If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Americans will be told that the final vote count is a sacred number that was practically handed down from Mt. Sinai engraved on a stone tablet. Any American who casts doubt on Harris’s victory will be vilified like one of those January 6, 2021 protestors sent to prison for “parading without a permit” in the US Capitol. Actually, anyone who doubted the 2020 election results was being prominently denounced as “traitors” even before the Capitol Clash.
But is there any reason to expect the final vote count in this presidential election to be more honest than any other number that the Biden-Harris administration jiggered in the last four years?
Biden, Harris, and their media allies endlessly assured Americans that the national crime rate had fallen sharply since Biden took office. That statistical scam was produced by the equivalent of disregarding all the votes in California and New York. FBI crime data simply excluded many of the nation’s largest cities until a revision earlier this month revealed that violent crime had risen nationwide.
Deceitful national crime data helped cover-up the disastrous impact of open border policies. The Biden-Harris administration did backflips to avoid disclosing the true size of the surge of illegal immigrants from early 2021 onwards. Kamala Harris did zombie-like face plants in recent interviews when elbowed for honest answers.
In the same way that another surge of unverified mail-in ballots may determine the 2024 election, Biden manipulated the number of illegal aliens by using his presidential parole power to entitle more than a million people from Haiti, Venezuela, Cubans, and other countries to legally enter and stay in America on his own decree. The Biden administration even provided a vast secretive program to fly favored foreign nationals into select airports late at night where their arrival would occur under the radar.
Some states will officially count mail-in ballots that arrive well after Election Day even if the envelopes have no postmark. This is the same “late doesn’t matter” standard that Biden used to vindicate the $42 billion provided by his 2021 infrastructure law to boost broadband access in rural America—which Uncle Joe said was “not unlike what Roosevelt did with electricity.” Unlike the Tennessee Valley Authority, Biden’s broadband program has nothing to show since it delivered faster internet access to almost no one. The same default occurred with the Inflation Reduction Act’s alleged showpiece achievement—42,000 new charging stations around the nation for electric vehicles. But that program produced more presidential applause lines than EV refills. As of March, $7.5 billion in federal spending had only produced seven new charging stations nationwide.
How many votes will Harris lose on Tuesday because Americans remain outraged at the inflation that has slashed the dollar’s value by more than 20 percent since Biden took office? There would be far more popular fury if the feds had not deceived Americans about the full financial damage that Washington inflicted. The official inflation statistic doesn’t count soaring mortgage and housing costs—which is akin to excluding any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line from the national vote tally. Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, said that if the feds today used the same inflation gauges used in the 1970s, Biden’s peak inflation would have been 18 percent, twice as high as the reported number.
Tens of millions of voters will not be obliged to show any identification before voting in this election: they are presumed trustworthy regardless of zero verification. But this is the same standard that the Biden-Harris administration uses for not disclosing its most controversial policies to American citizens. People will vote next week without knowing the facts behind whistleblower allegations on Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz’s connections to the Chinese Communist Party, to Secret Service failures to prevent Trump assassination attempts, and the brazen details of the Censorship Industrial Complex.
In Washington, politicians feel entitled to applause for any grandiose promise—regardless of their failure to deliver. Similarly, politicians and election officials promising that the presidential vote count will be accurate and reflect “the will of the people” is far more important than tabulating the actual ballots. Will the unmanned ballot boxes in big cities be stuffed with bogus ballots the same way a politician jams endless balderdash into his campaign speeches? As pundit Stephen Kruiser quipped, “the clothing donation boxes that were all over my old neighborhood in Los Angeles were probably more secure than the ballot drop boxes.”
Of course, if Trump wins, then all the forces of decency must instantly shift to the other side of the barricades. Any electoral victory by Trump will be illegitimate because of politically incorrect comments made by speakers at Trump campaign rallies. As in 2017, if Trump wins, every “true patriot”—or at least every true progressive—will be honor-bound to join The Resistance™.
Keep your heads on a swivel. Do not say you have not been warned.
Anti-Trump protestors, some violent, took over major U.S. cities for weeks in 2016. But the January 6-obssessed media and Democratic Party want the public to forget what happened. Here’s a reminder.
