In a significant development this week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan issued a subpoena to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan. This action stems from concerns over the bank's involvement in sharing customer financial data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol unrest.
The subpoena targets the bank's alleged sharing of sensitive financial information without proper legal process, raising questions about privacy and legal boundaries.
Jordan, representing Ohio in the House and chairing the Judiciary panel, has been vocal in his criticism of Bank of America's cooperation with the FBI.
This cooperation reportedly involved the bank providing the FBI with financial data of individuals who were in Washington, D.C. around Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the infamous Capitol demonstrations.
The focal point of this investigation is a "filing" that Bank of America sent to the FBI. This filing allegedly contained a list of individuals who made purchases in Washington, D.C. around the time of the riot. However, according to Chairman Jordan, this sharing of information lacked a clear legal process.
Further complicating the matter, documents indicate that the FBI provided specific search terms to Bank of America. These terms were aimed at identifying customers involved in financial transactions in D.C. around Jan. 6 or those who had made purchases related to firearms, hotels, Airbnb, or airline travel within a specific date range.
Bank of America has maintained that it shared this information through a legal process initiated by the Department of Treasury. However, Chairman Jordan asserts that records show the FBI, not the Treasury, initiated the request for customer data.
The crux of the issue, as pointed out by Chairman Jordan, lies in the legal basis for such data sharing. He questions the legality of the FBI's or Bank of America's actions in sharing customer data without a clear criminal connection. This concern underscores a broader debate on privacy and government surveillance.
Chairman Jordan expressed his concern in a letter to Bank of America's CEO, stating that the bank had failed to provide all requested communications and documents to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. This statement suggests an ongoing struggle to obtain complete information from the bank.
Jordan emphasized the need for clarity on what legal process, if any, permits such sharing of sensitive customer information. He expressed concerns about the implications of this practice for thousands of Bank of America customers potentially implicated in a federal law enforcement investigation without clear criminal ties.
The situation poses significant questions about the extent to which financial institutions can or should cooperate with law enforcement agencies. It also raises the issue of whether such cooperation infringes on the financial privacy of American citizens.
Jordan's remarks highlight a growing discomfort with the perceived overreach of federal law enforcement agencies. He cautioned against granting unfettered access to financial information, suggesting a need for legislative action to safeguard financial privacy.
Before delving into the specific quotes from Chairman Jordan, it is crucial to understand the timeline of events leading to this subpoena. The Capitol riot occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, following which the FBI reportedly requested financial data from Bank of America on individuals present in Washington, D.C. around that time. The subpoena issued by Chairman Jordan came more than a year later, marking a significant escalation in the investigation into these practices.
Jordan articulated his concerns regarding the legal basis for the sharing of financial data. He questioned the legitimacy of the process that allowed the FBI and Bank of America to exchange such sensitive information without a well-defined criminal element.
Highlighting the potential overreach, Jordan stated:
Documents obtained by the Committee and Select Subcommittee show that the FBI also provided BoA with specific search query terms, indicating that the FBI was ‘interested in all financial relationships’ of BoA customers transacting in Washington D.C. and that had made ‘ANY historical purchase’ of a firearm, or those who had purchased a hotel, Airbnb, or airline travel within a given date range.
This statement reflects a deep concern about the broad scope of the FBI's interest and the extent of Bank of America's compliance in providing customer data.
The situation brings to the forefront the delicate balance between national security concerns and the privacy rights of citizens. The use of customer financial data in federal investigations without a clear legal mandate poses serious questions about privacy and due process.
Chairman Jordan's investigation aims to uncover the extent of the bank's cooperation with the FBI and the legal justification for such cooperation.
His efforts signal a push towards greater transparency and accountability in how private customer data is handled by financial institutions and accessed by government agencies.
Jim Jordan's position indicates that if the FBI indeed has such authority to access financial data without clear criminal connections, Congress may need to intervene. Such legislative action would be aimed at protecting the financial privacy of Americans from potential overreach by federal law enforcement agencies.
The concerns raised by Chairman Jordan point toward a potential legislative gap in the protection of financial privacy. He suggests that Congress may need to act to ensure that Americans' financial information is not accessed without proper legal authority.
This investigation into Bank of America's actions and the FBI's requests could potentially lead to legislative changes. Such changes would aim to define more clearly the circumstances under which financial institutions can share customer data with law enforcement agencies.
The unfolding of this investigation could have far-reaching implications not only for Bank of America and the FBI but for the broader financial sector and law enforcement practices in the United States. It raises fundamental questions about the balance between security and privacy in the digital age.
As this story continues to develop, it's essential to revisit the key points:
If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it on Twitter and Facebook.
Citizens of the United States on Sunday were sad to learn the somber news of former first lady Rosalynn Carter's passing.
