Today, in a very important 6-3 decision at the Supreme Court [Full pdf Ruling Here] the high court ruled in Louisiana -vs Callais that congressional districts drawn by considering race are an unconstitutional gerrymander.  Race should not be a consideration in the drawing of district boundaries.

Chief Justice John Roberts had previously described Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.  “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three leftist, activist justices. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

(Via Politico) – […] Alito said a revised interpretation of Section 2 was needed in part because of the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. As a result, he suggested, plaintiffs in voting discrimination lawsuits are now often “dressing their political-gerrymandering claims in racial garb.”

“Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting … can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, non-racial decisions under the banner of Section 2,” Alito wrote, appearing to express concern that Democrats could use voting rights lawsuits for partisan purposes rather than to target racial discrimination.

(more…)

Several months ago, I was asked to assist with what was called a “firehose of crazy.”  I don’t ordinarily pay attention to the goofy stuff, and I didn’t look at most of the citations being referenced.  That said and with recent events in view, I have a new appreciation for what that meant.

When President Trump responded to the goofball diatribe of Alex Jones, what he apparently was referencing was a segment Jones put out on his podcast when he first requested the administration to intervene and use the 25th amendment to remove Trump.  Mr. Jones followed that call for the 25th amendment, by saying he wanted administration officials to conduct a soft-coup against the President of the United States, because Trump wasn’t following his advice. [Part of Video Below]

🚨 Alex Jones and Robert Barnes call for an internal coup of President Trump.

Jones “How do we 25th amendment his ass?”

Barnes “Tackle Trump and let him pretend he is President”

These are the people telling you you’re not America First 🤡 pic.twitter.com/vjJO553vj5

— J (@JayTC53) April 7, 2026

.

President Trump rightly responded to the quackery of the podcast world, and collectively they have lost their mind over it.

In response, Jones is now saying Melania Trump is planning to divorce Donald Trump {CITATION}, and then, if President Trump says one more bad thing, Jones’ is going to unleash his podcast audience to destroy the President of the United States {CITATION}.

Folks, these characters are not psychologically stable people.  This is a level of weird only evident now because Trump decided to address it.

(more…)

ActBlue is to the Democrat party fundraising machine as WinRed is to the Republican side of the equation.

In a rather stunning outline by the New York Times [SEE HERE] the progressive outlet is reporting of serious concerns within the leadership of ActBlue related to their willfully blind reception of foreign sources of money to fund Democrat candidates.

The remarkable aspect is not just that ActBlue takes foreign funds, but rather the New York Times revealing internal legal discussions about it.  According to the Times reporting, the Eric Holder law firm Covington & Burling, the primary legal mechanism for the ActBlue/DNC machinery, lies at the heart of the matter.

(NYT) […] The firm concluded that ActBlue’s chief executive had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter explaining how the organization vetted donations to ensure that they were not illegally coming from foreign citizens.

The letter from the chief executive, Regina Wallace-Jones, said ActBlue carried out “multilayered” screenings of contributions that helped “root out” those from overseas. In fact, the law firm found, some of the steps she had described were not always followed.

“This presents a substantial risk for ActBlue,” the law firm, Covington & Burling, wrote in one of two memos expressing legal concerns. One memo raised the specter of a criminal investigation if prosecutors believed that ActBlue had tried to conceal facts about its efforts to prevent foreign contributions. (source)

To really appreciate the scheme that seems to be outlined by the internal documents, it is worth remembering that James O’Keefe previously did some boots on the ground research into ActBlue [SEE HERE – 2023] and found that multiple, perhaps thousands, of “donor” names and addresses were assigned to contributions the donors said they never made.

(more…)

Tucker Carlson has announced the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been monitoring his contacts with people within Iran and is potentially referring the issue to Dept of Justice (DOJ) officials for criminal review.

According to his previous self-admissions, Carlson was strongly against the Trump administration taking military action toward Iran and had travelled to the White House to express that opinion to President Trump.  If the CIA was monitoring his contact with officials within Iran, this should NOT come as a surprise.

Given the nature of the conflict both before (during negotiations) and after the military hostilities began (operation epic fury), it would be negligent if the Intelligence Community was not monitoring that communication. Obviously, Tucker should know that; it’s a simple DUH issue.

You don’t get private time with President Trump about an issue of national security without the IC monitoring your behavior with foreign contacts.  That said, the part about a potential criminal referral would depend on the nature of the communication itself.

