Full video

Representative Charles E. Schumer
Remarks on H.R. 2202 (104th Congress, 1995–1996)
U.S. House of Representatives
March 19, 1996

Transcript

00:00:00 Speaker 1

Mr. Schumer, the gentleman from New York is recognized for one and one half minutes.

00:00:03 Chuck Schumer

Thank the gentleman, salute him for his work on this, rise in support of the amendment.

First of all, Social Security card is used from one end of America to the other as an identification card right now. Who are we kidding? If you want to pass a law and says it shouldn’t be, I would ask the chairman and the distinguished minority member of the Social Security meeting committee to pass that law.

But let’s let’s admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they’re asked for a social security card. In fact, One way to prove you’re a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver’s license and a social security card.

This is an anti-fraud amendment.

All over where we go, people say, well why can’t you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here? And, the number one answer we give our constituents is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud.

And here, the gentleman from Florida has put together the most effective anti-fraud measure we can find without it, changing the actions of the government one bit.

And we find all this opposition. Ladies and gentlemen of this chamber, what I worry about is that this bill which started out with good intentions, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, is going to end up being the same kind of thing that the public gets angry with us on. We say we’re doing something and we do nothing.

Because every time someone makes a rational and small proposal to get something done, people say, well, what about this hypothetical, that hypothetical, et cetera.

I urge support of this amendment. If you believe you want to stop fraud in immigration, you have no choice but to support this amendment.

00:01:53 Speaker 1

Gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Indiana. Yield my time, such times I may consume. Uh yeah, do nothing. Now which would you rather do? Do nothing for nothing or do nothing for three.

The Main Bill

• Bill: H.R. 2202 (104th Congress, 1995–1996)

• Official short title (as introduced and during early debate): Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996

• Purpose: A broad immigration reform bill aimed at deterring illegal immigration through measures like:

  • Increasing border patrol and enforcement resources

  • Higher penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud

  • Reforming deportation/exclusion procedures

  • Addressing employment verification

  • Restricting public benefits for certain non-citizens

• Status on March 19, 1996: The House was actively debating and amending the bill in the Committee of the Whole House. This was part of several days of floor consideration (March 19–21, 1996). The House ultimately passed a version of the bill on March 21, 1996.

• Final fate: H.R. 2202 was later merged into the larger immigration provisions that became Division C of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 104-208), signed into law on September 30, 1996.

The Specific Amendment Schumer Was Supporting

Schumer was speaking in favor of an amendment (commonly described in the clip and contemporary references as the “anti-fraud amendment”) that focused on strengthening Social Security cards to make them harder to counterfeit or misuse.

• Core goal of the amendment: Enhance security features on Social Security cards to reduce fraud in identification documents, which Schumer argued was a major driver of illegal immigration (by enabling unauthorized work and access to benefits like Social Security).

• Key quotes from the clip (longer variant):

  • Calls it explicitly an “anti-fraud amendment”.

  • States: “The number one reason people come to the US illegally is to defraud systems like Social Security and I want to stop it.”

  • Emphasizes: “If you believe you want to stop fraud in immigration, you have no choice but to support this amendment.”

  • References constituent concerns about why illegal immigration couldn’t be stopped and ties it to weak document security.

• Context: In 1996, Social Security cards were still relatively easy to forge, and fake or misused SSNs were commonly used by undocumented immigrants to work and sometimes access benefits fraudulently. The amendment aimed to make the cards more secure (e.g., better anti-counterfeiting features) without turning them into a full national ID card or changing government operations dramatically.

• Outcome of this specific amendment: While the exact amendment text isn’t quoted verbatim in the clip, provisions to combat document fraud and improve verification systems (including related to Social Security numbers) were included in the broader bill that passed and eventually became part of IIRIRA in 1996.

Summary

• Bill → H.R. 2202 (Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996), which became a core part of the 1996 IIRIRA law.

• Amendment → An “anti-fraud amendment” to improve the security of Social Security cards and reduce document fraud as a means of deterring illegal immigration and benefit misuse.

The historical outcome of the bill and the specific amendment discussed in the March 19, 1996, clip (the “anti-fraud amendment” supported by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer) is as follows:

The Bill (H.R. 2202)

• Passed the House on March 21, 1996 (shortly after the debate in which Schumer spoke), by a vote of 333–87.

• Passed the Senate on May 2, 1996, by a strong bipartisan vote of 97–3 (after the Senate substituted its own version, based on S. 1664, with amendments).

• Conference report (reconciling House and Senate versions) was adopted by the House on September 25, 1996.

• However, the standalone bill did not become law on its own. Instead, its core provisions were incorporated into a much larger omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997).

• President Bill Clinton signed that omnibus bill into law on September 30, 1996, as Public Law 104-208.

• The immigration-related portions became known as Division C: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) — one of the most significant overhauls of U.S. immigration enforcement in modern history.

IIRIRA strengthened border enforcement, increased penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, expedited deportations, expanded mandatory detention in many cases, restricted judicial review of certain removal orders, imposed bars on reentry for those with unlawful presence, and limited public benefits for non-citizens (including restrictions on Social Security benefits for those not lawfully present).

The Specific Amendment (Schumer’s “Anti-Fraud Amendment”)

• This was an amendment offered during House floor debate on H.R. 2202, seeking to authorize funding and require the Social Security Administration (SSA) to improve the design, materials, and security features of Social Security cards to make them more resistant to counterfeiting and fraud (e.g., better tamper-resistant materials, technologies like magnetic stripes).

• It directly tied into Schumer’s floor remarks about fraud in systems like Social Security being a major driver of illegal immigration.

• While the exact amendment text (as offered) may not have passed verbatim in isolation, similar provisions on combating document fraud—including directives for the SSA to develop a prototype of a counterfeit-resistant Social Security card—were included in the final enacted law (IIRIRA, Division C).

  • Specifically, Section 656 of IIRIRA required the SSA Commissioner to develop and study a prototype counterfeit-resistant card (made of durable, tamper-resistant material with security features) and report to Congress within one year of enactment.

  • Broader anti-fraud measures in the bill increased penalties for immigration-related document fraud and aimed to deter misuse of identification documents for employment or benefits.

In practice, full implementation of a highly secure, universal Social Security card as a national ID-like tool faced resistance (due to privacy concerns and opposition to anything resembling a “national ID”), so the card’s security was incrementally improved over time but never transformed into the forgery-proof system some reformers envisioned in 1996.

Overall, the 1996 effort succeeded in significantly toughening immigration enforcement and anti-fraud measures (elements Schumer supported at the time), though many critics later argued it went too far in restricting due process and asylum access. The clip’s context highlights a notable shift in political rhetoric on these issues over the decades.

Senator Charles E. Schumer
Remarks at the Migration Policy Institute
Immigration Law and Policy Conference
June 24, 2009
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/file/1460

Transcript

Opening and Thanks

Thank you, Dean, and it is great to be here, and I want to thank you and everyone here for coming. I can tell you I hope my speech goes a little better this morning than the one I gave in Brooklyn a few weeks ago, because at the end of the speech, a senior citizen who was in the audience came over to me and said, Senator, I thought your speech was absolutely awful. But then someone standing next to him put his hand on my shoulder and said, Don’t worry, he just repeats what everyone else is saying. I mean...

Anyway, it is good to be here. I want to thank my friend Doris Meissner for inviting me to share thoughts. Doris and I go way back in these immigration struggles and fights, and she’s done a great job both in and out of government in terms of moving reform forward and moving us to a rational policy of immigration.

And I want to just share with you today some thoughts on immigration reform, the prospects of achieving it in 2009, and outline the main principles that will be part of the legislation that will be introduced later this year.

First, as you note, Doris was a great public servant for many years at an agency that many of us old-timers still call INS. It is no surprise to me that she continues to serve her country through her cutting-edge research and publications at the Migration Policy Institute, and her research just makes tremendous contributions. It’s rare when somebody writes something that just about everybody in the immigration field says, I must read that right away, but that’s Doris Meissner.

And when she invited me to speak to you, I did not know I’d be delivering my remarks before the White House’s summit on immigration reform. And while I can imagine many of you would have preferred this speech occur the day after the summit rather than the day before, in the hopes that I could tell you what transpired, I can tell you that there is no better time for this speech than today.

