Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) was a rather eclectic communist in the world of American politics for several generations. A few of his perspectives were sound and nationalistic. However, many of his perspectives were completely communist and slipped into the realm of geopolitical conspiracy theory finding British Imperialism under every rock and blaming Queen Elizabeth II for assassination attempts against him.

Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd of Promethean Action continue the LaRouche tradition while smoothing out some of the more outlandish elements and removing the overt communism the originating political movement was known for.

Barbara Boyd is the spokesperson and treasurer of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Boyd’s partner, Susan Kokinda, maintains a belief that eliminating British Imperialism is the objective of President Trump’s America-First policy agenda.  This is where I disagree.

While the outcome of President Trump’s policy does factually lead to the result LaRouche advocated, I strongly doubt “eliminating British imperialism” is the prism through which Donald Trump’s thought process flows.  That said, in the overall picture of American politics, the Kokinda and Boyd analysis of Trump’s international opposition is generally accurate, but their perspective on the domestic opposition is entirely shallow.

In their recent update, “Britains Secret Plot”, Susan Kokinda discusses how Marco Rubio is confronting the EU censorship program, and how President Trump’s national security strategy marks a significant departure from over a century of British-influenced American foreign policy.  Her review delves into the geopolitical friction between the U.S. and the UK, particularly regarding their strategies toward Russia and Ukraine.

Mrs. Kokinda underscores the broader clash of worldviews between America-First sovereignty and British-led internationalism. This episode also examines the opposition Trump faces from within the U.S. political establishment and British geopolitical strategists and emphasizes the importance of maintaining political support to ensure the success of Trump’s transformative policies.  WATCH:

The divergence between the worldview of the European Union and President Trump is accurately presented as above.  The Ukraine/Russia war serves as a case study in how the two worldviews conflict.  The core of U.K policy and national security strategy continues to view Russia as the biggest threat; the national security outlook by President Trump does not.

On the domestic side of the issue, there are several American elements in direct opposition to the geopolitical policy structure of President Trump. Understanding the domestic opposition to President Trump is where Kokinda/Boyd are shallow, while seeing British control behind every shadow.

(more…)

The European Union, France and Germany are furious at the U.S. State Department and Marco Rubio for issuing visa bans against European political figures who are involved in censorship under the guise of combating online hate and disinformation. Brussels said Wednesday it will “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures.”

[SOURCE]

The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

(more…)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard left nothing off the table when she gave remarks to the audience at Turning Point USA.  In a remarkable and very well delivered speech, Director Gabbard outlines in detail the biggest domestic and geopolitical challenges currently being faced by President Trump and his administration.

Underpinning her remarks is a refreshing focus on “freedom” versus the dark clouds of security threats drumbeat by those who seek control. Tulsi Gabbard accurately summarizes the importance of staying focused on liberty, while accepting the nature of the biggest threat to our core values, political Islam.

Director Gabbard hits on the key issues of the day as it pertains to her position in government, and she emphasizes how the message of fear/security is used against those of us who cherish freedom.  As she emphasizes the administration’s efforts toward peace, she also points out how Europe and NATO may not hold the same objective.  Gabbard hits multiple points that all of us can agree with, while intertwining a personal message.

There is already a visible apoplexy in reaction to these remarks, from U.S and international media on behalf of their benefactors in the Deep State.  WATCH: 

Both Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio have been exceptional standouts in the first year of the administration.

Read the DNI 2025 Accomplishments HERE.

(more…)

During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.

The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target.  WATCH:

🚨 HOLY CRAP! A Providence, RI radio host just accused Brown University of TAKING DOWN security cameras in an effort to SHIELD illegal aliens

If this is true, this is a MONUMENTAL scandal.

This must be thoroughly investigated NOW! pic.twitter.com/kXyY51zDZF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 18, 2025

In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].

Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus.  It is not just isolated to Brown University.

Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.  The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.

The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras.  This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.

Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.

(more…)

The question is: Did Brown University acquiesce under pressure from far-left human rights groups to disable their CCTV systems, in advance of the mass shooting on campus?

[SOURCE – AUGUST 19, 2025]

As originally reported in August 2025 {SOURCE}, a group of far-left human rights advocates sent a letter to 150 U.S. colleges and universities asking them to disable the CCTV systems to protect “free expression and academic freedom across the country,” because “the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign against US academic institutions.”

The motive for the request to disable CCTV systems as stated: “Right now these tools are facilitating the identification and punishment of student protesters, undermining activists’ right to anonymity––a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as vital to free expression and political participation.” {SOURCE}

The letter from ‘Fight For The Future‘ (August, 2025) came after an earlier campaign by the same group seeking to stop the use of facial recognition cameras on college campuses. {SOURCE}

The Brown University President and school officials have been giving ridiculous answers to questions about the 800 cameras on the campus and the fact that no current footage exists of the shooter walking around inside the campus or inside the buildings therein.

The question is really a simple one.  Did Brown University follow the requests of the hardline leftist groups who asked the school to disable the functioning of their surveillance network in order to protect the identity of the students on campus?

Obviously, this potential explanation would answer a lot of seemingly irreconcilable questions about the lack of surveillance footage available to local law enforcement, state police and FBI investigators.  The only current footage of the shooter is from privately owned doorbell cameras and CCTV systems from businesses near the campus.  No footage of the shooter on campus has been identified.

Against the factual evidence of Brown University receiving requests to disable their surveillance cameras, someone needs to ask the right question.

(more…)

The United States Office of the Comptroller for the Currency (OCC) has delivered the preliminary results of an investigation into large U.S. banks and the practice of “debanking” customers based on ideology. [PDF HERE]

Between 2020 and 2023, the OCC found that JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal, all maintained policies that restricted legal companies from access to banking based on the “values” of the bank.

According to the OCC report, “these nine banks made inappropriate distinctions among customers in the provision of financial services on the basis of their lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access to banking services or requiring escalated reviews and approvals before providing certain customers access to financial services.”

Press Release – […] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of debanking activities at the nine largest national banks it supervises: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank.

(more…)

Tina Peters is a gold star mom who was a former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk during the 2020 election.

Mrs Peters, age 70, is serving a nine-year prison sentence in Colorado state prison after her politically motivated conviction for attempting to influence a public servant and criminal impersonation for aiding an unauthorized person in copying voting-machine hard-drive data during a 2021 software update.

Mrs. Peters and her lawyers have repeatedly stated she was attempting to preserve evidence of false voter data in the Colorado 2020 election. The judge who sentenced Peters stated she had white “privilege” in delivering the exceptionally harsh sentence.

Today President Trump pardoned Tina Peters, but state officials and Colorado Governor Jared Polis say the pardon is invalid because Mrs. Peters was convicted of a state crime, out of the reach of a presidential pardon.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “For years, Democrats ignored Violent and Vicious Crime of all shapes, sizes, colors, and types. Violent Criminals who should have been locked up were allowed to attack again. Democrats were also far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American Taxpayers. Democrats only think there is one crime – Not voting for them!

Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find that wanted Safe and Secure Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the “crime” of demanding Honest Elections. Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!” (read more)

(more…)

If New Zealand and Australia, both 5-eye partners, were not used as the testing ground during the COVID-19 and vaccination exploits, this current move may not have gained the same level of scrutiny.  However, with a documented history of Australia pushing the limits against freedom and liberty, this latest development is notable.

Effective today, all Australian social media users will need to prove their age on websites and apps including Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube.  Users under the age of 16 are banned from accessing the sites/apps.

“But it’s only Australia,” say most.  Think again.  In the era of modern internet travel and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), how is the compliance aspect going to be determined?   That’s the problem the Australian control agents are now trying to address.

An intellectually discerning person would note the compliance angle should have been worked out long before the regulatory and compliance switches were flipped and the rushed-into-place law was activated.  The Internet Police Czar charged with enforcing the ban is an American.

As Politico notes, “Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, an American tasked with policing the world’s first social media account ban for teenagers, acknowledges Australia’s legislation is the “most novel, complex piece of legislation” she has ever seen. … She told a conference in Sydney this month she expects others to follow Australia’s lead. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” she says.

(more…)

Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau presents a well-articulated change in perspective from the U.S. State Department.  The response comes following the EU decision to levy a compliance fine against the social media platform X.

[SOURCE]

What Christopher Landau notes as the contrast and conflict in ideological priority from the EU can just as easily be applied to the USA dynamic with Canada.  As noted by Twitter user John Frank, “The same observations can easily apply to the relations with Canada, given the divergence between the US role in the military alliance with Canada, while Canada is involved in activities which work against US interests.”

At a certain point it does become necessary to distinguish exactly what values, benefits, perspectives and priorities frame the positions that determine who our U.S. allies really are, and who should benefit from that relationship.

It is good to see a structurally different perspective from the U.S. State Department that puts a bold underline under the term “western alliances.”  What values are those alliances based on?

(more…)

The European Union has fined the X social media platform (formerly Twitter), owned by Elon Musk and his investment group, $140 million (usd) for violations of the EU Digital Services Act.  The decision by the EU is likely to create even more friction between President Trump and the European Union.  However, this problem is not difficult to solve.

The collective government within the EU accuse Elon Musk and X of permitting misinformation, disinformation and malinformation to appear on the platform.

The European DSA is ultimately designed to control information, that reality should not be debated. All efforts to control traditional and social media are efforts to control information.

The specifics of the reasoning for the fine are typically European.  (1) Twitter allows ordinary people to deliver information at the same level as people who should be defined as more important.  (2)  Advertisers of those who pay for promotion of information on X are not easily identifiable – people need to figure it out on their own.  (3)  It is too difficult to figure out who is providing the information.

Basically, all of the EU concerns center around information control.  It’s really an ideology issue.  In the outlook of the EU, bureaucrats and elites feel they are superior and must rule/protect the people under them.  Ordinary people having access to information that may or may not be approved by the EU is the underlying issue.

(more…)