As an example: a quid-pro-quo toward an interview with a high-level Iranian official in exchange for specific dialogue pushed through a widely followed social media platform could present legal issues (FARA etc.).  Given the specific part of the video where Mr. Carlson strongly emphasizes he was never paid; it seems to me the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) is source of the issue.

Here’s the risk.  According to the DOJ regulations, a person does not need to get paid by the foreign entity in order to violate FARA.   However, on the other side of the issue, journalists -news or press services engaged in bona fide news or journalistic activities- are exempt from having to register under FARA guidelines.   Tucker Carlson knows what his contacts were about, states his innocence and claims he is being targeted.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.”  As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…

.

(more…)

Telegram platform founder Pavel Durov is one of very few tech CEOs who is consistent in his efforts to protect information from the grip of government censorship. Today, Durov used his platform to warn Telegram users in Spain what is pending:

[VIA Pavel Durov X Account] – Today, Telegram notified all its users in Spain with this alert:

Pedro Sánchez’s government is pushing dangerous new regulations that threaten your internet freedoms. Announced just yesterday, these measures could turn Spain into a surveillance state under the guise of “protection.” Here’s why they’re a red flag for free speech and privacy:

1. Ban on social media for under-16s with mandatory age verification: This isn’t just about kids—it requires platforms to use strict checks, like needing IDs or biometrics.

⚠️ Danger: It sets a precedent for tracking EVERY user’s identity, eroding anonymity and opening doors to mass data collection. What starts with minors could expand to all, stifling open discourse.

2. Personal and criminal liability for platform executives: If “illegal, hateful, or harmful” content isn’t removed fast enough, bosses face jail.

⚠️ Danger: This will force over-censorship—platforms will delete anything remotely controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissent, journalism, and everyday opinions. Your voice could be next if it challenges the status quo.

3. Criminalizing algorithm amplification: Amplifying “harmful” content via algorithms becomes a crime.

⚠️ Danger: Governments will dictate what you see, burying opposing views and creating echo chambers controlled by the state. Free exploration of ideas? Gone—replaced by curated propaganda.

(more…)

Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino and ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles hold a press briefing to discuss and answer questions about ongoing operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The questions begin at 16:18 of the video below.

Greg Bovino notes the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota is that the leftist groups are more organized and in direct communication with the state and local government.  If you read between the lines what Bovino is saying is that anarchists, professional leftists and radical groups are in control of the government within the region.  There is no distinction between the political officials in Minnesota and the leadership of the activists. WATCH:

.

(more…)

At first, I thought this video had to be a spoof because the promoted viewpoint is, well, bizarre for a westerner to say out loud.  Then I realized this guy isn’t joking – he’s deadly serious.

Billionaire Shlomo Kramer says, “I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.” When asked what that means, Kramer responds, “I mean that we need to control the platforms, all the social platforms. We need to stack rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online and take control of what they are saying based on that ranking.”

When asked by who? “The government should do that, yes.” WATCH:

Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer’s New Year’s resolution is to eliminate America’s First Amendment.

“I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.” pic.twitter.com/dOmb7DuLb1

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) January 2, 2026

This is absurd totalitarian thinking.

Every month it becomes more challenging to push back against these insufferable control agents both inside and outside government.  What Shlomo Kramer is advocating for is digital fascism, where private industry collaborates with government to control the flow of information and speech on the internet.

Get stuffed Mr. Kramer!

(more…)

I don’t care if you support Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or the Easter Bunny, any American who doesn’t realize the tenuous future of our union, after reviewing the information within this testimony, is going to forever live in a collapsed dystopian nightmare, if they vote for any political representative who supports it.

The House Judiciary Committee has released the [VIDEO] and [TRANSCRIPT] of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deposition.  What is outlined within it is alarming in the extreme.  I strongly urge anyone with any platform to review the details and quickly highlight the content therein.  There is no time to waste.

[TRANSCRIPT HERE]

Jack Smith appeared before the committee with three personal lawyers to support him.  The content of the deposition is chilling in the extreme.  While many will focus on the granular details of the testimony, I wish to highlight one of the more alarming aspects to the bigger picture.

The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boils down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.

To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith claims Trump knowingly understood that Joe Biden had won the election; President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election; President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him, and instead chose to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”

It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith.   The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.

(more…)

EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.

The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”

The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:

GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.

[SOURCE – LINKEDIN]

Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.

The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

(more…)