Why Is Democracy Necessary?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns democracy and its ability to preserve freedom. The president and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dallin H. Oaks has long discussed importance of democracy, and he chose to focus on the same message in his first address as president of the Church of Jesus Christ. His message on Easter Sunday is that “peace and democratic freedoms, especially in times of conflict, require believers to extend Christ’s love to their opponents, even across vast differences in values and beliefs.”

Mariya Manzhos reported on President Oaks’ message in her article at the Deseret News. 

President Oaks also continued the theme of his predecessor, President Russell M. Nelson, calling believers to be peacemakers – those who “seek to reduce human suffering” and those who “work to promote understanding among different peoples.”

President Oaks described the current climate as “toxic” and “a time of contempt or hostility toward adversaries.” This kind of “hostility,” he said, is spreading across society, and involves “many whose Christian beliefs should orient them otherwise.”

Christ’s teaching, which the church’s leader described as “revolutionary,” is to extend love not only to the neighbors, but also to the enemies, whom President Oaks identified as “military foes” and those in direct conflict with one another. “Today we might say that we are commanded to love our adversaries,” he said.

The church’s leader has himself demonstrated a way of finding common ground in Utah politics. He played a key role in shaping the Utah Compromise in 2015, helping broker an agreement between religious groups and LGBTQ advocates, and supported a framework that paired protections for same-sex couples in housing and employment with safeguards for religious liberty – an agreement that became a national model for balancing competing rights.

In his Sunday address, he said: “As followers of Christ, we should seek to live peaceably and lovingly with other children of God who do not share our values and do not have the covenant obligations we have assumed. In a democratic government we should seek ‘fairness for all.’ In countless circumstances, strangers’ suspicion or even hostility gradually give way to friendship when personal contacts produce mutual respect.” …

In a new leadership position, Oaks is showing that there is no distinction between being Christ-like in personal life and being Christ-like in civic life, Rauch said.

President Oaks acknowledged just how hard reconciling the requirements of the church and civic life can be. “We balance our various responsibilities, this balancing is not easy,” Oaks said….

In President Oaks’ view, by contrast, the Constitution guarantees a shared civic space.

 

Are Trump’s Tariffs Constitutional?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the importance of the three branches of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – staying in their lanes of responsibility while supporting each other to keep the government strong. The Constitution outlines the duties of the three branches with Article I pertaining to the duties of the legislative branch, Article II pertaining to the duties of the executive branch, and Article III pertaining to the duties of the judicial branch. Basically, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch determines if the laws are constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday concerning President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs without Congressional approval. The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Fred Lucas reported on the Supreme Court hearing. 

At issue is whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended  to address emergencies only. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president.

According to Lucas, several Justices questioned Trump’s authority to use tariffs without approval of Congress. He recognized that “Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era.”

It will be interesting to learn how the Justices rule because their questions fell in several areas.

According to a Forbes article written by Alison Durkee, President Trump could still use tariffs under different laws, but their use would be narrower. The tariffs will remain in effect until the case is settled. 

The tariff case before the Supreme Court specifically concerns the “Liberation Day” tariffs, or “reciprocal tariffs,” that stem from Trump’s April announcement imposing tariffs on nearly all foreign countries. These tariffs are general tariff rates that apply to nearly all goods from foreign countries, with tariff rates set by country. The president also used IEEPA for his tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, which he imposed due to the countries’ purported failing to address the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., so those tariffs would also be affected by a ruling declaring Trump can’t impose tariffs under IEEPA. The lawsuit would not impact other tariffs Trump separately imposed on specific industries or goods, such as automobile tariffs or tariffs on steel and aluminum, as those were justified under different federal statutes.

Legal experts told Forbes companies that paid “Liberation Day” tariffs on imports to the U.S. are likely entitled to refunds of the fees, if the tariffs are ultimately deemed unconstitutional…. Trump administration could fight the refunds and argue only companies who directly sued over the tariffs are entitled to them – but government officials have acknowledged they’ll likely be on the hook for returning at least some of the companies’ money. “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” Bessent told “Meet the Press” on Sunday about what happens if the tariffs get overturned.

… While Trump’s ability to levy sweeping tariffs under IEEPA is up for legal debate, there are a number of other federal statutes that give Trump more explicit authority to impose tariffs. That tariff authority is much more limited than what Trump’s done with his “Liberation Day” tariffs, however, often imposing restrictions on how long they can be in effect or maximum tariff rates….

Bessent warned in a declaration to the Supreme Court that a ruling against Trump’s tariffs could threaten the administration’s trade deals with foreign countries, as the White House has used the threat of tariffs on countries’ goods to try and get better terms for the U.S. The Federal Circuit’s ruling against the tariffs has already “adversely affected ongoing negotiations,” Bessent claimed, as leaders from other countries are “questioning the President’s authority to impose tariffs, walking away from or delaying negotiations, and/or imposing a different calculus on their negotiating position.” The Trump administration also suggested an unfavorable tariff ruling could “jeopardize” Trump’s efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, as Trump has used tariffs to punish other countries that are still doing business with Moscow….

  

Why Do Leftists Shout for Democracy While Operating Through Coups?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns coups being used by Leftists in politics. We hear Leftists shout for and fake fighting for “democracy,” but they operate behind the scenes through coups. Victor Davis Hanson discussed three Leftist coups taking place in the past four years as Democrats sought for and used power. 

Hanson’s first coup took place in March 2020 when “all the major Democratic primary candidates abruptly, mysteriously, and in near unison withdrew from the presidential race, ceding the nomination to Joe Biden.” It did not seem to matter that “Biden had lost the first three races in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada – and only won his first victory in South Carolina. It also did not seem to matter that Biden was already displaying “obvious symptoms of serious cognitive decline” that “seemed to mount through the 2020 campaign” and “dementia continued to accelerate during his first three years as president.” Biden and his family “enjoyed the ceremonial functions of the presidency.”

The second coup took place when former President Barack Obama and his family stayed in Washington, D.C., rather than going home to Chicago or elsewhere. The coup took place when the Biden administration outsourced “the real operations to former Obama administration officials, consultants, and advisers.” When the puppet master could no longer hold up the puppet (Biden), something needed to be done.

The third coup took place because “Polls revealed an impending Trump landslide victory in November – and a massive Democratic loss of Congress.” The Democrat “machine” of “party bosses, megadonors, and Obama puppeteers went into action for yet a third time.”

There are rumors that the “machine” threatened to take away all campaign funding and even “raised the specter of invoking the 25^th Amendment to end his presidency. Biden was forced to suddenly withdraw from the presidential campaign and to endorse his Vice President Kamala Harris “as his surrogate on the ticket.”

In one moment, the choices of nearly 15 million Biden primary voters were vitiated. No delegates were consulted. No other alternative Democrat candidates were even considered.

Biden was dethroned; Harris was coronated – without much public input or even knowledge of how or why.

Democrat grandees stopped smearing Biden’s conservative critics, who had worried over his dementia. Instead, they now trumped opposition criticism of Biden’s decline.

Yet Biden most certainly did not resign his presidency. Instead, he promised to serve out his remaining six months in office.

So Democrat insiders not only removed their leading candidate, who for the prior six months had won all the 2024 primaries and almost all the delegates but insisted that Biden keep Democrats and himself in power – but only if he agreed to quit the race.

In other words and according to Hanson, a “cabal arbitrarily decided that Biden might well lose the Democrats the White House and the Congress.” Hanson continued, “So, they reversed course, now claiming his dementia was so acute as to destroy their prospects Nov. 5.” Even though Biden could not campaign well enough to win re-election, “his decline was not severe enough to imperil the American people” while he serves as President until January 20.

In addition, the machine chose Kamala Harris, a person who had not entered any primary and “never won a single delegate.” In addition, Harris “never captured a single delegate” when she ran for president in 2020.

Hanson claimed that the “same operators” ran all three coups. They used Biden until he became a liability. However, they insist that “he was still fit enough to keep the Left in power” until Harris can be inaugurated.

The most amazing fact of all the coups is that the very people conducting the coup “sanctimoniously lectured America that ‘democracy dies in darkness.’”

Can Mankind Be Resurrected?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns freedom from the grave. Christians living all over the world call this week Holy Ghost – commemorating the last week of the life of Jesus Christ. According to Mary Elise Cosgray at The Daily Signal, the results of a recent poll show that the majority of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected and overcame death and the grave. 

Nearly 70% of registered voters believe that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead, and more than 70% plan to celebrate Easter this year….

A Scott Rasmussen National Survey poll, conducted March 20 and 21 among 1,000 registered voters, found that 73% of respondents will celebrate Easter this year. When asked whether they would celebrate the holiday primarily as a religious holiday or as a secular holiday, 56% of participants responded with religious, 16% said secular, and 27% said both secular and religious equally.

The poll reflected voters’ belief that Jesus physically rose from the dead, by a margin of 68% to 13%.

Participants were asked to select which religion or faith best described what they practice. The survey found that Bible-believing Christian, Protestant, and Catholic each drew 21% of those polled. Evangelical Christian was chosen by 12%. Jewish identity made up 2% of the poll participants, with 1% Muslim and 6% atheist. The option “none of the above” was selected by 16%.

Some 49% said they were “very likely” to go to church on Easter Sunday, and 23% were somewhat likely, while 10% said they were not very likely, and 16% said they were not likely at all to do so.

Respondents were also asked how often they attend church, synagogue, or other religious services. Some 49% of participants said they rarely or never attend a religious service, while 23% said they go once a week, 12% said they go a couple of times a month, and 6% said once a month. About 9% of voters said they attend some form of religious services more than once a week.

Those polled were also asked about their prayer habits; specifically, how often they pray in a week. Some 45% of participants answered every day or nearly every day, and 21% said they pray several times a week, while 18% said they rarely or never do, 7% said about once a week, and 6% said less than once a week.

In addition to the above information, the poll also asked the importance of Easter among America’s holidays: Most important holiday 33% of voters, least important holiday 15% of voters, and somewhere in the middle 48% of voters.

The poll also asked if “the man known to history as Jesus Christ actually existed and walked the earth.” “By a margin of 83% to 5%, voters said they believe that Jesus Christ did in fact exist and walked the earth.” Rasmussen noted that the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Although not part of the poll, I am part of the 83% of voters who believe that Jesus Christ actually walked the earth. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He was resurrected on the third day. I believe that He made it possible for all mortals to be resurrected and to become immortal. I believe that He will return to earth sometime in the near future. I pray formally several times each day and many times each day informally. I will definitely attend Sunday meetings on Easter and will commemorate the day as a religious day.

Can Ilhan Omar Be Stripped of U.S. Citizenship?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns naturalization of some types of foreign-born individuals as citizens of the United States. Some prominent Republicans are calling for U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to be expulsed from Congress, denaturalized, and deported. In case you missed the news, Omar recently spoke at an event in Minneapolis.

According to an article by Matt O’Brien and Dale L. Wilcox, she discussed “the fledgling Republic of Somaliland’s efforts to break away from greater Somalia.” During her speech, “she assured her mostly Somali audience that she is ‘Somali first, Muslim second.’” She added that they could “sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system.” 

 The O’Brien and Wilcox wondered if Omar is a “Manchurian candidate serving the interests of an unstable terror haven like Somalia from within the U.S. Congress”? Then they ask “are Omar’s statements actionable? The answer to that question is complex,” and then they gave their explanation.

The Immigration and Nationality Act does allow foreign nationals to be stripped of their citizenship in certain very limited circumstances. Aliens who have committed certain acts (obtaining naturalization through fraud; declaring allegiance to a foreign state; bearing arms against the U.S.; committing treason, etc.) may be tried before a federal court and stripped of their citizenship. This process is known as “denaturalization.”

But a confusing tangle of complex judicial decisions and executive-branch policies have made it increasingly difficult to take citizenship away from those who should never have been naturalized in the first place.

So where does that leave Omar, who has an established track record of anti-American utterances and who sometimes seems to be working harder on behalf of vicious terror groups like al-Shabab and Hamas than she does for the American people?

There certainly is a plausible argument that what Omar said violates the oath of allegiance she took when being naturalized. That pledge begins, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

The oath concludes with a statement that the individual takes “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” And Omar’s statements do seem to indicate that she held mental reservations with regard to the vows she was taking.

Nevertheless, American courts have generally required abstract states of mind to be proven by evidence of action consistent with the presumed thought process. Right now, we have no proof that Omar has engaged in acts like passing classified information to Somalia or to terror groups.

Thus, any reviewing court is likely construe very broadly any statements that Omar is “Somali first” or that she will “protect” the “interests of Somalia,” as political speech protected under the First Amendment that cannot serve as a basis for denaturalization. And, in any case, the Biden administration, with whom Omar is ideologically aligned, is unlikely to take any legal action against her.

A more promising avenue of stripping Omar of her citizenship might be the ongoing claims that she committed fraud to aid a relative in gaining access to the United States….

By any reasonable measure, Ilhan Omar has shown repeatedly that she neither likes nor respects the nation that welcomed her family as refugees and presented her with a path to success. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that she ran for Congress either to further her own interests or to further the interests of her beloved Somalia -- nation riddled with terrorists from al-Shabab, one of the world’s most dangerous jihadist groups.

Accordingly, Ilham Omar’s case should serve as a cautionary tale for American lawmakers and jurists. Rendering it virtually impossible to denaturalize foreigners who never deserved U.S. citizenship in the first place is disaster waiting to happen. When you hand the Visigoths the keys to the gates of Rome, the empire will inevitably fall.

O’Brien and Wilcox asked some good questions. Are we electing our enemies to Congress? Are we voting for destruction of our nation? After the watching how the Biden administration has destroyed America, I believe that we have more than one Manchurian candidate in the government.

Why Should America Reject the Ideas of Left-Leaning Globalists?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the need for the United States to reject the agenda of left-leaning globalists. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts presented this principle today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and Fred Lucas wrote about it. “The World Economic Forum is an international organization that typically includes politicians and corporate leaders who promote specific global issues.” Roberts made the following statement at the forum: 

“I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” Roberts said, speaking as a leader of America’s conservative movement.

“Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration,” the president of the leading U.S. think tank said….”

Roberts also participated in a panel discussed titled “What can we expect from a possible Republican administration in 2025 in terms of continuation or deviation from this course?” Lucas reported that Roberts was just as candid.

When Roberts was asked about the idea that Donald J. Trump would become a dictator if he is re-elected, Roberts called it “’laughable’ that anyone would suggest the World Economic Forum is protecting liberal democracy and equally so to attack Trump as a would-be dictator.”

“The very reason that I’m here in Davos is to explain to many people in this room and who are watching – with all due respect, nothing personal – but that you are part of the problem,” Heritage’s president said. “Political elites tell the people on three or four or five issues that the reality is X, when in fact the reality is Y.”

Roberts noted that the World Economic Forum promotes a narrative that illegal immigration is positive, that there is no public safety threat in large American cities, and that climate change is catastrophic.

The fourth issue he brought up is the WEF’s embrace of China.

“China, the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform,” Roberts said.

In a conference call with reporters after the panel, Roberts noted that some in the front row seemed to gasp when he talked about China and also appeared to express frustration. He also said the WEF provided a platform to Iran’s Islamist regime.

Fifth, Roberts said, the World Health Organization is pushing gender ideology even though it’s being rejected by countries in Northern Europe.

“The new president, especially if it is President Trump, will, as you like to say, trust the science,” Roberts told the Davos audience. “He will understand the basic biological reality of manhood and womanhood. Do you know why? Not because of retribution. Not because he’s a dictator. But because he has the power of the American people behind him.”

Roberts went into the proverbial lions' den and slapped them in the face with the truth. I say good for him. Conservatives need only to counteract all the lies of the Left with the truth. The truth will prevail in the end. 

Will She Testify?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the possibility of President Joe Biden being compromised to our enemies. The House Judiciary Committee has been investigating the Biden crime family. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan recently issued the 60^th subpoena into the Biden impeachment inquiry.

According to Tyler O’Neil at The Daily Signal, the 60^th subpoena letter went to Leslie Wolf, assistant U.S. attorney for Delaware, demanding that she testify before the committee on December 7 at 10 a.m. in Washington, D.C. 

Jordan explained in a letter to Wolf that the Judiciary Committee considers her testimony essential to its oversight of the “executive branch’s commitment to impartial justice” and to “whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden.” The Justice Department under Biden twice refused to make Wolf available for a voluntary interview, leaving the committee “no choice but to compel your testimony at a deposition.”

While the Justice Department agreed to make some employees available, Wolf was not among them.

Republicans have accused Wolf of impeding the Delaware U.S. attorney’s investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged influence peddling. Republicans note that Hunter Biden handsomely benefitted from lucrative business deals in China, Ukraine, and elsewhere while his father, then the vice president to President Barack Obama, served as the administration’s point-man for those countries.

Democrats, meanwhile, have claimed that there is no evidence the president directly benefited from his son’s foreign business deals. President Biden has denied any wrongdoing on his part or on the part of his son.

Democrats can say what they want to say, while Jordan is looking for evidence of wrongdoing. He clearly disagrees with the view of Democrats as he noted the following in his letter to Wolf.

“Witness testimony and public reporting indicates that as an assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, you were directly involved in that office’s investigation of Hunter Biden, which deviated from standard investigative procedures,” Jordan notes in the letter.

The letter cites whistle blower testimony, noting that Wolf “attended a substantial majority, if not all, of the prosecution team meetings concerning the [Justice] Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden.”

