Rogue Prosecutors and the Rise of Crime, by Cully Stimson

Posted on May 1, 2024 by budbromley

bio below

Published in Imprimis, March 24, 2024, Vol 53, Number 3. Link below.

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on March 11, 2024, at the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale’s Washington, D.C. campus, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

The writers of our Constitution placed their faith not in specific guarantees of rights—those came later—but in a system of checks on government power. Foremost is the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government, as well as between the federal government and the states. For this system to work as designed, people in each branch of the federal government and in the state governments must do their jobs and stay in their respective lanes.

But what happens when district attorneys—members of their states’ executive branches—refuse to execute the laws of the land? We are witnessing the results today in blue cities across America.

Approximately 90 percent of criminal cases in the U.S. are handled by the 2,300 elected district attorneys spread across 3,143 counties. The rest are prosecuted by U.S. attorneys operating under the Department of Justice. Until recently, elected county district attorneys upheld their end of the social contract by firmly and fairly enforcing state criminal laws and protecting citizens’ rights. Regardless of party affiliation, these gatekeepers of the criminal justice system did their job. Over the last 30 years, they played a critical role in driving down crime rates, which peaked in 1992, by prosecuting violent criminals, while at the same time creating thousands of alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, and other highly successful programs.

That changed in 2015 with the launching of the George Soros-funded “progressive prosecutor” movement. This movement is animated by two beliefs. The first is that the entire criminal justice system is systemically racist. The second is that the only way to fix the system is to dismantle it by replacing law-and-order district attorneys with pro-criminal and anti-police district attorneys. The sick irony of this movement is that in the areas where it has prevailed, the most harm has been done to the racial minorities whose interests it purports to represent.

Origins of the Movement

The progressive prosecutor movement—more accurately called the rogue prosecutor movement—is the predictable outgrowth of efforts by earlier Marxist radicals to alter or destroy the American way of life. At its root is the belief that our country and its institutions, including capitalism, are racist. One of the early leaders of the movement to abolish prisons is the infamous Angela Davis, now in her 80s, who in her 2003 book, Are Prisons Obsolete?, equated prisons to modern-day slavery. “The prison,” she wrote, “has become a black hole into which the detritus of contemporary capitalism is deposited”; throwing people into prison, she continued, “relieves us of the responsibility of seriously engaging with the problems of our society, especially those produced by racism and, increasingly, global capitalism.”

Patrisse Kahn-Cullors and Alicia Garza (a.k.a. Alicia Schwartz), co-founders of Black Lives Matter, have also had an enormous influence. Cullors, a militant radical and convicted felon, is a protégé of the director of the Labor Community Strategy Center, whose purpose is to build an anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist united front. Garza said at an international gathering of Marxists in 2015: “It’s not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism. And it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression.” During a 2017 PBS interview, Garza heaped praise on Angela Davis for her work exposing the “carceral state”—i.e., a state in which people are incarcerated in prisons—and called for its dismantling.

The involvement in this movement of billionaire George Soros, who had been funding liberal causes for years, can be traced to his hiring of attorney Whitney Tymas in 2015. Tymas, who had worked as a public defender and prosecutor, was connected to the Vera Institute of Justice, where she focused on “the role of prosecutors in perpetuating racial disparity.” There she met the ACLU’s Chloe Cockburn, who was working to end “mass incarceration,” and they discussed the role of prosecutors, the low visibility of elections for county district attorneys, and the fact that most people don’t even know who their local D.A. is.

As opponents of the death penalty, Tymas and Cockburn hatched a plan to elect anti-death penalty prosecutors and persuaded Soros to give over $1 million to groups that were successful in electing such district attorneys in Louisiana and Mississippi. Eventually, that modest aim—to unseat pro-death penalty prosecutors—grew into a national movement with a more ambitious goal. Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine staff writer and Soros media fellow, summed up the goal in terms of “mak[ing] the system operate differently” by electing “prosecutors who will open the locks” of prisons. Rachel Barkow, a law professor and former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission who supports the rogue prosecutor movement, summed up its goal as follows: “to reverse-engineer and dismantle the criminal justice infrastructure.”

This well-funded and organized movement is not about liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, or black versus white. It is about power.

From the start, the movement focused on the fact that prosecutors, not police, are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. District attorneys decide whether to file charges and which charges to file. By replacing traditional prosecutors with attorneys who see defendants as victims, it would be possible to “reverse-engineer” and “dismantle” the existing criminal justice system.

It is no coincidence that Soros, the various political action committees that he controls or funds, and his wealthy far-Left allies have given huge financial support to rogue prosecutor candidates in deep blue cities. They target these cities because their electorates are not paying close attention to down-ballot races and can be misled through a bombardment of often misleading advertisements.

