Project 65 and the war on election integrity

/1 Comment/in /by

Tucker Carlson did a fascinating interview with Stefan Passantino, an attorney who got caught up in the Liz Cheney’s machinations as vice-chair of the January 6 Committee. This is an incredible exposé of how Washington really works. Passantino represented Cassidy Hutchinson and he claims that Hutchinson went behind Passantino’s back and communicated with Liz Cheney and J6 Committee lawyers—contrary to professional ethics. The motive was to cover up a hoax in which Cassidy used Passantino to cover up her lie about why she changed her testimony to be anti-Trump, claiming that Passantino told her to lie to the committee during her first testimony.

In the course of the interview, Passantino mentions Project 65 which is a group of Trump-hating lawyers headed by Michael Teter who have filed nearly 100 grievances against attorneys who represented Trump or questioned elections that had been ruled as having been won by Biden. Passantino is one of the attorneys Project 65 has targeted. The motive of course is to intimidate attorneys into not pursuing these cases for fear of losing their standing in the profession, and they are running ads in Pennsylvania warning attorneys of what awaits them if they pursue one of these cases. Attorneys thus have reasonable fear that their professional life will be over if they represent anyone connected to Trump. I suppose they will change course and challenge election results if Trump wins.

Project 65 presents themselves as pursuing the highest ethical standards:

Following Biden’s victory, an army of Big Lie Lawyers filed 65 lawsuits based on bogus assertions to overturn the election and give Trump a second term. While the nation’s legal institutions stood up to this attempted “coup-via-courtroom,” Trump and his “Big Lie Lawyers” have “learned lessons” from 2020 and are already working to seize control of state and local election processes and to prepare for malicious election litigation efforts.

The 65 Project is a bipartisan effort to protect democracy from these once-and-future abuses by holding accountable Big Lie Lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results, and by working with bar associations to deter future abuses by establishing clear standards for conduct that punish lies about the conduct or results of elections.

America First Legal, founded by former Trump Senior Policy Advisor and immigration patriot Stephen Miller, has sued Teter for Project 65’s lawfare against Passantino:

The complaint was submitted on behalf of Stefan Passantino and calls for the Utah State Bar to investigate. AFL claims that The 65 Project was created with the goal of disbarring attorneys aligned with Trump. Teter allegedly filed nearly 100 ethics complaints against such lawyers, including one against Passantino.

Teter’s complaint against Passantino accused him of providing poor representation to Cassidy Hutchinson during her appearance before the January 6 Committee. It alleged attempts to obstruct the committee’s inquiry into the Capitol attack. However, AFL argues that these accusations have been proven false by recent findings from a congressional subcommittee.

The subcommittee revealed that Hutchinson had been in communication with former Congresswoman Liz Cheney without Passantino’s knowledge. This new information prompted AFL to file a bar complaint against Cheney for her undisclosed interactions with Hutchinson.

AFL contends that Teter’s complaints were based on unverified sources and boilerplate language used in multiple cases. They argue that his actions aim to deter attorneys from representing Trump or his associates by creating a “culture of deterrence.”

The organization recently initiated an investigation into The 65 Project’s ties with the Biden-Harris Department of Justice. AFL emphasizes its commitment to ensuring integrity within the legal profession and protecting attorneys’ rights.

Gene Hamilton, Executive Director of America First Legal, stated: “For too long, ‘lawfare’ like that undertaken by The 65 Project and other, similarly motivated groups, has chilled attorneys across the country from representing clients or advancing certain lawful positions for those clients… We seek a return to a world in which lawyers can be lawyers… The abuses of the system must stop.”

You begin to realize the intense activism surrounding this election. One thing for certain, it won’t be over on Nov. 5.

“Should Britain have stayed out of the war?”

/19 Comments/in /by

The Second World War was the decisive moment of the left’s ascent to power in the West. Historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, whose careers centre upon justifying it, are falsely presented by fellow anti-fascists as conservatives. The raison d’etre of the fake right is to occupy any space in which genuine, committed opponents of the left would otherwise exist and to continually surrender. They conspire in the anti-fascist monopoly; the real right are excluded from all institutions.

Hitler’s violation of the Munich settlement in March 1939 proved his perfidy and his intention to conquer. But why was Britain party to that settlement? The German invasion of Poland triggered the declarations of war by Britain and France. But why were those countries allied with Poland? The two statements are familiar. The two questions I arrived at myself, and since the answers have not been forthcoming from historians, I have sought them, and only thereby begun to understand the causes of the war.

To say that the war began because Germany invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland leaves begging any explanation of British involvement, as Britain only pledged support to Poland six months before the German invasion and was never allied with Austria, Czechoslovakia or France. The latter two were allied with each other since 1924, and both made pacts with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. France’s alliance with the Czechs (who dominated the Slovaks) made Germany’s demands toward the latter a British issue because British politicians and civil servants informally maintained the Entente with France: the unwritten understanding that the two would act together (with Russia) against Germany. The understanding was formed in 1904; the Great War had occurred, Russia had been superseded by the Soviet Union and Germany had been diminished at Versailles, yet through the succeeding twenty years, albeit with serious differences, Britain maintained a common diplomatic front with France against Germany. French politicians’ hostility to Germany and collaboration with communists was condoned and imitated by the war party in Britain. French politicians, exploiting British sympathy, aggravated relations with Germany and surrounded it with alliances, but refrained from declaring war alone, regarding British commitment as a necessity. Pro-war forces in Britain required six years to discredit, isolate and defeat the moderates and peacemakers; when they did so, Britain declared war and France followed.

A year before, Britain had been the decisive actor at the Munich summit, in which Czechoslovakia was, according to Churchillian history, ‘given away’ to Germany in a vain attempt to avoid war. Why war would otherwise have eventuated and between whom tends to go unspecified. France was unfaithful from the start in its promises to the smaller nations and would have forgone them if Germany’s threats to Czechoslovakia were fulfilled. Britain’s solidarity was precisely what made France and the Czechs affect such boldness as they did. British politicians, including Neville Chamberlain, acted there, and before and after, as though allied with France; for this I have never encountered any explanation. A self-consciously pro-French, anti-German faction fostered by King Edward VII took over the civil service, Parliament and the media in the century’s first decade and brought about the First World War, in which Churchill exulted. As nothing appears to have interrupted the hold of that faction on British policy, I surmise that they and their successors deepened their power through the 1910s and 1920s, became what we now call anti-fascists in the 1930s and have had hegemony in politics and the publishing of history ever since.

