Is This How Genocide Starts?
Saturday, February 13, 2021
Joe Biden to Release 25,000 Illegal Aliens into the U.S. While Cases are Heard
The Biden administration announced today its plans to release tens of thousands of aliens waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings into the United States “while their cases proceed”.
The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer.
Ironically, “administration officials declined to name the crossings out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations,” reports the Associated Press.
The disastrous, and down-right dangerous move is another regressive step made by the Biden administration when it comes to immigration. This time targeting the effective and common-sense Remain in Mexico program. The Migrant Protection Protocols was introduced in January 2019 and enrolled approximately 70,000 aliens.
This is in addition to reports that are already surfacing that after the first signs of a coming border surge, the Biden administration has restarted the tragic practice of ‘catch and release’, continually turning illegal aliens loose into the U.S. with a mear notice to appear, providing yet another magnet for increased illegal immigration.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who was found by the DHS Inspector General of using his authority to expedite and overturn previously declined EB-5 visa applications on behalf of senior members of the Democratic Party, stated on the matter:
As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation’s values.
However, this doublespeak seems to highlight some mixed messaging coming from the Biden administration; as DHS said the move “should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States.”
Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled but massive releases of alien families in Texas and California have worked against that...
Hunter still owns 10% of Chinese private equity firm 24 days into Biden’s presidency
Hunter Biden continues to hold a 10% equity stake in a Chinese private equity firm 24 days into his father’s presidency, business records show.
Hunter Biden holds his stake in BHR Partners through his company, Skaneateles LLC, according to business records from China’s National Credit Information Publicity System.
President Joe Biden promised on multiple occasions during his presidential campaign that no one in his family would be engaged in foreign business if he won his election.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed last Friday that Hunter Biden still held a position in BHR and was in the process of divesting from the firm.
“He has been working to unwind his investment but I would certainly point you — he’s a private citizen — I would point you to him or his lawyers on the outside,” Psaki said.
However, Hunter Biden’s lawyer George Mesires has not responded to numerous inquiries from the Daily Caller News Foundation asking when he expects to be divested from BHR and whether he will receive any return on his $420,000 initial investment in the firm.
Both the Daily Mail and Fox News reported in late December that Hunter Biden was in the process of divesting from BHR. Both outlets cited an unnamed source with knowledge of his business dealings.
BHR is co-owned by the Chinese state-controlled Bank of China and manages the equivalent of $2.1 billion in assets, according to its website.
Mesires said in October 2019 that Hunter Biden had not received any return on his investment into BHR. However, emails located on a copy of Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop show that he was told on multiple occasions to expect to receive significant payments from BHR starting in...
Deep State, Dark Intentions
The NSA concentrates on collecting information on ordinary citizens because they are the low hanging fruit, while the real enemies of the U.S. are much harder to catch.
Barton Gellman’s Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State raises important questions about American society and politics. It deals with power over personal information and its implications for control, secrecy, individual rights, and politics on a global scale.
The author starts with Edward Snowden and his revelations of the existence of a global surveillance leviathan, feeding off the main arteries of global communications networks. Gellman was one of three journalists who first received the secret National Security Agency files from Snowden and wrote a series of articles about them for the Washington Post, for which he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. He describes his encounters with Snowden, the information he provided, and his efforts to verify the files and expand on them.
Dark Mirror expands into a search for a deeper understanding of the surveillance state through the author’s interviews with top Bush and Obama Administration intelligence officials, participation in industry conferences, and research. This is parallel with Gellman’s effort to keep his contacts secret to avoid legal jeopardy, connected with his cooperation with Snowden and publicizing classified information.
The picture that emerges from this book will be unfamiliar to most Americans. Surveillance was pervasive until the Church Committee reforms led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which restricted spying on U.S. citizens and residents, requiring individual warrants. Outside of the United States, President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 created a legal framework for foreign surveillance.
Golden Age of Surveillance
The aftermath of September 11, 2001, ushered in a golden age of surveillance. Essentially all restrictions were lifted. President George W. Bush ordered the NSA to disregard the statutory warrant requirement and set up a special unit through Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, which oversaw a mass-surveillance program global in scope. It could legally obtain all account information from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, Paltalk, phone companies, and other partners—so-called metadata. It consisted of a listing of calls and emails, their destination, time, and duration.
NSA analysts not only could review account information but also dial in and record live audio, video, chat and file transfer and instantly read keystrokes. The justification was the search for unknown terrorists, as it turned out that much of the world’s communications flow through the United States as the cheapest route and that foreigners often used U.S. email accounts.
Another major program established after 9/11 was the location database for virtually all cellphone users in the world. It tracks and stores the location of every device that places mobile telephone calls, logging each phone’s whereabouts over time. The database, Gellman reports, gathered nearly 5 billion records a day pertaining to the movements of millions of individuals. Intelligence agencies could also buy location data information for cellphones commercially.
The U.S. government also began the bulk collection of electronic address books, which permits contact tracing among large numbers of individuals. The alleged purpose was to find unknown associates of known intelligence targets, especially terrorists.
The global scope of the mass-surveillance program was made possible by the intelligence cooperation between the United States and the “Five Eyes” partners: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Domestic Surveillance
Fourth Amendment protections, suspended after 9/11, were permanently modified through the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and 2012, which defined the legal authority to wiretap at home. Previously, the government could not search an individual account without a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Each warrant required probable cause to believe that a specific account belonged to an agent of a foreign power. The FISA court performed an individual review before granting warrants.
After 2008, the court would authorize surveillance of an unlimited number of accounts with a single order. This order is defined through rules chosen to define individual accounts to be monitored. Once a year, in a classified session, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews the procedure for target selection and for masking the names of Americans who...
When Europe ignored the sex crimes of immigrants, all women suffered
 |
| Women in Cologne, Germany, protest immigrant sex attacks in 2016. |
When I lived in the Netherlands from 1992 to 2006, I saw an influx of immigrants into society. In 2000, individuals with a “non-Western migration background” made up 8.9 percent of the Dutch population — about 1 out of every 12 people. Today, about 1 out of every 8 people in the Netherlands now has a non-Western migration background.
Meanwhile, women of a foreign/migrant background make up 52 percent of residents in Dutch women’s shelters.
As someone who gained refugee status in the Netherlands, I served as an interpreter for many of these women and had to translate distressing, harrowing experiences related to “honor” violence, forced marriages, and sexual assault. I came to realize that the main issue was not primarily economic poverty, which could be cured by financial means, but cultural clashes.
Gender relations in Western countries are very different from those in traditional societies and patriarchal cultures, where men and women are treated less equally. For instance, women in most Western countries can move about in public spaces with relative safety. In contrast, in a significant number of Muslim-majority states, women need to be accompanied by a male guardian or wear a type of covering in order to avoid serious sexual harassment from men.
In Europe, the multicultural approach has frequently meant turning a blind eye to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and child marriages. After all, why take a risk of causing offense? Why risk being viewed as racist?
This is what I call “the bigotry of low expectations.” All of a country’s residents can and should be held to the same standards, regardless of their culture of origin. Applying the same standards to all is the opposite of discrimination.
Where low expectations can lead is illustrated well by the UK’s “grooming gang” scandal, a phenomenon almost entirely ignored by the American media. The scandal has affected thousands of young girls, who were “groomed” by men from mainly Pakistani communities for sexual abuse, prompting a senior official to acknowledge that “cultural reasons” could be at play in the behavior of perpetrators. Fearful of being accused of racism, for years British authorities ignored credible reports of the problem, preferring to turn a blind eye until the scandal was belatedly exposed in the press. Or consider the sexual assaults on 1,200 women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2016. Women were viewed as fair game by perpetrators, many of whom were of non-German origin.
Those who cry “racist” at these concerns miss the mark. In refusing to impose their values on others, including real respect for women in the public sphere, Europe’s multiculturalists thought they were being compassionate. They did not realize how damaging an absence of universal values could be, not only to members of immigrant communities but also to...
Remember That Time Andrew Cuomo Sank The Titanic?
Oops, My Bad, That Was Just A Titanic Loss Of Seniors Lives...
Dr. Death...
New York Democrat Governor Pardons 18 Illegal Immigrants
Cambridge University Panel: Winston Churchill A “White Supremacist” Leading Empire “Worse Than The Nazis”
‘Academics’ label Britain’s past ‘morally poorer than the Third Reich’
A Cambridge University panel of academics discussing wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s legacy concluded that the leader who helped defeat Hitler was actually a “white supremacist” and was leading an empire “worse than the Nazis”.
The London Telegraph reports that the inflammatory comments were made during a discussion titled “Racial Consequences of Mr Churchill”.
Ironically, the event was taking place at the Churchill College, named in honour of the former Prime Minister.
Participants decided that Churchill was “the perfect embodiment of white supremacy”, and labelled the British Empire ‘morally poorer than the Third Reich’.
The academics involved agreed that it is a “problematic narrative” that Britain was ‘virtuous’ in comparison to the Nazis.
One academic, Professor Kehinde Andrews, declared “The British Empire far worse than the Nazis and lasted far longer.”
“That’s just a fact. But if you state something like that it’s like heresy,” Andrews added, claiming that holding Churchill in esteem is part of a process of “lionising dead white men”.
Another panelist, Dr Onyeka Nubia, claimed that Churchill promoted ‘white supremacy’ because he used terms such as “English Speaking Peoples” and “Anglo-Saxon”.
Others argued that Churchill viewed Indian people as animals, and that his policies regarding India led to mass starvation there in the early 1940s.
Another academic, Dr Madhusree Mukerjee, dismissed Britain’s role in the Second World War, stating that “It was the Soviets who defeated the Nazis and the Americans who...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)