From the Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman

Go ahead Biden and friends, prove me wrong

By refusing repeated chances to simply rule out a terrorism motive for a May 3 truck-breaching attack on the Quantico Marine Corps base, the Biden administration and all involved agencies have essentially confirmed one of America’s worst — and most politically consequential — nightmares related to the ongoing border crisis. A terror attack emanating from an illegal Southwest Border crossing just happened, and since that precedent is now established, more are likely on the way.

In my reasoned opinion, a Jordanian immigrant who illegally crossed the Southwest Border from Mexico finally staged the first known terrorism attack on U.S. soil on May 3 after having accessed the target from the Mexican border.

To date, the government will only confirm the border-crossing Jordanian joined with another illegally present Jordanian, who overstayed a student visa, and together posed as Amazon deliverymen in a large box truck, then tried to plow it through the gates of Quantico, which houses the FBI training academy, military officer training schools, and military criminal investigations and intelligence commands.

Quick-thinking military police thwarted the attack and charged the men with trespassing before turning them over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The government didn’t offer a word about this incident until Potomac Local News’ Kelly Sienkowski initially broke the story and provided the politically explosive elements that one of the Jordanians had crossed the southern border first and that one was on the FBI terrorism watch list.

After I amplified the Potomac Local News story in a May 13 New York Post column demanding to know more, some scattered conservative media outlets, broadcasters, and law-makers joined in the quest for an answer to the main question: Was this a terror attack by a border-crossing extremist? But the administration’s coordinated refusal to address the terrorism aspects led me — and should lead everyone else — to the conclusion that it most definitely was a terror attack by a border-crossing “special interest alien”.

I base my reasoned conclusion that a border-crossing terrorist did finally strike — a fear that has gone unconsummated and often ridiculed since 9/11 — in part on repeated refusals by the White House, the Department of Defense, the FBI, and ICE to address terrorism as the motive.

Consider that since the 9/11 attacks federal authorities and the American people have enjoyed a kind of public compact that now stands broken. It is that the government almost always clarifies to the American public whether its top counterterrorism professionals regard initially ambiguous attacks as motivated by international or domestic terrorism — or not — and often a thumbs up or down as to whether the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force was investigating.

But the Biden administration will not engage in this one rare case, a startling break with post-9/11 tradition.

I believe the reason Biden’s people won’t acknowledge the first-ever border-crossing terror attack attempts to serve political aims, at the expense of public safety. They know that acknowledging a terror attack from the border crisis would further damage a Biden re-election campaign that is already suffering dearly from it.

Much recent polling shows the border crisis and its attendant national security fears constitute a major political vulnerability for the Biden re-election campaign for which voters already plan to punish Biden and reward Donald Trump. The border crisis could swing the election already, and now come credible reports that at least one Jordanian border-crosser just tried to ram a huge truck through an important military and law enforcement installation.

Any official acknowledgement that it was done for the global jihad delivers a giant new sledgehammer at the doorstep of Trump’s campaign headquarters.

But more logic undergirds my conclusion that a border-crossing terrorist just struck for the first time due to the border crisis.

It’s that the Biden administration will not rule it out even though doing so would quickly end the political threat to Biden’s reelection. A rule-out would quickly send packing people like me and assure the story can never grow into a Trump sledgehammer. With a simple rule-out, we all just disappear, and columns like this never get written.

I believe the Biden administration won’t rule out terrorism because they know the May 3 attempted truck ramming was a terrorism attack, and officials are not willing to risk impugning themselves by publicly saying otherwise.

In lockstep, the DOD, FBI, and ICE have all refused to rule out terrorism as a motive.

“ICE confirms attack on Quantico; Ignores questions on terrorist threat”, reads the headline on one of Sienkowski’s  follow-up report a full 14 days after the terror attack. Fox News’ Doug Doocy got the same response when he asked the ICE commissioner the question. An FBI spokesperson in the northern Virginia field office refused to confirm or deny investigative interest in the matter, Sienkowski told me in a phone interview.

Not even the White House would reap the advantage of an official “terrorism-ruled-out” when Fox News’s Doocy  pressed White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre if the White House would characterize what happened as a “failed terror attack”.

“Given that it is an active law enforcement matter, I would have to refer you to ICE,” she replied. “I just can’t dive into that, again, because there is a law enforcement matter.”

That dodge is, in my view, as good as confirmation, considering all the circumstances.

Finally, I know this was a terror attack — the first ever by an extremist border-crosser from the Middle East — because Karine Jean-Pierre and all these agencies are in lockstep on the messaging and strategy of neither confirming nor denying or ruling out terrorism. That means a whole lot of high-level talking and coordination went on because … they know it was a terror attack and that great electoral danger resides in that reality.

This rare government refusal to say “terrorism” also suggests top Biden administration and campaign brass devised a strategy to hope against hope that legacy media won’t pick up this story. That it will all be forgotten. And that Trump will never realize he has in hand a sledgehammer for the first televised debate.

But those who care about the national security threat that Biden’s open-borders policy has created are not going away until his administration publicly goes on record ruling out a terrorism motive. Certainly not Texas Rep. Chip Roy and the dozen congressmen who just sent a letter demanding answers about the attack. Not me. And not Potomac Local News’ Kelly Sienkowski, she tells me.

The American people have a right and need to know that a border-crosser has just conducted the first terror attack on U.S. soil, just like those who have fretted about such a thing for three years worried would happen.

Government failure to acknowledge, willingly publicize, and fix that problem — in favor of selfish political gain — will only aid and abet new attacks, some of which U.S. Marines may not be able to thwart.

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.

Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” – or “pandemic treaty” – and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least.

The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland.

The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.”

But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”

“Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).

READ: 24 Republican governors tell Biden they will resist ‘unconstitutional’ WHO pandemic treaty

The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. …

The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.

The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.”

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender:

It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations.

This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.

The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.”

Opening the World Health Assembly on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus suggested efforts to finalize the two proposals will continue.

“We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, in remarks quoted by The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.”

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom – an organization working to defeat the WHO’s proposals – celebrated the news and suggested the WHO’s efforts have failed irreversibly.

“The treaty is done,” Nass wrote on Substack. “Nothing in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week.” She characterized the news as a “first round” win “in the war of democracy versus one-world government.”

WHO proposals ‘rolled out through lies and stealth’

Negotiations failed despite efforts by Tedros and others to persuade negotiators and WHO member states to agree on the two texts in time for a vote at the World Health Assembly.

At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January, Tedros warned of the pandemic threat posed by a yet-unknown “Disease X” and said the pandemic agreement “can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because this is about a common enemy.”

In March, over 100 former world leaders, including former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair – a proponent of “vaccine passports” and digital ID – signed a letter urging WHO member states to finalize negotiations on the “pandemic agreement.”

Biden administration officials negotiating on behalf of the U.S. also pushed for the two documents to be finalized.

Loyce Pace, assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told The Times. “Those of us in public health recognize that another pandemic really could be around the corner.”

In December 2023, Pace testified before Congress in support of the two documents. “It’s only a matter of time before the world faces another serious public health threat,” she said, noting the U.S. role in drafting some of the proposed IHR amendments.

But according to Nass, the entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through “lies and stealth.”

“Globalists created legal documents replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions,” she said. “But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it.”

Nass wrote that the “consensus” on the IHR proposals delivered to the World Health Assembly are “the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones.”

There is one exception, Nass said. Referring to Article 5 of the IHR amendments, she noted that “the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation.”

“Nearly all governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us,” Nass said. “So, while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything.”

She also noted that while consensus was reached on Article 18, the implementation of “health passports” and other similar documents during a health emergency is now a “recommendation” instead of a requirement. Definite language – such as the word “shall” – has been removed from the text.

‘They are not going to go away’

Other legal experts and health freedom advocates welcomed the news but said the WHO will likely continue pushing for the two proposals.

Australian attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens, who helped advocate for New Zealand’s rejection of a previous set of IHR amendments last year, told The Defender, “I don’t know that we should be celebrating the failure to reach agreement at this stage as a milestone.”

Journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “Member nations and the WHO have not given up. To the contrary, they have every intention of continuing in their attempts to finalize the negotiations.”

“Now is not the time to celebrate,” Roguski continued. “Now is the time to come together in order to take focused and massive action.”

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “According to my information, if the pandemic agreement fails, then they can continue negotiations later this year, with the view of trying again at next year’s World Health Assembly.”

Terhorst added:

We were informed that the World Health Assembly will not vote on the Pandemic Agreement this week, but the member states will vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations. They are negotiating as we speak in Geneva and they are working towards a deal at the end of this week, probably Saturday, June 1, 2024.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.  So we are by no means out of the danger zone. To the contrary.

“Given the WHO/World Health Assembly is a law unto themselves, and they desperately want these treaty reforms to pass, then the mandate to continue and finalize their negotiations may be extended,” Ashby-Koppens said.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender the WHO’s proposals were “the first time … that globalists spent an enormous amount of time, effort, money and brainpower to construct a worldwide totalitarian police state under the guise of protecting public health.”

Boyle said:

The WHO won’t back down from its proposals easily. They are not going to go away. They have come this far, and they will keep at it until they get their objective by hook or by crook. The only way to protect ourselves from these globalists is to pull out of the WHO.

But Nass believes the WHO may encounter difficulty in bringing back its proposals, telling The Defender it would be “unlikely to get far with either document unless they are pared down to what does not actually matter much to any nation.”

“I expect they will patch together a few [proposals] and vote yes and claim victory. But their major desires are all smashed,” Nass said. “They needed secrecy and ignorance, and they lost those advantages.”

Experts told The Defender a key factor in the WHO’s failure to achieve consensus on the two proposals was opposition from several nations – and by people worldwide.

“People and politicians around the world were educated about what was really being negotiated, what was really in the documents,” Nass said.

On Saturday, CHD participated in a rally against the WHO proposals, across from the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Watch Mary Holland speak at the New York rally here.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.