Today, I want to share with you the core of what I will tell the President tomorrow during our meeting. And the very first thing I’ll tell the President is something that I think will sound familiar. When the President asks me whether Congress can pass comprehensive immigration reform, this Congress, I will smile and say, Mr. President, yes, we can. I will tell him that all of the fundamental building blocks are in place to pass comprehensive reform this season and even possibly this session, rather, and even possibly later this year.

Optimism Despite Pundits

For the past several weeks, pundits, columnists, reporters have almost all been saying the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform look bleak. They say that immigration reform is an uphill battle and that there are not enough votes in Congress for reform and that the situation is altogether dark. But to all of these naysayers and to all the people who are so desperately looking to their government for leadership on this critically important issue, I say this. It is darkest just before the dawn, and I promise you, we’ve been through the darkness already, and a new day is dawning.

First of all, I have no doubt that President Obama has an unyielding commitment to achieving comprehensive immigration reform, and I truly believe that his leadership will be the critical difference in getting us over the hump this time around.

I also want to take this opportunity, of course, to recognize the remarkable leadership that my predecessor on the Immigration Reform Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, provided to that subcommittee and to the nation for the last 46 years. He served with great distinction on that committee and was at the center of all of the critical immigration debates of our time. His leadership will truly be missed, and no one, no one can fill his large shoes.

Now, when Senator Kennedy relinquished his post as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee to focus on health care, I had to ask myself whether I truly believed we could accomplish immigration reform or whether leading this subcommittee would be tantamount to embarking on a fool’s errand. At the time I made the decision to take over the Immigration Subcommittee, there were several other subcommittees I could have chosen to chair instead, any of which would have presented an opportunity to make large changes for both New York and America. So if I didn’t believe we could accomplish immigration reform in this session, I would never have chosen to accept the Immigration Subcommittee post.

Committees of inaction and legislative black backwaters are not the places in which I thrive. And since the day I became chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, I’ve worked hard each day to achieve immediate positive results while never losing sight of the larger goal of building consensus for comprehensive reform. As an example, I do not believe that a bipartisan bill can be enacted if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that Democrats are serious about enforcement.

Recent Enforcement Steps

For this reason, I recently helped obtain a commitment from both Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano to ensure that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the necessary Title 21 authority to perform investigations and make arrests in order to assist our government’s comprehensive efforts against the violent drug weapons and human smuggling cartels on our border. For far too long, we’ve had three separate agencies, all with different missions, each trying to stop these cartels individually.

The cartels that smuggle drugs and illegal aliens have integrated their activities, and now our federal agencies will have a better integrated response to them. This alliance with Secretary Napolitano will also soon yield additional positive results, such as providing DHS with enhanced authority to seize real property used by human traffickers and to crack down on employers who knowingly hire and exploit illegal immigrants to perform cheap labor in atrocious working conditions.

Other short-term reforms are also critical to laying the groundwork for comprehensive immigration reform. For instance, in conjunction with the Attorney General, we are increasing funding for the EOIR Legal Orientation Program. These funds will ensure that our immigration courts are correctly deciding as many cases as possible in the first instance. The savings created by this program will more than pay for the appropriations requested. Far fewer judicial and government resources will be expended because the courts will need to grant far fewer continuances and meritorious claims will be readily identified by all parties and quickly adjudicated without the need for unnecessary appeals.

Finally, I’m also asking appropriators to increase funding for refugee settlement. These funds will assist our most vulnerable and sympathetic immigrants to build new lives in the U.S. And many of these immigrants are Iraqi and Afghani refugees who risked their lives to assist our troops on the battlefield and now live in the United States because they’re no longer safe at home.

But even as we accomplish these immediate goals, I assure you, we remain intensely focused on our ultimate goal, passing comprehensive immigration reform as quickly as possible. The time for reform is now, and we all know, just about everyone knows, our system is badly broken. And as Pastor Joel Hunter, one of the leading evangelical ministers in our country, eloquently told the Immigration Subcommittee last month, our broken system forces good people to break the law because we give people no option to act lawfully. I encourage all of you to listen to his moving testimony on our Judiciary Committee’s website.

Hearings Roadmap

In furtherance of our efforts to pass immigration reform, we’ve convened a series of hearings. entitled, Road to Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Clearing the Hurdles.

• The first hearing examined whether comprehensive immigration reform could be enacted in 2009. The answer, of course, was yes.

• The second hearing examined the current state of our border security and the remaining steps that need to be taken to achieve operational control over the entire border.

I will also be holding two more hearings in July.

• The first hearing will consider all of the existing ideas and solutions for achieving a simple and workable biometric-based employment verification system.

• The second hearing will determine how to best structure our employment-based immigration system for the future.

Seven Key Principles

00:10:34

Well, during the last few months, I’ve thought long and hard about what an immigration bill must look like in order to obtain 60 votes in the Senate. After many meetings with stakeholders, other members of Congress, I truly believe that the fundamentals are in place for immigration reform if we coalesce against around seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support.

The main idea that underlies each of these seven principles is that the American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. We will only pass comprehensive reform when we recognize this fundamental concept.

The following seven principles are all based on this concept and comprise what I believe to be the framework for a bill that can receive overwhelming and bipartisan congressional support.

• First, illegal immigration is wrong. And a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.

• Second, operational control of our borders through significant additional increases in infrastructure, technology, and border personnel must be achieved within a year of enactment.

• Third, a biometric-based employer verification system with tough enforcement and auditing is necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States and to provide certainty and simplicity for employers.

• Four, all illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States government and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship, or face imminent deportation.

• Five, family reunification is a cornerstone value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing illegal immigration, we can create more room for both family immigration and employer-based immigration.

• Six, we must encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as means to obtain temporary and less expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers.

• And finally, seven, we must create a system that converts the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States into a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.

Let me elaborate.

Illegal Immigration is Wrong

The first of these seven principles is that illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.

Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now and on rationalizing our system of legal immigration. It’s plain and simple and unavoidable.

When we use phrases like undocumented workers, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

If you don’t think it’s illegal, you’re not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong, and we have to change it.

Above all else, the American people want their government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law, and creating a rational system of legal immigration that will proactively fit our needs rather than reactively responding to future waves of illegal immigration.

People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.

To the advocates for strong, fair, effective, comprehensive immigration reform, and I’m certainly one, I say to you that the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe that their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration. And any successful, comprehensive immigration reform bill must recognize this fact.

I have spoken to many advocates in the past several months, and one of the main reasons I’m optimistic about achieving reform this time around is the advocates understand the need to embrace this principle during the current debate.

Border Security

Second, any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible. But we also need to set the record straight. The American people need to know that because of our efforts in Congress, our border is far more secure today than it was when we began debating comprehensive reform in 2005.

Between 2005 and 2009, a vast amount of progress has been made on our borders and ports of entry. The progress includes 9,000 new Border Patrol field agents in the last four years, construction of a 630-mile border fence, or 630 miles of border fence, that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.

And third, the implementation of new border technologies which serve as force multipliers and allow the border patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents.

All of these measures have contributed to what the New York Times reported on May 15, 2009 is, quote, an extraordinary decline in the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United States, unquote. Those of us who support comprehensive reform have shown our commitment to tough and serious border enforcement.

But opponents of comprehensive reform continue to repeat the same old argument that no conversation regarding immigration reform should even begin. Until we show that we’re serious about securing the border. Well, to those people, I say the time has come to end the divisive rhetoric about our border. It’s time for those who reflectively parrot the border-first mantra to re-engage in the long-promised yet long-delayed conversation regarding reforming our nation’s broken immigration system.

All that is needed now to give the Border Patrol the additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel to ensure that it’s impossible to unlawfully cross the border without being detected and apprehended. This technology is available, will be deployed in the near future, while at the same time, more border personnel is deployed in the short term until the technology is up and running. These measures for additional border security must be part of any comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Job Magnet / Verification System

Third, we must recognize that illegal immigration will never seriously be stifled unless and until we end the job magnet currently engendered by the seriously flawed I-9 regime.

As we speak, any individual who steals a social security number and has access to a credible fake ID can get a job in the United States. The current system creates havoc for both employers and employees and no one has any certainty. Employers who accept all credible documents in good faith are not guaranteed they’ll never be targeted by the ICE for turning a blind eye toward illegal immigrants in their workplace. And employers who question suspicious documents face potential lawsuits from U.S. citizen employees who can rightly claim they were wrongly profiled as illegal immigrants.

The E-Verify system as presently constituted can’t completely solve this problem. In fact, all that is necessary to obtain employment using E-Verify is to uncover a U.S. citizen’s social security number and produce a credible fake ID with that U.S. citizen’s name and address.