Over the past decade, Soros has spent more than $40 million on campaigns to elect rogue prosecutors. One group has estimated that he has donated as much as $1 billion to the cause, if policy infrastructure, media relations, sponsored academic and think tank papers, lobbying campaigns, and grassroots organizing are taken into account. Other billionaires, like Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, and Patty Quillin, the wife of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, have also generously contributed to the cause.

The Playbook

One of the hallmarks of the rogue prosecutor movement has been its usurpation of the constitutional role of state legislatures. Once elected, rogue prosecutors refuse to prosecute entire categories of crimes that are on the books in their states, justifying their refusal by claiming “prosecutorial discretion.” But in fact, their refusal to prosecute crimes violates the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and distorts the entire legal system.

Prosecutorial discretion is not limitless. The principle behind it requires the enforcement of laws except in cases when prosecutors believe in good faith that an applicable law is unconstitutional. It does not give prosecutors the power to redefine crime and punishment. By refusing to prosecute entire categories of crime, they are in effect repealing criminal statutes—acting in place of the legislature. This is prosecutorial nullification, not discretion.

Valid prosecutorial discretion takes many forms, but when we allow for the chronic violation of law, we erode the foundation of our cities and civilization—and respect for the rule of law evaporates.

Today, there more than 70 rogue prosecutors across the country. They represent more than 72 million people, or one in five Americans, and they proudly refuse to prosecute most misdemeanors, claiming that these are essentially harmless “quality of life” crimes that divert scarce resources. To take one example, Rachael Rollins, the former district attorney of Suffolk County (Boston), posted a list of 15 misdemeanors her office would not prosecute, including trespassing, shoplifting, larceny under $250, disturbing the peace, receiving stolen property, operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, wanton or malicious destruction of property, and possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs.

Other rogue prosecutors have followed suit. George Gascon, the district attorney of Los Angeles County, issued a written directive to his 1,000 prosecutors detailing the 13 misdemeanors that “shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and without conditions” unless certain exceptions or other “factors” exist. In the same directive, he said it is not “an exhaustive list,” and that each prosecutor has the discretion to decline any of the hundreds of other misdemeanors in the California penal code that fall within the “spirit” of his directive.

Two weeks into the job, Kim Foxx of Chicago, the first big city Soros-funded rogue prosecutor, unilaterally raised the bar for prosecuting felony shoplifting from $300 per incident to $1,000 per incident, essentially declaring open season on retail stores. Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner, San Francisco’s former district attorney Chesa Boudin, New York City’s Alvin Bragg, and others have acted similarly, contributing to the tsunami of shoplifting and organized theft from retail stores and pharmacies to national chains and family-run stores. Not surprisingly, many stores in these cities have closed.

Krasner was elected to office in Philadelphia in 2018 with the help of $1.7 million from Soros-funded groups. He celebrated on election night by calling himself a “public defender with power.” The first day in office he fired 31 experienced violent crimes prosecutors, referring to them as “ticks.” This is common practice among the rogue prosecutors, who replace career prosecutors with public defenders or law students who sympathize with defendants and view the police suspiciously.

In addition to not prosecuting misdemeanors, rogue prosecutors often reduce felonies to misdemeanors and limit the number of charges a prosecutor can bring in a case to one, even though a suspect may have committed multiple offenses. One of Gascon’s most controversial directives in Los Angeles prohibits prosecutors from adding sentencing enhancements or allegations that would support such enhancements to an indictment—even though in some circumstances, California law requires prosecutors to do so. Prosecutors working in Gascon’s office cannot allege any three- or five-year priors, add gang enhancements, file three-strikes allegations, or allege special circumstances that would result in a sentence of life without parole or the death penalty.

In many cities, young gang recruits commit violent felonies to prove their “street cred.” Yet most rogue prosecutors refuse to prosecute violent teenagers as adults, instead sending them to juvenile court, where the worst punishment they can get is juvenile detention until they turn 21.

One of the most pernicious policies to come out of the rogue prosecutor movement is the refusal to ask for cash bail, which represents a guarantee by a defendant (or by a person acting on behalf of a defendant) that the defendant will show up for trial. The amount required for bail varies by jurisdiction and by crime. Those who cannot afford to post bail remain in custody pending trial. But district attorneys including Foxx, Gascon, and Boudin have directed their prosecutors not to ask for cash bail in many cases. And they do not seem bothered by the fact that this has led to additional crimes, including murder.

Predictable Results

Crime rates have exploded in the cities that have elected rogue prosecutors.

