Archive for October, 2024
Democracy Futures Project Prepares 175 Top US Leaders For Violent Resistance Against Trump Victory
With the election just five days away, the rhetoric from Democrat leaders and their allies has taken a distinct and ominous turn. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democrat Party is actively preparing its constituency for what it perceives as an existential threat: a Republican victory next week. Leading figures in the party, from the sitting president to the vice president and beyond, are cultivating a narrative that dehumanizes Republicans, primes their supporters for violent resistance and sets the stage for a crisis that could threaten the very stability of the republic. These efforts go hand-in-hand with a series of wargames, including the Democracy Futures Project held less than six months ago in Washington, D.C., where 175 of the most senior and influential government officials, academics, activists, governors, cabinet members, military officers and grassroots leaders came together to normalize the concept of overturning the outcome of the presidential election if Donald Trump wins in November.
The Anatomy of an Existential Crisis
When Kamala Harris refers to Donald Trump as a fascist—or when President Joe Biden calls his supporters “garbage”—these are not slips of the tongue. They are calculated declarations designed to ignite fear and loathing within their base. Democrats, armed with the propaganda of mainstream media, paint a picture of Trump and his supporters as a malignant force in American society. It is rhetoric not unlike that used in history to set the groundwork for total warfare against an internal enemy—the kind that makes dehumanizing your opposition not just acceptable but moral. The Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s serves as a grim reminder of where such rhetoric can lead. In Rwanda, Hutu extremists used dehumanizing language, referring to the Tutsi minority as “cockroaches” that needed to be exterminated, which paved the way for one of the worst genocides in modern history. The parallels in language should serve as a stark warning of the dangers inherent in normalizing such vilification.
The modern Democrat Party has leaned heavily into invoking imagery reminiscent of one of history’s darkest periods. Not coincidentally, Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden has been compared by media outlets to the Nazi rally held there in 1939. The vice president and her allies are not simply signaling their opposition to Trump’s policies—they are explicitly calling Trump Adolf Hitler. By invoking the name of Adolf Hitler, the Democrats are drawing comparisons to a figure responsible for the Holocaust, where six million Jews were systematically murdered, alongside millions of others, including political dissidents, disabled individuals and various ethnic minorities. Hitler’s tyranny extended to brutal concentration camps, where prisoners faced unimaginable horrors—forced labor, starvation and mass executions. The Democrats are portraying their political adversaries not as opponents in a democratic contest but as an evil that must be stamped out to preserve democracy itself. By equating Trump to one of the greatest villains in human history, Democrats are subtly yet effectively setting the conditions for widespread, potentially violent civil resistance if the outcome doesn’t go their way.
Dehumanization and Its Perils
The Democrats’ reliance on incendiary rhetoric should not be surprising. When Hillary Clinton referred to Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” in 2016, she laid the foundation for a more aggressive form of disdain for half of the electorate. Fast forward to the Biden-Harris era, and the dehumanizing rhetoric has only escalated. President Biden labeled Trump supporters as “garbage,” echoing and amplifying Clinton’s infamous comment. But it doesn’t end with the leaders at the top.
Daytime television has become a platform for reinforcing these narratives. Joy Reid, a host on MSNBC, along with members of The View, like Whoopi Goldberg, have referred to Trump supporters as “cockroaches.” Such language is significant, as it has deep historical resonance. It is the exact same description used by the Hutu-led government and media in Rwanda in the 1990s to lay the psychological groundwork for genocide against the Tutsi minority. Under the leadership of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana and with the complicity of mainstream media outlets like Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), Tutsis were labeled as “cockroaches,” which paved the way for the massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in just 100 days. By equating a group of people to pests that need extermination, the Democrats and their media partners are invoking a chillingly familiar language of dehumanization. The objective here is not simply political victory; it is to paint any Republican or conservative—especially those aligned with Trump—as something less than human.
Conditioning for Conflict
While the rhetoric is alarming on its own, it serves a larger, more dangerous purpose: conditioning the military, law enforcement and Democrat base for conflict. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg and others, have been particularly prolific in advancing the idea that Donald Trump not only disdains the military but seeks to use it as an extension of his will—akin to fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. According to recent articles, Trump supposedly envies the respect that Hitler commanded from his generals, a claim that’s both absurd and deliberately incendiary. Consider admissions by General Mark Milley in Bob Woodward’s book, where Milley openly stated that he sought to prevent Trump from being able to order the military to take actions that Milley did not agree with. He admitted to preventing the National Guard from being deployed to stop the January 6th riot. Furthermore, Milley even claimed that he had contacted the Chinese military, promising them he would personally warn them if Trump planned any attacks. These actions reflect an alarming trend of senior military figures feeling empowered to circumvent the established chain of command, further fueling the narrative of distrust and division.
In this narrative, the Democrats do not merely critique Trump’s policies. They paint him as someone contemptuous of America’s values—someone who, if given the reins of power, would commandeer the military to crush dissent. This is not only an affront to Trump’s record, where he reduced endless foreign interventions, but it serves to turn those in uniform against him. Consider General John Kelly’s recent claims that Trump admired Hitler and wished his generals were more like Hitler’s—claims that are difficult to believe given that Kelly waited five years to make them. As chief of staff, Kelly not only failed to follow orders but actively sought to undermine Trump’s efforts to bring U.S. troops home, build the border wall and implement economic policies that were central to his platform. These actions reflect an effort from within to subvert a sitting president, positioning the military to view Trump and his supporters as a threat—a narrative that could justify disobedience to presidential authority or worse, a schism within the Armed Forces.
Democrats such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) have even floated scenarios involving Congress using the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from taking office, citing insurrection. In one viral video, Raskin made it 100% clear that if Trump wins on November 5th, he and his Democrat allies in Congress have a plan to ensure that Trump will never take the oath of office or set foot in the White House again. Raskin even acknowledged that their actions would likely result in civil war, stating that he is ready for that outcome—an allusion to the fact that the Biden-Harris regime had already purged conservatives from the ranks of the military using COVID as a pretext. This purge, along with the ongoing efforts to paint Trump and his supporters as dangerous, less-than-human opponents, was carried out to ensure that the military would willingly turn their weapons against the American people, believing it to be necessary for the preservation of democracy. The reference to January 6 looms large in these scenarios, treated not as a one-off riot but as a precursor to future violence—a violence that Democrats argue can only be avoided by nullifying a Trump victory. The implication is clear: if Trump wins, violence is inevitable, and extreme measures, including possibly undermining democratic processes, will be justified.
A Pretext for Violence
One might wonder why the Democrats are engaging in such extreme language now, even before the election results are in. The answer lies in the strategic nature of their rhetoric. The aim is to establish a pretext for violence. Figures like Robert Kagan, Rosa Brooks and Barton Gellman have all laid the intellectual groundwork for what would be, in essence, a mass mobilization of Democrat voters against the result of a democratic election. Following Trump’s win in 2016, anarchists, Black Bloc and Antifa took direct action, resulting in numerous violent incidents. In Washington D.C., rioters injured over 200 Capitol and D.C. police officers during protests, set fire to vehicles and even burned St. John’s Church near the White House. The level of damage to public and private property was extensive, with millions of dollars in damage. This was only the beginning, as the same groups used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to conduct over 100 days of violent riots, resulting in at least 25 deaths, hundreds of injuries, countless buildings burned, and over $2 billion in damages nationwide. The message is clear: this time, the response will make the previous actions look minor in comparison. It won’t just be Antifa; it will be the entire Democrat party supporting and legitimizing these actions, as they see it as necessary to resist and destabilize a potential Trump victory.
The Wargames: Normalizing Election Overturning
Multiple wargames have been held by various groups to simulate scenarios where Trump wins and to strategize how he could be stopped. However, the real scandal lies in the fact that these were not just simulations or games—they were propaganda efforts designed to indoctrinate key figures into viewing Trump’s victory as an existential threat to America. The Democracy Futures Project, backed by George and Alex Soros and led by Rosa Brooks and Barton Gellman, organized five tabletop exercises in May and June 2024, featuring 175 of the most senior and influential individuals in government, academia, activism and military ranks. Participants included former governors, cabinet members, retired military officers, grassroots leaders and more. These exercises were not merely hypothetical scenarios—they were aimed at normalizing the idea of overturning a legitimate election outcome if Trump were to win. The wargames included discussions on potential cabinet responses, military actions, civil resistance and law enforcement maneuvers—all geared toward disrupting a Trump victory and fostering division.
This effort is reminiscent of “The Simulation,” a wargame organized by The Transition Integrity Project in 2020, which was featured in Unprecedented, a documentary series by Alex Holder. In that series, political strategists and former officials, including James Comey, John Podesta and Michael Steele, role-played scenarios involving contested election outcomes, simulating responses to a Trump victory. The true purpose of these exercises is not about ensuring free and fair elections; it is about legitimizing resistance, including violent resistance, to outcomes that do not align with the preferences of the Democratic Party.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have run extensive pieces on the supposed need for mass mobilization if Trump wins, calling on private industry and civil society to ostracize Trump supporters. The messaging is eerily consistent: in the event of a Trump victory, resistance must not only be political but physical. These are not the words of a party preparing to abide by democratic norms; these are the words of a regime setting the stage for conflict.
The Coming Crisis?
At the center of all this lies a calculated and deeply coordinated effort by our nation’s top leaders—often referred to as the “Deep State”—to normalize the rejection of Donald Trump’s election. They are ready to lead a violent resistance. The propaganda effort has been thorough, and for months, the electorate and the Democrat voter base have been conditioned to see Trump and his supporters as non-human—labeling them as garbage, fascists and even comparing them to Hitler. Should Trump emerge victorious, the narrative of violence will already be in place, with a moral justification for “defending democracy” by whatever means necessary. This is dangerous not just because it undermines the legitimacy of elections but because it risks tearing apart the social fabric of the nation, creating a deeply divided populace and potentially inciting widespread conflict that could have devastating consequences for American democracy.
Share this:
When Endorsements Meet Elitism: The Media’s Unspoken Rule Of ‘Do As I Say But Not As I Do’
The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times pride themselves on upholding journalistic ethics that purportedly ensure impartiality. They demand that their reporters refrain from engaging in any activity that might give the appearance of political bias—no donations, no rallies, no overt displays of allegiance. Yet, until recently, these very publications, sanctimonious in their purported objectivity, have been all too comfortable endorsing political candidates. Such endorsements are the highest form of bias, a blatant declaration of preference wrapped in a veneer of editorial independence. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have recently abandoned this farce, and I, for one, commend this decision. Let us dissect why their previous stances were not only hypocritical but actively undermined the core principle of journalistic integrity.
These three titans of journalism have long insisted on the importance of maintaining an unbiased front. They have crafted ethical guidelines designed to keep reporters above the political fray, much like a judge instructed to recuse themselves in cases of personal interest. The guidelines—prohibiting financial contributions to political causes, participation in campaign activities and attendance at political events in anything other than a professional capacity—serve to preserve an image of neutrality. They are meant to shield both the journalists and their institutions from accusations of favoritism or, worse, collusion.
But it’s all too clear that these ethical rules, while imposed with great vigor on individual reporters, somehow did not apply to the institutions themselves. In endorsing political candidates, the editorial boards of The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have essentially proclaimed, “Our newsroom will maintain objectivity, but our paper will not.” The glaring double standard is impossible to ignore. How can a publication demand its reporters remain unbiased, while simultaneously endorsing Democratic candidates cycle after cycle? It’s akin to a preacher who rails against sin on Sunday only to indulge in every vice come Monday.
The practice of candidate endorsement has a long history at these newspapers, with The New York Times first endorsing Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Over time, their preferences became glaringly clear: since the mid-20th century, all three newspapers have displayed a marked tendency to endorse Democratic candidates, with The New York Times endorsing Democratic nominees in almost every presidential election since 1960. The Washington Post, too, has consistently favored Democrats since its entry into political endorsements in 1976, backing figures like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and most recently Joe Biden. The Los Angeles Times, though slightly more balanced in its earlier days, also drifted predominantly towards Democratic endorsements as the political winds in California shifted.
The partisan tilt is unmistakable. Since 1960, approximately 90% of The New York Times‘ endorsements have gone to Democrats, while The Washington Post has endorsed Democratic candidates about 85% of the time. The Los Angeles Times, though a bit more balanced, still endorsed Democrats around 70% of the time since the 1960s. In practice, the editorial boards have taken on the role of kingmakers, wielding their platforms to influence the electoral outcomes under the guise of impartiality. It is an affront to the very idea of unbiased journalism, a Trojan Horse of partisanship presented as a gift of informed guidance.
To put it plainly, this behavior reflects the elitist arrogance of the Democrat-aligned media establishment. It is the progressive elites, ensconced in their glass towers in New York, D.C. and Los Angeles, who believe they know best—not just for their readers but for the country at large. Their endorsement practices reveal a deeply ingrained belief that the American electorate needs to be nudged in the “correct” direction, a belief that aligns squarely with the ethos of the modern Democrat Party: top-down control, the subordination of individual thought to the wisdom of those who “know better.”
The hypocrisy is staggering when one considers the rules applied to individual reporters. A New York Times journalist cannot attend a political rally for fear that it might suggest bias—even if attending merely out of curiosity. The same journalist is forbidden from making even a minor political donation. Yet the very paper they work for does not hesitate to publicly endorse candidates, making a grand spectacle of their political preferences every four years. If the rationale behind restricting individual journalists is to avoid even the appearance of bias, how does that square with the outright endorsement of one political party’s candidate time after time?
This hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed by readers, and it’s a major reason public trust in the media has cratered. A 2024 Gallup poll revealed that public trust in mass media is now lower than that of Congress—a body so mired in dysfunction that its approval often hovers below 20%. It seems readers are keenly aware of the dissonance between what these newspapers preach and what they practice. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, hit the nail on the head in a recent op-ed when he acknowledged the public’s perception of bias, stating, “Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose.” Bezos has taken steps to course-correct, hiring more conservative voices and ceasing presidential endorsements, recognizing that endorsements do little but tarnish credibility and heighten perceptions of bias.
The editorial boards have long argued that endorsements are simply a matter of opinion, distinct from the “hard news” of their journalistic reporting. But anyone with a shred of political insight knows better. Endorsements, particularly from newspapers with such vast readerships, are not inert exercises of free speech. They influence, they persuade and they signal. When the editorial board endorses a candidate, it cannot help but set a tone that trickles down through the entire organization—from the framing of stories to the tenor of opinion columns, to the questions asked (or not asked) by journalists. It creates an institutional culture that, consciously or not, biases coverage.
The decision by The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times to cease endorsing presidential candidates is a step in the right direction—albeit a small one. True reform would require these institutions to stop masquerading as impartial arbiters altogether and admit their biases plainly. Until then, their claims of objectivity will remain dubious at best. By dropping endorsements, The Times and LA Times have at least tacitly acknowledged the hypocrisy in their previous practices. The New York Times, however, remains stubbornly unrepentant, continuing the charade that it is somehow possible to separate its editorial advocacy from its news coverage.
The partisan slant of these newspapers has always aligned with a particular view of America’s future—one where globalism and progressive social policies are the default, and dissent is not so much debated as dismissed. The alignment is not accidental; it reflects the worldview of the elites who run these newspapers. Historically, this has meant a consistent championing of Democratic causes, whether through endorsements or through biased coverage that subtly advances the narrative of one party over the other. These papers have long lambasted Republicans, especially those aligned with America First policies, labeling them as “threats to democracy” or painting their concerns as unfounded conspiracies. Meanwhile, the failures and ethical lapses of Democrat leaders are routinely underplayed or spun with euphemisms that soften the impact.
To be sure, legal immigration, fiscal prudence and a measured foreign policy are principles that many conservatives endorse—principles that have broad appeal across the electorate. But the endorsement machinery of these major newspapers has never been interested in nuance or balance. Instead, their endorsements—and the editorial stances they reflect—serve to anoint Democratic leaders who are viewed as suitable by the establishment, whether or not they represent the broader interests of the nation.
The time for hypocrisy is over. It is refreshing, even if rare, to see some of these publications begin to align their practices with their stated ethical commitments. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have taken steps to bridge the gulf between their own ethical guidelines and the actions of their editorial boards, and this should be recognized as progress. It’s not nearly enough to restore the credibility lost over decades of partisan advocacy disguised as public service, but it is a step. The New York Times would do well to follow their lead—or at least drop the charade of impartiality altogether. For the press to regain its lost credibility, it must choose either abide by the standards you impose on your journalists or admit openly that the days of unbiased reporting are long behind us.
Share this:
As Liz Cheney Slams Donald Trump’s Character, Her Own Integrity Comes Under Fire
Liz Cheney, a staunch “Never Trump” former Republican representative, has joined Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in key swing states in the final days of the campaign to warn voters that Donald Trump does not respect the “rule of law” or the U.S. Constitution. “[When] you think about, what are you looking for in somebody you hire, you’re looking for somebody that you can trust, you’re looking for somebody who’s going to be responsible, who’s going to operate in good faith,” Cheney told the Detroit Economic Club on Oct. 22.
But new evidence has emerged suggesting that Cheney may have unethically influenced crucial anti-Trump testimony while serving as vice chairman of the January 6 Committee that investigated the protest at the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
At issue is Cheney’s collaboration with Cassidy Hutchinson, now 27, a former aide to then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson, who also is campaigning for Harris, is widely considered the committee’s “star” witness for her damning account of Trump’s alleged conduct on January 6. For nearly two hours during her June 28, 2022, televised appearance, Hutchinson explained her version of what happened before and after Trump’s speech at the Ellipse as the White House scrambled to respond to the escalating chaos at the Capitol.
Draft of tweet Cassidy Hutchinson testified is in her handwriting.
House Administration Subcommittee
In one of the more explosive moments of that hearing, Cheney held up the handwritten draft of a tweet for President Donald Trump to post instructing protestors to disperse from the area.
Cheney asked Hutchison if she had written the tweet, which was never posted. “That’s my handwriting,” replied Hutchinson, who said the words had been dictated to her by Meadows that afternoon around 3:00 p.m. A footnote in the committee’s final report stated that a “review of Hutchinson’s handwriting was consistent with the script of the note.”
The import of the testimony was clear: Hutchinson was not only an eyewitness but a key participant as events unfolded that day.
But a certified handwriting analyst retained by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga), chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, determined that Hutchinson did not write the note. The handwriting, according to the expert, belongs to Eric Herschmann, a Trump White House lawyer who had immediately contradicted Hutchinson’s testimony in 2022 and later provided several samples of his own handwriting to Loudermilk’s analyst.
Hutchinson handwriting sample used by analyst for comparison.
House Administration Subcommittee
“The Select Committee was willing to take [Hutchinson] at her word, rather than checking into the facts. The American people deserve the truth,” Loudermilk said.
Hutchinson’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment. Cheney could not be reached for comment.
This latest disclosure by Loudermilk – who is conducting separate inquiries into the events of Jan. 6 and the now defunct J6 select committee – appears to represent another example of Cheney’s questionable involvement on the committee, particularly related to Hutchinson.
Loudermilk unearthed text messages on an encrypted chat app between Cheney and Hutchinson prior to her public testimony, which represented the fifth time Hutchinson testified before the committee; she had already sat for transcribed interviews in February, March, May, and on June 20, 2022.
On June 6, 2022, Hutchinson texted Cheney using Signal, asking “to have a private conversation with you,” according to information released by the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight. They were connected by Alyssa Farah Griffin, a one-time co-worker of Hutchinson and also a witness before the committee who now appears on “The View.” The texts appear to indicate Cheney and Hutchinson spoke on the phone shortly after that initial outreach.
Hutchinson dismissed her attorney at the time, former White House deputy general counsel Stefan Passantino, a few days later. Passantino had represented Hutchinson and was paid to do so by Trump’s Save America PAC. Two Cheney-recommended lawyers, Jody Hunt and William Jordan, soon agreed to represent Hutchinson pro bono.
Cheney, a lawyer who is a member of the Washington D.C. bar, appeared to know her communications violated ethics guidelines about communicating with witnesses behind their lawyer’s back. A text from Farah Griffin to Hutchinson acknowledged a “concern” that Cheney “can’t really ethically talk to you without [Passantino.]”
Text messages between Liz Cheney and Hutchinson.
House Administration Subcommittee
But Hutchinson did more than just change lawyers; in several instances, she changed her story from her previous testimony. During her televised testimony, which committee staffers later described as an “emergency” event initiated by Cheney, Hutchinson re-enacted an alleged confrontation between Trump, his driver, and the head of his security detail in the presidential vehicle following his speech at the Ellipse. Under questioning led by Cheney, Hutchinson said Trump became “irate” upon being told it was not safe to go to the Capitol after he advised his supporters to march there “peacefully and patriotically.”
Trump, according to Hutchinson’s second-hand account, attempted to grab the steering wheel of the vehicle. “Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge toward [Head of Security] Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson said as she recounted a conversation she purportedly had with Tony Ornato, the deputy White House chief of staff at the time, after the incident.
Her testimony rocked the political world, with legal analysts from across the spectrum insisting that the story would doom Trump. Others expressed skepticism, prompting Cheney to defend her witness. “I am absolutely confident in her credibility, I am confident in her testimony, and the committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources,” Cheney told ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl on June 30, 2022.
But no one in the White House corroborated Hutchinson’s version of events. To the contrary, Ornato said the first time he heard of any confrontation in the presidential vehicle was during Hutchinson’s testimony. “I recall, that day after Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony, going to the Secret Service Counsel and being in his office and then the Secret Service spokesperson asking me about my recollection was of that story. And I relayed that that is not a story I recollect and I don’t recall that story happening,” Ornato told Cheney, who asked about the incident.
And during the committee’s questioning of the unnamed Secret Service driver, investigators didn’t ask about the alleged incident. The subject was discussed only after the driver’s attorney “proactively” brought it up, according to a report by Loudermilk’s committee, prompting the driver to tell the committee that he “[President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. [President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all.”
The driver’s transcript, in addition to hundreds of witness interviews conducted by the J6 committee, still has not been made public.
Hutchinson went on to testify twice more behind closed doors in September 2022 as her stories continued to change. In fact, her attorneys filed a 15-page errata sheet that same month to significantly revise her earlier testimony. The document not only added the allegations related to the incident in the presidential vehicle but also claimed Hutchinson had heard about the presence of dangerous weapons at the Capitol, including firearms – something she said she had not heard during earlier testimony – and that she heard chants of “Hang Mike Pence” on the television in the president’s dining room to suggest he was aware protesters were threatening his vice president.
She also reiterated her authorship of the Meadows’ note.
“These newly released texts are more evidence that Liz Cheney’s J6 Committee was not interested in the truth, only in promoting their predetermined political narrative,” Loudermilk told RCI on Monday. “Not only did Cheney use Alyssa Farah Griffin to covertly communicate with Hutchinson, but she also directly communicated with Hutchinson about the sensational new claims that Pres. Trump was to blame for all that happened on January 6.”
Former White House counsel Stefan Passantino, represented Hutchinson before she spoke with Cheney.
While her role as the committee’s star witness has been a lucrative endeavor for Hutchinson – who earned a book deal from Simon & Schuster, which published three Cheney family titles, and speaking arrangements – the same cannot be said for Stefan Passantino, her first lawyer.
Last year, Passantino, who headed the White House ethics office under Trump during the first half of his administration, filed a $67 million lawsuit against the federal government, accusing the committee of violating his privacy and causing “significant economic, reputational, and emotional harm.” Passantino accused Cheney and her general counsel, Dan George, of attempting to set up a “sting” operation “seeking to induce Mr. Passantino to obstruct Congress during a third interview of Ms. Hutchinson” in May 2022.
Leaks to the news media with selected portions of Hutchinson’s testimony attempted to portray Passantino as advising his client to mislead the committee. A December 2022 CNN “exclusive” report claimed Passantino told Hutchinson to “tell the committee that she did not recall details that she did” and suggested the matter had been referred to the Department of Justice. The committee’s final report also contained the unsubstantiated allegations.
CNN’s story seeded dozens of follow-ups, including an article at the student-run newspaper of Passantino’s law school alma mater, Emory University, and articles at MSNBC, the New York Times, and CBS News.
The bad press resulted in Passantino’s firing by an Atlanta law firm and two separate bar complaints against him in both Georgia and Washington. Both were dismissed.
But other text messages between Hutchinson and Farah Griffin appear to support Passantino’s claims that he did not interfere in the investigation. A text chain between the women in May 2022 in preparation for Hutchinson’s testimony later that month shows Hutchinson telling Farah Griffin that “[Passantino] isn’t against me complying.” As the discussion continued, Hutchinson reiterated that Passantino advised her to cooperate with the committee. “He doesn’t want me to stonewall the committee,” she told Farah Griffin. Testifying a third time, Hutchinson said Passantino advised, “builds my credibility as a witness.”
Passantino, now partner of his own firm in Atlanta, considers the texts an exoneration of the allegations against him.
Passantino has filed suit against Cheney, the January 6 Committee, and others for damage to his personal and professional reputation.
“When I first filed suit against Congress to hold Liz Cheney and the January 6 Committee accountable for the damage done to my family, my reputation, and my career 18 months ago, I knew we had the facts to support our complaint. I was less than confident, however, that the documents supporting my claims had not been destroyed or would ever see the light of the day,” Passantino told RealClearInvestigations last week. “It appears, however, that Cassidy Hutchinson captured screenshots of her encrypted communications with Liz Cheney and turned them over to Chairman Loudermilk. The tip of the iceberg appears to have crested the waterline.”
Passantino also filed a defamation lawsuit against former DOJ prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann for posting a tweet in September 2023 that accused Passantino of “coach[ing] her to lie.” Earlier this month, a federal judge allowed the case to move forward.
Proof of the backchannel communications also prompted a bar complaint last week against Cheney, a licensed attorney in Washington. America First Legal, founded by longtime Trump advisor Stephen Miller, filed the complaint on behalf of Passantino. In the complaint, Cheney is accused of violating a D.C. bar rule that prohibits a lawyer from communicating with “a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person or is authorized by law or a court order to do so.”
Share this:
Kamala’s Chaos: How Democrat-Funded NGOs Are Fueling America’s Criminal Gangs
America’s immigration crisis is spiraling out of control, and it is no accident. This catastrophe is the result of deliberate choices by the Biden-Harris regime, especially Vice President Kamala Harris in her unofficial role as “Border Czar.” The so-called leadership of this administration has wreaked havoc on our state and local law enforcement, endangered communities and eroded the very fabric of our nation. It is a man-made disaster that could have been avoided—if not for the left’s obsession with open borders and uncontrolled immigration.
Since the Biden-Harris regime took power, billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled through Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that effectively serve as migration facilitation programs for unvetted foreign nationals. These dollars are channeled to Democrat-controlled NGOs, which in turn use the funds to flood American communities with waves of illegal immigrants. Make no mistake, this is not compassion—it is a cynical political strategy aimed at importing a new voter base. Democrats have given up on their traditional working class and minority voters, replacing them with individuals who will rely on the very programs Democrats promise to expand.
Among the groups taking advantage of this wide-open border are criminal organizations, like the Venezuelan paramilitary gang Tren de Aragua. Originally formed within Venezuela’s prison system, Tren de Aragua has rapidly expanded its operations across the Americas, and with the Biden-Harris regime’s open-door policies, they’ve gained a foothold right here in the United States. These are not run-of-the-mill criminals—Tren de Aragua is involved in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and a host of other violent activities. The group has already taken control of taxpayer-funded apartment complexes in four states. These are not just isolated criminal incidents; these are organized takeovers of American neighborhoods, facilitated by Kamala Harris’s grotesque negligence.
In San Antonio, Texas, police raids have uncovered Tren de Aragua‘s operations in at least four apartment complexes, including the Palatia Apartments, which has been used as a base for drug dealing and human trafficking. The Democratic regime, in concert with their NGO partners, has literally handed over control of entire residential blocks to foreign criminal organizations, turning formerly safe neighborhoods into no-go zones. Residents live in fear as gang members take over the buildings, and federal law enforcement sits idly by.
The same story is playing out in Colorado. In Aurora, the Whispering Pines Apartments and part of The Edge at Lowry have been seized by Tren de Aragua members. In a devastating twist, local law enforcement has been essentially neutered. They can only act once a crime is committed. Even if they suspect the entire complex is controlled by criminals, their hands are tied—thanks to federal policies shielding the activities of these so-called asylum seekers. The Biden-Harris regime, especially Kamala Harris, has ensured that crucial data about the residents of these federally-funded properties remains hidden from local authorities. This is a war on local control, and it is the Democrats who are waging it.
State police and local officers, those brave men and women on the front lines, are rendered powerless by bureaucratic red tape and federal indifference. Their primary duty—to protect and serve their communities—is being undermined at every turn by an administration more concerned with importing voters than protecting citizens. And it’s not just law enforcement feeling the effects; it’s every American citizen living in or near these newly-formed gang territories.
The crime wave that follows these gangs into our country is devastating. Crime statistics are rising in every area where Tren de Aragua has taken hold. But what is the response from the Biden-Harris regime? Deafening silence. In fact, Kamala Harris continues to dodge responsibility, focusing instead on photo ops and empty rhetoric. The real situation on the ground tells a different story. Tren de Aragua and other similar groups are not only here, but they are flourishing under the protection of misguided federal immigration policies. While Democrats continue to deflect blame, the hard reality is that their policies have made our country less safe.
It’s not enough to point out the danger, though. We must recognize the larger plan at play. The Democrats have long relied on a two-pronged approach to maintaining power: they use identity politics to secure the loyalty of minority voters, and when that fails, they turn to mass immigration as a means of demographic replacement. The left has abandoned working-class Black and Latino voters, whose values no longer align with their radical agenda, in favor of unvetted, unassimilated foreigners who they believe will eventually be granted voting rights, legal or otherwise. Harris is complicit in this scheme. Her failure to secure the border is no accident—it’s a deliberate choice aimed at reshaping the American electorate.
In less than two weeks, Americans will have a chance to reverse this trend. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to end the Biden-Harris regime’s open-border policies and restore sanity to our immigration system. The contrast could not be clearer. Trump has made it clear that under his administration, America’s borders will be secure, criminals like Tren de Aragua will be deported, and American communities will once again be safe. Democrats will do everything in their power to keep the border open—because they know that without new voters, they cannot win. But we still have a choice.
What we are witnessing today is not just a failure of leadership; it is a calculated, cynical attempt to destroy the America we know and love. Kamala Harris’s refusal to enforce the law is not just incompetence—it is treachery. She has made it impossible for law enforcement to act while empowering the very criminals that threaten our way of life. The stakes could not be higher.
We have reached the tipping point. If we do not act now, if we do not elect leaders who will prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants and foreign criminal organizations, then we are condemning ourselves to four more years of unchecked violence, open borders and criminal chaos. Gangs like Tren de Aragua will not stop with a few apartment complexes—they will continue to expand their reach, and the Democrats will continue to turn a blind eye.
It’s now or never. If you believe in the rule of law, if you want to keep your family safe, then the choice is clear. Donald Trump is the only candidate willing to take the bold action needed to stop this madness. The Biden-Harris regime has made their priorities clear—import voters, enable crime and destroy American sovereignty. Let’s make ours just as clear: secure the border, protect our communities and take our country back.
Share this:
Silencing The Patriot: How Stephen Bannon’s Imprisonment Rigged The Election Narrative
Tomorrow marks the return of Stephen K. Bannon from his unjust incarceration in the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut—a return that comes far too late, with just days before Election Day. It was a calculated act of election interference. By the time Bannon is able to speak, as many as 30% of Americans will have already voted, and the vast majority of the rest will have already made up their minds—without the benefit of hearing Bannon’s words and insights. This was no accident; it was a deliberate move to silence him during the most consequential election of our lives, effectively rigging the narrative in favor of the Democrats, with Bannon—one of the loudest, most passionate critics of the Biden-Harris regime—removed from the battlefield. This wasn’t just a brief stint; this was a calculated, politically motivated act to strip a man of his freedom and, more significantly, to silence his voice during a critical time in the campaign.
Bannon spent four months behind bars for contempt of Congress—a penalty concocted out of partisan spite, purely because of his loyalty to President Trump. The Democrats took away his liberty, and more insidiously, they took away his ability to speak out against their chosen candidate, Kamala Harris, who has been installed without a single vote cast by the American people. This was not justice; it was vengeance.
The origins of Bannon’s contempt of Congress charge are steeped in the blatantly biased actions of the January 6th Select Committee. This committee, which sought Bannon’s testimony regarding the events of January 6, 2021, was legally dubious from the outset. The House of Representatives, in an unprecedented move, barred Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s chosen Republican members from joining the committee. Instead, Nancy Pelosi handpicked the Republicans, specifically ensuring they were vocal critics of Donald Trump. This manipulation destroyed the credibility of the committee, making it a purely partisan entity with no genuine cross-party representation. Bannon, aware of these obvious problems, refused to comply, citing executive privilege, which he argued extended to his communications with then-President Trump. This privilege had been respected in past administrations, yet was outright ignored when Bannon asserted it.
Congress, determined to make an example of Bannon, altered the rules to create the J6 Committee in the first place and then pushed through the contempt charge. Traditionally, disputes over executive privilege were handled through negotiations or, if necessary, civil litigation. But the January 6th Committee took the unusual move of referring Bannon for criminal prosecution—an approach that reeked of political retribution rather than a genuine quest for justice. Bannon argued that he was bound by Trump’s invocation of executive privilege, and to testify would be a betrayal of that confidence. He also pointed out that his role as a private citizen during the events in question further complicated the committee’s demand. Nevertheless, the committee, uninterested in these nuances, chose to pursue the harshest possible response.
– Advertisement –
Raheem Kassam, a longtime Bannon confidant and conservative firebrand, has already built up the excitement, promising a newly emboldened and invigorated Bannon. Expect Bannon to speak out against the government bureaucracy, to act as the spark for a movement that demands accountability from the very forces that sought to sideline him. Kassam confirmed that Bannon’s “War Room” will not only resume but expand, marking Bannon’s determination to continue the fight.
Bannon’s stay at FCI Danbury was not without its human moments. For months, the prison’s low-set two-story concrete walls held a reluctant guest—a man whose name draws both ire and adulation. Bannon was not the typical inmate; he wasn’t just killing time. Instead, he became a voice within the prison, occupying a place within the prison’s “white car,” a cluster that included New Yorkers and Philly mafia members, and drew in those serving time for financial crimes. Every day, Bannon walked the track, sharing stories and answering questions from fellow inmates. He became an unlikely confidant, listening to their concerns, many of which echoed his own views on the erosion of American freedoms. Steve Bannon, whether confined or free, is always in his comfort zone when he is fighting for what he believes is right.
The system ensured Bannon wouldn’t leave without a final bit of bureaucratic pettiness. A week before his release, the Danbury prison warden acknowledged that Bannon had accrued sufficient “credits” to have been released ten days earlier, yet that request was bogged down by endless delays—a familiar tune for those subjected to the unpredictable whims of our bureaucratic state. Even Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, could do nothing against the machinery of an intransigent, deep-rooted government.
The contempt charge was a clear example of lawfare—using the legal system as a tool of political warfare. Bannon’s refusal to testify was based on long-established legal principles of executive privilege. Traditionally, such disputes have been addressed in civil courts. The committee’s response, however, was entirely disproportionate. Take, for instance, Merrick Garland, who has similarly refused to comply with a congressional subpoena regarding Biden’s testimony to Special Counsel Hur. Unlike Bannon, Garland faces no jail time, no criminal charge—just the protection of a justice system that serves its own. Likewise, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has repeatedly ignored congressional demands with no consequences from the Department of Justice. Hunter Biden, too, blatantly disregarded congressional subpoenas, yet remained unscathed. The message is clear: there is one set of rules for Trump allies and another for the regime’s inner circle.
Will Retribution Follow?
With Bannon back in the fold, speculation is rife about who might find themselves in the crosshairs of a future Trump administration. Bannon has made it clear that certain figures—particularly those involved in the prosecutorial and investigatory arms of the Biden-Harris regime—should be concerned. Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland and the senior members of the Department of Justice who have targeted Trump and his allies are at the top of Bannon’s “retribution” list. These figures, who have relentlessly pursued Trump through legal means, may soon face a reckoning of their own should Trump regain the presidency and allow Bannon to execute his vision of accountability.
– Advertisement –
But here’s the catch: Donald Trump may not let him. While Bannon has been vocal about his desire to seek justice and expose the corruption within the deep state, Trump, ever the pragmatist, may choose to keep Bannon’s fiery rhetoric in check, opting instead for a more strategic approach. Trump, whose political instincts are unmatched, might see broader risks in indulging Bannon’s retribution plans, preferring to avoid a perception of personal vendettas and focus on policy wins. Nevertheless, the mere possibility of Bannon’s resurgence is enough to make these bureaucrats and officials sweat. After all, Bannon is no ordinary voice in the MAGA movement—he’s its intellectual and strategic firebrand.
Further stoking these fears is the fact that the legal hounds are still after Bannon. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, notorious for his partisan prosecutorial pursuits, continues to push a case against Bannon regarding the “We Build the Wall” project. Despite Bannon receiving a pardon from Trump in 2021 for similar federal charges, Bragg has resurrected the accusations in state court. This ongoing vendetta, even as Bannon remains a free man, shows that the left isn’t done trying to silence him. They know full well that a vengeful Bannon, with or without Trump’s blessing, could spell trouble for those in power who have wielded the justice system as a political weapon.
This isn’t just about justice; it’s about retribution, and for those who have gone after Bannon, there’s little comfort in believing Trump might hold him back. For Bannon, retribution may not be a matter of “if” but rather “when.”
Share this:
Muckraker’s Response to NBC’s Hit Piece
BY Thomas Hicks
Brandy Zadrozny @ SXSW 2019, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic, via Wikimedia Commons
Over the last six months, Muckraker, in partnership with the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, has been at the forefront of exposing the threat of non-citizen interference in American elections.
Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the danger posed by non-citizen participation in American elections cannot be overstated, especially in swing states such as Georgia and Arizona, which were both decided by fewer than 12,000 votes during the 2020 presidential election.
Tens of millions of illegal alien non-citizens have been ushered into the United States and dispersed across all 50 states. Since the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens have no legitimate basis for an asylum claim, many will never appear for their designated court date. In the meantime, these same illegal aliens are being registered to vote.
Muckraker and the Oversight Project have spent the last few months visiting critical swing states and asking non-citizens if they are indeed registered to vote. At apartment complexes in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Minnesota, large percentages of non-citizens we spoke to admitted on camera that they are registered to vote. Some state the obvious—that they support Kamala Harris. Furthermore, we discovered that a Chinese illegal alien living in Los Angeles had been sent a voter registration form.
In response to our reports on this matter (one of which broke the internet with over 55 million views), the usual mainstream publications have done their best to discredit our findings. Today, NBC’s Brandy Zadrozny released a new propaganda piece highlighting Muckraker’s role in exposing this critical issue. In the X post where Brandy shared her article, she remarked that “the threat of widespread noncitizen voting isn’t real. It’s a conspiracy theory with racist roots…”
A few days before publishing the article, Brandy reached out to Muckraker founder Anthony Rubin with a request for comment on a host of questions and statements. Unsurprisingly, Brandy ignored nearly the entire response given to her request.
In the interest of total transparency, below is the entire request for comment from Brandy Zadrozny, along with the associated statement from Anthony Rubin.
We urge you to read the request for comment and our statement in its entirety, and then decide whether NBC is engaged in fair, unbiased journalism.
BRANDY ZADROZNY’S REQUEST FOR COMMENT
Good morning, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Howell:
As established, my name is Brandy Zadrozny and I’m a senior reporter with NBC News, working on a story about the belief in widespread noncitizen voting will fuel an attempt to steal the election from Donald Trump in 2024. I’m reaching out because you appear in our story, named among several others as pillars of the movement built on this belief.
I’m reaching out to give you an opportunity to clarify or comment. If something is incorrect, or you’d like to provide context, please respond by noon EST Wednesday. Most of these questions are for Mr. Rubin.
If either of you would like to comment more generally on your work investigating widespread non-citizen voting, a problem that nearly every reputable expert considers to be an unfounded conspiracy theory, we’d love to include your position. Thanks!
Questions follow:
You are 27 years old, an amateur fighter based in Miami by way of Long Island. Is there any other part of your resume that we should include? College?
We describe your videos as James O’Keefe-ish: deceptively edited, questionably sourced content that has the aesthetic trappings of journalism, but is not bound by its ethics. In one interview, you said you were inspired by Alex Jones.
You’ve trademarked several right wing media startups. Your early videos included confrontations with Black Lives Matter protesters and antifa activists.
Your January video “exposing” the immigrant “invasion” at the Southern border garnered your first major mainstream attention. You appeared on Fox New and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ show.
This summer, you started working for the Oversight Project, a self-described investigative unit within the Heritage Foundation, a once mainstream conservative think tank known these days for Project 2025, its far-right blueprint for a second Trump term. Mr. Howell, I’d love to know more about how Mr. Rubin was recruited. You told NPR the relationship between Muckraker and the Heritage Foundation was “a very, very powerful one,” declining to elaborate because of vague threats from “the cartels” and the Biden administration.
Mr. Howell has called the videos “evidence” that noncitizens were being registered to vote.
Georgia’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, called the Georgia video “a stunt,” and said no people with those names had registered to vote. A reporter for the fact checking website Lead Stories went to the same apartments and heard from residents that they weren’t registered to vote, but said they were to get the door-to-door canvasser to leave them alone.
Rubin declined to be interviewed unless NBC News agreed to a live television broadcast. Through a Heritage Foundation spokesperson, Howell also declined an interview unless it could be live-streamed on X.
STATEMENT FROM MUCKRAKER FOUNDER ANTHONY RUBIN
America today is a nation in decline. Among the many indicators of our country’s societal decadence is the corruption of America’s once prestigious news outlets. Rather than focusing on groundbreaking investigative journalism, speaking truth to power, or standing up for American ideals, organizations such as NBC, through media personalities like Brandy Zadrozny, toe a partisan line and use their positions of influence to levy biased attacks on the legitimate findings of others.
The dereliction of journalistic duty by those operating America’s most well-funded news networks has left an information vacuum. In the void, organizations like Muckraker and Oversight Project have taken the mantle, and are working to deliver the American people the information necessary for our constitutional republic to survive. As the prestige of the corporate press wanes and the status of independent media continues to rise, content creators like Brandy Zadrozny, and others of her ilk, must do everything in their power to delay the triumph of truth and Americanism. Delay as they might, ultimately, they will fail.
The coveted partnership between Muckraker and Oversight Project has resulted in the publication of some of the most important information seen during this 2024 election cycle. It is very well possible, and indeed likely, that our work may have prevented enough illegal interference in the upcoming 2024 presidential election so as to preserve its integrity. Only time will tell.
What is certain is that the constant attacks from the New York Times, NPR, NBC, and others, have only strengthened the resolve of those within Muckraker and Oversight Project. We look forward to the day when the aforementioned organizations seek to collaborate with us in a manner that serves the American people. Until then, we will continue standing for the truth, even if it means standing alone.
I reject any claims that Muckraker’s content is deceptively edited or questionably sourced. Conveniently, you are not specific at all when making that claim. Which pieces of ours are deceptively edited? Which sources are questionable? What is both questionable and deceptive is your making such an attack against Muckraker’s prestigious work without any specificity.
Our video, which we released in January 2024, exposing the invasion of the United States, is among the most distinguished works of its kind. My brother and I were the first Americans ever to trek from Quito, Ecuador, to the United States with illegal alien caravans full of military-aged men from special interest countries. Among many events, we were kidnapped by the Gulf Cartel in Mexico. I hope NBC will invite us on, as FOX did, to discuss our critical findings.
The reporter for the “fact-checking” website Lead Stories did nothing to discredit our findings in Georgia. We obtained admissions of a crime on camera. It would obviously be in the interest of every non-citizen who admitted to such a crime to walk it back later. The idea that a non-citizen would admit to a crime in order to get a canvasser to “leave them alone” is absurd. The fact that you would feed such a line to your audience with a straight face, while failing to weigh it with equal consideration against our findings, lays bare the deceptive nature of your “reporting.”
I very much hope to join NBC live, in studio, to share Muckraker’s prestigious work with NBC’s sophisticated audience.
STATEMENT FROM OVERSIGHT PROJECT DIRECTOR MIKE HOWELL
Brandy, we are succeeding in part because the legacy media has failed. We have replaced your industry’s condoning, promotion, and justification of the invasion into the United States with actual evidence. Our work is widely praised because we are telling the American People the truth while the legacy media lies.
An admission against self-interest has high evidentiary value. Video tapes of non-citizens admitting to a potentially deportable offense can be used as evidence in court. I am not surprised a handful of noncitizens recanted their statements to activist media and I would not be surprised if they were coached to do just that.
There is ample other evidence of non-citizens being registered to vote, apart from our videos. Just look at the non-citizens that have been removed from voter rolls lately. Unfortunately, these are only last minute spot checks and not enough to protect the election. A lot of politicians know they have a big problem on their hands so they want to make appearances that they tried to do something.
Anthony and his brother were kidnapped by the cartels. I know you work for NBC, the home of Deal or No Deal, which I greatly respect, but you should know that being kidnapped means one is justified to operate with proper safeguards. I will not be providing you with an organization chart or other information to make the cartels and weaponized U.S. federal government’s job any easier. I will say that our “recruiting process” is highly confidential, very prestigious, and best-in-class. It is another reason why our work has replaced legacy media’s. We work with the best and for the best people, the American People. We are giving the people back what is theirs: hard documents and evidence about their Nation.
Brad Raffensperger, who is currently fundraising from leftist trial lawyers, did not investigate our claims. I don’t believe he would even know how to even if he cared enough to do so. Instead, he called our evidence disinformation within a day of our release and before his office even looked. That should tell you everything you need to know. He then chose to work with far-Left media on hit pieces of the Oversight Project which only made us stronger and the Left weaker. I thank him for this gift and we will have something for him soon in the form of potential litigation. He is a public official and he owes us information that belongs to the American People about coordinating with radicals.
Share this:
Sanctuary Policies And Trust Acts Only Sow Distrust
Legislators in New Jersey recently introduced Bill S-3672, known as the Immigrant Trust Act. If passed, the legislation would prohibit law enforcement officers from “stopping someone due to their perceived immigration status” and “forbid government agencies and hospitals from asking about someone’s immigration status—unless the information is needed to assess eligibility for benefits.”
Governments exist to protect the interests of their citizens, but the New Jersey Trust Act doesn’t protect the interests of Americans. It is merely another sanctuary policy that protects foreigners who have broken American immigration laws. That’s problematic, because when it comes to illegal immigration, there is a lot that Americans need to be protected from. Due to the Biden administration’s complete lack of immigration enforcement along the southern border, there are a stunning number of criminals, spies and terrorists making their way into the United States.
The number of Chinese nationals entering the U.S. as illegal aliens is up at least 7,000 percent since 2021. Make no mistake, nobody leaves China without the permission of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And the government of China expects something in return from those who get permission to leave. The CCP keeps tabs on Chinese living overseas via a watchdog organization called the United Front Work Department and a network of at least 54 overseas “police stations” located in 21 different countries, including the U.S.
More than 1.7 million “special interest aliens” (SIAs) have crossed the southern border since Team Biden arrived in the White House. SIAs come from countries that either promote terrorism, protect terrorists or have conditions that allow terrorism to flourish. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) believes SIAs pose a significant risk to the national security and public safety of the United States.
More than 250 aliens on the terrorist watchlist have been released into the United States. The terrorist watchlist includes both known and suspected terrorists. DHS has encountered watchlisted migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Since the Biden administration effectively erased the border with Mexico, a disturbingly large number of street gang members have made their way into the U.S. The extremely violent Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela has now established a presence on both the east and west coasts of the United States. Meanwhile, MS-13 and other criminal gangs have seized upon the migration crisis to increase their foothold in America.
It’s bad enough that there are so many nefarious characters now posing a danger to America’s national security and public safety. What’s even worse is that these bad guys, along with all of the other illegal aliens hanging out in the U.S., are costing American taxpayers a fortune.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, American’s shell out approximately $150 billion each year to cover all the freebies given to our uninvited guests. And roughly $42 billion of that consists of medical expenses.
State political leaders inevitably say that they push laws like the New Jersey Trust Act because illegal aliens become members of local communities. If illegals are afraid that cops, doctors, or teachers will report them to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), then they won’t report crimes, seek medical treatment or send their kids to school. And those communities will become less safe.
The problem is that these arguments are both illogical and irresponsible. To begin with, there is zero evidence that illegal aliens forego any kinds of services because they’re afraid of ICE. As a matter of fact, over the last few decades illegal aliens have become utterly brazen in flaunting their unlawful status. Remember the DACA protesters in 2017 who publicly declared themselves “undocumented and unafraid?” It seems pretty obvious that illegal aliens in the United States aren’t particularly worried about being deported, even if they’re arrested while publicly declaring their willingness to break, and keep breaking, American immigration laws.
Moreover, “sanctuary” policies and “trust acts” don’t build unified communities, they sow division and distrust. And they do this in the most hypocritical way possible. Citizenship is a common bond that for millennia has been the glue holding civic units together. Men in combat may fight for king and country, but they’ll accomplish the impossible in an effort to preserve the lives of their fellow citizens.
But the sanctuary/trust act movement turns the classical model on its head. It recasts the longstanding legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens as an arbitrary and discriminatory one that must be abolished, while simultaneously claiming that non-citizens are to be accorded special privileges at the expense of citizens.
No matter how you dress them up, sanctuary policies and trust acts are nothing but willful efforts to inhibit federal immigration enforcement. These irresponsible policies keep cropping up only because state leaders trust that they’ll be shielded from consequences. But, if the U.S. wants to avoid future terror attacks and stay financially solvent, then state leaders who actively interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws must be held accountable. And the federal government needs to send a strong message to the states: No more sanctuary policies and no more trust acts!
Share this:
Voters and voting compromised
| We’ve not too long before our next election cycle. Across the globe, about 70 countries will be casting votes for the candidates presented before them to choose from. However, with the recent UN (United Nations) Summit of the Future1, what will voting look like in our near and distant futures? The United Nations, Not Individual Countries, Matters?! As stated above, the Summit of the Future (September 2024) was held in New York City. Each year, the UN meets in NYC to have meetings. When the Summit of the Future, specifically a new UN Charter, was held & agreed upon, it basically furthered cemented the US (as well as ALL the other member-state countries) into giving up more sovereignty of our (their) government(s). By changing the sovereignty, you also impact voting, as well as a host of other key points of government. Why would the US delegates commit We the People to THAT?! Compliance to the United Nations is very costly (not only our taxpayer dollars go to support the UN, but now our very system of government is being sacrificed. If that wasn’t enough, the Global Citizen Festival rounded out the Summit festivities. From my archives, here’s an excerpt about what I’ve shared about the Global Citizen Festival: “Global Citizenship (a direct ‘attack’ on every nation’s individuality and culture by the U.N., United Nations)” It’s important to point out that this quote was made in 2018, during a Republican led Administration. The stark reality is, that the same quote can be made during a Democrat led Administration, too. What does this teach us? That regardless of major political party, the United States is being dissolved before our very eyes! We can also learn that neither party has completely removed We the People from the United Nations, which is clearly a socialist based entity. If you study history, you know that under a true socialist system, voting is completely a farce. Is this what we are destined for? Is this what our students and children will be faced with?! A Follow Up Conference: To almost dovetail the UN’s efforts, the 2024 Generation Democracy held its Summit (Oct. 7, 2024).2 Here’s a direct quote from the review of the Summit, “A core theme of the Summit was empowering young leaders with the skills, knowledge, and networks needed to drive democratic change.” The US sent a special envoy to be among the elite featured at the Summit. Typically, ‘a youth’ (young leader) is anyone who is a teenager to about 24 years of age. The objective of the UN Youth Strategy3 played right into the Summit of the Future (Sept. 2024).It’s obviously, also playing into the Generation Democracy Summit, as well. The UN Youth Strategy was described as a holistic umbrella approach to guide our children to the UN’s ideas of peace, security and human rights. Of course, all through the lens of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). Without this type of umbrella, the coercion of reshaping our children’s minds from national to globally couldn’t be enforced as much as the UN Secretary General needs. Another part of blatant socialism is tracking and tracing citizens. If you’ve followed my blog long enough, as well as listened and researched to the plethora of like minded people who have exposed the vast levels our governments go to to do this in each of our countries, you know, it’s only going to be expanded with AI. In 2021, I wrote this article4 about our rights being sacrificed in the name of AI (Artificial Intelligence). In that article I revealed that the Mozilla Foundation (parent group of Firefox) had hosted a webinar5 on “Democratic Values and AI”. In the opening comments you can learn how this move isn’t reserved for Americans only, but everyone in other countries as well. So, what ARE the values of a UN-led democracy? Straight from their website6, “good governance, monitors elections, supports civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and accountability, ensures self-determination in decolonized countries, and assists in the drafting of new constitutions in post-conflict nations.” Warriors, in other words, the bedrock of the UN’s first charter and now this new one signed and agreed upon in September, is a democracy! Not a republic, not a monarchy. No other form of government will or can survive under the UN’s thumb. How Has America Chipped Away at A Constitutional Republic? In recent history (further research into a more distant history is definitely in order to completely understand the more recent moves, but for our purposes, we’ll focus on recent), post-9/11 saw the US State Department enter into the Inter-American Democratic Charter (specifically via the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States (OAS7). Here’s a direct quote from the website for the OAS, “The promotion of peace, democracy, and good governance are core OAS concerns.” Warriors, do you see the SAME words used in the OAS’s website as used in the UN’s?! (*Note: be sure to access the OAS’s website (embedded above) and read Article 1 of the IADC, you’ll see ‘free and fair elections’ mentioned. However, just how ‘free and fair’ can these elections be when you’re using the very SAME goals as the globalists?! You’ll also learn how the IADC led to a Quebec Summit and much more.) Then, there’s the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement). This ‘agreement’8 was something We the People never voted on, or said we wanted. The subsequent moves9 by our US Congress to put into a legislative form of all the WAYS10in which the USMCA must be met11, soon followed. With those moves, several different APPOINTED committees were set in place to oversee every aspect of all 3 countries. Think of an American version of the EU Union (European Union). The John Birch Society12 published an excellent article on how Americans were sacrificing our form of government, as well as our freedoms, by allowing the USMCA to exist. The video JBS produced13(about 30 minutes long) laid out the appointed committees. The time stamp you really need to listen for is near 6:45 where the words ‘international bureaucracy’ are uttered. Then, notice the image of the powers increased under the USMCA through the Federal Trade Commission. “Government procurement”, “Intellectual Property Rights”, and “Rules of Origin and Origin of Procedures” all are attached to voting. Enter, Lowering the Age of Voting: Here in the US, the subject of lowering the age of voting FROM 18 to 16 is not a new subject. In Canada, the government has been debating and researching this topic for a while. They have based their quest on following other countries which have done so. Why? Supposedly the younger you can get our children to vote, the more involved in good democracy they’ll become. Can we hit a ‘pause’ button for a moment, please? When the human body develops, especially the brain, it needs years to fully develop. While a child CAN reach a level of cognitive maturity at age 16, most don’t develop a psychosocial level (one of the last steps in truly understanding and thinking needed for adulthood) of understanding until age 18. Considering how important voting is and many issues it surrounds, shouldn’t we be not even considering a move to lower the age?! The National Institutes of Health published a paper14 studying children and youth from around the world on this subject. Back to Canada for a moment, according to this recorded talk15(by several government leaders and their associates), the research they chime on about glows with how great a 16-year-old can be at contributing to society. According to the NPR (National Public Radio16), across the EU, 2 countries (Belgium and Germany) 16 years olds will be voting for the first time in 2024. World Population Review17 shared that at least 2 South American countries allow 16 year olds to vote, but by 18, it’s a mandatory event. (The website clearly showed that the vast majority of nations use 18 years for the earliest a person can vote.) UNICEF18(the arm of the UN which also stated in 202119that some pornography in schools was OK and that all homeschooling was bad), shared that voting by 16 years old isn’t specifically named in their Convention on the Rights of the Child, but, that voting COULD fulfill what is included in Article 12 (for example: “the child’s right to express his or her views freely in “all matters affecting the child”). Don’t let it be lost that even as globally aligned and awful as UNICEF is, that they also consider a 16-year-old to be under the ages of adulthood. That said, the UN, UNESCO, UNICEF all support the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Human Rights Declaration, where voting is also laid out to fit the UN’s agenda, NOT each country, on its own. The website HRE (Human Rights Educators20) based in the US, clearly states that the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) is a legally binding treaty that established standards governments ratify to uphold! Considering the tag line for the website is “Every Child, Every Right”, it’s not hard to see that voting, as a right, will be lumped in! Then, there’s the US Congress, that they too are introducing bills and writing resolutions concerning younger voters. HR Joint Resolution 1621(introduced 1/11/23) and still in the current Session (118th). This resolution has 17 co-sponsors, along with one sponsor. It unites both the Republicans and Democrats in an effort to seek the repeal of the 26th Amendment and replace it with a newer version allowing 16 year olds to vote. It leaves a mandate that within 7 years, three-fourths of the States ratify this. (*Note: with each of these, don’t get lost in what member of Congress sponsored or co-sponsored, or that, with the exception of 1 member, all are Democrats. Look to the States which will participate, they don’t always vote one party; at least under the current 2 party system.) S 298522(introduced 9/28/23) by one Senator and has 10 co-sponsors. This Senate bill has an identical ‘sister’ bill in the House (HR 529323). The House version has 68 co-sponsors and one sponsor. Both of these bills would like to see the States offer voting pre-registration to 16 year olds. There are a few conditions. See Article 6 of these big bills. (*Note: usually, when the Congress has two identical bills in a current session, the one with the most co-sponsors has a better survival rate than the lesser. Also, watch this topic, because if it fails in the 118th Session, it can be re-introduced in the 119th Session.) Both this bills are title the Youth Voting Act. Currently, in the US, specific towns allow 16-year-olds to vote in limited capacities. The National Youth Rights Association24 website is watching this and in full support of a national lowering of the voting age. Yes. Definitely something to keep a close eye on. Related: archives: 1) *The STEM25(Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) push was a key tool of the UN to promote the SDGs. 2) *The vast amount of globalization being pushed on our children26is steeped in collectivism, a vital part of socialism’s success. 3)*Law enforcement across America (as well as elsewhere) is under the thumb of the UN. Law enforcement is also a huge part of the success of compliance needed for socialism to survive27. 4) *Be sure to scroll down to the list of resources and notice the links dealing with ‘democracy’. Democracy is what the UN needs America to become (instead of the Constitutional Republic it IS). Democracy is often used in promoting citizens to vote, here and elsewhere. Just turn on a TV and watch the news media ads for “Democracy 2024” or similar advertising. Actions: 1) Warriors, we’re seeing some very alarming things going on in our world. Voting is a precious commodity, as well as a right we have. Not assigned by the government, but encompassed in our freedom to speak. That’s a naturally given right, that no government should be able to remove. However, what we’re seeing isn’t so much a way to remove our right to vote, but to limit that right..in essence, limiting our free speech. If you’re reading this in the US, know not only your US Constitution, but your State’s version. If you’re reading this from outside the US, know what your government framework says, and what it doesn’t. Often, the way these things fly under the radar is the unspoken word or intent. 2) Inform others about these efforts. Recently, I was a guest at a local middle school28 and I focused on the several amendments our US Constitution devoted to voting. When I brought up the push to lower the age to 16, the adults were horrified, as well as the students feeling nowhere near ready to be that active. Neither group didn’t say ‘no’ to voting, just not at 16 years. It’s too soon! 3) Lastly: watch and listen concerning this UN led effort and share this article! Sources :https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/declaration-on-future-generationshttps://www.iri.org/news/driving-democracy-forward-insights-from-the-2024-generation-democracy-global summithttps://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/10/03/future-kids/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2021/11/15/what-rights/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4pjdSjgvEhttps://www.un.org/en/global-issues/democracyhttps://usoas.usmission.gov/our-relationship/policy-programs/democracy/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/23/the-crushing-blow/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/27/the-crushing-blow-part-two/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/28/the-crushing-blow-part-three/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2020/01/29/crushing-blow-the-conclusion/https://jbs.org/nau/usmca/https://jbs.org/video/nafta/usmca-what-they-are-not-telling-you/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551607/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Ji-23ei5Uhttps://www.npr.org/2024/06/07/nx-s1-4987217/eu-parliamentary-election-there-will-be-16-year-old-voters -in-germany-and-belgiumhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voting-age-by-countryhttps://www.unicef.org/innocenti/should-children-votehttps://c-fam.org/friday_fax/unicef-report-says-pornography-not-always-harmful-to-children/https://hreusa.org/projects/every-child-every-right/every-child-every-right/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/16/text?s=1&r=1&q=%7B%22search %22%3A%22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2985/text?s=1&r=4&q=%7B%22search%22%3A %22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2985/related-bills?s=1&r=4&q=%7B%22search% 22%3A%22voting+16+years+old%22%7Dhttps://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/voting-age-status-report/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/09/21/under-our-noses/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2018/04/04/global-smobal/https://www.commoncorediva.com/2023/08/26/brute-force-ahead/https://iredellstandingfortruth.com/2024/10/05/east-iredell-middle-school-constitution-day/ |
Share this:
The Bleaker it Gets, the Better our Odds
Authoritarianism is back across the West — from Europe to the Biden-Harris censorship regime that would fit perfectly in Communist China.
I think many of us were surprised during Covid to realize just what the supposedly liberal west has become: Essentially the Soviet Union but with better uniforms — well, better video games, anyway.
Of course, it was decades in the making — Covid just showed their cards.
The question, as always, is What’s Next.
For better or worse, authoritarianism has happened many times in history — it’s kind of the human default. The original state.
Humanity has a lot of experience with authoritarianism.
So how did people protect themselves last time?
Dodging Tyranny in the 1940’s
An elegant illustration is the 1940’s, where essentially the entire globe went authoritarian socialist and then — as always — went to war.
And the correct response very much depended where you were.
If you were in New York, you adjusted your stock portfolio.
FDR’s 52nd birthday party, dressed as Caesar. The fasces bottom right is unintentionally apt.
If you were in Britain you moved to the countryside and stockpiled canned food.
If you were in Switzerland you packed a go-bag in case the German army decided to fill in the map.
And if you were in Germany, of course, the only plan was get the heck out.
The problem is when to pull each trigger: When do you adjust the portfolio. Buy the canned food. Pack the go-bag. When do you get the heck out.
Each of these preparations has a cost. And the more successful you are — the more you’ve built or achieved — the higher those costs go. Moving your family, your business, converting your career to location-independent where you can support your family.
Many ask why people didn’t leave Berlin before it was too late, and those costs are why.
Most Will Stay and Fight
The good news is that this means the vast majority of us will stay and fight.
I mean, true patriots will always stay and fight. But those mounting costs mean even apolitical people will fight.
They will fight in proportion to the risk — because the cost rises with it. And they will fight in proportion to what they’ve built.
That is, the people with the most to lose — the natural elite — are the most likely to stay.
Every election since George W we’ve been treated to Hollywood liberals threatening to leave the country. You don’t hear influential Conservatives saying that.
We will stay.
The Bleaker it Gets, the Better our Odds
And stay we should.
Why? Partly tactical. They launched their takeover too soon. Because Covid fell into their lap, and they were still a generation away from the brainwashing it would take for a totalitarian takeover.
Instead, the people rejected it. The Covid state left dangerous remnants, to be sure, that will become malignant if not excised.
Still, it’s striking — perhaps unprecedented — the degree to which a totalitarian regime, once installed, was almost entirely removed. And the reason is encouraging: Because it polled atrociously — you may remember the Dems turning as one just after Biden assumed office.
In other words, even with our shabby election infrastructure, they still fear the people.
What remains post-Covid is an institutionalized left that has lost credibility with the majority. That is overextended, that has completely lost touch with the people.
This loss of legimacy means they are far weaker than pre-Covid.
And Democracy is coming for them.
Liberty’s Moment
We’re already seeing the backlash with Trump surging in the polls, with Canada on-deck next year, and European countries electing populists.
Even more encouraging, if you zoom out rarely in history has liberty had so many advantages. Thanks to the internet — with a big assist from Elon.
Of course, liberty starts out with the advantage that man is not by nature a slave. Slavery is an unstable equilibrium. It’s fragile. Just waiting for the right push.
Put this is up against the natural advantage of authoritarianism — it has the money. And money buys guns.
It has the money because it seizes half of what you earn and uses it against you, then prints up whatever else it needs at the central bank. Then it uses that money to control the levers of society, education to media to finance.
We have the numbers. They have the money.
Trust in Government Collapsing in Both Parties
What’s Next
If it comes down to numbers vs money, our numbers are growing fast. Moreover, gloriously, the more they push the more we grow.
Meaning they only have 2 options: pull back and hold on for dear life against the backlash. Or keep pushing and they’re out of power. It’s only a matter of time.
In the 1970’s, the great economist Murray Rothbard noted you could fit the entire liberty movement in a New York living room.
Now there are literally a billion of us.
Forget a living room. We couldn’t reasonably fit in a state.
Meanwhile their advantage — money — is collapsing before our eyes. Crashing in crippling debt, nervous financial markets, the limits of inflationary printing and the moribund stagflation that always accompanies it.
In short, we’re getting stronger. They’re getting weaker. And the longer it takes the more spectacular will be the victory.
Share this:
Why is the U.S. even in the U.N?
Did the United States join in with the other world leaders to build a safe and altruistic organization? Only if your definition of safe and altruistic is akin to believing your mother is the tooth fairy.
Nope! The instigators of, first, the League of Nations and then the United Nations had no room for charitable instruments; the plan was to set up a governance system that would eventually be used to take control of the entire world. Alger Hiss, a known Russian spy, had been Director of the Carnegie Foundation and then right-hand man for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, orchestrated the writing of the U.N. Charter. It was built by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (in concert with Hiss) and funded by the Rockefellers (and other globalists) to control the world – courts, weapons, economy, and even our minds. And it usurps our sovereignty.
With those travesties born at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1945, the CFR also gave us the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The IMF was set up to “control international exchange rates and to stabilize currencies. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took us off the gold standard so a world currency could be established. Nixon signed an executive order declaring that the U.S. would redeem its paper dollars for gold – and the IMF would serve as the world’s central bank.
Again, why is the U.S. in the U.N?
“The Council on Foreign Relations, established years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire — encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view.” Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope.
What’s happening? “In 1957, a congressional investigative committee revealed the following finding: In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote. ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense — a form directed towards ‘world government” and a derogation of “American nationalism’. The CFR has become, in essence, an agency of the United States government. [and its productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept.” 1
Why should the U.S. be out of the U.N?
Sponsored by the CFR, Count Richard Nicholas von Coudenhove-Kalergi, considered the “father of the European Union”, argued for the dissolution of national borders and the promotion of mass allogenic (genetically dissimilar) immigration. 2 He also called for the “elimination of the Caucasian race for the sake of a superstate”. 3
In rebuttal, Senator Pat McCarran on immigration legislation he co-authored:
“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. … However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission, and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. … I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”
This could go on and on. It could be slid over the brainwashing/dumbing-down/corruption of our children in the schools through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a vile part of the U.N. set up to make youth into brain-dead, useful idiots. You can read more in the Cancel Culture articles and so many good books written in the past 10-20 years exposing the lies and schemes of the United Nations anti-American, anti-Western Culture schemes.
As Tom DeWeese recently wrote: “The UN was wrong from its very beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep the peace”.
The question is now: Why aren’t we doing everything we can to get the U.S. out of the U.N? That will solve most of the civilized world’s problems.
It’s time to slay that dragon.
Sources:
- Hearings before the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress., Second session on HP. Res. 217, Part 1, pages 1 to 943.
- Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Ein Leben fur Paneuropa pp. 28-32.
- Browne and Williams, The Killing of Uncle Sam, p.310
fox files 
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments