President Donald Trump has announced via Truth Social, his intent to designate Antifa as a major terrorist organization, operating within the United States.

[SOURCE]

It will be interesting to watch how the Dept of Homeland Security, FBI, Dept of Justice and U.S. State Department respond to this intended designation.

For many years we have watched the various assemblies of Revolutionary Communists (RevCom), Occupy Wall Street (OWS), Black Lives Matter (BLM) and personnel related to these organizations, evolve and align into the organization of radical leftists now known as Antifa.

Previously, despite their funding, organized and coordinated activities, the FBI had called them a “movement and ideology” and not an organization.  However, their organizational model should not be hard to unravel.  There is a funding mechanism for these activities which should be easy for government officials to research.

(more…)

We see things for what they are, not what media try to have us believe.

Unlike the first term playbook, the Lawfare operation against President Trump is facing a more affirmed attack posture. Instead of Trump (T1) being on constant defense, Trump (T2) is strategically willing to be more confrontational and direct against the use of Lawfare and corrupt courts against Trump’s intended policy changes.

T2 Main Justice is still not going to the mattresses as many of us would like, and factually the DOJ and FBI operations are still a weakness in the overall war against the radical left; however, they do appear to recognize that direct aggressive confrontation is needed – despite the shortcomings in their capabilities.

In the fight between the executive authority and Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, the embattled fed governor is being represented by Norm Eisen. Eisen, together with Mary McCord and other ideological travelers represent Lisa Cook and are using the issue as a point of attack against executive power.

In the latest development, in a 2-1 decision [SOURCE HERE], a federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to quickly fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook. The two justices who decided to block Trump were appointed by Joe Biden. The justice who sided with the executive authority was appointed by President Trump.

Ultimately, this issue is going to the Supreme Court where hopefully the highest court will rule that President Trump can remove Lisa Cook for cause, because Cook falsified federal mortgage loan documents. But in the bigger picture, the issue around Cook is not as much about her unlawful conduct, as it is the value of what Cook represents in the fight against President Trump.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Judges J, Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia, both Biden appointees, voted to leave Cook in her post, while Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. The Department of Justice declined comment.

(more…)

Vice-President JD Vance guest hosted the Charlie Kirk Podcast today as he memorialized Charlie and interviewed guests who shared their personal stories.

At the end of the podcast, JD Vance then shared his perspectives of events surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk with a powerful message outlining the hatred of the left and the solution to counter their evil enterprise.  WATCH:

.

The full podcast is below:

(more…)

Everything that preceded the 2020 federal election was a complex system of control by a network of ideologues, federal agencies, allies in the private sector, financial stakeholders and corrupt interests all working toward a common goal.

There’s no need to go through the background of how the election was manipulated and how the government and private sector, specifically social media, worked to influence the 2020 outcome because you have all seen it.

Whether it was local election officials working to control outcomes, federal agencies working to support them (CISA, FBI, DHS), financial interests working to fund them (Zuckerberg et al), or social media platforms controlling the visible content and discussion (Twitter Files, Google, Facebook etc.), the objective was all the same.  It was a massive one-sided operation against the free will of the American voter.

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, those same system operators, govt officials, corporate media, private sector groups and social media platforms then circled the wagons to scatter the evidence of their conduct.  If you questioned anything, you were a threat.  That’s the context to the dynamic that unfolded.

Lawfare operatives joined forces with Democrat staffers, and allies in social media platforms all worked in concert to target the voices of anyone who would rise in opposition to the corruption that was stunningly clear in the outcome of the election process.  Corporate media then labeled, isolated, ridiculed and marginalized anyone who dared to point out the obvious.

When AG Merrick Garland says this of January 6, 2021: […] “the Justice Department has conducted one of the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations in our history. We have worked to analyze massive amounts of physical and digital data. We have recovered devices, decrypted electronic messages, triangulated phones, and pored through tens of thousands of hours of video. We have also benefited from tens of thousands of tips we received from the public. Following these digital and physical footprints, we were able to identify hundreds of people.” {link} The targeting operation needs context.

Do you remember on April 27, 2024, when DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said, “more than 3.4 million search queries into the NSA database took place between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Nov. 30th, 2021, by government officials and/or contractors working on behalf of the federal government.”  The result was “more than 1 million searches of private documents and communication of Americans that were illegal and non-compliant,” and over “10,000 federal employees have access to that database.” {OIG Testimony}.

Put the statement from Garland together with the statement from Horowitz, and you get an understanding of what was done.

Hundreds of stakeholders in the Lawfare network joined forces with hundreds of people who became staff researchers for a weaponized Congress.  Hundreds more social media background agents then poured thousands of hours into feeding private information to the DOJ, FBI, J6 Committee and all of their hired staff working on the project.

How do I know?…

…I was one of their targets.

(more…)

Something odd is going on with this.  Catherine Herridge reports that she “exclusively” gained a copy of the FBI files on Michael Flynn from FBI Director Kash Patel [SEE HERE].  Herridge uploaded the documents while she began reporting on them via Twitter [SEE HERE] then, mysteriously deleted her upload [SEE HERE].

Fortunately, I kept the tab open, because there are two pages that really caught my eye.  The pages are labeled the “Flynn Timeline” and were created by someone in the FBI.   Check these pages closely, and you can find things quite remarkable.

First, I have always suspected the greatest likelihood of who leaked the transcript of then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s December ’16 phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Kislyak to David Ignatius at the Washington Post was Mary McCord.   Well, check out January 6, 2017:

01/06/17: “McCabe provides McCord [REDACTED]” Likely, almost certainly, the thing being discussed with DNI Clapper on 01/03/17.  That would be the “Flynn Cuts,” which is the transcript of the phone call between Flynn and Kislyak.

The next entry is:

01/13/07: “Ignatius editorial” – Washington Post, David Ignatius – the reporter who received the leak of the Flynn transcript.  A massive national security breach.  The leaking of TSCI classified information, the Flynn transcript.

McCabe gives the transcript to McCord.  Suddenly, Ignatius writes about the transcript. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius was the first to report on the Flynn/Kislyak call on January 12, 2017.

Stuff about Clapper calling Comey then going to the FBI I previously wrote about.  Obama asked Clapper who was leaking all this stuff to the media. 01/03/17 Clapper calls Comey and asks him about the Flynn call.  “Director describes” transcript to Clapper.  01/03/17, Clapper goes to FBI to retrieve transcript, which he then takes back to Obama.

(more…)

**BUMPED** How is it that an insignificant corner of the internet could predict the removal of the U.S. National Security Advisor, specifically as the first administration official to be removed, more than two months before Donald Trump was sworn in as President on January 20, 2025?

To understand the complexity of the intelligence information flow, consider:

The silo system is made up, in part, of: The National Security Council (10+ desks, 15 staff/analysts per), the National Security Advisor to the Office of the President, the Dept of Justice National Security Division [DOJ-NSD (foreign review section, counterintelligence export control section, cyber section, counterterrorism section)], Central Intelligence Agency [(CIA), National Intelligence Council, Directorate of Analysis], Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI (Counterintelligence, Counterterrorism, WMD Directorate, Directorate of Intelligence, Cyber)], the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI (Requirements, Analysis, Collection, National Counterterrorism Center, Mission Managers)], the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Dept of Defense [DoD, (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Industrial, International)], the National Security Agency [NSA (Operations, Technology, Cyber], and many more.

Each agency/office a silo, with distinct sub-silos, each with equity stakes in the information they gather, review and analyze; ultimately attributing classification level and intersecting analysis with each other agency as mission aligned.

Sound ridiculous?  It probably is, yet we’ve merely scratched the surface of the networks and information flows that swirl around the Office of the President.

How does President Trump frame his world view?  Who organizes the information that is prioritized to reach his desk?

It is very easy to say, “President Trump has to know about (fill_in_blank),” without contemplating the process by which President Trump would know about (fill_in_blank).  The recent remarks by President Trump, surrounding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, should put a spotlight on this consequential dynamic.

(more…)

New York Representative Jerry “The Penguin” Nadler has announced he is not going to seek reelection in 2026.

78-year-old Nadler was going to face a significant primary threat from the far-left.

NEW YORK – “Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that,” Mr. Nadler said, adding that a younger successor “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler, was the former chair of the House Judiciary Committee who joined forces with Adam Schiff and spearheaded President Donald Trump’s impeachment effort.

Nadler and Schiff formed a joint House impeachment committee and then hired Mary McCord as the lead staff for the effort.

Mary McCord previously worked as DOJ-National Security Division head with Michael Atkinson as her office lawyer.

When McCord quit the DOJ and went to work for Schiff and Nadler, Atkinson was ¹moved to Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).

As the ICIG, Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for whistleblowers within the CIA permitting a false assertion by Eric Ciaramella, who subsequently told a fictional story presented by Alexander Vindman.  The fake “Ukraine Impeachment” effort stemmed from this political scheme.

Vindman lied, Eric Ciaramella advanced the lie to ICIG Michael Atkinson who then spun the ²false allegation back to his colleague Mary McCord.  That’s the origin of the fraud behind the first impeachment effort.

(more…)

I had not been paying close attention to the overarching issues of President Trump removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause – fraudulent filings on her three mortgage applications. However, the appearance of Norm Eisen as her lawyer certainly highlights the political nature of the defense effort.

Norm Eisen is a well-known Lawfare operative, second only to Mary McCord in his high visibility and connections to all of the anti-Trump efforts. Eisen, like McCord, is at the center of the leftist effort to stop the Trump agenda through the manipulation of the courts, ie. ‘Lawfare.’

Norm Eisen left, Abbe Lowell right. Both lawyers for Lisa Cook

WASHINGTON – A federal judge likely will not rule until next week on whether Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board, can remain in her job despite President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her.

At the first hearing on Cook’s lawsuit against Trump, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb grappled with the legal issues raised by Trump’s unprecedented move against Cook but offered few hints about how she might rule. The judge, an appointee of Joe Biden, acknowledged the limits of the courts’ power to question the president’s motives, while expressing concerns about the lack of due process afforded to Cook. (more)

(more…)

Barack Obama didn’t like Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama didn’t even care about Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign.  Barack Obama would have liked nothing more than to watch Hillary Clinton go down in a ball of flames, until something happened in 2016 that changed the dynamic.

Suddenly, Barack Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election…

That my friends, is the reason why so many people get lost in the story of the 2016 election and the eventual Trump-Russia conspiracy.  However, once you understand what changed in those April and May 2016 moments, everything reconciles.

The U.S. government, under the President Obama administration, was spying on American citizens.

It started with Barack Obama and AG Eric Holder’s use of the IRS database in the 2010 midterm, against the primary threat of the Tea Party movement.  However, an IRS whistleblower from the Cincinnati field office took the continued use of the IRS off the table.

From the period of mid-2012 to April-2016, the administration factually and demonstrably shifted to using the power of electronic surveillance to conduct political spying operations using the NSA database and the metadata captures within it.

However, once that NSA surveillance and spying was identified in April 2016, President Obama had a problem.  That’s where the Obama alignment with the Clinton ‘dirty trick’ comes into play.  After May 2016, Obama needed Hillary Clinton to win the election.  The rest is “Russiagate” history.

Those who remember the 2015/2016 presidential race will remember President Obama never campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary.  After all, Bernie Sanders was potentially going to upend Clinton until the DNC stepped heavily on the scales to assist her, and team Sanders was furious. Then suddenly, following the California primary, Barack went all in.

There is a distinct timeline shift during this period that most seem to overlook, because “Russiagate” was/is easily the shiniest thing for people to follow.  However, it was the precursor scandal, ‘spygate’, that is more critical yet gets almost no attention.

Here it becomes critical for people to understand exactly what was taking place.  Absolutely nothing had anything to do with: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, aka FISA – surveillance impacting Americans (FISA-702), the FISA Court, masking, minimizing or unmasking.  None of those terms apply. What the Obama administration was doing was simply spying.

(more…)

There are trillions at stake. The current 7-4 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit surrounds a May decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade. The original case concluded that President Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 law he invoked to impose both the fentanyl trafficking tariffs and his worldwide tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). [SEE RULING HERE]

“We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.”

It is obvious the Democrat appointed majority are tenuous in their position.  No one doubts the presidential power to declare a national emergency.  To wit, the ruling highlights a very nervous court with much of the language straddling the fence trying not give the impression they are interfering in Article II presidential powers to make foreign policy decisions.

Unelected judges restricting the power of the Executive Branch, and by extension restricting a President elected by the majority of the nations’ citizens to address a national emergency, is not a construct supported by the Supreme Court.  The six activist judges on the federal appeals court panel seemingly know this; however, the power of the political -and I would guess financial- pressure compels them.

The court deferred their ruling which will not take effect until Oct. 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.  President Trump responded via Truth Social.

(more…)