S. Attorney in Delaware was investigating the younger Biden over his federal taxes.
Hunter reportedly made between $50,000 and $100,000 monthly working for corruption-linked Ukrainian gas conglomerate Burisma between 2014 and 2019, helping him fill his coffers with at least $6,070,150 from 2013 to 2016, the Daily Mail found.
Nevertheless, the news outlet noted, “Leaked emails reveal how Hunter Biden was desperate to avoid jail for unpaid taxes – after blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on luxury cars, prostitutes, drugs, and designer clothing.”
According to the documents obtained by the Daily Mail, Hunter kept a 2014 Porsche, an Audi, a 2018 Ford Raptor Truck, an $80,000 boat, a Range Rover, Land Rover, BMW, and Chevrolet Truck.
He also spent thousands of dollars on strippers – including one who had his child – suspected prostitutes, and massive amounts of crack.
Hunter told an Arkansas judge he could not pay child support for the child he fathered with stripper Lunden Roberts, even as he rented a $12,000 per month home in Hollywood and was driving a Porsche Panamera at the time.
Ultimately, he settled the case with Roberts out of court after the judge ordered him to produce his financial records.
The Daily Mail noted:
The bombshell cache of 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails, more than 2,000 photos, and dozens of videos from Hunter’s laptop and authenticated by experts retained by DailyMail.com are packed with revelations conveniently missing from his newly published memoir, Beautiful Things.
The pictures, documents, emails, and texts reveal that despite reporting more than $6 million of income from 2013 to 2016, Hunter’s bacchanalian expenses left him with huge debts to credit card companies and the tax man.
Some of the pictures show Hunter half nude, with only a bathrobe on like the late Hugh Hefner from the Playboy mansion, only instead of a cigar, Hunter is reportedly shown smoking what appears to be a crack pipe.
Other pictures found on his laptop show what appears to be thousands of dollars worth of crack on a Cheech and Chong branded scale and Hunter naked and in bed with likely prostitutes.
Like most drug addicts, Hunter sunk low, threatening to take money from his daughter’s education savings account.
The walls began to close in as his business dealings, described as shady by critics, came under the microscope of conservative media outlets such as Breitbart News. At the same time, the Democrat-allied mainstream outlets ignored Hunter’s overseas deals.
Although his money situation reportedly appeared to substantially improve in 2020, allowing him to pay the District of Columbia a $453,890 tax bill just six days after it was issued, that did not last long.
Hunter was unable to keep his high roller lifestyle and support his family on over a half a million dollar a year salary, and he had to borrow money from one of his companies to keep himself solvent, Eric Schwerin, the president of Hunter’s company Rosemont Seneca, reportedly wrote in an email in January 2017,
“As his finances descended into disarray and his assistants begged him to pay his mounting bills, the President’s son lashed out threatening to cut staff pay, take money from his daughter’s educational savings, and complained about his alimony bills,” the Daily Mail noted, adding:
In October 2018 email from Hunter’s accountant shows that by that year his tax debt had ballooned to an eye-watering $804,000, including $600,000 in personal taxes and $204,000 for one of his businesses that received money from Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
It appears Hunter is not the only Biden with a distorted version of reality.
In the few public comments Joe has made recently amid the fall to rock bottom by his son, his then-president-elect father blamed other people for his son’s downfall.
When announcing the feds were investigating Hunter for failing to pay taxes, Biden said last December he is “deeply proud of his son who has fought through difficult challenges, including personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”
McALLEN, Texas — Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) led several Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee on a two-day visit to McAllen this week where they witnessed the ongoing border crisis, and all the members — as they recapped their visit — said the Biden administration was at fault for surging numbers of illegal migrants.
Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 170,000 migrants crossing the southern border illegally in March, a 72 percent increase from February. As Breitbart News reported, in the first two full months of President Joe Biden’s time in office, February and March, apprehensions were at a combined total of nearly 210,000, while in the last four months of former President Donald Trump’s tenure, apprehensions were at a combined total of just over 280,000.
Jordan, the ranking Republican member on the Judiciary Committee, gathered from speaking with Border Patrol agents that the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program, also known as Remain in Mexico — which Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suspended on his first day as president — is imperative to reinstate as a first step in controlling the migrant influx.
Jordan told Breitbart News on Wednesday near the conclusion of his visit, “This is … not just Jim Jordan talking, not just Republican members of the Judiciary Committee talking. This is the Border Patrol agents themselves, what they’re telling us. That’s what we’ve got to get done, and we have to talk about this and try to persuade our Democratic colleagues this is just good common sense. This is for the good of the country, and frankly, it’s for the good of these kids and these families who are making that treacherous trek up through Mexico to get here.”
The MPP program allowed border officials to return asylum-seeking migrants back to Mexico while they await the processing of their claims, which the Trump administration at the time of implementing the program, in January 2019, said would serve as a deterrent for illegal migration and help control an “unprecedented number” of “fraudulent asylum claims.”
Opponents of the MPP program argue sending asylum-seekers back to Mexico puts them in potentially unsanitary or dangerous conditions and creates nearly insurmountable barriers to being granted asylum if they do actually qualify for it.
However, as Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) detailed during a roundtable the delegation attended Wednesday, halting the MPP program has served as one cause — among several other Biden policies — of what has now become America’s “massive humanitarian crisis.”
“We know that it’s policy driven,” Biggs said. “We know that it’s this Biden administration’s policies that have done this. Why do we know that? Because we simply have to look at when those policies were in place. I’m talking MPP, the Remain in Mexico policy. I’m talking about the agreements with the Northern Triangle states, with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. I’m talking about the incentive factor. We all respond to incentives. How about $1,400 per illegal alien in the COVID relief package? How about a free education? How about, you’ll get transported wherever you need to go? And once you’re in, it’s almost impossible for you to be sent out, and that’s really what’s going on. And so, President Trump found a problem, and he solved it. President Biden saw a solution and now he’s dissolved that and created a massive humanitarian crisis.”
