Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A shooter who was killed by off-duty police officers after opening fire at a Houston megachurch while seemingly using a 7-year-old child as a human shield has been identified as a woman named Genesse Moreno, who police said also identified as a man named Jeffrey Escalante.

Police said a woman in her early 30s entered Lakewood Church on Feb. 11 wearing a trench coat and backpack, armed with a long rifle, and began firing.

Before managing to kill anyone, the shooter was taken down by two off-duty officers, one a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent and the other a Houston police officer, according to Houston Police Chief Troy Finner.

“I want to commend those officers. She had a long gun, and it could’ve been a lot worse, but they stepped up and they did their job,” Chief Finner said during a media briefing on the afternoon of Feb. 11.

Emergency vehicles line the feeder road outside Lakewood Church during a reported active shooter event in Houston on Feb. 11, 2024. (Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via AP)

An affidavit seeking a search warrant for a home in Conroe, Texas, about 40 miles north of Houston, identifies the shooter as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno, according to the Associated Press. The warrant was released by the Montgomery County district attorney’s office.

Records cited by the Houston Chronicle and other media outlets, and which are circulating online, show that the shooter also identified as Jeffrey Escalante, who had a long criminal history, including assault, drug, and weapons charges.

“A lengthy criminal history. A woman who thinks she is a man,” Don Hooper, a writer at the Houston Conservative Forum, wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that featured a series of the shooter’s mugshots over the years.

“My information is biological female per the medical examiner,” he wrote in an earlier post. “They were looking at the body when brought in.”

Chris Hassig, commander of the Houston Police Department homicide division, said during a media briefing on Feb. 12 that investigators have identified the shooter as a 36-year-old Hispanic female named Genesse Moreno.

“There are some discrepancies [regarding the individual’s gender],” he said. “We do have reports she used multiple aliases, including Jeffrey Escalante. So she utilized both male and female names.”

However, Mr. Hassig said the investigation indicates that “she has been identified this entire time as female.”

He noted that the gun used by the shooter had a sticker with the word “Palestine” on it.

Child as Human Shield?

At the Feb. 12 briefing, Mr. Hassig said two people were injured in the incident, including the child who accompanied the shooter.

The other person injured was a 57-year-old man, who was shot in the hip or leg.

Mr. Hassig said the 7-year-old child who accompanied Ms. Moreno was struck in the head in the exchange of gunfire and remains in critical condition.

He said Ms. Moreno pulled up to the church in a vehicle with the child inside and then entered the building with the little boy and, after entering, “she immediately starts firing inside of the hallway.”

The two officers returned fire.

“Multiple shots are exchanged by all three,” Mr. Hassig said. “She eventually falls to the ground; the 7-year-old child falls to the ground as well from gunfire. One gunshot wound to the head.”

A Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office spokesperson was cited by the Houston Chronicle as saying on Feb. 12 that the 7-year-old was not expected to survive.

While it’s unclear who shot the child, Chief Finner blamed the shooter.

“That female, that suspect put that baby in danger,” he said during the Feb. 11 briefing.

“I’m going to put that blame on her.”

Lakewood Church, which seats roughly 16,000 people, is led by pastor Joel Osteen.

Pastor Joel Osteen speaks to the media after a shooting at Lakewood Church in Houston on Feb. 11, 2024, in a still from video footage. (KTRK-TV ABC13 via AP)

In a statement posted on X, Mr. Osteen praised law enforcement for acting swiftly to neutralize the threat and said that he was “devastated” by the shooting.

“In the face of such darkness, we must hold onto our faith and remember evil will not prevail,” he said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement calling the shooting a “heinous act” and praising law enforcement for acting “quickly to respond to this tragedy.”

“Our hearts are with those impacted by today’s tragic shooting and the entire Lakewood Church community in Houston,” Mr. Abbott wrote.

A motive for the attack remains unclear.

Ms. Moreno’s posts on social media show a history of leftist politics, according to independent journalist Andy Ngo.

Alan Guity, a member of Lakewood Church since 1998, said he heard gunshots while resting inside the church’s sanctuary as his mother was working as an usher.

He told the Associated Press that he ran to his mother and that they both lay flat on the floor as the gunfire continued.

Mr. Guity told the outlet that he and his mother prayed and stayed on the floor for about five minutes until they were told it was safe to leave the building. He said that as he exited the building, he could see people crying and looking for loved ones.

