Vice President Kamala Harris‘ first solo TV interview since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee will be a pre-taped conversation that will air on an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia. Harris will take questions from Action News 6 ABC anchor Brian Taff and the interview will air Friday during the station’s 6:00 p.m. broadcast, according to Axios reporter Alex Thompson. The vice president’s only major interview since becoming the Democratic nominee was with CNN’s Dana Bash late last month, which Harris did alongside her running mate Gov. Tim Walz. That interview was also pre-taped. Harris has been criticized by her opponents and some in the media for refusing to hold more interviews and press conferences and directly inform voters of her policy positions. Trump, meanwhile, has held dozens of interviews and press conferences since Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris on July 21. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha told NBC News on Thursday that Harris “should do as many interviews as possible in battleground states,” adding that “the rest is a waste of time.” “[National] interviews mean nothing to persuading voters,” Rocha said. “Media is too broad now for this to matter. Thirty years ago, though, when there were just three channels, it mattered more.” Another Democratic strategist urged Harris to sit down for more interviews “because people still don’t know enough about her.” Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! “It’s going to take a lot more than one debate and one CNN interview to scratch the itch,” the strategist told NBC. “Voters want to know whom they’re going to vote for and what they stand for and want to see them tested. It’s a dangerous strategy of trying to do four-corners defense when there’s still a lot of clock left in the game.” Pennsylvania is a vital battleground state in the 2024 election with both the Trump and Harris campaigns spending a lot of time talking to voters and holding rallies there. Polls show Harris and Trump tied in Pennsylvania, according to RealClearPolitics as of Friday afternoon.

Matt Walsh’s documentary “Am I Racist?,” The Daily Wire’s first ever theatrical film, will be released on an expanded 1,500 screens beginning today, Friday, September 13. This is a massive accomplishment for any film that’s not being released by a major studio. While originally it was only coming to 200 screens, fans rallied and purchased their tickets in advance, leading to the comedy being released at a larger number of venues from coast to coast. Our new film “Am I Racist?” has now been expanded to over 1,500 theaters nationwide. We started with about 200 when the movie was announced just a few weeks ago. The response has been tremendous so far. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 10, 2024 Walsh previously discussed how theaters didn’t necessarily object to the content of the film, but instead cautioned that documentaries are the hardest movie genre to sell tickets for. Other documentaries released on more than 1,500 screens include Disney’s “Monkey Kingdom,” “Born in China,” and “Penguins,” along with Angel Studios’ “After Death” and Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9.” This achievement was celebrated by Bryce Kesler, Head of Theatrical Distribution for SDG Releasing. “‘Am I Racist?’ has earned elite status as one of only 6 documentary films in the past decade to reach 1,500 locations in its first week in theaters. It’s a landmark achievement made possible by the support of dedicated fans purchasing tickets early, and by our partners in exhibition giving the film an opportunity on big screens nationwide,” he said. “We’re elated that Matt Walsh and The Daily Wire’s creation will be enjoyed in the large format it deserves. … The future, and maybe the fate of the country, will be decided in less than 2 months. Take a much-needed break from the seriousness (while helping put the final nail in the coffin of DEI). Let’s Make-America-Laugh-Again this weekend.” Kesler added, “As a theatrical film distributor, we can guarantee you two things: First, that studios are notoriously agenda-driven. Conservative content need not apply. Second, that audiences — and the exhibitors (meaning the owners of your local theater, whether it’s a big chain or a mom-and-pop operation) don’t share that agenda. Daily Wire understands that. And so they’re bringing forward entertainment designed to appeal to real people, not studio executives. And the audience will be the winner.” Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! Walsh also talked about how Hollywood is making a big mistake by ignoring half the country with their increasingly progressive and preachy films. “They’re leaving plenty of money on the table, and we’re happy to come in and take some of it. Because, at a minimum, you are explicitly refusing to serve 50% of the audience,” the Daily Wire podcaster said, per Variety. Filmmaker and “Am I Racist?” producer Dallas Sonnier agreed. “Hollywood is focused on its own problems internally and can’t even contemplate what would resonate with an audience in the South or the Midwest today,” he said, per the outlet. “Conservative audiences have simply checked out of what Hollywood is making outside of the tentpoles.” “Am I Racist?” seeks to expose the grift of the DEI industry. It features Walsh going deep undercover, attending seminars and interviews with some of the biggest names in the industry, including “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo. The film is hilarious, but it’s also meant to shed light on an important topic. Walsh said some of his goals for the film