Biggs, at a press conference later on Wednesday, referred to comments Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador made: “That’s why the president of Mexico said this is Biden’s mess. It is Biden’s mess.”
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), who also attended the trip, agreed asylum claims are a “predicate for people entering the country.” He told Breitbart News of the MPP program, “It was an innovative, strategic policy to eliminate the perverse incentive in asylum claims. They can assert their asylum right, but you don’t want as the price of that to have any unlimited numbers of people coming into the country.”
The House Judiciary Committee is the committee that has primary jurisdiction over immigration policy. Jordan said at the press conference the committee’s Democrat members were invited on the trip and declined the invitation. Breitbart News reached out to committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to inquire about the reason for this and did not receive an immediate response.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), the lead Republican on the committee’s subcommittee on immigration, said the Biden administration also shares blame for the swell of illegal migration because of his 100-day moratorium on most deportations. “My assessment is that Biden’s executive order on returning criminal illegals, deporting them after they’ve served their terms, now essentially makes the United States a sanctuary nation,” McClintock said during the roundtable.
Despite a federal judge blocking Biden’s moratorium in February, a Wall Street Journal analysis found Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s job priorities have still changed under the new administration’s policies as indicated by a drop of 50 percent in deportations in March compared with deportations in the months at the end of Trump’s tenure.
Biden’s DHS issued a memo on his first day in office justifying calling for the moratorium, saying DHS must “surge resources” to the southern border to “ensure safe, legal, and orderly processing, to rebuild fair and effective asylum procedures that respect human rights and due process … and to prioritize responding to threats to national security, public safety, and border security.”
The delegation’s consensus, however, was that Biden’s immigration policies and rhetoric about such policies have created a magnet for illegal migration and resulted in what has become growing and uncontrollable numbers of illegal migrants.
Two other members of the Judiciary Committee in attendance, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), railed against Biden for failing to acknowledge the issue. “Not dealing with this issue, not looking at the policies, I think it’s a complete lack of leadership and disregard,” Spartz told Breitbart News.
Owens surmised, “It’s either incompetence or it’s on purpose.”
Joe Biden was first elected to public office in 1970, the same year that Jimmy Carter was elected governor of Georgia.Two years later, in 1972, Biden was elected as a senator from Delaware, and four years after that, in 1976, Carter was elected to the presidency—with Biden as a worker bee on his behalf.
So, during the late 1970s, Biden served in the Senate while Carter was in the White House.Then in 1980, when Carter was running for re-election, Biden appeared at the Democratic National Convention praising Carter on national television.
In other words, Biden should remember well what life was like during the Carter administration.And he should also remember that Carter went down in a landslide defeat in 1980, losing 41 of 50 states—including Biden’s Delaware—to Ronald Reagan.
President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., greet Biden supporters at a $1,000-a-couple fund raising reception at a Wilmington, Delaware, hotel on Monday, Feb. 20, 1978. Biden was the first U.S. senator to endorse Carter’s presidential candidacy in 1976. (AP Photo)
Given President Carter’s miserable experience, one might expect that President Biden would be cautious about doing anything that would harken back to the Carter days.
Yet curiously, Biden’s policies are echoing Carter’s in what’s typically the most important issue-area for any president: economic policy.As we shall see, Carter’s policies were not a success—they were, in fact, a disaster—and yet there goes Biden, following down Carter’s path.So if Biden remembers the 1970s, what could he be thinking, re-enacting 70s-type policies?
Perhaps he’s thinking that not that many Americans remember the 1970s—and he’s right about that.In fact, about two thirds of Americans alive today are under the age of 50, which means that they have little or no memory of the larger events of that decade.
Thus we can see: Americans are at risk of finding themselves in the mental trap described by the philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”The only escape from this trap, of course, is that we all learn about the past.
So perhaps those of us who do remember the 1970s can offer a refresher on its economic history.Or better yet, a been-there-done-that warning about failed economic policies.Here goes:
The predominant economic school of thought at the beginning of the 1970s was Keynesianism.John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) believed that the critical variable to economic growth was the maintenance of aggregate demand—that is, the overall willingness of the population to spend money.Yet, of course, people couldn’t spend money unless they had money.So if they lacked money, the government should, Keynes said, print money or borrow money and give it to people who would then spend it, thereby stimulating the economy.Presto!Aggregate demand is maintained, the economy reaches its optimum output, and people are happy.That at least was the theory.
It was the administration of President John F. Kennedy [1961-1963] that first used fiscal policy with the intent of manipulating aggregate demand to move the economy toward its potential output.Kennedy’s willingness to embrace Keynes’s ideas changed the nation’s approach to fiscal policy for the next two decades.
Yet there was a bad side effect from too much pumping up of demand: inflation.That is, if too much demand, or money, is chasing too few goods, then the prices of those goods are bid up.Mankiw further details the impact of the wastrel aggregate-demand policy of the 1960s:
But the inflation that came with it, together with other problems, would create real difficulties for the economy and for macroeconomic policy in the 1970s.
Yes, in the 1970s America suffered a hangover from the spending spree of the previous decade.In the 60s, free-spending policies—most obviously President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight the War in Vietnam and the War on Poverty at the same time—caused more than a tripling of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index, from 1.7 percent in 1960 to 5.5 percent in 1969.
That was indeed long ago and far away.In 1969, even after a decade of rising prices, the price of a first-class postage stamp was just six cents, a gallon of gasoline was 36 cents, and the median home price was a little more than $23,000.