As the Biden administration and “shadowy network of secretive nonprofits” facilitate the greatest migration invasion this nation has ever seen on the southern border, new concerns are mounting that illegals are finding alternative routes into the country via the unfenced northern border with Canada. 

New US Customs and Border Protection data shows more than 12,000 migrants were apprehended on the northern border last year, more than double the number from the year before of 3,578. 

The New York Post first reported that most illegal crossings (about 70%) have occurred along the 295-mile Swanton Sector, including upstate New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 

Earlier this month, Robert Garcia, the chief patrol agent for the northern border sector, posted on X:

Since October 1, 2023, Swanton Sector Border Patrol Agents have apprehended more than 3,100 subjects from 55 countries (more than Fiscal Years 2022, 21, 20 & 19 combined). Photo: An early morning apprehension of 4 adult males from Bangladesh on February 1, near Mooers, New York.

Since October 1, 2023, Swanton Sector Border Patrol Agents have apprehended more than 3,100 subjects from 55 countries (more than Fiscal Years 2022, 21, 20 & 19 combined). Photo: An early morning apprehension of 4 adult males from Bangladesh on February 1, near Mooers, New York. pic.twitter.com/nAf5KG467R

— Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia (@USBPChiefSWB) February 2, 2024

Garcia then warned: 

“The record-breaking surge of illegal entries from Canada continues in Swanton Sector.” 

The record-breaking surge of illegal entries from Canada continues in Swanton Sector. A citizen’s report in Champlain, NY, led to the arrest of 10 Bangladesh citizens. Agents rely on the vigilance of our community.
If you see something, say something! Call 1-800-689-3362. pic.twitter.com/eSTMV8HwOu

— Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia (@USBPChiefSWB) February 8, 2024

Experts told NYPost, “Migrants who make it to Mexico and can afford a $350 one-way plane ticket from Mexico City or Cancun to Montreal or Toronto are making their way south to cross the northern US border — where they are less likely to be turned away than those who cross the southern border.” 

On the northern border, migrants take advantage of border crossings without walls or fences. They’re simply just walking right into the US. 

New York State Assemblyman Billy Jones, who represents Clinton County, recently warned: “The northern border has pretty much been ignored.” 

The tick-up in migrant encounters on the northern border first came to our attention nearly one year ago. We penned this note last May: “Northern US Border Encounters With Illegals More Than Double In 7 Months.”

And just days ago, a migrant smuggling ring in New Jersey was uncovered that bussed “dozens if not hundreds” of migrants into the US through the unfenced border between Quebec and Vermont. 

Earlier this month, New York Republican leaders in the state Legislature urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to deploy the state’s National Guard on its northern border. 

“More than 8 million border encounters have occurred since President Biden took office. In 2023, over 2.5 million migrants entered the country through the southern border. In December alone, 302,034 encounters were reported by US Customs and Border Protection. On New York’s Northern Border, 91,640 illegal crossings were reported in the past year.

“Immigration reform is a matter that must be dealt with on the Federal level. However, we hope you agree that the states’ sovereign right to protect its citizens and its communities must be valued above the actions of federal authorities. For this reason, we urge you to deploy the National Guard immediately to assist the State of Texas and New York Canadian border in efforts to stop the flow of migrants coming into our country illegally,” the letter stated, signed by state Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt and Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay.

The colossal mess the Biden administration has created by willfully ignoring the border invasion and refusing any executive action is only worsening as the crisis is now spreading to the northern border. 

Submitted by Sam Bourgi of CreditNews

The past few years have been one of the worst periods for first-time homebuyers in America’s history.

Record home prices, chronically low inventory, 22-year-high mortgage rates, and bidding wars with cash- and equity-flush buyers have locked many younger buyers out of the housing market.

According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), first-time homebuyers made up just 32% of all transactions last year—the fourth lowest share seen in more than 40 years.

While would-be homeowners bide their time, Creditnews Research looked at America’s 50 largest metro areas to uncover housing markets that are still attractive for first-time buyers.

Our ranking shows how easy it is for residents in each metro area to buy a starter home—defined as homes with a sale value in the 5th to 35th percentile range purchased with a mortgage.

Primary factors in our scoring model include mortgage affordability, market access, and bargaining power. We also looked at macro indicators, such as employment growth and livability.

Combined, the weighted scoring model provides a holistic snapshot of America’s largest metro areas that offer first-time buyers the best bang for their buck.

Some of the results may surprise you.

Best metro areas for first-time buyers

Based on Creditnews Research’s scoring model, the top metro areas for first-time buyers are:

1. Pittsburgh: America’s steel town is an excellent place for first-time homebuyers because it offers the best affordability for a starter home. No other metro area in our ranking offers a lower mortgage payment relative to income. Pittsburgh also ranks second in terms of listing price cuts—giving buyers strong bargaining power when house hunting. Pittsburgh’s labor market isn’t exactly booming (it ranks 31st for employment growth), but its job growth is still positive. In this remote work age, the Pittsburgh metro area, made up of five counties, can be an attractive place to live, even for families who aren’t employed in local manufacturing.
2. Austin-Round Rock: Austin has experienced a population explosion in recent years, making homes at the higher end of the spectrum hard to afford for first-time buyers. But those shopping for starter homes can still find a decent value. The Austin metro area, which includes five counties, ranks first for market access—with its home listings staying on the market the longest. Austin is also a top-10 city for employment growth and is one of the most livable cities in America when it comes to amenities, culture, and healthcare. The trade-off is mortgage affordability (29th). Families in Austin have a much higher income than the national average, but starter homes are priced at $331,565—bringing the average mortgage payment to a hefty $2,259 a month.
3. San Antonio-New Braunfels: Roughly 80 miles from the state capital, the San Antonio-New Braunfels metro area is the third most affordable place for first-time homebuyers. And, San Antonio ranks second in market access, suggesting much lower competition among buyers than the national average. It’s also a top-10 area for employment and livability but doesn’t rank as highly as Austin in either category. It does, however, boast much better mortgage affordability and bargaining power than Austin, ranking 6th and 4th among other metro areas, respectively.
4. Birmingham-Hoover: Alabama’s largest metro area, consisting of seven counties, has seen its population steadily decline over the decades, but still offers first-time buyers a little bit of everything: mortgage affordability (6th), bargaining power (4th), and employment growth (5th). Over the past year, employment in the area has increased by 3%, making it one of the fastest-growing labor markets in the country.
5. Jacksonville: Wrapping up our top 5 ranking is metro Jacksonville, which includes four counties and is the 4th largest metropolitan area in Florida. Jacksonville makes the list thanks to its strong market access (4th) and good livability (12th). What makes Jacksonville a major standout on this list is its labor market. After registering a whopping 3.8% increase over the past year it ranks first in employment growth. The only caveats to Jacksonville are mortgage affordability (28th) and bargaining power (32nd), which rank middle of the pack. Still, starter home prices are highly affordable compared to other major metro areas.

Pittsburgh: Steel town becomes boom town?

While Pittsburgh doesn’t get as much spotlight as Austin and other Sun Belt cities, the steel town punches above its weight in giving the best bang for the buck for first-time homebuyers.

What makes Pittsburgh such an attractive place for first-time buyers is the affordability of its starter homes, which typically go for $107,912—the lowest among other metro areas in our ranking.

Even at the current mortgage rates, a mortgage for such a home, including fees and insurance, would come to around $850 a month.

That translates to just 14% of the median monthly household income in Pittsburgh, meaning many middle-class households can easily afford two starter homes.

Pittsburgh is also one of the few metropolitan areas where the average household can afford a median-priced home.

As such, the Pittsburgh metro ranks #1 in our mortgage affordability ranking.

Perhaps more surprising is the fact that Pittsburgh’s unemployment rate is well below the national average. Its cost of living is also lower than the U.S. average.

Even investors have recognized the real estate potential in the steel town.

In 2021, nearly 25% of homes sold in the city were to investors or corporations—up from 15.5% in 2010, according to the local nonprofit Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group.

Unlike other investor-infested housing markets, however, Pittsburgh continues to offer the best value among the top 50 metro areas.

Worst metro areas for first-time buyers

Not surprisingly, California dominates the bottom of the rankings because of its lack of mortgage affordability, relatively weak market access, and diminished bargaining power.

