The front page of Thursday’s New York Times featured a story by White House correspondent (and MSNBC contributor) Annie Karni‚ “Republicans Take After Trump With Bigoted Attacks on Foes.” Karni strung together partisan insults from the week to condemn the entire party as a historically racist menace. This is how you know that a newspaper is a Democratic Party organ.  Given that the left and its media allies have labeled every Republican presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater as either racist or pandering to racists‚ this latest smear can be ignored‚ but the details make for entertaining (or enraging) reading. They put these on Page One:  When Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ Republican of Georgia‚ stood on the House floor this month to announce her proposal to censure the only Somali-born member of Congress‚ she said she was seeking punishment for “Representative Ilhan Omar of Somalia -- I mean Minnesota.” Earlier that same week‚ Representative Troy Nehls‚ Republican of Texas‚ called the Black husband of another Democratic woman of color‚ Representative Cori Bush of Missouri‚ a “thug.” He then said Ms. Bush‚ who is also Black‚ had received so many death threats because she was “so loud all the time.” Note the sad Times capitalization of “Black” (there’s no “White” or “Brown”) mandated by its woke style guide.  By example #4 in her litany‚ Karni was really scraping the barrel of racial bias. Around the same time‚ House Republicans released their report on impeachment charges against Alejandro N. Mayorkas‚ the Cuban-born homeland security secretary who is the first Latino to lead his department. Using unusually loaded language for a committee report‚ the panel described its action as “deporting Secretary Mayorkas from his position.” In private‚ the language was uglier. During a closed-door meeting of House Republicans‚ Representative Mark E. Green‚ Republican of Tennessee and the panel’s chairman‚ referred to Mr. Mayorkas as a “reptile with no balls” because of his refusal to resign from his post‚ according to Politico. A White House official condemned the statement‚ noting that Mr. Mayorkas is Jewish and that the comment echoed an antisemitic trope. And that was all in the span of a week. Karni is either being deliberately oversensitive or unwittingly dense. “Deporting” a cabinet secretary in charge of securing the border is wit‚ not racism. And is “reptile with no balls” really an antisemitic trope? At least the leftists at Raw Story loved her expose. Of course‚ there is no parallel investigation rounding up actual anti-Semitism from the Democratic “Squad” in Congress‚ or of Democrats claiming a particular Republican represents Israel. The racist discourse by Republican members of Congress‚ both in casual comments and in official statements‚ has become so commonplace that it now often slips by without any real condemnation from the G.O.P. Democrats frequently call for apologies but no longer expect any response‚ and those futile denunciations quickly disappear into a morass of polarized content on social media. “Journalist” Karni found a Democrat to conveniently encapsulate and spout back the exact same Democratic talking points she was running with. “The nature of Trumpism is to embolden extremism‚” said Representative Ritchie Torres‚ a Black Democrat from New York. “Whether it’s badgering an Asian witness about his ethnic loyalties‚ or dehumanizing a cabinet secretary‚ or accusing a Muslim woman of treason‚ or describing a Black man as a thug‚ Republican members of Congress are crossing lines that should never be crossed.” Karni found it shameful that Republicans couldn’t meet the high moral standard and surely not-politically motivated concerns of a Democratic politician. If Republicans on Capitol Hill have similar concerns‚ they rarely air them publicly. The office of Speaker Mike Johnson had no comment on the recent incidents. The Republican Party‚ which for decades has relied primarily on white voters‚ has long exploited fear and prejudice to energize its base‚ whether it was Barry Goldwater vocally opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or George H.W. Bush’s use of the Black convict Willie Horton in a 1988 presidential ad. Oh please. Goldwater was not racist. His controversial stance was born out of his principled limited government beliefs. “Black convict Willie Horton‚” doing life without parole for murder‚ committed rape and armed robbery while out on furlough from prison in liberal Massachusetts‚ a fact the Times has gone to amazing lengths to elide from the historical record. Karni ended on a pathetic note: Representative Hakeem Jeffries‚ Democrat of New York and the minority leader‚ said Mr. Nehls’s “thug” comment was “shameful” and “clearly peddled in racially inflammatory language.” He demanded an apology. None came.