Then came the 1970s—and real inflation.In the years of that decade, the inflation rate was never lower than 3.2 percent, and it reached as high as 11.3 percent; the average rate was a stiff 7.1 percent.Not surprisingly, consumers—especially those on fixed or limited incomes—were alarmed and angry.And consumers, of course, are also voters.We can add that in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the inflation rate soared to 13.5 percent.
Such inflation was unacceptable, even if it wasn’t so easy to overcome.During the ’70s, three presidents, of both parties—Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and Democrat Carter—struggled to combat inflation; they tried everything, from imposing price controls, to wearing lapel buttons, to delivering “malaise” speeches, and yet nothing worked.
To make matters worse, at the same time, the unemployment rate was rising: from 3.9 percent in January 1970, to a peak of nine percent in May 1975, to a still-too-high six percent at the end of 1979.
Most economists were puzzled by this unfortunate concatenation of events, risingprices and rising joblessness.Yet if they couldn’t cure the problem, they could at least give it a name.Thus we had a new portmanteau word: “stagflation”—a fusing of “stagnation” and “inflation.”
President Gerald Ford, wearing a WIN button on his lapel, holds up a WIN enlistment form which asks citizens to sign up as inflation fighters, during his news conference in the White House Rose Garden on October 9, 1974. WIN stands for Whip Inflation Now. (AP Photo)
President Jimmy Carter delivers his energy speech, which became known as the “malaise” speech, on television on July 15, 1979. (AP Photo/Dale G. Young)
Demand Side, Meet Supply Side
However, a few rogue economists did step forward with new solutions.One such was Arthur Laffer, whose Laffer Curve showed that high tax rates—the top personal income tax rate in the ’70swas a daunting 70 percent—were stifling productivity and supply.And to Laffer, supply was more important than demand, hence the nickname assigned to Lafferites, “supply siders.”To Laffer and his allies, including Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), borrowing or printing money to pump up aggregate demand did not help if supply was being choked by taxes and regulation; in fact, such over-stimulation and under-production proved to be a recipe for still more inflation.
Another economist with a different approach was the late Robert Mundell, who died just on April 4 of this year, at the age of 88. Mundell argued that predictable tight money, not loose money, was vital so that businesses, investors, and governments could make better financial decisions. To Mundell, the whole Keynesian idea of “fine-tuning” aggregate demand was a misnomer; the key was monetary stability.
To put it mildly, the ideas of Laffer and Mundell were viewed as heresy by most of their professional contemporaries.In the words of Mankiw: “Economists did not think in terms of shifts in short-run aggregate supply.Keynesian economics focused on shifts in aggregate demand, not supply.”
Meanwhile, in the White House, Jimmy Carter had to defend his failed economic record. He himself was not a big spender, and yet he defended demand-side economics, even as it dissolved into stagflation.Indeed, during his 1980 re-election campaign, Carter attacked challenger Reagan’s supply-side tax-rate-cutting plan.So what was Carter’s better idea?What was his economic vision for a brighter second term?He didn’t say.
For his part, Reagan was a firm believer in the supply side, which he linked to the basic virtues of hard work, entrepreneurship, and limited government.And in the 1980 election, it was he, not Carter, who prevailed.
After being sworn in as our 40th president, Reagan followed Laffer’s advice and cut tax rates; he also followed Mundell’s idea of tight money.
President Ronald Reagan signs the largest tax cut bill in U.S. history at his ranch near Santa Barbara, California, in 1981. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi)
There’s no need now to recall the history of Reaganomics, and yet we can observe that the people who knew Reagan best—that is, his fellow Americans, living under his leadership—boostedhim to a massive re-election in 1984, granting him 525 of their 538 electoral votes.
We can also add that epic rewards came to both Mundell and Laffer.In 1999, Mundell was honored with the Nobel Prize in Economics, and in 2019, Laffer received the Medal of Freedom from President Donald Trump.
Yet now today, Biden is undoing what remains of Reagan’s supply-side legacy; he is shifting his focus back to the demand side.In fact, in contravention of Laffer Curve thinking, Biden has even proposed raising some tax rates.In other words, Biden is on his way back to where entered into politics—back to the 1970s.
Most obviously, Biden has returned to the Keynesian prescription of boosting aggregate demand.As The New York Timesexplained, “The president sees public spending, rather than relying on businesses to turn tax cuts into investment, as the key to competitiveness.”
And since a central tenet of aggregate-demand theory is that the poor have a higher propensity to consume—that is, they are more likely to spend, not save—Biden is most glad to transfer money to the poor.As another New York Times piece declared in its headline, “To Juice the Economy, Biden Bets on the Poor.”As far as the Times is concerned, more spending equals more growth, pure and simple: “Many economists predict that the increase in consumer spending would spur more hiring and business production, helping to lift the economy to its fastest annual growth rate since the mid-1980s.”
So is that really how the economy works?That we can simply spend ourselves rich? The Biden people seem to think so.Once again, journalists and pundits are on board; the MSM abounds with upbeat speculation that Bidenomics could bring about a new “Roaring 20s.”
But what about roaring inflation?After all, the new spending has to be spent somewhere—and so will that pump up aggregate demand to inflationary levels? That’s the concern of Lawrence Summers, a top economic official in the Clinton and Obama administrations.In a February 4 Washington Post op-ed he warned:
There is a chance that macroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.
The new spending has, after all, been a gusher—a gusher of red ink.According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, last year’s federal deficit was $3.1 trillion, and this year’s deficit will be $3.4 trillion—although, of course, that number could go up if federal expenditures rise higher than the current level of about $6 trillion.
