Biden’s Social Media Statement Calls for Biden’s Impeachment

This article originally appeared on WND.com

Guest by post by Bob Unruh

Joe Biden is on record, on social media, stating that President Donald Trump “must” be impeached, at the time, because he withheld “congressionally appropriated aid” from Ukraine in exchange for a political favor.

Biden’s statement, from 2019, in fact, is, “President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor. It’s the definition of quid pro quo. This is no joke—Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached.”

Which is causing a problem now in that Biden has withheld congressional approved aid to Israel, to put himself in a better light.

President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor. It’s the definition of quid pro quo.

This is no joke—Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached. https://t.co/puPgevx568

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 19, 2019

“This is awkward,” one commenter said.

A commentary at Twitchy explained, “Biden once pledged full support for Israel but that support ended when [Benjamin] Netanyahu going full speed after Hamas angered some voters which could cost Biden a swing state in November. The White House is now kicking Israel under the bus by withholding aid that’s in a package Congress passed and Biden signed.”

Joe Biden endorses his own impeachment https://t.co/Xko5Y7Uhls

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) May 9, 2024

The report continued, ” During yesterday’s interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett, President Biden admitted that the White House is holding back aid for Israel because Benjamin Netanyahu won’t help out his election campaign and avoid going into Rafah to placate the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party.”

“The White House National Security Council sought to keep the decision out of the public eye for several days… until Biden could deliver a long-planned speech on Tuesday to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day.” https://t.co/Qn9Er7sfbv

— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) May 9, 2024

Biden has been getting away with double standards his entire career

3 strike laws for thee but not for me (Hunter)

Keeping classified documents without punishment

And now withholding aid to an ally

We’ll see what happens this time https://t.co/cUh8qCRbMY

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) May 9, 2024

Copyright 2024 WND News Center

The post Biden’s Social Media Statement Calls for Biden’s Impeachment appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

MUST SEE! UK’s Winston Marshall Gives Nancy Pelosi a Proper Spanking at Oxford Union – Calls Out Joe Biden’s Dementia – Nasty Nancy FINALLY Receives the Public Humiliation She Deserves! – VIDEO

It took some young bloke named Winston Marshall at the Oxford Union to finally hand Nancy Pelosi the public spanking she deserveds.

Nancy Pelosi and her husband took a break from their insider trading to attend a public debate at the Oxford Union in Oxford, England. The Oxford Union is a highly esteemed debating society and is one of Britain’s oldest university unions founded in 1823.

Nancy and Robert Pelosi attended the Oxford Union debate on April 25 on populism hours after she was interrupted by pro-Gaza protesters from Youth Demand who support Gaza militants and want to put an end to fossil fuels.

It was during this debate that Pelosi was finally given the proper public thrashing she deserved by one of Britain’s rising stars, Winston Marshall.

Winston Marshall is a popular writer, musician and podcaster. Marshall was part of the British folk rock group Mumford and Sons where he was lead guitarist and won a Grammy and two Brit Awards. Marshall was forced out of the band after posting a tweet saying journalist Andy Ngo was “brave” for his book which says far-left activists have “radical plans to destroy democracy”.

Winsston Marshall participated in the debate on populism and it’s perceived threat by the global elites.

During his speech Pelosi rudely interrupted the brilliant young mind to argue that the violent and costly month-long protests and attacks on the City of Portland were not as devastating as the Jan. 6 protests and riot.

We now know that Nancy Pelosi was largely responsible for the violence that day. She refused to sign off on President Trump’s order days before the protests to bring in the National Guard to Washington DC. Pelosi and military leaders then refused to bring in the National Guard on January 6th until past 5 PM. Instead, Pelosi bizarrely organized a film crew to come in and follow her around that day.

Pelosi’s rude interruption did not stop Winston Marshall from giving her a proper public thrashing.

This will be the best video you watch all week!

Here is the transcript.

Introduction: Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. I now look to Mr. Winston Marshall to close the case for the opposition.

Winstson Marshall: Ladies and gentlemen, words have a tendency to change meaning. When I was a boy, woman meant someone who didn’t have a cock. Populism has become a word used synonymously with racist, we’ve heard ethnonationalist, we’ve bigot, with hillbilly, red neck, with deplorables. Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people. This is a recent change, not Not long ago, Barack Obama, while still President at the North America’s Leaders Summit in June 2016, he took umbrage of the notion that Trump be called a populist. How could Trump be called a populist? He doesn’t care about working people. If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who’d spent five decades fighting for working people.

But with Trump… Something curious happens. If you watch Obama’s speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word populist interchangeably with strong man, with authoritarian. The word changes meaning it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur. To me, populism is not a dirty word.

Since the 2008 crash, and specifically the trillion dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the populist age. And for good reason, the elites have failed. Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I would be on that side of the If the motion was that political violence was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the House.

January sixth has been mentioned, a dark day for America indeed. I’m sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, was under siege and under insurrection by radical progressives, those two were dark days for America. Yes?

Nancy Pelosi: It’s not. There is no equivalence there. It is not like what happened on January 6th which was an insurrection…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. It’s fine. You don’t agree…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. But you’ll condemn those days. My point, though, is that all political movements are susceptible to violence and indeed, insurrection. And if we were arguing that fascism was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the house. Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against fascism. I’ve got quite a lot to get through. Populism, as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an elite.

Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. And why else have universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check? Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently, Javier Mallet taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina’s bureaucratic monster, you’d be mistaken for thinking this was a right wing populist age. But that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street. That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbin’s For the Many, Not the Few. That would be ignoring Bernie against the Billionaires, RFK Jr. Against Big Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment. Now, all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment.

I’m actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment. Today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment. I suppose for Ms. Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she’d be arguing herself out of a job. But it’s here in Britain where right and left populists united for the Supreme Act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have shown the number one reason people voted for Brexit was sovereignty for more democracy. Thank you. What was the response of the Brussels elite? They did everything in their power to undermine the democratic will of the British people, and the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we’ve heard, David Cameron called the voters Fruitcakes, Loonies, and Closet Racists. The liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic vote. Kirstama(?) campaigned for a second referendum. Elites would have us voting and voting and voting until we voted their way. Indeed, that’s what happened in Ireland and in Denmark. Let’s look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger populist Revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. The Pharma Revolt, from Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece to Sri Lanka, are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG policy that’s floated down to us from those all-knowing infallible elites of Davos.

The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts, not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The gilets jaunes in France, Ulez in London, working people, protesting policy that hurt them. And how are they treated? They’re called conspiracy theorists. They’re called far-right by the mayor as well. Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real threat to democracy is from the elites. Now, don’t get me wrong, we need elites.

If-when President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries. When the President has severe dementia, it’s not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns. But let’s examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1 billion a year lobbying Brussels. Us corporations spend over €2 billion a year lobbying in DC. Two-thirds of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent €11 million in 2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of Americans think the economy is rigged against them for the rich and the powerful. And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots.

Let Let me read you some mainstream media headlines.
The New Yorker the day before the 2016 election, “The Case Against Democracy.”
The Washington Post, the day after the election, “The problem with our government is democracy.”
The LA Times, June 2017, “The British election is a reminder of the perils of too much democracy.”
Vox, June 2017. “The two eminent political scientists say the problem with democracy is voters.”
New York Times, June 2017. “The problem with participatory democracy is the participants.”

Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don’t just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn’t even have a chance in 2024. He shouldn’t He shouldn’t have a chance.

You’ve had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele Dossier to trying to take him off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat Party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as the Promonicist Party.

Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I’ll tell you what is. It’s elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It’s police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monicists in this country or gender critical voices here, or last week in Brussels, the National Conservatives Movement.

I’ll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It’s Brussels, DC, Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big pharma, corporate collusion, and the Davos cronies.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off ordinary people as deplorable.

The threat to democracy comes from those who smear working people as racist.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as populists.

And I’ll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to start listening to, respect it, respecting, and, God forbid, working for ordinary people. Thank you.

Nancy Pelosi did not like what I had to say…

Populism is not a threat to democracy.

Democrat elites like her are.

Watch my full Oxford Union speech from the debate with her: pic.twitter.com/ZNm8maNZjy

— Winston Marshall (@MrWinMarshall) May 10, 2024

The post MUST SEE! UK’s Winston Marshall Gives Nancy Pelosi a Proper Spanking at Oxford Union – Calls Out Joe Biden’s Dementia – Nasty Nancy FINALLY Receives the Public Humiliation She Deserves! – VIDEO appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Police Identify Bronx Rapist Who Used Belt to Choke Woman, Knock Her Out, and Drag Her Between Cars Before Raping Her – Has Five Prior Arrests

Kashaan Parks identified as rapist who used belt to choke woman and drag her between cars before raping her. He has five prior arrests. Image via XR Vision

Police identified the man who was seen on security camera choking an unsuspecting woman with a belt, knocking her out, and dragging her between cars before raping her. The crime took place late Monday afternoon.

Kashaan Parks has five prior arrests.

Police are searching for Parks after he allegedly used his belt like a lasso and choked a woman until she was knocked out and then raped her on a street in the Bronx last week.

Late Friday afternoon, detectives identified the suspect as Kashaan Parks, 39. He has five prior arrests.

39-year-old Kashaan Parks is wanted for the vicious rape on Monday in New York City.

AMNY reported:

According to Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny, cops are looking for 39-year-old Kashaan Parks, who police believe used a belt to choke out at a 45-year-old woman on 152nd Street and 3rd Avenue before dragging her between two parked cars on May 1st and raping her. With the sicko identified, cops believe an arrest will be imminent.

The highly disturbing security video has been going viral online over the last several days, yet police say they were not immediately aware of the incident since the victim did not report the shocking assault. It wasn’t until she herself was arrested for petty larceny that cops learned of the incident.

However, once detectives approached about the attack police say she fully cooperated and managed to identify the attacker due to distinctive gaps in his teeth.

“Our victim indicated that she had seen him before, she actually describes his teeth to us, he had unusual teeth,” Chief Kenny explained. “She said he has space between his teeth.”

Police say they believe the vicious assault stemmed from a conversation the pair may have had earlier in the night which they had come to terms with exchanging money for the promise of a sexual encounter. Yet when the alleged agreement did not come to fruition, Parks allegedly leaped into a range and slung the belt around the victim’s neck.

The incident has spawned widespread condemnation from viewers across the internet, including elected officials who have denounced the attack.

Cristina Laila reported earlier on this vicious assault.

Meanwhile in the Democrat hellhole of New York City…

A shocking video posted to X showed a man wrapping a belt around a woman’s neck, dragging her body onto a street in New York City, and raping her.

According to NYPD, the 45-year-old woman was attacked and sexually assaulted near 152nd Street and 3rd Avenue in the Bronx on May 1 around 3 am.

The attacker covered his face with a white towel as he assaulted the woman. No arrests have been made.

PIX11 reported:

A man wrapped a belt around a woman’s neck and dragged her unconscious body between two parked cars before raping her on a Bronx street, according to police and a viral video.

