theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Judge BANS 100-Day Deportation Moratorium, Dealing BLOW to Dems' Sweeping IMMIGRATION Agenda


Judge had previously issued two-week restraining order

Adam Shaw

The Biden administration’s efforts to impose a 100-day pause on deportations of illegal immigrants were dealt another blow on Tuesday when a district judge extended a ban on its imposition in response to a lawsuit from Texas.

U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton indefinitely banned enforcement of the Jan. 20 memorandum that would have implemented a 100-day moratorium on most deportations.


Tipton had previously issued a two-week restraining order on the policy after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued that it violated federal law and an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Texas be consulted before such a move.

Biden had campaigned on the 100-day pause as part of a sweeping immigration agenda that includes a halt on border wall construction, an end to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) and a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

The broad "pause" would have had exceptions. It would exclude those who, according to a written finding by the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have engaged in terrorism or espionage or who pose a danger to national security. It would also exclude those who were not present in the U.S. before Nov. 1, 2020, those who agreed to waive the right to remain, and those whom the ICE director individually determined need to be removed by law.


But Texas argued the directive violates the Constitution and federal law as well as a contractual agreement between Texas and DHS signed in the final days of the Trump administration that the state would be consulted before reducing immigration enforcement or pausing deportations.

The agreement means that DHS must give Texas 180 days' notice of any proposed change on any matter that would reduce enforcement or increase the number of "removable or inadmissible aliens" in the U.S. Paxton claims that agreement has been violated.


"Our state defends the largest section of the southern border in the nation. Failure to properly enforce the law will directly and immediately endanger our citizens and law enforcement personnel," Paxton said in a statement last month announcing the lawsuit.


The administration has since issued guidance to ICE agents, informing them that they will need preapproval from managers to arrest some illegal immigrants if they do not fall into the categories similar to those that were also exempted from the deportation freeze.

The guidance is temporary, lasting three months, until DHS can issue further guidance. Officials said the guidance does not explicitly prevent anyone from being arrested or deported. Instead, it directs resources at certain targets.

Fox News’ Griff Jenkins and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Tuesday, February 23, 2021

BLM Shares Detailed Look at Finances: Report

Lucas Manfredi - FOXBusiness

For the first time in the Black Lives Matter movement's nearly eight year history, leaders of the organization have shared a detailed look at their finances.


The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, largely seen as a driving force behind the Black Lives Matter Movement, took in just over $90 million last year, according to a financial snapshot obtained by AP.

The organization is reportedly looking to build out its infrastructure to catch up to the speed of its funding and plans to use its endowment to become known for more than protests related to Black Americans dying at the hands of police or vigilantes.

“We want to uplift Black joy and liberation, not just Black death. We want to see Black communities thriving, not just surviving,” an impact report from the foundation shared with AP read.

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2020, file photo, protesters representing Black Lives Matter and Protect the Results march in Seattle. A financial snapshot shared exclusively with The Associated Press shows the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation too

Black Lives Matter's influence and funding grew immensly following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The death of Floyd, a Black man killed at the hands of Minneapolis police, sparked protests across the nation and around the world.

However, BLM's growth also reportedly led to tension among the movement's grassroots organizers and leaders, with the former group publicly airing their grievances about the foundation's financial transparency, decision-making and accountability.

The foundation told AP that it committed $21.7 million in grant funding to official and unofficial BLM chapters, as well as 30 Black-led local organizations. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation ended 2020 with a balance of more than $60 million, after reportedly spending nearly a quarter of its assets on the grant funds and other charitable giving.

The BLM foundation's individual donations from its main platform reportedly averaged $30.76, with more than 10% of donations being recurring. However, AP noted that the foundation's report does not state where the money went in 2020 and that BLM leaders declined to name prominent donors.

Last year, the foundation's expenses were approximately $8.4 million, including staffing, operating and administrative costs, along with activities such as civic engagement, rapid response and crisis intervention.


A network of chapters was established in 2015 under the BLM Global Network Foundation, following the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. BLM's founders had pledged to build a decentralized movement governed by consensus of a members’ collective, according to AP.

However, critics argue that the foundation has increasingly moved away from being a Black radical organizing hub and has become a philanthropic and political organization run without democratic input from some of its earliest supporters.

BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who became the global foundation’s full-time executive director last year, told AP the organization is focused on a “need to reinvest into Black communities.”

“One of our biggest goals this year is taking the dollars we were able to raise in 2020 and building out the institution we’ve been trying to build for the last seven and a half years,” she said.

Meanwhile, fellow co-founders Alicia Garza, who is the principal at Black Futures Lab, and Opal Tometi, who created a Black new media and advocacy hub called Diaspora Rising, are not involved with the foundation, but continue to make appearances as the co-founders of the movement.


Last year, the foundation spun off its network of chapters into what is now known as BLM Grassroots. While the chapters, as well as other Black-led local organizations, became eligible in July for financial resources through a $12 million grant fund, less than a dozen of the groups who use “Black Lives Matter” or “BLM” in their names are currently considered affiliates.

Several chapters, including those in cities including Washington, Philadelphia and Chicago, were notified last year of their eligibility to receive $500,000 each in funding under a multiyear agreement, according to records shared with AP. However, only one group in Denver signed the agreement and received its funds in September.

A group of 10 chapters, called #BLM10, rejected the foundation's funding offer, and proceeded to complain publicly about the foundation's lack of transparency in a letter released Nov. 30.

"For years there has been inquiry regarding the financial operations of BLMGN and no acceptable process of either public or internal transparency about the unknown millions of dollars donated to BLMGN, which has certainly increased during this time of pandemic and rebellion," the letter states. "To the best of our knowledge, most chapters have received little to no financial support from BLMGN since the launch in 2013. It was only in the last few months that selected chapters appear to have been invited to apply for a $500,000 grant created with resources generated because of the organizing labor of chapters. This is not the equity and financial accountability we deserve."

Foundation leaders reportedly say only a few of the 10 chapters are recognized as network affiliates.

Black Lives Matter DC organizer April Goggans, who is part of the #BLM10 group, told AP the chapters are simplying asking for an equal say in “this thing that our names are attached to, that they are doing in our names.” Other groups affiliated with #BLM10 are located in cities including Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, Hudson Valley and New York.

“We are BLM. We built this, each one of us,” Groggans added.


Records reportedly show some chapters have received multiple rounds of funding in amounts ranging between $800 and $69,000, going back as far as 2016. The #BLM10 reportedly argue that the amounts given have been far from equitable when compared to how much BLM has raised over the years, though Cullors disagrees.

“Because the BLM movement was larger than life — and it is larger than life — people made very huge assumptions about what our actual finances looked like,” Cullors told AP. “We were often scraping for money, and this year was the first year where we were resourced in the way we deserved to be.”

Still, the #BLM10 members say that there is a discrepancy between reality and what the BLM movement's founders are saying. A spokesperson for #BLM10 did not immediately return FOX Business' request for comment.


In its early years, BLM disclosed donations from A-list celebrities including BeyoncĂ©, Jay-Z and Prince, prior to his death in 2016.

Leaders at the BLM foundation admited to AP that they have not been clear about the movement’s finances and governance over the years, but that they are now trying to be more open about its financial matters. For example, the foundation told AP that its fiscal sponsor currently managing the organization's money is requires spending to be approved by a collective action fund that has a board made up of BLM chapter representatives.

The BLM foundation was granted nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service in December, allowing the organization to receive tax-deductible donations directly. In the near future, BLM will also reportedly be required to file public 990 forms, revealing details of its organizational structure, employee compensation, programming and expenses.

“In exchange for getting tax exempt status, you as an organization committed to providing a greater level of transparency to confirm you are fulfilling your mission,” Melina Abdullah, co-founder of BLM’s first ever chapter in Los Angeles, told AP. “We’re turning a corner, recognizing that we have to build institutions that endure beyond us.”


Ex-Capitol Police, Security Officials Testify at Senate Hearing That RIOT was ‘COORDINATED Attack’

"The Fact That The Group Attacked Our West Front 20 Minutes Before The Event at the Ellipse (TRUMP SPEECH) Ended

For the Republicans who voted to Impeach Trump, now we have the proof you are all morons...Riot had nothing to do with Speech!

Brooke Singman

Security officials testified Tuesday that they believe the Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was a "coordinated attack" as they were pressed by senators over the circumstances leading to the security failure.

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger and former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, as well as Metropolitan Police Department acting chief Robert Contee, appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, in the first Senate hearing to examine the "security failures" that led to the breach of the U.S. Capitol last month.


Committee Chairman Gary Peters, D-Mich., questioned the officials over whether they believed there was coordination with regard to the attack.

"These people came specifically with equipment. You’re bringing climbing gear to a demonstration, explosives, chemical spray – you’re coming prepared," Sund testified. "The fact that the group attacked our West Front 20 minutes before the event at the Ellipse ended – they were planning on our agency not being at full strength at that time."

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testifies before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs & Senate Rules and Administration joint hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2021, to examine the January 6th attack on the Capitol. (Erin Scott/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testifies before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs & Senate Rules and Administration joint hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2021, to examine the January 6th attack on the Capitol. (Erin Scott/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Sund was pointing to former President Trump’s rally, which took place at the Ellipse near the White House just before the riots began.

Sund added that U.S. Capitol Police were "dealing with two pipe bombs, specifically set right off the edge of our perimeter to draw resources away."

"I think there was a significant coordination with this attack," Sund said.

Contee also said rioters used "hand signals and radio communication," as well as a "coordinated use" of chemicals.


"I certainly believe it was coordinated," Contee said, pointing to the "placement of pipe bombs in the area, all of those things, and plus, adding to what we know in hindsight, now, as a result of the ongoing investigation of the FBI."

"As they continue to scrub social media, we are learning more and more and more that this is clearly a coordinated effort," Contee said.

And Irving agreed.

"Based on the information provided by Contee and Sund, I would agree," Irving said. "The evidence would indicate a coordinated attack."

Peters said that extremist groups, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, have been identified in intelligence reports, and that the committee plans to hold future hearings to discuss that intelligence.

The Capitol Riot followed Trump’s rally, in which he encouraged his supporters to protest Biden's Electoral College certification. 


Trump told his followers during that speech to protest "peacefully and patriotically," but critics have said that one off-hand comment does not outweigh the balance of his rhetoric in the lengthy Jan. 6 speech or in the preceding weeks, in which he said the rally would be "wild."


Rioters had been around the Capitol for most of the day on Jan. 6, but they finally breached the building as their numbers grew about an hour after Trump's speech concluded. 

Trump was acquitted by the Senate earlier this month after a weeklong trial, following the House of Representatives on Jan. 13 voting to impeach him on one article – inciting insurrection – in connection with the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

Trump was the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice and the first president out of office to go through an impeachment proceeding.

Trump was acquitted, with 57 senators voting for his conviction – short of the required two-thirds majority – and 43 voting against. 

Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.


Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch Blast Supreme Court’s ‘INEXPLICABLE’ Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

                                                                        Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Debra Heine

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Republican challenge over absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania.

Republicans in the Keystone State had sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the Nov. 6 deadline extension in the 2020 election.

The decision prompted dissents from three conservative justices; Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. The trio argued that while the legal questions in the case may not have affected the outcome of the November election, the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to clarify election law because the same legal issues could impact future elections.

Throughout his dissent, Thomas characterized the Court’s refusal to take cases challenging the election as “inexplicable,” “befuddling,” and “baffling.”

“These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable,” Thomas wrote.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” Thomas argued. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.”

     As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future.

Thomas went on to stress that “the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election,” thus the Court should have used “available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions.”

     Here, we have the opportunity to do so almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.

     One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

In his dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, Alito argued that the cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

“Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose,” Alito wrote. While a decision in these cases “would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” it would “provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”

Alito also rejected the argument that the decision only arose from the “extraordinary and unprecedented confluence of circumstances” of the COVID-19 pandemic and that “such a perfect storm is not likely to recur.” He wrote that the argument fails for three reasons. First, that it does not acknowledge the breadth of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision which used a constitutional provision guaranteeing “free and equal elections” to “override even very specific and unambiguous rules adopted by the legislature for the conduct of federal elections.”

Alito noted that “in order for a question to be capable of repetition, it is not necessary to predict that history will repeat itself at a very high level of specificity.”

     Second, the suggestion that we are unlikely to see a recurrence of the exact circumstances we saw this fall misunderstands the applicable legal standard. In order for a question to be capable of repetition, it is not necessary to predict that history will repeat itself at a very high level of specificity. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 463 (2007).

     Third, it is highly speculative to forecast that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not find that conditions at the time of a future federal election are materially similar to those last fall. The primary election for Pennsylvania congressional candidates is scheduled to occur in 15 months, and the rules for the conduct of elections should be established well in advance of the day of an election. We may hope that by next spring the pandemic will no longer affect daily life, but that is uncertain. In addition, the state court’s decision was not based solely on the pandemic but was also grounded in part on broader concerns about the operation of the Postal Service, App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a– 35a, 47a, and concerns of this nature may persist or resurface. As voting by mail becomes more common and more popular, the volume of mailed ballots may continue to increase and thus pose delivery problems similar to those anticipated in 2020.

“For these reasons, the cases now before us are not moot,” Alito concluded.


Ex-Clinton Adviser Naomi Wolf Warns US Becoming 'TOTALITARIAN STATE Before Our Eyes' Under Biden

Author tells 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' Americans Must WAKE UP Before it is 'Too Dangerous to Fight Back'

Yael Halon

America is becoming a "totalitarian state before our eyes" under President Biden's leadership, feminist author and former Democratic adviser Naomi Wolf told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Monday.

Wolf, who served as an adviser on Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996, told host Tucker Carlson that in her view, the United States is swiftly "moving into a coup situation, a police state" as a result of Biden's ongoing coronavirus-related economic shutdowns. Wolf added that she believes the orders are being improperly extended under the "guise of a real medical pandemic."

"That is not a partisan thing," Wolf told Carlson. "That transcends everything that you and I might disagree or agree on. That should bring together left and right to protect our Constitution."

Wolf has ramped up her warnings against extended lockdowns on Twitter in recent months. In November, the author wrote on Twitter that Biden’s openness to reinstating additional shutdowns made her question her decision to vote for him.

"The state has now crushed businesses, kept us from gathering in free assembly to worship as the First Amendment provides, is invading our bodies ... which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, restricting movement, fining us in New York state ... the violations go on and on," she said.

The outspoken liberal, who previously authored a book outlining the ten steps that "would-be tyrants always take when they want to close down a democracy," believes the United States is heading toward what she refers to as "step 10."

"Whether they are on the left or the right, they do these same ten things," Wolf explained, "and now we’re at something I never thought I would see in my lifetime ... it is step 10 and that is the suspension of the rule of law and that is when you start to be a police state, and we’re here. There is no way around it."

Wolf said she has interviewed U.S. citizens of various backgrounds and political affiliations who are in a state of "shock and horror"  as "autocratic tyrants at the state and now the national level are creating this kind of merger of corporate power and government power, which is really characteristic of totalism fascism in the '20's," she told Carlson.

"They are using that to engage in emergency orders that simply strip us of our rights; rights to property, rights to assembly, rights to worship, all the rights the Constitution guarantees."


Wolf called the United State's overall response to the coronavirus pandemic "completely unprecedented," arguing that "lockdowns have never been done in society and really, we are turning into a of totalitarian state before everyone's eyes."

"I really hope we wake up quickly," she said, "because history also shows that it’s a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back."