To look at this spending another way, we can look to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, which calculates that federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product rose from 20.7 percent in 2019 to 31.3 percent in 2020; yes, that’s the biggest spike in Uncle Sam’s share of GDP since World War II.
And with all that aggregate demand surging into the economy, it’s possible, as Summers suggests, that we could see the sort of rapidly rising prices that blighted the decade of the 1970s—and wrecked Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Indeed, just on April 9, Breitbart News’ financial newsletter took note of the sudden surge in producer prices in March, suggesting a possible annual inflation rate of 4.2 percent. That is, indeed, a 1970s-ish inflation number.
President Joe Biden speaks during an event on the American Jobs Plan in the South Court Auditorium on the White House campus, Wednesday, April 7, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Still, Biden supporters are untroubled; they see inflation as much less of a problem than unemployment.Thus New York magazine hailed Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP, the $1.9 trillion Covid bill, which the president signed into law on March 11), as a “paradigm shift.” And specifically addressing the threat of inflation, the author asserted:
With the ARP, the federal government is risking a depreciation in the real value of the economic elite’s bonds and cash holdings for the sake of minimizing involuntary joblessness.
In other words, maybe yes, bonds and cash will depreciate (that’s what happens with inflation).But according to the article, that’s okay, because such depreciation will affect rich people.
Yet in fact, the elite don’t often hold much in the way of bonds or cash; they mostly hold stocks, or own real estate, or other variably priced assets, which often rise with inflation.In addition, of course, the rich tend to pay close attention to their money—and so, of all the income classes, they are the most likely to shift their assets as the need arises.
In other words, if there’s a new bout of inflation, the wealthy will likely be fine—and they’ll still be wealthy, no matter what.In reality, the biggest losers are likely to be those of humbler means, including those on fixed-income pensions and those who keep their funds in a checking account—or under a mattress.
It seems unnecessary to add that there are more voters with middle and low incomes than with high incomes.Which is, to say, by inflating the economy, Biden could be deflating his political standing.
So now we can wonder: If we again suffer from inflation as we had in the 1970s, might the Democrats today suffer another political backlash—as they did in 1980?Surely Biden remembers Reagan giving Carter the boot? Right?
There’s no way to know.And yet we do know, because wise old Santayana told us, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released a statement Friday calling President Joe Biden’s court-packing commission a “direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary.”
In McConnell’s statement, he called the left’s attempt to pack the court a “direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary,” another sign of the Biden administration veering further left.
The Republican Senator said there is nothing to “study” about the judicial branch’s structure or operation, adding that any “rational observers know well there is nothing.”
Constitutional scholars and the justices themselves have repeatedly affirmed the position of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘nine seems to be a good number.’ Justice Breyer said just this week that ‘structural alteration’ like court packing would mean ‘eroding’ the public’s trust in the judiciary. And by overwhelming margins, the American people agree.
Currently, a growing number of elected Democrats have an “open disdain for judicial independence a key part of their political platforms.” The Democrats have even gone as far, where “a sitting Senator has personally threatened certain justices should they rule against liberal interests,” he said, referring to Senate Majority Leader (then-Minority Leader) Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh outside the Supreme Court in March 2020.
This new court-packing commission is not some serious pivot away from Democrats’ political attacks on the Court. It’s just an attempt to clothe those attacks in fake legitimacy.
In addition to Schumer, more “Democrats signed a threatening brief suggesting the Court needed to either deliver liberal rulings or face being ‘restructured.’” Biden spent a good portion of time on this campaign trail, “playing coy on the issue,” McConnell recalled.
McConnell said Friday that Biden finally admitted what his true intentions are now that he has the safety of a four-year term. The Republican calls Biden’s view on the court “out of whack.”
“So anyone who was surprised by the creation of a commission on packing the Supreme Court simply hasn’t been paying attention,” later adding, the “faux-academic study of a nonexistent problem fits squarely within liberals’ years-long campaign to politicize the Court, intimidate its members, and subvert its independence.”
“This is not some new, serious, or sober pivot away from Democrats’ political attacks on the Court. It’s just an attempt to clothe those ongoing attacks in fake legitimacy,”‘ McConnell added, saying this would be disappointing to anyone, whether they are Democrat or Republican, to help this commission in any way.
“This is just another example of the liberal preference for attacking norms and institutions, rather than working within them. When Democrats lose a floor vote, it’s time to change Senate rules,” the Republican said, adding when the Democrats lose a presidential election, they would call for the abolishing of the electoral college.
“Activists’ cases fall flat against the rule of law, it’s time to ignore Justices Ginsburg and Breyer and pack the Supreme Court,” he wrote.
McConnell calls in to question the promises Biden made during his campaign to “lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation.” Biden would “stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it,” if that’s what Biden really wanted to do, McConnell concluded.
Let me be clear…. I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands. I have made this assertion since the jaw-dropping revelations about the Pentagon during the first impeachment effort in August 2019 and the lack of leadership from the military in removing Lt. Col Alexander Vindman from his compromised position.
♦ WHAT: As I look forward the likely origination point for military deployment will be federal COVID mandates, though it could also be state election issues. ♦ HOW: The hardline leftists are weaponizing the military for political benefit. ♦ WHEN: As a result of severe federal government intrusion it is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands. That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point and posse comitatus will be suspended.
The majority of the U.S. military rank and file are patriots; America-first nationalists with a patriotic outlook toward the United States as a constitutional republic. The majority of the military also come from red states. This is an identified risk to the Obama objective of fundamental change. Additionally, thanks in large part to a purge during the Obama era, the majority of the flag officers are not in alignment with the rank and file. This sets the stage for a problem….