The 45-year-old woman was attacked near 152nd Street and Third Avenue at around 3 a.m. on May 1, according to the NYPD. The woman was walking down the street when a suspect came up from behind and looped the belt around her neck, the viral video shows.

The man, who covered his face with a white towel, then used the belt to pull the passed-out woman several feet along the sidewalk and into the street between two parked cars, the video shows. Police said the suspect then raped her.

The video shared on social media does not depict the entire assault. There have been no arrests, and the investigation is ongoing.

The video posted to X does not show the entire assault.

Police are urging anyone with information about this horrific assault to call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477).

WATCH (graphic warning):

Graphic Warning: Disgusting video out of New York shows a man snag a woman with a belt before dragging her behind a vehicle. Video was posted online without further information.
If you recognize this man contact your local police. #nyc #newyork #crime pic.twitter.com/5111yRTJwQ

— PPV_TAHOE (@ppv_tahoe) May 9, 2024

The post Police Identify Bronx Rapist Who Used Belt to Choke Woman, Knock Her Out, and Drag Her Between Cars Before Raping Her – Has Five Prior Arrests appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

RNC and Arizona GOP Challenge Court Decision Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in Arizona

The Republican National Committee (RNC), in conjunction with the Arizona Republican Party, has announced an appeal against a portion of a federal court decision related to Arizona’s election laws.

The appeal, filed on May 8, challenges the court’s ruling that prevents the state from requiring documentary proof of citizenship for presidential elections or mail-in voting.

The legal action intends to reinforce measures against the participation of non-citizens in Arizona’s elections, a move that the committees believe will uphold the integrity of the electoral process.

In February, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of maintaining two critical laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, passed in 2022, which the RNC celebrated as a “landmark legal development for election integrity,” Epoch Times reported.

However, Bolton’s decision also prevents Arizona from enforcing documentary proof of citizenship for voting in presidential elections or by mail, a point of contention for the RNC and the Arizona GOP.

“The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona struck down an Arizona requirement that individuals seeking to register to vote must list their birthplace as a prerequisite to registering to vote,” according to the press release.

“The court ruled that the birthplace requirement of House Bill 2492 violated a federal law that prevents election officials from rejecting voting materials for errors or omissions that are not material to determining a registrant’s qualifications to vote. The court previously ruled that Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship to vote in a federal election.”

In February, the court also struck down the section of HB 2243 permitting county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the individual is not a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, the court ruled that the state’s mandate for voters to provide documentary proof of residence to participate in federal elections allegedly violates federal law.

Before the trial in February, a federal judge appointed by Clinton blocked HB 2243 in September 2022 from being enforced in the 2022 General Election.

H.B. 2243 is meant to clean the voter rolls and remove registrants who are registered in another state and no longer live in Arizona. The new law would add a statement on voter registration forms, specifying that if a registrant permanently moves to another state after registering in this state, their registration will be canceled.

It would also direct the county recorder to cancel a voter registration when they confirm that the registered person is dead, that the person is not an Arizona resident or resident of that County, or that they are not a citizen of the United States.

The Gateway Pundit previously discovered during our investigation into the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) that the largest U.S. Counties removed only ZERO to TWO ineligible voters from their voter rolls in the last four years.

ERIC, initially funded by the Soros Open Society Foundation, is essentially a left-wing voter registration drive disguised as a voter roll clean-up system and is used in Arizona and 30 other states.

State Rep. Jake Hoffman, the bill’s main sponsor, told The Gateway Pundit, “Democrats have stooped to a new level of shamefulness and depravity with their latest round of lies about Arizona’s common sense laws to ensure that our elections are accessible, secure, and trustworthy.”

In a joint release, the Republican committees expressed their determination to contest this aspect of the ruling.

“The ruling requires election officials to enforce a critical Arizona law and ensure that non-citizens are not allowed to remain on voter rolls. The RNC and AZGOP will do everything we can to safeguard the fundamental principle that American elections are decided by American citizens,” RNC Chairman Michael Whatley said.

“Every voter in Arizona has a bedrock right to ensure their votes and their voices are not diluted by ineligible voters casting ballots and impacting our elections and our representation. We will pursue every legal action to guarantee a fair and transparent election and to enforce the rule of law,” Arizona GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda said.

Arizona State Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, both Republicans, have joined the legal challenge, reinforcing the GOP’s stance on this issue.

According to the press release:

In 2022, Arizona passed HB 2243, which, among other provisions, requires counties to conduct monthly citizenship verification checks of registered voters who have not submitted documentary proof of citizenship.

In a lawsuit decided in February 2024, the RNC successfully defended most of the law’s list maintenance provisions which are meant to ensure non-citizens are identified and removed from voter rolls.

The Arizona Republican Party moved to intervene in the case and defend Arizona’s right to require proof of citizenship to vote.

However, the court’s decision enjoins Arizona from requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections or vote by mail. Our appeal will fight this decision. Not requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote in presidential elections or vote by mail undermines a fundamental principle of our elections: that they should be decided by American citizens.

Following our win on the list maintenance provisions, we sent letters and public records requests to each county in Arizona requesting information as to how counties are implementing the law’s list maintenance requirements. 

Only six counties have so far responded. Of these counties, none are in full compliance with HB 2243’s list maintenance provisions. Apparently, counties do not have access to some of the databases the statute requires them to check.

It is inexcusable that the Secretary of State and the counties have not secured access to these databases, despite the law being in effect for nearly two years and never enjoined by a court.

If counties do not show evidence of compliance with the law, the RNC and AZGOP will pursue every legal avenue to uphold election integrity in Arizona.

The post RNC and Arizona GOP Challenge Court Decision Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in Arizona appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Icon’s Death Ruled Homicide by County Coroner

The death of a renowned outdoorsman in a Wyoming ski accident is being described as a homicide.

Teton County Coroner Brent Blue made the determination in the death of 71-year-old Peter Wuerslin, according to Fox News.

Wuerslin was mortally injured in a collision with an unidentified 34-year-old skier on the slopes of the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort last month.

Wuerslin had served as a ski instructor at the resort since 1978, according to the Jackson Hole News & Guide.

The instructor was skiing with a group of friends when the other party collided with him, according to Ski Magazine.

In a surprising—but not unheard of—determination, the Teton County Coroner ruled the death of Jackson Hole, Wyo., ski instructor Peter Wuerslin a homicide. Click below to read the full story. #SKI https://t.co/dMLu4wVB3p

— SKI Magazine (@skimagonline) May 4, 2024

The exact nature of the collision is unclear, with one source described by Ski Magazine as a member of the ski patrol saying that the younger skier “failed to maneuver” around Wuerslin on his way down a mountain slope.

Wuerslin died three days later of injuries sustained from the crash.

The other skier was released from an area hospital the same day.

Wuerslin was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, according to Snow Brains, but the person he collided with apparently was not.

Blue described Wuerslin’s cause of death as an “intracranial hemorrhage.”

The coroner’s assessment is independent of any law enforcement investigation.

The Teton County Sheriff’s Office indicated last moth that it was investigating the collision.

Potential witnesses to the crash are being asked to call Detective Bret Bommer at 307-733-4052.

Wuerslin’s outdoor accomplishments include a six-year global bicycle ride that spanned six continents and 45,000 miles.

Friends of Wuerslin shared tributes to the ski instructor on social media, with some pointing to his extensive bicycling experience.

“We will miss Peter, who died yesterday after another skier ran into him,” Jackson, Wyoming local Angus Thuermer said of the deceased.

Jackson Hole Mountain Resort President Mary Kate Buckley described the organization as “devastated to have lost a beloved member of our community” in a statement provided to Fox.

“This is obviously very sad for the organization and the community and our heart goes out to the family.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Icon’s Death Ruled Homicide by County Coroner appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Why Is DHS Keeping ‘Disinformation’ Regulation Docs Secret?

Nina Jankowicz

This story was originally published by Real Clear Wire

By Kevin Schmidt
Real Clear Wire

Nearly two years after Nina Jankowicz briefly led the Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, she’s launched an organization demanding transparency and the public release of documents about the public debate on disinformation. An interesting move, likely without true transparency in mind.

My organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, has spent the same two years fighting DHS for documents on the federal board Jankowicz managed. We’re filing a second lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to fight continued government stonewalling of our requests. Thus far, DHS has refused to provide unredacted versions of documents that outline its purported authoritiesto regulate disinformation. Nor will the agency release more information about its work on misinformation related to “irregular migration” and “Ukraine” before the board was disbanded in August 2022.

So, taxpayers are unable to find out what legal authority DHS is exercising, and they aren’t allowed to learn about the work being done with their tax dollars. Does this sound like a dystopian novel yet?

Why do the documents from a defunct government board matter? Because DHS and Jankowicz sold the board as necessary. They claimed to be worried that DHS’ various offices’ ongoing disinformation work threatened Americans’ free speech rights.

Jankowicz tweeted in April 2022, “one of the key reasons the Board was established, is to maintain the Dept’s committment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties.”

DHS told reporters in April 2022, “[I]ronically, this Board is designed to protect the freedom of speech that critics are falsely claiming it is attempting to trample.” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also said, “[I]t was quite disconcerting, frankly, that the disinformation work that was well underway for many years across different independent administrations was not guided by guardrails.”

In May 2022, Mayorkas told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the board was necessary to make sure ongoing disinformation work in DHS “does not infringe on people’s free speech rights” and that the board would be developing “guidelines” and “guardrails.” That same month, the board was paused and then ultimately disbanded in August 2022.

Disconcerting, indeed. If DHS and Jankowicz were telling the truth about the board’s necessity, then DHS offices across the country continue to do disinformation work without any guardrails to protect free speech.

So the disinformation work is ongoing, but the work to provide “guardrails” has stopped. We want to know what guidance that work currently operates under, but DHS refuses to provide the information. What are they trying to hide?

We aren’t the only ones denied basic transparency about what DHS is doing with your tax dollars. Members of Congress have repeatedly asked for documents and direct answers to straightforward questions about agency authority.

In a House Homeland Security Committee hearing last month, Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS) asked Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, “What congressional authority does DHS have in the [misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information] space?” Mayorkas dodged the question. Rep. Ezell received a similar non-answer from a DHS assistant secretary in a December hearing.

A DHS Fact Sheet defending the creation of the Disinfo Board from May 2, 2022, said, “the Department has renewed its commitment to transparency and openness with the public and Congress.”

Much like the name “Disinformation Governance Board,” these claims of commitment to transparency are Orwellian doublespeak. Last month, Jankowicz and Álvarez-Aranyos sent a letter to Congress demanding they release their work on disinformation, while, at the same time, Jankowicz’s former colleagues at DHS refuse to do so, despite being legally obligated to, unlike Congress.

Jankowicz and her former government employer have an interest in making sure the records showing what they did with the Disinfo Board never see the light of day. DHS will continue stonewalling unless a federal court orders them to follow the law, and we won’t stop until they provide transparency about its authorities and actions that threaten free speech.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire
Kevin Schmidt is director of investigations at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

The post Why Is DHS Keeping ‘Disinformation’ Regulation Docs Secret? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The UN Should Not Reward the Palestinians for Oct. 7th

CCTV footage: No human authorship, Wikimedia Commons

This story was originally published by Real Clear Wire

By Brett Schaefer
Real Clear Wire

The United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote Friday on one of the worst resolutions to come before that body – one that would confer upon the “State of Palestine” many of the rights and privileges reserved for member states. The U.S. and other U.N. member states should reject it.

The resolution is based on false premises, for one thing. It would also invite financial distress on the UN, throw chaos into the membership process of the General Assembly, and, most importantly, reward terrorism.

Considering the ongoing support for indiscriminate violence against Israeli civilians by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a majority vote of the General Assembly in favor of this resolution is tantamount to encouraging terrorism and endorsing hostility toward a fellow UN member state.

Among the false premises are the claim that “the State of Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations… and should therefore be admitted to membership…” Although over 100 governments recognize the State of Palestine, this is a political determination. In truth, the Palestinian territories lack key characteristics of statehood, including a defined territory – its formal borders are subject to future negotiations with Israel – and a government that exercises sovereign authority over that territory. The Palestinian Authority arguably does not control the entirety of the West Bank, much less Gaza.

The second false premise in the resolution is the judgment that Palestine is a “peace-loving state” as required by Article 4 of the UN Charter for membership in the organization. In fact, the governing authorities of the “State of Palestine,” the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, are the furthest thing from peace-loving. Both are extremist organizations that actively encourage and reward terrorism against civilians. They indoctrinate hate among ordinary citizens to the point where they overwhelmingly support the terrorist atrocities committed on October 7, and their founding documents endorse the destruction of Israel.

So much for the UN Charter principles and purposes to maintain international peace and security and develop friendly relations among nations.

But there could also be other significant broader ramifications for the organization that should give all legitimate UN member states pause.

The resolution “decides” to confer many of the rights and privileges reserved for member states to the “State of Palestine.” As laid out in an annex to the resolution, among other privileges, the Palestinians would be granted the right to: be seated among the member states in alphabetical order; offer proposals and amendments; make statements; raise procedural motions; and stand for and be elected as officers in the General Assembly and its Main Committees.

In effect, the Palestinians would be member states except for the inability to “put forward its candidature to United Nations organs” and vote in the General Assembly. Depending on how the resolution is interpreted, they might, however, be able to vote in UN conferences and meetings. This is a dramatic elevation in status for the Palestinians, granting them the same standing as UN member states with two, albeit significant, exceptions.

Should the resolution be adopted, two U.S. laws prohibiting U.S. funding could be triggered.

One, adopted in 1994 in Public Law 103-236, prohibits funding if “to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”

This law would likely not apply. Although the resolution would confer many privileges of UN membership to the Palestinians, they would not be full members as the UN Charter requires the Security Council to recommend new members to the General Assembly. The Security Council has not made such a recommendation. In fact, it has rejected past proposals for Palestinian membership. Thus, while the resolution would confer most rights and privileges of membership to the Palestinians, they would not be called a member state.

However, a second law could apply.

U.S. Code Title 22, Section 287e states, “No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.” This law was adopted in 1990 as Public Law 101-246.

The Biden administration will seek to continue funding by arguing that the Palestinians don’t have the exact same standing as member states. But what if Donald Trump wins the presidency in November?

Regardless, congressional support for the UN is eroding for several reasons, including institutionalized anti-Israel bias. It already ended funding to UNRWA over its ties to Palestinian terrorism. Sympathy for the UN after a vote granting rights and privileges to the Palestinians might be in short supply. Indeed, Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho and 22 co-sponsors have already proposed amending U.S. law to ensure the funding prohibition applies in this instance.

The U.S. provides 22 percent of the UN regular budget and 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget – over $2 billion in 2023. Thus, in one rash moment, the General Assembly could deny the UN over a fifth of its total revenue.

The resolution also upends the membership process outlined in the UN Charter. In essence, supporters of the Palestinians are attempting an end run around the Security Council to grant the Palestinians quasi-membership. This is an assault on the authority of the Security Council. If this effort is successful, what is to stop the General Assembly from further infringement of Security Council authority?

More immediately, it will introduce potential chaos into the UN system. Although the resolution says that conferring these rights and privileges to the Palestinians is being done “exceptional basis and without setting a precedent,” the horse will have left the barn.

If the Palestinians can gain most membership rights without Security Council approval, why can’t Kosovo or Western Sahara or Somaliland or Northern Cyprus?

What is to stop some avaricious country from using the UN to recognize the independence of Crimea or Esequibo or Kashmir with an eye toward annexing them in the future?

What is to stop governments from seeking to destabilize their adversaries by recognizing Kurdistan or Chechnya and seeking UN recognition?

Success would only require enough votes in the General Assembly. But the ramifications of such provocative actions won’t stay in Turtle Bay.

If only to protect their authority, this resolution should elicit fierce opposition from the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). However, the potential impact on international peace and security is serious enough to justify opposition even absent selfish motivation.

The situation in Gaza has raised many concerns in the UN, but it’s time for a moment of lucidity. As noted by the U.S. this month, “We also have long been clear that premature actions here in New York, even with the best of intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people.”

Indeed, conferring membership rights and privileges on the Palestinians would diminish odds for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Why would the Palestinians concede anything to Israel if intransigence and extremism leads to rewards rather than condemnation? And why would Israel accept a resolution imposed by the UN, not reached through direct negotiations?

The purported goal of the UN is to promote international peace and security. This resolution would, instead, undermine prospects for peace and reward extremism. If it passes, U.S. funding should be immediately cut. If the Biden administration will not follow through, Congress should—as should the next President.

Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

This article was originally published by RealClearWorld and made available via RealClearWire.

The post The UN Should Not Reward the Palestinians for Oct. 7th appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

‘Extreme’ G5 Geomagnetic Storm Unleashes Northern Lights Across the United States

The United States witnessed a rare celestial spectacle on Friday night as an extreme G5 geomagnetic storm painted the night sky with the vibrant colors of the Northern Lights.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had forecasted a severe G4 geomagnetic storm, which later escalated, marking the most intense solar event to hit the Earth in nearly two decades.

NOAA decided to issue a storm watch after identifying multiple earth-directed coronal mass ejections (CMEs) earlier in the week. Forecasters anticipated the CMEs to arrive by midday Friday, May 10, 2024, with activity potentially lasting until Sunday, May 12, in what they characterized as an “unusual event.”

A coronal mass ejection, as explained by the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), is a significant release of plasma and magnetized particles from the Sun’s corona. These ejections can expand dramatically as they travel towards Earth and are known to trigger geomagnetic storms upon their collision with Earth’s magnetic field.

Significant impacts from the storm include disruptions to navigation systems, radio communications, and potential widespread internet outages.

NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center later confirmed that an “extreme” G5 geomagnetic storm reached Earth on Friday, following the earlier warning.

his level of storm, the highest on the geomagnetic scale, can lead to “widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems,” the agency warned. “Some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage,” and disruptions to radio and satellite navigation are likely.

The last storm of this magnitude, which occurred in October 2003, resulted in power outages in Sweden and damaged transformers in South Africa.

Credit: NOAA

The geomagnetic storm brought with it a stunning visual display: the auroras, more commonly known as the Northern Lights, were seen much farther south than usual. Reports confirmed sightings as far south as Texas.

Social media platforms, particularly X, were flooded with awe-inspiring images of the auroras, as people from various parts of the country shared their experiences of the natural phenomenon.

 

More northern Lights photos from St. Louis. This never happens! Hat tip my niece pic.twitter.com/tIGP4P4XVi

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) May 11, 2024

Alabama. I told my son this was an event I couldn’t even imagine realizing pic.twitter.com/tHYYtdlI0W

— Underground (@shannon4t76) May 11, 2024

Finally got to see the northern lights with my own eyes!

Stunning aurora borealis in NE Minnesota. pic.twitter.com/xo2Yqrme0u

— Marc (@gopher_marc) May 11, 2024

Cool Ridge, WV pic.twitter.com/Bj5SLz2nzL

— Josh Vance (@DisturbedOne92) May 11, 2024

Here in Georgia pic.twitter.com/ZNttkAgZPp

— Sassypiehole (@sassypiehole) May 11, 2024

Lake Wylie, SC pic.twitter.com/4yNtIvcZCw

— (@RenegadeNole85) May 11, 2024

That’s from my front yard in northern Crawford county Arkansas pic.twitter.com/Gg7FRP4eHY

— USMC Lady Vet (@Arkypatriot) May 11, 2024

More shots of Northern Lights from South Louisiana. Abita Springs : Heather LaBauve pic.twitter.com/eD4zlXl1F2

— Payton Malone WWL-TV (@paytonmalonewx) May 11, 2024

Northern lights spotted in Lafayette, Colorado pic.twitter.com/n53rLkG5dI

— Michael Beckel (@mjbeckel) May 11, 2024

The iPhone’s night mode exposure caught the Northern Lights in the middle of nowhere Nebraska. Pretty rad. pic.twitter.com/31oELGz1Gy

— John Frerichs (@JayFrayAllDay) May 11, 2024

NORTHERN LIGHTS IN NORTH TEXAS: Thanks to the solar storm hitting Earth, some North Texas viewers are starting to see the aurora borealis! Here are some of the dazzling images. Show us your pictures! Make sure to include your location. https://t.co/kP1Lvcig1y pic.twitter.com/OydOJxL1Ay

— FOX 4 NEWS (@FOX4) May 11, 2024

The post ‘Extreme’ G5 Geomagnetic Storm Unleashes Northern Lights Across the United States appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

World No. 1 Novak Djokovic Collapses in Pain at Italian Open After Being Struck by Water Bottle

Novak Djokovic collapses in pain after being hit by an aluminum water bottle.

World No. 1 tennis player Novak Djokovic was struck in the head by a water bottle while signing autographs for fans at the Italian Open, causing him to collapse in pain.

The incident occurred shortly after Djokovic had secured an impressive victory over Frenchman Corentin Moutet, with a score of 6-3, 6-1 at the prestigious Foro Italico. As he engaged with fans lining the exit, a sudden commotion saw the Serbian champion grasping his head in agony before sinking to the ground.

Spectators and officials rushed to Djokovic’s aid as he clutched his head, lying on the ground. After several tense moments, Djokovic was helped into the tunnel and taken to the locker room for medical attention.

WATCH:

Someone hit Novak Djokovic in the head with a metal water bottle. Hope he’s okay

pic.twitter.com/O8KppqJVh2

— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) May 10, 2024

Initially, there was confusion about the nature of the incident, with some speculating about deliberate harm. However, the Italian Open organizers quickly clarified the situation, describing it as a regrettable accident.

“Novak Djokovic on leaving the Central court at the end of his match was accidentally hit on the head by a water bottle while signing autographs to spectators. He underwent appropriate medication and has already left the Foro Italico to return to his hotel; his condition is not a cause for concern”, the Management of the Internazionali BNL d’Italia wrote on X.

“Novak Djokovic on leaving the Central court at the end of his match was accidentally hit on the head by a water bottle while signing autographs to spectators. He underwent appropriate medication and has already left the Foro Italico to return to his hotel; his condition is not a…

— Internazionali BNL d’Italia (@InteBNLdItalia) May 10, 2024

Reminder that if you use the bottle holder on your backpack to carry your metal water bottle, it can fall out when you lean over.
Doesnt seem intentional, just incredibly unfortunate.#Novak received medical care.#ItalianOpen fans may see bag restrictions in the future like… pic.twitter.com/zvqvRbGctw

— dontfckwjustice (@dontfckwjustice) May 10, 2024

Further details emerged when another angle from a social media video showed the bottle slipping from a fan’s backpack as the man leaned over the railing to get an autograph from Djokovic.

WATCH:

The @InteBNLdItalia team showcases a video showing that the Djokovic case was ‘’an accident’. #Djokovic pic.twitter.com/IX6T4ihEVK

— Tennis Majors (@Tennis_Majors) May 10, 2024

Djokovic took to social media platform X to reassure fans about his well-being.

“Thank you for the messages of concern. This was an accident and I am fine resting at the hotel with an ice pack. See you all on Sunday,” Djokovic wrote.

Thank you for the messages of concern. This was an accident and I am fine resting at the hotel with an ice pack. See you all on Sunday. #IBI24

— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) May 10, 2024

The post World No. 1 Novak Djokovic Collapses in Pain at Italian Open After Being Struck by Water Bottle appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Victimhood Puts Art Beyond Criticism

Victimhood Puts Art Beyond Criticism

Thirty years ago, a dance critic got herself into hot water for critiquing an AIDS-themed performance. But she was right.

How can you critique, contend with, or question a work of art centered on the ill or the dying? Thirty years ago, the great American dance critic Arlene Croce had the temerity to answer the question honestly: You can’t.

In the end-of-year double issue of The New Yorker in December 1994, Croce published a blistering broadside against what was then a still-novel trend, the valorization of victimhood in contemporary art. Croce’s piece, titled “Discussing the Undiscussable,” was occasioned by her decision to skip the celebrated dance piece Still/Here by African-American choreographer Bill T. Jones, a work that was inspired by, and made direct use of, the sentiments of real people grappling with terminal illnesses. That category included Jones himself, an HIV-positive homosexual man. (The much-lauded Jones is now 72.) Professional dancers performed the piece, but first-person accounts of ill patients informed it and were spliced in through audio and video.

“If I understand ‘Still/Here’ correctly, and I think I do—the publicity has been deafening—it is a kind of messianic travelling medicine show, designed to do some good for sufferers of fatal illnesses, both those in the cast and those thousands more who may be in the audience,” wrote Croce, who successfully encapsulated the aims and methods of the dance before stating her reasons for saying “thanks, but no thanks.”

For Croce, choosing to steer clear of Still/Here was a way of conceding her own paralysis in the face of art dependent on victimization and making the essential point that audience paralysis is what such works intend. This dance does not exist to stir debate, let alone to invite argument, but to elicit sympathy for the victims it allegedly speaks for. 

“By working dying people into his act, Jones is putting himself beyond the reach of criticism,” wrote Croce, who had been contributing dance reviews to The New Yorker for decades. “I think of him as literally undiscussable—the most extreme case among the distressingly many now representing themselves to the public not as artists but as victims and martyrs.”

Croce called victimhood “a kind of mass delusion that has taken hold of previously responsible sectors of our culture.” She wrote that, in her career reviewing dance, she had learned to avoid writing about overweight, aging, or otherwise physically imperfect professional dancers. Still/Here was something else altogether, a work that, through its marshalling of the experiences of actual sick people, featured “dancers I’m forced to feel sorry for because of the way they present themselves.” She added: “I can live with the flabby, the feeble, the scoliotic. But with the righteous I cannot function at all.” 

In other words, the people whose stories were told in Still/Here were not asking to be ignored. They were insisting, through Jones and his troupe, on being supported and understood. To ignore them, as Croce did, was to invite a firestorm. And it did. “Discussing the Undiscussable” was a sensation. As Camille Paglia noted in a letter to the editor that The New Yorker published several issues later, Croce’s piece and its attendant controversy “has successfully flushed from the shrubbery an angry herd of P.C. dinosaurs who believe that defending art and aesthetics is ‘neoconservative’—a dated epithet of ritual abuse employed only by the puerile.” The New York Times, The Village Voice, and The New Criterion each covered the L’Affair Croce (no prizes for guessing who lined up where).

Perhaps America’s finest dance critic, Croce might have acquired some of her boldness through her early association with National Review. Croce was one of many young writers who were broken in at William F. Buckley’s magazine. Joan Didion counted herself among them: “NR started the writing careers of many people, like me, Renata Adler, John Leonard, Arlene Croce,” she said in Dan Wakefield’s terrific little book New York in the ’50s. Writing pieces, even nonpolitical pieces, for a magazine widely despised in polite society has a way of inuring a writer to criticism. Croce carried with her a boldness throughout her life as a reviewer.

If Croce had filed something like “Discussing the Undiscussable” with National Review, she might have expected the magazine to back her. By the time that her piece appeared in The New Yorker, however, that formerly great magazine was already on its way to its present state of limousine-liberal pietism. Though the editorial regime is to be applauded for running Croce’s piece in the first place, it did not hesitate to print numerous hostile letters to the editor in a follow-up issue. Many of the missives are nasty; most are entirely predictable. 

“To write so contemptuously about work one has not seen is an awesome flaunting of privilege—a testimony to the reality that there is no marginalized group or individual powerful enough to silence or suppress reactionary voices,” opined feminist writer bell hooks, who ended her letter by noting that the publication of Croce’s piece, with its implicit “right-wing values,” must “provoke progressive resistance.” 

Playwright Tony Kushner was offended by Croce’s implied lumping of his play Angels in America in with “those AIDS epics” and insisted that Jones had got the better of Croce: “Bill T. Jones can make the claim ‘Still/Here.’ Of Ms. Croce’s essay, only this can be said: she ‘Never/Arrived.’” Ha, ha. Meanwhile, a publicist working for Jones wrote to “correct the errors in [Croce’s] fictitious account,” clarifying certain details about Still/Here but inadvertently confirming Croce’s impression that the merits of the dance were not up for debate. Asserting that Still/Here is “a work about living,” the publicist states: “This is not a matter of opinion but a fact that could be witnessed onstage.” “Not a matter of opinion”—the quiet part said out loud!

To its credit, The New Yorker also ran letters sympathetic to Croce’s position, including those by Paglia, Hilton Kramer, and Midge Decter—the last of whom put things even more bluntly than Croce had when it came to the spiritual sickness evident in contemporary art: “Who, for instance, can with a steady mind find aesthetic merit in the performance of a man carving up the flesh of another man onstage and then gesturing with a bloody towel toward the audience? The answer is: in truth, no one.”

Undeniably, Croce was asking for trouble by not seeing Still/Here, but even if she had seen it and expressed her views of it with any degree of candor, would the response have been substantially different? Croce understood that the fix was in: When a work of art involves a community that buys into its own victimhood, the work is no longer subject to opinions. “If an artist paints a picture in his own blood, what does it matter if I think it’s not a very good picture?” Croce asked, sensibly. “If he mixes the blood with Day-Glo colors, who will criticize him? The artist is going to bleed to death, and that’s it.” 

I have never seen Still/Here—I can find no complete version online—but I have seen, probably, more of it than Croce has. (She is still living and will turn 90 this year.) There exists, in the online archive of journalist Bill Moyers, a video of Moyers’ 1997 public television program Bill T. Jones: Still/Here, which chronicles the making of the dance. It features sufficiently lengthy excerpts from it to make it possible for me to say what Croce did not: Still/Here is not only a bad idea for art but it is, quite simply, Bad Art.

The Moyers program spends a great deal of time showing the so-called “survival workshops” that Jones convened across the country while preparing Still/Here. These workshops consisted of ordinary folks with nothing in common except that each had a terminal illness: cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and other unnamed maladies. “I said, ‘Let’s go out and deal with the people who know, who are frontline,’” the choreographer says confidently at the outset.

During the workshops, the choreographer sought to extract both testimony and interpretative dance from his subjects—a painful process on both counts. The testimony is painful because, of course, it is awful to hear someone speak about their suffering, their woe, their fears; the dancing is painful because it is, generally speaking, about as cringe-inducing as one would expect from ill, stressed-out non-performers being put on the spot (and on camera) by a big-shot New York dance impresario. “People step truthfully, people step weakly, people step bravely,” Jones says of his participants, but, alas, mostly step rather lamely. There is a great deal of arms reaching out, hearts being clutched, and heads being held. Later, Jones foists these unoriginal choreographic concepts on his roster of actual dancers, who perform the final piece based on the workshops.

Somewhat to my surprise, Jones comes across as kindly and charitable in interacting with these sick people, and at some point one starts to wonder who is exploiting whom. Yes, Jones asks intrusive questions—cajoling members of the group to, at one point, imagine the last hours of their lives—but look at it this way: These unfortunate souls found approbation for their illness by being invited to collaborate with an artist interested in them strictly, exclusively, for their suffering. As therapeutic as it may have seemed at the time for the people who participated, this experience does not seem altogether salutary. 

These individuals were encouraged to wallow in their unwellness. Jones was making their diagnoses the centerpiece of their lives, just as he made his homosexuality and his HIV-positive status the centerpiece of his life in an unintentionally hilarious moment when Moyers asked him to dance his life story (which turns out to be more monologue than dance). Whatever ecstasy these individuals felt during the creation of Still/Here—and it is obvious that some of them got quite carried away by it—amounts to a kind of alternate, almost completely narcissistic quasi-theology: if these people had devoted themselves to prayer, devotion, and repentance rather than dancing and soul-baring, they might have gained a deeper understanding of their plight. Unfortunately, there is a certain prideful quality being expressed when one ill man states in the Moyers program: “When I became sick, pain overcame me. I overcame the pain and stand up straight to face the world.” Egged on by Jones’s own self-involvement, the workshop participants speak as though they are the only human beings to have health problems or face death. 

One of the difficulties with works of art focusing on particular patients is that it understates the degree to which we are all, in our common fallen humanity, patients. Even if we are fortunate enough to be in good health in a given moment, the world is a vale of tears. All of us will be felled by something, and God have mercy on our souls when we are. In her piece, Croce sensed the way in which mortality was being untethered from the divine in works like Still/Here: “Only the narcissism of the nineties could put Self in place of Spirit and come up with a church service that sells out the Brooklyn Academy.”

In the end, Arlene Croce’s refusal to see Still/Here was akin to a Republican voter in a blue state declining to vote in the next election. Her opinion would have had no effect on the dance’s reception, so why expend the energy? The three decades since Croce’s invigorating piece have only confirmed her impression that works centered on the victimhood of their subjects are not meant for critics’ eyes. Would any art critic today dare question the artistic merits of, or rationale behind, the countless murals painted of George Floyd during and after the summer of 2020? Some questions answer themselves.

The post Victimhood Puts Art Beyond Criticism appeared first on The American Conservative.