Donald Trump’s comments about envisioning neocon nepobaby Liz Cheney deployed to any one of the Cheney family’s favorite war zones has resulted in perhaps the most deceitful media campaign of the 2024 presidential news cycle. Cable news commentators including increasingly irrelevant and bitter NeverTrumpers such as Jonah Goldberg—who walked back his tirade on CNN claiming Trump advocated the use of a “firing squad” against Cheney—caterwauled how Trump’s remark would spark “political violence.”
The unsubstantiated allegation is central to Kamala Harris’ closing argument. She continues to insist without evidence that Trump is a perpetrator rather than a victim of “political violence.” Harris fielded a pre-planned question during a campaign stop in Wisconsin on Friday to accuse Trump of using “violent rhetoric” that disqualifies him from office.
Despite numerous examples of Democrat-involved political violence in Washington over the past decade—2017 Trump inaugural riots, 2018 Kavanaugh protests, 2020 BLM/antifa riots, post-election confrontations with Trump supporters during “Stop the Steal” events in November and December 2020, and recent incidents tied to pro-Hamas demonstrations—the media now claims Republicans, not Democrats, will start tearing down major cities including the nation’s capital if Trump does not win the election.
January 6 Survivors Speak
D.C. police and activist groups, according to the Washington Post, are preparing for violence initiated by “white supremacists,” aka Trump voters, after Election Day. Apparently still traumatized by the unarmed four-hour disturbance on Capitol Hill nearly four years ago, the ruling elite wants to take every precaution necessary to prevent another QAnon shaman or Indiana meemaw from invading their personal fiefdom on the Potomac.
“I really fear outsiders coming in,” D.C. resident Gail Sullivan told the Post last week. ‘This is where the insurrection happened. Maybe it will spill out more into our neighborhoods than it did before.’”
D.C. resident Shreya Tulsiani told Politico last month that she still struggles with flashbacks of that fateful day. “January 6th was a very scary time,” she confessed. ‘I used to live right off of North Capitol Street, so I could see the Capitol. There were Proud Boys petting my dog that day.”
OMG PROUD BOYS PET HER DOG!
Cassie Miller and her husband recently decided to move out of their Capitol Hill home “having lived through” the events of January 6 and fearful of a reprise. “We decided we’d rather be safe than sorry,” Miller told the local D.C. NBC News channel.
To create more drama, the U.S. Capitol Police conducted a “mass casualty” exercise earlier this week, a publicity stunt intended to bolster fears of MAGA trouble. This is the same law enforcement agency, by the way, that protected then promoted Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt at near-point blank range on January 6.
Police across the country reportedly also are bracing for post-election violence. Why? Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan of course blames Trump. “[As] Trump once again promotes falsehoods about election fraud and denigrates election officials, law enforcement officers worry that the floodgates to violence are open,” Swan claims. Swan then used a few thousand more words to detail alleged threats to election workers and other incidents that solely targeted Democrats and Democratic jurisdictions in the post 2020-period.
January 6 Amnesia
If reporters and their Democratic handlers suffer from amnesia about the recent history of election-related violence spawned by supporters of their own party, we know why. As repeatedly stated, every day is January 6, 2021 to Democrats and regime media. It’s as if American history ceased to exist in any meaningful way before that date; nothing that happened before January 6 matters.
So here is a little refresher about what went down following Trump’s shocking victory on November 8, 2016 when Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media exploded into a full-blown fit of rage:
The New York Timesdocumented days of protests spanning 52 cities following Trump’s election. Anti-Trump demonstrators blocked traffic in Miami, Portland, Las Vegas, and Madison, Wisconsin; protesters burned an American flag in front of the Georgia Capitol building.
Democrats in Los Angeles burned a pinata resembling the president-elect.
After three days of intense violence, Portland police declared a riot on November 10, 2016. Anti-Trump thugs attacked police, vandalized business, and set buildings on fire. The following day, the Portland police department announced the use of “pepper spray, rubber ball distraction devices, [and] rubber baton rounds” to halt the rioting.
More than 7,000 protesters took to the streets of Oakland, California on November 9. A local Oakland newspaper described the chaos: “Protesters hurled Molotov cocktails, rocks and fireworks at police. Some protesters set off fireworks. Others burned a Trump effigy, and someone set a pile of cardboard on fire in the middle of a downtown intersection. A group of protesters wearing clown and Guy Fawkes masks used bricks, their feet and a large stick to smash the glass windows of the Oakland Coin and Jewelry Exchange at 1725 Broadway. Other storefronts on that block were covered in graffiti as well. Multiple trash and cardboard fires were started in the middle of the street and a much larger fire was raging at the intersection of 17th Street and Broadway.” At least three Oakland police officers were injured that night.