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday ordered new steps to tackle the threat posed by extremism in the ranks of the military, including updated screening questionnaires for recruits, a review of the department’s definition of extremism and efforts to prevent veterans from being drawn into violent movements.
The move follows a 60-day stand-down across the armed services that Austin ordered to allow commanders and troops in every unit to discuss how to confront the problem of white supremacist or other extremist ideology within the military. The Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump thrust the issue into the spotlight, as some of the mob were former or current members of the military with links to ultra-rightwing groups.
In a memo Friday to top officials and commanders, Austin said the department was still reviewing the results of the stand-down but he had decided to move ahead with “several immediate steps.”
Under Austin’s instruction, the Pentagon’s top lawyer and other officials will review and update the department’s definition of “prohibited extremist activities” for all service members. Critics have said the Pentagon needs to take into account how extremism has evolved in the digital era, and how some adherents engage in more loosely formed networks.
The secretary also called for updated screening questionnaires for potential recruits to gather information about current or previous extremist behavior ”to ensure that only the best qualified recruits are selected for the services,” according to the memo. (read more)
It is well known and accepted that most of the rank and file military come from Red States, and/or the Southern U.S. region. This has been a reality in the military for as long as I can remember. Again, this is a problem if the government is going to weaponize the military against the citizens. Hence, they need to quantify the issue in advance.
[HISTORIC NOTE: This is not the first time the Pentagon has undertaken such an assessment. In the aftermath of the Chinese regular army refusing to turn their fire on the protesting students at Tienanmen Square (remember, the Mongolian divisions were called in); the world noticed. The U.S. Pentagon did a similar internal assessment.]
♦ My prior warning with the examples and citations of data to back-up my prediction are HERE and repeated below:
Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.
Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple. The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.
Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).
If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws, it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state who would be non-compliant.
Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific state action.
When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.
If my suspicions/predictions are correct, this would explain exactly why there has been a recent uptick in the visual politicization of the military; including empirical examples of emboldened U.S. military leadership openly engaged in domestic political advocacy against Tucker Carlson.
The marching of the U.S. military through the Capitol building to the offices of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be another orchestrated optic sending the same political message.
These are not examples of the military “woke” community advancing political correctness, instead these are examples of advanced politicization of the military (in an open context) in preparation for domestic political use. The “insurrection narrative” is then considered a seed planted to blossom later in support of the overall agenda.
One of the data-points highlighting future intent was clearly visible and seemingly overlooked by almost all media. It happened when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman first became a political whistle-blower against the office of President Trump.
It was not the details of the Vindman accusation that stood out, though that was the aspect the media focused on. What was more concerning was the lack of action by the Pentagon after Vindman compromised his position as an advisor to the commander in chief.
2019 – When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.
I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.
Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.
The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC did not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political. The necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.
The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not. WHY?
There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.
In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove. Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise. They do nothing to assist.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office. Let me make this implication crystal clear:
The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.
The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.
This is not a complex issue.
No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman. No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature. Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment. Yet his command does nothing? (more)
That was the alarming lack of action from the Pentagon everyone seemed to overlook. Why did senior military leadership not remove Vindman from his post at the White House once he clearly compromised his ability to carry out his duty? Their lack of action was stunning when you consider their primary obligation.
Fast forward to 2021 and now a very political military officer, General Russel Honore’, is appointed by Nancy Pelosi to be in charge of the military deployment around Washington DC. When you consider the political ramifications of the military supporting a false narrative, this is more than just another data-point. Then the military openly attacked the position of Tucker Carlson based entirely on political ideology.
The increased frequency of the military being politicized is what leads me to believe this phase is all just a public relations pre-positioning. I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands… the likely origination point will be federal COVID mandates.
The leftists are weaponizing COVID mandates for a political agenda. It is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands. That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point. That will be when the U.S. military is held as a compliance activation against any rebellious state. It could be another issue that activates this triggering of the military (ex. state election laws), but as it stands right now federal COVID compliance seems the most likely trigger.
Bottom line… The American electorate are being positioned to accept deployment of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, under the guise of insurrection and/or a public threat. That is why we are seeing so much willful politicization of the military.
If you live in a region or state that values individual liberty and/or freedom, you are likely in a location that leftists consider a risk to their ability to execute their agenda. You are likely right now being defined as a ‘dissident’, or possibly a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, get ready to see this type of activity in your neighborhood.
President Joe Biden’s White House continues citing an old Gary Cohn interview out of context to suggest President Donald Trump’s former economic adviser is supporting Biden’s proposed $2.5 trillion spending deal.
“This Week: 200 Economists, Gary Cohn, Republican Kathy Maness, and the American People Agreed: The American Jobs Plan Is Both Sensible and Necessary” the subject line from a White House email sent out to reporters on Friday read.
Biden White House email
But Cohn has not endorsed President Biden’s plan.
The White House included in the email a link to a portion of a Yahoo Finance interview with Cohn in June 2020 while Trump was still President of the United States.
From the transcript:
ADAM SHAPIRO: There is talk that Joe Biden, if he were to win the election, would actually raise the corporate tax rate. You were part of the historic movement to cut corporate taxes. Biden is talking about potentially a 28 percent corporate tax rate. So how do you address all of that?
GARY COHN: So Adam, on the corporate tax rate, you know, I’m actually OK at 28 percent. The level we got to in our tax plan on the corporate side was actually a bit lower than I thought we needed to go. We had come down from 35%. Getting down in the low 20s was probably lower than what we needed to go. I always thought there was a compromise rate sort of in the mid 20s that made sense.
I’ll remind everyone, though, that the corporate tax rate is not where we collect a lot of dollars. So the difference between going from 35 percent to 21 percent was less than $100 billion a year. We don’t collect a lot of money in the corporate tax rate.