Only by creating a biometric-based federal employment verification system will both employers and employees have the peace of mind that all employment relationships are lawful and proper. The system will be our most important asset in dramatically reducing the number of illegal aliens that are able to live and work in the United States. There are many proposals for practical, effective, biometric-based employment verification systems, and the Immigration Subcommittee will be vetting each of these proposals during its upcoming hearing in July.

Registration & Earned Legalization

Fourth, the fourth principle is that we must create a mechanism whereby all illegal aliens presently in the United States on the date of enactment of comprehensive reform must quickly register their presence or face immediate deportation.

Illegal aliens, however, will never register their presence unless the government provides some mechanism for these individuals to eventually obtain legal status and a path to citizenship upon acknowledging they broke the law and agreeing to pay their debt to society.

The people who advocate enforcement-only approaches fail to understand that many illegal immigrants have risked their lives to come to the U.S. and will risk their lives to remain in the U.S. in order to provide financial support desperately needed by their families abroad. The majority of the American people understand that expelling tens of millions of people is simply not practical and will ultimately fail.

Just as the American people are strongly against illegal immigration, they’re also strongly against turning the country into a round-up republic where they’ll be confronted by nightly news stories of sympathetic families being torn apart at gunpoint during harsh enforcement raids. The American people prefer a pragmatic solution that works to empty rhetoric, however satisfying, that fails.

Family Reunification

Fifth, we need to recognize that reuniting families is an important value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing the number of illegal aliens who are able to enter the United States, we will create room for both families and employment-based immigrants so that the total number of immigrants to our country is no greater than today. And the age-old fights as to how we structure future flow can really be muted so that both sides are happy.

High-Skilled Immigration

Sixth, we need to recognize the important contribution that high-skilled immigrants have already made and must continue to make toward revitalizing and reinventing the American economy. No immigration system would be worthwhile if it is unable to attract the best and brightest minds of the world to come to the United States and create jobs for Americans, as has been the case for Yahoo and Google and Intel and eBay and countless other companies.

That being said, any reformed immigration system must be successful in encouraging the next Albert Einstein to emigrate permanently to the United States, while at the same time discouraging underpaid temporary workers from taking jobs that could and should be filled by qualified American workers.

Low-Skilled Flows

Finally, any successful immigration system must include a process that channels the current substantial flow of illegal immigration of low-skilled workers into a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigration tied to American economic needs.

Closing

Any immigration system that seeks to dramatically reduce illegal immigration must be realistic. If we were to attempt to end all future immigration into the United States, as some on both sides of the aisle might want, we’d simply create a system that encourages immigrants to seek to penetrate our weakest areas in order to enter illegally, because no legal pathway would exist for those who only wish to create a better life for themselves and their families.

A broken system produces crooked people. But if, however, we give people who might otherwise immigrate illegally, especially people who are currently willing to risk their lives to make it to our country at all costs, a realistic hope that they’ll be able to immigrate legally, but only when our country’s economy will support their arrival here, we’d then create a truly, we would then truly create, the ideal multi-faceted system for combating illegal immigration while remaining true to America’s founding principle of being a nation that welcomes and is made richer by legal immigrants.

Now the road ahead won’t be smooth and I can assure you it’ll certainly not be straight. I’ve been involved in the last two major immigration bills and I know that well. But as you can see I’m working as hard as possible to achieve the goal of comprehensive immigration reform and I’m convinced that we will soon have a bipartisan bill on the floor that incorporates the seven key principles each of which the American people overwhelmingly support.

I want to thank so many of you in the audience for your years of hard work and contributions to this debate and I ask all of you for your much-needed support, as we proceed ahead toward the ultimate goal. I look forward to announcing positive developments in the upcoming days. Thank you.

You can do a couple of questions.

Q&A

00:24:03 Doris Meissner

Okay, well, thank you very much, Senator, and personally, thank you for those kind words. We’re glad that you’re able to stay and have a couple of questions, so let me ask the first question.

It’s terrific to hear you be optimistic like this, and to the audience, I want to say, we always talk about how important it is to see real leadership. You are seeing real leadership. This is terrific, but we also know that prior bills have had such a sketchy end, and they’ve, by and large, foundered on the A issue, amnesty and the shutting down of the phone lines and people being frightened away from voting. What do you see happening that would change that?

00:24:53 Chuck Schumer

Well, I think two things have happened since the last bill.

The first thing that’s happened is that people have sort of changed their view, and they really want a solution. All the polling that I have seen, when you ask the American people, do you prefer a comprehensive solution to simply just deporting everybody, or to no amnesty or some other kind of slogan, overwhelmingly people support a comprehensive solution. They want it to be real. They want it to be fair. but they do want a solution once and for all. And at least I have found that sort of the white heat that you correctly point out that sunk the last bill that Senators Kennedy and McCain both courageously tried to put together, it’s still there. And there certainly will be commentators and others who try to gin it up. But it’s not as intense. And the intensity for actually solving the problem is much greater.

The second thing I’d say to you is this. I think there’s a much more realistic view on behalf of the advocates and others. I think the number one reason the bill failed last time was not only what you stated, Doris, what happened, but there was sort of a feeling that the bill wasn’t tough enough on illegal immigration. As I mentioned, when Democrats in particular used the word undocumented workers, that just sent a signal, oh, you really don’t think this is bad? And the American people sort of didn’t trust the motivation.

Furthermore, I will tell you that the employer sanctioned parts of the bill, which are the most important to stopping the flows of future illegal immigration. Because despite what some might say, oh, the illegal immigrants are coming here for benefits. They’re not. They’re coming for jobs. But I wasn’t convinced it was that tight. And I was for the bill. There were just too many ways to get around it.

And I think that people actually smell. The public will not know the details of what we do. They have their families and their lives and the happinesses and sadnesses and the ups and downs of life. They don’t have time to study the details. But the public I have found in my 35 years in elected office is pretty good at smelling stuff. They sort of get it. And if they sort of smell you’re not serious about illegal immigration, they’re going to turn off everything. And we’re going to be really serious about it, as my speech showed.

And, you know, I was very heartened. The best meeting I had is I called in some of the leading pro-immigration advocates. And I said, well, we have to stop illegal immigration. I thought they’d all say, no, don’t say illegal, don’t say illegal. And I said, I’m going to say that. And they understood. So I think on the part of the left, there’s a greater understanding, that we really have to be as sympathetic as we are to poor people struggling just to, you know, send a dollar home a week or a day that unless we convince Americans that we’re going to be really tough and we have strong sanctions, you know, I’m sure the civil libertarians will object to some kind of biometric card, although it’ll be something, there’ll be all kinds of protections. But we’re going to have to do it. It’s the only way to do it.

And so I think there’s an awareness on some of us who want to do away with illegal immigration and do reform on both the illegal and legal side that we’re going to have to do some really hard things, and that’s going to make the difference. But the mood is different.

I also think, frankly, that many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are scratching their heads and wondering and say, if right now 6% of new Hispanic registrants regard themselves as Republican, that they better do some rethinking. And so you put all that together, and I think we can do it. But we have to keep our eye on the ball and not let various interest groups, those we like.
And the other thing is, we have to keep our eye on the ball. And those we don’t like, sort of pick away at the bill so that you end up with mush.

00:29:27 Rick Johnson (Vice President, Lake Research Partners)

Senator, one more question if I can. Your talk did not mention, did not say anything about the current economic crisis, and you’ll read in the paper from time to time that with unemployment likely rising through the next year, this is no time to legalize 10 million undocumented workers. What’s your answer?

00:29:45 Chuck Schumer

Again, I think Americans want the system fixed, and at a time of high unemployment, while the flow of illegal immigrants has declined, it’s still continuing, and I think if you can convince Americans that we’re going to rationalize the system in ways that will minimize the number of jobs taken away from Americans, but maximize our economic pie and economic growth. Even at a time of difficult, in a difficult economy, they are willing to accept it.
And frankly, the polling data is better for immigration reform today than it was a year or two ago when the economy was better. In terms of, you know, the people who say, put together a comprehensive, fair proposal. Last one from Doris. Go ahead.

00:30:33 Doris Meissner

The last question for me. I would like to know, in light of the White House meeting tomorrow, how you are going to convince the administration to take a more forward-leaning stance?