Confrontations with police in Omaha, Nebraska resulted in the deployment of mob control munitions on November 10, 2016; at least two people were arrested for obstructing justice.
Protesters began shouting “kill the police” during an anti-Trump demonstration in Indianapolis on November 12, 2016. Some protesters threw rocks at police; at least seven protesters were arrested and two officers received minor injuries.
Demonstrations lasted for weeks leading up to Inauguration Day. Students walked out of classes; protesters surrounded Trump’s hotel properties in Chicago, New York, and Washington; and clashes with police continued. Now, some events certainly can’t be categorized as violent but considering the Biden/Harris Department of Justice now considers anyone who nonviolently participated in the events of January 6 a domestic terrorist—the new rules must apply to history.
Post-election protests in 2016 culminated in a violent riot in the nation’s capital on January 20, 2017. Protesters tied to antifa lit cars and businesses on fire just blocks from the inauguration proceedings. More than 200 rioters were arrested and six officers sustained injuries.
But unlike those who protested on January 6, the DOJ dropped all charges against 2017 inaugural rioters.
In anticipation of potential post-election violence next week, D.C. businesses have begun boarding up their doors and windows. Regardless of the media spin or outlandish fears by D.C. residents of another unarmed “insurrection,” those business owners undoubtedly fear Kamala Harris supporters will cause trouble if she loses. After all, years of precedent prove the opposite of what Democrats and the media want the public to believe. They, not Trump supporters, represent the real threat for “political violence.”
In late 2019, the FBI came into possession of Hunter Biden‘s laptop. The laptop contained damning evidence that directly implicated the Biden family and Joe Biden himself. Specifically, it proved a pattern of influence-peddling, where political access was traded for personal and familial gain involving various international players. However, instead of revealing this information, or even preparing for a legitimate disclosure, the FBI chose a different route. Over the course of 2020, they embarked on a campaign with Big Tech to ensure this story—the truth—would be buried before it ever came to light. The FBI, aided by Big Tech companies, successfully suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story in an effort that ultimately constituted interference in the 2020 presidential election—and according to polling changed the outcome of the election.
The timeline of the Hunter Biden laptop story—from its initial acquisition by the FBI to the New York Post’s publication of the details, and the ensuing censorship by Big Tech—reveals the depth of coordination that was at play. The FBI’s actions went beyond mere incompetence or negligence; it was a preemptive strategy to condition influential social media platforms to dismiss any forthcoming stories about Hunter Biden as Russian disinformation. This “prebunking” approach—preemptively discrediting real information—ensured that when the truth finally emerged, it was met with skepticism, censorship and suppression.
The Timeline of Interference
The first significant event in this saga occurred in late 2019, when the FBI acquired Hunter Biden’s laptop. By this point, the FBI had verified its authenticity—a verification that took place before any public reporting on the laptop’s contents. The laptop, abandoned by Hunter Biden at a Delaware repair shop, contained emails, photos and documents detailing the Biden family’s involvement in foreign business dealings, with the former Vice President allegedly benefiting from these ventures. The laptop was, without a doubt, real, and the FBI knew it.
Despite this knowledge, the FBI took a questionable next step. In early 2020, they began meeting with Big Tech companies, such as Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft, ostensibly to prepare them for potential Russian disinformation campaigns targeting the upcoming election. During these meetings, the FBI set the narrative. They warned that foreign actors—most notably Russia—might attempt a “hack-and-leak” operation intended to discredit the Biden family. The FBI specified that this operation would likely involve claims about the Biden family’s ties to Ukraine—a detail very close to the information that was already present on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
These meetings between the FBI and Big Tech were not casual conversations. Over the course of 2020, the FBI held more than 30 such meetings with major social media platforms, consistently hammering home the point about an impending “October Surprise” in the form of leaked information about the Bidens. Not only did this position social media companies to expect an attack, but it also primed them to act as gatekeepers, ready to filter or suppress anything that matched the FBI’s predicted narrative.