Rosalynn Carter, an esteemed humanitarian and mental health advocate, died over the weekend at the age of 96. Her demise was followed by an outpouring of condolences and tributes, notably including a statement from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Pelosi's heartfelt statement paid homage to Carter's exceptional life and legacy. She described Carter as a "saintly and revered public servant," emphasizing her profound impact on America and the world.
Rosalynn Carter's journey as a public servant was deeply interwoven with her personal values. Her commitment was driven by her faith, compassion, and kindness. These qualities were the bedrock of her initiatives and accomplishments throughout her life, especially in the realm of mental health.
As the honorary chair of the President's Commission on Mental Health, Carter was instrumental in transforming mental health care. Her advocacy provided hope and healing to countless families. She championed the cause of caregivers, recognizing their vital role in society.
The Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregiving, established at Georgia Southwestern State University, continues to honor her legacy. It serves as a testament to her lifelong dedication to mental health and caregiver support.
Rosalynn Carter's tenure as first lady was marked by pioneering efforts and significant achievements. In 1977, she undertook a diplomatic trip to Latin America, showcasing her active involvement in international affairs.
She also made history as the first sitting first lady to address the World Health Organization (WHO). Her speech underscored the importance of global health issues, a testament to her commitment to humanitarian causes.
Carter's influence extended beyond traditional first lady roles. She was an indispensable advisor and confidant to her husband, President Jimmy Carter, playing a crucial role in his administration.
After leaving the White House in 1981, Rosalynn Carter's commitment to humanitarian work did not wane. She continued to be an active force for good, both domestically and internationally.
Together with President Carter, she was involved in the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity. These organizations reflect the Carters' enduring dedication to promoting peace, health, and human rights around the globe.
Speaking on Mrs. Carter's post-White House initiatives, Pelosi remarked, "After leaving the White House, she remained an active and unwavering force for good." Pelosi highlighted the Carters' joint efforts in their continued humanitarian work.
Pelosi's statement was not just a formal condolence, but a tribute to an extraordinary life lived in service. Pelosi noted Carter's profound faith, compassion, and kindness as drivers of her transformative change.
Pelosi also acknowledged Carter's unwavering support for caregivers. She said:
First Lady Carter was a powerful champion of our nation’s tens of millions of family and professional caregivers, a legacy carried on by the Georgia Southwestern State University Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregiving.
Pelosi extended her condolences to President Carter, their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, highlighting the depth of the personal loss for the Carter family.
Rosalynn Carter's passing marks the end of an era. Her contributions spanned several decades, leaving an indelible mark on the nation's history. She will be remembered not only as a first lady but as a tireless advocate for mental health, a compassionate humanitarian, and a beacon of hope for many.
Her legacy is carried on through the numerous initiatives she championed and the lives she touched. The Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregiving and the Carter Center stand as lasting tributes to her life's work.
The nation mourns the loss of a remarkable woman who dedicated her life to making the world a better place. Her memory will continue to inspire future generations to strive for compassion, service, and advocacy.
"Today, our nation mourns the loss of first lady Rosalynn Carter, a saintly and revered public servant," Pelosi said, adding:
A leader deeply driven by her profound faith, compassion and kindness, First Lady Carter achieved transformational change that has brought hope and healing to countless families across America and all around the world.
Pelosi’s words capture the essence of Carter’s lifetime of service and dedication. Her role transcended the boundaries of her position, influencing public policy and societal attitudes toward mental health and caregiving.
Rosalynn Carter's life was marked by her dedication to service, compassion, and advocacy. She leaves behind a legacy that will continue to impact generations to come. Her efforts in mental health care and support for caregivers have made a lasting impact on society.
In a recent NBC News poll, President Joe Biden's approval rating plummeted to a new low, causing concern among his supporters and political analysts alike. The poll, released over the weekend, indicates a significant decline in public confidence in the president's leadership.
The poll reveals that Biden's approval has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency, with only 40% of Americans now approving of his performance.
The NBC News poll, conducted between Nov. 10-14, surveyed 1,000 voters, revealing a 40% approval rating for President Biden, along with a 57% disapproval rating. This stark contrast highlights a growing dissatisfaction among the American public with the president's governance.
One of the most startling revelations from the NBC News poll is the significant drop in Biden's approval rating among young voters. In September 2022, 46% of voters aged 18-34 approved of Biden's performance, but this number dropped to a mere 31% by November 2023. This decline suggests a disconnect between the Biden administration and younger constituents.
According to the NBC News poll, the president's approval rating has been on a consistent decline. Since early this year, there has been a noticeable downward trend in his popularity, with approval ratings of 46% in January, 43% in April, 43% in June, 41% in September, and now 40% in November.
This downward trajectory is not exclusive to NBC News polling. A similar trend is observable in Fox News polls, where Biden's approval rating was 45% in January 2023, 44% in June, 42% in August, 41% in October, and matched the current low of 40% previously recorded in July 2022.
The NBC News poll also suggests that concerns regarding Biden's age are contributing to his falling approval ratings. As the oldest president in U.S. history, Biden's age has been a topic of discussion and concern among voters, affecting their confidence in his ability to lead effectively.
Foreign policy decisions and economic management have been other critical areas contributing to the president's declining approval. These issues have been pivotal in shaping public opinion, particularly in a time of global uncertainty and domestic challenges.
Comparing the NBC News and Fox News polls over the past two years paints a clear picture of Biden's steadily declining approval. The data from these polls reflects a broader sentiment of dissatisfaction and concern among the American electorate about the direction in which the country is headed under Biden's leadership.
The NBC poll stated, "Biden's approval rating is just 40% — the lowest Biden has ever measured in our poll." This quote encapsulates the gravity of the situation facing the Biden administration as they confront this low point in public confidence.
The poll conducted by NBC News is particularly significant given its comprehensive sampling and methodology.
With a margin of error of 3.1%, the results are considered a reliable barometer of the national mood toward the president's performance.
Comparing President Biden's current approval ratings with those of previous presidents at similar points in their terms can provide valuable context. Such comparisons can help gauge the extent of Biden's decline in popularity and its potential implications for his administration's policy and political strategies.
Historically, approval ratings have been a key indicator of a president's political strength and public support. They often influence the administration's ability to push through its agenda and can be a crucial factor in midterm and re-election campaigns.
The current low approval rating for Biden could have significant implications for the Democratic Party, especially as its members prepare for upcoming elections. It raises questions about the party's strategy and the potential need for re-evaluation of its policy priorities and communication with the electorate.
The decline in President Biden's approval ratings has potential implications for the political landscape, particularly with regard to the Democratic Party's prospects in upcoming elections. A low approval rating for the incumbent president can often reflect unfavorably on the party, impacting its performance in both congressional and local elections.
This trend may also influence the political discourse within the Democratic Party, potentially leading to shifts in policy priorities or strategies. The party might need to address the issues that are causing dissatisfaction among voters, such as economic policies or foreign relations.
The impact of these ratings extends beyond immediate political consequences. They also affect the president's ability to enact policies and can influence international perceptions of the United States. A strong approval rating is often seen as a mandate for the president's agenda, both domestically and internationally.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has issued a plea to the city's affluent residents to financially support the growing number of migrants in the city. This comes amid escalating budget constraints faced by the city.
At a recent event, Mayor Adams started begging wealthy New Yorkers to help cover the escalating costs associated with the city's migrant crisis.
During a Police Athletic League event on Nov. 17, 2023, Mayor Adams highlighted the urgent need for additional funding to support migrants. He emphasized the city's financial strain, driven by the ongoing migrant crisis.
"This is a moment where it's an all hands on deck moment," Adams said, underscoring the critical situation. His call for support targets philanthropic interests in New York City, especially those who can help bridge the gap in services for migrants.
The mayor's appeal comes as New York City grapples with legal obligations to prioritize funding for economic migrants. This has led to reductions in services for current residents.
With migrants receiving shelter and food that costs up to $400 per day, the financial burden on the city is mounting.
President Biden's migration policies have led to an influx of over 100,000 migrants in New York City. This surge has exacerbated the city's financial challenges.
Funding that could have been allocated to policing, schools, and other programs is now being diverted to support migrants. The taxpayer burden for this support has surpassed $12 billion.
Despite these financial challenges, Democrats in the city have shown reluctance to amend laws or increase taxes to fund migrant-related expenses.
Mayor Adams told the crowd at the event about the importance of their support. He stressed that New York's path often sets the tone for the rest of America, highlighting the broader implications of the city's handling of the migrant crisis.
Adams called for the alignment of philanthropic interests with the city's needs. He pointed to organizations like the Police Athletic League and the Robin Hood Foundation as crucial in this effort, saying:
A moment where our philanthropic interests must align with some of the gaps and services that we are seeing today, Adams continued.
The appeal for help is not just a local concern but one that resonates with the city's role as a national leader.
The issue of supporting migrants in NYC is not new. As early as September, Breitbart News reported on the high costs incurred by the city to support migrant families.
This ongoing situation has placed New York City in a difficult position, as it tries to balance its legal obligations with the need to maintain essential services for its residents.
Mayor Adams' call for help is a reflection of the city's dire financial situation, made more acute by the ongoing influx of migrants under the current federal policies.
The mayor's plea is a significant moment for New York City. It underscores the growing challenges faced by urban centers in managing migrant crises within tight budget constraints.
This situation presents a complex dilemma for city officials, who must navigate the intricate balance of supporting migrants while ensuring the well-being of current residents.
As Mayor Adams continues to advocate for more support, the city's residents and leaders are called to step up in this time of need.
The city's approach to managing the migrant crisis will likely have lasting implications, not only for New York but potentially for other cities facing similar challenges.
The response from the wealthy residents of New York City to Mayor Adams' appeal remains to be seen. Their participation, or lack thereof, could set a precedent for how other cities handle similar situations in the future.
This issue is not just a local or even a national concern, but one that resonates with global discussions about migration, urban management, and humanitarian support.
The unfolding story of New York City's migrant crisis is a reminder of the interconnectedness of local, national, and global policies and their impact on urban centers.
As Mayor Adams and city officials navigate this complex situation, their decisions will likely be scrutinized for their effectiveness in balancing humanitarian needs with fiscal responsibility.
The ongoing migrant crisis in New York City is a microcosm of broader challenges faced by urban areas around the world. How NYC responds may offer valuable lessons for other cities in similar situations.
In a landmark decision, the New Hampshire Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Teachers-New Hampshire (AFT-NH) against the state's Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) voucher program. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, affirmed the legality of the controversial program.
The court's verdict allows the continuation of the voucher system, which the AFT-NH had claimed was unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, initiated last year in Merrimack County, argued that the state's use of public money to fund private schools through vouchers violated the Constitution. This challenge came amidst growing tensions over the use of public funds for private education in the United States.
AFT-NH President Deb Howes expressed disappointment at the ruling. She emphasized that the decision was not unexpected, given the current educational and political climate. The union's primary concern was the alleged unconstitutional nature of the voucher program.
Howes further argued that according to state law, lottery funds should only support public schools and the Education Trust Fund. She contended that diverting these funds to vouchers undermines public education. The lawsuit sought an injunction to halt the EFA program, citing these concerns.
The Education Trust Fund, a significant source of public education funding in New Hampshire, was amended earlier this year to include vouchers. This amendment was a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over school funding and the role of private education in the state.
Despite the legal challenge, the EFA program has seen a significant increase in enrollment. Over 4,200 economically disadvantaged students are now enrolled in the program for this school year. This represents a 20% increase from the previous school year.
The growing popularity of the EFA program highlights a shift in educational choice in New Hampshire. Parents are increasingly opting for alternatives to traditional public schooling, a trend that has concerned many educators and union leaders.
Teachers' unions, including AFT-NH, typically oppose school choice programs. They argue that such programs divert essential funding away from public schools, affecting their ability to provide quality education.
Judge Amy Ignatius presided over the case and ultimately ruled that AFT-NH failed to prove the voucher program's unconstitutionality. Her decision was a setback for the union, which had hoped to secure an injunction against the EFAs.
Reacting to the verdict, Howes stated:
The court’s decision is disappointing but not surprising. The Legislature should focus more on the needs of the 160,000 Granite State public school students. Vouchers have exacerbated an already disparate burden placed on local property taxpayers to fund the basic right to a quality public education.
Howes's statement reflects the union's stance that public funds should prioritize public schools over private educational alternatives. She highlighted the disproportionate impact of vouchers on local taxpayers.
The American Federation for Children, a pro-school choice organization, also weighed in on the ruling. Senior Fellow Corey DeAngelis expressed satisfaction with the court's decision, criticizing the teachers' union's stance.
DeAngelis's comments were particularly scathing towards union efforts to block the voucher program. He accused the unions of trying to "trap kids in their failing government schools." His remarks underscore the deep divisions in the debate over school choice and educational funding.
According to DeAngelis:
Education freedom is here to stay, and there’s nothing Randi Weingarten and her union stooges can do about it. Parents deserve the right to direct the upbringing of their own children, and school choice gives them real power.
His comments indicate a strong belief in parental rights and the efficacy of school choice in improving educational outcomes. This perspective is in stark contrast to that of the teacher's unions, which advocate for stronger public school funding.
The decision of the New Hampshire Superior Court marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over school vouchers and educational funding. The ruling allows the EFA program to continue, impacting thousands of students in the state.
AFT-NH's failed lawsuit highlights the complex legal and political challenges facing public education funding. The case underscores the growing tension between public and private educational interests in the United States.
As the debate continues, stakeholders on both sides are likely to remain engaged in the discussion over the best ways to fund and manage education at the state and national levels.
If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it on Twitter and Facebook.
In a significant development, Chinese police conducted a raid on a Christian church service in Sichuan province on Nov. 9, marking a continuation of the government's stringent measures against independent religious practices.
The raid targeted the Good Land Mission Center in Dazhou, affiliated with the Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church, leading to the arrest of 13 individuals, including prominent church leaders.
The Good Land Mission Center, known for its affiliation with the Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church, experienced the harsh realities of the Chinese government's crackdown on Nov. 9. This raid was not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing campaign by the Chinese authorities to exert control over religious activities, specifically targeting independent Christian congregations.
During the service, which included baptisms and communion, a team of police officers abruptly intervened. The congregation was gathered for what was supposed to be a peaceful and sacred observance of their faith. However, it quickly turned into a scene of disruption and fear.
Elder Li Yingqiang and Pastor Dai Zhichao, along with other church leaders such as Hou Duoshu, were among those detained. This incident highlighted the increasing tension between the state and religious groups, with leaders often facing the brunt of governmental displeasure. Elder Li and Hou Duoshu, in particular, remain in custody, indicating the seriousness with which the authorities are treating this matter.
According to ChinaAid, a U.S.-based Christian charity, the service was not just a regular gathering but included significant religious rites such as baptisms and holy communion. This raid, therefore, disrupted not just a meeting but a profound spiritual event for the attendees.
Hou Duoshu's arrest is particularly notable given his history. He previously served over a decade in prison for his involvement in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, a movement that has remained a sensitive topic in China due to its violent suppression by the government. His continued commitment to his faith and activism, despite past repercussions, underscores the resilience and determination of these religious leaders.
The repeated targeting of the Good Land Mission Center raises questions about the extent of religious freedom in China. This center, like many others, has faced multiple police raids over the years, each time casting a shadow over the rights of religious groups to practice their faith freely and without fear of governmental interference.
In October, just a month before the raid, China enacted the "Patriotic Education Law." This law mandates religious groups to promote ideologies aligning with the Communist Party, a move seen by many as an attempt to bring religious groups under tighter state control.
President Xi Jinping's campaign to "Sinicize" religion is a critical element of this broader narrative. The aim is to reshape religious practices in China, ensuring they align with the principles and ideologies of the Communist Party, which professes atheism. This push towards uniformity of belief under the banner of patriotism is seen as a means to consolidate power and suppress any form of dissent or alternative ideology.
The new law explicitly states that religious groups must enhance identification with "the great motherland, the Chinese people, Chinese culture, the Chinese Communist Party, and socialism with Chinese characteristics." This directive reflects a clear intent to intertwine religious faith with nationalistic and party loyalty, a combination that many religious practitioners find conflicting with their beliefs.
China's approach to religion, particularly under President Xi Jinping's administration, reflects a broader strategy of governance where conformity and allegiance to state ideology are paramount. The suppression of independent religious practices, as evidenced by the recent raid, is a part of this overarching policy of control and assimilation.
The plight of the Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church and its affiliates brings to the fore critical questions about religious freedom in China. The state's efforts to control religious expression through laws and direct intervention, as seen in the raid, highlight the precarious situation of religious minorities and independent congregations in the country.
Elder Li Yingqiang and Pastor Dai Zhichao, notable figures in the Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church, have been regular targets of harassment by the Chinese Communist Party. Their latest arrests are a testament to the ongoing struggle between the state and religious groups seeking autonomy in their practices and beliefs.
According to a statement by ChinaAid:
The service included baptisms and holy communion, according to reports by ChinaAid, a U.S.-based Christian charity.
This incident is not just about the raid itself, but also about the broader context in which it occurred. The implementation of laws like the Patriotic Education Law and the continued suppression of religious activities represent a significant challenge to the principles of religious freedom and human rights.
As the world watches, the situation for religious groups in China remains tense and uncertain. The recent raid on the Good Land Mission Center is a stark reminder of the challenges faced by religious practitioners in a country where state ideology often conflicts with personal beliefs and practices.
The continued detention of Elder Li Yingqiang and Hou Duoshu, along with the release of some of their colleagues, paints a complex picture of the Chinese government's approach to dealing with dissenting religious voices.
The selective enforcement of laws and targeted harassment of certain individuals and groups raises concerns about the future of religious freedom in China.
In a significant development, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) has urged that a probe be launched into the former House Jan. 6 committee's handling of Capitol demonstration footage.
Accusations have surfaced suggesting that critical footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol unrest was deliberately concealed or even nearly destroyed by the committee members.
Lee specifically targeted former committee members Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, alleging that they intentionally hid some footage. The senator raised concerns on social media, questioning why the pair never mentioned certain portions of the tapes in their investigations or reports.
The Jan. 6 committee, formed under then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, included Cheney and Kinzinger as the only Republican representatives. Their role was to investigate the events surrounding the Capitol riots, where supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the building.
Lee's accusations extend beyond Cheney and Kinzinger. He implicates the entire committee and Pelosi in potentially deliberately losing or destroying records related to the riots. This claim adds a layer of controversy to the already contentious topic of the Capitol riots and the committee's findings.
Amplifying his concerns, Lee shared a video clip showing a Capitol police officer releasing a protester on Jan. 6. This clip, according to Lee, raises questions about the completeness and integrity of the committee's investigation and report.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, is now taking action by releasing over 40,000 hours of footage from the Capitol protests. This move aligns with Johnson's commitment to transparency, acknowledging the public's right to access these materials.
Johnson, however, clarified that some footage, especially those sensitive to security, would not be made publicly available. This decision balances the need for transparency with concerns for ongoing security and the protection of individuals involved.
The footage release is expected to be gradual, providing the public and researchers ample opportunity to review and analyze the events of that tumultuous day.
The Jan. 6, 2021, riots marked a dark day in American history as pro-Trump protesters breached the U.S. Capitol. Their aim was to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's election victory.
In response, Pelosi appointed a select committee in 2021 to investigate the attack, including GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger on the panel. Their inclusion was seen as a bipartisan effort to thoroughly examine the events and aftermath of the riots.
Fast forward to November 18, 2022, the newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson announced his intention to release the extensive footage from that day. This move was seen as an effort to provide more context and perhaps challenge some of the committee's conclusions.
Amidst this backdrop Sen. Lee has called for an investigation into the committee. His allegations of suppression and potential destruction of evidence have reignited debates around the committee's work and its legacy.
Lee's statements question the committee's approach to the investigation, suggesting that there may have been selective disclosure of information to shape the narrative in a certain way.
The lawmaker's call for an investigation into the committee is a significant step, signaling a potential shift in how the January 6 riots are understood and discussed in the political arena and beyond.
Lee's allegations and Johnson's footage release could potentially offer new perspectives on the events of Jan. 6, 2021. The scrutiny of the committee's actions and decisions may lead to a deeper understanding of the Capitol riots.
The complexities surrounding the committee's work, including the roles of Cheney and Kinzinger, are now under increased scrutiny. Their participation as the only Republicans on the committee adds layers of political and ideological tension to the current discourse.
As more footage becomes available, it is expected that various stakeholders, including the media, political analysts, and the public, will engage in extensive review and discussion of these events, potentially reshaping the narrative around the Jan. 6 riots.
In conclusion, Lee's call for an investigation into the Jan. 6 committee raises critical questions about the handling of evidence and the transparency of the investigation.
With the gradual release of over 40,000 hours of Capitol riot footage by Johnson, new insights and interpretations of that day's events are anticipated.
This development invites a reexamination of the Jan. 6 riots, the committee's findings, and the broader implications for American democracy and political accountability.
If you found this article insightful, please consider sharing it on Twitter and Facebook.
The recent viral spread of Usama bin Laden's "Letter to America" on TikTok, celebrated by a younger generation unfamiliar with the horrors of 9/11, has sparked a wave of concern and outrage among victims' families. The letter, which attempts to justify the 9/11 attacks, has been met with praise by some Gen Z users, igniting a disturbing trend on the social media platform.
This trend has deeply troubled families of 9/11 victims, who view it as a dangerous distortion of history -- and have come forward to charge the current "spineless" administration with responsibility for the spread of the letter.
Terry Strada, who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks, expressed her distress over the situation. She finds it deeply troubling that young people, who did not experience the attacks firsthand, are now captivated by bin Laden's narrative.
Strada blames this phenomenon on a lack of proper education and awareness among the youth, coupled with government leaders who, she claims, protect Saudi Arabia despite its alleged role in funding the attacks.
Brett Eagleson, another individual who lost his father in the 9/11 tragedy, echoes Strada's concerns. He views this trend as an existential threat to the United States. Eagleson believes that the root of this issue lies in the failure of the education system to adequately teach the events and implications of 9/11.
Eagleson pointed to efforts in Florida, led by Gov. Ron DeSantis, to mandate the teaching of 9/11 in schools. However, he notes that many states and the federal government do not have such requirements, leading to a gap in understanding among younger generations.
Matt Bocchi, who also lost his father on 9/11, is appalled by the sympathy some teenagers show for bin Laden. Bocchi has personally struggled with addiction following the 9/11 attacks and is deeply hurt by the spread of bin Laden's propaganda. He advocates for monitoring or selling TikTok to U.S. interests to prevent further misinformation.
The issue came to the forefront following the viral spread of bin Laden's "Letter to America" on TikTok. The letter, which justifies the 9/11 attacks, found an unexpected audience among Gen Z users, many of whom were born after the attacks and are seemingly disconnected from its reality.
Despite the nearly two decades that have passed since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives, there remains a significant gap in the understanding of these events among younger generations.
This gap is largely attributed to the lack of comprehensive 9/11 education in many U.S. schools and curricula.
Speaking about the impact of this trend, Strada said:
I find it appalling. I mean, it's hard to find words to describe just how upsetting this is to the entire 9/11 community, to have to see these young people out there. But the truth is, is that they are very misinformed, and they are uneducated and ignorant on the subject.
"We have had spineless — and I mean spineless — leaders in the White House and in the State Department that choose to protect the kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the American people knowing the truth, and we have to remember that the truth is what will always be our best weapon against history repeating itself," Strada continued.
Eagleson's view of the situation is equally strong. He sees the trend as not just a disrespect to the memory of the victims but as a threat to the fabric of American society. For him, this disturbing trend underscores the urgency of teaching the history of 9/11 in schools.
Bocchi's perspective is shaped by personal loss and the struggle that followed. His comments reflect a deep concern about the impact of social media platforms like TikTok in shaping young minds. Bocchi's experience highlights the long-lasting effects of the 9/11 attacks on individuals and families.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, marked a turning point in American history, bringing about changes in national security, foreign policy, and the collective consciousness of the nation. The attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists and led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, leaving a lasting impact on the country.
The recent phenomenon of younger generations being drawn to bin Laden's narrative sheds light on the challenges in preserving the memory and lessons of 9/11. It also raises questions about the role of social media in disseminating information and the responsibility of platforms in curbing misinformation.
The lack of comprehensive education on 9/11 across the United States further complicates this issue. Without a solid understanding of the events and their implications, younger generations are vulnerable to misinformation and distorted perspectives.
As the world continues to grapple with the legacy of 9/11, the importance of education and awareness becomes ever more apparent. The families of 9/11 victims are calling for more robust educational efforts to ensure that the true nature of these events is not lost on future generations.
The role of social media platforms in controlling the spread of misinformation is also under scrutiny. The case of TikTok and its influence on young minds is a clear example of the challenges posed by the digital age in preserving historical accuracy.
The voices of 9/11 families serve as a reminder of the ongoing impact of the attacks and the need for vigilance in protecting the truth of history. Their experiences and perspectives offer valuable insights into the ways in which society can honor the memory of those lost and educate future generations.
In a significant political development this week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton traveled to the nation's capital, signaling a serious shift in the ongoing debate over border security and immigration policies.
Paxton visited Washington, D.C. to advocate for a return to stricter border security measures and a reversal of current immigration policies.
Since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, Paxton has been a vocal critic of the administration's immigration policies. Paxton has filed nearly 50 lawsuits against the Biden administration, challenging various aspects of its approach to immigration and border security.
These legal actions underscore Paxton's commitment to influencing federal policy. He believes that the current policies are insufficient to tackle the challenges Texas faces at its southern border.
During his tenure, Paxton has consistently argued for a shift in policy. His recent visit to Washington D.C. represents an escalation in his efforts to bring national attention to what he perceives as a crisis at the border.
In D.C., Paxton's goal was to share firsthand the perspectives of Texas officials. He aimed to communicate the impact of border policies on local communities and law enforcement.
Paxton's visit was also an opportunity to push for policy changes. He advocates for a return to some of the immigration policies implemented during the Trump administration, which he views as more effective in securing the border.
However, Paxton acknowledges the challenges ahead. With a Democratic majority in the Senate, he is aware that his desired policy changes might face significant opposition. Nonetheless, he believes it is crucial for Congress to understand the views and experiences of those dealing with the border crisis daily.
Paxton's stance on federal funding for border security is clear: he opposes additional funding without policy changes. He argues that funding alone is not enough to address the issues at the border.
He has been particularly critical of the Biden administration's decision to cut construction of the border wall. Paxton filed a lawsuit accusing the administration of compromising border security by halting this project.
Instead of more funding, Paxton advocates for tangible policy shifts. Building the border wall is a key component of these desired changes, as he believes it is essential for maintaining control over illegal immigration.
Paxton has raised alarms about the increasing influence of cartels along the southern border. He argues that under the current policies, these criminal organizations are gaining control, posing a significant threat to both border security and public safety.
The Texas AG's concerns are not just about immigration numbers. He believes that the strengthening of cartels under the current policy framework has broader implications for national security and public safety.
These concerns are heightened by his perception that the Biden administration's policies are inadvertently empowering criminal elements. Paxton warns that this could lead to the cartels establishing a more substantial presence across the nation, saying:
To watch this going on and watch how [cartels are] just controlling the border completely — and they're getting stronger because they've got so many resources, they're going to be established throughout the nation because the Biden administration has encouraged them to do that. People don't realize how evil this is for the nation.
Paxton emphasizes that the consequences of the current immigration policies are most acutely felt in Texas. He argues that the federal government's decisions have a direct impact on the safety and security of millions of Texans.
His advocacy in Washington is driven by a desire to protect his constituents from the repercussions of what he perceives as inadequate federal policies. Paxton's stance reflects a broader concern among some state officials about the federal government's role in border security.
This concern is not only about immigration numbers but also about the broader implications for national security and the rule of law. Paxton's efforts in Washington are a reflection of these broader anxieties.
Paxton's vision for border security involves a combination of policy changes and structural enhancements, such as the construction of a border wall. He believes that these measures are essential for effectively managing immigration and ensuring national security.
His advocacy for a return to Trump-era policies is rooted in a belief that these policies were more effective in deterring illegal immigration. Paxton argues that a strong border is essential for maintaining the sovereignty and security of the nation.
However, he is cognizant of the political realities in Washington. Paxton understands that his proposals may face opposition, but he remains committed to advocating for what he believes are necessary measures to secure the border.
The music world is mourning the loss of a legendary figure. George Brown, the acclaimed drummer and co-founder of the iconic funk and soul band Kool & The Gang, passed away on Thursday. He was 74 years old.
Brown's death marks the end of an era in the music industry, with his contributions spanning over half a century.
Born into a world of rhythm and beats, Brown became a founding member of Kool & The Gang back in 1964. Alongside Robert Bell, Ronald Bell, Dennis Thomas, Robert Mickens, Ricky West, and Charles Smith, Brown helped shape the sound that would define a generation. The band's blend of jazz, soul, funk, and R&B created a unique musical experience that resonated with audiences worldwide.
It wasn't until 1973 that Kool & The Gang rose to prominence with its hit album Wild and Peaceful. This album, featuring tracks like "Jungle Boogie" and "Hollywood Swinging," catapulted the group to stardom, setting the stage for a series of successes that would span decades.
As a co-writer of many of the band's biggest hits, including "Ladies Night," "Celebration," and "Too Hot," Brown's creative genius was unmistakable. His work contributed significantly to the band's distinctive sound, which continued to evolve and inspire.
Over the years, Kool & The Gang's influence only grew. With hits like "Ladies Night," "Celebration," "Jungle Boogie," and "Emergency," the group captured the essence of an era. Its music not only dominated the charts but also became a staple at celebrations worldwide, bringing people together with its infectious energy and rhythm.
Kool & The Gang's impact on the music industry was monumental. The band's achievements include two Grammy Awards, seven American Music Awards, a Music Business Association Award, and a Soul Train Legend Award. Their star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame serves as a testament to their enduring legacy.
Amidst this whirlwind of success, George Brown faced personal challenges. He had previously battled and recovered from cancer, only for the disease to return in 2022. Despite his health struggles, Brown's spirit and passion for music never waned.
Brown's final days were spent in Los Angeles, where he succumbed to stage 4 lung cancer. His passing has left a void in the hearts of his fans and fellow musicians. Robert Bell, the bassist and only surviving founding member still performing with Kool & The Gang, carries on the legacy that Brown helped build.
Brown's influence extended beyond his musical talents. He was a loving husband and father, survived by his wife and five children. His family, friends, and fans remember him not just as a musician, but as a beacon of joy and creativity.
Speaking about his music, a representative shared Brown's sentiments. George Brown always described his music as "the sound of happiness." This simple yet profound statement captures the essence of his life's work and the joy it brought to so many.
When asked to describe his music, Brown always replied, ‘The sound of happiness.'
In honor of Brown's memory, donations are being encouraged to the Lung Cancer Society of America. This gesture reflects the compassion and philanthropy that Brown exemplified throughout his life.
Brown's journey with Kool & The Gang was marked by groundbreaking musical innovation and widespread acclaim. From the band's formation in 1964 to its rise in 1973 with Wild And Peaceful, and the numerous hits that followed, Brown's drumbeats formed the backbone of a sound that would forever change the landscape of music.
The loss of George Brown is not just the loss of a band member but the fading of a piece of musical history. His death brings an end to a chapter in the story of Kool & The Gang, a band that has left an indelible mark on the world of music.
As we remember George Brown, his life's work serves as a reminder of the power of music to unite, celebrate, and heal. His legacy will continue to inspire future generations, and his music will remain a source of happiness for many years to come.
The impact of George Brown's musical journey cannot be overstated. His contributions to Kool & The Gangs and the music industry at large have left an enduring legacy. His innovative drumming and songwriting helped shape the sound of funk and soul music, influencing countless artists and fans alike.
As the world bids farewell to this legendary musician, his music lives on, a timeless testament to his talent and passion. George Brown's spirit will forever be felt in the beats and rhythms that continue to bring joy and celebration to people around the globe.