00:30:47 Chuck Schumer

Okay. I think the president would like to do immigration reform. I think that he’s got a very busy plate. But I don’t think they’ll need convincing. I think if they can see, if you will, a pathway to produce reform, the president will be a very forceful advocate and the most important ally we can have, and I expect that that’s exactly what he will be.

00:31:14 Doris Meissner

Senator, thank you so very much for being with us.

00:31:16 Chuck Schumer

Thank you, everybody. Good to see you. Thank you, everybody.

Historical Outcome

No comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in 2009 or 2010 during the 111th Congress, despite the buildup including Schumer’s framework and related hearings. Efforts stalled due to political dynamics, the economic recession, and competing priorities, i.e. Obamacare. A similar bipartisan push including Schumer as a key player resurfaced in 2013 with S. 744, the “Gang of Eight” bill, but that also failed to become law.

And of course, illegal immigration continued, hitting all-time highs during the Biden Administration.

Democrats on Common Sense Immigration

In 17th-century England, Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha: or The Natural Power of Kings (written 1635–1642, published 1680) stood as a cornerstone of the establishment’s defense of absolute monarchy. This treatise argued that political power stemmed from divine right and patriarchal authority, tracing back to Adam. Filmer’s ideas justified unchecked monarchical power, portraying rebellion as sinful.

However, John Locke and Algernon Sidney boldly challenged this view in Two Treatises of Government (1689) and Discourses Concerning Government (written 1679–1683, published 1698). Their rebuttals sparked controversy in their time and laid the ideological foundation for America’s Founding Fathers a century later, shaping the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Patriarcha: or The Natural Power of Kings

Filmer’s Patriarcha emerged during England’s political upheavals, including the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Restoration of Charles II (1660). It provided a robust defense of the divine right of kings, aligning with royalist sentiments. Key points of Filmer’s thesis include:

Divine and Patriarchal Authority: Filmer claimed kings derived absolute power from God’s grant to Adam, passed through paternal lines, making monarchy a natural, divine order.

Obedience Over Liberty: Subjects owed unconditional loyalty to rulers, akin to children obeying parents, with no inherent rights to liberty or consent.

Biblical Foundation: Filmer relied on selective biblical interpretations, particularly from Genesis, to argue that hierarchical rule was God-ordained.

This framework comforted royalists by sanctifying monarchy and dismissing notions of popular sovereignty, portraying opposition as heretical.

Two Treatises of Government

John Locke (1632–1704), a physician and Enlightenment philosopher, directly confronted Filmer in his First Treatise of Government. He dismantled the patriarchal model and, in his Second Treatise, proposed a government based on reason and consent. Locke’s key arguments were:

Natural Rights: Individuals are born free and equal, possessing inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, not granted by rulers.

Social Contract: Government authority arises from a voluntary agreement among individuals, revocable if rulers violate citizens’ rights.

Right to Revolution: People may overthrow oppressive governments that breach the social contract.

Limited Government: Power should be divided across branches to prevent tyranny and ensure accountability.

Locke’s ideas were radical in the 1680s, challenging James II’s absolutist regime. Published anonymously to avoid persecution, his work risked treason charges but gained traction during the Glorious Revolution (1688), which deposed James II.

Discourses Concerning Government

Algernon Sidney (1623–1683), a soldier and republican, refuted Filmer in Discourses Concerning Government. His passionate defense of liberty and resistance made him a martyr after his 1683 execution under Charles II. Sidney’s core ideas included:

Government by Consent: Political power stems from the people, not divine or hereditary mandate, forming a contract to protect liberty.

Right to Revolution: Citizens have a natural right to resist tyrannical rulers, grounded in natural law.

Civic Virtue: Liberty requires active citizen participation to prevent corruption and despotism.

Mixed Government: Drawing from classical republicanism, Sidney advocated for balanced governance with checks on power.

Sidney’s manuscript was used as evidence in his treason trial, highlighting the danger of his ideas. His execution amplified his influence, casting him as a symbol of resistance.

Locke and Sidney’s rebuttals were provocative in a society recovering from civil war and fearing anarchy. Their challenge to Filmer’s divine hierarchy threatened the established order by:

Empowering the People: Suggesting authority was conditional and revocable gave ordinary citizens power to judge rulers.

Clashing with Absolutism: Locke’s rational approach and Sidney’s republicanism opposed religious and monarchical absolutism.

Risking Persecution: Both wrote in secrecy or exile, with Sidney’s execution underscoring the peril of dissent.

Their ideas gained legitimacy during the Glorious Revolution, but critics branded them seditious, as they evoked fears of regicide (the killing of a king) and instability.

Founding Influences

By the 1760s, colonial grievances against British rule, including taxation without representation and arbitrary laws, mirrored England’s earlier struggles. The Founding Fathers turned to Locke and Sidney for intellectual support:

Declaration of Independence (1776): Thomas Jefferson adapted Locke’s natural rights, proclaiming “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable. The document echoed both thinkers’ views on consent and the right to revolution.

U.S. Constitution (1787): James Madison incorporated Lockean separation of powers and Sidney’s balanced government, with the preamble emphasizing popular sovereignty.

Jefferson recommended both Two Treatises and Discourses for study. John Adams praised Locke and Sidney as philosophers of liberty in 1775 and 1787 writings. Benjamin Franklin’s library included Sidney’s works, and his motto “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” reflected Sidney’s spirit.

Locke and Sidney’s triumph over Filmer’s absolutism shaped America’s political foundation. Locke provided a systematic framework for rights and governance, while Sidney’s radical rhetoric and martyrdom galvanized revolutionary action. Their ideas transformed controversy into a constitutional republic, emphasizing liberty over hierarchy. Today, their principles of consent, rights, and resistance remain central to American governance, proving that challenging the establishment can forge enduring freedoms.

Discourses Concerning Government

Discourses Concerning Government (written 1679–1683, published 1698), was a direct rebuttal to Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha (written 1635-1642, published 1680), which defended the divine right of kings. John Locke’s First Treatise of Government (written 1679-1680, published 1689) was also a direct rebuttal of Patriachia.

In Discourses, Sidney argued that political authority derives from the people, not divine mandate, and that citizens have a natural right to resist tyrannical rule. He championed natural liberty, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed, ideas that resonated deeply with American revolutionaries. The work’s manuscript was used as evidence in Sidney’s 1683 trial for treason, leading to his execution under King Charles II on December 7, 1623, cementing his status as a republican martyr.

Textbook of Revolution

Sidney’s writings, particularly Discourses, became a “textbook of revolution” in the American colonies, inspiring figures like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. His emphasis on the right to revolt and the principles of republican governance influenced the Declaration of Independence and the broader revolutionary ethos. Despite his lesser modern fame compared to Locke, Sidney’s ideas on liberty and resistance to tyranny were foundational to the American political tradition, deserving equal acknowledgment for their impact on the Founding Fathers.

Sidney’s core ideas in Discourses Concerning Government:

• Government by Consent: Sidney argued that political authority derives from the consent of the governed, not divine right or hereditary rule. He saw government as a contract to protect liberty and justice.

• Right to Revolution: He asserted that people have a natural right to resist and overthrow tyrannical rulers who violate the social contract, a concept rooted in natural law.

• Civic Virtue and Liberty: Sidney emphasized that liberty requires active citizen participation and vigilance to prevent corruption and despotism.

• Opposition to Absolute Monarchy: He criticized monarchies like that of Charles II, advocating for mixed government with checks on power, drawing from classical republican traditions.

These ideas, written in response to Robert Filmer’s defense of absolute monarchy, were radical for their time and led to Sidney’s treason charge, as they challenged King Charles II monarchy’s legitimacy.

Influence on America’s Foundation

Sidney’s work was substantially influential to the Founding Fathers, particularly in justifying revolution and shaping republican ideals. His martyrdom, passionate defense of liberty, and early dissemination gave him a unique and powerful impact, rivaling any single thinker in the revolutionary phase (1760s–1776).

• Thomas Jefferson was deeply familiar with Sidney’s writings. Jefferson’s library at Monticello included Discourses Concerning Government, and he recommended it in his 1776 reading list for law students, alongside Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. This suggests Sidney’s ideas were part of Jefferson’s intellectual foundation when drafting the Declaration of Independence.

• Benjamin Franklin’s library contained works by Sidney, and his political activities aligned with Sidney’s advocacy for balanced government and resistance to arbitrary power. Franklin’s famous quip, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”, proposed as a motto for the Great Seal, resonates with Sidney’s defense of rebellion against unjust rulers.

• John Adams, a leading architect of American independence, explicitly credited Algernon Sidney alongside John Locke as a philosopher of liberty whose ideas fueled the Revolution. In his Defence of the Constitutions (1787), Adams declared, “The great philosophers, such as Sidney, Locke, and others, who have supported the principles of liberty, have been read with pleasure and profit by the people of America.”

Similarly, in a 1775 letter to James Warren, Adams affirmed that “the principles of Sidney and Locke are the true principles of liberty” guiding the colonies. These statements underscore Sidney’s profound influence, positioning him as a thinker whose radical defense of popular sovereignty and resistance to tyranny rivaled Locke’s impact. Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government provided a blueprint for rebellion and republican governance, shaping Adams’ vision of a balanced government and informing the revolutionary ethos of the Declaration and Constitution.

Algernon Sidney’s ideas not only shaped the Declaration of Independence and the revolutionary ethos but also inspired a republican vision that endures in America’s political tradition. Sidney’s martyrdom under Charles II amplified his impact, casting him as a symbol of resistance to tyranny that resonated deeply with colonists. While Locke provided a theoretical foundation, Sidney’s radical rhetoric and sacrifice galvanized action, making him a cornerstone of the American experiment. Recognizing Sidney’s equal contribution alongside Locke restores a vital voice to the narrative of American liberty, reminding us that the fight for freedom was forged by thinkers who risked everything for the principles we cherish today.

John Locke (1632–1704) lived during a tumultuous era in English history, marked by the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution (1688). These events challenged the legitimacy of absolute monarchy and ignited debates about governance and individual rights. A physician by training and a philosopher by passion, Locke became a leading voice of the Enlightenment, a movement that prized reason, science, and personal liberty.

Two Treatises of Government

Locke’s seminal work, Two Treatises of Government (1689), rejected the divine right of kings and proposed that legitimate government stems from the consent of the governed. His ideas offered a blueprint for curbing state power and safeguarding individual freedoms — principles that would later captivate the American Founding Fathers amid their own struggles for independence.

Foundational Concepts

Locke’s philosophy rests on several foundational concepts that revolutionized political thought:

• Natural Rights: Locke argued that all individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, granted not by rulers but by virtue of their humanity. Governments, he insisted, exist to protect these rights.

• Social Contract: He proposed that governments derive their authority from a voluntary agreement among individuals — the social contract. If a government fails to protect citizens’ rights, the people may rightfully alter or abolish it.

• Limited Government: Locke advocated for a government with power distributed across separate branches to prevent tyranny and ensure accountability.

• Right to Revolution: He asserted that citizens have the moral authority to overthrow an oppressive government that violates the social contract.

• Religious Tolerance: Locke believed the state should not meddle in matters of faith, advocating for freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state.

Foundational Framework

These ideas formed a cohesive framework that emphasized individual liberty and governmental accountability, laying the intellectual groundwork for our constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers — figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin — found Locke’s philosophy compelling for several reasons:

• First, there were striking parallels between Locke’s England and colonial America. Locke wrote during a time of resistance to monarchical overreach, much like the American colonies chafed under British rule, facing taxation without representation and other grievances.

• Second, the Founding Fathers embraced the Enlightenment values Locke championed: reason, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aligned with their vision for a new nation.

• Third, Locke’s ideas offered a practical guide for designing a government that balanced authority and protected freedoms. His emphasis on checks and balances and the separation of powers provided a model to prevent the abuses they had endured under British governance.

• Fourth, Locke’s social contract and right to revolution gave moral legitimacy to their break from Britain, framing the American Revolution as a justified response to tyranny.

• Finally, Locke’s call for religious tolerance struck a chord with a fledgling nation composed of diverse religious communities, many founded by dissenters seeking freedom from persecution.

Influence on America’s Foundation

Locke’s impact is unmistakable in America’s foundational documents and political structures:

• The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, mirrors Locke’s natural rights philosophy. Its iconic phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” adapts Locke’s triad of “life, liberty, and property,” signaling that these rights are inalienable and must be safeguarded by government. The document also reflects Locke’s social contract theory, declaring that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” and that the people may “alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive. This language provided both a philosophical foundation and a rallying cry for independence — they viewed their rebellion against Britain as a Lockean exercise of the people’s right to overthrow an oppressive regime.

• The U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, embodies Locke’s principles of limited government and separation of powers. Its framework divides authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, creating a system of checks and balances to prevent any single entity from dominating — a direct application of Locke’s ideas. The preamble’s assertion that the government is established “by the people” to “secure the blessings of liberty” echoes the social contract, emphasizing that legitimacy flows from popular consent. The Constitution’s provisions for amendments and elections further reflect a commitment to keeping government responsive to its citizens, aligning with Locke’s vision of accountability.

• The First Amendment embodies Locke’s advocacy for religious tolerance by guaranteeing freedom of religion and prohibiting a state-established church. This protection ensured that the diverse faiths of the American populace could coexist without government interference, fulfilling Locke’s belief that matters of conscience lie beyond the state’s purview.

Locke’s influence extended beyond specific documents to the broader American political system. His ideas inspired a government structure that prioritizes individual rights and democratic participation. The separation of powers and checks and balances remain hallmarks of American governance, ensuring that power remains distributed and accountable. The right to revolution shaped the revolutionary ethos that birthed the nation and continues to inform debates about governmental legitimacy.

John Locke’s philosophy provided the intellectual bedrock for the American experiment. His ideas on natural rights, the social contract, limited government, the right to revolution, and religious tolerance offered the Founding Fathers both inspiration and a practical framework as they forged a new nation and his legacy endures in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the principles of liberty and governance by We The People which continue to define the United States.

Subscribe now

Understand what time it is in America:

• Trump is being prosecuted by Biden’s regime + multiple state level Democrats

• Every agency in government has been weaponized to investigate @elonmusk because he’s trying to level the playing field online to empower citizens

• Newsweek just broke the story that the FBI is both investigating Trump voters and treating them like terrorists by using the same types of tools they used against ISIS

• DHS and CISA used proxies to censor influencers like me and @charliekirk11 for opposing Democrats too effectively

• Grandma’s (including one with cancer) who thought they were allowed in the Capitol after police waved them in were thrown in prison over January 6th despite zero violence

• Soros DA’s are releasing pedophiles and criminals to carry out record crime

• Over 7 MILLION illegal immigrants have entered our country under Biden — Only 14 states have populations > 7.4M

• Schools are grooming kids about so called social justice, gender identity and sexual topics (including books with porn in them) while hiding all of it from parents

• People fear saying they vote Republican despite Republicans winning the 2022 popular vote because they know they can lose their jobs over it or be ostracized

• Doctors are giving kids sex changes with the full support of the White House including on children of our troops

• Doctors lose their licenses over disagreeing with the narrative of the Democrats

• Banks, Big Tech and online transaction services have banned prominent influencers for the crime of being conservative

• Inflation and interest rates are destroying our economy in ways that we’ll be dealing with for over a decade

• 80-90% of Congress represent their own interests and lobbyists instead of people

• Big Tech companies manipulate what the public sees to sell the Democrats narrative

• Soldiers were fired by the thousands for being conservatives who didn’t want the COVID jab — They even denied chaplains religious exemptions

• People are put through public struggle sessions if they say men can’t be women

• The DOJ and Democrat DA’s are deploying lawfare to bankrupt prominent Trump officials and supporters — "the process is the punishment"

• College kids won’t get into schools if they express any conservative views and many will be failed in classes if professors find out they’re conservative

• Parents were treated like terrorists by Merrick Garland and the DOJ for protesting school boards over COVID and the sexualization of children

• Professional programs to become doctors and nurses are adding steps to screen for ideology to eliminate conservatives: Many do it in sneaky ways (doctors do this with requirements to get the COVID vax in order to get a residency)

• Some states passed laws to take custody from parents who don’t affirm the new gender identity of their kids and even legalized kids running away to their state to get an abortion or sex change

• BLM and Antifa members received multi million dollar settlements after burning down cities with riots and looting for a year because they’re modern day brown shirts that the Democrats had to reward to ensure they do it again in the future

Our future is closer to Russia under Stalin, Cuba under Castro, China under Mao or Venezuela under Maduro than we are to the ideals of our constitution. We’re living through the intentional destruction of the country we know and love. Why? Because communism never becomes reality without chaos, destruction and separating kids from their parents.