The Verdict with Ted Cruz co-host Ben Ferguson exposed Big Tech’s plans for those who run afoul of the left’s narrative. And it goes beyond mere censorship. Ferguson went on MRC’s UnCensored with MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider to discuss how Big Tech platforms such as Meta and YouTube have censored his content. Schneider reacted to Facebook’s absurd decision to lock Ferguson out of his account‚ implying this tactic aims to “dry up” revenue sources. “They want to kill us‚” reiterated Schneider‚ concerning Big Tech choking off the revenue of conservatives. Speaking from personal experience‚ Ferguson concurred‚ “They want you to go broke; they want you to be in financial ruin.” Ferguson explained that censorship tactics have surpassed mere censorship. “It’s not just silencing you‚” he continued‚ “Their objective is to make sure that you can’t pay your bills and your life‚ your political life and your journalistic life ends in ruins‚ where you are bankrupt. It’s not just about silencing you. They want to destroy everything you have and take it all away from you.”  In response‚ Schneider highlighted the role of organizations such as NewsGuard and Ad Fontes in bankrupting conservatives. “We’ve done work that shows how some of these ratings firms like NewsGuard and sort of the newer player in this space‚ Ad Fontes‚ how they are so biased‚ how they exist to pummel conservatives and then advertisers. The big ad firms‚ they look at those ratings and they say‚ ‘Well‚ let’s not have Coca-Cola or other big firms advertise with Ben Ferguson‚’ and these firms are helping to drive away your revenue sources and have you ended.”   Schneider went on to point out that Ad Fontes was already targeting Ferguson’s podcast in this way‚ as they gave an extremely low rating to The Verdict with Ted Cruz. Similarly‚ Schneider noted that Ad Fontes had cracked down even harder on The Ben Ferguson Podcast.  Schneider tore into the gatekeepers at Ad Fontes and NewsGuard. “These advertisers have pulled money away from conservative media‚ not because conservative media in and of itself is the enemy; it’s because they do not want the American public to get this news. They do not want the American public to be informed.” Schneider added‚ “They want the American public to only get their news from ABC‚ NBC‚ CBS‚ The New York Times‚ The Washington Post‚ NPR‚ maybe a handful of other organizations. That’s where they want the American public to get their news. They can tolerate your existence‚ so long as you are not educating Americans on what is really going on.”  Earlier in the video‚ Ferguson discussed how Facebook had shut down his page after flagging a number of extremely old posts as “partially false.” He said that Facebook had shut off his reach and threatened his account with over a million followers with deletion despite all the money he had paid to Facebook to promote his account.  Ferguson and Schneider also discussed an egregious case of censorship Ferguson faced on YouTube after exposing “crisis actors working on behalf of terrorists.” In this case‚ fake videos depicting alleged victims in the Gaza Strip. The Nov. 13 edition of The Verdict is still censored to this day with a “viewer discretion” warning that must be clicked to watch the video.  Schneider suggested that this warning‚ paired with an age verification requirement‚ likely diminished viewership by “90-95%.”  Schneider also noted the absolute absurdity of YouTube censoring Ferguson but not the actual “crisis actor‚” adding‚ “Not only is this crisis actor alive and well‚ but so is his YouTube page.”  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.’

With Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis under the hot light of accountability for alleged conflicts of interest with the election integrity case she brought against former President Trump‚ the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View jumped to her defense on Friday. The coven frantically tried to throw everything at the wall hoping it would stick: attacking Trump’s lawyers‚ playing the race and gender cards‚ and praising her angry outbursts in the courtroom. Their first desperate defense of Willis came in the form of trying to flip the conflict of interest charge against Trump’s lawyers because they were married and owned a private firm together: BEHAR: Meanwhile‚ the two lawyers prosecuting her‚ who were questioning her -- SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah‚ they’re married. BEHAR: They're married to each other and they have a law firm together. HOSTIN: Yes‚ they do. BEHAR: So‚ isn't that a conflict of interest and do they have a problem?     What Behar didn’t seem to have the mental bandwidth to understand was that Willis was the one with the power in this situation. She’s the state prosecutor who brought the case to begin with and allegedly picked her boyfriend to take it to trial‚ and Trump’s lawyers were the private attorneys responding in defense of a client. Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) had to break the bad news to Behar that it was not against the law for lawyers to marry; and bizarrely played the gender card: And Georgia has a law in place that it is not unethical or illegal to have a romantic relationship with co-counsel. Even opposing counsel. Can you imagine that? The only thing -- because I would imagine in Georgia and all places across the country men would not be able to practice law if it were -- if it weren't -- [Laughter] Hostin got the card game going‚ but it was faux conservative Ana Navarro who was playing a full hand when she argued that the biggest reason Willis was being scrutinized was because she’s a black woman: Look‚ I think as a woman she's got a double standard because as you say‚ tons of men do things like this and there's no problem. I think as a woman of color she even gets more scrutiny and we know that. She knew that. She should have known better. She should have disclosed. She should have not done this. Navarro seemed to be in favor of conflicts of interest she sarcastically exclaimed: “God forbid there be conflicts of interest.” “So‚ like this woman‚ every $100 meal‚ every little cruise to Aruba‚ every little cruise to the Bahamas she took is being disclosed and she’s being dragged through the mud‚” she whined. Hostin agreed “there's the appearance of impropriety‚” but lauded Willis's attitude and disrespectful outbursts from the witness stand: HOSTIN: But I think she handled her business in the courtroom. I mean‚ a man is not a plan‚ I'm not on trial‚ you’re on trial. That's what happens when you put a really good lawyer on the witness stand. BEHAR: I like when she said I will not emasculate a black man. HOSTIN: Exactly. She was speaking to her constituents. My father is from Georgia. I spent a lot of time in Georgia. She was speaking to those Georgians. It’s hypocritical for Behar to tout Willis for refusing to “emasculate a black man” when‚ last year‚ she claimed Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t know what it was like to be black in America. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 16‚ 2024 11:03:43 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: First of all‚ what's wrong with sex on the first date? I mean – [Laughter] Okay‚ so defense attorneys are making the case -- what they call a conflict of interest. Meanwhile‚ the two lawyers prosecuting her‚ who were questioning her -- SUNNY HOSTIN: Yean‚ they’re married. BEHAR: They're married to each other and they have a law firm together. HOSTIN: Yes‚ they do. BEHAR: So‚ isn't that a conflict of interest and do they have a problem – do they have a case against her? HOSTIN: They don't have a case against her. I think this is certainly just a political move. This is so that Trump can push this and try to kick this case and this can down the road so that if he becomes president‚ god forbid‚ of the United States‚ then he's going to say you can't prosecute me in state court because I'm too busy being -- he's not really going to be too busy – too busy being the president of the United States. So‚ that is what this is really about. And Georgia has a law in place that it is not unethical or illegal to have a romantic relationship with co-counsel. Even opposing counsel. Can you imagine that? The only thing -- because I would imagine in Georgia and all places across the country men would not be able to practice law if it were -- if it weren't -- [Laughter] (…) 11:05:35 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: Look‚ I agree with Sunny. I don't think they've been able to prove conflict of interest which is the issue they are looking at but it doesn't look good. This is not a good look for Fani Willis. I think she should have disclosed. I think you don't create a mess where you eat and she did. And I also think – Look‚ I think as a woman she's got a double standard because as you say‚ tons of men do things like this and there's no problem. I think as a woman of color she even gets more scrutiny and we know that. She knew that. She should have known better. She should have disclosed. She should have not done this. But‚ you know‚ what I have found interesting is – So‚ there's a lot of people now particularly on the right who have become champions against conflicts of interest. God forbid there be conflicts of interest. SARA HAINES: I see where you're going. NAVARRO: So‚ like this woman‚ every $100 meal‚ every little cruise to Aruba‚ every little cruise to the Bahamas she took is being disclosed and she’s being dragged through the mud. Well‚ if you want to talk about conflict of interest‚ let me talk about all the things that Clarence Thomas. (…) 11:08:21 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: I agree that there's the appearance of impropriety. Right? Like‚ you don't even want the appearance of impropriety. But I think she handled her business in the courtroom. I mean‚ a man is not a plan‚ I'm not on trial‚ you’re on trial. That's what happens when you put a really good lawyer on the witness stand. BEHAR: I like when she said I will not emasculate a black man. HOSTIN: Exactly. She was speaking to her constituents. My father is from Georgia. I spent a lot of time in Georgia. She was speaking to those Georgians‚ because every – They were asking her questions about whether or not she had money in her -- how could she have so much money in her home? BEHAR: Oh‚ the cash. HOSTIN: I always have cash in my home! (…)