The bottom five metro areas in our ranking are:

• 46. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario: Riverside’s close proximity to Los Angeles has made it an attractive destination for Californians. Despite being a growing city with lots of amenities, the third largest metro area in California, which includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties, ranks 48th for livability due to its high cost of living. Mortgage affordability for a starter home is also among the worst (44th), mainly because of elevated housing costs. Riverside residents also lack bargaining power—the metro ranks 39th in that category.
• 47. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood: The mile-high city ranks dead last for bargaining power—meaning residents there shouldn’t expect price reductions when shopping for a starter home in this six-county metro area. Mortgage affordability is also among the lowest (38th), mostly because of elevated housing costs. Denver ranks 48th for jobs, becoming one of only a small handful of major cities to register negative employment growth.
• 48. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim: With an average starter home price of $645,196, Los Angeles, the most populous metropolitan area in the country, is one of the worst cities for first-time homebuyers. Elevated housing costs have pushed down mortgage affordability—the city ranks 49th in this category. Los Angeles also ranks poorly for livability (46th) due to a high cost of living, crime, and poor access to healthcare.
• 49. San Diego-Carlsbad: For first-time buyers, the San Diego metro, which encompasses all of San Diego county, is very similar to Los Angeles. The city has an average home price of $651,891 and poor mortgage affordability (48th). San Diego has a much higher livability score (26th) but ranks worse than Los Angeles for market access and bargaining power. There just aren’t a lot of housing options for first-time buyers, and the prospects aren’t looking up in the near term.
• 50. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara: At the very bottom of our ranking is San Jose, which is an hour’s drive south of San Francisco. What makes San Jose so prohibitive is its lack of mortgage affordability (50th), with starter home prices coming in at a whopping $965,068—even higher than Los Angeles. That’s more than six times higher than the annual median household income in that area. A lack of market access (35th) and poor employment growth (38th) round out the reasons first-time buyers might want to (or have to) steer clear.

Where each metropolitan area ranks

In a commentary, Neil Callanan of Bloomberg highlighted, “The commercial real estate crash unfolding in the US is a natural consequence of quantitative easing.” 

Callanan continued: ” … which intentionally pushed investors out of safer assets like bonds and into alternatives like private equity, malls, and warehouses.” 

The journalist penned the note titled “The CRE Crash Is Part of the Price of Global Quantitative Easing” following the latest CRE rumblings with loan losses, reserve build, and dividend cuts announced by New York Community Bancorp, a regional bank with high exposure to multifamily and CRE lending across NYC. Also, sizable credit losses and/or write-downs of US CRE sparked chaos for lenders in Japan, Germany, and Canada as the dominoes began to fall. 

Furthermore, Callanan referenced a National Bureau of Economic Research report revealing that 45% of all office loans are underwater. This report also cautioned that upwards of 300 regional banks could face solvency runs due to CRE turmoil at the end of the third quarter. 

In a report last week, research firm Green Street estimated that appraised property values could sustain another 10% to reach fair valuations, which is bad news for lenders, particularly smaller ones with weak balance sheets. 

X user Triple Net Investor posted the latest CRE catastrophe: “A 262k sq ft building in Ohio has just sold for $2.4 million, or $9 per sq ft.” 

X user said, “Yes, that’s not a typo – it literally sold for $9 per sq ft.” 

“The commercial real estate ‘correction’ has gone from concerning to an outright apocalypse, primarily impacting office properties in most cities across the US,” the user explained. 

A 262k sq ft building in Ohio has just sold for $2.4 million, or $9 per sq ft

Yes that’s not a typo – it literally sold for $9 per sq ft

It was the former site of FedEx Custom Critical in Green, Ohio

The commercial real estate ‘correction’ has gone from concerning to an… pic.twitter.com/8yJMTg09Nc

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) February 9, 2024

Barry Sternlicht, chairman and CEO of Starwood Capital, warned last summer that the CRE storm is entering “Category 5 hurricane” strength. He recently gave his take on the situation:

“The office market has an existential crisis right now… it’s a $3 trillion dollar asset class that’s probably worth $1.8 trillion [now].” 

Barry Sternlicht just gave a VERY thoughtful interview about the growing troubles in commercial real estate:

Here’s what he had to say:

“We have a problem in real estate. In every sector of real estate, not just office, because of the 500 basis point increase in rates that was… pic.twitter.com/OZdrpxxBtq

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) February 1, 2024

So, what’s ahead for the office market? 

Well, more turmoil: Analysts led by Morgan Stanley’s Ronald Kamdem warned the most significant headwinds for Class A and Class B/C is years of supply, well above pre-Covid levels. 

Class A office has about 18 years of supply, compared with the 2015-19 average of 13 years. 

“The supply risk picture at the national level remains concerning and implies vacancy rates will likely remain under pressure,” Kamdem wrote. 

And what happens if these buildings can’t find tenants and office owners can’t find financing?

Well, as Vishwanath Tirupattur, global head of Quantitative Research at Morgan Stanley, warned in a note days ago: The CRE crisis will be with us for a long time. 

Authored by Aaron Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A solid majority of Americans support the use of voter ID and paper ballot backups as measures to ensure election integrity, yet they remain divided along party lines over the issue of voting by mail, according to a survey.

The Pew Research Center poll, released on Feb. 7, found that 84 percent of Democrats believe voting by mail should be available to all voters, while 28 percent of Republicans favor this requirement. On a national average, 57 percent of respondents support this proposal.

Democrats strongly favor automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens and election-day voter registration, with 79 percent and 76 percent support, respectively. In comparison, nearly four in ten Republicans support these measures.

In 2021, another Pew Research survey found that “Democrats are more likely to strongly favor proposals aimed at making it easier to vote; Republicans are more likely to strongly support requiring voters to show photo ID.”

Measures With Strong Bipartisan Support

The survey also found that most U.S. voters support paper ballot backups (82 percent), voter ID requirement (81 percent), early in-person voting (76 percent), making Election Day a national holiday (72 percent), and granting voting rights to convicted felons after completing their sentences (69 percent).

Voter ID requirements and paper ballot backups have the highest support among Republicans. The other three proposals receive higher support among Democrats.

Although a solid majority of Americans support voter ID, with 81 percent in favor, there is partisan division over the policy. Nearly all Republicans (95 percent) favor the measure, while 69 percent of Democrats support voter ID.

Americans are also divided over the policy of removing inactive records from voter registration lists: 60 percent of Republicans favor this policy, compared with 27 percent of Democrats.

Among racial and ethnic groups, black voters are more strongly supportive of early in-person voting (85 percent) and of granting voting rights to convicted felons after they finish their sentences (79 percent) than other groups are.

Shift in Public Opinion

The survey found that voters have changed their views in recent years, particularly regarding voting by mail; 57 percent of American adults now support voting by mail, compared with 70 percent four years ago. Among Republicans, only 28 percent support the policy, down from 49 percent in 2020, while Democrats’ views on this have remained unchanged since 2020.

For the photo ID requirement, Republican support remains unchanged at 95 percent, whereas Democrat support has increased to 69 percent, up from 61 percent last year.

Support among Americans for making election day a national holiday has increased from 65 percent in 2018 to 72 percent at present. In contrast, support for election-day voter registration has declined over recent years, dropping from 64 percent in 2018 to 57 percent today.

Election Integrity Concerns

Newly released documents show that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) knew it was unethical to censor concerns about the security of mail-in voting prior to the 2020 election, but it proceeded to do so anyway.

On Jan. 22, America First Legal (AFL) revealed a collection of documents alleging that CISA was aware that mail-in ballots were less secure than voting in person before the 2020 election.

“CISA interfered in the 2020 presidential election. CISA knew that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID[-19]. CISA knew mail-in voting was less secure. CISA nevertheless supported policy changes to encourage unprecedented widespread mail-in voting,” AFL said in a statement.

“Common sense dictates that ballots submitted via mail are inherently less secure than verified, in-person voting by a citizen who shows identification before casting his or her ballot,” Gene Hamilton, AFL’s vice president and general counsel, said in a press release. “The American people were lied to, and there must be accountability. ”

CISA admitted that mail-in voting held more severe risks than in-person elections, but it collaborated with technology companies to restrict what it deemed misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation surrounding the 2020 election. However, the recently disclosed records reveal how CISA did this.

Austin Alonzo and Savannah Hulsey Pointer contributed to this report.

Israel’s worst nightmare is beginning to unfold. It has worked for years and decades to prevent a global boycott movement from ever gaining traction amid persistent accusations it violates Palestinians’ human rights, but amid the current war and soaring civilian death toll in Gaza, there are signs the pro-boycott movement is gaining steam.

The government of the Netherlands has been ordered to block of all exports of F-35 fighter jet parts by a Dutch appeals court, on fears that the transfer would contribute to human rights violations. 

“It is undeniable that there is a clear risk the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law,” the court said according to Reuters.

Israel has been bombing the Gaza Strip continuously since Oct.7 as part of the military operation to root out Hamas. But the war has resulted in an immense civilian death toll. Gaza health officials say the death toll has surpassed 28,000 as a result of the ground and air assault. 

Defense leaders not happy, however, the government’s Trade Minister Geoffrey van Leeuwen admitted that “The delivery of US F-35 parts to Israel in our view is not unjustified.” He said F-35s were for Israel’s protection from the many regional threats it faces, “for example from Iran, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.”

