Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

If neither taxpayers nor the states themselves have Standing to challenge the Biden Administration, it seems unclear as to who exactly would have the ability to bring suit.  But a recent decision from a Texas federal judge may have provided the answer.

In Brown v. US Department of Education, Judge Mark Pittman answered the threshold question of Standing.   “Plaintiffs Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor both have student loans” the Court stated.  “Brown is ineligible for any debt forgiveness under the Program because her loans are commercially held…(a)nd Taylor is ineligible for the full $20,000 in debt forgiveness under the Program because he did not receive a Pell Grant…(b)ecause Brown loses out on $20,000 in debt forgiveness and Taylor loses out on $10,000, they disagree with the lines drawn for the Program’s eligibility criteria.”

Judge Pittman discussed the Biden Administration’s core position – nobody has Standing to challenge the Program “because where the government is providing a benefit, nobody is harmed by the existence of that benefit.”  However, the Court noted that “(t)he Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff has standing to challenge a government benefit in many cases. See, e.g., Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville…(holding that plaintiffs who did not qualify for government benefits had standing).” (Citation omitted.)

The government argued that “Plaintiffs’ ‘unhappiness that some other borrowers are receiving a greater benefit than they are’ is not a concrete interest.”  “But,” Judge Pittman wrote, “this is untrue. Plaintiffs do not argue that they are injured because other people are receiving loan forgiveness. Their injury—no matter how many people are receiving loan forgiveness—is that they personally did not receive forgiveness…Plaintiffs have a concrete interest in having their debts forgiven.”  Thus, these Plaintiffs “inability to obtain the full benefit of debt forgiveness under the Program flows directly from the Program’s eligibility requirements,” giving them Standing to maintain a lawsuit against the Department of Education.

On the merits, Judge Pittman found, as have so many other Courts during the almost two years that the Biden Administration has been in office, that “the executive branch unconstitutionally exercises ‘legislative powers’ vested in Congress” when it used the HEROES Act as the basis for its Student Loan Forgiveness Program.  As the Court stated, “the HEROES Act— a law to provide loan assistance to military personnel defending our nation—does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program. The Program is thus an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and must be vacated.”

“(T)he HEROES Act does not mention loan forgiveness,” the Court states. “If Congress provided clear congressional authorization for $400 billion in student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act, it would have mentioned loan forgiveness…’enabling legislation’ like the HEROES Act is not an ‘open book to which the agency may add pages and change the plot line.’” (Citations omitted.)

No doubt, Judge Pittman’s decision will be appealed.  In the meantime, according to Fox Business, “(a)fter the (8th Circuit decision) temporarily halted the debt forgiveness plan, the Biden administration released a statement via the Education Department that encouraged borrowers to continue to apply for forgiveness. Although the administration can’t officially cancel student loans during the halt, it said it is moving ahead with preparing for forgiveness and collecting applications. ” 

In other words, the Biden Administration is dead-set on the implementation of this program – despite its lack of legal authority to do so.  

It bears noting that the costs of this Program are objectively horrendous.  “Joe Biden’s plan to cancel…student loan debt for federal aid borrowers is expected to cost about $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The estimate is for a period of the next 30 years and will add to the country’s deficit, it said… (a)s of June 30, the CBO estimates federal student loan debt to be at $1.6 trillion among 43 million borrowers…(a)bout 95% of borrowers meet the criteria for forgiveness and about 45% of borrowers will have their balances completely wiped out, the CBO said.”

These financial facts underline the importance of the 8th Circuit’s stay, and the decision from the Texas federal court to stop the Biden Administration from redistributing individual student debt to those of us who did not incur that debt.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay

At the end of August, we discussed the proposal from the Biden Administration to provide forgiveness of student loans in the amount of at least $10,000.  We noted that beginning with Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), first signed into law in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” over the years, Congress has given increasing authority to the Secretary of Education in regards to forgiveness of all or part of student loans. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 “had some provisions for forgiveness of loans'” and also gave “the Secretary of Education (even more) authority” in this regard. 

Yet, in its most recent proposal, the government cited the 2003 HEROES Act as the basis for its authority to engage in wholesale student loan forgiveness.  We then asked whether President Biden had “the authority to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in private debt to the public with the use of his pen?” 

We were not the only one with that same question.  In fact, several lawsuits have been brought in various federal courts across the country in an effort to find an answer.  Predictably, there have been different results in different jurisdictions.

Nebraska v. Biden was brought in federal court in Missouri, and heard by Judge Henry Autrey.  In his opinion dated October 22, 2022, the Court began by explaining one mystery – the use of the HEROES Act by the Biden Administration to justify its actions.  “In 2003, Congress enacted the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act… (the) Act allows the Secretary (of Education) to ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs…as…necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency’…‘national emergency’ means a national emergency declared by the President of the United States.”

The Court continued; “Most recently, the Secretary has used the HEROES act to provide relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic…(a)ccordingly, on March 20, 2020, the Secretary relied on the HEROES Act to pause the accrual of interest and repayment for all federally held student loans…(o)n August 24, 2022, President Biden announced the Department’s student debt relief plan to address the financial harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and ensure a smooth transition back to repayment status. The Secretary announced that the HEROES Act authorizes him to provide a ‘one-time’ debt relief to federal student loan borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Is this a valid exercise of the powers granted to the Secretary of Education?  Or is this in excess of the authority conferred by the HEROES Act?

Judge Autrey never reaches the issue – instead, he dismissed the case on the basis of Standing.

 “’Standing‘ is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use ‘standing’ to ask, ‘Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’…To have standing, a party must show an ‘injury in fact’ to their own legal interests. In other words, has the party itself ‘suffered’ some sort of actual harm?” 

As Judge Autrey notes, “Standing is a threshold inquiry; it requires focus on the part[ies] seeking to have [their] complaint heard in a federal court, and it eschews evaluation of the merits. The court is not to consider the weight or significance of the alleged injury, only whether it exists.” (Citation omitted).

Here, the Missouri District Court found its opportunity to sidestep the merits of the claims brought by the State Plaintiffs. “Nebraska Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina attempt to assert a threat of imminent harm in the form of lost tax revenue in the future. Currently, federal student loan discharges are not taxable under federal law (until 2026 – another Covid-19 relief measure)…(these states) argue that they will lose tax revenue to the extent that the total amount of loan discharges they currently project to occur after January 1, 2026, is reduced because of the Department’s student debt relief plan.”

The Court was not persuaded by this argument; “These future lost tax revenues are merely speculative. Moreover, there is nothing imminent about what may happen several years in the future…(t)he effect upon future taxation is uncertain. ‘[T]hreatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact… allegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient.” (Citation omitted).

Based upon the lack of Standing, Judge Autrey dismissed the case.  However, on Appeal from the State Plaintiffs, “(t)he 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis…granted an administrative stay that temporarily pauses the Biden administration’s student-loan debt-relief program.” According to the ABA Journal. “The stay will remain in place until the 8th Circuit decides whether to grant an injunction pending appeal.”  

The 8th Circuit opinion is only one page – it is a temporary stay, while the parties prepare further arguments.  But at least the States now have another chance to establish the harm their tax revenues will suffer as a result of the Student Loan Forgiveness plan.

Meanwhile, another lawsuit was filed against President Biden by the Brown County Taxpayer’s Association in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  That case was dismissed by Judge William Griesbach. 

In their case, the Taxpayer’s Association asserted that “Defendants, as executive branch officials, have usurped congressional powers under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution and created a program that obligates federal taxes and erases federal assets without any authority.”  But these Plaintiffs ran into the same problem the States face in their case – Standing.

“Plaintiff asserts that it has taxpayer standing,” the Court wrote. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, however, that ‘the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government.’” (Citation Omitted.)  Thus, “(i)n the absence of standing, Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” 

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett refused to issue a stay of Judge Griesbach’s order. 

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) Report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

China’s digital prowess is an immediate and high-level threat to the United States. It cannot be stated more plainly. How our loss of cyber security occurred over the last two decades is, perhaps, more disconcerting as the US and other democracies had plenty of warning. The Western world chose to relegate the issue to a “future potential challenge” status that it believed could be overcome by creating a friendly relationship with the communist giant. Since China’s opening to the democratic West, Beijing has failed repeatedly to abide by the rules-based international order. The West, in turn, has failed to hold China accountable for its actions. The free world is paying a high price and it may be too late to stop China.

Kinetic warfare is only one type of combat. In our digital world today, vast armies work from home behind computer screens. The digital threat mounted by China’s military since Xi Jinping assumed power is real, growing, and in some areas surpasses the United States’ capability to defend against it. Although China’s hacking teams have been hard at work since the early 2000’s, Xi first prioritized cybersecurity (AKA cyberwarfare) as a policy in 2014. He ordered increased funding for cybersecurity research and recruited talented young Chinese in universities, the bureaucracy, and security services who could wreak havoc throughout the digital world.   

“The Chinese state has systematized cybersecurity education, improved students’ access to hands-on practice, promoted hacking competitions, and collected vulnerabilities to be used in network operations against China’s adversaries, according to CyberScoop’s Dakota Cary. These better resourced and trained teams, he says, put companies at risk of further compromise and create an additional imperative for the US and allied nations to improve defenses of government networks. In 2014 Xi formed the Cybersecurity and Informatization Leading Small Group inside the CCP. 

Less recognized at the time was that China secretly was fashioning their cybersecurity on the American intelligence community’s Centers for Excellence model. After analyzing the United States’ National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education, Beijing established a board of academics from universities across the country. The government developed a list of core competencies needed by Chinese students graduating with a cybersecurity degree and rolled out a full curriculum to be followed by the country’s top universities. By 2014, only two years after prioritizing and funding the initiative, the government under Xi’s direction established a new agency call the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). This allowed the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Cybersecurity and Informatization Committee of the CCP Central Committee (CIC) to present the effort as a government operation to global businesses and foreign agencies.

“One of the CAC’s first acts was to publish a National Cybersecurity Strategy for China,” according to Cary. Two of the regions developing programs, he notes, were modeled on North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. China’s National Cybersecurity Talent and Innovation Base is in Wuhan. There is a 15-square-mile campus with a fourth of it dedicated to the National Cybersecurity School, the Offense-Defense Laboratory, the Combined Cybersecurity Research Institute, and supporting computational, data storage and cyber range facilities, says Cary. “The remainder of the campus,” he adds, “offered tax incentives to people and businesses wishing to set up shop next to the base.” Central government policymakers made the project a national asset in late 2016 but didn’t stop there. A year later another provincial project was nationalized in support of the cyberwarfare effort. The Guiyang National Big Data Cyber Range now hosts cybersecurity competitions, industrial hardware for OT hackers, and apparently enough server space to count as “big data,” says Cary. Unlike the democratic West, the CCP and the central government can quickly co-opt so-called private infrastructure to serve the country.

To keep the effort moving China adopted a program in 2017 that mirrors the Center for Academic Excellence-Cyber Operations certification awarded by seven US agencies, including the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security. Today it runs hundreds of cyber hacking competitions to identify new “national resources” to be China’s digital warriors and software vulnerability researchers. The competitions are modeled again on the US Defense Department’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) which hosts a Grand Cyber Challenge. A recently released report, authored by several of the world-class cybersecurity schools in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Education, and the cybersecurity firm Beijing Integrity Technology, describes the current landscape, according to Cary. The authors of the report, he says, “expect China’s deficit of cybersecurity experts to fall to 370,000 by 2027 — likely seen as a big success since 2017 estimates put the then-deficit at around 1.4 million.” Within the next decade the West can look forward to seeing the results of a mass of well-trained Chinese civil servants working behind computer screens. Their only goal: take down the West’s digital infrastructure. No kinetic warfare is necessary.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

Dobbs was decided on June 24, 2022.  The Attorney General’s statement was made the same day.  Houck was then arrested in September of 2022, for acts that allegedly occurred in October of 2021.  Could Garland and the Justice Department have sought out a case in which they could make an example of a Pro-Life activist?

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano certainly believes this to be the case.  During his recent campaign for Governor, the Mastriano stated that “(t)he continued weaponization of the FBI and persecution of Biden’s DOJ against ordinary Americans is an outrage… (c)itizens across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania join me in expressing our outrage at this early-morning raid executed on a young family. This show of force carried out by the Biden regime against ordinary Americans is an abuse of power that stands against the fundamental principles on which our country was founded.”

As noted by Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, “(i)t is not a coincidence, we suspect, that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand in America. The FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment…(t)he timing of this indictment of Houck…is suspect and calls into question the motive behind the Justice Department’s move…(i)f this was such an important violation of the FACE Act, what took the Justice Department 337 days to indict Houck? This is the simplest of simple, factual cases. Houck either pushed the escort…unprovoked, or he didn’t.  Perhaps the more important number is 91. That’s how many days elapsed between the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs and Houck’s indictment…(a)nd why did the Justice Department decide to send armed FBI agents to Houck’s house in a show of force? Houck has no criminal record, is a man of faith, and is the father of seven children. He is no threat whatsoever.” 

Indeed.  Given these facts and the statement made by AG Garland at the time Dobbs was decided, the motivation for the heavy-handed show of force against Houck is obvious.

The Houck family has a long legal road to travel.  But once passions cool, and the DOJ seeks other witches to burn, the opportunity for justice to prevail will increase.  In the meantime, there is a resolution pending in the House of Representatives to impeach Merrick Garland.  Dated October 22, 2021, House Resolution 743 states that “Attorney General Garland has failed to faithfully uphold his oath and has instead presided over a reckless and corrosive politicization of the Department of Justice… by his actions, (Garland has) validated the belief of many Americans that the Department of Justice has been transformed into an unstoppable, partisan, Federal weapon used to officially punish political opponents.” 

Further, in July of this year, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga), also filed articles of impeachment against Garland, asserting that “Attorney General Garland has failed to uphold his oath and has instead overseen a denigration of the principles of our democratic republic by politicizing the Department of Justice, and utilitizing the (FBI) as a Federal police force to punish or intimidate anyone who questions or opposes the current regime.” 

With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, these measures have had no chance of advancement, let alone success.  But beginning in January, the new Republican majority has signaled its intention to take up matters such as the impeachment of the Attorney General.  Prior to the midterm, then House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) “promised…that if Republicans take back the chamber after November’s midterm elections, they will investigate the Department of Justice, telling Attorney General Merrick Garland to ‘clear your calendar…I’ve seen enough. The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization…(w)hen Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.’”

Appearing on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon also predicted the impeachment of both Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray.  “’The whole Justice Department under Merrick Garland has become radically partisan,’ Bannon said. ‘I strongly believe you’ll see Merrick Garland impeached next year by the new Congress.’”  He added that “What I want Republicans in the new Congress, is to focus on cleaning out the rat’s nest at DOJ and cleaning out the rat’s nest at the FBI.”

 Whether or not these promises are kept remains to be seen.  But in the meantime, the more the FBI points their rifles at Pro-Life activists and their children, and the more the Justice Department prosecutes misdemeanor assaults, the more the public will continue to call upon their Representatives in Congress to halt this blatant abuse of power by formerly well-respected, and formerly politically neutral, law enforcement agencies.

Judge John Wilson (served on the bench in NYC

On October 13, 2021, Pro-Life activist Mark Houck was outside the Planned Parenthood Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center abortion clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying with his 12 year old son (Houck and his wife have 7 children).  An unidentified man approached the clinic in his capacity as a “volunteer escort” for several women heading into the clinic.  According to Houck’s wife, “on multiple occasions that  ‘pro-abortion protester’ would say ‘crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to their 12-year-old son, such as ‘your dad’s a fag’ and other vulgar slurs.”  On this particular day, “the man ‘kind of came into [the son’s] personal space,’ Mrs. Houck said. ‘Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back… He didn’t have any injuries or anything.” 

The unidentified man tried to have Houck prosecuted by the Philadelphia DA’s office, and also brought a civil suit in Pennsylvania, but both matters were dismissed.  That should have been the end of this minor matter – but it’s not.

In September of 2022, almost one year later, the Houck family “woke up…to a team of FBI agents raiding (their) home in Kintnersville, Pennsylvania…25-30 FBI agents entered their home around 7 a.m.  ‘The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” (Mrs) Houck told Life Site News about her husband’s arrest, which she and her children witnessed…'(t)hey had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,’ (Mrs) Houck told the pro-life news outlet.”

Mark Houck was arrested, and taken to federal court, where he was already under indictment for the violation of 18 USC Sec. 248 – the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.   Also known as the FACE Act, this statute provides for criminal penalties including up to one year in prison for a first offense, if that person “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 

Passed into law in 1994, “in response to an increase in violence toward providers and patients of reproductive health services,” according to the Justice Department, “Courts have held that the Act’s protections extend not only to physicians but also to clerical workers and escorts at reproductive health facilities.”

Perhaps the Justice Department is within its rights to prosecute Mark Houck, even after local authorities declined to prosecute this matter, and a civil lawsuit was dismissed.  But his arrest raises a serious question; Isn’t it heavy handed of the Federal government to send 20-30 FBI agents to arrest a man who committed, at best, a misdemeanor assault, particularly when there is a view of the evidence that Houck was acting in defense of his child?

Further, is it any coincidence that the arrest and prosecution of Houck occurred shortly after the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which held that “(t)he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe (v. Wade) and (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v.) Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”  

One hint regarding the true motive behind the ham-fisted arrest and prosecution of Mark Houck can be found in the statement made by Attorney General Merrick Garland after the Dobbs decision was made public. “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society…(t)he Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision.  This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States…(a)dvocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts…(t)he Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. Under the (FACE) Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.”  

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

The Federal Bureau of Investigation was once one of America’s most respected institutions.  However, the increased politicalization of federal agencies in general and the FBI in particular to favor powerful Democrats and oppose Republicans has heavily eroded that trust.

An Inspector General report issued in 2019 outlined instances of shocking bias within the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, a reflection of the overall bias of the Department of Justice. As is now well known, false charges against the Trump campaign and Administration were encouraged, aided and abetted.  At the same time, offenses committed by Hillary Clinton, and related process offenses such as her destruction of evidence went unprosecuted.

This isn’t about whether one likes or dislikes Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  It is about the inappropriate use of federal power for partisan political purposes.

It is also about censorship.  It is now established that the FBI used its power and influence to censor at least one story that had the impact of altering the outcome of the 2020 presidential campaign, namely, the Hunter Biden Laptop issue.

Writing for Imprimis , Joseph diGenova notes that “FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

Attempts to address the FBI’s rather overt political bias in favor of powerful Democrats have not been successful.

A scathing report by the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee reveals that “The Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the stewardship of Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, is broken. The problem lies not with the majority of front-line agents who serve our country, but with the FBI’s politicized bureaucracy. The problem lies, for example, with the FBI hierarchy that spied on President Trump’s campaign and ridiculed conservative Americans. The problem lies with FBI bureaucrats who altered and mischaracterized evidence to federal courts, circumvented safeguards, and exploited weaknesses in policies governing investigations and informants to target politically disfavored subjects and to protect favored ones. The problem lies with the FBI structure that centralizes high-profile cases in D.C., in the hands of politicized actors with politicized incentives. Quite simply, the problem—the rot within the FBI—festers in and proceeds from Washington.”

Whistleblowers have described the FBI’s Washington hierarchy as “rotted at its core,” maintaining a “systemic culture of unaccountability,” and full of “rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse.” Whistleblowers describe how the FBI has abused its law-enforcement authorities for political purposes, and how actions by FBI leadership show a political bias against conservatives.

The abuses weren’t confined to the 2016 or 2020 presidential campaigns. Testimony has been presented that the  FBI is artificially inflating statistics about domestic violent extremism in the nation. Whistleblowers have described how FBI leadership is pressuring line agents to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism even if the matter does not meet the criteria. They also explained how the FBI is misrepresenting the scale of domestic violent extremism nationwide by categorizing January 6th-related investigations as organic cases stemming from local field offices, instead of all related to one single incident. In both ways, the FBI is fueling the Biden Administration’s narrative that domestic violent extremism is the biggest threat to our nation.

One of the most disturbing revelations is that the FBI is abusing its counterterrorism authorities to investigate parents who spoke at school board meetings. Whistleblowers disclosed how, shortly after the National School Boards Association urged President Biden to use the Patriot Act against American parents, the FBI Counterterrorism Division set up a special “threat tag” to track school board-related cases. Whistleblowers provided evidence of how the FBI opened investigations into one mom for allegedly telling a local school board “we are coming for you” and a dad simply because he “rails against the government” and “has a lot of guns.”

The abuse of law enforcement for partisan political purposes is the most dangerous threat to freedom imaginable.  Tough reforms must be quickly enacted.

Illustration: Pixabay

Two nations, each seen as significant disturbers of international peace, are increasingly cooperating in dangerous ventures.

On November 9, Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev met with Iran’s leadership.  According to a Voice Of America analysis, Raisi and Patrushev discussed various issues of Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of security, as well as a number of international problems.

The Iran International Newsroom reports that “Russia has built Iran’s sole nuclear power plant in Bushehr and has a contract to expand the plant with the addition of two new reactors at a cost of $10 billion.” Earlier this year, according to the Washington Free Beacon, Russia’s top state-controlled energy company was set to cash in on a $10 billion contract to build out one of Iran’s most contested nuclear sites as part of concessions granted in the soon-to-be-announced nuclear agreement that will guarantee sanctions on both countries are lifted.  Russian and Iranian documents translated for the Washington Free Beacon show that Rosatom, Russia’s leading energy company, has a $10 billion contract with Iran’s atomic energy organization to expand Tehran’s Bushehr nuclear plant. Russia and the Biden administration confirmed on Tuesday that the new nuclear agreement includes carveouts that will waive sanctions on both countries so that Russia can make good on this contract.

A Wall Street Journal analysis reports that “Iran and Russia are forging tighter ties than ever…There are significant economic ramifications of the Iranian-Russian semi-alliance. In July, Iran became the world’s largest buyer of Russian wheat. This month, Russia launched an Iranian satellite into space in a rare success for Tehran’s space program. And last week, Iran’s military hosted joint drone exercises with Russian forces…”

The Defense Department could not confirm news reports that Russia has asked Iran for ballistic missiles and other capabilities. However, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder did confirm that Iran has provided hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles to Russia. And Russian forces have used them to attack Ukraine. “Iran has provided Russia with UAVs, which we anticipate they’ll likely seek more of those,” the general said. “We do have concerns that Russia may also seek to acquire additional advanced munition capabilities from Iran — for example, surface-to-surface missiles — to use in Ukraine. If we see Russia employing such capabilities on the battlefield, we’ll certainly do what we can to illuminate that.” 

This “continued collusion” between Russia and Iran is disturbing, officials have stressed.

The International Research Institute finds that “Since the start of the war in Ukraine, relations between Russia and Iran have flourished. Having been hit by a new raft of tough Western sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow set about looking for alternative partners among other traditionally anti-Western countries—including to bypass trade restrictions—and Iran looks set to be one of the most promising. The aspect of their relationship that has attracted the most attention recently is Russia’s use of Iranian drones to terrorize Ukrainian cities. … This is far from the extent of their joint projects…”

Asia Times warns that Iran is preparing to transfer short-range ballistic missiles to Russia for use against targets in Ukraine, allegedly as part of a shipment of 1,000 additional weapons of unspecified type. Iran has allegedly already transferred a number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to Russia. Many of these drones have been used in Ukraine, although the Islamic Republic has denied involvement.

Russia’s predecessor state, the U.S.S.R, was quick to recognize the Islamic takeover of Iran in the 1970’s, as Tehran changed from a U.S. ally into an enemy.  Moscow continues to see leverage Tehran’s hatred of America.

It is startling to realize that news coverage of the major issues of the past several decades has been largely incorrect.  

The erroneous analyses cover topics that run the gamut from crime to international affairs. They are not fringe mistakes. They are, indeed, broad misstatements, in which ideology supplants factual research and honest evaluation. By warping public opinion away from facts and towards falsehoods, they have altered election results and produced defective policies.

One of the major stories had its roots in the 1960’s cliché’s, “Give peace a chance.” Starting in the 1990’s and dominating the Obama Administration, the U.S. military was dramatically reduced in size, even as Russia built the planet’s best nuclear arsenal and the Chinese increased its spending on arms at a pace faster than the Soviet Union or the USA during the height of the Cold War. American weakness produced nothing but a more dangerous planet.

As Autumn moves towards Winter, much of Europe faces the terrifying prospect of a massive shortage of energy. Residents will face the prospect of freezing within their homes, and having their electricity cut off for several hours each day.  In the United States, the globe’s most powerful economy has been hobbled by massive inflation, due to a jihad against fossil fuels. The problems on both sides of the Atlantic are the direct result of a belief widely propagated in the majority of media sources that “green” or “alternative” energy sources could replace fossil fuels.  That’s not even remotely accurate. Only 20% of global energy needs can be met in this manner. Worldwide suffering will accelerate to extraordinary levels unless this absurd concept is corrected.

The underlying motivation for the assault on energy comes from yet another flawed concept. In the latter half of the 20^th Century, the press highlighted the intensely advocated concept of “global cooling.” That didn’t turn out to be accurate, and the media, with equal unfunded confidence, tuned to “global warming.”  One of the bedrock foundations of that theory came from research from the University of East Anglia, which, as it turned out, was fraudulent. The media falsely claimed that “all scientists” agreed with global warming ideology, wholly ignoring contrary voices. Even worse, scientists who accurately pointed out that the Earth was warmer in past epochs, including, for example, the 11^th Century and the era of the Caesars, were labelled as “climate deniers.” 

Some organizations over the past several decades began pushing a theory that sharply reducing incarceration rates was an experiment worth trying.  The idea caught on with much of the press, which gave it a vote of confidence and a lot of air time.  It was eventually combined with the radical concept of defunding the police.  The results have been disastrous. American cities have descended into nightmarish realms of violent crime. Despite that, many press outlets have portrayed those exposing this defective concept as somehow being racist, underlying their own racist views that minorities are uncaring about their community safety.

Certainly, the most divisive media campaign, at least in the United States, was the false claim of “Russian collusion” levied against Donald Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated that he had clear evidence that this occurred. House speaker Nancy Pelosi made it her major priority. The media made it their headline story for years. The whole story has been conclusively, beyond the shadow of a doubt,  proven to be utterly false. So far, many of the press outlets that headlined the story have failed to admit their error. There have been no major media calls to prosecute  Schiff for his fraud, which tore the nation apart for years.