In the five years before 2018, when Larry Krasner was elected in Philadelphia, there was an average of 271 homicides per year. Since 2018, there has been an average of 457 per year—of which 83 percent of the victims were black. Non-fatal shootings have risen from an average of 1,047 per year to 1,588 per year; aggravated assault while armed with a handgun went from 2,209 per year to 3,116 per year; retail thefts went from 7,412 per year to 9,084 per year; and auto theft went from 5,691 to 8,665 per year.

In Chicago, in the six years before Kim Foxx became state’s attorney for Cook County in 2017, there was an average of 510 homicides per year. That number rose to 660 in her first year, and through 2022 it averaged 666 per year—with over 75 percent of the victims being black.

To put this carnage into perspective, between 2003 and 2010, there were 3,481 Americans killed in action in Iraq, an average of 435 per year. In the war in Afghanistan, between 2001 and 2014, there were 1,833 Americans killed in action, an average of 141 per year. Chicago’s annual murder rate dwarfs these figures. It is not an exaggeration to say that parts of Chicago, on any given weekend, have become domestic war zones.

***

Although the rogue prosecutor movement is incredibly well funded, it is showing signs of electoral vulnerability. Voters in blue cities who were initially persuaded to vote for “reform minded” candidates who talked about “reimagining” the criminal justice system and eliminating so-called mass incarceration, are increasingly coming to their senses given the harsh reality of rising crime rates.

Voters in Baltimore and San Francisco have ousted rogue prosecutors Marilyn Mosby and Chesa Boudin, respectively. Ethically challenged rogue prosecutors Kim Gardner of St. Louis and Rachael Rollins of Boston have had to resign from their posts. George Gascon has barely survived two recall petitions in Los Angeles and most recently received only 25 percent of the primary vote in a field of eleven candidates.

The lesson for voters across America is to pay close attention to “low visibility” local races—such as district attorney races, which directly impact public safety—to protect their communities against the kind of devastation we see in so many of America’s once great cities.

Read the original here: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/rogue-prosecutors-and-the-rise-of-crime/

Join me in contributing to Hillsdale College if you can.

Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, is free by mailed hardcopy or by email or their website.


Charles “Cully” Stimson is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, manager of the National Security Law Program, and a senior advisor to the president at The Heritage Foundation. A graduate of Kenyon College, he received his J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law. He served in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps for 30 years, including three tours on active duty, and has served as a prosecutor in San Diego and in Maryland and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. He is co-author, with Zack Smith, of Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State, by John Marini

Posted on May 1, 2024 by budbromley

bio below

Author, Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century

Published in Imprimis, October 2013, Vol 42, Number 10. VERY TIMELY AND OBVIOUS FOR TODAY

As seen in the recent government shutdown and the showdown over the debt limit—the latest in a long series of such crises in Washington—the federal budget stands at the heart of American politics. With few exceptions, the budget has formed the battleground between the political branches of the government—the executive and the legislative—in every administration since LBJ’s Great Society. That starting point is not a coincidence: The Great Society marked the beginning of an expansion of the federal government and a centralization of political and administrative power in Washington that had long been the domain of local and state governments. In addition to destroying the fabric of federalism, this centralization had the effect of undermining the separation of powers, making it difficult if not impossible for Congress, the president, and the bureaucracy to function amicably in pursuit of a national interest. What we have seen in subsequent decades is the steady expansion of a modern administrative state that is distinctively American in that it coexists with a limited government Constitution.

* * *

In America, the administrative state traces its origins to the Progressive movement. Inspired by the theories of the German political philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Progressives like Woodrow Wilson believed that the erection of the modern state marked an “end of History,” a point at which there is no longer any need for conflict over fundamental principles. Politics at this point would give way to administration, and administration becomes the domain not of partisans, but of neutral and highlytrained experts.

America’s Founders shared a radically different understanding, an understanding based not on history but on nature. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that factionalism is “sown in the nature of man”; thus there will always be political conflict— which at its starkest is a conflict between justice, the highest human aspiration concerning politics, and its opposite, tyranny. This conflict between justice and tyranny occurs in every political order, the Founders believed, because it occurs in every human soul. It is human nature itself, therefore, that makes it necessary to place limits on the power of government.