According to the court, “the state had to comply with the order within seven days and dismissed a request by government lawyers to suspend the order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

There’s reportedly a possible workaround in progress which would involve sending the jet parts to Israel based on the government providing guarantees that the parts wouldn’t go toward F-35s operating over Gaza.

Interestingly, the court order threatens to disrupt a crucial US-supply chain pipeline of defense wares to Israel: 

The appeals court also said it was likely the F-35s were being used in attacks on Gaza, leading to unacceptable civilian casualties. It dismissed the Dutch state’s argument that it did not have to do a new check on the permit for the exports.

The Netherlands houses one of several regional warehouses of US-owned F-35 parts, from which the parts are distributed to countries that request them, including Israel in at least one shipment since Oct. 7.

The government said it would try to convince partners it would remain a reliable member of the F-35 program and other forms of international and European defense cooperation.

Meanwhile, humanitarian pressure continues to mount on Israel, also at a moment the International Court of Justice is weighing South Africa’s ‘genocide’ case against Israel.

European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell is the latest to urge Israel’s backers to halt all military supplies to the Jewish State. He lamented Monday that “too many people” are being killed in Gaza. But his remarks more highlighted the hypocrisy of the West as it condemns the death toll from Israel’s actions but still keeps pumping in the arms…

Update: EU’s Borrell on US+Israel:
“If you believe too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms”
“Everybody goes to Tel Aviv begging”
“Netanyahu doesn’t listen to anyone. They’re going to evacuate. Where? To the moon?”
“Stop saying please & do something!” pic.twitter.com/g8uiprUia2

— Rosie Birchard (@RosieBirchard) February 12, 2024

Referencing Joe Biden’s remark last week that Israel’s military action was “over the top,” Borrell said, “Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people having been killed.”

“How many times have you heard the most prominent leaders and foreign ministers around the world saying too many people are being killed?” Borrell questioned. “If the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe we have to think about the provision of arms.”

Meanwhile, this testy exchange also played out Monday afternoon…

AP’s Matt Lee: What leverage is US using?

State Dept spox Matt Miller: “The words of the President…matter”

Lee: “Over the top?’ That’s leverage?”

(2 days after Biden called Israel’s behavior “over the top,” it attacked the last refuge for 1.5 million Palestinians—killing 90+) pic.twitter.com/pEOKbQlCsb

— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) February 12, 2024

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Epoch Times,

In 2021, President Joe Biden opened wide an inherited, secure southern border that had finally stopped mass illegal immigration.

When he overturned former President Donald Trump’s efforts, a planned flood of over 8 million illegal immigrants entered the United States.

Almost all arrived without background checks, health screening, or vaccination certificates—but with massive needs for free housing, education, healthcare, and food entitlements and subsidies.

For four years, President Trump battled the courts, his Democratic opposition, and the open-border establishments within his own party to ensure legal-only immigration. Somehow, he rebuilt some of the old porous border fence. He had begun to build his long-promised new wall to the Gulf of Mexico. He had ended Obama-era catch-and-release.

Would-be refugees had to apply for asylum in their home country. President Trump leveraged Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to police his own border and stop cynically transiting millions of illegal aliens into the United States.

There was general Democratic Party opposition to all of Trump’s measures, both through Congress and via the courts.

For the last three years of Biden’s mass influx, the left has applauded open borders. That is, until late last year, when overwhelmed southern border state governors began busing and flying illegal immigrants en masse to northern sanctuary-city jurisdictions.

For years, these sanctuary zones had preened their liberality about open borders. They smeared as “racists” and “xenophobes” any who insisted on legal-only immigration.

But now they were subject to the real-life ramifications of their own destructive ideologies.

Major blue-state cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., became outraged that they were inundated with tens of thousands of immigrants, all without legality, veritable identification, or background checks.

Some proved violent. Others crowded out scarce resources essential to millions of inner-city poor.

The liberal architects of illegal immigration are usually rich and powerful enough to be insulated from the consequences of their utopian policies.

But not so their poor or minority constituents. They deal first-hand with spiking crime, appropriation of their parks and civic centers, and restricted access to now overwhelmed social services.

So the once open-border Democrat Party and President Biden are in a quandary. They now fear mass defections of core Latino and black voters in an election year.

But how can they square the circle of insisting on open borders with the need to appear to their own voters as determined to close them?

We saw the absurd answer this week. Shameless Democrats tried to enlist naive and foolish Republicans to bail them out with a “comprehensive immigration bill.”

It was really designed to keep the border open while spending billions of dollars to facilitate more rapid and orderly transits—and more substantial welfare support for millions of illegals here and still to come.

Now Democrats claim that anyone who did not sign on to codify and regulate illegal immigration was responsible for their own deliberate open border policies in the first place!

To add insult to injury, they next sought to piggyback their toxic immigration bill onto massive aid for Israel and Ukraine. It was a transparent effort to blame any Republicans for harming Israel and aiding Putin, should they not sign on to a more efficient open border.

The real agenda of the bill’s supporters is absolutely no return to Trump’s legal-only immigration and a secure border.

That simple solution requires no new legislation and almost no new spending. But it does imply acknowledgment that the hated President Trump had solved the problem executively – and that admission is apparently taboo.

Finally, public outrage from the left and conservative anger at foolish and naive Republican enablers stopped the bill.

Still, it remains somewhat unclear why President Biden and his Homeland Security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, destroyed what President Trump had achieved. Why would they ensure such misery for both American hosts and millions of illegal immigrants?

Did they want new long-term constituents, given that their neo-socialist agendas cannot win over a majority of current Americans?

Is importing millions of the poorest and most in need on the planet a way to ensure a still larger Great Society of entitlements and, with it, higher taxes on the “filthy rich”?

Do they assume that America’s increasingly non-Election-Day balloting ensures far less authentication and rejection of mail-in ballots, and thus it will be relatively easy for non-citizens to vote?

Many, left and right, make no effort to hide their desire for cheap imported labor—even though the current labor participation rate is only 62 percent of the potential American workforce.

Finally, one might expect this artifice from the left that is wedded to open borders.

But why some establishment Republicans aided and abetted these disingenuous efforts is yet another reminder why the doctrinaire Republican Party had to be reinvented by President Trump.

On Monday, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) shared a memo sent to his Republican colleagues in Congress which outlines an “impeachment time bomb” hidden in the text of the Senate’s Ukraine funding bill in case Trump wins the November election.

According to the memo;

President Trump has said, in regard to the war in Ukraine, “We got to get that war settled and I’ll get it settled.” He has stated that he would resolve the war in 24 hours.

The bill includes $1.6 billion for foreign military financing in Ukraine, and $13.7 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. These funds expire on September 30, 2025 — nearly a year into the possible second term of President Trump. These are the exact same accounts President Trump was impeached for pausing in December 2019.

…

If President Trump were to withdraw from or pause financial support for the war in Ukraine in order to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion, “over the objections of career experts,” it would amount to the same fake violation of budget law from the first impeachment, under markedly similar facts and circumstances.”

According to Vance, Democrats “would seize on the opportunity to impeach him once again.” 

I just sent the below memo to every one of my Republican colleagues in Congress.

Buried in the bill’s text is an impeachment time bomb for the next Trump presidency if he tries to stop funding the war in Ukraine.

We must vote against this disastrous bill. pic.twitter.com/uKqet9s0xd

— J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) February 12, 2024

“This is insane,” replied Elon Musk – who then arranged for a ‘spaces’ discussion on X which will include Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Vance, along with Vivek Ramaswamy and David Sacks, at 6PM E.T.

You can listen in by clicking into the post below:

What’s up with this spending bill? https://t.co/nlaY8JQlTx

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2024

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A satanic group is continuing attempts to overturn abortion bans in pro-life states by filing lawsuits claiming abortion is part of their religion.

The Satanic Temple (TST), a nonprofit based in Salem, Massachusetts, has filed lawsuits in Missouri, Indiana, Texas, and Idaho that so far have been unsuccessful.

That hasn’t stopped the headline-grabbing organization from plaintiff-shopping for new religious freedom lawsuits to stop abortion bans, according to its website.

The group doesn’t shy away from controversy. It made news recently for staging a satanic holiday display featuring a silver goat head atop blood-red robes during Christmas at the Iowa Capitol. The Baphomet statue shared space with a Christmas display until it was decapitated.

Michael Cassidy, a former U.S. Navy fighter pilot who ran for office in Mississippi, took credit for tearing it down. The Christian conservative raised $120,000 as of early February for legal fees after being charged with criminal mischief. Recently, prosecutors announced they are charging him with a felony hate crime.

TST created an abortion ritual that it claims will exempt women from their states’ laws. The ritual, along with TST’s new abortion clinic in New Mexico, was featured in November’s Cosmopolitan magazine.

Proponents of abortion feel a woman should have control over her body, and abortion should be a choice. Pro-life groups contend that life starts at conception and that the developing child has the right to life.

TST named their clinic Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic, mocking the U.S. Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The abortion ritual involves the recitation of two of the group’s tenets and reinforces the idea of bodily autonomy.

“The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite,” the website states. “Its purpose is to cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a legal and medically safe abortion.”

The group’s website states that it relies on several legal arguments: that denying members access to abortion infringes on their religious right to participate in a satanic abortion ritual; that forcing someone to carry an unwanted child amounts to seizing a woman’s uterus without compensation; and that forced pregnancy is akin to servitude, in violation of the 13th Amendment, which abolishes slavery.

In the case of Indiana, the group argues that the abortion restrictions criminalize abortions resulting from protected sex and create a class of people who are discriminated against because they are denied an abortion.

Recent judicial rulings, such as the case of a Christian business owner denying services to LGBT people on religious grounds, appear to be part of the group’s legal strategy to flip the script on abortion bans. Except in this case, their religion involves providing the service of ritualized abortion.

Critics say the legal strategies are shaky.

Jonathan Hullihan is a Texas attorney for Citizens Defending Freedom, a watchdog group focused on liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. He told The Epoch Times that the High Court’s decision in Dobbs held that the Constitution did not confer a right to an abortion, leaving it to states to regulate.

TST has brought claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or state versions, he said.

“This is an attempt to recognize a federal constitutional right to abortion in direct conflict with the Dobbs holding,” Mr. Hullihan said.

“While courts generally don’t question the sincerity of religious beliefs, the claim that religious beliefs require members to seek an abortion is unlikely to prevail in court,” he said. When contacted for comment, Lucien Greaves, TST co-founder and spokesperson, told The Epoch Times that critics don’t have a monopoly on freedom of religion.

ProLove Ministries founder and CEO Abby Johnson questioned the idea of religion without a deity.

“I think it’s interesting they’re trying to get a religious exemption when they say over and over and over again that satanism isn’t a religion and they’re non-theistic,” she told the Epoch Times.

“So, I’m like, ‘Tell me again how you are trying to get a religious exemption?’” she said.

‘Out of Touch’

Opponents of abortion argue that religious freedom doesn’t mean anything goes.

“The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that you’re not allowed to claim a religious exemption to get away with doing whatever you want to,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.

TST’s rhetoric about choice ignores the facts about abortion, Mr. Scheidler said. Some 60 percent of women who get an abortion felt “high levels of pressure” to do so, according to a 2023 study in the National Library of Medicine.

“They are really out of touch,” Mr. Scheidler told The Epoch Times. “I mean, most Americans find a story like this kind of horrifying, people making light of abortion.”

A 2021 government study found more than 90 percent of biologists believe life begins at conception.

Mr. Scheidler suspects part of the group’s goal is to play the provocateur.

“They get some sort of adolescent thrill out of the imagined conniption fits that they drive religious people into with their antics,” Mr. Scheidler said. “In fact, we sort of roll our eyes and carry on with the real business.”

Epoch Times reporters Sam Dorman, Samantha Flom, and Jackson Elliott contributed to this report.

Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to step in and weigh in on his claim of presidential immunity after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with special counsel Jack Smith – ruling that Trump is not immune from prosecution. The lower court held off on issuing the mandate until Monday in order to allow Trump’s legal team time to approach the Supreme Court.

Trump is specifically asking the Supreme Court to pause the lower court’s ruling until he can formally appeal, which will further delay his trial in front of District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

BREAKING: Trump asks Supreme Court to halt an appeals court ruling denying his bid to dismiss his election interference case based on presidential immunity. pic.twitter.com/sccmQSQEcb

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) February 12, 2024

The trial was originally scheduled for March 4, however Chutkan vacated the date in early February amid Trump’s immunity defense, and noted that the court would “set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned.” Chutkan’s decision also denied Trump’s bid to toss the case in December based on the immunity claim.

Smith sought to keep the trial on schedule in December by asking the Supreme Court to take up the question before the appeals court had a chance to consider it, but the justices rejected his request.

“President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal,” the application states. “The panel opinion below, like the district court, concludes that Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all. This is a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms.” –Daily Caller

In January, Trump’s legal team presented oral arguments to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which Trump attended. The Judge, Biden appointee Florence Pan, questioned whether presidential immunity extended to such examples as a president ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival without facing criminal charges.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the panel wrote in its Feb. 6 ruling. “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”

In short, to be continued…