CNN legal analyst Michael Moore is a former elected Democrat Georgia state senator‚ and later a US Attorney in Georgia appointed by Barack Obama. So‚ appearing on CNN This Morning today‚ you might well have expected him to toe the Dem line in defending Fani Willis in her fight not to be removed as prosecutor in the election interference case she has brought against Donald Trump and 18 other defendants.  But Moore entirely upended any such expectations in his comments on Willis' testimony of yesterday‚ and on the broader issues surrounding the matter. Here were the highlights: Moore called Willis' testimony "just not credible." Substitute host Erica Hill‚ hoping against hope‚ asked if Moore was perhaps referring to the questioning of Willis by Ashleigh Merchant‚ the attorney for Trump' co-defendant Michael Roman‚ who brought the motion to have Willis removed from the case. Nope. Moore made clear he was calling Willis' testimony itself "not credible." Moore analogized Willis' surprise decision to testify to that of a criminal defendant who chooses to take the stand‚ despite not being required to do so. Said Moore: "It just becomes a train wreck. And so that's sort of how I felt about this‚ it just went off the tracks."   Willis and Nathan Wade have sworn that their relationship did not begin until after Willis hired Wade onto her prosecutorial staff for the case. Moore was clearly skeptical about that‚ saying‚ "he was going to her house or visiting her alone‚ some number of times years before she claims‚ or a year before they claim they were dating. That's strikes me as a little bit odd. I mean‚ not a big deal‚ but was she having other‚ entertaining other members of the prosecution team? No. It was just him." Yup‚ just "a little bit odd!" Moore was also skeptical about Willis' claim that in reimbursing Wade for the vacation expenses he paid for the couple‚ she exclusively used cash‚ never a check or a cash-transfer app: "I have a hard time just thinking about a  DA paying everything in cash. Nothing wrong with cash‚ but it's convenient right now." Cue SNL's Dana Carvey character‚ the Church Lady: "Well isn't that con-veeen-ient!" As for Fani's display of righteous indignation on the stand‚ Moore said: "I just didn't think it did her much good. Her indignation would have seemed a lot more sincere if she'd come out about two months ago. But remember‚ even as she is there saying‚ wanting to get to the truth‚ and she's shaking the documents and the court filings around in front of everybody‚ her office is fighting everything. They're fighting every witness subpoena. They don't want the records to come in. And she's refusing to let bank records and other things come in." Ouch! Finally‚ Moore called for the release of texts between Roman's lawyer‚ Ashleigh Merchant‚ and Terrence Bradley‚ a friend‚ fraternity brother‚ and former law partner of Wade's. Merchant says those texts will demonstrate Bradley's knowledge of the existence of the Willis-Wade relationship pre-dating Wade's hiring by Willis. All in all‚ Moore made a devastating case against Willis. He was followed by CNN commentator Errol Louis‚ a reliable liberal. But Louis declined to ride to Willis' defense. Louis said he wouldn't go down the "rabbit hole" of the plausibility of Willis' testimony!  My Two Cents: If the judge determines that Willis did indeed lie‚ it is hard to see how he would allow her to continue on the case. If he removes Willis‚ her entire team will also be removed‚ and it will be up to the ironically named Pete Skandalakis‚ executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia‚ to appoint a new prosecutor. That would undoubtedly cause an extended delay of the case. But imagine that Willis is somehow cleared of all the accusations against her‚ and remains in place as the prosecutor. The cloud of impropriety will hang over her and her prosecution. This could be a godsend for Trump in making the case that he is the victim of a rigged judicial system. Whatever legal risks Trump might face‚ it could well redound to his electoral benefit. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 2/16/24 6:09 am ET ERICA HILL: Did you find the questions effective in terms of getting at evidence‚ if it is there‚ to support these allegations? MICHAEL MOORE: Um‚ not really. I think there were things that they could have pushed a lot harder on‚ and maybe a little delved into specifics a little bit more‚ especially when we start talking about things as nebulous as cash payments‚ and there's no way to track it.  How much cash was paid? What‚ did you really just pay for the $150 to negotiate the taxi‚ or was there‚ what did you do with the $4‚000 you took? I think they could have pushed that.  I also thought that it just was not credible. It reminded me of watching a criminal defendant take the stand. They don't have to do that. And you see it‚ and you can tell they‚ that the defendant thinks that they're smarter than every lawyer in the room. And it just becomes a trainwreck. And so that's sort of how I felt this‚ it just went off the tracks. HILL: When you say it wasn't credible‚ are you referring to the testimony from --are you referring to the testimony from -- are you referring to testimony or to the line of questioning? MOORE: To the testimony. I thought that there was things that‚ he was going to her house or visiting her alone‚ some number of times years before she claims‚ or a year before they claim they were dating. That's strikes me as a little bit odd. I mean‚ not a big deal‚ but was she having other‚ entertaining other members of the prosecution team? No. It was just him. Nobody was there to see it. They want to talk about the credibility of the lady at the DA's office who testified. The witness that predates the relationship. You know‚ she had as much of an ax to grind as they do. And probably they have more at risk than she does. So when the judge weighs out credibility‚ who may have a reason to lie? Who has a reason to tell the truth? Which one seems to be more believable? You know‚ I have a hard time just thinking about DA paying everything in cash. Nothing wrong with cash‚ but it's convenient right now. The trial in New York‚ I mean‚ it's a check were looking at. It wasn't  cash shuttled around on the table. This is just cash money‚ somebody's claiming.  And then‚ the visits there‚ the‚ it's sort of the indignation. I just didn't think it did her much good. Her indignation would have seemed a lot more sincere if she'd come out about two months ago.  But remember‚ even as she is there saying‚ wanting to get to the truth‚ and she's shaking the documents and the court filings around in front of everybody‚ her office is fighting everything. They're fighting every witness subpoena. They don't want the records to come in. And she's refusing to let bank records and other things come in. They're hiding behind the privilege from his divorce lawyer who they're claiming was a friend. But maybe a divorce lawyer‚ so we really shouldn't have to say anything.  And we've still got this string of texts that Mr. Bradley had with one of the defense lawyers‚ Ms. Merchant. Let's see what those texts say. Because apparently‚ and she told the court‚ I've got information where he says this happened before. So if that's another witness‚ you know‚ let's see it. Let's let Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis let us see that. ERROL LOUIS: I mean‚ it was compelling television. We had it on in our newsroom. And so you‚ you know‚ you couldn't get away from it. She had a certain command of the situation‚ and said a lot of things‚ some of which might or might be plausible. I chose not to go down the rabbit hole. In part because she's already got three guilty pleas from three of Trump's lawyers. In part because there's a lot at stake here. And I didn't think they did such a good job of trying to tie it back.  I understand that in sort of the dogfight of the moment‚ you're trying to get certain facts before the judge and try to nail her down on certain dates and certain amounts of money‚ and the cash makes it that much harder and so forth. But I kept‚ again‚ because I'm‚ I'm sort of like dipping in and out‚ and I'm thinking‚ it's like‚ what does this have to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants in the case? If she got hit by a bus‚ if Nathan Wade was disqualified or went away‚ nothing really changes. You've still got the defendants.You've still got the evidence. You've still got prosecution. You've got guilty pleas‚ and three of Trump's former lawyers who are cooperating with the prosecutors. 

Four members of a House Armed Services subcommittee have issued a new letter demanding answers from a major advertising agency contracted by the U.S. Air Force for its shady connections to leftist media ratings firms with a track record of trying to bankrupt right-leaning media. Reps. Jim Banks (R-IN)‚ Elise Stefanik (R-NY)‚ Mike Waltz (R-FL) and Jack Bergman (R-MI) issued the letter on Feb. 9. Citing the failures of the U.S. military to meet its recruiting goals‚ the letter demands answers from the GSD&;M CEO Duff Steward‚ whose agency received a $741 million contract from the Air Force in an effort to attract new recruits. The lawmakers sought information to determine whether the ad company distributes Air Force ads in a politically biased manner and conducts business with website traffic cops NewsGuard and the George Soros-tied Global Disinformation Index (GDI). “As members of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of HSAC‚ we intend to thoroughly investigate our military recruitment failures‚ including the policies and strategies of the contractors of the Department of Defense (DoD) entrusted with billions of dollars in advertising‚” the lawmakers wrote. “The extent to which the DoD and its contractors have prioritized social justice and political correctness over national security‚ readiness‚ and lethality will be a major factor of this investigation.” The members of the subcommittee were particularly interested in whether the GSD&;M uses NewsGuard and GDI to decide where advertisements would be featured‚ despite both entities’ sordid records for effectively blacklisting right-leaning media.  The investigation is meant to enforce Section 1555 of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act which “requires that any entity placing advertisements on behalf of the Department of Defense certify that the entity does not place advertisements in news sources based on personal or institutional political preferences or biases‚ or determinations of misinformation.”  The four lawmakers stated that the Section 1555 provision addresses “concerns that advertising blacklists are effectively created by groups like NewsGuard Technologies and the Global Disinformation Index by providing advertising firms with lists which rank or rate media by subjective and often political criteria which‚ in turn‚ artificially limit military recruitment advertisements’ reach.” In discussing the letter on the Tuesday edition of Newsmax’s Newsline‚ Banks characterized NewsGuard as a “left-wing think tank” and stated that “we know that they censor conservative outlets like your own.” In a write up of the interview‚ Newsmax reported: “Two annual studies by the Media Research Center found that NewsGuard consistently gives conservative media outlets much lower ratings than liberal ones.” MRC Free Speech America has conducted comprehensive studies in the past three years that have revealed NewsGuard “overwhelmingly favored left-leaning outlets over right-leaning ones.” The latest study found that the average NewsGuard rating for left-leaning outlets was 91/100 compared to only 65/100 for right-leaning outlets. The two previous studies‚ released in January 2023 and December 2021‚ note similar disparities in the scores of right versus left-leaning outlets. GDI‚ the other blacklisting entity mentioned in the letter funded by the State Department-tied Global Engagement Center‚ has also been exposed for having an explicit bias against the right. A Washington Examiner investigation  uncovered how the outlets GDI characterizes as the “‘riskiest’ and ‘worst’ offenders for peddling disinformation” are all right-leaning.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

A former immigration judge stated Thursday that he cannot confirm that the Biden administration actually deported any of the illegal immigrants he placed under removal orders‚ the Daily Caller News Foundation reported.Matthew O’Brien was appointed by the Trump administration in 2020 as an immigration judge in Arlington‚ Virginia. He was a former research director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform‚ a nonprofit dedicated to ending illegal immigration and securing the nation’s borders. O’Brien was one of several Trump-appointed judges removed by the Biden administration in 2022.On Thursday‚ O’Brien told the House Subcommittee on National Security‚ the Border‚ and Foreign Affairs that he could not verify that any of the illegal immigrants he ordered to be removed from the United States were then deported by the Biden administration’s federal officials.Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman from Wisconsin stated‚ “I always kind of wonder what happens if people come here illegally and commit a crime.”Grothman requested that O’Brien compare the Biden administration to previous administrations regarding its handling of illegal immigrants committing crimes. “What happens to you if you commit a crime‚ and how does this compare to … if you committed that crime six years ago?” Grothman asked. O’Brien explained that illegal immigrants who have committed “one of a wide variety of crimes” are supposed to be placed into removal proceedings and attend a hearing. “Unfortunately‚ I think over time‚ the hearings have been analogized to a criminal proceeding‚ but they’re not. They’re very similar to a driver’s license revocation proceeding‚” O’Brien noted. “The crime stands on its own.”According to O’Brien‚ suspects who have been accused of committing crimes ranging “from shoplifting to murder” could be deported. As a result‚ the suspect receives a notice to appear order. Those accused of committing “certain low-level crimes” can apply for relief from removal.“You get an order to show cause‚ essentially to show why you shouldn’t be removed from the United States‚” he continued. “Anything that is classified under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] as an aggravated felony crime is supposed to result in a removal from the U.S. and then you being barred from returning for a certain number of years.”O’Brien claimed that the rigor with which these rules are enforced has “changed significantly” under the Biden administration. “There seems to be significantly less willingness under this administration to use the administrative and expedited removal procedures‚” O’Brien stated.As an example‚ he explained that illegal immigrants who return to the United States after being deported for committing a crime can be removed again without requiring a hearing.“I also found that‚ when I was an immigration judge‚ I later tried to determine how many of the people that I had ordered removed that their removal had actually been effectuated from the United States‚ which was something that was fairly easy to do under prior administrations‚” O’Brien continued. “But I could not substantiate that a single individual that I had entered an order of removal against had actually been removed by this administration.”Grothman responded by stating‚ “It’s shocking.”O’Brien further noted that the Trump administration made a concerted effort to prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants who had committed violent crimes. “Sometimes it’s not always possible to easily remove someone if their country of citizenship doesn’t wish to issue them a travel document or‚ for whatever reason‚ doesn’t wish to take them‚” O’Brien added. “But the effort was made regardless‚” he stated‚ referring to the Trump administration’s efforts. “And‚ in most cases‚ it was successful.” “Under this administration‚ I don’t think that the effort is even being made‚” O’Brien said of the Biden administration.In the first four months of fiscal year 2024‚ there have been more than 960‚000 migrant encounters at the southern border. Migrant encounters reached more than 673‚000 over the same period in 2022 and 876‚000 in 2023.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze Media has an exclusive video showing that on January 6‚ the camera aimed at the location of the pipe bomb was moved after its discovery to face the other direction. The camera picked up the discovery of the pipe bomb‚ the bomb-sniffing dogs‚ and the arrival of Vice President Kamala Harris’ motorcade — but apparently‚ somebody in the Capitol Police command center didn’t want anyone to see the actual investigation of the bomb. “All just a crazy coincidence‚ I’m sure‚” Sara Gonzales jokes. “Those bastards‚ they knew all along what they were doing.” While investigative journalist Steve Baker isn’t pleased with their handling of the situation‚ he admits that he always blames incompetence first. “That’s really where you have to start‚ and especially when you’re talking about the most incompetent government in the world‚” Baker tells Gonzales‚ adding that “essentially‚ the Capitol Police are the security guards for the most incompetent people in the world.” However‚ it wasn’t just incompetence. “I know for a fact that the Capitol Police themselves were set up‚” Baker says. “Particularly the front-line uniformed officers that were thrown into the melee that day. Unexpected‚ unprepared‚ untrained‚ and ultimately without the proper intelligence passed down the line.” Gonzales is in agreement. “I don’t know any other way to put it than they planned this whole thing‚ the whole time. And the people who showed up at the Capitol fell right into their hands‚” she says."Except they didn’t anticipate people like Steve going back and being able to review that footage.” Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

On Thursday morning‚ the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the headquarters of the New York City Fire Department and the homes of two chiefs as part of a corruption investigation‚ the New York Post reported.The FDNY's Brooklyn headquarters and the homes of senior fire chiefs Brian Cordasco and Anthony Saccavino were searched by FBI officials and city investigators‚ the New York Times first reported.Sources told the Post that the raid was connected to allegations that the two top chiefs were paid $100‚000 each by recently retired firefighter Henry J. Santiago Jr. to speed up or set up safety inspections.Assistant Chief Saccavino and Deputy Assistant Chief Cordasco have worked in the fire department's Bureau of Fire Prevention since 2020. The two chiefs were placed on modified assignment‚ though they have not been charged with any crimes. The investigation is still ongoing.Federal agents seized their phones and questioned them about the allegations‚ sources told the Post. Additionally‚ documents and computers were removed from the FDNY's Department of Investigation office.According to the Times‚ the FBI kicked off the investigation after Santiago reportedly told another unnamed fire chief that he had made payments to Cordasco and Saccavino. Santiago then allegedly notified the United States Department of Interior about the payments after being instructed to do so by the unnamed fire chief.Fire Commissioner Laura Kavanagh also reportedly contacted the DOI in April after hearing about the allegations‚ a source stated.Kavanagh promoted the two chiefs last year‚ at the same time a few other fire chiefs were demoted. Sources stated that the leadership shake-up caused some friction inside the department. A spokesperson for Kavanagh stated‚ "Commissioner Kavanagh has proactively placed the employees at the center of this investigation on modified duty‚ and we are awaiting guidance from DOI regarding further action.""The FDNY's first priority is always keeping New Yorkers safe‚ and we expect every member of the department to act appropriately‚" the spokesperson added.The DOI confirmed that it was notified about the corruption allegations.An official who worked with the men told the New York Daily News‚ "I don't see them as the guys who took the bribes.""They're the guys who took the inspections. Somebody else tells them that 'Building ABC gets inspected tomorrow‚' and they say 'OK' and get the people out there. I don't see them as part of a conspiracy‚" the official added.The FBI declined a request for comment from the Post. Cordasco and Saccavino did not respond to the news outlet's calls.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The vast majority of Americans have been exposed to a toxic agricultural chemical that has been linked in animal studies to disrupted fetal growth‚ damage to the reproductive system‚ delayed puberty‚ and reduced fertility‚ according to a new peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. The study‚ executed by the Environmental Working Group — a chemical watchdog and activist group that has been accused in recent years of alarmism and exaggeration — examines concentrations of chlormequat chloride in oat-based foods and suggests that current exposure levels "warrant more expansive toxicity resting‚ food monitoring‚ and epidemiological studies." Chlormequat was first registered in the U.S. in 1962 as a plant growth regulator that successfully inhibits cell elongation‚ producing sturdier stalks that are less likely to bend over — particularly beneficial for cereal crops. The chemical‚ which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency apparently recognized as "toxic to wildlife‚" has been found to take a toll on mammals. The new study highlights how Danish pig farmers noticed in the 1980s "reproductive declines in pigs raised on chlormequat treated grains." Their observations were reportedly replicated in a controlled lab environment where female pigs fed chlormequat treated grain "exhibited disrupted oestrus cycling and difficult mating compared to animals on a control chlormequat-free diet." Male mice‚ similarly exposed to the chemical via food or water‚ "exhibited decreased fertilization capacity of sperm in vitro." When proposing to register new uses of the plant growth regulator as a pesticide in April 2023‚ the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed there were "no dietary‚ residential‚ or aggregate (i.e.‚ combined dietary and residential exposures) risks of concern associated with human exposure to chlormequat. However‚ the study suggests that "more recent reproductive toxicity studies on chlormequat show delayed onset of puberty‚ reduced sperm motility‚ decreased weights of male reproductive organs‚ and decreased testosterone levels in rats exposed during sensitive windows of development‚ including during pregnancy and early life." The EWG researchers conceded that other studies have not found such animal test subjects similarly impacted but intimated that such discrepancies simply warrant further investigation. Chlormequat‚ which can form naturally from choline precursors in wheat products and egg powder under high temperature‚ reportedly entered the American food supply after the EPA published acceptable food tolerance levels for the pesticide in imported oat‚ wheat‚ barley‚ and other products in 2018. These allowable levels were reportedly increased for oats in 2020. While admitting imported products containing traces of chlormequat‚ the EPA reportedly only allows the chemical to be used on ornamental plants grown in the U.S.. The EWG researchers examined 96 urine samples collected from American residents in three geographical regions between 2017 and 2023. The study notes that the pesticide was detected in 80% of all urine samples. "Detection frequencies were higher in 2023 samples compared to 2017 and 2018 to 2022 samples with 16 of 23‚ or 69%‚ 17 of 23‚ or 74% and 45 of 50‚ or 90% of samples with detections‚ respectively‚" said the study. The EWG researchers noted that food samples purchased from 2022 and 2023 "show detectable levels of chlormequat in all but two of 25 conventional oat-based products. Quaker Oats and Cheerios were allegedly among the affected cereals. While the pesticide concentrations in urine taken up in this study were "several orders of magnitude below the reference dose (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA‚" the EWG indicated that much lower doses have been observed to reduce fertility in mice and pigs. "Given the toxicological concerns associated with chlormequat exposure in animal studies‚ and widespread exposure to the general population‚ in European countries‚ and now also likely in the U.S.‚ monitoring of chlormequat in foods and people‚ in conjunction with epidemiological and animal studies‚ is urgently needed to understand the potential health harms of this agricultural chemical at environmentally relevant exposure levels‚ particularly during pregnancy‚" the researchers concluded. The EWG suggested in a report corresponding with its study‚ "Until the government fully protects consumers‚ you can reduce your exposure to chlormequat by choosing products made with organic oats‚ which are grown without synthetic pesticides such as chlormequat." The New York Post indicated that neither General Mills‚ which produces Cheerios‚ nor PepsiCo‚ which makes Quaker Oats‚ responded immediately to requests for comment. "The federal government has a vital role in ensuring that pesticides are adequately monitored‚ studied and regulated‚" Alexis Temkin‚ a toxicologist at EWG and lead author on the study‚ told the Daily Mail. "Yet the EPA continues to abdicate its responsibility to protect children from the potential health harms of toxic chemicals like chlormequat in food." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has revealed his thoughts on Tucker Carlson and the widely watched interview that caused a stir across the globe. Putin made a stinging criticism of Carlson and explained what surprised him about his first interview with an American journalist since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "To be honest‚ I thought that he would behave aggressively and ask so-called sharp questions‚" Putin said during an interview with Russian state TV host Pavel Zarubin on Wednesday. "I was not just prepared for this‚ I wanted it‚ because it would give me the opportunity to respond in the same way.""He tried to interrupt me several times‚ but still‚ surprisingly for a Western journalist‚ he turned out to be patient and listened to my lengthy dialogues‚ especially those related to history‚ and didn’t give me reason to do what I was ready for." "So frankly‚ I didn’t get complete satisfaction from this interview.”During the two-hour interview with Carlson‚ Putin delivered a 20-plus-minute soliloquy about Russian history. At the start of the Tucker interview‚ Putin snarkily asked‚ "Are we having a talk show or a conversation?"Putin also seemingly mocked Carlson to his face about not being accepted into the CIA. During Wednesday's Russian state TV interview‚ Putin stated that he would prefer Joe Biden over Donald Trump."Biden‚ he's more experienced‚ more predictable‚ he's a politician of the old formation‚" Putin told Zarubin. "But we will work with any U.S. leader whom the American people trust."Trump weaponized Putin's sound bite to attack Biden. "President Putin of Russia has just given me a great compliment‚ actually‚" Trump said on Wednesday at a campaign rally in North Charleston‚ South Carolina. "He just said that he would much rather have Joe Biden as president than Trump. Now that's a compliment. ... And of course‚ he would say that."Trump then focused on the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. "I stopped Nord Stream 2‚ and [Biden] approved it right after I left‚ so Putin is not a fan of mine actually‚" Trump said.In December 2019‚ Trump imposed sanctions on any companies involved in assisting Russian oil giant Gazprom in constructing a gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.In May 2021‚ the Biden administration waived sanctions on the company behind Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany and its CEO. Like Blaze News? Circumvent the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!