Progressive leaders were openly hostile to the Constitution not only because it placed limits on government, but because it provided almost no role for the federal government in the area of administration. The separation of powers of government into three branches—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial—inhibited the creation of a unified will and made it impossible to establish a technical administrative apparatus to carry out that will. Determined to overcome this separation, one of the chief reforms promoted by early Progressives was an executive budget system—a budget that would allow Progressive presidents to pursue the will of a national majority and establish a non-partisan bureaucracy to carry it out. Congress was initially reluctant to give presidents the authority to formulate budgets, partly because it infringed on Congress’s constitutional prerogative—but also because it was still understood at the time that the separation of powers stood as a barrier to tyranny and as a protection of individual freedom. Eventually, however, Congress’s resistance weakened.

For several decades after a federal budget process was put in place, a consensus concerning the size and purposes of the federal government limited the conflict over control of public finances. Administrative functions at the national level were few, in keeping with a system of decentralized administration, an autonomous civil society, and a constitutional system that underscored the limited character of government. This would change in the 1970s, when Congress reorganized itself to become a major player in the administrative process that had arisen with the Great Society. The public consensus in support of limited government and balanced budgets began to break down. Moreover, Republican presidents representing national majorities and Democratic Congresses organized around private interests became rival forces to an extent incompatible with the pursuit of a longterm public interest.

Thus the federal budget, understood as an instrument for fueling or defueling the growth of the administrative state, became the point of control over which the political parties and the political branches fell to fighting. In the 1980s, President Reagan showed that the budget process could be used to limit spending and reduce the burden of administrative regulations. But no one of either political party, including Reagan, has been able to achieve a consensus or a political realignment concerning the purposes and level of federal spending. For much of the last 50 years, an era in which divided government has become the norm, the federal budget process, with its taxing, spending, and regulatory authority, has become the focal point of the American administrative state—the place where political institutions and public bureaucracies accommodate the various interests and constituencies seeking a share of the national wealth. As a result, it became increasingly difficult to recognize the difference between governing— making political choices based on available resources—and budgeting, or simply providing funding for programs.

Over the last decade, Congress has not even been able to pass the 13 or so appropriations bills that constitute a budget. As a result, the ongoing use of Continuing Resolutions allows the bureaucracy to determine its own needs, free from detailed control by the legislative branch. In such circumstances, those supportive of the status quo—those in the bureaucracy, Congress, or the executive branch, who support the expansion of the administrative state—have become a faction on behalf of government itself. Consequently, there has been no effective national political institution that is responsive to the unorganized electorate that has no access to the administrative state—no institution that operates on behalf of the public interest as opposed to organized interests.

In an earlier time, there was widespread agreement that political institutions should tightly control government expenditures. Budgets provided the means of limiting claims based upon available resources in a manner compatible with the long-term public good. This was possible because the federal government’s administrative functions were few. In terms of public finance, limited government meant balanced budgets in peacetime. Public spending and public debt were viewed in moral terms, as evils to be avoided so as to limit the tax burden upon the workingman. This moral understanding of spending and debt receded with the growth of the administrative state, to the point where only the lack of resources seemed to call for any limit on public spending. And in the last few years, even that sense of limitation has fallen away, as supporters of the administrative state have found that printing or borrowing money, in the absence of political constraints, can fuel almost limitless demand for public resources on behalf of their constituencies.

To return to the recent crisis, it is not altogether unreasonable under these circumstances for congressional opponents of unlimited borrowing and printing of money to suppose that the only point of opposition left to them is to refuse to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. But given that this amounts to trying to stop something that has already happened—and has happened with the participation of all the institutions of government—there is also justification for the argument that this tactic is politically illegitimate.

* * *

While it is true that both the executive and the legislative branches have contributed to the expansion of the administrative state, it is equally true, and worth repeating, that there has been no consensus or political realignment that has succeeded in legitimating the administrative state as a replacement for the Constitution. As a result, that unlimited state still rests uneasily within a constitutional structure of limited government whose political branches were intended to act on behalf of constitutional purposes. Why then has it proven so difficult to reverse the growth of the administrative state?

The political transformation of Congress that occurred in the decade following 1965 was the decisive event in this regard. That transformation has been so complete that it is difficult for us to remember today how Congress used to work, and what were the expectations concerning its role, prior to that period.

Before 1965, when the presidency seemed to dominate the political landscape, conservatives were the great defenders of Congress. In 1959, conservative political scientist James Burnham, in his book Congress and the American Tradition, wrote that “the political death of Congress would mean plebiscitary despotism for the United States in place of constitutional government, and thus the end of political liberty.” Burnham attributed the decline of the legislative body to the fact that “Congress has let major policy decisions go by default to the unchecked will of the executive and the bureaucracy.” In order to retain its status of first among equals, he insisted, “Congress must find a way to concentrate on essentials. . . . [I]ts principal energies must go to deciding major issues of policy, not to the critique of details.” In making this argument, Burnham assumed that the legislative bodies of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—“by their very nature, cannot be bureaucratized in the modern mode.”

More than 50 years later, Burnham’s worry that Congress would decline into obsolescence is barely comprehensible, because Congress, when it is united, seems to have more than ample power to defend itself against the other branches. But its resurgence of power has not come at the expense of the administrative state, or what Burnham called the bureaucratic welfare state. Rather Congress has become an integral part of that state.

In hindsight, Burnham was wrong to assume that legislative assemblies cannot be “bureaucratized in the modern mode.” It is true that constitutional assemblies cannot be bureaucratized, because deliberation and general lawmaking remain their fundamental political purpose. What Burnham did not foresee is that Congress could surrender its lawmaking power, delegating that power to the bureaucracy, and still maintain its authority over the bureaucracy. It is in this way—by reorganizing itself to be not a legislative, but an administrative oversight body—that Congress established itself as a major player in the politics of the administrative state.

In the course of this reorganization, individual congressional committees and members were empowered to oversee the various departments and agencies of the executive branch, making Congress—in the words of political scientist Morris Fiorina in 1977—the “keystone of the Washington establishment.” Under the Constitution, the separation of powers and the politics of federalism had inhibited Washington from achieving such centralization of power. Progressive intellectuals had criticized the Constitution and advanced the doctrine of the administrative state, and the New Deal had attempted to put Progressive theory into practice. But the administrative state was not institutionalized within the framework of American politics until Congress reorganized itself in the late 1960s and early ’70s, fundamentally altering the separation of powers and the federal system.

Many in Congress at the time objected to the transformation. Congressman Gillis Long put it this way: “We [congressmen] were turning ours from an institution that was supposed to be a broad policymaking institution with respect to the problems of the country and its relationship to the world, into merely a city council that overlooks the running of the store every day.” But such objections were ineffectual and shortlived. Members of Congress soon came to prefer administration and regulation to deliberation and legislation. “The smartest thing we ever did,” said Representative Jamie Whitten, “was to throw the weight of the federal government behind local problems.”

Once the characteristic activity of the federal government became the regulation or administration of the details of the social, political, and economic life of the nation, organized special interests and their ties to the legislature and the bureaucracies were strengthened. In the words of James Sundquist, a sympathetic observer of Congress,

As members become managers of professional staffs, the chambers disintegrate as “deliberative bodies” in the traditional sense of legislators engaged in direct interchange of views leading to a group decision. . . . With each passing year, the House and Senate appear less as collective institutions and more as collections of institutions—individual member-staff groups organized as offices and subcommittees.

Moreover, political parties were diminished in importance, because bureaucratic patronage would become more important than party patronage. The function of the judiciary was transformed as well: In the administrative state, the bureaucracy has no constitutional authority, but it is given enormous power by the political branches. Consequently, the courts have been required to enter the policymaking arena, as the final arbiters in the adjudication of cases arising in the administrative process.

* * *

Insofar as Congress is still tempted to make general laws on behalf of a perceived public good, it does so primarily on behalf of the expansion of the administrative state. Congress passed what appeared to be a general law concerning health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare—but this is clearly not a law in constitutional terms, and makes sense only within the context of an administrative state. When passed it was more than 2,500 pages long, and all it did was provide the administrative apparatus with the right and power to formulate rules and regulations governing health care nationwide. This extension of governmental power, or more precisely the power of unelected bureaucrats, is compatible with the administrative state, but not with the letter or the spirit of constitutional government.

John Locke, the most important political theorist of the American Founding era, described laws as a community’s “standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties.” None of these elements are to be found in the Affordable Care Act. As Charles Kesler noted in the Claremont Review of Books, such laws

start not from equal rights but from equal (and often unequal) privileges, the favors or benefits that government may bestow on or withhold from its clients. The whole point is to empower government officials, usually unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, to bless or curse your petitions as they see fit, guided, of course, by their expertness in a law so vast, so intricate, and so capricious that it could justify a hundred different outcomes in the same case. When law ceases to be a common standard of right and wrong and a common measure to decide all controversies, then the rule of law ceases to be republican and becomes despotic. Freedom itself ceases to be a right and becomes a gift, or the fruit of a corrupt bargain, because in such degraded regimes those who are close to and connected with the ruling class have special privileges.

In summary, Congress has become a major player in the administrative state precisely by surrendering its constitutional purpose and ceasing to defend limited government. As a result, the administrative state has grown dramatically since 1965, and it only continues to defend and expand its turf. Political opposition occasionally arises in the White House or in Congress, but thus far with little effect.

