CEO businessman Mike Lindell announced earlier today he is running for the position of Republican National Committee Chairman, a challenge to current RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel who has stated her intention to run for reelection to the position.

Several current RNC members have announced their continued support for Mrs. McDaniel, including former RNC Chair Reince Priebus.  However, former Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin has also stated his interest in running for the position.

Mike Lindell explains to Steve Bannon his intent and purpose for entering the very important race.  {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

The election for the two-year RNC Chair will take place at the RNC winter meeting in California late January.

The winter meeting of the RNC is taking place January 25-27th, in Dana Point California at the Waldorf Astoria – Monarch Beach Resort.  There are 168 members who will be in attendance (3 from every state) along with various RNC and national Republican leadership.

In addition to the RNC chair election, this RNC corporate meeting and the votes by the members, will determine the Republican Club rules for the 2024 election cycle.  Rules on primary dates, sequence, apportionment of delegates, distribution of delegates, state sequencing, qualifications and much more.

The billionaire donor class and corporations who currently operate the financial mechanisms of the RNC have already expressed their intent moving forward is to remove the populist movement and realign the RNC with corporate objectives.  This chairmanship election is going to be pivotal for the future of the party.

(more…)

U.S. political parties operate as a business.  Both wings of the business are private corporations.  The professionals inside the industry have a vested financial interest in retaining the business model.  The needs of the corporation are the priority, voters are annoying.

Having spent his career inside the industry, the Iowa GOP Chairman puts it this way:

‘Imperative’ Ronna made lots of money for the business.  Consultants, advisors, offices, polling groups, analysts, data, technicians, meetings, catering and more, take lots of money.  The corporations of the RNC and DNC exist to serve their own interests.  Politics is the RNC and DNC business; however, the income stream -the financial aspects to the business- is what holds influence over the corporate priority.

Ideology is part of the equation, but control of the business and generating revenue is the main function of the corporation. Unfortunately, in the reality of the business model, election outcomes are downstream from those two priorities.

(more…)

CTH has encountered criticism for our position on information.  Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas.  First, my position:

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.

In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.

When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades.  You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.

When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem.  You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. The problem is supposed to be there.

It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones.  You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide.  You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.

If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you.  You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.

The sliding scale of Pinocchio’s is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.

(more…)

In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.  Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.

Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected.  According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”

[Source, page 4]

While asking the court to provide the affidavit to the defense team, the lawyers for President Trump are noting the fourth amendment protects everyone against warrantless searches and seizures, and that same protection also guarantees the target the right to receive and review the claimed justification for the warrant.

The unredacted affidavit is obligated to be supplied so that it can be determined if the search warrant was legally valid and predicated.  General search warrants are not legally permitted.  The warrant must specify what is being searched and why.  The DOJ is fighting against this affidavit release.  The Trump lawyers are asking the judge to make a decision.

(more…)

I have given a great deal of thought to this in the past several years and I am welcoming all opinions.  Just to let you know I intend to read every single comment, because ultimately this is important. AND I believe it will become a salient topic in the next two years [As did the recent conversation of Ballots -vs- Votes].

In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled on a campaign finance legal challenge known colloquially as The Citizens United decision.  The essence of the decision was a speech issue. In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

Prior to CU corporations were limited in financial spending on behalf of political campaigns just like individuals.  However, unions were not.  Organized Labor Unions could spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates.  Corporations were limited like individuals.

At the time of the January 2010 Supreme Court ruling Democrats and Barack Obama were furious.  Corporations could now form SuperPACs and spend unlimited amounts of money ‘independently’ supporting candidates.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules on coordination and communication between the political campaigns and the independent SuperPACs was/is supposed to create a firewall.  However, the obscure nature of that effort has failed miserably.

Real World Example. A SuperPAC can organize a pro-Ben rally, spend on the venue, spend on the banners, t-shirts, rally material etc., and then advertise it.  If Ben shows up to deliver a speech, he’s not breaking the rules so long as Ben and the SuperPAC didn’t coordinate the event.  Ben just shows up to share his support for the effort, thank everyone and everything is legal in the eyes of the FEC.  Yeah, it’s goofy.

More commonly as a result of the Citizens United (CU) case, massive corporate advertising (considered speech) is permitted in support of the candidate; or the corporation can organize ballot collection or get out the vote efforts, etc.  Again, as long as they do not coordinate with any “official campaign” ie. Mark Zuckerbucks, yeah, goofy.   As a result, expanded corporate spending has massive influence over U.S. elections.

(more…)

Arizona Governor candidate Kari Lake appears with Steve Bannon to discuss the status of her campaign lawsuits against Maricopa County officials in advance of a rush to certify the election. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:

.

(more…)

Comrades, Dear Leader wants to help you with correct thoughts this Thanksgiving.

The administration cares about you.  With magnanimous intent Dear Leader provides the correct guidance for your discussions.  Please follow the transcript as outlined for your family gathering this year.  All the best comrade citizens will be reciting it.  [Source]

Good citizenship begins at the family table by honoring Dear Leader’s accomplishments.

Dear Leader provides appropriate instructions for the way all good citizens should thank him.  It is no longer your burden to say, “this holiday we celebrate and are thankful for friends and family.”  Instead, Dear Leader is providing thoughtful guidance, so you do not have to worry about appropriate thinking.

(more…)

In this brief interview segment {Direct Rumble Link} Steve Bannon and Natalia Mittlestadt discuss a GOP legal team compilation report {pdf Here} from Maricopa County, Arizona as identified by findings on election day.

…”The 11 attorneys visited 115 out of the 223 vote centers in Maricopa County on Election Day and found that 72 of them (or 62.61%) “had material problems with the tabulators not being able to tabulate ballots,” Sonnenklar reported, “causing voters to either deposit their ballots into box 3, spoil their ballots and re-vote, or get frustrated and leave the vote center without voting.” WATCH:

Article Found Here – Legal Brief Citation Here

The scale of the problems identified does raise the question about how could the county certify the results?

(more…)

If you doubted the intent of the primary function of the appointment for Special Counsel John Smith, you can put that doubt to rest now.  Appearing on CBS FtN Democrat Rep Zoe Lofgren confirms the intent of the Garland appointment is to receive evidence from the J6 Committee and utilize that evidence in the targeting operation against Republicans in congress.

Read the carefully worded statements from Lofgren and compare them to the background we previously outlined.  Everything is clear.  WATCH:

Primary goal, create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.  Additionally, if Smith’s DC team can pick-off a few republican House members under charges of “supporting an insurrection“, the political power will revert back to the Democrats in office.

They didn’t just think this up overnight.

This is why the January 6 committee never ended.  They are using J6 as a weapon against their losing the House to republicans.  The Democrats are now structurally targeting Republicans with the appointment of Jack Smith.  It’s actually a brilliant move.  The executive is now investigating the legislative branch; the legal structure of this eliminates the separation of powers issue.

The DOJ is not investigating republicans, they are investigating defined criminals; insurrectionists that are national security threats, that happen to be republicans.  See how that works?

(more…)

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of John Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The pretending is severe as CBS recruits former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to discuss the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate republicans in congress and President Donald Trump.

You can tell the pretending is severe because neither Rosenstein nor Brennan even touches on the primary aspect to the written instructions by Garland to special counsel John Smith.  The primary function of the special counsel is completely avoided in the interview, [again, read the pdf of the appointment]. Instead, the conversation with Rosenstein focuses on the second, lesser included instruction, the Trump-centric portion.

The corporate media engineers, working on concert with the DC agenda, are pulling Rosenstein into the picture to frame the narrative toward an announcement of an indictment against President Trump. WATCH:

In response to the question of the appointment itself, Rosenstein noted he “probably would not” have made the decision to appoint a special counsel.  However, don’t get too caught up in the granules of the interview itself.  Instead, ask why the media is pulling Rosenstein into the prosecutorial debate?   What benefit is there?  Within those answers you then overlay the fact the primary function of the appointment itself is not part of the conversation.  [Transcript Below]

(more…)