are to inspire real change similar to what happened after the release of his 2022 documentary “What Is a Woman?,” which explored the topic of transgenderism. “Well, there are political solutions, some of which, you know, Donald Trump has talked about. Outlawing programs that exclude people on the basis of race, which are already supposed to be outlawed,” Walsh told Ben Shapiro during an interview for his “Sunday Special.” “Most of that stuff is flagrantly illegal already. So shutting that down, which a lot of that could be done on a policy level,” he continued. “A lot of the other changes I think could be made relatively easily with just lawsuits. But people that are affected by this stuff need to file lawsuits. And we’ve seen a little of that happening already.” “Let’s have a culture that is totally intolerant to that kind of madness,” he said later. This achievement of expanding to 1,500 screens is historic — but the fight’s not over yet. The way the industry works, if a film doesn’t perform opening weekend, it will be gone. Do not assume you can see it next week. If you plan to see “Am I Racist?,” it’s vital to go now, bring everyone you can, and laugh together with a crowd. This weekend offers a unique opportunity to show that conservative films deserve a voice in theaters. The more support “Am I Racist?” receives, the easier it will make the path for all future conservative content. Pre-sales are the lifeblood of successful theatrical releases — especially for independent films. Daily Wire’s faithful showed up in large numbers, buying tickets and selling out auditoriums weeks ahead of time. This meant theater owners upgraded the film to larger auditoriums and additional screens. Comedy never plays better than with a packed house, on opening weekend, and this weekend, The Daily Wire faithful have a chance to enjoy the best night out they’ve had in a long time as they explore the question: “Am I Racist?” “Am I Racist?” is showing in theaters nationwide beginning today. Fans can purchase tickets at amiracist.com.

The ongoing controversy at Brown University over a potential upcoming vote to divest from companies tied to Israel exposes a growing trend: the weaponization of economic disruption against Israel and, by extension, its ally, the United States. At the heart of this issue lies a strategy aimed at destabilizing economic stability and prosperity by targeting university endowments — a crucial part of the venture capital ecosystem that fuels innovation and domestic economic growth. This tactic, employed by groups like the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP), seeks to pressure both Israel and the United States by urging divestment from companies perceived as ‘complicit’ in Israeli policies. While the rhetoric may be cloaked in calls for ‘justice,’ trustees should not be fooled: the underlying motives of the movement are discriminatory at best, and every such terrible decision could have real and devastating consequences on a number of different fronts. Economic Terrorism: A New Battleground Unlike violent forms of terrorism, economic terrorism focuses on disrupting financial systems and institutions to achieve ideological motives. NSJP’s campaign to target university endowments is a prime example. These endowments, key players in the venture capital ecosystem, serve as limited partners (LPs) in private investment entities, supporting the growth of innovative startups while diversifying their portfolios for long-term sustainability. The structure of venture capital firms, which operate as limited partnerships, relies on a careful balance between General Partners (GPs) and LPs. GPs make critical investment decisions, manage funds, and provide strategic guidance to portfolio companies. Meanwhile, LPs, including university endowments, provide capital with the expectation of returns but without involvement in day-to-day operations. This arrangement supports entrepreneurship and innovation in the U.S. market while maintaining financial stability for academic institutions. However, if university endowments deviate from their role as passive investors and succumb to activist pressures for divestment, they risk destabilizing this delicate structure. Attempts to withdraw investments could trigger broader market crises, exacerbate future liquidity challenges, and cause wealthy donors to pull back amid accusations of anti-Semitism. The Broader Impact On Innovation And National Security Disruptions to the venture capital model would have far-reaching consequences beyond financial portfolios. The ripple effect could impede the growth of technology — a sector designated as critical infrastructure by the Biden administration — undermining national security and economic vitality. As university endowments are instrumental in fueling the venture capital that drives tech innovation, any destabilization could weaken the U.S.’s competitive edge in critical technological advancements. Moreover, calls for divestment often overlook Israel’s significant contributions to global innovation. Despite facing economic and geopolitical challenges, Israel’s economy thrives on innovation, with sectors like water sanitation, cybersecurity, and agriculture demonstrating its global prowess. Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East and our only reliable source of intelligence and cyber defense. Israeli-developed technology protects our citizens and troops at home and abroad. Our shared security interests include but are not limited to preventing nuclear proliferation, combating terrorism, containing Iranian, Turkish, and Russian expansionism, and promoting the rule of democracy. An attack on Israel’s economic stability will inevitably affect its ally, the United States, highlighting the deep economic and security interdependence between the two nations. The Risk Of Divestment And The Legal Backlash Brown University now finds itself in a precarious position. The recent warning from Attorneys General in 24 states highlights the potential legal and financial fallout if the university’s trustees vote to divest from Israel-tied companies. These top law enforcement officials have threatened to terminate state contracts, withdraw investments, and divest state pension funds from Brown’s holdings, citing potential violations of state laws against boycotting Israel. One trustee, Joseph Edelman, has already resigned in protest. This decision was not only morally correct, it was prudent. Every decision a trustee makes should put the interests of the university first, above their own personal feelings or the interests of third parties (including disgruntled law-breaking student groups), and should reflect reasonable skill, care, and caution, in managing investments. Especially after they have been put on notice, university fiduciaries will be personally responsible for the massive losses likely to be caused by divestment, and will be in clear violation of both their duties of loyalty and of prudence. Such legal consequences underscore the broader implications of what we term an “Economic Intifada” — a strategy that seeks to leverage economic tactics to achieve political objectives. It is also worth noting that a vote in favor of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement cannot be considered even a ‘socially responsible investment’ decision. In fact, it is the opposite. BDS proponents often use classic anti-Semitic tropes in their materials, including, but not limited to: false accusations of Jewish conspiracies; blood libels; portraying Jews (not just Israelis but caricatures of religious Jews) as Satanic, demonic, and evil (at times even using actual Nazi propaganda), accusing Jews of dual loyalty, and engaging in Holocaust denial and Holocaust inversion. And those are easy examples; the truth is that saying Jews are not a people while calling for the destruction of the world’s lone Jewish state, along with the ethnic cleansing and/or the genocidal extermination of its millions of Jewish inhabitants, is also anti-Semitic. And these calls should not be taken lightly given the terrifying and undeniable fact that the nonprofit umbrella group for US-based BDS organizations funnels money to terrorist organizations; that more than 30 of its leaders are actual violent terrorists; and the well-documented evidence that the anti-Semitism some BDS leaders spout often breaks through the “nonviolent” veil, leading to innocent people getting hurt. Nor is this in any way a partisan issue: both the Republican and Democratic parties have consistently denounced BDS in their platforms. Nor is it only a federal issue; in 2017, the governors of all fifty states signed onto a statement affirming their opposition to BDS, noting that “[t]he goals of the BDS movement are antithetical to our values and the values of our respective states[,]” and reiterating that BDS’s “single-minded focus on the Jewish State raises serious questions about its motivations and intentions. For the record, anti-BDS bills, like the ones cited by the 24 AG’s, are fully constitutional. It is well within their rights for states to protect their own interests, and the interests of the United States, by removing state funding for discriminatory actions. SJP and its allies remain free to say whatever they want however abhorrent about Jews or the Jewish State; there is a fundamental difference between a state suppressing free speech and a state simply choosing how to spend its dollars. Spending (especially with accompanying legislative findings) in this context is government speech, and “as a general matter, when the government speaks, it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and it carries out its duties on their behalf.” Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 208 (2015) In fact, the Supreme Court has continually refused “[t]o hold that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals.”Id. In the case of these and all similar statutes, the government does not even seek to fund a controversial program, it merely seeks not to fund a program that discriminates on the basis of ethnicity or national origin. While people remain free to engage in hateful actions, that does not make them less hateful, nor does it mean that the State must agree to subsidize those actions. To quote one governor, “To argue otherwise would be to suggest that [a] state is constitutionally obligated to support the BDS [M]ovement, which is not only irrational but also has no basis in law.” A Call For Strategic Decision-Making As Brown University and other institutions weigh their next steps, they must recognize that the stakes extend far beyond campus politics. The interconnectedness of the global economy means that destabilizing one part can have cascading effects elsewhere. Any decision to divest should be made with a clear understanding of the broader economic and legal landscape and the potential consequences for innovation, national security, and university financial health. Especially in light of the clear repercussions, such a decision would represent a shocking abdication of appropriate corporate governance and responsibility, exposing the university to material self-inflicted diminution, and its trustees to potential litigation and legal sanctions. And all to support a movement that is deeply anti-Semitic. In essence, the move to weaponize university endowments as a tool of economic warfare poses a grave threat, not only to both Israel and its allies, but to the very bodies taking these ill-conceived votes. This moment calls for strategic thinking and a commitment to preserving the stability and collaboration that underpin global economic prosperity. As the pressure mounts on universities to take sides, it is imperative that they do so with a full appreciation of the complexities and stakes involved. Brown’s trustees are at a crossroads, facing a decision that could set a precedent for how universities across the nation navigate the intersection of law, politics, and finance in an increasingly polarized world. A decision to divest would be unjustified and bad for business, and Board members should think long and hard about liability for violation of their fiduciary obligations before they allow their schools to submit to extortion. Their choice will also likely resonate far beyond their Ivy League campus, shaping the future of university governance and its role in supporting innovation and economic growth. * * * Professor Anat Alon-Beck teaches corporate law and governance at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, and teaches at the Touro Law Center. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Dairy Queen is bringing a beloved dessert back to their menus for a limited time. Fans are ecstatic about this delicious sweet treat making another appearance. This Dairy Queen cotton candy-inspired dipped cone flavor was first introduced in 2020 and is now making a comeback in certain locations. Dairy Queen Dipped Cone Fan Favorite Flavor Various locations across the Midwest and the East Coast have fans jumping for joy as they roll out a limited-edition Dairy Queen Dipping Cone. Parade shares that this dip was inspired by cotton candy. It was a huge hit but disappeared from menus back in 2021. However, it is coming back now, but with a slight twist. Instead of the light blue dip, this dip is now a light pink color, and it has many delicious purposes. Fans have been using this “flavored magic sauce as a cone dip, a sundae topping, and even as the layers of their ice cream parfait.” @dbndairyqueen COTTON CANDY PARFAIT#fyp #happycustomer #greenscreenvideo #fyシ゚viral #dairyqueen #dearbornmi ♬ ultimate vibes – morgan hardy Dairy Queen has been sharing various TikToks on the best ways to use this dipping cone, and the results look delicious. Fans React To The Cotton Candy Fans cannot wait to get their hands on this sweet, delicious goodness. Excited consumers flew to the comment section of the post. One user wrote, “OMW TO DAIRY QUEEN TO GET THE COTTON CANDY BLIZZARD” Another added, ” I need cotton candy year round!” A third chimed in that this flavor has always been a favorite of theirs. In addition to the TikTok video, Dairy Queen also shares various other ways to use this dip. Including a banana split, a cotton candy shake, and a cotton candy cupfection. They released the initial TikTok on March 31, so be sure to check a Dairy Queen near you to see if they have this delicious treat available. The source of the featured image is here. The post Dairy Queen Reinvents A Favorite Dessert For A Limited Time appeared first on InspireMore.

'Everybody knew who had won the election'

'Fight fire with fire'

'Parents shouldn’t have to take a back seat'

The men and women who’ve defended our nation should not have the veterans benefits they earned threatened by fiscal mismanagement. That’s why Republican lawmakers introduced a supplemental appropriations bill to provide an additional $2.9 billion to cover shortfalls in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ budget for fiscal year 2024.    However, this supplemental spending bill shouldn’t have been necessary and lawmakers need to act now to prevent cuts to military veterans’ services in fiscal year 2025. Fortunately, there’s some low-hanging fruit they can, and should, grab. But first, a little context behind these surprise shortfalls. In March, the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs submitted its budget request for fiscal 2025, which begins Oct. 1. Just four months later, in July, chief financial officers from the VA informed lawmakers that their fiscal 2025 budget was already on track to come up short by $12 billion and that the agency was about $3 billion short of meeting expenses for fiscal 2024. The VA’s unexpected announcement of record shortfalls prompted stern rebukes from lawmakers. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, called out the VA for “horrendous, top-to-bottom mismanagement.” In a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough, Bost wrote: Not only have your chief financial officers thrown out the dollar amounts requested for many key accounts, they have abandoned many of the estimates and projections that underpinned their budget. This is not just fiscal mismanagement; it is strategic whiplash. Bost questioned how the VA could have defended its proposed 10,000 reduction in workforce months earlier, when it declared that the agency “has the nationwide staffing level to accomplish the important objective” of providing veterans’ care but then proceeded to hire 22,000 new employees. Bost also asked why the VA didn’t include in its budget the financial impact of its own rulemaking actions regarding a law called the PACT Act. Congress passed the PACT Act in 2022 to expand and improve benefits for veterans (and their families) who were exposed to toxic substances. The VA’s implementation of the PACT Act has come under bipartisan scrutiny after the department’s inspector general found that the VA improperly awarded $10.8 million in PACT Act funds to senior executives in the VA’s central office.    Eight Republican senators homed in on the VA’s implementation of the PACT Act in a similarly critical letter to McDonough. The senators argued that the VA failed to follow Congress’ intent and “completely ignore[ed] statutory requirements” by immediately processing benefits that were supposed to be phased in over eight years. The VA’s website actually boasts of this violation, proclaiming: “And starting March 5, 2024, we’re expanding VA health care to millions of veterans—years earlier than called for by the PACT Act.” The senators chastised VA management, telling McDonough: “Your active disregard for the law directly impacts veterans and threatens to put their promised benefits … at risk.”    At a time when veteran suicide rates—already 1.6 times that of the general public—continue to climb, veterans can’t afford to have the VA’s resources wasted on reckless mismanagement.   Although fixing current and future budget shortfalls requires sound fiscal planning and adherence to the law, an abundance of inefficiencies and flawed practices create many opportunities to substitute wasteful spending for things that actually benefit veterans. A first step toward ensuring VA funds only go to veterans’ services is to end the practice of “official time,” whereby agency employees receive their full salaries and benefits when working for their union instead of serving veterans. One of the Biden-Harris administration’s first actions in office was to remove the Trump-Pence administration’s limits on official time and to allow VA and other federal employees to spend up to 100% of their time working for their union. The Biden-Harris administration has failed to report the amount of time and resources that VA employees spend on union activities. However, they likely meet or exceed Obama-era levels, which included hundreds of employees spending more than 1 million hours per year working for their union instead of treating veterans.  Proposed legislation called the No Union Time on the Taxpayers Dime Act, sponsored by  Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would end the practice of official time. With the Department of Veterans Affairs pointing to rising compensation costs as a source of its budget shortfalls, not paying people VA salaries when they aren’t serving veterans should be a no-brainer. Another logical way to improve veterans’ well-being is by reducing improper payments, which are payments the VA sends to the wrong people or in the wrong amount. In fiscal 2023, the VA issued $3 billion in improper payments. Over the past three years, such improper payments exceeded $10 billion. In long-term services and support, $2 of every $5 spent by the VA in fiscal 2023—$1.4 billion in total—was an improper payment. Virtually none of those improper payments are recouped, and when the VA spends money on services that weren’t actually delivered to veterans, that directly takes away from the agency’s ability to meet veterans’ needs. Reducing improper payments requires greater accountability and responsibility from management. This includes verifying that recipients of VA dollars are who they say they are, and that they’re eligible for the benefits they claim. It also means verifying that services billed to the VA by providers are within the law and that the care actually is delivered to veterans. As the VA’s projected $12 billion shortfall for fiscal 2025 makes clear, Congress needs to act to protect veterans from unwarranted benefit cuts. Easy first steps would be to require that VA funds go to veterans by eliminating the practice of paying government employees to work for their union instead of serving veterans, and to reduce improper payments that subtract from benefits available to veterans.   The post Reckless $15 Billion Budget Shortfalls Risk VA Benefits. These Low-Hanging Fruits Could Prioritize Veterans’ Well-Being. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

To sum up the Biden-Harris administration’s border policies in a phrase, I’d say “America Last.” Over nearly four years, we have seen the results of an unprecedented experiment: What happens when a first world country abandons its legal limits and processes on immigration and allows nearly unlimited, unvetted migration? This is effectively what the Biden-Harris administration has done. Frustrated by a historical bipartisan consensus that it was the president’s duty to enforce immigration law, they decided to replace statute with executive fiat and globalist ideology—under the euphemism of “safe, orderly, humane pathways”—to allow people to enter the United States illegally. The Biden-Harris administration has created programs that induce migrants from all over the world to journey by air and land to our borders, by making it clear that they will almost all be released into the country soon after entry, after (mostly fraudulently) claiming asylum from alleged persecution at home). In addition, they have fabricated unauthorized programs to allow hundreds of thousands more aliens to fly directly into interior U.S. airports with a virtual guarantee of getting immigration “parole” that allows them to stay in quasi-legal status. To manage all this, they pulled so many Border Patrol agents off regular duties to process and release aliens that the number of “gotaways” sneaking in—often those with criminal records to hide—dramatically increased to over 600,000 a year. Those supporting this virtually open border argue that it brings only benefits, like more cheap labor and the ability to show our national charity, as no foreign national facing oppression—or just claiming to—is ever turned away. They deny any link with lower employment or wages for U.S. citizens, with rising crime, or with busted public finances. But the facts show otherwise. Half of Americans in a recent poll from the Center for American Political Studies thought that the illegal immigration surge had increased crime and strained resources. This week and next, I am going to look at five real consequences of the Biden-Harris border policies and their America-Last philosophy. This week, I am going to look at the impact on jobs and public safety. Next week, I’ll look at public housing and public services. Jobs for the Boys—Just Not Ours U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed that in the last year, native-born Americans lost more than 1.3 million jobs while foreign-born workers gained more than 1.2 million jobs. As economist EJ Antoni puts it, “All of the net job growth has gone to foreign-born workers (a category which the Labor Department admits includes illegal aliens), while native-born Americans have lost a net of 300,000 jobs.” As David Rundell writes in Newsweek: Because most illegal migrants have few skills, they compete directly with lower-skilled American workers. It is these less-skilled Americans, including many people of color, who have suffered most from the falling wages illegals generate. These less-well-off workers are also the ones who suffer most when public health, transportation, education, and social services are strained by an influx of illegal migrants who have never paid taxes. Crime—Americans Assume the Risks Every single day, the Department of Homeland Security is paroling or releasing hundreds of foreign nationals from corrupt, high-crime, or even terrorist-harboring countries, letting them into the U.S. with zero background information on them from their home country. Thousands more sneak in as gotaways each week. The legacy media does not just ignore the story of how the Biden-Harris border debacle has affected U.S. states, cities, and towns—it actively buries it. The New York Post is a rare exception. On Sept. 6, the Post’s Jennie Taer reported that Venezuelan brothers Dixon and Nixon Azuaje-Perez, alleged members of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang and both charged in connection with a July 28 shooting in Aurora, Colorado, are out on $1,000 bail. They are apparently being “monitored with GPS technology,” meaning some kind of anklet or wristband. That should hardly reassure residents of the Denver suburb. Diego Ibarra, accused of murdering nursing student Laken Riley in Georgia back in February, was also monitored with a GPS ankle monitor after he had assaulted Border Patrol agents in an effort to “get into the country ‘at any cost.’” Under what has become standard operating procedure at the Biden border, this man, also a reported member of Tren de Aragua and already proved to be violent, was released into the country with a notice to appear in immigration court months later. He cut off his ankle monitor, and without any interference from U.S. authorities, was working a job at the University of Georgia when he allegedly killed Riley. What happened to the Azuaje-Perez brothers from Venezuela is a parable for the Biden border. They were both utterly unqualified for visas because they’d never be able to prove to a consular officer that they’d not work illegally when in the U.S. and then go home when their entry permits ran out. On top of that, I’d wager both had criminal records back home that would have disqualified them on more serious grounds—but DHS had no way to know. The brothers apparently used DHS’s CBP One phone app to book an appointment to show up at a port of entry and be paroled in. There was no real verification of the information they gave to get that appointment, and none when they showed up at the port. Nearly every one of the over 1,400 people who show up at a port every day via this process—the scale and scope of which is authorized nowhere in U.S. law—gets approved for parole, however sketchy they may seem. The Azuaje-Perez brothers were released at the border on the assumption that they were going to claim asylum at some point. In the meantime, the risk of them resuming their gang activity was on us. With no way to screen for gang members, sex offenders, or even terrorist suspects, you might suspect that the Biden-Harris administration would be careful about using CBP One parole. But no—they’re making it even easier. Now, illegal aliens from across the world can apply from anywhere in Mexico (or via a virtual private network (technology that masks your actual computer or smart phone location), pretending to be in Mexico). And “the Mexican government will offer security-escorted bus transport to migrants traveling north for asylum appointments through the CBP One app,” reports Texas Public Radio. You see, Mexico doesn’t want to take any risks—once again, that’s on us. Next week, I’ll look at the impacts on public housing and local services to see how heavily burdened some communities are by sudden changes in their demography caused by mass illegal migration. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: Fraud Permeates Biden-Harris’ Illegal Alien ‘Sponsorship’ Program Despite Tough Talk, Biden-Harris Admin Rolls Out Red Carpet for Illegal Alien Gangs Biden Administration’s Latest Illegal Immigration Scam How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy NJ Town Prioritizes Protecting Illegal Aliens From ICE Over Public Safety The post What Does an ‘America-Last’ Border Policy Look Like? Let Us Count the Ways—Part 1: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Are Elite Colleges Cheating the Affirmative Action Ruling After All?