The ongoing border crisis in America poses significant national security concerns, including the potential for domestic terrorism. Since fiscal year 2021, there have been 9.2 million encounters nationwide, with 7.6 million being at the Southwest border. In June, ISIS-affiliated smuggling networks successfully smuggled more than 400 migrants across the southern border. And while more than 150 of them have been arrested by ICE, the whereabouts of more than 50 remain unknown. A 2024 DEA report indicates that the Cartels now control an extensive network of smuggling routes into the U.S. “The terrorism warning lights are blinking red again”, said Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, comparing current national security concerns to that of Sep. 11 and calling for a sense of urgency. This was not an isolated incident as more terrorists are being apprehended throughout the U.S., like Mohammad Kharwin, an Afghan national with ties to an anti-Western terror group called Hezb-e-Islami (HIG). He was processed at the border but later released via a program known as ATD. Mohammad was arrested almost a year later after the FBI notified ICE of Kharwin’s affiliation. (READ MORE: Joe Biden’s Executive Amnesty Is Illegal, Unjust, and Self-Defeating) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported that 1.8 million illegal migrants had been observed to cross the border successfully without being processed, labeled as “gotaways.” These types of migrants bypass all existing immigration checks, making it impossible to verify their identities, backgrounds, or intentions. Additionally, the current vetting process utilized by CBP is only as effective as the individual’s biometric data collected, which is often limited at the time of the encounter. A 2024 DHS threat assessment report indicated that approximately 160 non-U.S. persons on the FBI’s terrorist watch list have attempted to cross the Southern border, a 60 percent increase from the previous year. The shortcomings of the existing vetting process, combined with the immense pressure to process and release individuals quickly, enable bad actors to fall through the cracks and be released into our country. In fact, terrorists have already been caught roaming our communities. On January 20, 2024, an affiliate member of Al-Shabaab, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), successfully crossed the Southern border and was living in the United States for nearly a year before he was arrested in Minnesota. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) later discovered that he was on the terror watchlist for bomb-making, and was involved in arms dealing while he was living in the U.S. Many illegal aliens come from hostile countries including Russia, China, Syria, and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, ICE, in conjunction with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, arrested eight suspected terrorists with ties to ISIS. The arrests took place in New York, Philadelphia, and California. The eight men were from Tajikistan, the country that ISIS-K considers as one of its main recruiting grounds. ISIS-K was responsible for the terrorist attack on Moscow earlier in March that killed over 130 people. The same group was also responsible for the suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan that killed 13 U.S. service members and roughly 170 Afghan civilians. “The threats from homegrown violent extremists that is jihadist-inspired, extremists, domestic violent extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, and state-sponsored terrorist organizations all being elevated at one time,” said Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI. While foreign terrorist organizations are exploiting our porous borders, nation-state adversaries are too. In FY2024, 24,376 Chinese nationals have been encountered at the Southwest border. That is an 8,000 percent increase compared to March 2021. For decades, China has been accused of various crimes against the U.S., including intellectual property theft, cyberattacks, and espionage. The CCP could be viewing America’s border crisis as the perfect opportunity to clandestinely embed agents within U.S. communities, establishing sleeper cells and conducting espionage activities. The Mexican cartels have also used our weak borders to infiltrate the U.S. and distribute deadly drugs like Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, along with other ingredients for synthetic drugs. A 2024 DEA report indicates that the Cartels now control an extensive network of smuggling routes into the U.S., along with several drug distribution hubs throughout major American cities. (READ MORE: The Left’s Noncitizen Voting Gambit) America’s border crisis poses serious national security risks that are likely to culminate in catastrophic consequences. The U.S. must adopt a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to secure its borders and enact stringent surveillance and vetting processes. Border security is national security, and it’s time for all levels of government to align and take decisive actions to safeguard America’s security. The post Border Crisis Could Ignite Terrorist Attacks appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

During Thursday night’s debate between Presidents Biden and Trump many questions related to the state of the economy and economic policy were broached. Conspicuously absent from the debate, however, were any questions or even a mention of the largest economic elephant in the room: the Federal Reserve System. The Fed is more responsible than anyone else for skewing income in favor of crony CEOs. Economic headlines are a swirl of contradictory reports of low unemployment, sluggish economic output, distressed banks, income inequality, and rumors of income inequality. Yet hardly any member of the press corps or candidate for elected office desires to seriously consider the Federal Reserve’s role in bringing our society to its present economic condition. When they do, a plethora of politicians and supporting intellectuals increasingly embrace the Federal Reserve System as indispensable to our nation’s economic health. (READ MORE: Is the Federal Reserve Overstepping Its Mission?) The reality is that pro-Fed propaganda started at the very beginning of its creation. A mere year after its founding, the Report of the Comptroller of the Currency said that with the advent of the Fed, financial panics such as what happened in 1907 would “seem to be mathematically impossible.” Claims that financial crises could be avoided by the Fed’s provision of an elastic currency transitioned over the past 110 years to claims that the Fed would provide stable prices, full employment, and ultimately complete macroeconomic and financial stability. In light of this rhetoric, how should we evaluate the real consequences of Fed action? To put it bluntly, far from being the necessary first cause of economic prosperity, the Fed is neither necessary nor helpful. In fact, it is a criminally destructive enterprise. The Federal Reserve is the monopolist of all monopolists. It has the sole privilege of issuing bank notes accepted as legal tender in the United States. Defenders of the necessity of the  Fed forget that money, as an economic good, can be produced competitively just us well as soft drinks, celery, shoes, gasoline, or smart phones. Just as we do not need a central shoe producer to ensure the optimal quantity and quality of shoes, we also do not need a central bank maintaining some supposed optimal money supply ensuring stable prices or magnitude of spending. In the first place, it should be recognized that there is no single “price level” to be stabilized. Prices can never truly be averaged into one number that scientifically measures the level of all prices. To average something, the items must be in the same units. If we cannot add up different goods such as hats, a pound of sugar, a smartphone, a pair of shoes, and a tank of gasoline, we cannot get a true average. Using a weighted average such as is done by the Consumer Price Index does not solve the problem because any basket of goods relevant for one household will be different than that for another household. Additionally, the goods represented in the denominator of the chosen basket are still different units of different goods. Because there is no solitary price level, it cannot be stabilized. Even if a scientific price level existed for the entire economy, we do not need a central bank to provide any optimal quantity of money to increase, decrease, or keep it the same. In a free society, the optimal quantity of money would be provided by private money producers guided by the same profit and loss calculations constraining the producers of every other economic good. If people demanded to hold more money, they would satisfy their demand by spending less and selling more consumer and producer goods, thereby lowering overall prices and increasing the purchasing power of money. The increased value of money will, on the one hand, increase the real value of cash balances and, on the other, make money production more profitable, encouraging money producers to increase their supply to satisfy the demand. The Federal Reserve is not necessary to facilitate this process. We do not need a Fed managed price inflation target, we merely need sound money — money free from government manipulation. Not only is the Fed not necessary to manage the monetary system, but it has also miserably failed the charge it has been given by the Congress. To measure an institution’s effectiveness, we might examine whether it has fulfilled its stated purpose. The amended Federal Reserve Act that is part of the Federal Code, the current law of the land, says that the Fed is mandated to “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” How well has the Fed maintained price stability during its almost 110-year tenure? Not well at all. The dollar has lost over 97 percent of its purchasing power since the Fed’s creation. The increase in prices has been especially steep since leaving the last gasp of the international gold standard in 1971, when the only thing controlling money creation became the character and wisdom of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee. It was one thing for the Fed to keep prices relatively stable when it knew that profligacy meant a significant gold drain. Indeed, even that threat proved too weak by August 1971, which prompted Nixon to abandon our obligations by suspending specie payments, cutting the dollar free from gold. Since then, relying only on its own wisdom and character, the Fed has overseen a 675 percent increase in consumer prices. Fed Law-Breaking The main reason for increasingly higher prices is that the Fed has made its peace with breaking the law. How so? Well, despite its legal mandate to promote stable prices, the Federal Reserve explicitly targets a 2 percent rate of annual price increase. Now, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines stable as “not changing or fluctuating.” Stable prices mean prices that are increasing at a rate of 0 percent a year. However, the Fed explicitly targets an annual rate of price increase of 2 percent. Price stability has mutated from a policy of 0 percent price increases to an average of 2 percent over time. The Fed, in other words, desires to make the dollar worth less every second of its existence. It is guilty of explicitly and boldly breaking the law, seemingly without political or legal consequences. Now if this legal transgression was merely a matter of technical red-tape, then one might concede no harm, no foul. Alas, make no mistake, people are being significantly harmed and, therefore, the Fed commits foul after foul. It privileges the politically and financially connected rich while keeping the rest of us relatively poor. In fact, Fed-induced inflation explains much of the income inequality exercising many in society. At best, inflationary monetary policy provides no general social benefit. Increasing the money supply does not generally increase wealth for everyone because it does not increase the quantity of producer or consumer goods. It merely increases the amount of money being spent on the same quantity of goods, so overall prices increase, and the purchasing power of the dollar falls. People may have more dollars, but they must pay higher prices. There is, therefore, no general benefit from monetary inflation. The consequences of inflation, however, are much worse than zero. While monetary inflation never provides a general social benefit, it does provide private benefits for those who get the new money first. When the Fed inflates the money supply, it does not increase everyone’s cash balances simultaneously in the same proportion. Rather it injects reserves into commercial and investment banks, and they then lend new money to borrowers. Those people who receive the new money first — financial institutions and the government — get to spend it first before prices change. They benefit while those people who receive it later are harmed. Especially grievous is the lot of those on fixed incomes. They do not see a dime of the new money, but must pay higher prices, nonetheless. As such, monetary inflation redistributes wealth, leaving some richer while many others are made poorer. The Fed cannot plead ignorance to these distributional consequences. They were explained as early as the middle of the 18th century by Richard Cantillon as well as the 20th century economist Ludwig von Mises. (READ MORE: The Fed Has More Than a ‘Credibility’ Problem) Inflation’s harvest of income inequality has been helped along by the shift toward compensating CEOs in stock options. In an unhampered market CEOs will tend to receive compensation commensurate with what they contribute to the value of the firm. If a CEO gains more than his contribution to the firm, the firm will be less profitable. However, much of the new money the Fed creates is quickly poured into the stock market and then asset-backed securities. Therefore, those CEOs compensated with stock options benefit from being closer to the new money. Their compensation packages greatly enhance in value from monetary inflation, resulting in a shift in income distribution. The Fed is more responsible than anyone else for skewing income in favor of crony CEOs. Additionally, the new money is created via artificial credit expansion — loans not funded by voluntary savings — which creates business cycles. Inflationary credit expansion artificially lowers interest rates, spawning capital malinvestment.  Many unwise investments (say, in residential and commercial real estate and financial derivatives) are made to look profitable because of the accessibility of cheap credit, so business activity expands, manifesting itself in an inflationary boom. Bad investments, however, are not made economically sound merely because there is more money in existence. They eventually must be liquidated. The boom resolves itself in a bust whose twin offspring are capital consumption and unemployment. Monetary inflation is no way to sustainably generate economic prosperity. That is why the Fed also fails in its legal mandate to maintain full employment. It turns out that the post-World War II unemployment rate has been wildly erratic. The track record is one of repeated economic cycles which manifest significant unemployment. The clear conclusion is that the Fed is a failure. Sound monetary theory and business cycle theory teaches that the Federal Reserve has failed because it causes massive price inflation, an extreme shrinkage of the purchasing power of the dollar, and the business cycle. In short, the actions of the Fed are both illegal and destructive. Any other monopolistic business enterprise guilty of breaking Federal law and sowing destruction hither and yon would immediately be shut down. What is good for the private goose should be good for the politically privileged gander. No institution is above economic law. Neither should it be above civil law. If members of Congress truly care about the welfare of the citizenry, not to mention their oath of office, they should end the Fed. Shawn Ritenour, Ph.D., is professor of economics at Grove City College. His books include The Mises Reader Unabridged, Foundations of Economics: A Christian View, and The Economics of Prosperity. The post End the Fed: An Illegal and Destructive Enterprise appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Discover how the US and India are reshaping global tax policies with their groundbreaking digital tax extension agreement! Uncover the reasons behind this pivotal decision and how it could affect tech giants and everyday consumers alike. Dive into the details of the negotiations and learn why this move is causing waves in financial markets worldwide.

Google’s Jigsaw started out as Google Ideas – and Eric Schmidt’s idea back in 2010 was for it to serve as a way of researching “issues at the intersection of technology and geopolitics.”

Julian Assange’s Freedom A Huge Blow To Detractors – “No Physical Harm To Anyone By Leaks”

Status of US Dollar as Global Reserve Currency: Central Banks Diversify from USD-Assets to Other Currencies and to Gold

Don’t Let The Elite Get Away With Gaslighting That They Didn’t Know About Biden’s Senility

from The Salty Cracker:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Jeff Poor, Breitbart: Friday, following what most deemed a lousy debate performance from President Joe Biden, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said the key takeaway was that Biden is not running the country. According to Alabama’s senior U.S. Senator, the so-called deep state was running the country. “You never knew how bad it was going […]

Winston Churchill is easily one of the 20th century’s greatest historical figures. During his exemplary career, he became known for his eloquence and rousing speeches, particularly in Britain’s darkest hours. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is his wartime leadership as the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister. He rallied British forces during World War II and again in the early 1950s, providing the second-largest army after the United States.  Despite his popularity, his legacy has met with a lot of debate. Layered, multifacted, and complex, Churchill was an ambitious young officer with a relentless determination and controversial political views. Who Was Winston Churchill?  Most know Winston Churchill as the UK’s Prime Minister during WWII. Historians consider him an important historical figure who had his own flaws and unusual depth. Born in 1874, Churchill was an aristocrat, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough.  He worked hard for recognition and was known for his relentless drive. His stint as a war correspondent highlighted his daring personality and zest for life. Churchill’s political career was tumultous but distinguished. His indecision regarding the Liberal and Conservative parties reflect his sometimes contradicting views. Ultimately, however, his records of glory and downfalls should be taken with some skepticism. His leadership is considered courageous while his fiery speeches overflowed with determination and defiance. His words, “We shall fight on the beaches,” have echoed through history, symbolizing courage under fire. Besides his leadership, Churchill is also known for his prolific writing. His books, essays, and letters made him infamous. He was not just a leader of wartime but a complex, often contradictory figure who played many roles in life—artist, writer, family man, and orator.  Contributions to the Royal Military In 1894, Churchill graduated from the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy as a cavalry cadet. Four years later, he published The Story of the Malakand Field Force, his first book detailing his time as a soldier in India. By 1901, he won his first election, winning a seat in the House of Commons. In 1911, he was appointed civilian head of the British Navy. He later resigned after the country conceded. He then served as Lieutenant-Colonel on the western front with Grenadier Guards in Fusiliers, France in 1915. Political Contributions  After joining the Boer War in South Africa, Churchill enjoyed some renown as a war hero. He hoped to capitalize on it with a series of lectures in the United States. Though he experienced opposition in the country, he met some of its most influential individuals. This included Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and President William McKinley.  Churchill moved back to Britain in 1939 as First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1940, he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. After a short break from leadership, Churchill was again elected Prime Minister in 1951.  Other Accomplishments Churchill was a Nobel Prize laureate in Literature for his extensive historical writings and speeches. His speeches are depicted in films and TV shows, highlighting how significant and groundbreaking his words were. Churchill was awarded an honorary US Citizenship by President John F Kennedy in 1963.  President John F Kennedy, who was particularly fond of Churchill and his publications, awarded him an honorary US Citizenship in 1963. The US president added, “By adding his names to our rolls, we mean to honor him—but his acceptance honors us far more.”  He served the royal family and the country as a Member of Parliament until 1964, retiring after over 60 years of service. Churchill passed away in 1965 and left behind a controversial legacy of sorts.  Debunking Myths About Winston Churchill As history is passed down and rewritten from different perspectives, it becomes more complex. Like other prominent historical figures, Churchill’s life had its fair share of controversies, rumors, and myths that some believe to be true.  Here are some myths:  Myth #1: Churchill Was a White Supremacist  The British statesman was often praised for recognizing Hitler as a threat, but he didn’t have that many opposing ideologies compared to the dictator. Churchill repeatedly and publicly praised the “Aryan stock” as “a stronger race, a higher-grade race.”  It’s been reported that he didn’t believe that “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people.” To prove this, he even segregated boxing matches, forcing Whites and Blacks to fight with their own “kind.” Some believe Churchill reinforced segregation so the “superior race” wouldn’t be seen losing to Black people.  Although he didn’t directly support Hitler’s beliefs, his efforts to separate races and deem one race superior made him similar to Hitler—a white supremacist.   Myth #2: He Had Nothing To Do With Genocide Contrary to popular belief, Churchill had a lot of control over the Bengal famine of 1943. As British Prime Minister, his negligence toward British India prevented him from delivering timely aid, causing more than three million people to die.  British actions caused many to hoard grains, causing chaos in the less privileged regions. Bengal was one of the most affected areas. While many defend Churchill’s efforts for relief, he had more power than he claimed to alleviate the situation. As prime minister, he had the authority to reroute ships carrying rations from Australia. However, he believed that “saving the Greeks and liberated countries was more important than the Indians.” In addition, there is no denying his infamous quote, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”  So, did he actually attempt to relieve the situation? A shocked Leo Amery, the colonial secretary, remarked, “Winston is not quite sane… I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.” Myth #3: “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” Roused and Inspired the Whole of Britain The famous “We shall fight on the beaches” is one of the most inspirational and motivating speeches of all time. And while it tugs at the heartstrings, the speech was never actually delivered on radio—at least not at first.  In 1940, Churchill addressed the House of Commons. He started his speech by bringing listeners up to speed about the German war. He talked about the beaches of Dunkirk and how the Allied Forces helped France. He discussed how Britain would fight tooth and nail even if no one supported them. Then, came the praised lines.  “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.” While the speech is bone-chilling and rousing, the rest of the country didn’t get a chance to hear it until 1949. The speech was only printed in the newspapers but was only heard on the radio later when it was recorded. Unfortunately, by the time the nation and the world heard it, people were not very inspired by it. Challenges and hardships had already dampened their spirits. When it was first delivered, the speech was certainly moving but it was no longer relevant when his countrymen listened to it. Myth #4: Churchill Had Intel About the Coventry Bombing On November 14, 1940, the Germans dropped multiple bombs and explosives, killing more than 507 civilians and leaving 420 seriously injured, over Coventry, an emerging industrial city.  Many wonder whether Churchill knew of it. And if he did, why didn’t he prevent it? But the real question is: did he have accurate information?  There are theories floating around regarding Churchill’s knowledge of the attack. Some believe he knew of the attack several days before it actually occurred. However, he held onto the information in an attempt to protect the UK and its efforts to decipher the Enigma codes sent by Germans. Speculations even include the idea that he held back to provoke the US into joining the war. However, is that the truth?  Although intel decrypted the codes successfully, they weren’t as accurate as they thought. On November 9, a German pilot who was interrogated suggested that Coventry or Birmingham would be under attack. However, Intelligence decoded “Moonlight Sonata” on November 12, which indicated five other possible targets, namely Central London, Greater London, the Thames Valley, or the Kent or Essex coasts.  Officials found the German pilot’s information untrustworthy. Churchill and the rest of the team closely watched London. But the attack never happened. Instead, German radio beams indicated that Coventry was indeed the target, as the German pilot had informed. Although a fighter patrol was maintained over the city and the “Cold Water” defense strategies were in place, it was too late for the city to save itself from the firestorm created by the bombs.  Myth #5: Churchill Claimed Turing Made the “Single Biggest Contribution” to Victory Alan Turing, a mathematician and computer scientist, was part of the Intelligence team that deciphered the German Enigma machine, thereby decoding Ultra. This secret message helped the Allied forces win.  Churchill and Turing got acquainted after the then-prime minister granted additional resources to Turing and three other cryptographers. Although Churchill believed Turing and the team played a vital part in the Allied Forces’ victory, he never really said Turing made the “single biggest contribution.”  There are no documents supporting that statement or claim. In fact, Churchill always wanted to keep Ultra under wraps, and its existence only came to life a decade after his death.  As a result, there is a possibility that Churchill may have mentioned it in personal conversations. But it’s highly unlikely that Churchill even remembered the man post-war. So, it is safe to say that Churchill’s praises for Turing are, in fact, a myth.  Churchill’s Impact on History Winston Churchill lived from 1874 to 1965. His life and legacy are filled with fascinating triumphs and controversies, perfectly encompassing the complexities of human nature. His patriotism and will to never give up during Britain’s most perilous times leaves an undeniable mark on history. However, his actions and beliefs provoke debate, reflecting the character of the troubled man. Churchill’s aristocratic background and early adventures in the military and journalism show that he was a profound man who could influence and shape events. Meanwhile, his political journey and shifts between conservatism and liberalism demonstrated his commitment to his convictions and indecisiveness. On the other hand, his leadership during World War II showcased his ability to rally a nation to victory at its lowest point. His speeches are a testament to his unwavering motivation in between his cries for freedom. But like all humans, his story also has gray areas, particularly regarding race and colonialism, sparking significant backlash. For example, the Bengal famine of 1943, his stances on race, and his often imperialistic rhetoric reflect a side of Churchill that complicates his heroic image. These aspects invite a critical evaluation of his legacy, suggesting that while he was a product of his time, his actions and impact warrant scrutiny. That said, there is no denying Churchill’s intellect and prowess during his country’s desperate hour. After all, his contributions to literature and his Nobel Prize in 1953 remind us of it. They also provide valuable insight into historical events. His capacity for great leadership and his problematic views coexist, challenging many to embrace the complexity that was Winston Churchill.  The more you learn of him, the more you understand history and the human mind. Churchill was a man of his time; his dated views need not be accepted. He remains a figure of interest and debate—a person who shaped the world in ways that are both admired and criticized. However, learning about him helps us understand history better and—hopefully—not make the same mistakes.  They say that history repeats itself. But here’s hoping mankind has learned to skip the conflicts brought about by WWII and its many leaders. The post Winston Churchill: A Great and Controversial Leader first appeared on History Defined.