There should be detailed accounts written on this continuation of British support for France against Germany in the interwar period, as it was probably the most consequential foreign policy option in modern British history. Instead the most famous historians have, since the war, directed their readers’ attention toward whatever justifies the course taken by Winston Churchill, not only as Prime Minister from May 1940 but in the previous seven years through which, in their portrayal, he was a prescient but unheeded seer of the German threat. Historians who have diverged, like David Irving and Patrick Buchanan, are treated not only as incorrect but as fools or scoundrels to be met either with vehement denunciation or aloof avoidance and disparagement. In the telling of court historians, Hitler’s insane and malevolent actions are always the explanation for the war. Only one party instigated conflict; everyone else involved was merely responding to the ‘Nazi menace’; every other factor cited is Nazi apologism.

National chauvinism could explain using such a selective approach to exonerate Britain and France, but it is also taken by Western historians in favour of the Soviet Union. The Soviets, it is implied, were no threat to anyone (until 1945). The numerous attempts at Marxist overthrows in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Romania and other states since 1917 are mentioned only in the more detailed studies of the time, yet these were the primary provocation for the burgeoning of fascism and national socialism, which decidedly are included in the victors’ history as causes of the war. The ubiquity of the myth, probably Trotskyist in origin, that Stalin gave up on the idea of world revolution (or conquest) is convenient for his apologists in the West. ‘Socialism in one country’ derives from one letter by Stalin to a newspaper; it is belied by his and others’ more private utterances and the gargantuan military forces he amassed through the 1930s and positioned at the border with Germany in 1940-1, ready to convey socialism to many more countries.

The saviours of civilisation

The activities of the Comintern and the Soviet NKVD in penetrating the British civil service and recruiting agents of influence and prestigious non-communist advocates via front groups are the subject of dozens of books, television dramas and movies, yet I know of few historians who make any mention of them in relation to the causing of the war. Those Churchillian historians who mention the most famous Soviet foreign initiative, the Popular Front, condone it at least tacitly. They could hardly do otherwise, as Churchill was effectively part of a greater anti-German alliance of which the Popular Front was a vital international element. Churchill’s phrase from 1941 about being willing to make a favourable reference to the devil if the devil happened to be at war with Germany is proferred to superficial readers to imply that he became pro-Soviet out of necessity in light of Operation Barbarossa, but Churchill began to privately meet Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador, a full seven years earlier. He was introduced to Maisky specifically to foster an anti-German rapprochement by Robert Vansittart, who personified the pro-French, anti-German faction preeminent in the civil service.

By another civil servant, Reginald Leeper, and for the same purpose, Churchill was also introduced to the Anti-Nazi Council, which he renamed the Focus in Defence of Peace and Freedom (or simply the Focus). The Anti-Nazi Council was the British arm of an international campaign initiated by Samuel Untermyer to force regime change in Germany, initially by boycott. Untermyer, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Strakosch, Eugen Spier and Robert Waley Cohen are the most well-documented of many wealthy Jewish activists who supported and collaborated with Churchill in this effort. As the boycott was found insufficient, threats of war, then war itself, became the methods required; as Britain was as yet governed by men like Chamberlain still inclined to value British interests higher than Jewish ones, regime change was required here too.

The pretext consisted in persistently characterising Germany as a threat to Britain. Churchill’s reputation as the Cassandra who ‘warned us of the danger’ refers to his speeches in Parliament and on the BBC from 1934 claiming that the Germans were developing a larger air force than Britain and implying that they would, when ready, launch it all at Britain, whom against all evidence they were supposed to revile. The juvenile preposterousness of his fear campaign should not distract from the fact that much of the intelligence he (and later the Focus) cited was simply made up by Soviet agents like Jurgen Kucyznski, brother of the handler of the traitor Klaus Fuchs. Germany had no plan to bomb Britain and appears not to have prepared for any such conflict until Churchill’s lies were several years old and beginning to generate the desired antagonism.

The Focus, covert in itself, published and staged events under aliases including ‘Arms and the Covenant’, which referred to its members’ calls for accelerated rearmament (without regard to affordability) and the enforcement of the Covenant of the League of Nations against Germany. When the Soviet Union later violated the Covenant to invade or annex five member states of the League, this approach was abandoned, but Britain was by then at war with Germany. Support of the League had always been a leftist cause and a vehicle for ‘internationalism’, i.e., the supersession of nations, an aim remarkably compatible with the long-term goals of both the Soviets and Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s vision for the United Nations after the war was as a world government with the USA and the USSR as the leading powers. The entry of the latter into the League had been welcomed by leftists, including Tories like Anthony Eden, who became Churchill’s wartime Foreign Secretary and his successor as Prime Minister in 1954.

Anthony Eden and Ivan Maisky

The Second World War was the decisive moment of the left’s ascent to power in the West. Historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, whose careers centre upon justifying it, are falsely presented by fellow anti-fascists as conservatives. The raison d’etre of the fake right is to occupy any space in which genuine, committed opponents of the left would otherwise exist and to continually surrender. They conspire in the anti-fascist monopoly; the real right are excluded from all institutions.

The Churchillian version of history relies entirely upon portraying Germany as a threat to Britain. No matter how much the wickedness of ‘Kristallnacht’ is magnified in significance, atrocities against civilians in the 1930s cannot suffice as a casus belli against Germany, since the Soviets eradicated more of their own people every few hours throughout the decade than Hitler’s regime killed on those two nights. Aggression toward neighbouring countries also fails as an explanation. Germany invaded the western side of Poland on September 1st 1939; the Soviets invaded their agreed portion sixteen days later. Whatever excuse remained for continuing to treat Germany as the sole enemy thereafter surely evaporated when the Soviets attacked Finland and then subjugated Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Yet by the time Britain ‘betrayed’ the Baltic, at least no less than it betrayed the Czechs, Churchill and the war party were powerful enough to elide the paradox. By Churchillian historians, Hitler’s peace overtures are dispelled by asserting either that they would not have been honoured or that they would have freed German forces to succeed in their invasion of the Soviet Union. The preservation of the communist empire at the expense of Britain’s own is deemed a necessity.