Big Tech’s Role in Suppression
The turning point came in October 2020 when the New York Post published its explosive story on the Hunter Biden laptop. The timing—just weeks before the presidential election—made the story incredibly significant. Almost immediately after publication, Big Tech companies took action to limit its spread. Twitter outright banned users from sharing links to the story, even locking accounts that tried, including that of the New York Post itself. Facebook, for its part, suppressed the story’s reach on its platform, reducing its visibility to users and ensuring it would not gain traction in the crucial days leading up to the election.
This coordinated suppression did not happen in a vacuum. Internal communications from Facebook reveal that they were acting based on information from the FBI. In one chat, Facebook employees openly discussed how the FBI had warned them about an imminent leak related to Burisma—the Ukrainian energy company with ties to Hunter Biden. These conversations happened only a week before the New York Post story broke. The alignment between what the FBI had “warned” about and what actually happened was notable.
Even more noteworthy are the internal communications from Facebook and Microsoft employees, who acknowledged that the FBI had effectively “tipped them off” about the story. One Microsoft employee noted that the FBI’s warning had specifically mentioned a potential Burisma story, adding that the timing matched exactly with the New York Post release. Such specificity raises serious questions about whether the FBI’s intention was ever about safeguarding the election from disinformation—or if it was about managing the narrative to protect one candidate from a damaging story.
Facebook’s own leadership seemed aware of the stakes. In internal messages, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s Vice President of Global Affairs, admitted that their handling of this issue would influence how a “Biden administration views us.” This kind of political calculation—censoring legitimate news to curry favor with an incoming administration—is the very definition of election interference. The internal cynicism among Facebook’s staff was evident: when discussing their suppression of the New York Post story, one employee noted, “The Press is only as good to you as you are bad to Trump.”
The very employees tasked with executing these policies knew the likely impact. They joked about how, when eventually called to testify, they would say that their actions to “influence the 2020 election” had been planned with the U.S. government for years. These jokes were admissions. The censorship was not incidental; it was designed, coordinated, and executed based on direct guidance from the FBI.
The Impact on Public Perception
The FBI’s efforts did not end with Big Tech’s suppression of the story. Only days after the New York Post article was published, 51 former intelligence officials released a public statement claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This statement, orchestrated by Secretary Antony Blinken while he was an advisor to the Biden campaign, was intended to cast further doubt on the story. The statement provided the final piece of the puzzle: a supposed expert validation that the laptop was part of a foreign disinformation effort, even though it was not. Former Vice President Joe Biden cited this letter in his defense during debates, using it to dismiss the revelations as “Russian disinformation,” even as the FBI knew it was authentic.
In the four years since the 2020 election, the truth has slowly unraveled. Mark Zuckerberg and other Big Tech leaders have admitted that their actions to suppress the New York Post story were influenced directly by the FBI. These admissions come too late. The damage—in the form of suppressed information, manipulated public opinion and election interference—has already been done. The FBI’s preemptive framing of the Hunter Biden story as a Russian plot was a calculated effort to control the narrative and protect a favored candidate.
A Pattern of Censorship
What happened with Hunter Biden’s laptop was just the beginning. Once the Biden regime took office, pressure on Big Tech to censor content only grew. In the months following the inauguration, platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Amazon began receiving explicit demands from the White House to curb speech deemed undesirable by the regime. This included not only political content but also opinions and jokes, signaling an era of broad and pervasive censorship. My own accounts on Twitter and Medium were permanently suspended.
The collaboration between the Biden-Harris regime and Big Tech took many forms, but the roots were planted in 2020 when the FBI orchestrated a plan to “prebunk” an accurate story about Joe Biden’s corruption. This prebunking effort weaponized both the media and major technology companies, effectively turning them into tools of state influence. By controlling the flow of information, the FBI ensured that voters would not learn about Hunter Biden’s dealings until it was too late to matter. This not only undermined faith in the institutions that are supposed to ensure fair elections but also demonstrated a significant level of governmental overreach.
Conclusion
The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 represents one of the clearest examples of state-sponsored election interference in U.S. history. The FBI had the laptop, verified its authenticity and instead of allowing the information to reach the public, undertook a campaign to preemptively discredit it. They primed Big Tech to see the story as a foreign attack, and when the New York Post broke the news, Big Tech platforms did what they had been conditioned to do—they censored it. The result was a manipulated election where critical information about one candidate was withheld from the public.
This case is not only about Hunter Biden’s laptop. It is about the relationship between the federal government and the platforms we rely on for information. It is about the deliberate actions taken by those in power to shape what voters know and, ultimately, how they vote. The weaponization of the FBI and Big Tech to “prebunk” a true story speaks to the broader dangers of unchecked government influence over supposedly independent media channels. As the revelations continue to unfold, the American people must demand accountability, transparency, and, most importantly, a commitment to protecting the sanctity of free and fair elections.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under Chair Lina Khan, has been transformed from an independent regulatory body into a tool for furthering the Biden-Harris regime’s ideological objectives—at least, that’s what the evidence proves. This shift in focus has fundamentally disrupted the landscape of startup innovation in Silicon Valley. Once a thriving ecosystem where young startups could rely on eventual acquisition as a viable exit strategy, the FTC’s stringent anti-merger policies under Chair Khan have instead introduced what amounts to a tax on entrepreneurship. And this so-called tax is not just bureaucratic red tape; it’s a direct impediment to the dream of every startup: turning a novel idea into a profitable venture, even if the ultimate goal is simply to get acquired by an established player like Google, Amazon or Microsoft. Khan’s FTC—steering under the direction of Executive Order 14036—has taken on a European-style aversion to size itself, substituting broad market condemnation for nuanced analysis.
FTC Chair Lina Khan’s Aggressive Stance on Antitrust Enforcement
FTC Chair Lina Khan’s aggressive stance on antitrust enforcement has sparked considerable criticism, especially from venture capitalists and tech advocates who argue that her policies discourage innovation and undermine the startup ecosystem. Khan’s approach prioritizes preemptive action against acquisitions—particularly in tech—focusing on preventing monopolies before they form. This shift marks a departure from traditional antitrust enforcement, which usually only intervenes after a monopoly’s power is well-established. Critics, including venture capital leaders like Marc Andreessen, argue that blocking acquisitions prevents startups from being acquired by larger companies, which often serve as their primary exit strategy. They contend that fewer acquisitions make startups less attractive investments, reducing funding and limiting opportunities for innovation.
The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and others in Silicon Valley have also highlighted that antitrust actions, such as those against Meta’s attempted acquisition of VR company Within, can deter investment and reduce valuations of startups due to diminished acquisition prospects. According to the NVCA, venture funding relies heavily on the potential for acquisition, with nearly 90% of venture-backed exits occurring through acquisitions rather than IPOs. The broader concern is that restricting these exit paths disincentivizes startups from entering the market in the first place, thereby curbing technological advancement and economic growth.
Moreover, critics argue that Khan’s policies could inadvertently increase market concentration by stifling small companies before they can scale, making them less likely to challenge established giants independently. With reduced venture capital investment and the departure of some smaller players due to regulatory barriers, Khan’s policies might unintentionally favor dominant firms rather than foster competition and consumer choice.
However, Khan and her supporters maintain that unchecked acquisitions often lead to “killer acquisitions,” where larger firms acquire startups solely to neutralize potential competition. She argues that her approach is a necessary corrective to the “winner-takes-all” dynamics prevalent in tech, aiming to ensure a competitive landscape that fosters genuine innovation rather than monopolistic control.
These perspectives reflect a complex and contentious debate over the FTC’s role in regulating competition. While proponents see Khan’s approach as protecting long-term market health, detractors warn it could stifle innovation and prevent the growth of future tech leaders.
The Acquisition Ecosystem: Once a Fountainhead of Innovation
Historically, Silicon Valley thrived not because every startup had to become a multi-billion-dollar business, but because every startup had options. Investors could pour money into new ventures knowing there were numerous paths to return—whether through growth into a unicorn or by being acquired. Founders could innovate boldly, focusing on niche solutions or enhancing existing products, with the knowledge that even modest success could lead to a rewarding acquisition—a “soft landing” that allowed them to contribute within larger companies and eventually build again. This model made sense: Small tech firms, brimming with ideas but short on scale, married perfectly with larger corporations that could apply their resources to scale up those ideas. Everyone won—investors, founders, consumers and even regulators who wanted thriving markets.