But I also will remind people that if you look at our tax bill, it was the Tax and Jobs Act. And one of the reasons that we cut the corporate tax rate in the United States was to create jobs and redomicile business in the United States and made the United States competitive from a tax standpoint. If we go to 28 percent, that’s probably the top end of the range that we can go to and be competitive with the rest of the world. It’s at the outer bounds of my limit of acceptability. I could live with 28 percent.
Cohn acknowledged during the the interview that the “big corporate groups” would likely be fine with a 28 percent tax rate, but noted the priority for the Trump administration was to boost jobs and make America more competitive.
So ultimately, the reason we lowered tax rates, corporate tax rates, was to bring jobs back to the United States. And if you look at that back at the beginning of the year, we had a record low unemployment rate. We were creating jobs. So I don’t want to derail that.
In October, Cohn was again asked in an interview with Yahoo Finance about the corporate tax rate.
Cohn again said he was still OK with the idea of a 28 percent tax rate but warned it would make the United States less competitive with other countries and he cautioned that raising the rates would sacrifice job creation in smaller businesses.
He added the (CARES) coronavirus stimulus package signed by Trump allowed companies to again expense travel and entertainment, which was a benefit for businesses.
So to get the CARES pack done, they said, OK, we’re going to allow companies to now expense travel and entertainment, which is probably a good thing because we want people out there spending money in restaurants. We want them spending money on airplanes. We want them spending money entertaining. But again, so you can’t just look at the tax rate. You have to look at the tax rate times what number.
“So the first thing I care about is jobs,” he said. “And really, when you talk about jobs, you’re talking about small businesses.”
Cohn has not responded to the Biden White House using his comments to support the president’s massive tax hikes to pay for his $2.5 trillion spending package.
The Big Tech ministry of COVID compliance has again removed scientific discussion that runs counter to the approved narrative presented by the ideological community. In this article we explain why….
…”COVID Compliance is Infrastructure“
Governor Ron DeSantis held a roundtable discussion with panel experts from world-renowned doctors and epidemiologists from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. However, the panel debated the efficacy of masks on children and that apparently was considered too contrarian for the Big Tech control agents.
(Via NBC) – […] The video of DeSantis’ roundtable discussion last month at the state Capitol in Tallahassee was removed on Wednesday because it violated the social media platform’s standards, YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez said.
[…] “YouTube has clear policies around Covid-19 medical misinformation to support the health and safety of our users,” Hernandez said in a statement. “We removed AIER’s video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”
[…] DeSantis’s press secretary Cody McCloud called YouTube’s move “another blatant example of Big Tech attempting to silence those who disagree with their woke corporate agenda.”
“YouTube claimed they removed the video because ‘it contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities,’ yet this roundtable was led by world-renowned doctors and epidemiologists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, all of whom are eminently qualified to speak on the global health crisis,” McCloud said. “Good public health policy should include a variety of scientific and technical expertise, and YouTube’s decision to remove this video suppresses productive dialogue of these complex issues.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, one of the scientists on the panel, said this “was a policy forum, in which it is appropriate to consider both the benefits and costs of a policy (child masking) when making judgments and recommendations.” (read more)
CTH warned since last summer of the ramifications if a leftist group used COVID-19 to expand federal power over peoples lives and livelihoods. In January JoeBama’s team unleashed a series of TEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS fully weaponizing the opportunity. Their need to control the public behavior requires them to control public information.
(5) Executive order taking over National Guard. The domestic terrorists need a category within the health emergency. The isolation and detainment camps need security. “Support of Operations or Missions to Prevent and Respond to the Spread of COVID-19. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with mission requirements (including geographic proximity), request pursuant to 32 U.S.C. 502(f) that all State and territorial governors order National Guard forces to perform duty to fulfill mission assignments.”
(6) Executive order taking control of travel. “The Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of Transportation (including through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)), the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard).
Social changes under the guise of COVID-19 mitigation, are the entry point for the goals and aspirations of the political left on a national and global scale. COVID-19 is a virus, but also a very important political weapon, and we are about to discover exactly what the purpose of the hype is all about. What follows will help understand; and when you encounter the fear it will help to reconcile what people cannot figure out.
Joe Biden is an avatar; a political pawn; a cognitively declining guy who has no idea what is happening around him. The people behind the Biden campaign, those in real control of what this is about, have not hidden their goals and aspirations. These are not stupid people. They are scheming, conniving, ever-planning, ever-manipulating & Machiavellian types within the political system; lusting for power, influence and affluence.
What they are planning to do is weaponize COVID-19 to attain ideological objectives. This is why they hyped the fear within it for almost a year. Nothing within their plan requires the approval or consent of any representative body in Washington DC. COVID is the tool to “fundamentally change” the way the United States exists.
On October 23, 2020, those behind the Biden campaign dropped all pretense, openly having their candidate state publicly his intention to control the lives of all Americans using the authority of a weaponized federal government to advance national COVID-19 regulations.
The Dept of Transportation would be the agency enforcing a national interstate transit mask requirement. However, don’t focus on the DoT part of what he was saying… that’s only one creek… Instead focus on the downstream use of all federal regulatory agencies and how they align within a Federal COVID compliance network… that’s the river.
Think about the Dept of Agriculture (SNAP/food stamps), the Dept. of Labor, the Dept of Education, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Dept of Labor, Dept of Energy and how they would join with the DoT to create the aggregate raging river of regulation.
Think about the federal government using mandates for enforced national COVID-19 compliance rules. Think about USDA (Dept of Agriculture) and OSHA federal inspections for social distancing (etc) in all businesses, not just restaurants.
Think about the COVID-19 regulatory and compliance system and what political beneficiaries stand to gain.
Think about the Dept of Education using COVID to restructure the way education is taught and the downstream regulations on charter schools and non-compliant educational systems that do not meet the ideological objectives of the master control plan.
Think about how the Dept. of Labor (complaint division) can be weaponized against political opposition based on arbitrary inspections under the guise of employee health and safety…. using federal COVID compliance rules.
Think about required days off for the entire employee base if a single infection is identified in the workplace. Paid days off…. funded by Federal Government. Think about how that changes the income dependency dynamic.
Think about the larger Green New Deal (goals and objectives), and then contrast those objectives while aligning an overlay map of how federal COVID mitigation rules can be applied as a back door to the EXACT SAME objective.
Far beyond masks…. Workspaces being forced to be redesigned. New rules on labor density. New rules on labor/manufacturing and office proximity. New rules on uniforms. New rules on hand-washing stations. New rules on sick pay, shift hours, time-off when a COVID infection is detected in the workplace.
Think about everything from rules on surfaces, to rules on packaging, to rules on ALL business operations as an outcome of federal regulatory policy under the guise of CVOID-19 mitigation. OSHA, Labor, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Education, Housing, Health and Human Services, and even federal building permits… the entire regulatory system and compliance network.
Think about Housing and Urban Development (HUD) having new rules about dwellings and complexes for housing grants. Population density; the need to move into the suburbs and the confiscation of private property to “ensure the common safety” of the citizens.
This is what the Biden administration is talking about when they are proposing the new “INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING” !!
Think about those types of business regulations applied on a National level…. and then, as seen in prior Democrat administrations with IRS etc, think about them also being enforced through the prism of political affiliation.
Think about how states that refuse to participate will be cut off from federal grants and funding for college tuition, Medicare and/or medicaid reimbursement, etc. etc.
Think about what happens to Main Street USA?
Think long and hard about how far the tentacles of achieving the Green New Deal can extend under the auspices of federal COVID-19 mitigation.
Remember, those who are working on this don’t care about the middle-class and they have not for decades. The visibility of the ‘rust belt’ is the reference. This is about government bureaucrats using their DC power-base to control trillions in economic value and sell their ability to influence the winners and losers to the highest foreign bidder.
Look at what blue states have already done to seize power and control. Now think about that same manipulative intent spread throughout the entire country by weaponizing federal agencies with advanced regulation.
Those behind the executive branch; those controlling Joe Biden; will harness and weaponize the power. The legislative leftists will attempt to ensure the new systems they create under the guise of COVID-19 are never in a position to be withdrawn.
Why? – Why all of this effort?… why such extremes?… Follow the money, it’s always about the money. The globalist ideology is worthless without money. Wall Street’s Rick Santelli knows, he’s watching the second deployment of an identical playbook.
So when your friends ask why, talk about ‘why‘. The weaponization of COVID is the ongoing crisis that will facilitate government solutions. As the American people resist the bait represented by the COVID crisis, those who need to weaponize it will keep turning up the pressure until they have full totalitarian control…
The White House announced President Joe Biden would sign an executive order Friday creating a commission to study reform ideas for the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” the White House said in a statement. The panel includes experts on constitutional law, history, and political science, the White House added.
The announcement partially addresses a presidential campaign promise from Biden as the left repeatedly pressured him to pack the court with additional justices to diminish its growing conservative majority, including three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate.
In October 2020, Biden said in an interview he would put together a “bipartisan commission” to address the Supreme Court “because it’s getting out of whack.”
Despite promising a bipartisan commission, Biden’s list prominently features leftist Democrats and legal scholars and only a few Republicans or conservatives, many of them critical of President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement. The list ignores prominent conservative legal scholars.
Biden’s commission serves as a step to mollify leftist activists demanding he take steps to expand the Supreme Court. The number of justices on the court has remained at nine for more than 150 years.
When he was United States Senator, Biden famously described former President Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court as a “bonehead idea” and a “terrible, terrible mistake” during a 1983 debate in the United States Senate.
Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the courts failed miserably, as even Democrats joined Republicans to defeat the proposal.
Only Congress has the power to add or subtract the number of justices who sit on the Supreme Court, which is determined through legislation. Most legal scholars agree that ending the lifetime tenure of a Supreme Court justice would require a Constitutional Amendment to change.
The commission will be co-chaired by Bob Bauer, a White House counsel for former President Obama and Cristina Rodriguez, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the United States Department of Justice. Rodriguez served in the Justice Department during the Obama/Biden administration from 2011 until 2013.
The White House said the commission would address the Supreme Court’s role in the Constitutional system, the length of terms of Supreme Court justices, and the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
The president’s executive order will ask the commission to complete its report within 180 days of its first public meeting.
The governments of China and Russia, which appear to be taking the lead in talks between Iran and the remaining partners in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, expressed optimism after talks concluded on Friday for the week that progress had occurred.
The conversations over the agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) began this week in Vienna, Austria. Representatives from China, Russia, and Iran — as well as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — met to discuss, they claimed, a way to repair what remains of the agreement after years of violations by Tehran and President Donald Trump withdrawing the United States from it in 2018. Notably absent from the invitation list was the United States, which had no formal representation in this week’s talks.
The administration of President Joe Biden claimed it would engage in “indirect” talks with Iran and sent its special envoy on the matter, Robert Malley, to Vienna. Iranian officials clarified Tuesday, however, that “no negotiations will take place between the representatives of Iran and the United States” and no talks of any kind, direct or otherwise, would take place this week.
Malley is staying in a separate hotel in Vienna from where the Iran deal talks are occurring and appears to have met only with officials not privy to the negotiations, including representatives of the Austrian government and the International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA).
With no input from Washington, Iran has used the talks to vocally and repeatedly insist that it will not begin to discuss returning to compliance on the JCPOA with the United States unless the Biden administration immediately lifts all sanctions on Iran, not just those regarding the nuclear weapons issue. This would presumably include the accurate branding of Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism due to its international support of Hezbollah, a Shiite jihadist organization, and its involvement in deadly attacks on civilians such as the 1994 bombing of Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires.
A Russian representative to the IAEA branded this “progress” on Friday.
“The #JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) participants took stock of the work done by experts over the last three days and noted with satisfaction the initial progress made,” Mikhail Ulyanov wrote on Twitter. “The Commission will reconvene next week in order to maintain the positive momentum.”
“All parties have narrowed down their differences and we do see the momentum for gradually evolving consensus,” Wang Qun, China’s ambassador to the IAEA, agreed, according to Reuters.
Both nations have loudly condemned unilateral sanctions on any country and, in particular, opposed American sanctions on their ally Iran.
“The justified request of the injured party, rather than the offending party, should be confirmed and satisfied first. This is a basic right-or-wrong question,” Qun said Tuesday. “The U.S. should lift all sanctions against Tehran and on this basis, Iran can resume full compliance to the nuclear deal.”
Reuters reported American officials claim they are “being briefed” on the talks they were not invited to, without elaborating.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, made clear he had no appetite for negotiation Thursday, the day before Moscow and Beijing declared the talks had yielded “progress.”
“Verification [of US sanctions removal] means [being capable of] selling oil in an official manner, with ease and under normal conditions, and its money be received by Iran,” Khamenei insisted, again making the case for the lifting of sanctions unrelated to the nuclear agreement. Khamenei also accused “the signatories of the nuclear agreement,” without discriminating among them, of having violated the deal and claimed “Tehran is in no hurry for Washington to come back to the nuclear agreement” in a video posted to Instagram. “Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said other signatories to the deal have no right to set conditions for Tehran as long as they have not fulfilled their obligations, emphasizing that this is Iran’s definitive policy from which Tehran will not step back,” Iran’s PressTV reported.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry also took the opportunity Thursday to boast of its heightened uranium enrichment abilities.
“Our 20% enrichment is now moving even faster than the speed envisaged by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament) in its law, and 20% enriched materials are being produced now,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi claimed, stating that the enrichment, which violates the nuclear deal, would continue until the United States lifted all existing sanctions on Iran.
“Araqchi also denied indirect talks with Washington through the European parties to the JCPOA, saying the talks involve China and Russia in addition to the Europeans,” PressTV added.
State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters in a contentious exchange Thursday that the Biden administration would not repeal sanctions unrelated to the nuclear deal, such as those related to human rights abuses against the Iranian people.
“We believe that Iran’s ballistic missile program, that Iran’s violation of the — Iran’s human rights abuses, that Iran’s support for malign proxies, Iran’s support for terrorism — we believe all of those things pose a profound challenge to us as well as to our regional partners,” Price said. That is why we will continue, including through sanctions, to push back on those issues.”
When a reporter replied, “Well, why couldn’t you have said this like yesterday or the day before?” Price insisted he “absolutely did” and again repeated that sanctions “will continue to be important tools” for confronting Tehran.
Price also insisted Malley was in discussions “right now with our European allies and our Russian and Chinese partners in this endeavor,” a claim for which no evidence exists and one that the allies and partners in question have not confirmed on the record.
Malley has been documenting his activities in Vienna on Twitter, which appear to be meetings with Austrian government leaders — who are not a party to the JCPOA — and the IAEA.
Russian and Chinese officials said on Friday that they expect talks to resume next week. Price noted Thursday that he expects Malley back in Washington this weekend.
President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) made fun of first-time gun owners who bought up weapons during mass government lockdowns as cartoon doomsday preppers.
During an interview with Cheddar in April last year, gun control activist David Chipman, who was nominated Thursday to the executive post at ATF, said those purchasing firearms put “themselves and their families and danger.” Chipman also compared them to Joe Exotic, the Oklahoma zookeeper profiled on Netflix’s “Tiger King.”
“Most of the new buyers who went out to the gun store and bought a gun have no training whatsoever,” Chipman said. “In their mind they might be competent, they might think they’re die-hard and ready to go, but unfortunately they’re more like Tiger King.”
Chipman’s recommendation as a longtime government bureaucrat who served 25 years at ATF was for new gun owners to “secure that gun locked and unloaded and hide it behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky that you’ve stored in the cabinet, and only bring that out if the zombies start to appear.”
The administration’s latest nominee to the bureau tasked with enforcing the nation’s gun laws comes with a long resume of aggressive activism for stricter restrictions on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. After two and a half decades in the ATF, Chipman worked as an adviser to the anti-gun group launched by former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords after she was shot in a 2011 Tucson shooting.
After the news broke of Chipman’s impending nomination on Wednesday, Chipman took cues from past nominees in the Biden administration and locked his Twitter account to prevent anyone from searching his prior posts.
Biden made the nomination in a Thursday press conference in which the Democrat launched a new effort to implement stricter gun control in the aftermath of deadly shootings in Georgia and Colorado last month. Biden called gun violence in America an “epidemic” and an “international embarrassment” at the White House.
At the afternoon event, Biden employed doomsday language to raise hysteria around firearms with terms such as “ghost guns” to warn Americans of rampant gun violence, which, in Biden’s eyes, can only be deterred through government restrictions on the firearms — as if criminals followed the law.
President Biden unveils several new executive actions, his first steps on gun control.
First, he says he’ll reign in “ghost guns,” or kits to build firearms, and have them “treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act.” pic.twitter.com/nbmmKDzG86