America won’t survive unless Republican politicians get serious and recognize how far down the road to hell we are. It’s not time for Fox News hits where you get the one liner off that you hope to fundraise off of. It’s not time for another hearing that goes nowhere. It’s time to use EVERY lever of power you have to crush these new age communists and yes I mean communists.

It’s time to be ruthless.

Communism is no longer just about state ownership of the means of production because there’s no need to own it all on paper when corporations do everything you tell them to and fund your political pet projects. In fact, this tactic ushers new age communism in faster because such a large chunk of the population doesn’t realize what’s happening yet. Communist control tactics + a surveillance state and a technocracy that they control is more powerful than communist dictators like Mao could’ve ever hoped for.

"But they don’t call themselves communists" — Yeah, neither did Castro. He said he was just a humanist who cared about social justice, free healthcare and racial equity. Sound familiar? He only admitted to being a communist after he amassed enough power to crush dissent.

Republicans have one shot to get this right.

• Republican AG’s must start aggressively investigating and prosecuting criminal elements within the Democrat Party

• Republican Governors must call in the guard they control to carry out shock and awe raids on gangs in blue cities — work with your legislators to cut funding to every woke endeavor and institution — Map out a total wipeout of far left influences in your state with mass firings or funding cuts and don’t be afraid to take whatever action you can to replace failed blue city politicians

• Republican lawmakers on a state level need to use every tool they have to legislate and investigate in an aggressive manner that brings us back from the brink — you know what you have to do — DO IT

• Local Republican officials must use every lever of power they have to stop the extremists on the left

• Leave no lever cold from not being pulled. Saving America is going to take EVERYTHING!

If you aren’t as ruthless as them, we will lose this country and if you bristle at the word ruthless — remember that there’s a difference between ruthlessness after you’re attacked and ruthlessly attacking. You’ve been attacked, your country has been attacked, your children have been attacked and your faith has been attacked. Righteous ruthlessness to save the values and people you love IS the virtue and legacy you should be chasing.

Ask yourself this: What would our founders do? A good motto to live by right now is one that was almost the motto of our country, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" or another favorite of mine from Thomas Jefferson "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".

There’s a reason so many survivors of communism and their children are warning you at the top of their lungs to take this deathly serious. Communism comes like a thief in the night that you don’t see coming but you have the advantage of warnings from people who’ve lived it or been the first generation after their family survived communism. Don’t waste that advantage and don’t squander the greatness built by our founders. In the end you’ll either have the courage America desperately needs or you’ll live to see your country die. The choice is yours.

Signed,

Robby Starbuck
(Someone whose family had their country stolen once already by communists in Cuba)

@robbystarbuck
robbystarbuck.com

—

Video has additional commentary, worth the watch.

We all know too many who “don’t do politics”, yet ironically are quick to dismiss the perspectives of those who study history and “do politics”. A message they need to hear is: whether or not you “do politics”, politics is always doing you .

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is increasing use of the term “uniparty” lately, however, there is no “uniparty" in the sense that the political parties collaborate directly - it is just that both parties, Democrats as a whole, and RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only) on the Republican side, are both puppets of the same masters. They are controlled by “The Establishment”, the invisible government, bureaucrats and unelected government employees and non-government organizations pulling the strings.

The Establishment, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “an exclusive group of powerful people who rule a government or society by means of private agreements and decisions.”

“The word ‘Establishment’ is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. Most people are unaware of the existence of this ‘legitimate Mafia.’ Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.” - Edith Kermit Roosevelt, Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S., Indianapolis News, p. 6. December 23, 1961.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the most identifiable seat of Establishment power. The CFR was founded in 1921 by internationalists bitterly disappointed the U.S. Senate rejected the U.S. joining the League of Nations in 1919 - an early attempt a creating a World Government in the aftermath of World War I. The CFR has advocated from its inception for the creation of a World Government, which would be by its very nature a socialist world government.

The CFR is the “public face, the brain trust, and the central nervous system of what critics refer to as the Deep State — the unelected ‘permanent government’ that has hijacked our country.” - William F. Jasper, “CFR: Still the Power Behind the Throne,” The New American, June 7, 2021 issue.

The CFR does not seek the spotlight, however they do operate in plain sight - most folks just haven’t taken notice, or assume the Council on Foreign Affairs is an official government organization, but here are some contemporary references:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband and daughter are members, in a 2009 speech at the CFR’s new office in Washington: “I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters,” she said. “I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

And the next time you view the CSPAN video of VP Joe Biden talking about his withholding of the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine unless their prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired, take note of the backdrop, who his audience was - the Council on Foreign Relations. This helps to explain the unusual candor and casualness of his remarks - it was a friendly audience for him to recount this type of conduct which was business as usual.

Pulitzer Prize winner Theodore White said that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington.” - Theodore White, The Making of the President 1964, 1965

Three Presidential appointments regularly go to members of the CFR: Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Treasury.

Thus CFR elitists are able to control foreign policy, national defense and money regardless of which political party occupies the White House.

The unelected CFR establishment sets policy, and the visible government implements it. The same applies to the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which is also dominated by CFR operatives.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate of the U.S. Navy, was a CFR member for 16 years before resigning in disgust. He stated: “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

He wrote that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership”, and that “The objective of the influential majority of members of CFR has not changed since its founding in 1922, more than 50 years ago. In the 50th anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs, the first and leading article was written by CFR member Kingman Brewster, Ir., entitled ‘Reflections on Our National Purpose’. He did not back away from defining it: our national purpose should be to abolish our nationality. Indeed, he pulled out all the emotional stops in a hard-sell for global government. He described our ‘Vietnam-seared generation’ as being ‘Far from America Firsters’ - an expression meant as a patronizing sop to our young people. In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First’.” - Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch, 1975.

When President Trump promoted America First, and when he made his unequivocal pronouncement that “we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country” in his 2019 State of the Union address, and when he stated in 2020 that we were under attack by an “invisible enemy” - these were directed at Council on Foreign Relations and other elements of The Establishment.

We need more awareness of who our enemy is: one world government globalists / elitists - the CFR is just one component of many other world government components, for instance: United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), World Economic Forum (WEF), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF); but in America the Council on Foreign Relations is one of the organizations working directly against us.

Recommended reading:

“The Shadows of Power, The Council on Foreign Relations and The American Decline” - James Perloff, 1988.

“None Dare Call It Conspiracy” - Gary Allen, Larry Abraham, 1971.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The longstanding efforts of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission, to implement their “New International Economic Order” relies on subverting the U.S. Constitution - their efforts are not always direct, and they have found alternative routes.

Case in point, International Treaties and Trade Agreements are intended to be negotiated by Congress, and require a 66 percent vote, subject to debate and amendments. That makes for more rigor in these negotiations and passage, particularly for those that may be more controversial in nature. An end-run would be for Congress to voluntarily cede this authority to the President, with just a 51 percent vote by Congress with limited debate and no amendments.

In 1974, Congress did just that and passed the Trade Promotion Authority legislation (TPA), also known as “Fast Track”:

Fast Track is an extreme delegation of Congress’ constitutional trade authority. It empowers a president to choose prospective trade partners, negotiate deals and sign a trade pact all before Congress has a vote on any element of it – and then railroad the deal through Congress in only 90 days with limited debate and no amendments. Thanks to Fast Track, U.S. trade pacts that are packed with corporate special giveaways and that promote the outsourcing of U.S. jobs have been rammed through Congress, including the original NAFTA, the agreement establishing the WTO and more.2

David Rockefeller’s Council of the Americas played an integral role in lobbying for this legislation3. Coincidently, Nelson Rockefeller was Vice President, and hence President of the Senate.

TPA has an automatic expiration date on it, but it is has been regularly renewed.

Most trade agreements are negotiated and passed normally by Congress - it’s only the more controversial ones that are passed via TPA, notably:

• NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement

• GATT Uruguay Round Agreements Act - this treaty provided for the creation of the World Trade Organization.

TPA’s selective use indicates it is a legislative tool used for circumventing constitutional requirements for our international trade.

Article 6, Clause 24 of the U.S. Constitution states that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

TPA is an end-run around national sovereignty and has allowed considerable restructuring of U.S. law without resorting to a Constitutional Convention. The Trade Promotion Authority was an effective counter-move to the failed frontal assault by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski who called for a Constitutional Convention as early as 1972.

We need to restore the authority and integrity of our existing U.S. Constitution as treaties are a backdoor to our sovereignty.

'Look' magazine1, dated March 14th, 1939 - stated that the next European war would start in The Ukraine.