Chair Lina Khan, however, seemingly has other plans. Under her direction, the FTC has cast a chilling effect over mergers and acquisitions (M&A) within the tech sector. Even mergers that would create clear consumer benefits—providing resources to enhance existing products, or even, paradoxically, increasing competition with major international firms—are subjected to a labyrinthine review process, one seemingly crafted more for obstruction than for adjudicating antitrust concerns in good faith.
The House Oversight Committee Report: A Chronicle of FTC Overreach
James Comer (R-Ky.), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, delivered a resounding indictment of Lina Khan’s FTC in his recent report titled, “The Federal Trade Commission Under Chair Lina Khan: Undue Biden-Harris White House Influence and Sweeping Destruction of Agency Norms”. The report paints a damning picture of Khan’s tenure, showing an agency unmoored from its original purpose and openly compliant to the political will of the White House. As noted in the report, Khan has “trampled on principles of due process, respect for the rule of law, and ethical standards to achieve her ideologically fueled ends at the FTC.” This is no light accusation; the charge is that Khan has taken an institution that was supposed to be independent and turned it into an ideological battering ram against American entrepreneurship.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District, CC BY-SA 2.0
One critical example lies in Khan’s approach to mergers like that of Meta’s proposed acquisition of Within Unlimited, and Microsoft’s bid for Activision Blizzard. Both cases—designed to challenge “potential competition” and vertical integration respectively—ended in resounding losses for Khan’s FTC in federal court. It wasn’t just that the FTC lost; it’s that the courts found the commission had failed to provide even basic grounds for its arguments against the mergers. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, an Obama appointee, pointed out that the FTC had not even raised “serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen competition.” The failures are not merely tactical errors; they reveal the degree to which Khan’s approach deviates from legal norms and reflects ideological zealotry.
Prominent Deals Blocked or Challenged Under Khan’s FTC
Under Lina Khan’s leadership, the FTC has halted or delayed several high-profile acquisitions across various sectors, resulting in significant backlash from venture capitalists and tech innovators alike. Here are some prominent deals Khan’s FTC has blocked or challenged, invoking criticism that her tactics stifle competition and innovation:
Meta’s Attempted Acquisition of Within (2022): The FTC filed to prevent Meta’s acquisition of Within, a VR fitness app, aiming to block what it deemed an anti-competitive move in the nascent virtual reality sector. For Meta, this acquisition was integral to its Metaverse ambitions, but Khan’s FTC argued it would restrict competition in VR fitness apps and stunt innovation in the VR space. Tech proponents argue this block punishes smaller companies needing investment to grow and denies the market innovative tech synergies in the VR landscape.
Illumina and Grail Deal: Illumina, a genetic sequencing giant, attempted a $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail, a cancer detection company. Khan’s FTC argued this merger would hinder competition in the emerging cancer screening market by consolidating too much control under Illumina. This legal action took years, with Illumina ultimately abandoning the acquisition in 2024, largely because Khan’s FTC framed it as anti-competitive, though Grail’s potential benefited from Illumina’s resources and technology integration.
Kroger and Albertsons Merger: Recently, the FTC scrutinized Kroger’s $24.6 billion bid to acquire Albertsons, a merger that Kroger argued would enable it to compete better against retail behemoths like Walmart and Amazon. Khan’s FTC, however, is reviewing the merger, expressing concerns that it might raise grocery prices by reducing competition. Critics point out that stopping or delaying such mergers harms consumers who stand to benefit from lower costs in a consolidated operation. This case illustrates Khan’s expansive view on the anti-competitive risks of mergers, even in non-tech sectors.
Semiconductor and Defense Sector Acquisitions: Under Khan, the FTC also blocked or impeded multiple mergers in the semiconductor and defense sectors, though details of each deal remain confidential. Analysts argue that these sectors, which are critical for national security and innovation, suffer from regulatory overreach that may restrict tech advancement in microchips, which are crucial to industries worldwide. The approach fuels investor concerns, making VCs wary of funding startups in areas where acquisition by larger firms is the most viable exit strategy.
Khan’s FTC has arguably gone beyond traditional regulatory scope, blocking even speculative mergers to prevent potential monopolies before they materialize. This radical strategy, while aimed at preventing Big Tech consolidation, is viewed by detractors as throttling the innovation ecosystem, particularly for startups that depend on the potential of acquisition. VCs have criticized this “anti-innovation” approach, arguing that without acquisition options, startups lose their key growth pathways, a blow to both entrepreneurship and consumer choice in emerging markets.
Emulating Europe’s Bureaucratic Failures
Perhaps the most egregious example of this shift is the FTC’s partnership with European regulators in implementing the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA is a distinctly anti-American, protectionist piece of legislation aimed at hobbling the success of U.S. tech giants like Google, Apple and Amazon in favor of European firms. Despite its thinly veiled animosity towards American companies, Khan’s FTC took the inexplicable step of actively assisting with the DMA’s implementation, sending FTC staffers to Europe to guide its adoption. According to Maria Coppola, Director of the FTC’s Office of International Affairs, the FTC undertook these actions partly because “legislative proposals… were, like, cut and paste from European legislation,” and they wanted to be prepared if similar proposals were adopted here in the United States. Essentially, the FTC appears to be helping Europe impose rules that its own courts, and even the White House, recognize as harmful to American business.
This pattern reflects an abdication of the FTC’s duty to American consumers and a disservice to the principles upon which American antitrust law is built. Our laws are intended to prevent harm to competition, not punish success or hamstring companies simply for being large. The European model, which imposes punitive measures on companies for being “gatekeepers,” is at odds with decades of American antitrust principles. By adopting this approach, the FTC under Khan isn’t just obstructing mergers; it’s sabotaging American firms in the global market, putting them at a disadvantage compared to foreign competitors.
The cumulative effect of Khan’s anti-merger crusade is a dramatic chilling effect on startup culture in Silicon Valley. Venture capitalists (VCs) are less willing to take a gamble on a startup if the most likely exit—acquisition—is being systematically blocked by the FTC. The idea that every startup must turn into a standalone, billion-dollar enterprise or be considered a failure is not just laughable; it’s dangerous to the spirit of American innovation. Some of the most revolutionary technological features we use today came from smaller startups acquired by major players: Google acquiring YouTube, Facebook buying Instagram, and Amazon absorbing Twitch—all ventures that benefited from larger corporate backings.
Chair Khan’s direction has reversed a longstanding culture of innovation and transformation. Instead of bolstering companies with resources and scale, her FTC—under the influence of Biden-Harris policies—seems to prefer a European-style system of perpetual market fragmentation. Not surprisingly, the Silicon Valley that was once the envy of the world for its ingenuity and entrepreneurial daring is seeing fewer startups founded, fewer funded, and fewer able to make a mark on the world.
The Stakes for the 2024 Election: A Vote for Innovation
The upcoming 2024 election is crucial for determining the future of American innovation. If Kamala Harris is elected president, it is highly likely that Lina Khan’s destructive antitrust crusade will continue, further stifling the startup ecosystem and preventing the growth of new technologies that could enhance American competitiveness. In contrast, just this morning, Elon Musk pointed out that Donald Trump has committed to firing Lina Khan on his first day in office—a move that many see as essential to restoring sanity to the FTC and allowing American innovation to thrive again.
It’s time for voters to understand the stakes clearly: the choice is between an administration that supports a bureaucratic assault on entrepreneurship or one that aims to restore opportunities for innovators, founders and venture capitalists. The decision will determine whether America continues to be the global hub of innovation or slips into stagnation under the weight of needless regulation and ideological rigidity. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for growth, opportunity and the restoration of an environment where the American dream—especially for entrepreneurs—can once again flourish.
The impact of these policies extends beyond just Silicon Valley; it affects every American who benefits from a thriving, competitive economy. The choice is simple: either continue with the Biden-Harris regime’s heavy-handed, anti-business approach or pivot toward policies that encourage growth and prosperity. If we want to see innovation thrive, the tech sector rebound and opportunities expand for all, it is crucial that Lina Khan and her destructive policies are shown the door. Let’s vote for innovation and a prosperous future—let’s vote to bring common sense back to Washington.
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.
Unknown photographer from the Auschwitz Erkennungsdienst. Several sources believe the photographer to have been SS officers Ernst Hoffmann or Bernhard Walter, who ran the Erkennungsdienst., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
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.
John F. Kelly speaks at the 53rd Munich Security Conference in 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
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 Strategy3played 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’8was 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 Society12published 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 NationalYouth Rights Association24website 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!
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.
fox files 
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments