Biden Plans Expansion Of Feds’ Army Of Snitches In “Dollars For Collars” Program


THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021 – 06:50 PM

Authored by James Bovard via,

How the administration plans on expanding its already massive surveillance apparatus…

 The Biden administration may soon recruit an army of private snoops to conduct surveillance that would be illegal if done by federal agents.As part of its war on extremism, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may exploit a “legal work-around” to spy on and potentially entrap Americans who are “perpetuating the ‘narratives’ of concern,” CNN reported last week. But federal informant programs routinely degenerate into “dollars for collars” schemes that reward scoundrels for fabricating crimes that destroy the lives of innocent Americans. The DHS plan would “allow the department to circumvent [constitutional and legal] limits” on surveillance of private citizens and groups. Federal agencies are prohibited from targeting individuals solely for First Amendment-protected speech and activities. But federal hirelings would be under no such restraint. Private informants could create false identities that would be problematic if done by federal agents.

DHS will be ramping up a war against an enemy which the feds have never clearly or competently defined.According to a March report by Biden’s office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” Perhaps like setting up a private informant scheme to evade constitutional restrictions on warrantless surveillance?

One DHS official bewailed to CNN:

“Domestic violent extremists are really adaptive and innovative. We see them not only moving to encrypted platforms, but obviously couching their language so they don’t trigger any kind of red flag on any platforms.”

DHS officials have apparently decided that certain groups of people are guilty regardless of what they say (“couching their language”). The targets are likely to be simply people with a bad attitude towards Washington. That will include gun owners who distrust politicians who vow to seize guns.

The latest fuzzball standards (“narratives of concern”?) fit the post-9/11 pattern of wildly expansive threat definitions. Shortly after its creation in 2002, DHS warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government” as potential terrorists. DHS-funded Fusion Centers have attached the  “extremist” tag to gun-rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”—even though many of the Founding Fathers shared the same creed. The Pentagon taught soldiers and bureaucrats that people who attend public protests are guilty of  “low-level terrorism.” An Air Force report accused women who wear hijabs of “passive terrorism.” Endless enemies lists come in handy at congressional appropriations hearings.

Federal officials insist that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.FBI chief Christopher Wray perennially proclaims that the FBI never investigates Americans based solely on their ideas. But, as the Intercept reported in 2019, “Who the Justice Department decides to prosecute as a domestic terrorist has little to do with the harm they’ve inflicted or the threat they pose to human life.” But that claim is belied by the FBI’s beloved “informant loophole.” As Trevor Aaronson explained, “FBI agents must obtain supervisory approval to enter a group or gathering using an undercover agent, and to obtain that approval, the FBI must have a ‘predicate,’ or a factual basis to suspect criminal activity. But neither supervisory approval nor a predicate is required if the work is done by an informant, creating a loophole that allows the FBI to investigate Americans for virtually any reason.”

Any new informants hired by the Biden administration will operate under the same perverse incentives that have long subverted due process. Informants tend to be rewarded based on how much assets they help government seize or how many people they help prosecutors condemn. As a 2019 report by the American Bar Association noted, “The government pays cash for incriminating information and testimony. This is troubling because the financial incentive to make cases against others may be much greater than the personal integrity of the informants.” A report by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General slammed the Drug Enforcement Agency for failing to “document the reliability of informants” who helped the DEA to confiscate billions of dollars of private property. The DEA paid informants $237 million between 2010 and 2015, including $25 million shoveled out to only nine informants. DEA’s best paid informant, Andrew Chambers, Jr., was found to have given “false testimony under oath in at least 16 criminal prosecutions nationwide before he was exposed in the late 1990s,” USA Today reported in 2013. Attorney General Janet Reno banned the DEA from using him as an informant but in 2008, DEA re-hired Chambers and used him for at least the following five years.

Informants have become far more perilous to freedom and decency since the 1970s thanks to the Supreme Court effectively defining entrapment out of existence.Almost anything an informant or undercover government agent does to induce someone to violate the law is considered fair play. Craig Monteilh, an informant who was sent into mosques in southern California, was given permission by his FBI handlers to sleep with Muslim women he targeted and to secretly tape record their pillow talk. Other FBI informants browbeat their targets into discussing bombing government buildings, providing sufficient verbal rope to hang them. The vast majority of people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were not bona fide threats but were induced by the FBI or informants to behave in ways that prompted their arrest, according to Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism.

One purpose of relying on private informants is to assure that there are no federal fingerprints when people are coaxed or shoved into breaking the law. The FBI admits that it formally entitles its army of informants to commit more than 5,000 crimes a year; there is no estimate of how many crimes are committed directly by FBI agents, who have been formally taught that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” Thanks to the FBI’s Iron Curtain of Secrecy, we have no idea what sort of atrocities its informants may now be committing. During George W. Bush’s reign, the White House formally invoked executive privilege to block disclosure of the FBI’s sweetheart deals for Whitey Bulger, a notorious FBI informant and Irish crime boss linked to 20 murders. The FBI knew of Bulger’s role in killings but lied in court to protect him, even providing false testimony to send innocent men to prison for life to safeguard Bulger. That debacle was summarized in a 2004 congressional report titled, “Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murderers as Informants.” In 2011, a federal judge aptly labeled the FBI’s behavior in the case as “uncontrolled official wickedness.”

In 2016, Omar Mateen carried out the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11, killing 49 people at the Orlando Pulse Nightclub attack. Prior to his attack, Mateen boasted of his connections to terrorists and threatened to have Al Qaeda kill a co-worker’s family; his mosque warned authorities that he was a threat to public safety. But the FBI swayed the local sheriff’s department to drop its investigation of Mateen because a “confidential informant” assured FBI agents that Mateen was not a terrorist and would not “go postal or anything like that.” The federal case against the killer’s widow collapsed in 2018 after jurors belatedly learned that the killer’s father, an Afghan immigrant, had been an FBI informant since 2005 and may have used his influence to assure that his son was not arrested prior to his killing spree.

The FBI has long relied on informants to choreograph political violence.In the 1960s, FBI informants “set up a Klan organization intended to attract membership away from the United Klans of America,” according to a 1976 Senate report. One FBI informant with the Klan, along with other Klansmen, had “beaten people severely, had boarded buses and kicked [Freedom Riders] off” and beat restaurant customers “with blackjacks, chains, pistols.” In 2006, a paid FBI informant organized and led a neo-Nazi march in a black neighborhood in Orlando, Florida. In 2017, an FBI informant masterminded a Klan rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, sharply increasing the tension and fear prior to the much larger and notorious Charlottesville Unite the Right rally the following month. There have not yet been any disclosures regarding what role, if any, that federal informants played in the January 6 clash at the Capitol.

DHS wants to enlist more private informants at the same time federal undercover operations are already out of control. At least 40 federal agencies are now conducting undercover operations involving thousands of agents. An undercover DEA agent “created a fake Facebook page from the photos of a young woman in Watertown, N.Y. — without her knowledge — to lure drug suspects,” the New York Times reported.  IRS agents are officially permitted to “pose as an attorney, physician, clergyman or member of the news media.” The Times noted in 2014 that  “the military and its investigative agencies have almost as many undercover agents working inside the United States as does the F.B.I.,” often serving on joint federal task forces of the type that will likely be expanded for the Biden extremist crackdown. A sting operation by the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency swayed mentally handicapped individuals to get tattooed to help advertise its bogus gun store, violating federal laws protecting the disabled. Oversight is often a mirage: an ATF committee created to oversee undercover operations didn’t bother meeting for more than half a decade. The Times noted that “even Justice Department officials say they are uncertain how many agents work undercover.”

The Biden administration is considering unleashing a new surveillance program at a time when Americans have no idea how many federal agencies are already spying on them. Yahoo News disclosed last month that the Postal Inspection Service is running iCOP —the Internet Covert Operations Program—to sweep social media and other websites searching for any “inflammatory” postings on topics including protests against COVID lockdowns. Postal inspectors got access to private messages on Parler and Telegram, presumably with no search warrant. The iCOP program turns over its discoveries to other federal agencies. Rachel Levinson-Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice commented that iCop “seems a little bizarre” since the surveillance included “monitoring of social media that’s unrelated to use of the postal system.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) denounced the program for violating the Constitution and asked: “The USPS has been losing money for many years… so where do they find money to run this surveillance program?” Unfortunately, federal agencies that trample the law and the Constitution in their surveillance efforts are usually punished with budget increases.

Perhaps setting up a new informant scheme to work around the Constitution is not the best response to extremists who fear government is lawless. Unfortunately, Americans are unlikely to hear about crimes committed by Biden’s new snoops until long after the damage is done, if ever.

Rockets Fired At Israel From South Lebanon As Fears Grow Hezbollah To Enter Conflict


A big lingering unknown is whether Israel’s powerful archenemy Hezbollah will open up a northern front to bog down Israel’s military as it continues striking Gaza, and as preparations are underway for a potential Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) ground invasion into the Hamas-controlled strip.

Late Thursday at least three rockets were fired from southern Lebanon toward Israel, which the IDF military spokesman confirmed..

And moments after, a new wave of rockets were launched from Gaza, the IDF said.

Given the rockets fired into northern Israel, the immediate question remains whether Hezbollah was responsible, and if the Shia paramilitary organization supported closely by Iran will initiate its own aggression. This would constitute a monumental escalation for Israel, assuring major regional war.

So far international reports are saying it’s “unclear” who was responsible for the attack from Lebanon.

The rockets were believed launched from near the border with Israel, in Lebanon’s Qlayleh area, near Naqoura. There are also Palestinian militant factions in the area, with Lebanon’s Daily Star quickly in the aftermath pointing to these Palestinian groups operating in Lebanon – and not Hezbollah.

The Lebanese outlet is reporting that “Lebanese Army intelligence detains Palestinian involved in firing rockets at Israel.

Meanwhile rockets fired from Gaza continue reaching deep into central Israel.

Israel media is now widely reporting that the Defense Ministry is putting plans in place for “all-out war”.

The reports come after on Wednesday Defense Minister Benny Gantz threatened “Gaza will burn”. He said: “If citizens of Israel have to sleep in shelters” due to Hamas rocket attacks “then Gaza will burn.”

Hamas brings out high-powered rockets to hit strategic Israeli targets

 BurkanFajr 5

 Hamas rockets midday Thursday, May 13, ripped through Israel from the Greater Tel Aviv region to Beersheba in the south and including Ashdod, Lachish, Eylot in the Arava and the Bedouin settlements. . Iron Dome intercepted 10 over the Tel Aviv region. Hamas spokesman said: “We have a new upgraded rocket with a range of 220km and can reach any point in Israel.”

Have Hamas and Jihad got hold of more powerful rockets of longer range than before?
The answer, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, is in the affirmative. The Palestinian rulers of Gaza have begun using Fajr 5 (military codename M-75) (see attached photo) and Burkan (A-122), which reach deeper into Israel and pack a far more powerful punch.

For the first time, on Wednesday night, they shot a Fajr 5, an Iranian product with a long range and 333mm caliber which is mounted on a Mercedes Benz 2631 forward control chassis. This rocket weighs a ton, Its warhead is packed with 175kg of fragmentation warhead containing 90kg of high explosives. Hamas’ rocket engineers reduced its payload to extend the Fajr’s range to 170km – up to the shore of the Sea of Galilee in northeastern Israel –

The Palestinian terrorist organizations have not just escalated their rocket offensive, but they are now after big game, as was indicated on Tuesday when a rocket aimed at the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline set a gas container at the Ashkelon end on fire. They have been trying to hit the offshore rig of Israel’s Tamar gas field. But they have not hit this target because, even after upgrading their rockets, they are not up to the high precision capacity installed by Iran in Hizballah’s missile arsenal. Iran’s Lebanese proxy now owns a quantity of Fajr 5C rockets fitted with wit GPS guidance kits.

Hamas leaders are hoping to obtain those ultra-lethal weapon systems soon.

Burkan, a locally developed version of an Iranian weapon, is more like a bomb than a rocket. These weapons have been responsible for the gaping holes driven in the walls of Israeli buildings, which took direct hits in the last two days in the towns of Sderot, Ashkelon, Petah Tikva, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Yahud.
The IDF’s air campaign has caused heavy damage to much of Hamas and Jihad weapons infrastructure. And the Iron Dome air defense system has knocked down 85-90pc of the rockets aimed at populated areas. However, much of that infrastructure is still operational and the Hamas/Jihad rocket arsenal remains out of reach of aerial bombardment.

IDF communiques leave the public ignorant about key elements of the Palestinian terrorists’ deadly rocket campaign against Israel. People are therefore bewildered over some of the gravest blows in the last 24 hours. IDF Spokesman Hdal Zilberman waxed eloquent earlier on Thursday about the tremendous damage the IDF is causing Hamas and Islamic Jihad senior officers, infrastructure and latterly government institutions and banks, but glossed over as misreported the rocket attack as far north as the Jezreel Valley, home to a big air base. This target is 164km from the Hamas rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the direct hits to civilians and property are proliferating as are the casualties: Seven deaths in two days and nearly a hundred injured.
The IDF’s longstanding public relations tactics which tells the public as little as it can get away with is bad for morale and outdated. The military can’t control communication by mobile phones or prevent the social media rumormongering. Better to be more forthcoming for a suffering, responsible population hungry for information.  

On the run from flying IDF hunters, Hamas leaders send more rockets deep inside Israel

The two belligerents in this distinctive conflict seem to be preparing for a long haul. Is it a war? Not in the conventional sense. It certainly does not match the Guardians of the Walls” designation for the retaliatory operation the IDF is waging against Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the massive rocket offensive they have launched from Gaza, including salvos against Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

More than 1,000 Palestinian rockets were fired in 39 hours and at least 6 Israelis and 43 Palestinians were killed since Monday. The hundreds of Israeli air strikes included the destruction of three tower blocks in Gaza by Wednesday, May 12, targeting the homes and hideouts of Hamas and Jihad officers. Some were also caught in their cars or on motorbikes.
(The IDF’s Knock on Roof method warned the building’s other occupants to evacuate minutes before the attack.)

The dry statistics don’t illustrate the change of tactics introduced in the current operation by the IDF chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi. To avoid a costly ground operation as long as possible, he ordered the air force to hunt down and physically eradicate one by one the operational leadership of the two Palestinian terrorist groups. After several senior officers were taken out on Tuesday, Israeli warplanes the next day struck two apartments in Gaza City, used as secret Hamas hideouts. The IDF and Shin Bet later reported that the Hamas General Staff was meeting there to discuss the next stage of their offensive against Israel. The air strike took our four senior officers: commander of the Hamas Gaza City brigade, the head of its cyberwar unit, the head of its department for product development and the head of its engineering department, as well as additional staffers involved in weapons R&D and manufacture.  

Hamas retaliated on the spot by unleashing a 50-rocket barrage against Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beersheba, Gan Yavne, Gedera and other locations in the south.

In essence, this exchange represents an Israeli effort to liquidate the leaders of an aggressive enemy and so counter that enemy’s campaign to grind down the population of Israel’s heartland by wave after wave of rockets.

That enemy is in no hurry to throw in the towel. The IDF estimates that Hamas has amassed 10,000-12,000 rockets and Jihad another 6,000-8,000. If they keep up the present tempo of attacks, they have enough ordnance to keep going for another two or three weeks, at least.
The IDF, for its part, has a large bank of targets in the Gaza Strip, which is constantly replenished by incoming intelligence, while the warplanes continue to give chase after their leaders.

Hamas is confident that by keeping going, it can bring Israel to its knees. Israel, too, is no hurry to give up until its government and military leaders are satisfied that the rules of the game hitherto dictated by Hamas have been consigned to the dustbin. Since Hamas and Jihad have come to understand that Israel’s headhunters will not rest until their goal is achieved, they are keeping up their rocket offensive to prevent Israel from getting its way. Israel aims at seriously denting Hamas’ self-assurance to the point that it begs Egypt and Qatar to seek a ceasefire. Israel will grant this only after dictating terms for a new order in its relations with the Gaza Strip.

The conflict is still a long way from its endgame. Since there is still a way to go, the Israeli security cabinet went into session on Wednesday evening to chart the next stage of the Gaza campaign and its expansion.  

‘His mental and physical condition cannot be ignored’: More than 120 retired generals and admirals sign open letter questioning Biden’s mental health and backing election fraud claims

  • More than 120 signed the ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals’
  • The letter questioned the integrity of the U.S. election 
  • It also questions Biden’s mental fitness, blasts the Iran deal, says ‘anarchy’ cannot be tolerated, and says ‘illegals are flooding our country’
  • It echoes Trump’s claims that absentee ballots are not secure
  • Other retired military officers slammed the letter as intrusion in domestic politics
  • Said Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chair of the joint chiefs: ‘I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country’


PUBLISHED: 17:50 EDT, 12 May 2021 | UPDATED: 21:53 EDT, 12 May 2021

A group of more than 120 retired military officers have written President Joe Biden to tell him his election was less than legitimate – while questioning his mental acuity. 

The letter echoes former President Donald Trump‘s claims of widespread election fraud – which have not been borne out in the courts – and comes on a day when Rep. Liz Cheney ripped Trump for his claim that the election was ‘stolen.’ 

‘Without fair and honest elections that accurately reflect the ‘will of the people’ our Constitutional Republic is lost,’ the letter from retired officers says.

A group of more than 120 retired military officers have written President Joe Biden (pictured Wednesday) to tell him his election was less than legitimate 

Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle

The group calls itself ‘Flag Officers 4 America’ and consists of retired military officers including generals and admirals. 

‘The FBI and Supreme Court must act swiftly when election irregularities are surfaced and not ignore them as was done in 2020,’ they wrote. 

The letter, called an ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals,’ was reported by Politico

It echoes Trump’s claims that absentee ballots are not secure as it goes after Biden, who serves as Commander in Chief of the military. 

‘Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc,’ they write.

Today, many are calling such commonsense [voter ID] controls “racist” in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections. Using racial terms to suppress proof of eligibility is itself a tyrannical intimidation tactic,’ they write. 

The retired officers raise doubts about Biden’s mental capacity – and reference Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s move to get assurances about the nuclear codes in the days after the January 6 MAGA riot.

The ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals’ blasts Biden for ‘excessive lockdowns’ and ‘censorship of written and verbal expression,’ while questioning his mental acuity

The retired officers hit the Iran nuclear deal and even slap Biden for stopping the Keystone Pipeline project, while saying ‘anarchy’ in cities cannot be tolerated

‘The mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief cannot be ignored. He must be able to quickly make accurate national security decisions involving life and limb anywhere, day or night,’ they write.

‘Recent Democrat leadership’s inquiries about nuclear code procedures sends a dangerous national security signal to nuclear armed adversaries, raising the question about who is in charge. We must always have an unquestionable chain of command.’

The group Flag Officers 4 America call themselves ‘retired military leaders who pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ 

The letter is a counterpoint to impactful public statements by national security officials who weighed in for Biden during the campaign. One such effort came when 10 former secretaries of Defense penned an extraordinary op-ed in the Washington Post warning there is ‘no role’ for the U.S. military in the outcome of U.S. elections, and stating the importance of a peaceful transfer of power. 

That letter came three days before the Capitol riot. 

The signers of the attached their names to the letter. Among them was Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle, who served in Vietnam and later commanded the US Army Industrial Operations Command (IOC) at Rock Island, Illinois.

Arbuckle, who organized the effort, told Politico: ‘Retired generals and admirals normally do not engage in political actions, but the situation facing our nation today is dire.’

He continued: ‘We are facing threats greater than at any other time since our country was founded. To remain silent would be a dereliction of duty.’

The effort drew immediate pushback from military members who lamented people who wore the uniform jumping into an organized political effort. 

More than 120 former military officers signed the letter, including Gen. William Boykin (left) and John Poindexter (right)

Jim Golby, an expert in civil-military relations, blasted the effort in Politico as a ‘shameful effort to use their rank and the military’s reputation for such a gross and blatant partisan attack.’ 

Retired Air Force colonel Marybeth Ulrich, who teaches at the Air Force Academy, termed it ‘anti-democratic.’ 

Also ripping the effort was retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who served as chair of the join chiefs of staff and outranks those on the letter, said: ‘I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country. He cast it as ‘right-wing Republican talking points.’

‘This is really, to my mind, a classic very bad example of the erosion of civil-military relations in America, which is the bedrock of our democracy,’ another retired military leader, Army Col. Jeffrey McCausland, told HuffPost. 

Members of the military vote in elections and have protected constitutional rights, but military leaders have warned of the risks of intruding in domestic politics. 

In the run-up to 2020, retired Gen. James Mattis denounced Trump, whom he served as Defense Secretary, in a June response to the events at Lafayette Square. ‘We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution,’ Mattis wrote. 

Other signers of the anti-Biden letter included include Vice Adm. John Poindexter, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Also signing on was Army Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, who lost the Republican primary in 2020 to challenge Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and is planning another Senate run.  

Another signer, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who was termed anti-Muslim for his comments to a Christian congregation, CBS previously reported, after Boykin said of a Somali warlord: ‘I knew that my God was bigger than his.’ 

Retired officers who signed the letter denouncing Joe Biden

MG Joseph T. Anderson, USMC, ret. RADM Philip Anselmo, USN, ret. MG Joseph Arbuckle, USA, ret. BG John Arick, USMC, ret. RADM Jon W. Bayless, Jr. USN, ret. RDML James Best, USN, ret. BG Charles Bishop, USAF, ret. BG William A. Bloomer, USMC, ret. BG Donald Bolduc, USA, ret. LTG William G. Boykin, USA, ret. MG Edward R. Bracken, USAF, ret. MG Patrick H. Brady, MOH, USA, ret. VADM Edward S. Briggs, USN, ret. LTG Richard “Tex’ Brown III USAF, ret. BG Frank Bruno, USAF, ret. VADM Toney M. Bucchi, USN, ret. RADM John T. Byrd, USN, ret. BG Jimmy Cash, USAF, ret. LTG Dennis D. Cavin, USA, ret. LTG James E. Chambers, USAF, ret. MG Carroll D. Childers, USA, ret. BG Clifton C. “Tip” Clark, USAF, ret. VADM Ed Clexton, USN, ret. MG Jay Closner, USAF, ret MG Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, ret. MG Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, ret. BG Phillip Drew, USAF, ret. MG Neil L. Eddins, USAF, ret. RADM Ernest Elliot, USN, ret. BG Jerome V. Foust, USA, ret. BG Jimmy E. Fowler, USA, ret. RADMU J. Cameron Fraser, USN, ret. MG John T. Furlow, USA, ret. MG Timothy F. Ghormley, USMC, ret. MG Francis C. Gideon, USAF, ret. MG William A. Gorton, USAF, ret. MG Lee V. Greer, USAF, ret. RDML Michael R. Groothousen, Sr., USN, ret. BG John Grueser, USAF, ret. MG Ken Hagemann, USAF, ret BG Norman Ham, USAF, ret. VADM William Hancock, USN, ret. LTG Henry J. Hatch, USA, ret. BG James M. Hesson, USA, ret. MG Bill Hobgood, USA, ret. BG Stanislaus J. Hoey, USA, ret. MG Bob Hollingsworth, USMC, ret. MG Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, ret. MG Clinton V. Horn, USAF, ret. LTG Joseph E. Hurd, USAF, ret. VADM Paul Ilg, USN, ret. MG T. Irby, USA, ret. LTG Ronald Iverson, USAF, ret. RADM (L) Grady L. Jackson MG William K. James, USAF, ret. LTG James H. Johnson, Jr. USA, ret. ADM. Jerome L. Johnson, USN, ret. BG Charles Jones, USAF, ret. BG Robert R. Jordan, USA, ret. BG Jack H. Kotter, USA, ret. MG Anthony R. Kropp, USA, ret. RADM Chuck Kubic, USN, ret. BG Jerry L. Laws, USA, ret. BG Douglas E. Lee, USA, ret. MG Vernon B. Lewis, USA, ret. MG Thomas G. Lightner, USA, ret. MG James E. Livingston, USMC, ret. MOH MG John D. Logeman, USAF, ret. MG Jarvis Lynch, USMC, ret. LTG Fred McCorkle, USMC, ret. MG Don McGregor, USAF, ret. LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF, ret. RADM John H. McKinley, USN, ret. BG Michael P. McRaney, USAF, ret. BG Ronald S. Mangum, USA, ret. BG James M. Mead, USMC, ret. BG Joe Mensching, USAF, ret. RADM W. F. Merlin, USCG, ret. RADM (L) Mark Milliken, USN, ret. MG John F. Miller, USAF, ret. RADM Ralph M. Mitchell, Jr. USN, ret. MG Paul Mock, USA. ret. BG Daniel I. Montgomery, USA, ret., RADM John A. Moriarty, USN, ret., RADM David R. Morris, USN, ret. RADM Bill Newman, USN, ret. BG Joe Oder, USA, ret. MG O’Mara, USAF, ret. MG Joe S. Owens, USA, ret. VADM Jimmy Pappas, USN, ret. LTG Garry L. Parks, USMC, ret. RADM Russ Penniman, RADM, USN, ret. RADM Leonard F. Picotte, ret. VADM John Poindexter, USN, ret. RADM Ronald Polant, USCG, ret. MG Greg Power, USAF, ret. RDM Brian Prindle, USN, ret. RADM J.J. Quinn, USN, ret. LTG Clifford H. Rees, Jr. USAF, ret. RADM Norman T. Saunders, USCG, ret. MG Richard V. Secord, USAF, ret. RADM William R. Schmidt, USN, ret. LTG Hubert Smith, USA, ret. MG James N. Stewart, USAF, ret. RADM Thomas Stone, USN., ret. BG Joseph S. Stringham, USA, ret. MG Michael Sullivan, USMC, ret. RADM (U) Jeremy Taylor, USN, ret. LTG David Teal, USAF, ret. VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, ret. RADM Robert P. Tiernan, USN, ret. LTG Garry Trexler, USAF, ret. BG James T. Turlington, M.D., USAF, ret. BG Richard J. Valente, USA ret. MG Paul Vallely, USA, ret. MG Russell L. Violett, USAF, ret. BG George H. Walker, Jr. USAR Corp of Engineers, ret. MG Kenneth Weir, USMCR, ret. BG William O. Welch, USAF, ret. MG John M. White, USAF, ret. MG Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, JR. USAF, ret. MG Richard O. Wightman, Jr., USA, ret. RADM Denny Wisely, USN, ret. RADM Ray Cowden Witter, USN, ret. LTG John Woodward, ret. 


Melinda Gates met with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside her husband, Bill, in New York City and soon after said she was furious at the relationship between the two men, according to people familiar with the situation. “After a great deal of thought and a lot of work on our relationship, we have made the decision to end our marriage,” the two said in a brief statement posted on Twitter. “We have raised three incredible children and built a foundation that works all over the world to enable all people to lead healthy, productive lives.”


by Geoffrey GriderMay 9, 2021NOW THE END BEGINS

Melinda Gates was supposedly concerned with her soon-to-be ex-husband Bill Gates’ relationship with disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the years leading up to their high-profile divorce last week, according to a Sunday report.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was created as a PR scheme to funnel money to news outlets under the cover of ‘grants’ in order to receive favorable press coverage after relentless stories of Nazi-style Eugenics kept coming out in relation to Bill Gates. Now, in a beautifully ironic twist of fate, we learn the real reason why Medina Gates has filed for divorce from Bill Gates, his relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein that began after Epstein was convicted. What does that tell you?

Bill Gates has never denied his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but neither has he ever given a convincing reason why he, Bill Gates, the richest man on the planet, would want or need a relationship with Epstein to ‘discuss philanthropy’. That makes exactly zero sense to anyone. Melinda Gates has said that their marriage was ‘irretrievably broken’ after Gates started his ‘relationship’ with Epstein, wanna take a guess as to what broke it?

I wonder now how all this will impact Bill Gates stated goal of vaccinating the world? Stay tuned.

Melinda Gates Warned Bill About Jeffrey Epstein

FROM THE DAILY BEAST: Melinda Gates met with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside her husband, Bill, in New York City and soon after said she was furious at the relationship between the two men, according to people familiar with the situation.

The previously unreported meeting occurred at Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion in September 2013, on the same day the couple accepted the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award at The Pierre hotel and were photographed alongside then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

The meeting would prove a turning point for Gates’ relationship with Epstein, the people familiar with the matter say, as Melinda told friends after the encounter how uncomfortable she was in the company of the wealthy sex offender and how she wanted nothing to do with him.

Gates’ friendship with Epstein—who for years was accused of molesting scores of underage girls—still haunts Melinda, according to friends of the couple who spoke to The Daily Beast this week in light of the pair’s divorce announcement, which had been weeks in the making. The Daily Beast has learned that financial and public-relations specialists had been feverishly working on details of the pair’s split for weeks before the couple announced their divorce on Monday.


A representative for Bill and Melinda Gates did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

The ties between Gates and Epstein ran much deeper than the tech mogul first admitted. As The New York Times reported, starting in 2011, Gates met with Epstein on numerous occasions. This was three years after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage girl in Florida; by then, accusations that Epstein exploited girls and young women were widely reportedin the press.

As the Times reported, two people close to Gates acted as intermediaries between the two: Boris Nikolic, a biotech investor and former adviser to Gates who was mysteriously named a backup executor in Epstein’s last will and testament; and Melanie Walker, who worked at the Gates Foundation and served as a science adviser to Epstein. A person close to Walker told The Daily Beast she did not attend nor help set up any meetings between Gates and Epstein. Nikolic did not return multiple requests for comment.

Soon after Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, Gates became one of many prominent people to face scrutiny over ties to the sex trafficker.

The New York Times revealed Gates had met with Epstein at a 2011 get-together at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse that included the financier’s ex-girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin and her daughter. (Virginia Giuffre, a survivor of Epstein’s sex ring, has accused Dubin’s hedge-funder husband, Glenn, of abuse—a charge he has strenuously denied.)

Indeed, the Times reported Gates visited Epstein multiple times from 2011 to 2013, and that Epstein had tried pitching a new charitable fund to JPMorgan honchos and to the Gates Foundation. In 2013, Gates also took a ride on Epstein’s private jet (christened by tabloids as the Lolita Express), from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey to Palm Beach, Florida, according to flight records reviewed by the TimesCNBC also reported that Gates rendezvoused with Epstein in New York in 2013.

When Gates first met Epstein, he was still Microsoft’s chairman and the second richest person in the world, with a net worth of $56 billion.

Assault on the Constitution

The Communist Overthrow of the United States

by Charles C.W. Cooke

 | May 06, 2021 11:00 PM

On Nov. 6 of last year, the country narrowly voted for a self-described centrist to be president. At the same time, it handed Congress to the Democratic Party in such an exquisitely slender fashion that it would not be clear until the beginning of Januarywhether control of the federal government was to be divided or unified. Once the “moderate” president was sworn in, he and his barely-in-the-majority party proposed restructuring the country from top to bottom, making permanent alterations to the constitutional order if need be. Finally, President Joe Biden has embraced his supporters’ and liberal pundits’ pronouncements that he can and should be “another FDR or LBJ.” 

To the historically literate, it all should be nothing less than baffling. 

First of all, Franklin Roosevelt won the 1932 presidential election by 472 electoral votes to 59, while his party won 313 seats in the House and won 58 of the 96 seats in the Senate. Four years later, Roosevelt won the presidency by 523 electoral votes to 8, while his party won 334 seats in the House and 74 seats in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson enjoyed a less protracted period of practical influence, but his numbers were still impressive. In 1964, Johnson won the presidency 486 to 52 electoral votes, and his party won 295 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. Suffice it to say, control of government was clear well before Inauguration Day. 

By contrast, Biden won the presidency by 306 to 232 electoral votes, while his party won only nine more seats than the Republicans in the House of Representatives and won the same number of seats as the Republicans in the Senate. As the Washington Post pointed out in February, once the Georgia runoffs had been completed, the election ended up being so close that had 90,000 votes gone the other way, it would have been the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, who would have controlled all of Washington, D.C. From where, one has to ask, is Joe Biden interpreting a mandate for massive reform? 

There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution that relates to “mandates.” The system is the system is the system, and, providing that they stay within its hard-and-fast limits, those who run it may use their power as they see fit. But it is telling that there is almost nothing of consequence that Biden hopes to achieve that would not involve altering the structure of government itself. Unlike in 1933 or 1965, we are not witnessing a wildly popular Democratic Party using its broad political power in order to get done what it had promised to do; we are watching a relatively weak Democratic Party muse aloud about blowing up the system in order to do what it believes is necessary. Some of that would require explicitly unconstitutional behavior. Some would mean altering the system in ways that would pass legal muster but are contrary to the spirit of the rules. And some would require hijacking a medical crisis in order to advance unrelated goals swiftly. 

None of it bears any resemblance to what the country was promised last year. 

If the Democratic Party were to follow through on the calls that have recently been echoed, considered, or studied by Joe Biden, the United States would be subjected to its most dramatic structural transformation in 90 years. We would see the filibuster abolished, which would have the effect of turning the Senate into the House. We would see the Supreme Court “expanded” to 13, which would have the effect of turning it into the Senate. We would see the federal government take over all aspects of our election system, which would have the effect of turning the states into regional departments of the federal government, as well as of taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators, regulating core political speech, and turning the Federal Election Commission into a partisan tool. And we would see Washington, D.C., added as a state, in clear violation of the Constitution, for the explicit purpose of making it harder for Republicans to regain a Senate majority. Even the less obviously dramatic elements of the Democrats’ approach, such as sidestepping the Senate’s Byrd Rule (which allows the chamber to make limited changes to the budget with just 50 votes) so that the party can pass whatever it wants via “reconciliation,” would set a terrible precedent that, given the state of our politics, would be unlikely to be reversed. 

Reviewing these proposals, the BBC explained bluntly what the Democrats were doing, without feeling any particular need to sugarcoat it for a left-leaning American audience. Democrats, the BBC observed, “argue that a filibuster-free Senate could allow their party to change the political playing field — by implementing election laws that would increase their party’s vote, adding new judges to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary, and by granting statehood (and new congressional representation) to Democrat-leaning Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.” 

One of the core reasons that we write down our political rules of engagement is that everyone in government — yes, everyone — is liable at some point to believe that his or her preferred policies are simply “too important” to be left unachieved and, unwilling to take no for an answer, to come out against the system as it stands. Just as the First Amendment protects us from the censorship of speech that is expediently deemed to be “too dangerous,” and as the Fifth Amendment protects us from the imprisonment of people who are considered “too guilty” to risk taking to trial, our constitutional structure is supposed to protect us from the “we can’t wait” mentality that pervades our politics on both sides of the aisle. 

For most of his career, Joe Biden understood this. Arguing passionately against the abolition of the filibuster in 2005, Biden praised the role it played in protecting “against the excesses of any temporary majority” and said getting rid of it would destroy “America’s sense of fair play” by “tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field.” (This argument was echoed by a supermajority of Democratic senators as recently as 2017, after Republicans took control of the federal government.) Arguing against the idea of packing the Supreme Court, which he called a “bonehead” notion, Biden criticized Roosevelt by quoting Lord Acton: “I remember this old adage about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Biden said. “Corrupted by power, in my view, [FDR] unveiled his court-packing plan.” 

And now? Now, Biden entertains every idea his party throws at him. Now, Biden is the one whom power has corrupted. Now, Biden is the one trying to tilt the playing field toward those who temporarily control it. Any student of human nature should understand why this has happened. For his entire life, Joe Biden has wanted to be president, and, having got there at an advanced stage of life, he is in no mood to be countermanded. But, that this development was entirely predictable does not mean that it is acceptable — especially when it comes on the heels of a campaign for normalcy and when the majority of the policies that are supposedly important enough to justify such norm-breaking are not especially popular in the country at large. 

Much has been written about the “Flight 93” mentality that has pervaded the conservative movement — and given that it led to the nomination and election of Donald Trump, and eventually to the events of Jan. 6, much should have been written on that topic. Less, however, has been written about the pervasiveness of precisely the same instinct within progressivism. This is a mistake, for one simply cannot understand the Democrats’ present panic without comprehending that they, too, believe that they are on the verge of extinction. 

Why are progressives worried about the current makeup of the Supreme Court, even though it is more popular and more trusted than it has been for a while? Because they rightly intuit that much of their coveted legislation is incompatible with the Constitution, and they believe that the originalist majority on the court is likely to strike down any overreach. Why do progressives want to add Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states? Because they think that the Senate is structurally unfair to them and to their ambitions, and that they need to stack the deck now before it is “too late.” Why do progressives want to abolish the filibuster and expand the reconciliation process beyond recognition? Because they have convinced themselves that if they do not do so, the Republican Party will “end democracy” at the state level and make it impossible for them to win again — and that, irrespective of all that, an unchecked “climate emergency” is about to end the world anyhow. 

It is perhaps not surprising that, having gained full control of the government for the first time since 2010, the Democratic Party is being urged by its radical elements to throw out a system they never liked in order to play openly for keeps. But one must ask, nevertheless: Why the hell is Joe Biden going along with it?

As SCOTUS Takes Up Concealed Carry, Reciprocity’s Time Is Now

It’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’ does not end arbitrarily at a state’s border.

By Lawrence Keane

MAY 6, 2021

There’s always a risk in trying to predict how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case. Justices have proven to be unpredictable in the past, and court watchers will admit that with the Supreme Court, conventional wisdom is anything but conventional.

Still, there’s a buzz among the firearm industry and gun owners about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear an appeal in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett. The Supreme Court granted review to a limited question: Whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

 The court specifically wants to know if New York’s State Police Superintendent Keith Corlett is denying Second Amendment rights by rejecting concealed carry permits, as the state requires applicants to show a “justifiable need,” Could taking the case mean the time for concealed carry reciprocity has arrived?

NYSRPA v. Corlett is the first major gun-related case the Supreme Court has heard in more than a decade, following the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision in 2010, and before that, the District of Columbia v. Heller case decided in 2008. At the heart of the question in NYSRPA v. Corlett is whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home.

The holdings in Heller and McDonald will inform how the Supreme Court decides NYSRPA v. Corlett. The Heller decision held that the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms — are pre-existing individual rights.

Before Heller, gun control proponents argued the Second Amendment merely granted the right of the states to form a militia. The Heller decision put that notion to rest, holding that the people, not the government, retains the rights endowed by the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the Heller decision affirmed the belief that the right to bear arms can be viewed as among those rights endowed by our Creator and pre-existing the government.

 The McDonald decision concluded that the Second Amendment applies not just to the federal government but to the states as well. Previous to McDonald, Chicago and nearby Oak Park, Illinois banned handgun possession. The Supreme Court held in McDonald that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil liberty and self-defense is a basic right. Additionally, it held the states are obligated under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause to not infringe on that right. Chicago couldn’t deny McDonald the right to keep and bear his handgun.

In light of NYSRPA v. Corlett, it’s worth noting the lengthy discussion about the right to “bear arms” contained in Heller. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s articulation in an earlier case that the term “bear arms” means “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” The Second Amendment is, after all, grounded in the natural, God-given right of self-defense.

As such, just as all other fundamental civil liberties like free speech and freedom of religion are not confined to your home, the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not end at your front door — or your state’s border, for that matter.

While predicting Supreme Court decisions can be a fool’s errand, given the Supreme Court’s precedents it would appear likely the days of New York and a minority of states requiring citizens to prove “good cause” or a “need” to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm on their person for self-protection are numbered. Should the Supreme Court strike down these “may issue” requirements, then all states will be “shall issue.”

 That’s where the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38/S. 1522), introduced by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., in the House of Representatives and by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the U.S. Senate makes all the sense in the world. If all states are required to adhere to a “shall issue” policy, it only makes sense to treat concealed carry permits the same way individuals states treat driver’s licenses.

They would be honored across state lines, and states would still have the authority to set requirements to qualify and obtain them and when and where a concealed firearm can be carried. The alternative is requiring gun owners to carry a giant ring of 50 concealed carry permits in alphabetical order.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act safeguards rights retained by the states, allowing each to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. It means that the right to “keep and bear arms” does not end arbitrarily at a state’s border and such rights are equally accessible no matter what state a valid permit holder is in.

In reality, the Democratic Party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. There’s little doubt that concealed carry reciprocity is not on the “must-do” lists of either House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The Supreme Court, however, might be set to make their obstructionism moot.


Clashes broke out between worshipers and security forces on the scene of the Temple Mount, where tens of thousands of Muslim worshipers gathered to mark the last Friday prayers of the Ramadan. Initial reports indicated several injuries, including at least 12 police officers, and 35 Palestinians, including two in serious condition, during the riots, according to the Red Cross, cited by Israeli media.  One of those injured was an Israeli officer who is in moderate condition after being hit in the face with a rock. Border Police officers closed off Damascus Gate in the Old City to regain control of the situation and to prevent more people from joining the riots. 


by Geoffrey GriderMay 7, 2021NOW THE END BEGINS SHARE:

Violent clashes broke out at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Friday, the last day of Ramadan, as Border Police close Damascus Gate.

No better way to celebrate Ramadan than to attack Jews on the Temple Mount that is illegally occupied by the Muslims, and that’s exactly what happened earlier in the day today in the capital city of Israel in Jerusalem.

“Also he built altars in the house of the LORD, whereof the LORD had said, In Jerusalem shall my name be for ever.” 2 Chronicles 33:4 (KJB)

You can have all the Abraham Accords you like, and Israel can make peace with every Muslim nation on earth, but there will still not be peace in the Middle East until Israel makes peace with the Palestinians. That, of course, the bible tells us will never, ever happen not now, and not in the Millennium. That’s because the ‘peace’ that’s coming up will be the biblical false peace, and when Jesus returns as King of Kings, He will cast out the Canaanites as Zechariah tells us.

“In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD’S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.” Zechariah 14:20,21 (KJB)

Violent clashes break out at Temple Mount

FROM THE JERUSALEM POST: Clashes broke out between worshipers and security forces on the scene of the Temple Mount, where tens of thousands of Muslim worshipers gathered to mark the last Friday prayers of the Ramadan. Initial reports indicated several injuries, including at least 12 police officers, and 35 Palestinians, including two in serious condition, during the riots, according to the Red Cross, cited by Israeli media.  One of those injured was an Israeli officer who is in moderate condition after being hit in the face with a rock.

Border Police officers closed off Damascus Gate in the Old City in an attempt to regain control of the situation and to prevent more people from joining the riots. The secretary general of Islamic Jihad said Friday that “it is impossible to tolerate what is happening in Jerusalem and the enemy must expect our response at any moment.”

Hamas also put out a statement Friday warning Israel about potential repercussions of the clashes at the Temple Mount.  Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh sent a direct message to Prime Minister


Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas said that he called on the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations to demand the UN Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Jerusalem including clashes and clashes in Sheikh Jarrah, Walla reported.  Jordan’s foreign ministry condemned the entrance of Israeli forces to the Temple Mount, and their “animalistic attack” of worshipers there.

Qatar also denounced the entrance of Israeli security forces to the Temple mount in the wake of clashes, calling it “provocation for millions of Muslims around the world,” Ynet reported. Qatar went on to call for the international community to act to stop Israeli harm of the Palestinian people.

Israeli Police reported that “police troops began using riot control measures a while ago, in an attempt to restore order after violent riots broke out at the Temple Mount, during which hundreds of suspects started throwing rocks, bottles and other items towards our forces.”


Earlier, a video published by KAN News showed worshipers waving Hamas flags at the Temple Mount. Israel Police and IDF had sent reinforcements to the capital in preparation for the fourth and final Friday prayers of the month of Ramadan on the Temple Mount and closed several streets in the area.  

Violent clashes break out at Temple Mount, hundreds injured

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh sent a direct message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling him “not to play with fire.”


MAY 8, 2021 08:08

Violent clashes broke out at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Friday, the last day of Ramadan

Clashes broke out between worshipers and security forces on the scene of the Temple Mount, where tens of thousands of Muslim worshipers gathered to mark the last Friday prayers of the Ramadan. 

Some 17 Israeli police officers were injured in the clashes with approximately half of them needing treatment in hospitals, a police spokesperson said Saturday morning. 

One of the injured was an Israeli officer who is in moderate condition after being hit in the face with a rock.

Some 205 Palestinians were injured, according to Palestine Red Crescent, with 108 of those injured transferred to Jerusalem hospitals for treatment.

Two terrorists killed after attack on Border Police base in West BankIDF maps home of Tapuah Junction terrorist - watchClashes spark between Palestinians, Otzma members in Sheikh Jarrah - watchEuropean powers tell Israel to stop Jewish building in east JerusalemIran IRGC head: Israel can be destroyed in one operationIran ‘conceals illegal activities’ for WMD tech - German intel

One of the injured lost an eye, two suffered serious head wounds and two had their jaws fractured, the Red Crescent said. Most of the rest of the injuries were minor, it added.

Footage from the Temple Mount showed Israeli security forces firing a stun grenade into al-Aqsa Mosque, Kan reported. Police were then seen locking the doors of the mosque while worshipers were still inside, according to Kan.

Border Police officers closed off Damascus Gate in the Old City in an attempt to regain control of the situation and to prevent more people from joining the riots. 

The secretary general of Islamic Jihad said Friday that “it is impossible to tolerate what is happening in Jerusalem and the enemy must expect our response at any moment.”

Hamas also put out a statement Friday warning Israel about potential repercussions of the clashes at the Temple Mount.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh sent a direct message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling him “not to play with fire. This is a struggle that you, your army, your police and your whole country cannot win. We will defend Jerusalem no matter what sacrifices we must make,” Ynet reported.

Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas said that he called on the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations to demand the UN Security Council convene to discuss the situation in Jerusalem including clashes and clashes in Sheikh Jarrah, Walla reported.

Jordan’s foreign ministry condemned the entrance of Israeli forces to the Temple Mount, and their “animalistic attack” of worshipers there.

Qatar also denounced the entrance of Israeli security forces to the Temple mount in the wake of clashes, calling it “provocation for millions of Muslims around the world,” Ynet reported. Qatar went on to call for the international community to act to stop Israeli harm of the Palestinian people.

Israeli Police reported that “police troops began using riot control measures a while ago, in an attempt to restore order after violent riots broke out at the Temple Mount, during which hundreds of suspects started throwing rocks, bottles and other items towards our forces.”

“We will not allow the disruption of order, any form of violence and attempts to harm officers while taking advantage of the freedom of religion and using it to promote a violent incident that includes hundreds of worshipers starting to riot and hurting police officers,” a police statement released after police managed to regain control at the Temple Mount read.  

Earlier, a video published by KAN News showed worshipers waving Hamas flags at the Temple Mount.

Israel Police and IDF had sent reinforcements to the capital in preparation for the fourth and final Friday prayers of the month of Ramadan on the Temple Mount and closed several streets in the area. 

Biden announces slate of gun control actions, claims ‘public health crisis’

Biden insists proposals don’t contravene the Second Amendment

By Tyler Olson May, 7 2021

President Biden on Thursday announced a set of executive actions and legislative proposals on gun control, saying that gun violence is “a public health crisis” and the administration’s actions do not contravene Second Amendment rights. 

The administration aims to “confront not just the gun crisis but what is actually a public health crisis,” Biden said in his remarks in the Rose Garden. He was joined by Vice President Harris.

“Nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment,” Biden said. “These are phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.”

Continuing, Biden said: “But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute … From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.”

In attendance were several high-profile gun control activists, including Brady United president Kris Brown, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., and Fred Guttenberg. 

An administration official detailed the actions to reporters on Wednesday. Among them, Biden is asking the Justice Department (DOJ) to propose within a month a rule to stop “ghost guns,” which are “kits” people can buy legally to assemble a functioning firearm that does not have a serial number. 

Biden is also asking the DOJ to propose within 60 days a rule on braces used for handguns, which make them more accurate; to propose action on “community violence intervention”; to publish suggestions for “red flag” legislation; and is asking his administration to issue a report on gun trafficking. 

Biden also formally announced David Chipman as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 

A senior administration official Wednesday said that Chipman will respect the Second Amendment while he enforces gun laws. 

President Joe Biden speaks about the economy in the State Dinning Room of the White House, Friday, Feb. 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“I’ve seen with my own two eyes what a bullet can do to the human body … and I’ve fought my entire career to fight this violence and to pass reasonable gun safety measures,” Harris said as she introduced Biden. 

“What are we waiting for? Cause we aren’t waiting for a tragedy… We’ve had more tragedy than we can bear,” she said. “The solutions exist… people on both sides of the aisle want action, real people … so all that is left is the will and the courage to act.”

The Biden administration is also expected to throw its weight behind gun control proposals in Congress. 

“Enough prayers, time for some action,” Biden said of Congress. “I believe the Senate should immediately pass three House-passed bills to close loopholes that allow gun purchases, purchasers, to bypass the background checks.”

He also pushed for two gun control laws that would go even further than that. 

“We should also ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country,” Biden said. He said “there’s no reason” a person would need a weapon that can hold “100 rounds.” 

“We should also eliminate gun manufacturers from the immunity they receive from the Congress,” Biden said, referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law that prevents gunmakers from being sued for crimes committed with guns they sell legally. 

“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued,” he continued. “If I get one thing on my list… give me that one because I tell you what there would be a come to the Lord moment these folks would have real quickly.”

Vice President Harris meets virtually with community leaders on the COVID-19 public education efforts in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 1, 2021. (Leigh Vogel/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Some of Biden’s claims during the press conference are regularly disputed by Republicans, including that gun manufacturers can’t be sued and that background checks aren’t required at gun shows. 

Indeed, the PLCAA only protects against suits for “harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products.” This does not count, for example, if a gun is defective or if a gun was knowingly given to a person who is banned from possessing one. 

Further, the “gun show loophole,” as it is known, is not actually about gun shows. All federally licensed commercial dealers, at gun shows or not, must conduct background checks. But federal law permits some non-commercial sellers who don’t need to be licensed to sell guns without conducting background checks. These sales sometimes happen at gun shows.

Republicans, meanwhile, have expressed their suspicion of Biden’s agenda which goes even further than what he announced Thursday. 

 “By appointing the anti-gun Merrick Garland as attorney general and nominating David Chipman — formerly a senior staffer at the leading gun control lobby —  to head ATF, Biden has made clear his sights are set on restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners while ignoring criminals and foregoing substantive measures that will actually keep Americans safe,” the National Rifle Association (NRA) said in a statement.

“Further, the proposals Biden announced tonight could require law-abiding citizens to surrender lawful property and enable states to expand gun confiscation orders. The NRA will fight this nomination and ill-conceived executive actions,” the NRA also said. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., added: “President Biden plans to announce his attempts to trample over our constitutional 2A rights by executive fiat. He is soft on crime, but infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. I won’t stand for it. And neither will House Republicans. Follow the Constitution!”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, “The answer is not to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, the answer is to go after violent criminals and come down on them like a ton of bricks.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland also spoke at the event. He said that gun control is needed to prevent further “tragedy” from gun violence. 

“We stand here today not at a moment of tragedy but in the midst of an enduring tragedy,” Garland said.

Brady United, one of the highest-profile gun control groups in the U.S., billed Biden and Harris as “the strongest gun safety ticket in history” at an event last fall. 

“President Biden’s actions are historic and they will have an immediate impact. These are tangible and powerful policies that will save lives,” Brown said of the president’s executive actions in a statement Wednesday.