From a comment on Reddit:

It looks like the author of the map actually read Mein Kampf and took it at face value (unlike most contemporary politicians). Cause this here perfectly depicts the pursuit of Lebensraum2, Hitler’s ultimate goal.

German troops invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia literally the day after this was published, on March 15 1939. On March 16 Hitler went to Czech lands and from Prague Castle proclaimed the German protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia3.

“The” Ukraine here is referring to the territory rather than a country, hence the preposition.

“The Ukraine”

Ukraine didn't exist as country in 1939. It was the Soviet Union. This map doesn’t show Ukraine as a country but rather as a region. There are black lines as borders and Ukraine is cut in few parts with those.

Crimea was Russian, since 17834, except a few years 1917-1921 after the soviet revolution when it was part of Ukrainian People's Republic5

Although, has Europe ever NOT been at war?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When the Continental Army returned to camp on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River, soldiers were exhausted. They had marched and fought for two straight days through rain, snow, sleet, and hail.

The Continental Army and militias crossed the Delaware to New Jersey three times: December 25, 1776, crossed back, and crossed again December 30, 1776 and stayed for the winter.

From a high school friend:

It changed my family's history, too! My 5x great grandfather was a Hessian soldier captured at the Battle of Trenton just after Washington crossed the Delaware. Instead of returning to Germany, he ended up staying in the new U.S., even enlisting in the U.S. Army and fighting in the War of 1812 when he was in his 50s. He survived that, too, and lived until his late 80s on a farm that is now Moravian Academy. He's buried at the church at 191 and Hecktown Rd, where my husband and I were married.

But that's just one thread on my maternal grandfather's side. One that my cousin and I thought was cool was on our maternal grandmother's side. That side has people who founded NYC -- Huguenots who were exiled from France, ended up in Amsterdam, and came over with the first ships that settled New Amsterdam, Harlem, Brooklyn, and Albany. Anyway, some ended up on farms in NJ, and we found a document that shows our 4x and 5x great grandfathers were paid for being in the Revolutionary War. The older one took supplies to Washington at Morristown; the younger one, his son, was so young (12 years old!) Then my cousin noticed his job title: Drummer. Now when I see that classic painting of the boy carrying a drum in the Revolutionary War, I wonder if that's him the artist was depicting. 12! Can you imagine??

Share

¯\_(ツ)_/¯🇺🇸

Matt Phillips on LinkedIn:1

25 December 1896 – “Stars & Stripes Forever” was written by John Philip Sousa2. By an Act Of Congress in 1987, it is the official National March of the United States of America.

Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand;
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land.
The emblem of the brave and true.
Its folds protect no tyrant crew;
The red and white and starry blue
Is freedom's shield and home.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free!
May it wave as our standard forever,
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever

🇺🇸

From Matt Phillips on LinkedIn1:

By Christmas Eve of 1776, the American Revolution was, in essence, over. The Americans had lost. George Washington was out of options. His army, down to only a few thousand had lost seven battles in a row and was freezing on the west bank of the Delaware River awaiting the end.

The British, on the other hand had 33,000 soldiers, well over a hundred ships and were partying in New York City and preparing for the final surrender. Most of the American troops had resolve, but they had lost hope that England could ever be defeated. Half of Washington’s army – 1,500 men, were quitting that week and going home because their enlistments were up. Washington decided on one last offensive.

He gathered the same fishermen who had helped him retreat in August from New York ad had his beleaguered troops ferried across the half frozen Delaware at midnight on Christmas Eve. Just before they boarded the boats, the General prayed, and had the American Crisis, the challenge by Thomas Payne, read to his men:

“These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain is too cheap, we esteem too lightly: ‘Tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article s freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has right {not only to tax} to bind us in all cases whatsoever’ and if being bound in that manner is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon the earth. Even the expression of impious, for so unlimited power can belong only to God.”

Washington landed near Trenton in a blinding snow and hailstorm that served as a cover for his crossing and approach. Christmas morning, his men quickly surprised a detachment of 1,200 Hessians. Colonel Rhal and his men had been partying and drinking with a pompous, false sense of security late into the night. When Washington attacked in early morning almost all were captured and Rhal was mortally wounded. That day, Washington re-crossed the river with over 1,000 prisoners, and only five casualties of his own. As was his custom, he did not mistreat his prisoners.

Thus were, by the grace of God (and a great General and leader) the fortunes of war turned in favor of the Patriot cause...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The mass inclination will be to accept simple stupidity as an explanation for evil, corrupt, self-serving acts because otherwise it would reveal a darkness in the world they are simply not ready to accept.

James Lindsey:

Simple gripe: stop calling them idiots.

I see this all the time, I see the people, the Leftists, the Marxists they’re doing whatever they are doing, the Biden Administration is doing whatever it’s doing, California is being as Leftist as ever doing whatever it’s doing and people reply with: idiots.

Don’t do that. Stop doing that.

Train yourself to stop thinking that they’re stupid, here’s why:

There’s this concept called Hanlon’s Razor. Hanlon’s Razor is never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

In other words, making it simple: if it’s possible that the people messing something up are just stupid or incompetent, then you shouldn’t think they have bad motivations. That’s Hanlon’s Razor. It’s not fair to give bad motivations to people who don’t have them. That’s the idea of Hanlon’s Razor.

Turns out the Left, the World Economic Forum all these people in the so-called regime, the Democrats - have bad intentions.

I don’t mean your neighbor, I don’t mean average left-wing teacher, I don’t mean your blue-pilled brother - I mean the people who are orchestrating this crap at the political and corporate and organization levels.

The professionals have malicious intention and when you say that they’re idiots, you not only ignore the fact of their malicious intentions, and tell other people in a sense to ignore the fact of their malicious intentions, you automatically invoke people’s thought of Hanlon’s Razor. 

Effectiviology:

Though Hanlon’s razor is a useful guiding principle, it should only be viewed as a rule of thumb, that isn’t guaranteed to help you correctly identify people’s motives, since there are certainly cases where people act out of malice or other bad intentions.

https://effectiviology.com/hanlons-razor/

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A very good website that is tracking the Twitter Files, presenting them in a very accessible way: twitterfiles.co

The Twitter Files Archive

This is where you will find the Twitter threads written by independent journalists like Matt Taibbi. These threads are converted into long-form articles for those not on Twitter or who may have a hard time trying to find the threads.

Articles by Twitter Files Journalists

The independent journalists releasing the Twitter files on Twitter are also writing their own articles about the files. We’ve compiled a link list of those articles in this section.

Part 1 - The Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi1

Part 2 - Twitter’s Secret Blacklists, Bari Weiss2

Part 3 - The Removal of Donald Trump, Part One: October 2020 - January 6th, Matt Taibbi

Part 4 - The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7, Michael Shellenberger3

Part 5 - The Removal of Trump from Twitter, Bari Weiss

Part 6 - Twitter, The FBI Subsidiary, Matt Taibbi

Supplemental - Twitter and the Federal Task Force, Matt Taibbi

Part 7 - The FBI & The Hunter Biden Laptop, Michael Shellenberger

Part 8 - How Twitter Quietly Aided the Pentagon’s Covert Online PsyOp Campaign, Lee Fang4

Part 9 - Twitter and "Other Government Agencies, Matt Taibi

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share

Who was Senator Church, and what was his committee looking into back in 1975? And how relevant is it today?

Senator Frank Church1:

Let me tell you this: in the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States Government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air.

These messages are between ships at sea, they can be between, units, military units in the field. We have a very extensive capability of intercepting messages wherever they may be in the airwaves. Now that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know.

At the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left - such is the capability to monitor everything. Telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide if this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country.

The technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. 

Now, why is this investigation important? I’ll tell you why: because I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America. And we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That’s the abyss from which there is no return.

In 1975 Church chaired the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a 16-month investigation of national intelligence agencies.2

Church Committee, Wikipedia3:

The Church Committee (formally the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) was a US Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated abuses by the:

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
National Security Agency (NSA),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Chaired by Idaho Senator Frank Church (D-ID), the committee was part of a series of investigations into intelligence abuses in 1975, dubbed the "Year of Intelligence", including its House counterpart, the Pike Committee, and the presidential Rockefeller Commission. The committee's efforts led to the establishment of the permanent US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The most shocking revelations of the committee include:

Operation MKULTRA involving the drugging and torture of unwitting US citizens as part of human experimentation on mind control;[1][2]

COINTELPRO involving the surveillance and infiltration of American political and civil-rights organizations;[3]

Family Jewels, a CIA program to covertly assassinate foreign leaders;[4][5][6][7]

Operation Mockingbird as a systematic propaganda campaign with domestic and foreign journalists operating as CIA assets and dozens of US news organizations providing cover for CIA activity.[8]

It also unearthed Project SHAMROCK in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA (while officially confirming the existence of this signals intelligence agency to the public for the first time).

Church Committee Report (book Ii)

26.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Church Committee Report (book I, Foreign And Military Intelligence)

40.7MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Pretty, pretty relevant.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wtf

Share

Why do elite colleges pump students into the same five industries: law, medicine, tech, investing, and management consulting?

For answers, let’s turn to the philosopher René Girard.

Modern childhood is structured like a conveyor belt. Every kid progresses at the same speed, no matter how much they learn. Follow the conveyor belt and you’ll be successful. High school leads into college, which leads into graduate school, which leads into a prestigious career.

Whenever I meet a college kid, I ask: “Would you rather get a C in a class but actually learn the material, or an A in the class without learning anything?” Most kids conform to conveyor belt logic and reluctantly choose the A.

Sure, some students like the conveyor belt. They like knowing what they need to do and when they need to do it. Generally, these conformists are more interested in the rewards of good grades than the fruits of knowledge. They're good students and good employees.

Other people, like me, loathe the conveyor belt system. They feel like the rewards aren’t worth the effort. They don’t want to follow the syllabus in class and certainly don’t want their instructional manual for life to come from bureaucrats and school teachers.

René Girard says there are two kinds of desire: physical and metaphysical desire. Physical desire is wanting an object for its inherent qualities, like a glass of water because you’re thirsty — or learning for the sake of learning. This is healthy.

Metaphysical desire is different. Acquiring the object only brings you joy because of the person it makes you become. You only care about it because of what it says about you — like learning for good grades or a diploma. This is unhealthy.

People driven by metaphysical desire think achievement will bring them complete satisfaction. They think Straight A’s and an impressive job will fulfill them. But no matter what they achieve, and no matter how much they progress down the conveyor belt, they still feel empty.

The conveyor belt runs on the fuel of metaphysical desire. We copy other people's desires and mistake them for our own. Eventually, we can no longer hear the whims of our inner voice. Our desires undermine us and go against our best interests.

Too many students are numb to the inherent joys of working. "Learning” is only a worthy endeavor when it helps them advance to the next stage. Their satisfactions are fleeting and followed by emptiness. Like a mirage in the desert, they never quench their thirst for achievement.

There's a scarcity of physical desire and a surplus of metaphysical desire. Even after a 16 years in the classroom, too many students are unaware of who they really are and what they really care for. They have no sense of curiosity and no clue what interests them.

Intuitively, they know something is off. They're ruled by metaphysical desire. As a student recently told me: “I feel like nobody enjoys school. They all just put up with it. I feel like nobody likes this shit, and I’m at a point in my life where I can’t put up with it anymore.”

Kids who follow the conveyor belt path have mirroring desires, which leads to stress and anxiety. Each year, more and more high schoolers dream of getting into Ivy League schools that promise salvation, but cap their acceptance numbers like a Berlin nightclub.

With the conveyor belt mindset comes a fear of failure. Fall off and you fall behind… so don’t make any mistakes. One poor test, and their report card will be forever tainted. One poor semester, and their chances at an Ivy League education are gone.

And since your advancement has capped upside, why be creative?

Real life doesn’t work like this though. There is no speed limit. An interesting life has no default path. News flash: Life doesn't end at 30. Learning is crucial, but perfection isn't what it's cracked up to be.

If we’d explicitly designed an environment for Mimetic competition, we’d build a system like the one we have today: insane competition for limited spots, and the pursuit of meaningless rewards, and undifferentiated students who compete for the same scarce status symbols.

Meaningless prizes lead to brutal rivalries. Reflecting on his time at universities, Henry Kissinger once said: “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.”

Why is differentiation important? Peace and stability. People don’t envy those who are very different from them, which is why people have historically envied their neighbors and friends more than billionaires. “Love thy neighbor” can be harder than loving someone distant.

The worst fighting happens amongst equals. The first line of Romeo and Juliet says: “Two houses, both alike in dignity.” The hatred between the Montagues and the Capulets is so fierce 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 they are so similar.

For Girard, a lack of differentiation sows the seeds of violence. Facebook’s mission of connecting the world is something to fear instead of celebrate. Global visibility increases the scale of imitation and the potential for Mimetic rivalry.

By reducing distance between the poor and the rich, social media makes us hate billionaires. Gatsby’s parties were invite-only and reserved for the West Egg elite, while these days, Elon Musk’s private jet is tracked in real-time on Twitter.

The arc of history is leading to less differentiation. The common core has every public school student in America following the same curriculum. SATs have them studying for the same tests. The prestige of an Ivy League diploma has them applying to the same schools.

Multinational corporations have them competing for the same jobs. Nearly every college kid wants to work in the same five industries: law, tech, medicine, investing, and consulting — which is what Girard feared. They’re stuck in claustrophobic bubbles and blind to opportunities.

Kids are told that riding the conveyor belt is the key to success. But schools are procrustean, individuality-smashing machines. The trophies are hollow. The grades are basically meaningless. Their rewards bring fleeting satisfaction.

Does their angst surprise you?

The alternative is a school system that encourages differentiation. A system where kids are encouraged to explore their curiosity and escape the narrow, conformity-inducing conveyor belt. Girard's philosophy holds the keys to rewiring your mind and escaping the traps of Mimesis.

I talk more about these ideas in this lecture series about Girard’s philosophy, which you can watch below.

https://girardlectures.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@johnathan_bi

Share

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good overview of The Communist Manifesto from ThoughtCo1, which is remarkably short given the amount of devastation this ideology has reeked on the world since it was written in 1848:

Marx and Engels go on to state the 10 goals of the Communist Party:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Subscribe now

2 Alcee Hastings     

3 Barack Obama     

4 Barbara Lee     

5 Bernie Sanders     

6 Bill Clinton     

7 Corrine Brown     

8 Cory Booker     

9 Danny Davis   

10 Debbie Stabenow   

11 Debbie Wasserman Shultz   

12 Dianne Feinstein    

13 Dick Durbin   

14 Eddie Bernice Johnson   

15 Harry Reid    

16 Hillary Clinton   

17 Howard Dean   

18 Jamie Raskin   

19 Jerry Nadler   

20 Jesse Jackson   

21 Jimmy Carter   

22 Joe Biden   

23 John Kerry   

24 John Lewis   

25 Kamala Harris   

26 Karine Jean-Pierre

27 Lacy Clay   

28 Marcia Fudge

29 Maxine Waters   

30 Nancy Pelosi   

31 Raul Grijalva   

32 Sheila Jackson Lee   

33 Sherrod Brown   

34 Stacey Abrams   

35 Stephanie Tubbs   

36 Ted Kennedy   

37 Ted Lieu   

38 Teresa Heinz   

39 Terry McAuliffe

Buckle down and power up with this series of shocking scenarios and check out the 8-minute exclusive first look available here for your viewing pleasure. WORLDWIDE STREAMING RELEASE COMING THIS JANUARY 2023.

Dennis Quaid hosts an alarming look into the potential of life without power. A dynamic legion of energy, economic, national security, and infrastructure experts fearlessly expose our most critical global threat: the vulnerability of our nation’s power grids. Together they inform the public of imminent threats and the infinite horrors in store from prolonged power loss. Buckle down and power up with this series of shocking scenarios.

2 Minute Trailer:

On a related note:

Emergency Declared and Curfew Ordered Following Moore Power Grid Attack

Much of Moore County — more than 40,000 homes and businesses — remains without power following an attack to electrical substations. Authorities have confirmed that at least two substations were damaged by gunfire on Saturday night.

During a news conference Sunday, Sheriff Ronnie Fields said the shootings were unlike anything he had encountered in his four-decade career in law enforcement. They were “targeted” attacks, he said, carried out by an individual or individuals who “knew exactly what they were doing.”

https://www.thepilot.com/news/emergency-declared-and-curfew-ordered-following-moore-power-grid-attack/article_b3b19780-7370-11ed-865d-c78d0de5d921.html

David Tice, producer and director of the upcoming documentary Grid Down, Power Up says that “this incident illustrates the vulnerability of our nation’s substations and the cascading effects that harm American families and businesses, and can lead to mass societal chaos.”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