Stalin freeing up Germany’s eastern flank

Stalin and all the Bolsheviks had considered Britain their main adversary since the day of their overthrow of the Russian Republic. Stalin’s collaborations with Hitler, not limited to the pact of August 1939, make more sense in this light. All the capitalist states were to be subverted or conquered. The ideal scenario was one in which they fought and weakened each other while the Soviets grew their own capacity to dictate and threaten, as the Soviets did to the nations of eastern Europe as soon as they felt able. That scenario the pro-war forces in Britain and France delivered as though fulfilling a promise to Moscow. The Soviet perspective is routinely minimised. The same historians then assert that the Soviet Union did become a great danger as World War II ended, in Andrew Roberts’ case neatly crediting Churchill, speaking in Fulton, with prescience about the Cold War as well. Such involutions are undergone to justify the origins of the existing regime, the one established by Churchill and his comrades.

TabletMag.com: The Democrats’ Insanity Defense

/1 Comment/in /by
The Tablet is a Jewish magazine with a conservative perspective. Note that Democrat control of the media is critical to their success in obfuscating the unpopularity and just plain craziness of their perspectives. Of course, they will not have an honest discussion of the role of Jews in the U.S. media.
Republican activists say they have to water down the reality of their opponents’ agenda in focus groups. ‘They just don’t believe it’s true. It can’t be.‘
Tabletmag.com – Park MacDougald – October 28, 2024
In the September debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, Trump said something so ludicrous that many viewers must have dismissed it out of hand. “She did things that nobody would ever think of,” Trump said, while rattling off a list of some of the vice president’s most radical past positions. “Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.”
The idea that the vice president “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison” seemed so patently absurd that The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser cited it in a column posted the next morning as an example of Trump’s lunacy: “What the hell was he talking about?” Glasser wrote of the trans operation lines. “No one knows, which was, of course, exactly Harris’ point.”
That reaction was understandable—the idea of the operations was, as Trump himself said, a “thing nobody would ever think of.” The problem was that it is true. As CNN had reported that week, Harris, when running for the Democratic nomination in 2019, had written in an ACLU questionnaire that she supported publicly funded “gender-affirming care,” including transition surgeries, for federal prison inmates and detained illegal immigrants.
Follow-up reporting from The Washington Free Beacon revealed that while serving as California attorney general, Harris had in fact implemented a statewide policy of taxpayer funding for prisoners’ sex changes, born out of a settlement in which she agreed to pay for the transition of a man convicted of kidnapping a father of three and then murdering him as he begged for his life. Harris later bragged, on camera, about this policy as evidence of her commitment to the progressive “movement”—in a clip that has since become a staple of Trump campaign ads.
Many Americans still have trouble accepting these facts, because the underlying predicate—that Barack Obama purposefully sought to ally the United States with a terror-sponsoring, America-hating theocracy—seemed too insane to credit.
The sequence of events neatly encapsulated a pattern that has played out countless times since Trump entered American political life. Trump says something seemingly insane, to many people’s outrage and disbelief, only to have his supposed “lie” revealed to be wholly or at least significantly true. Often the specific truth revealed—that the outgoing Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team in order to gather information for what later became the Russiagate hoax, to cite another example—is in fact “crazier” than Trump’s exaggerations or garbling of the details. The insanity of the policy becomes the front line of defense against potential blowback: Who would believe that anyone would actually propose or support something so obviously at odds with public opinion and basic common sense? Trump must be a raving nutjob, just like we told you he was.
The reason that this strategy has worked is because Democrats rely on all nonexplicitly right-wing media to adopt their framing of issues and cite the party’s preferred experts, which they do. The party’s influence over the country’s communications apparatus has, for the past decade, emerged into something like a political superpower, allowing it to act outside the normal bounds of American politics without suffering from political blowback.
“All of it,” said a Republican congressional staffer, “is insulated by their absolute confidence that they can just use their control over communications institutions to just say words, including change of language, right? Flip a switch and it’s now gender affirming care. Flip a switch and it’s now undocumented migrants, or undocumented Americans. Flip a switch and now you can change people’s pronouns.”
The result, for anyone skeptical of the Democratic Party yet bound to operate within the consensus reality of its discourse, is akin to living in a wilderness of mirrors. How to explain, for instance, that elected Democrats from the Biden White House on down support not only taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens, but policies that allow schools to “socially transition” children without informing their parents? How to explain, without sounding like a lunatic, that the newspapers and expert bodies that recommend life-altering surgeries for children, and defend them as “life-saving” or “medically necessary” care opposed only by cranks and Bible thumpers, either don’t know what they’re talking about or are lying to you for political reasons?
That the claim that such surgeries were rarely if ever performed on children was also a lie? That when President Biden, the kindly old moderate, directed his Department of Health and Human Services to address the “barriers and exclusionary policies” keeping children from accessing “gender medicine,” what he was describing was a policy that would see members of his own administration pressuring medical agencies to allow procedures such as breast and penis removal be performed on young children, despite the lack of any proof that these measures contribute to greater mental or physical health?
The same GOP staffer, who is currently working on a competitive congressional race, told me that one problem his campaign regularly faces is that aspects of Democratic governance are simply too insane for voters to find credible, even when they are documented as official U.S. government policy. “When you outline the Democratic agenda, you have to water it down, because in both polling and focus groups, people just don’t believe it,” he said. “They are critical of things like boys in girls’ sports, but they tune out stuff about schools not informing parents about transitioning their children. They just don’t believe it’s true. It can’t be.”
Another Republican operative made a related point on the failure of the party’s attempt to message on trans issues in 2022, which was that the reality of the procedures was so gruesome that voters simply preferred not to think about it. “Phrases like ‘genital mutilation’ are disgusting and viscerally off-putting, even to voters who may be sympathetic to the Republicans’ position but will just write you off as a freak for talking about it that way.”
A similar dynamic plays out in foreign policy. On the one hand the Democrats conjured out of thin air the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, which was, we now know, a conspiracy theory concocted by ex-spies and Clinton campaign operatives and seeded in the intelligence agencies and media by the outgoing Obama administration to cripple the new administration. That is to say that it is not a matter of partisan political opinion; it is simply false.
Yet, as of 2022, nearly half of U.S. voters, and a majority of Democrats, still believed that Trump was elected in 2016 due to Russian interference, and the hoax remains a mainstay of Democratic rhetoric. It even played a major role in the 2020 election, providing the predicate for the Biden campaign to collude with tech companies and retired spooks to censor reporting about Hunter Biden’s foreign influence-peddling schemes, which turned out to be entirely real.
Outside the pages of a handful of news sites, however, you will look in vain for coverage of the Biden-Harris administration’s disturbingly close relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, an authoritarian and explicitly anti-American regime currently waging a multifront war against Israel. Like the Obama administration, of which it is a continuation, the Biden-Harris administration has attempted to realign the United States away from Israel and other traditional allies and toward a revisionist-Islamist bloc led by Iran but also including Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and various Palestinian radical groups. This orientation is reflected at the level of policy—including nonenforcement of Iranian oil sanctions, flooding Hamas and Hezbollah with cash through cutouts, and, since Oct. 7, the relentless undermining of Israel’s war against Iran and its proxies—as well as at the level of personnel.
The Biden administration’s envoy to Iran, who was suspended last spring for mishandling classified information later published in Iranian state media, also hired a confirmed Iranian influence agent into the U.S. State Department. And the White House’s coordinator for intelligence and defense policy on the National Security Council—i.e., the man who would normally be responsible for investigating the recent leak of Israeli military plans to Iran—is a former affiliate of not one but two fronts for the Iranian proxy Hamas: Students for Justice in Palestine and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. The Iranian regime has repaid the Biden-Harris administration for its generosity, hacking the emails of Trump campaign employees and handing them off to a Democratic PAC, which published them last week.
These are all demonstrable matters of fact. Yet many Americans still have trouble accepting them, because the underlying predicate—that our country is purposefully allying with a terror-sponsoring, America-hating theocracy in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which it has already promised to use to wipe America’s most powerful regional client, Israel, off the map—seemed too insane to credit. Why would Barack Obama have put that into motion, and why would everyone else let it happen? There are plenty of conceivable answers to these question, of course. But you can’t get at any of them if the underlying reality itself is too insane to accept.
Americans do not, as a rule, pay much attention to foreign policy, but the White House’s orientation abroad is inseparable from its politics at home. Within the United States, the Democratic power vertical has cultivated allies and sympathizers of the Iranian “axis of resistance” as donors, fundraisers, “organizers,” clients, and street muscle. It has protected them from law enforcement scrutiny, invited them into the policymaking process, and directed both federal money and funds from party-aligned megadonors such as George Soros and the Tides Nexus into their nonprofits, as I reported for Tablet in May. These nonprofits have in turn played a major role in organizing the pro-terror protests and encampments that erupted across blue America in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks, which have drawn on activist networks previously mobilized to organize anti-Trump protest movements (e.g., the Women’s March and Black Lives Matter) during his first term and anti-Supreme Court protests in the wake of the Dobbs decision in 2022.
The idea that the radicals and thugs shutting down a bridge in your city are part of the Democratic machine is not a particularly difficult idea to wrap one’s head around, particularly following years in which we were constantly warned about the threat of supposed Trumpist “militias” like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. The problem is that the Democrats’ alignment with these thugs strikes most Americans as too bizarre and obviously destructive to be true—a thing that “nobody would ever think of.” “You cannot get people to pay attention to the idea that the Biden-Harris machine is plugged into the Democratic machine, which is plugged into campus antisemitism,” a staffer told me. “It’s not because it’s too complicated. Voters understand that the same people fund the same things. It’s just that Americans find antisemites weird. We’re not in Europe, right?”
It does appear that this insanity defense may finally be breaking down. Polls and early voting returns suggest that Trump may be poised to recapture the White House and potentially even win the popular vote, despite a near daily stream of invective from Democrats and their press allies casting him and his supporters as some version or another of Hitler. Some of this is a product of objective factors hurting the incumbent administration, such as a middling economy and popular anger of its deliberate opening of the southern border, a crisis that eventually became too glaring for the White House to spin away. And some of it, no doubt, is the legacy of nearly a decade of hysteria and overheated propaganda on every topic under the sun, from Trump to the pandemic to race and the relations between the sexes. At some point, voters outside the bubble simply tune out.
Joe Biden, whatever his faults and infirmities, played an important role as a symbolic figurehead for what functioned in practice as a radical bureaucratic regime. Even as his administration pursued policies far outside the Overton window of American politics, it was difficult for anyone, let alone moderately engaged voters, to believe that “Scranton Joe,” the avuncular centrist and Irish bullshitter, believed in any of the things that his party was said to be doing. Noting the sudden success of the campaign’s transgender ads, one Trump campaign staffer told me, “We were making this attack on Biden, but it was through some sort of convoluted process because of, like, some sort of Department of Education regulation. But everyone perceived Biden as what he was—an establishment moderate. Maybe he’s had to take up some radical positions for political reasons, but no one thinks Joe Biden sincerely cares about trans rights.”
That seems to have changed when Biden was overthrown in favor of Kamala, whose 2020 primary campaign—pitched at party activists and powerbrokers—led her to make the mistake that both Biden and Obama for the most part managed to avoid: openly pandering to the party’s activist base, often on camera. Defund the police. Decriminalize illegal border crossings. Ban fracking. Confiscate guns. Transgender surgeries for illegals.
Harris has since tried to walk many of these positions back, which only creates the new problem of appearing inauthentic and weak—a bad combination when the opponent is Donald Trump, especially when he’s also trouncing you on every issue of substance. It is of course too early to say whether Trump really will return for a second term, though his campaign couldn’t have hoped for better odds back at the DNC in August, when it looked as if Obama and the rest of the party’s messaging machine might successfully reinvent Kamala as a patriotic moderate and champion of the middle class. That machine is slick and sophisticated, to be sure, but eventually, the laws of political gravity do reassert themselves. You can piss on the shoes of the American people for one term or maybe two, but eventually, they’re going to figure out it isn’t raining.

The Decadent States of America

/8 Comments/in /by

The United States presidential election is remarkable for the relatively low-key nature of the campaign. There have been few debates, and some prominent media such as The Washington Post have not declared for a candidate. While one could argue that both candidates are uninspiring to say the least, a more fundamental reason is that this election is of no importance.

The US is an unsalvageably decadent country, and no candidate will save it. Moving the direction of the ship of state leftwards or rightwards is insignificant if it is unavoidably sinking. A cursory measure of the vital signs of the US shows that is a terminally sick culture and that these signs are getting worse not better.

The U.S. national debt now stands at $34 trillion, which entails 121% GDP; this was 55% in 2001.

According to recently published figures, 18% of American adults are functionally illiterate, and while there is an unemployment rate of 3.6%, another 5.4 million Americans are not looking for work.

Approximately 77 million Americans are currently taking at least one psychiatric medication, with 45 million taking anti-depressants, 9.5 million taking ADHD medication, 31 million taking anti-anxiety drugs, 11 million taking anti-psychotics, and 22 million taking mood stabilisers. 23% of adults have a reported mental illness; among 18–25-year-olds this is 36.2%. Mental illness is defined as a mental, behavioural, or mood disorder. Whether this is a symptom of unhealthy modern culture or mass overdiagnosis, either signifies a decadent country.

42% of American adults have obesity, while 74% are overweight or obese. In the early 1960s the obesity rate was 13%. 77% of young adults do not qualify for the military based on physical and mental health deficiencies.

7.6% of Americans identify as “LGBT+”, up from 3.5% in 2012, while approximately 20% of 18–23-year-olds identify as “LGBT+”. 1.6% of Americans identify as “transgender” or “nonbinary”, while 5.1% of 18-29-year-olds do so.

As of 2022 40% of births were outside of wedlock, this having been 18% in 1980 and negligible in 1960.

The usual estimate for illegal aliens was approximately 11 million illegal aliens in the US, but this has dramatically increased under the Mayorkas Homeland Security administration; this figure was 3.5 million in 1990. This demonstrates that the State has lost control of its borders.

All of the above demonstrates that the United States is an economically, socially, and morally degenerate country whose decline is accelerating. It is therefore clear that whether Trump or Harris wins the election, the US has no future as a superpower.

Why I voted for Trump

/37 Comments/in , /by

I realize that Trump is far from perfect, and some prominent figures on the dissident right have said they are not voting for him. His first term accomplished little (if anything) besides mobilizing the hate-filled left to combat the “fascist threat.” (And if he wins again, there will be rioting that will make the rioting of 2016 look like a picnic.) But I voted for him (I’m in an early-voting state). This is why.

Listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast with Trump, Trump admitted that he had no clue about how Washington worked when he got there. This resulted in lots of bad appointments, like John Bolton, who never saw a war he didn’t like. Christopher Wray, who has shown nothing but hatred toward all things Trump since being appointed. John Kelly, who now says Trump is a Hitler lover. He is quite aware of the problem: “Mr. Trump’s greatest regret from his first term is hiring staffers whom he came to believe were the wrong people.”

Because Trump seems aware of his mistakes, I trust it will be better next time, although having Robert Lutnick as co-chair of his transition team is certainly troubling. Lutnick has said that he is in close touch with Jared Kushner (a huge cancer in his first term), despite Kushner’s claim that he was not going to be involved. Scary.

And Trump has floated names like Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo for Secretary of Defense or State. This is indeed worrisome—but far from assured. Given Trump’s much-advertised commitment to non-intervention and avoiding wars (i.e., the stance that alienated the neocons like Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot in 2016), one would think he would have learned not to appoint neocon war mongers. His closeness with Tucker Carlson would certainly weigh against that, since Tucker has often railed against the neocons and their promotion of forever wars; he has loudly opposed the Ukraine war and the endless wars in the Middle East.

And yes, I realize that if anything, Trump is more wedded to the Israel Lobby than Harris. His campaign got $100 million from Miriam Adelson, widow of Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson who got Trump to appoint Bolton via the same kind of money as Miriam has contributed. Sheldon Adelson fervently hoped that his support would get Trump to make Iran into a nuclear wasteland. Didn’t happen, and I don’t think it will happen the second time around.

And the general point is that the Israel Lobby dominates U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans. Like Biden and only because of all those Arab voters in Michigan, Harris may criticize the Israelis more because of their ongoing genocide in Gaza (which now includes banning the UNRWA from the West Bank and Gaza), but there’s no reason to think that she would withhold the military aid from Israel and would continue to involve U.S. forces in shooting down whatever Israel’s enemies throw at them. Bottom line: No difference between the candidates. Effectively, it’s a wash.

But there are people would push back against the threats represented by the likes of Jared Kushner. People like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon—recently freed from his bogus imprisonment, and Elon Musk. I think that Carlson truly “gets it,” although he is not as explicit as would be ideal (remember, the perfect is always the enemy of the good). Carlson has a huge following on his podcasts and live shows. He has definitely shown signs of getting off the Conservatism Inc. reservation. He has interviewed Trump and J.D. Vance, and he will be hosting an event at Mar-a-Lago on election night. A Trump victory would cement his status in the GOP—definitely a good thing.

Carlson’s April, 2021 monologue on his Fox News show is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. He portrayed the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters and college-miseducated White liberals. And he dueled with the ADL, pointedly discussing their hypocrisy on immigration to the U.S. vs. immigration to Israel. No wonder he was fired from Fox News.

Carlson’s interview with Darryl Cooper showed that he rejected some basic parts of the standard World War II narrative, such as the hero cult of Winston Churchill so dear to the neocons. And he was excoriated by the left for his interview with Viktor Orban, Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister who is opposed to transforming Hungary away from its ethnic and cultural roots.

Cooper’s take on election fraud is spot on without going into what are widely considered on the left as conspiracy theories. Tucker read it verbatim on a 2021 show:

Elon Musk’s support for Trump — not only financially (at least $119 million which is greater than Adelson’s), but also happily appearing with him at rallies — is important because of Musk’s celebrity status and very large following on X, especially among young men. Musk is increasingly off the reservation in his tweets: “The damage was done,” [holocaust activist] Deborah Lipstadt remarked about a Musk post on X. “The endorsement of the Great Replacement theory was very harmful.” Lipstadt added that she disapproved of what she saw as any attempt to “mitigate” Musk’s earlier tweet, without criticizing ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt directly. “You can try to mitigate, but once you open the pillow, it’s like chasing the feathers,” she said.

Musk was replying to a user who wrote, “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest s— now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they] support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.”

Musk responded, “You have said the actual truth.”

Greenblatt joined a loud chorus in condemning that post. Other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, harshly condemned it. Later in the same thread, Musk went after the ADL itself, saying the group “push[es] de facto anti-white racism.” He apologized for a lot of this and made the mandatory visits to Auschwitz and Israel, but it’s hard to believe that he now rejects these ideas.

Steve Bannon is a strong and influential Trump supporter who got into a war with Kushner during the Trump presidency—a war that he lost. I suspect he totally gets it on the danger Kushner would represent to a new Trump administration.

Incidentally, the gender gap will be huge in this election, and Democrats are actively encouraging the wives of Trump-supporting husbands to vote for Harris. Trump Derangement Syndrome is especially common among White women—obsessed as they are with abortion rights, ignoring everything else. Women are more conformist because of fear of consequences—social ostracism — and departing from the moral consensus of the mainstream liberal media is certain social death in many social circles. White women are also more empathic than men and hence more likely to have empathy for all the victim groups created by our hostile elite.

And White women are much less prone to identifying with their race, at least partly because of fear of that same ostracism from the contemporary moral community (which is now a pathological consensus created and managed by our hostile elites that dominate the media and academia and aggressively police what politicians say). Moral communities are the social glue of Western societies.

White men, including many young White men, are beginning to see that everything is increasingly stacked against them—jobs, promotions, etc. DEI is completely opposed to their interests. They are attracted to Trump’s masculine persona in an age when the left rejects it. Trump’s interview with Joe Rogan definitely appeals to young men—they even talk about UFC stuff.

But the main reason to vote for Trump — the reason that, IMO, makes this a no-brainer — is that a Kamala Harris administration would be a complete disaster for our side:

Creating a Permanent Leftist Majority. The Left is clearly aiming at a permanent majority, and another four years would allow them to cement it. Despite Harris’s newfound claims that she will enforce the border, who can believe it when she has previously called for abolishing ICE and happily stood by as Mayorkas completely demolished the border? (I never blame Biden for anything because he was non compos mentis for pretty much his entire administration.) They blame Trump for not agreeing to a horrible “bipartisan” immigration bill (>1.8 million/year, not including ports of entry), that included lots of money for more border patrol officers so they could process illegals faster. All this when they could have stopped the onslaught at any time by simply reversing the policies they adopted on Day 1 of the Biden administration.

Another 10–15 million illegals in addition to the massive number already here would further change Congressional representation in favor of blue states—illegals affect elections even if they don’t vote. And Dems would have a massive amnesty to ensure that their new dependents (immigrants and their descendants are far more likely to be on welfare) would vote as soon as possible.  In fact, they have already made it virtually impossible to deport illegals, leading to what the House GOP called a “quiet amnesty.”

Another Democrat administration would also result in a push to end the electoral college, so states like California would have even more influence than they do now. California has already made it illegal to ask for voter ID. How can anyone believe that vote totals from California are remotely valid?

The result would be a permanent left majority, dramatically opposed to the interests of the soon-to-be-former White majority and funded as it always has been by Jewish money and reflecting perceived Jewish interests in a non-White America.

Censorship. The Left wants media censorship to silence the right, while the right’s proposals for censorship only involve LGBT+ propaganda directed at children, although admittedly, I and some others were banned from X in the post-Musk era. Nevertheless, X is much hated on the left because people like Nick Fuentes are still holding forth with oftentimes very anti-Jewish statements—far less subtle than what I was posting.

As Hillary Clinton noted, “Without censorship, we will lose control…” The lack of social media prior to the internet age led to the complete dominance of Jewish-owned media and their poisonous messages. The possible end of this dominance is a major problem for Jewish organizations and for the left in general—hence the hatred toward Elon Musk since he bought Twitter. The intolerance of the left even toward mainstream conservatives is well established. They are essentially banned from college campuses because of the well-grounded fear of leftist rioting.

Historically the move toward censorship has been led by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. In my 2002 Preface to The Culture of Critique, I wrote about the ADL’s already-robust attempt to pressure media corporations to censor the internet. This reached its apex in the 2020 election suppression of the Hunter laptop story and of dissident information on Covid, the former of which kept enough votes in the Biden column to swing the election, and latter of which dramatically changed voting procedures in a way conducive to fraud. Needless to say, both of these stories turned out to be true and together helped swing the election for Biden.

Promotion of censorship is now common in high places on the left and has resulted in a large body of legal scholarship promoting it. For example, leftist SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan is entirely on board, writing in 1993 that the Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

And because the present conservative majority is so distasteful to the left, many on the left are demanding that a leftist majority be created by Congress—i.e., by packing the Court.

More Leftist Judges. The left will continue to appoint radical judges prone to enforcing censorship and facilitating lawfare against White advocates (see the work of Gregory Conte on the trials resulting from the Charlottesville marches; or the travesty of the January 6 trials [Trump promises to pardon the protesters]; or the campaign against Vdare by NY AG Letitia James and liberal New York judges).

Reverting to the old GOP. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Trump ascendency in the GOP is that it has threatened to destroy the old neocon-big business GOP. Neocons like the aforementioned Kristol, Rubin and Boot deserted early on, and the GOP became identified with the White working class. If Harris wins, the GOP will revert to the Conservatism Inc.-Paul Ryan-Liz Cheney-Adam Kinsinger-Bush party of war mongering and tax cuts for the wealthy. The result would be leftism lite: eternal war, pro-non-White immigration, and a conservatism that delays leftist agendas for a few years (Coming soon: “The conservative argument for free, government-funded transgender surgery for migrants and prisoners”). Trump’s greatest accomplishment would be to permanently take the GOP away from the neocons and stuffed-shirt liberal Republicans and preventing it from reverting to its role as a loyal component of the uniparty. It’s interesting that arch-neocon Robert Kagan (husband of the notorious Victoria Nuland who engineered the Ukraine war) resigned after Jeff Bezos’s non-endorsement of Harris. Clearly the Dems are the war party.

*   *   *

So please vote for Trump even though you have serious misgivings.  It’s like Pascal’s wager. If you vote for Harris you are sure to lose big when she wins—the left would love to throw us in prison when they get their permanent majority. At the very least.

On the other hand, if you vote for Trump, you are reasonably hoping he would be better than Harris. And quite possibly, much better. And we have to think about what comes after if Trump wins — quite possibly an irrevocably changed GOP that is much more attuned to White interests. It could happen.

In recent years I’ve been thinking about the situation in the U.S. as analogous to the end of the Roman Republic — a time of civil wars and instability such that most people were relieved when Augustus established the Empire. We are inexorably headed to an either-or moment of autocracy, either by the left or by the right. I’m hoping it’s a populist autocracy that protects the interests of the traditional American White majority. The left wants to destroy us and will do so if they get enough power.

Every Single Time: Democrats Plan For Color Revolution

/5 Comments/in /by
 It feels like there’s been a notable shift amongst Democrats in the last month. A recent sense of fatalism – or perhaps just simple resignation to what appears to be an inevitable Trump win. But as it turns out, there are some Democrats who have been preparing for this potential outcome for at least the last year.

One of those people is Norman Eisen, and it looks like he’s up to his old Lawfare & Color Revolution tricks again. The man responsible for virtually all of the legal attacks on President Trump now has a new activist group – although it has many of the same players – and they’re preparing for an assault on a second Trump Presidency.

Eisen, a Brookings senior fellow, Obama’s former White House Ethics Czar and Ambassador to Czechoslovakia during the “Velvet Revolution,” has been behind the ongoing Lawfare that has targeted Trump for years. Eisen was one of the primary forces behind the first impeachment of Trump and is also the co-founder of Leftist non-profit CREW or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Eisen played a lead role in Democrats pre-2020 election war games which predicted a remarkably accurate contested election scenario that ended unfavorably for Trump. Of particular note in regards to his current efforts, Eisen is also the author of the highly influential color revolution manual, The Democracy Playbook.

Eisen’s latest venture, State Democracy Defenders Action (SDDA), bills itself as bringing “together a bipartisan all-star team of experts in safeguarding democracy” and ominously claims they help “shape the long term strategy to defeat Election denial and its logical outgrowth: American Autocracy, starting with preparing for a vigorous response to whatever 2025 – and beyond – may bring.”

Their site claims that SDDA will “fill three key gaps in the fight against election sabotage and autocracy” by going “on offense against democracy deniers who break the law, including through our innovative program of outside public support for criminal prosecutions.”

The group says they “work with national, state and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundation of our democracy – free and fair elections.” State Democracy Defenders Action also foreshadows future civil unrest by claiming to “help shape the long-term strategy to defeat autocracy in 2025 – and beyond.”

As we’ll see, this sounds like the formation of a Color Revolution.

Central to their efforts are what the group calls their 10 Principles, which can appear innocuous with a casual glance but are actually representative of NeoCon, Never-Trump talking points and Globalist Goals. When one reads these principles with an eye towards a future Trump Presidency, their words take on an entirely different meaning.

The group’s first principle states that they “believe in the foundational idea of rule of law.” But that claim is immediately followed by a weaponized declaration that’s obviously aimed at Trump:

“Our country cannot be led by anyone who believes they are not accountable to our Constitution or who repeatedly and persistently violates civil and criminal statutes. That is disqualifying and contrary to the principle of rule of law.”

You can probably see where this is going. State Democracy Defenders Action repeatedly references J6, Project 2025 and Autocracy, utilizing these leftist dog whistles wherever possible:

“We are alarmed about the rising autocratic movement in the United States that threatens the American idea and the American people. January 6, 2021, represented an ugly inflection point of this movement and it is driving forward with authoritarian proposals like Project 2025 that constitute an assault on the freedoms of every American. This movement threatens to eviscerate our rights, our prosperity, and our stability and security upon which our nation and the world rely.”

The group also appears to be preparing to fight Trump’s planned downsizing of the federal government, noting that career civil service employees “work in our government irrespective of the political party or ideology of the person elected to the Presidency.” They laughingly claim that “Our civil servants’ obligations to the people of this country, the Constitution, and the rule of law serve a fundamental role in effective democratic governance.”

Eisen appears to be using many of the useful idiots and perennial talking heads that he hosts on his weekly lawfare calls: Jennifer Rubin, Asha Rangappa, George Conway, Joe Walsh, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Ty Cobb, John Dean, Heath Mayo, and Skye Perryman.

Although most are not particularly impressive, these operatives do have a purpose to fulfill. The way Eisen’s projects have worked historically is through the establishment of a public-facing entity that propagates and publicizes their ideas and agendas while disguising the organization’s more sinister goals.

Eisen and the other senior operators always seem to use the same talking heads and former federal prosecutors to get their narrative circling in the public sphere. A public “prep” if you will. Meanwhile, a far more serious effort is mounted behind the scenes.

In advance of the 2020 election, Edward Foley, an Eisen collaborator and head of the election law program at Ohio University, issued a 55-page paper discussing the coming Blue Shift — a theory which holds that Democratic candidates often gain votes in the days following the actual election. This narrative was carefully crafted by Eisen’s operatives and carried by the media over the next twelve months.

By the time the 2020 election arrived everyone anticipated a delay in voting results. The sudden overnight shift from a Trump lead to a Biden win was still a huge shock — but it would have been impossible without this careful advance planning and widespread dissemination by Democrat operatives. Eisen’s useful idiots fulfill precisely this function — which is why he uses them in almost all of his operations.

But make no mistake. More serious operators are in charge of things. In addition to Eisen, there’s Eisen’s original Lawfare partner Norm Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute, NeoCon and Never-Trumper Bill Kristol (we can debate how serious Kristol actually is), the Atlantic’s David Frum, Susan Corke (Managing Director of SDDA), Victoria Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan — and DNC Power Operative Michael Podhorzer.

Podhorzer, the former political director of the AFL-CIO and current Fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the man credited in Time’s now-infamous article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign, as being “The Architect” of Biden’s “win in 2020. Podhorzer is also the founder of The Analyst Institute, which has been referred to as “the nerve center of the data-driven empirical turn in Democratic campaign strategies.”

Unlike the public-facing useful idiots, Podhorzer is rarely seen and once again appears to be operating behind the scenes. Podhorzer is a highly powerful, highly influential, but little known DNC operative — and while we can’t prove it, our guess is that he’s directing Eisen rather than the other way around.

The inclusion of Robert Kagan, a Brookings Fellow like Eisen, is also notable. He recently “resigned” from the Washington Post after the paper refused to endorse Kamala. A long-time NeoCon, Kagan has worked tirelessly to lie and manipulate our country into multiple wars. His wife, Victoria Nuland, was instrumental in overthrowing the legitimately elected government in Ukraine in early 2014 and she was also involved in the RussiaGate lie — receiving perhaps the earliest known copy of the Steele Dossier in early July 2016.

Back in November 2023, Kagan penned a dangerous — 6,000 word editorial in the Washington Post titled “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.” Kagan said a Trump win was all but inevitable — and Trump would rule as a ruthless dictator “unless something radical and unforeseen happens.”

As Mollie Hemmingway noted at the time, “This extreme and dangerous genre — of claiming Trump is Hitler (because, they say, he might do what Democrats are doing right now) – should probably be given the name Assassination Prep.” 

Kagan’s inclusion in Eisen’s new effort also explains the sudden appearance of Victoria Nuland on Rachel Maddow — which prompted Alexandros Marinos to ask “Did Nuland step down from State so she could coordinate the color revolution playbook from outside, like she did in Ukraine?” The answer to that question is almost certainly a resounding “yes.”

After resigning from the State Department, Nuland joined the Board of Directors at the National Endowment for Democracy. As Mike Benz notes, the NED is really just a CIA cut-out —and a major driver in the censorship of Americans — something that Nuland told Maddow she still supports:

“In 2020, the social media companies worked hard with the government to try to do content moderation to try to catch this stuff as it was happening, but this time we have Elon Musk talking directly to the Kremlin and ensuring that every time the Russians put out something like this, it gets 5 million views on X before anybody can catch it. So it’s quite dangerous.”

Eisen’s new group has also collaborated closely with the No Dictators Declaration, a loose-knit coalition organized by Senator Jamie Raskin — who recently stated that he intended to lead an effort to refuse to certify Trump as president if Trump won the election. Included in the No Dictators Declaration are specific calls to reduce Trump’s ability to respond to any post-election domestic unrest or civil uprisings. From their A Call to Protect American Freedoms declaration:

  1. 1. To reduce the threat of dictatorship, Congress should limit the president’s ability to declare bogus domestic and foreign emergencies.
  1. 2. To reduce the threat of dictatorship, Congress should limit the president’s abuse of his or her power to deploy the military on American soil.
    • ◦ Under the outdated and overbroad Insurrection Act, presidents can claim extraordinary powers to deploy troops domestically. Recently, some have called for its invocation to prevent Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights of free expression.
  1. 3. To reduce the threat of dictatorship, Congress should prevent the adoption of partisan, personal, and ideological loyalty tests, loyalty oaths, and similar authoritarian measures designed to purge the professional civil service and replace qualified workers with unqualified loyalists to the president.
    • ◦ Working for the federal government means working for the American people under the Constitution and the rule of law.
  1. 4. To reduce the threat of dictatorship, Congress should ensure that presidents who abuse their powers to commit crimes can be prosecuted like all other people.
    • ◦ The founders overthrew a king and wrote a Constitution to enshrine the core American ideal that no person is above the law. We the people must restore the concept that we are all equal before the law.
  1. 5. To reduce the threat of dictatorship, Congress should limit the president’s ability to use investigative and prosecutorial decisions and resources to pursue vendettas against disfavored people and groups.
    • ◦ The Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, and other government agencies cannot become instruments of tyranny. We must make certain that the executive branch cannot employ increasingly creative ways to persecute individuals, civil society organizations, and nonprofits based on their ideologies.
    • ◦ The U.S. currently has 42 national emergencies declared, some decades-old. Under emergency powers, a president can claim the authority to divert funds, seize property, and bypass Congress.

Everything contained within the group’s declaration is designed to limit and neuter a Trump Presidency —  to cripple Trump’s ability to respond and follow through on his campaign promises. Their declaration is really the fearful confession of guilty parties who are willing to do anything to avoid accountability.

One word that’s used over and over again by Eisen’s group is Autocracy — in which absolute power is held by the ruler — in this case Trump. It’s a subtle continuation of the “Trump is Hitler” theme that’s used as the rationale for the group’s existence (Eisen’s group even has an extensive “American Autocracy Threat Tracker”). As SDDA member Ruth Ben-Ghiat stated, “This is an anti-autocracy conference because autocracy is what we are looking at if Donald Trump comes back to the White House.”

It’s also why there’s a continual focus on restricting Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act.

A number of current and former officials have claimed that Trump will attempt to use military force. Leon Panetta, who served as Obama’s CIA Director and then as his Secretary of Defense, told NBC that “Like any good dictator, Trump’s going to try to use the military to basically perform his will.” Senator Dick Blumenthal breathlessly claimed that “There are an array of horrors that could result from Trump’s unrestricted use of the Insurrection Act.”

Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, told NBC that “‘We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that Trump might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to.”

McCord was the Acting head of the DOJ’s National Security Division from 2016 to 2017 and she was involved in the FBI’s early FISA surveillance of Trump advisor Carter Page. McCord was also appointed by Nancy Pelosi as legal counsel to the Jan 6th Capitol Security Review Task Force and has written articles pushing the Jan 6th narrative. McCord is one of the very worst of the Deep State actors.

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992, during the L.A. riots that followed the Rodney King beating by police. Both sides seem to believe that it may be needed again.

Podhorzer placed things into frightening context when he told the Autocracy in America conference that “The key question going into November is whether or not — and this is the message this conference is trying to get across — is to believe that this is an election as profound as any since 1860 about where this country is going.”

Podhorzer knew exactly what he was invoking. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 marked the final slide of America into the Civil War which formally began on April 12, 1861.

We mentioned the Time Magazine article on the 2020 election earlier, and we did so for a reason. There were several material admissions made, not the least being that the Left does actually control the activities of groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter and others that rioted throughout the 2020 election year.

As the article notes, “Many of those organizers were part of [Mike] Podhorzer’s network” the man credited in Time’s article as being “The Architect” of the entire election effort.

The article detailed how more than 150 liberal groups had joined the “Protect the Results” coalition and stated that “The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned post-election demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets.”

There is another unspoken admission here as well. The trigger for the pre-planned riots was a Biden loss, not a “stolen election”. Or said another way, the Left would determine what comprised a stolen election only by its outcome.

This matter was further highlighted by Angela Peoples, director for the Democracy Defense Coalition, who told Time Magazine that “We wanted to be mindful of when was the right time to call for moving masses of people into the street.” But after Fox called Arizona for Biden, a decision was made to “stand down”. As Podhorzer noted, “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it…there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident.”

In other words, Podhorzer and his crew effectively controlled the actions of Antifa and Black Lives Matter — if not completely, then at the very least during these critical moments and days. It seems likely that they control these same groups today.

In his Color Revolution playbook, Eisen wrote that “Political opposition groups should form networks between other opposition groups, local electoral activists, civil society groups, and, where appropriate, international organizations and actors” and “Forcefully contest each individual illiberal act of non-democratic actors”. Eisen also foreshadowed his continued use of lawfare, noting that “big data and AI can play a role in litigation by forecasting which judges and jurisdictions are responsive to specific arguments, thereby guiding well-funded litigants while disadvantaging those without access to such tools.” The plans by Eisen’s group should be taken seriously. We all remember the chaos and widespread civil unrest that took place in 2020. And don’t forget. If Trump is Hitler, then in Eisen’s eyes we are the “non-democratic actors” that his group is targeting.