Despite its expansion under both parties, however, the administrative state has not attained legitimacy. The Constitution itself remains the source of authority for those in and out of government who oppose the administrative state, and a stumbling block to those who support it. Until either the administrative state or the Constitution is definitively delegitimized, the battle within both government and the electorate over the size and scope of the federal government— including government shutdowns and showdowns over the debt limit—will inevitably continue.

The original is here: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/budget-battles-and-the-growth-of-the-administrative-state/

Join me in contributing to Hillsdale College if you can.

For more like this: subscriptions to Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College are free in hardcopy by mail, or by email or their website.

John Marini is a visiting distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. A professor of political science at the University of Nevada-Reno, he earned his B.A. at San Jose State University and his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School. He serves on the board of directors of the Claremont Institute, which awarded him the Henry Salvatori Prize in the American Founding in 2011, and is the author or editor of several books, including The Imperial Congress: Crisis in the Separation of Powers and The Politics of Budget Control: Congress, the Presidency, and the Growth of the Administrative State.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Army Col. (retired) Douglas McGregor on the global conspiracy to enslave humanity

Posted on April 29, 2024 by budbromley
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s speech on “replacement theory” (i.e., mass migration) in Budapest April 27 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by budbromley

Ms Vlaardingerbroek is Dutch and 28 years old, educated in political philosophy and law. She works as a political commentator.

This is the border crisis in every country.

The following summary is written by Maria Zeee@zeee_media

“People in every western nation are highlighting the issues their countries are facing due to mass immigration. The policies are different, but the result is always the same – as is the root of the problem. It’s called ‘Replacement Migration,’ and the agenda is in the name. It is to replace your nation’s identity, remove patriotism, limit resources to the population because of this new population crisis and to REPLACE you. The UN’s goal is for everyone to become a “one world” citizen inside the ‘AI World Society.’ No individuality, no sovereignty, no freedom; only groupthink, group behaviour and “one world” identity. If you think the housing crisis is bad now, wait until they tell you that you need to share communal kitchens and bathrooms with these people inside smart cities to “save the climate,” and that you aren’t allowed to reside outside of a smart city because you going into nature causes pandemics. This is the plan. If you want to stop this agenda, you need to go to the root cause. All roads will lead you back to the UN. You need to know who your enemy is in order to defeat them.”

Here is the actual UN plan, titled “Replacement Migration”: :https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf

If these links disappear, please let me know, I have originals and will replace them.

Related posts on my blog

“Illegal immigration is wrong.” ~ Chuck Schumer

Posted on January 6, 2019 by budbromley

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York in 2009: -Americans don’t like illegal immigration -“Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. I think it is illegal and we have to change it.” …”People who entered the United States without our … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

President Clinton on illegal immigration

Posted on January 22, 2018 by budbromley

President Bill Clinton: 1995 State of the Union address “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

The fiscal burden of illegal immigration

Posted on September 30, 2017 by budbromley

A record $135 billion a year is the cost for illegal immigration, average $8,075 per alien, $25,000 in NY, driven by free medical care, education and a huge law enforcement bill, according to the the most authoritative report on the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

Congress gets an F minus grade on immigration, again.

Posted on August 2, 2022 by budbromley

“Republicans and Democrats alike seem to have decided that immigration is how we avoid competition.” Pamela Denise Long, a contributor for Newsweek, wrote an op-ed asserting that Democrats and Republicans continually fail the American worker by favoring foreign workers rather … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment | Edit

Illegal is illegal

Posted on July 13, 2019 by budbromley

Since it is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, it is not logical that non-citizens would be able to indirectly influence or skew votes in Congress or in the Electoral College vote for President. An illegal alien or … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?

Posted on February 24, 2019 by budbromley

Facebook blocked this post by a journalist as “hate” by their so-called “community standards.” They’ll probably block again. Read it if you haven’t. What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America? I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

2 Illegal Alien Killers, 1 Sanctuary State, 200 Miles of Terror, by Daniel Greenfield

Posted on January 9, 2019 by budbromley

Posted: 08 Jan 2019 10:54 AM PST Less than 200 miles separate Tulare County and Stanislaus County. And a little over a week separates the two reigns of terror in these two California counties by Gustavo Garcia and Gustavo Perez … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

Illegal aliens are reducing your vote

Posted on August 10, 2018 by budbromley

Each illegal alien is cutting the power of your vote in half. Gerrymandering is happening as a result of illegal immigration and sanctuary policies. Congressional voting districts are apportioned every 10 years using census data. Census data is based on … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

Sanctuary jurisdictions are self-destructive, illegal behavior

Posted on January 10, 2018 by budbromley

“…An astounding 476 — 48.92 percent — of the criminal alien prisoners in Oregon have been convicted of committing crimes of a sexual nature, with 200 cases of sex abuse, 175 cases of rape, and 101 cases of sodomy. In … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit

Obama’s planned invasion by illegal immigrant children

Posted on July 15, 2014 by budbromley

Do you still believe that the flood of more than 50,000 illegal immigrant, unaccompanied children is a surprise to the Obama administration?  It was totally planned.  The Obama administration solicited for guides, buses, relocation camps and provided instructions to U.S. Border … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment | Edit

Senior FBI executives warn Congress that U.S. is being invaded at the border

Posted on April 26, 2024 by budbromley

January 17, 2024 Full letter here, 3 pages as pdf file for reading or download Below is an article by journalist John Solomon in Just the News that provides more information on the letter to Congress and the authors. https://justthenews.com/government/security/fbi-luminaries-starkly-warn-congress-us-being-invaded-border-alarming-and … Continue reading →

The Psywar for your mind

Posted on March 28, 2024 by budbromley

Michael Yon: Callsign BIG HONEY 6 @Michael_Yon We are Under Attack Mind burst, sans edit 27 March 2024 Somewhere, Outside United States Folks keep asking why I am chopping down @joerogan ‘s tree fort. I’ve answered clearly many times. Here … Continue reading →

Putin Is A Tyrant, But Western ‘Progressives’ Are Destroying Civilization, by L. Todd Wood.

Posted on February 22, 2022 by budbromley

Published: August 6, 2019. My comments inserted below, and please read and share the original here: https://creativedestructionmedia.com/opinion/2019/08/06/putin-is-a-tyrant-but-western-progressives-are-destroying-civilization/ After observing the recent demonstrations in downtown Moscow by students against unfair municipal elections, and the rabid anti-Trump snarls of the corrupt American … Continue reading →

Alien invasion supported by U.S. government

Posted on May 26, 2021 by budbromley

The ongoing invasion by illegal aliens at the U.S. border is organized and allowed by the illegitimate Biden/Harris U.S. government, supported by major corporations and business associations seeking cheap labor, by human-traffic and drug cartels, and funded by taxpayers and … Continue reading →

The net effect of globalist policies

Posted on March 25, 2021 by budbromley

This simple graphic represents the net effect of the policies of the new world order globalists, including Covid-19 policies, green/sustainability/global warming energy policies, and open borders multiculturalism and illegal immigration policies.  The U.S. and other countries have gone into decline … Continue reading →

Does Diversity Really Unite Us?
Civil War II
Dear Congresswoman;
Hawaii’s Contemptuous Congressional Delegation
On borders and sanctuaries
The Wall
You were warned about Obama

There are many more posts on this topic on my blog. It is one of my main topics. Use the search box.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reblog: A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed | Explained in Under 2 Minutes

Posted on April 29, 2024 by budbromley

by @WesternLensman

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Senior FBI executives warn Congress that U.S. is being invaded at the border

Posted on April 26, 2024 by budbromley

January 17, 2024

Full letter here, 3 pages as pdf file for reading or download

letter-from-fbi-execs-to-congress-re-border-invasionDownload

Below is an article by journalist John Solomon in Just the News that provides more information on the letter to Congress and the authors.

https://justthenews.com/government/security/fbi-luminaries-starkly-warn-congress-us-being-invaded-border-alarming-and

FBI luminaries starkly warn Congress that U.S. being invaded at border: ‘Alarming and perilous’

“In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and, yet, one is unfolding now,” the FBI executives wrote in letter to congressional leadership

With a constitutional crisis brewing in Texas and voters nationwide alarmed by the toll of illegal immigration, some of the FBI’s most famous retired executives are issuing a stark warning to Congress that President Joe Biden’s border policies have unleashed an “invasion” of military-aged male foreigners who pose “one of the most pernicious ever” threats to American security.

Ten former FBI executives – some who oversaw the bureau’s intelligence, counterterrorism, criminal and training operations – expressed their alarm in a letter dated Jan. 17 to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and the chairmen of the House and Senate committees that preside over the U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security apparatus.

Their language affirms that of both current FBI Director Christopher Wray, who testified the nation’s security lights are “blinking red,” and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who alleges Biden’s loosening of border security has allowed an “invasion” of America by foreigners with troubling origins and attributes.

“In its modern history the U.S. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and, yet, one is unfolding now,” the FBI luminaries wrote. “Military aged men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane but rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.

“It would be difficult to overstate the danger represented by the presence inside our borders of what is comparatively a multi-division army of young single adult males from hostile nations and regions whose background, intent, or allegiance is completely unknown,” they added.