Jordan also accuses Wolf of breaking from “standard investigative protocol” in five ways, either “directly or by instructing others.” He claims that she told Hunter Biden’s lawyer about a potential search warrant for his abandoned storage unit and later objected to executing a warrant for the unit; that she prohibited investigators from asking witnesses about “the big guy” or “dad,” presumably referring to President Biden; that she ordered investigators to remove any reference to “Political Figure 1,” i.e. Biden, from a search warrant; that she prohibited investigators from following up on evidence of criminal campaign finance violations; and that she forbade investigators from interviewing Hunter Biden’s adult children.

Furthermore, Jordan cites witness testimony that Wolf obstructed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania from briefing the Delaware office “about information from a highly credible confidential human source regarding bribes allegedly paid to President Biden and Hunter Biden.” The former U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania testified that Wolf served as the “primary interface” for the Delaware office to receive information about Biden family bribery allegations, and that Wolf “constricted” the information sharing between the two offices.

“Given your central role in the [Justice] Department’s investigation of Hunter Biden, you are uniquely situated to advance not only the committee’s oversight and inform potential legislative reforms, … but also the committee’s impeachment inquiry,” Jordan notes.

Jordan’s letter also rejected the argument from the Justice Department that Congress does not have the authority to force non-political appointees to testify in front of committees. In his letter, Jordan brought no less than a Supreme Court decision to prove his point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has a ‘broad and indispensable’ power to conduct oversight, which ‘encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed laws, and surveys in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them.’

In his letter, Jordan also cited Supreme Court precedent recognizing that “Congress may seek information from the Executive Branch about ‘corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of government.’”

Here, whistleblowers have brought forward numerous allegations of corruption (e.g. preferential treatment for the president’s son), maladministration (e.g. retaliation against whistleblowers), and inefficiency (e.g. an investigation so bogged down by delays and micromanagement that the statute of limitations lapsed before prosecutors could file certain charges), all backed by contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence.”

How Safe Is America?

Since Hamas infiltrated Israel on October 7, 2023, and killed more than 1400 people, terrorists have also been targeting Americans and America’s interests. Yesterday on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Aejandro Mayorkas and FBI Director Christopher Wray fielded questions from members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. While there, they “painted a scary picture” at times, according to Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal.

Lucas explained that “Wray warned about possible attacks on U.S. soil by Hamas or other bad actors,” and Mayorkas had few answers about the conditions at the southern border. He then gave five takeaways from the hearing.

1. ‘Gotaways’ at the Border

Regarding lack of security on the southern border, Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., asked, “How many gotaways did CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] report in fiscal year 2023?”

Mayorkas replied, “I believe, Senator, that number is over 600,000.” [Mayorkas then tried to paper over the problem by saying ‘gotaways’ were a problem in the previous administration.] … 

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed Mayorkas on how many illegal immigrants got into the country since Biden took office Jan. 20, 2021.

“How many people has this administration let in by encountering, processing, disbursing, or that have come in as a known or unknown gotaway?” Johnson asked.

Mayorkas wasn’t eager to answer…. [Why would he be?]

“Mr. Secretary, I want a number. How many people have you let into this country?” Johnson responded.

Mayorkas began to reply, “I should also…”

Apparently having had enough, Johnson told Mayorkas: “OK. I’ll give you the number. It’s about six million.” [This means that there are at least six million people in our nation that were not vetted and who could be terrorists. No one knows!]

2. Big Tech and Free Speech

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, pressed Wray on whether the FBI was collaborating with Big Tech to censor speech.

“Is the FBI still meeting with social media companies?” Paul asked the FBI director.

Wray responded by noting the Missouri v. Biden case pending before the Supreme Court, which has to do with collusion on content between federal agencies and Big Tech companies.

“We are having some interaction with social media companies. But all of those interactions have changed fundamentally in the wake of the court’s ruling,” Wray said.

Paul later followed by asking: “How did you change your behavior?”

Wray: “Out of an abundance of caution, in order to make sure we don’t run afoul of any court ruling. I would say, of course, the injunction has been stayed by the Supreme Court.”

Paul: “Did anybody from the FBI ever discuss constitutionally protected speech with social media organizations?”

Wray: “Not to my understanding.” …

[Paul]: “But the ‘Twitter Files’ and other indications, as well as Missouri v. Biden, lists many cases of both DHS and FBI discussing constitutionally protected speech, vaccine advocacy, mask advocacy,” the Kentucky Republican told the FBI director….

3. ‘Historic Levels’ of Antisemitism

Wray told the Senate committee that statistics show the threat of antisemitism in the United States has increased since Hamas’ terrorist attacks in Israel….

“I will say that this is a threat that is reaching in some ways sort of historic levels, in part because … the Jewish community is targeted by terrorists really across the spectrum,” Wray said.

The FBI director said the FBI is viewing the “full landscape and doing our best to be proactive in this space.”

He said the FBI is conducting hate crime investigations and deploying its Joint Terrorism Task Force to stave off the threat.

“In fact, our statistics would indicate that for a group that represents only about 2.4% of the American public, they [Jewish victims] account for something like 60% of all religious-faith hate crimes,” Wray added….

[Someone ought to tell the White House press secretary!]

4. ‘Extreme Rhetoric’ by DHS Employee

In what turned into a tense exchange, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asked Mayorkas about antisemitism in the Department of Homeland Security.

Nejwa Ali, a former spokeswoman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s now-defunct U.S. delegation, works for the adjudication officer at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of DHS. Ali was placed on paid suspension after making incendiary antisemitic posts on social media.

“What about people who say on Oct. 7, ‘F Israel – I’m cleaning up the language here – F Israel, the government and its military? Are you ready for your downfall?’” Hawley asked Mayorkas, quoting Ali.

Hawley also read a tweet from the same DHS employee as writing: ‘F – Israel and any Jew who supports Israel. May your conscience haunt your dreams until your last breath. Palestine will be free one day.”

[Hawley and Mayorkas agreed that the rhetoric was extreme – but agreement did not last long.]

After Hamas terrorists killed 1,400 in Israel and took over 200 as hostages, some DHS employees posted an image of a Hamas paraglider with a machine gun, which is one of the ways the terrorists entered Israel.

Hawley pointed out such social media posts.

“Is this typical of people who work at DHS? This is an asylum and immigration officer who is posting these, frankly, pro-genocidal slogans and images on the day that Israelis are being slaughtered in their beds,” Hawley said. “What have you done about this?”

Mayorkas responded by defending his department’s staff as a whole, rather than answering directly….

[Hawley pressed Mayorkas by asking several times if the employee had been fired.

Mayorkas finally answered that the person was put on administrative leave.]

5. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran-Backed Terrorists in US?

Both Wray and Mayorkas addressed the possibility of new terrorist attacks in the United States.

The Daily Signal recently reported that Iran’s Islamist regime has received approximately $71 billion more under Biden than it would have under his predecessor, Donald Trump.

“The ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole other level,” Wray said.

“As the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, the Iranians have directly, or by hiring criminals, mounted assassination attempts against dissidents and high-ranking current and former U.S. government officials, including right here on American soil,” the FBI director said. “Along those lines, Hezbollah, Iran’s primary strategic partner, has a history of seizing operatives and infrastructure, obtaining money and weapons, and spying in this country.”

The State Department designates both Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations dependent on Iran.

Wray also warned the Senate committee that the threat of a Hamas-inspired attack in the U.S is at “a whole other level.”

“On top of the homegrown violent extremists, the domestic violent extremist threat, we cannot and do not discount the possibility that Hamas or another foreign terrorist organization may exploit the current conflict to conduct attacks here on our own soil,” he said. “We have kept our sights on Hamas and have multiple ongoing investigations into individuals affiliated with that foreign terrorist organization.”

In fiscal year 2023, which ended Sept. 30, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that 172 individuals on the nation’s terrorist watchlist were apprehended while illegally crossing the southern border.

I believe that it is safe to say that America and Americans are not safe from terrorist attacks. Biden’s policies have followed the same path – only worse – of other Democrat presidents who went before him. They make policies that are not good for America, and Americans suffer. Yet, millions of Americans do not understand that it is policies that make a difference in whether America thrives or survives.

Why Does Biden Want to Link Funding to Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns funding wars that have no plan to end. President Joe Biden continues to link funding for the war in Ukraine to supporting Israel in their fight against terrorists. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives continue to say “no” to linking the two efforts, but Senators are joining the effort.

Mary Margaret Olohan published a story in The Daily Signal about the “Nine Republican senators” who “warned against the inclusion of any Ukraine funding in the aid package” for Israel. 

“We know there will no doubt be efforts to attach any funding to Israel to more aid to Ukraine, in excess of the already $113 billion Congress has provided to Ukraine,” the senators said in a Thursday letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “These are two separate conflicts and it would be wrong to leverage support of aid to Israel in attempt to get additional aid for Ukraine across the finish line.”

“Furthermore,” they added, “it would be irresponsible and we should not risk a government shutdown by bundling these priorities together and thus complicating the process and lessening the likelihood of a funding package.” …

“We urge you to keep separate attempts to provide military aid to Israel from additional funds to Ukraine or other matters,” the senators said.

According to Olohan, the senators involved are Mike Braun (Indiana), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rick Scott (Florida), Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming), Roger Marshall (Kansas), JD Vance (Ohio), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), and Josh Hawley (Missouri).

Biden not only wants to link more funding for Ukraine with assistance to Israel, but he wants to give humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Any funding to Gaza will more than likely be used to fight against Israeli, so the United States would actually be funding both sides of the war between Israel and Hamas. I am grateful for Representatives and Senators are saying “no” to linking any funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza.

What Do the Indictments of Hunter Biden Really Mean?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns equal justice before the law. There have been many questions about why the law is going against Donald Trump with so much power but looking the other way about crimes committed by the Biden family. However, there was a change today when special counsel – and friend of the Biden family – finally brought a formal indictment against Hunter Biden.

Out of all the possible matters for formal accusation, Weiss chose to bring a three-count indictment of Hunter Biden due to drug-related gun charges. He was also indicted on the one charge that is not related to his father, President Joe Biden. Fred Lucas explained the legal proceedings in his article published in The Daily Signal.

The three-count indictment accuses Hunter Biden of lying on a form to purchase a Colt Cobra revolver by not revealing his addiction to crack cocaine. Conviction on the three charges could bring Biden up to 25 years in prison.

The three federal charges come after an initial plea deal for misdemeanor charges over tax and gun charges fell apart.

The plea deal fell apart because U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked some questions in July about the scope of the deal. Disagreement between the defense lawyers and prosecutors caused the deal to collapse. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty.

An interesting thing about this the accusation is that it was brought two days after the U.S. House of Representatives opened a formal impeachment inquiry targeting President Joe Biden. It also comes a week prior to the appearance of Attorney General Merrick Garland before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. Lucas shared the following post on X by House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY):

Today’s charges against Hunter Biden are a very small start, but unless U.S. Attorney Weiss investigates everyone involved in the fraud schemes and influence peddling, it will be clear President Biden’s DOJ [Department of Justice] is protecting Hunter Biden and the big guy.

Should the Banks Be Bailed Out?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the failing banks. The Silicon Valley Bank and several other financial institutions have failed over the past few days. President Joe Biden said that he would not bail out Silicon Valley Bank, but he lied. The bailouts have already started. Jarrett Stepman posted an article at The Daily Signal with further education. 

The official reason for the bailouts is to prevent a general banking crisis, but no doubt it’s also being done to save the bacon of some very wealthy organizations and people.

Should we just hand taxpayer money over to these companies?

My answer is no. By bailing out the banks, the government sent a signal to the banking industry that they can be careless with their businesses because the government will back them. I say, let them fail. Stepman explained that there are two big problems with the bailouts.

There are two major problems here. First is the hazard of allowing massive, wealthy companies to take unnecessary risks because they can get taxpayer money. The second is how America’s corporate and financial institutions have gone woke.

Why should the average American do anything to help institutions that fund extreme social and political causes they abhor?

A database created by The Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life found that Silicon Valley Bank donated over $73 million to Black Lives Matter and related left-wing causes.

It appears that Silicon Valley Bank went woke and then went broke – and other banks followed their example. They should all be allowed to fail and not be bailed out.

Do Americans Have Equal Justice Before the Law?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the guaranteed right for equal justice before the law. The Department of Justice, the FBI, and every single law enforcement agency in the United States are obligated to provide equal justice to every person. Yet, many people in America are questioning if we now have a two-tier justice system – one tier for conservatives and another for Democrats and their supporters. Yesterday, Attorney General Merrick Garland was grilled by several U.S. Senators, and Tyler O-Neil of The Daily Signal reported on it. 

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked Garland about the case of pro-life activist Mark Houck, who faced charges for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act. A jury found Houck not guilty, and Houck claims he did not attack an abortion clinic, but merely pushed an abortion activist who had been antagonizing his son. He cited Catholic Vote statistics on attacks against pregnancy resource centers and Catholic churches after the leak of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“In 2022 and for the first couple of months of 2023, DOJ’s announced charges against 34 individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion clinics, and there have been over 81 recorded attacks on pregnancy centers, 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and only two individuals have been charged,” Lee noted.

“So, how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what’s happening there?” Lee asked.

Garland rationalized that the events at abortion centers are well documented and done during daylight hours, so it is easy to see the person. However, the attacks on pregnancy centers take place at night and in the dark. He said that the department has “put full resources on this” and “have put rewards out for this” and even asked for help from Catholic and other organizations to identify the people. He claimed that “every case against a pregnancy resource center” will be prosecuted if they can just find the people involved.

Catholic Vote faulted Garland’s response – “failing to distinguish between criminal acts and acts of protest protected by the U.S. Constitution.” The attacks at pregnancy centers are criminal and done in secret, while pro-life activists act during the day because they know their actions are legal and protected by the Constitution.

Why Was the Chinese Balloon Allowed to Float for a Week in US Airspace?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns sovereignty. Each sovereign nation has the right, power, and authority to protect its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the United States has been invaded when approximately five million migrants crossed our southern border. Our air sovereignty was invaded about twelve days ago when a balloon from China entered our air space in Alaska, crossed Canada, and re-entered our air space before proceeding to cross our entire nation from Montana to South Carolina.

Government officials revealed on February 2 that China surveillance balloon was flying over the country. The balloon was shot down two days later off the coast of South Carolina when an Air Force fighter jet fired a missile at it.

A Senate subcommittee held a hearing on the Chinese spy balloon today, the same day that the House of Representatives voted unanimously to condemn China’s infiltration of U.S airspace. A classified hearing was later held in the Senate behind closed doors to talk with military personnel about more sensitive details.

Samantha Aschieris at The Daily Signal wrote about five questions that senators asked and Pentagon officials answered. 

1. Why Not Shoot It Down Earlier?

“If you had the opportunity to shoot the Chinese spy balloon down either over the remote mountains of Alaska or over waters near Alaska, why didn’t you?” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., asked Army Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II, operations director for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. “Why is it OK to have the Chinese fly some type of aircraft over Alaskan airspace?

As far as shooting down the balloon over water off Alaska, Sims replied that in the assessment of Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, “there was no hostile act, hostile intent, or potential impact to critical intelligence capabilities.” …

As for shooting down the spy balloon over Alaska itself, the Army general continued, the military was unable to “work our way to a near zero probability of collateral damage when we take that shot.”

[I have flown over a small part of Alaska and have seen vast amounts of land where there is no civilization. However, it would be a cold recovery of the balloon if it were shot down over icy water or snow-covered mountains.]

2. Why Not Capture It Intact?

“Could that balloon not be forced down some way other than shooting it down?” Hoeven asked Sims.

“Obviously, we have aircraft that can exceed that altitude,” the North Dakota Republican said. “Answer that – just the final question: Couldn’t that have been forced down some way rather than shooting it down, which would have, in a lot of ways, been better? You avoid the risk to people on the ground, and you get it intact.”

Sims replied: “We didn’t have the ability to capture the balloon or bring the balloon down with a particular munition that we thought would make it less dangerous. And, quite frankly, we didn’t know where it would go if we were to somehow  impact its flight path at that point in terms of our ability to control it, what it would do if it hit the ground. But that’s a great question, sure, and … we’ll address that greater in the next [closed-door] session.”

3. When Was Balloon Threat Determined?

When did the military “determine the threat” posed by the balloon, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., asked, “and did you have constant surveillance for the entire time it was in the U.S. and Canadian airspace?”

Melissa Dalton, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, answered Murray.

“On Saturday, Jan. 28, we tracked through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] that the balloon was entering [the] U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone in U.S. airspace in Alaska, and from there, NORAD had custody and we were tracking it across the …..,” Dalton began, before Murray interrupted to ask again whether the military had “constant surveillance the entire time of the balloon.”

“Yes, Senator,” Dalton responded.

The Chinese balloon first was detected Jan. 31 flying over the continental U.S. in northern Idaho, Politico reported.

4. Did China Plan This, or Was It an Error?

Sen. Jon Tester, R-Mont., asked whether the balloon was “an error by the Chinese government, or was this planned?”

Jedidiah Royal, principal deputy assistant defense secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs, replied.

“Senator, we’re continuing to make assessments on the Chinese intent for this specific operation, and we’ll have further to share in a classified setting along with specific intent,” Royal said. “I think it would be false to try to characterize this operation as purely a mistake.” …

5. ‘Who Got the Most Information Out of This?”

Tester had a follow-up question.

“So, generally speaking, as this balloon went over Alaska, Canada, and the United States, who got the most information out of this: the Chinese or us?” Tester asked Royal.

“Sir, I don’t have a judgment or evaluation to pass along those lines for you right now. I do believe that the United States’ collection on this particular balloon and on the brother program is ongoing and is significant,” Royal said….