'She had a remarkable way of making everyone feel special'

'Thank you Daniel for serving your country'

'The sports league seemed intent on flexing their authority'

His cause of death has not yet been officially reported

Imagine seeing this on tomorrow’s front page: Biden Announces New “Give It to Gaza” Parole Program: 1,000 Palestinians per Week to Fly in From Designated Middle East Airports to Chicago, Detroit, and New York. That’s not a real headline—but it could be. “They can’t do that!” you say? Not so. Previous presidents realized they were constrained by U.S. laws. That’s our system, we were taught. Three branches of government. Checks and balances. Separation of powers. But we’ve seen few checks on Joe Biden’s arrogation of power when it comes to the border. Despite clear congressional intent, Biden decided he could use immigration parole to allow unlimited numbers of foreign nationals to enter the United States, and for an indefinitely renewable period. The only limits on this imagined authority are logistical. The government phone app CBP One (for “Customs and Border Protection One”) was intended to speed the legal transport of goods through U.S. ports of entry from Mexico, but the Biden administration has hijacked it to facilitate mass migration. Biden’s parole programs have already brought in more inadmissible aliens (meaning they have no valid visa to enter the U.S.) so far—well over a million a year—than the number of visas Congress has authorized for legal immigrants each year (about 850,000).  There is nothing stopping a future president from ramping up parole into even more of a fire hose of illegal immigration with merely a fig-leaf of legality. Axios recently reported that outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken had a plan to put Gaza back together. What if it had contained a new parole program, just for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? The template is there already. Biden has mass parole programs specifically for Afghans, Ukrainians, Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, and more. Plus, his administration allows 1,450 additional inadmissible aliens to schedule their illegal entry using CBP One every day. A recent notice in the Federal Register reveals how CBP One is used to allow aliens who don’t qualify for a U.S. visa to bypass the limits Congress has set and show up at designated border ports of entry. There, almost all of them are let in on “parole”—supposedly so they can claim asylum. As the notice says, “CBP collects certain biographic and biometric information from undocumented noncitizens … to streamline their processing.” That’s the point: “streamlining” the processing of aliens. Not verifying their identity or vetting them for criminal records or national security threats. Some information CBP One collects is useful, such as name, address, and country of birth, but none of that information can be confirmed. Gender (which today can be changed on a whim) is required, but employment history is “optional.” There’s also nothing about police records or whether applicants are already living in a designated safe country—which should render them ineligible from getting asylum in the U.S. CBP One requires a photograph, but it can be matched only with U.S. databases, not with any in the applicant’s home country. So, if we don’t have someone’s picture in our records, which we usually don’t, the photograph doesn’t help us to verify their identity. Customs and Border Protection estimates it will let in 500,000 inadmissible aliens using CBP One by the end of the year, with each person taking 12 minutes to process. Yes, just 12 minutes to figure out whether someone is telling the truth and who they really are. The 100,000 officer-hours it will take every year is time CBP could have spent looking for human traffickers, interdicting fentanyl, or interviewing legitimate travelers. U.S. law clearly states that parole can’t be used to bypass the U.S. refugee program, but Congress didn’t set numerical limits for parolees. That was a big mistake. In the hands of an activist president, any leeway is a fatal liability. There is nothing to stop a future president from increasing parole with another country-specific program or by using CBP One at the border for more than the current limit of 1,450 a day. Why not a “Pakistan, Palestine, and Syria” parole program, with another 30,000 parolees a month—or why not 300,000? Why not parole 5,000 more aliens a day at the border using CBP One? With the rules out the window, there is nothing to constrain a rogue administration from diverting more officers and resources to CBP One instead of border security and interior enforcement. Unchecked abuse of immigration parole by any president is an abuse of executive authority, an abuse of the American people, is detrimental to U.S. national security, and is unfair to immigrants and visitors who play by the rules. Congress should numerically limit parole to 1,000 cases a year—or just end it entirely. 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: Sanctuary Cities—A Dangerous Game We All Lose How Trump Reverses the Destruction Biden’s Pro-Illegal Immigration Ideologues Wrought To Have a Serious Talk About Immigration, You’ve Got to First Debunk the Myths The Mass Hysteria Over Deportation What Would Harris and Trump Do Differently on Immigration? The post Biden’s Illegal Immigration Phone App Could Allow Millions of Gazans Into US: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Boston City Councilwoman Arrested by the FBI for Fraud

“Would you rather have a dead daughter or an alive son?” That is what America’s most celebrated gender practitioner allegedly asked the parents of then-12-year-old Clementine Breen, guilting them into the sexual mutilation of their confused daughter.  After spending her entire adolescent years undergoing permanent destruction to her body, Breen is now seeking justice at 20 years old. “Clementine is a female who suffered from a complex, multi-faceted array of mental health symptoms as a child and adolescent,” her attorneys state in a new lawsuit charging Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy with medical malpractice. “Her presentation of symptoms and concerns included, among other things, anxiety, depression, autism, undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), potential bipolarism, as has been suggested by one of her psychiatrists, ongoing confusion regarding her gender, and eventually psychosis (including audio and visual hallucinations), panic attacks, and paranoia,” the lawsuit claims.  She is “also a survivor of multiple instances of sexual abuse as a child and adolescent, something that was never explored, addressed, or discussed by Defendants in the course of their purported treatment,” according to the complaint. By the time Breen had reached between 11 and 12 years old, she claims her past traumas and mental health issues had manifested into a discomfort with her own gender. In an interview with prominent conservative, “Billboard Chris,” she even admitted that her experiences with sexual abuse had caused her to struggle with the idea of developing into a woman. Massive news! Clementine — a young woman given puberty blockers at 12, testosterone at 13, and a double mastectomy at 14 — is suing! This lawsuit is devastating, and involves the biggest names in the fraudulent field of ‘gender medicine.’ She’s suing Dr. Johanna… pic.twitter.com/lYJM9SFHcr — Billboard Chris ???? (@BillboardChris) December 6, 2024 But instead of helping Breen work through these issues, her therapist shipped her off to Kennedy’s butchery, known as the “Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles.” Under Kennedy’s care, she was then “fast-tracked onto the conveyor belt” of irreversible damage,” the lawsuit continues. Kennedy immediately started Breen on puberty blockers when she was still 12. Next came the cross-sex hormones at 13 years old. Then, at the age of only 14, the gender practitioner cut off Breen’s breasts. Now, as an adult, Breen is desperately trying to restore her body back to normal. But she’s having a much harder time getting a health insurance provider to cover her de-transition than when they quickly green-lighted the Frankenstein-like procedures performed by Kennedy. This isn’t the first time the 'Mengele of child mutilation' has been exposed for her deception. In October, MRCTV reported on her refusal to publish her own taxpayer-funded study for nearly a decade.  The reason? She didn’t receive the results she wanted and was worried its findings would convince people that sexually mutilating minors is wrong. 

The Heritage Foundation has warned Americans against believing that Big Tech oligarchs want substantive reform while censorship continues on. Google CEO Sundar Pichai called President-elect Donald Trump in late November, Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos wouldn’t allow his paper (The Washington Post) to endorse Democrat candidate Kamala Harris and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg paid an in-person visit to Trump at Mar-a-Lago, reportedly claiming to be ready and eager to help Trump with a “reform movement” of technology. But since both Google and Meta continue to censor free speech, Heritage warned, “Do not trust Mark Zuckerberg,” Meta, Google or the other Big Tech companies. The Heritage Foundation posted the warning against trusting Big Tech on Dec. 3, adding, “Meta was still censoring right-wing content in the lead up to Election Day, and there’s no indication that it won’t continue whenever it’s politically convenient.” Indeed, Facebook has continued to censor users after the election, including Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), as MRC’s unique CensorTrack database shows. Google also continued to display extreme leftist bias in its manipulation of search results on and following Election Day, as MRC studies continue to show. MRC Vice President for Free Speech Dan Schneider said, “The Heritage Foundation is right to warn Americans against implicitly trusting Big Tech CEOs who have been violating Americans’ First Amendment rights for years. Major reforms need to be implemented before these CEOs gain credibility.” The Heritage Foundation’s X post included a video showing its Tech Policy Center director Kara Frederick explaining that Big Tech oligarchs are not trustworthy. “There is an extensive CYA campaign — you might have seen Mark Zuckerberg came out, and said [in a letter], ‘Oh, you know, we did wrong when we suppressed COVID-19 misinformation,’ right? ‘We did wrong when we suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.’ Because I think these guys are hedging their bets,” Frederick argued. She warned, “Don't take that victory lap for free speech just because somebody like Mark Zuckerberg says mea culpa to a degree, because we know that in the background, they are continuing to censor apace. We've seen it again and again, not just with Meta actually downranking that photo of Trump raising his fist defiantly in the air [after being shot in July], but we've seen it with Google.” Indeed, likely no company has engaged in more election-interfering censorship than Google.  Frederick highlighted biased search results, “When people tried to search for ‘Trump assassination,’ they weren't getting what happened. They weren’t getting proper search results. Google was not surfacing real information.” MRC studies throughout Octoberand November showed that Google consistently buried right-leaning news sources and websites for major Republican candidates, including Trump, and now Trump’s cabinet picks.  Even Amazon joined in the Big Tech election rigging, Frederick noted, as Alexa was willing to provide reasons for voting for Harris but not for her Republican opponent Trump.  Ultimately, Frederick cautioned that tech oligarchs are “continuing to do what they've always done in election cycles and suppress information. Right now, they're just being a little bit more savvy in the public eye about it, because they know there was such a backlash, given what they did in the 2020 election cycle. I'm telling everyone, they are smart. Don't fall for it guys. All of the censorship is happening in the background.”  And, as The Heritage Foundation is warning, that censorship continues after the election too, no matter what Pichai, Zuckerberg or even Bezos pretend. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Googleand Facebook here and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Taylor Lorenz — the controversial, polarizing former Washington Post writer — declared the following just hours after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot in a targeted attack Wednesday, Fox News noted: "And people wonder why we want these executives dead." Fox News said Lorenz wrote the aforementioned words on social media site Bluesky alongside a report about Blue Cross Blue Shield no longer covering anesthesia for the full length of some surgeries.'If you have watched a loved one die because an insurance conglomerate has denied their life saving treatment as a cost-cutting measure, yes, it's natural to wish that the people who run such conglomerates would suffer the same fate.'Lorenz also shared images of Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Kim Keck and reposted calls for other health insurance executives to be targeted, the cable news network added.Fox News in a separate story said Lorenz reposted the following words from another social media user: "hypothetically, would it be considered an actionable threat to start emailing other insurance CEOs a simple ‘you're next’? Completely unrelated to current events btw." Fox News said Lorenz clarified to the cable news network in regard to her "And people wonder why we want these executives dead" post, noting that it "uses the royal we and is explaining the public sentiment." Lorenz continued to Fox News, "That said, health care executives absolutely want people dead as long as it helps their bottom line, and that’s the entire problem. My sympathies are with the innocent people who have died or suffered after being denied coverage by greedy insurance companies."More from Fox News:In a post entitled, "Why ‘we’ want insurance executives dead," Lorenz denied she was calling for the murder of more top executives before seeming to justify her harsh comments from the day before. "Let me be super clear: My post uses a collective ‘we’ and is explaining the public sentiment. It is not me personally saying ‘I want these executives dead and so we should kill them,'" Lorenz said. "I am explaining that thousands of Americans (myself included) are fed up with our barbaric health care system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people." She continued, "If you have watched a loved one die because an insurance conglomerate has denied their life-saving treatment as a cost-cutting measure, yes, it's natural to wish that the people who run such conglomerates would suffer the same fate."Fox News said the post also featured a meme depicting a smiling star and balloons with the text, "CEO DOWN." "People have very justified hatred toward insurance company CEOs because these executives are responsible for an unfathomable amount of death and suffering," her post continued, according to the cable network. "I think it’s good to call out this broken system and the people in power who enable it. Again, not so they can be murdered, but so that we can change the system and start holding people in power accountable for their actions." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Joe Biden’s sweeping 11-year pardon for his son Hunter makes it much easier for President-elect Donald J. Trump to issue pardons to all of the more than 1,560 Jan. 6 defendants, the founder of the Oath Keepers says. Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, 59, who is serving an 18-year Jan. 6 prison term for seditious conspiracy and tampering with documents or evidence, said he is glad to see Biden acknowledge that the U.S. Department of Justice engages in selective prosecution. “Now Biden finally agrees with President Trump and us J6 political prisoners who have been pointing out that reality for years — that our legal system has become utterly corrupted, politicized, and ‘weaponized’ for ‘raw politics,’” Rhodes told Blaze News in a statement from the federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland. Rhodes said Trump is keenly aware of the weaponized justice system, having been charged in a Florida classified documents case that was later dismissed, a Jan. 6 obstruction case in Washington, D.C., several cases in New York state, and one in Georgia. Not to mention a one-sided investigation by the Jan. 6 Select Committee, two impeachments that resulted in acquittals, and civil lawsuits brought by U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the District of Columbia, and private individuals. 'In Biden’s alternate reality, his son’s prosecution alone is unfair and political.' “President Trump now knows exactly what it is like to go through a kangaroo-court, Stalinistic show trial in a leftist court with leftists jurors and a leftist judge,” Rhodes said. “He also knows that he will have no meaningful review by any leftist appellate court either in state or federal court. So he knows that the only way any of these oppressed and persecuted patriots are ever going to have their rights actually defended is if President Trump himself does it by issuing pardons or commutations. “Biden pardoning his son does make it harder for anyone to criticize President Trump when he pardons us J6 political prisoners,” Rhodes said. “Of course, the left will still scream bloody murder and is already ramping up a campaign to demonize all of us, and especially those of us who have a higher profile. The defamatory hit pieces have already begun."Selective prosecution? “But all that noise and false outrage will have even less credibility now that Biden has pardoned his son despite his obvious guilt while thousands of other Americans continue to rot in prison for doing the exact same thing,” Rhodes said. When Biden issued his pardon on Dec. 1, he said Hunter Biden had been “selectively and unfairly prosecuted” by the DOJ on gun and tax charges. The pardon was backdated to 2014, blunting any possible prosecution related to alleged kickbacks from Ukraine and China. Selective prosecution has been alleged in many Jan. 6 criminal cases, but judges in the Washington, D.C., federal district court have not allowed it as a defense. Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III testifies before the Jan. 6 Select Committee on June 9, 2022.Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images In a trial that ran from Sept. 27 to Nov. 29, 2022, Rhodes argued that he was being prosecuted for his speech before, during, and after Jan. 6. Rhodes had urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act in 2020 and use his authority to to declassify a cache of documents to expose the deep state and societal elites. Rhodes had said that if Trump did not act, others would pay the price in a bloody revolution. Rhodes didn’t go inside the Capitol on Jan. 6 but was accused by the DOJ of an implied conspiracy to attack the Capitol and oppose the authority of the U.S. government by force. The FBI testified in the first Oath Keepers trial that there was no plan to go into or attack the Capitol, although a group of Oath Keepers did enter the Capitol through the Columbus Doors after 2:30 p.m. “In Biden’s alternate reality, his son’s prosecution alone is unfair and political, but all the other prosecutions are perfectly fine,” Rhodes said. “All the J6 prosecutions? My 18-year sentence for standing outside the Capitol and exercising my right to political free speech while harming nobody? That’s fine. 'Give them all pardons so they can finally speak the truth without fear of being punished for it.' “Enrique Tarrio’s 22-year sentence while he wasn’t even in D.C. on Jan 6? That’s fine,” Rhodes said. “The 14-year sentence for Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, who is on video helping police inside the Capitol? That’s fine.” Rhodes said he and others were targeted “because of who we are, not because of anything we did” in order to create a narrative of Trump-ordered insurrection at the Capitol. All to keep Trump from continuing in the presidency after Jan. 20, 2021. “But [Biden’s] drug-addict felon son, caught red-handed lying on federal firearms forms and in possession of a firearm, that prosecution is unfair and only motivated by politics? C’mon, man!” A blanket pardon would allow those who were coerced into giving false testimony to come forward and expose anyone who put them up to it, Rhodes said. “The only way to fully unwind the ‘lawfare’ and unwind the Big Lie of Jan. 6 and to begin the dismantling of this empire of lies is to give them all pardons so they can finally speak the truth without fear of being punished for it,” Rhodes said. The 2022 Oath Keepers trial was fueled by false testimony, Rhodes said. He was acquitted of conspiracy to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress and conspiracy to prevent members of Congress from discharging their duties. Rhodes’ conviction for obstruction of an official proceeding was likely invalidated by a June 28 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. United States. Rhodes has not filed to have the verdict tossed or for a resentencing without the 20-year obstruction felony. “That’s why I think President Trump should pardon everyone, including these turncoats who sold out and committed the sin of bearing false witness and the crime of perjury,” Rhodes said. “They too should be pardoned so they are free to speak out and finally tell the truth and testify against the prosecutors who engaged in the crime of subornation of perjury.” Daniel Ball, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., said the DOJ would have no comment on the subornation of perjury allegation. Veterans’ benefits stripped The pardons can “set right” the denial of rightfully earned Veterans Affairs benefits that were stripped from many Jan. 6 defendants, he said. Rhodes served in the U.S. Army as an infantryman in a long-range scout reconnaissance unit. Due to a service injury, Rhodes said he is rated by the VA as 50% disabled. “I nearly died in a parachuting accident on a night jump while doing very dangerous rough-terrain parachuting training that broke my back and left me with a permanently fused spine, with steel rods holding it all together,” Rhodes said. Rhodes said he received a letter from the VA “notifying me that I had now been stripped of all my disabled-veteran benefits, and now I cannot even be buried in a veterans’ cemetery when I die. That is the most horrific insult I have ever received in my life. That and being stripped of my right to keep and bear arms and my right to vote.” Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III speaks to media at the University of California Berkeley in 2017. Oath Keepers photo A lifelong Republican, Rhodes said he has responsibly carried a concealed weapon his entire adult life in order to protect his family and those around him. As a felon, Rhodes will not be able to possess firearms. “All that has been stripped from me,” Rhodes said. “Only a pardon will set that right and restore me to my rightful place as a full citizen. And I am not alone in that. The same is true of many other J6 defendants who are also veterans and also sheepdogs.” If he issues pardons, Trump would follow in the footsteps of Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington pardoned those found guilty of treason in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion tax protest. Jefferson pardoned men who had been convicted and imprisoned under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Rhodes said. “In both cases, those amazing Founding Fathers pardoned all involved as a way to dial back the dangerously heated political turmoil of that time,” he said. “And when Jefferson pardoned the men imprisoned for their free speech under the Sedition Acts, he did so in defense of the First Amendment, even though not one federal court had overturned a single conviction.” Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!