You can read the full letter here.

Scan Jan 24, 2024 at 3.43 PM.pdf

House Speaker Mike Johnson received the letter this week and told Just the News on Thursday it adds to House Republicans’ determination to hold out for a deal that completely closes the border.

“This letter from national security leaders is further confirmation of what we already know: President Biden’s open border policies are increasing the risks of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil,” Johnson said. “An unprecedented threat at this scale requires transformational policy changes immediately to secure the border and end the administration’s mass release of illegals into our country.”

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the letter captured the reality of the threat from some of the nation’s most experienced law enforcement veterans of protecting the homeland.

“This sobering letter from former FBI, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement officials describes the chilling reality of why @POTUS’s open border is a clear and present danger to America,” Sen. Johnson wrote on X.

The former FBI executives who signed the letter have more than 250 years of combined experience in the bureau’s intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal operations and served under seven former presidents and four different FBI directors. They included:

  • Kevin Brock, the former assistant director of intelligence and former principal principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center;
  • Chris Swecker, the former assistant director of the criminal division;
  • David Szady, former assistant director of counterintelligence;
  • Timothy J. Healy, the former director of the Terrorist Screening Center;
  • Former Executive Assistant Director Ruben Garcia;
  • Mark Morgan, former assistant director for training and the former acting commissioner of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection;
  • William Gavin, retired assistant director for the Inspection Division;
  • Timothy McNally, former assistant director of the Los Angeles division;
  • Retired Special Agent David Mitchell, who oversaw the FBI operations in Milwaukee;
  • Special Agent Jody Weiss, who oversaw FBI operations in Philadelphia.

Brock, who helped organize the letter, said it reflected the warnings and alarm of a much larger body of the current and retired FBI community.

“We limited the letter to ten signers due to its urgency but it reflects the sentiments of many more former FBI Agents and executives who expressed to us a shared deep concern about this particular threat to the nation,” Brock told Just the News. “We are by no means the first to articulate unease about the surge of military aged men from hostile regions and countries coming across the border.

“But we felt our collective voice, which sits atop mounds of experience combatting threats to the nation, might help draw the greater attention that this specific danger deserves and increase momentum to actually do something about it.  The FBI and its federal and state partners can identify and find these individuals.  They are good at that.  Give them the priority orders to do so,” he said.

The FBI luminaries signaled in their letter that their motives weren’t political, but rather driven by the fact that their experience fighting hostile foreign threats had led them to believe the current border crisis was one of the most dangerous they had ever seen.

“As former senior executives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation with deep experience combatting dangers to the nation, we write to express our concern about a current, specific threat that may be one of the most pernicious ever to menace the United States,” their letter stated.

“The danger arises from the nature of the threat itself,” it added. “Wars and espionage and bombings and riots are sadly familiar delivery systems of instability, intimidation, and insecurity. The country has faced these and more throughout its history and has held together, though not without struggle.”

The magnitude of the country’s border insecurity, however, poses much greater dangers, they added.

“Any violation of the nation’s immigration laws increases risks, but the surge in numbers of single military-aged males descending upon American cities and towns is alarming and perilous,” they wrote.

“Additionally, they are not just from terror-linked regions, but from China and Russia as well as hostile adversaries of the U.S. with aspirations to devastate national infrastructure.”

Related articles on my blog

This would be a long list.

Please use the search box for terms like illegal, immigrants, aliens, etc.

Illegal aliens are reducing your vote
Illegal is illegal
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?
Immigration in the National Interest, by Tom Cotton
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2024 candidate for Mayor of London, UK, speaks out against 15 minute cities

Posted on April 26, 2024 by budbromley

Speaking in the short video is Shyam Batra, candidate running in 2024 for mayor of London, UK. His bio is here: https://shyambatra4mayor.london/about-shyam/

#WEF, #15 minute cities, #Agenda 2030, #Climate-Change, #Globalist

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fraud squared: W.H.O. against food because of greenhouse gases

Posted on April 26, 2024 by budbromley

A fraud based on a fraud. Fraud squared? I first thought this was a skit on Saturday Night Live or similar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Death by covid vaccination

Posted on April 22, 2024 by budbromley

“Out of 325 autopsies, we found that 73.9% of all cases, the #Vaccine was the DIRECT CAUSE OF DEATH or it significantly contributed to the death of these patients – The deaths occurred within a week or two after the last injection”

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Congresswoman Luna explains illegal government collusion with tech and social media companies in the 2020 U.S. election

Posted on April 22, 2024 by budbromley
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment