General

New York Post on Celebrity fury: Cardi B: “I’m gonna fuck you up”

Please Leave the Country.

Cardi B, Alec Baldwin and Stephen King fume over 2024 election result as Trump emerges victorious: ‘I’m gonna f–k you up’

The Grammy-winning rapper, 32, was one of the first to air out her frustration on social media after it emerged Wednesday that Trump will be returning to the White House.

Taking to Instagram Live, the “I Like It” hitmaker read aloud a comment from a fan that said, “Cardi we need you at the Trump inauguration.”

Cardi B has slammed the result of the 2024 presidential election as Donald Trump emerged victorious.@iamcardib/Instagram

“I swear to god I’m gonna f–k you up, get away from me,” she said during the video with more than 37,000 followers. “I’m sick of you! Burn you’re f–king hats motherf–ker. I’m really sad. I swear to god I’m really sad.”

Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Cephus, added that she’s “proud” of Vice President Kamala Harris, whose rally she spoke at in Milwaukee last week.

“When I look at her face and she was talking to me, I thought she was very genuine and not playing any f–king games,” she went on. “She had 100 days to do all of this and she woke this nation up. I feel there was a lot of things that went wrong last year and they kept her too much in the background.”

“I’m proud of her and I hope she’s proud of herself no matter what happens tonight. This is one of the most unforgettable elections and I love her. I don’t say I love a lot of people, y’all know that. Because I hate everybody.”

Former President Donald Trump has officially won the 2024 presidential election.AP

Alec Baldwin, who famously previously impersonated Trump on “SNL,” shared a photo of a black screen on Instagram. He did not caption the image.

Actress Christina Applegate expressed her anger at the result, rushing to social media following Trump’s win.

The Grammy-winning rapper, 32, aired out her frustrations on social media after it emerged Wednesday that Trump will be returning to the White House.@iamcardib/Instagram

“Why? Give me your reasons why????? My child is sobbing because her rights as a woman may be taken away. Why?And if you disagree , please unfollow me,” the “Dead To Me” star wrote on X.

Author Stephen King also weighed in on the results of the election.AP
Alec Baldwin, who famously previously impersonated Trump on “SNL,” shared a photo of a black screen on Instagram in response to the election result.AP

Bravo honcho Andy Cohen took to Instagram to share his frustration with the result, saying, “We will persist, we will move forward.”

Hours earlier, Cohen wrote on X, “so the election ISN’T rigged????”

Meanwhile, “Act Your Age” star Yvette Nicole Brown called the election result a “disgrace.”

Actress Christina Applegate expressed her anger at the election’s result in a social media post following Trump’s win.FilmMagic
Andy Cohen share a video on Instagram in which he said, “We will persist, we will move forward.”

“Sherrod Brown losing in Ohio is a lost to Ohio and our nation. This is a disgrace at a level I can’t even quantify. My home state of Ohio chose a criminal,” Brown wrote on X. “And it looks like this nation is choosing a criminal. AmeriKKKa is showing out tonight. Just showing out.”

While actor John Cusack wrote on X, “The fact that the country would choose to destroy itself by voting in a convicted felon rapist and Nazi is a sign of deep nihilism. To put it mildly.”

“Glee” alum Kevin McHale echoed similar thoughts, adding, “Supreme Court gone for the rest of my lifetime. Ultra-conservative evangelical bigotry, xenophobia, racism is the mandate,” in a post on X.

Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Cephus, added that she’s “proud” of Vice President Kamala Harris, whose rally she spoke at in Milwaukee last week.AP
“Suits” and “The Wire” actor Wendell Pierce warned of the “consequences” there could be once Trump moves into the White House.ZUMAPRESS.com

What’s more, Mary Trump — a niece of the former president — also shared her disappointment over the result.

“I am so deeply sorry. I thought better of us,” she wrote on X.

Author Stephen King also weighed in on the result, writing on X, “There’s a sign you can see in many shops that sell beautiful but fragile items: LOVELY TO LOOK AT, DELIGHTFUL TO HOLD, BUT ONCE YOU BREAK IT, THEN IT’S SOLD. You can say the same about democracy.”

Elsewhere, “Suits” and “The Wire” actor Wendell Pierce warned of the “consequences” there could be once Trump moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in a post on X.

Mary Trump, a niece of the former president, also shared her disappointment over the result.Getty Images
Trump was joined by his wife, Melania, at Wednesday’s victory party.AFP via Getty Images

“The Supreme Court will be changed for a generation,” he wrote. “I’ll never see a moderate court again in my lifetime. Alito and Thomas will step down and Trump will appoint 40 year old partisans to the bench. The damage he is about to inflict on our institutions the next 2 years will be irreparable.”

Meanwhile, “Countdown” dictionary guru Susie Dent shared a tongue-in-cheek post on X following Trump’s historic win.

“Word of the day is ‘recrudescence’ (17th century): the return of something terrible after a time of reprieve,” she wrote.

The British Media Meltdown

‘This is America’s darkest dawn’: How the Left-wing media reacted to Trump’s victory

As the scale of the Republican triumph became clear, commentators such as Emily Maitlis and Rory Stewart began to vent their dismay

Left-leaning commentators began to vent their dismay at Trump's win on TV and social media

Emily Maitlis on Channel 4’s election coverage. Left-leaning commentators began to vent their dismay at Trump’s win on TV and social media Credit: Bryan Dozier/Shutterstock for Channel Four

The Left-wing media has described Donald Trump’s victory as the “darkest dawn” for America in an outpouring of incredulity.

As the scale of Trump’s electoral triumph became clear, Left-leaning commentators began to vent their dismay on televison and social media.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, the Channel 4 presenter, apologised for his guest Emily Maitlis’s on-air behaviour during election coverage as the inevitability of Kamala Harris’s defeat became clear.

He said he would “tell Emily off” as she had “started swearing” during the broadcast.

Writing in the i newspaper, commentator Ian Dunt declared that the election result was America’s “darkest dawn” and left a “taste of despair”.

Rory Stewart, who presents The Rest is Politics podcast, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that it was “heartbreaking” that Trump had been elected president.

The former Tory MP had proclaimed that Harris would win with ease and claimed to have bet heavily on that result, only to be left deflated during live coverage of the election.

A dejected Mr Stewart said that he “got it totally wrong” but claimed: “I think I was wrong because I’m [an] optimist. I hate the idea of being right pessimistically.”

The Guardian newspaper sent out a notification as the result was put beyond doubt, branding Trump’s victory as the “first for a convicted criminal”.

The Guardian's notification

The Guardian described Trump’s victory as him becoming the “first convicted criminal” to be elected president

Katharine Viner, The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, sought to reassure readers following the news of Trump’s victory. In an editorial, she wrote that the paper would “stand up to four more years of Donald Trump”, and that the election was an “extraordinary, devastating moment in the history of the United States”.

Ms Viner added: “With Trump months away from taking office again – with dramatic implications for wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the health of American democracy, reproductive rights, inequality and, perhaps most of all, our collective environmental future – it’s time for us to redouble our efforts to hold the president-elect and those who surround him to account.”

Above an invitation to donate to The Guardian, the editorial signs off: “We will stand up to these threats, but it will take brave, well-funded independent journalism. It will take reporting that can’t be leaned upon by a billionaire owner terrified of retribution from a bully in the White House.”

Carole Cadwalladr, The Observer journalist best known for her legal battles with pro-Brexit businessman Aaron Banks, also lamented the result. She wrote on X that “democracy died in darkness”, and claimed that the US was now an “oligarchy” on par with “90s Russia”.

Carol Vorderman, the Countdown star turned political commentator, said: “God help America” on X as the result became clear.

Chris Packham, the BBC presenter and environmental activist, shared his concerns with the incoming president, writing on X: “Things have just got a lot more difficult. Here’s what I think. I had no control over what just happened. None.

“But I do have control over how I will react to it. And I am not going to give up on the beautiful and the good, the grip on my dreams just got tighter.”

Meanwhile, Paul Mason, the former economics editor of BBC’s Newsnight, claimed in a piece for the anti-Brexit paper The New European that America was “in the grip of the fascist process”, while LBC radio host James O’Brien, a former Newsnight presenter, wrote on X: “What fresh hell is this?”

Former British diplomat and left-wing podcaster Alexandra Hall Hall complained on X: “Brexit was a lie. The royal family is a racket. Our politicians are plastic. Our system is feeble; our defences a joke.”

Peter Jukes, co-founder of the left-wing publication The Byline Times, warned that Britain needs to secure itself “against the influx of dark US money and the influence of foreign oligarchs”.

In the US, Jake Tapper, the CNN news anchor, was stunned by analysis which showed that Harris had not outperformed Joe Biden in a single county, saying “holy smokes” when presented with a map showing the scale of her defeat.

On MSNBC, Joy Reid, the Left-wing commentator, claimed that Ms Harris’s campaign had been “flawless”, despite its end result, and cited the number of celebrity endorsements the Democratic candidate had received.

She claimed that Harris had won over the Swifties, fans of Taylor Swift, and said she was shocked at the rejection of the Democrats at the polls.

Comedian Jason Manford claimed on X that he awoke to the news of a “psychopath being declared president”, and Countdown etymologist Sue Dent shared the definition for recrudescence, the “return of something terrible after a time of reprieve” in an apparent reference to the election.

Other celebrities who had endorsed Harris included Bruce Springsteen and Madonna, while US rapper Cardi B had been a vocal supporter of Harris in the build up to the election, and became embroiled in a row with the Trump-supporting Elon Musk after he accused her of being a “puppet” for the Left-wing cause.

The performer messaged fans on her Instagram account following Ms Harris’s defeat, stating: “I’m really sad. I swear to god I’m really sad.” She also told Trump supporters to burn their “hats”, possibly in reference to MAGA caps.

Democrat blame game begins as Harris accused of picking wrong running mate

Democratic operatives also argue vice-president failed to stake out her policy positions and distance herself from Joe Biden

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz during a campaign rally in Ann Arbor, Michigan on Oct 28

Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz as her running mate and vice-presidential candidate Credit: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

Kamala Harris has been accused of picking the wrong running mate as the Democratic blame game over her humiliating election defeat began.

The US vice-president appeared on course to lose every one of the seven swing states that determined the White House race.

Ms Harris, 60, declined to address the nation on election night, leaving Democratic operatives to fill the vacuum.

Some blamed her choice of Tim Walz, the unassuming Minnesota governor, as her vice-presidential candidate.

The leading alternative had been Josh Shapiro, the charismatic and popular governor of all-important Pennsylvania.

Lindy Li, a Pennsylvania-based senior Democratic official, told Fox News: “People are wondering tonight what would have happened had Shapiro been on the ticket. And not only in terms of Pennsylvania.”

Ms Li said that as a moderate, Mr Shapiro “would have signalled to the American people that she is not the San Francisco liberal that Trump said she was”.

“But she went with someone actually to her Left,” she added. “In the eyes of the American people, Walz was the governor who oversaw the protests.”

Harris ‘failed to stake out policy positions’

Democratic operatives also argued Ms Harris had failed to stake out her policy positions and sufficiently distance herself from Joe Biden, who was underwater in public approval ratings.

They pinpointed her appearance on the talk show The View, when she was asked what she would have done differently to Mr Biden during the last four years, and replied: “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

Meanwhile Joy Reid, the MSNBC commentator, blamed white women in North Carolina for the Democrat’s loss in the swing state.

“In the end, they didn’t make their numbers. We have to be blunt about why, black voters came through for Harris, white women voters did not,” she said.

Van Jones, a CNN contributor and former Barack Obama adviser, criticised the Harris campaign’s focus on celebrity-filled rallies.

“I don’t think people understand, working people sometimes have to choose. Am I going to go to the big, cool concert and pay for babysitting for that or am I going to figure out a way to get to the polls? I don’t like these big star-studded events,” he said.

Symone Sanders, a former adviser to Ms Harris turned MSNBC commentator, said: “We have to listen to what the voters are saying.”

A Trump victory is awful for Starmer – and a nightmare for David Lammy

Labour’s hubris may have irreparably destroyed our relationship with the only pro-British US president in decades
David Lammy had made no secret of his hostility towards Trump

David Lammy had made no secret of his hostility towards Trump Credit: Stefan Rousseau/Reuters

As election hangovers go, Keir Starmer’s will be only slightly less painful than that of Kamala Harris.

With not a great deal going right for the Labour Government on the domestic front, the last thing the prime minister needs is a new American president who bears a grudge. But that’s what he’s got.

In the heady days after Joe Biden finally and belatedly called it a day and handed the torch of the Democratic Party to his vice-president, when polling suggested Kamala was about to sweep all before her, the Labour Party went a bit giddy with excitement and publicly announced it was lending the Democrats a hand.

Who cared if The Orange One resented the participation in the presidential election of 100 Labour activists and staffers? He was a dead-cert loser, and the party would enjoy the gratitude of President Harris for the next four years.

Well, “oops”, as they say.

Starmer might now reflect that as well as having to offer a craven apology to the once and future President Trump for his party’s ill-advised bout of amateurish virtue signalling, he has a more pressing problem to hand in the shape of his foreign secretary.

In his constant and never-failing desire to please whichever audience he’s speaking to, David Lammy once described Trump as a “Neo-Nazi sociopath”. Which is the sort of thing you might call someone if you (a) are a precocious sixth-former in the school debating society, or (b) do not expect ever to be in the same room with the target of your criticisms.

Now, as Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Lammy is our chief representative abroad, including to the United States. Not only has he needlessly thrown a stupid insult at the victor of the 2024 presidential election, but in doing so he has basically accused the American electorate of electing someone unfit for the most important elected office in the world.

The arguments that might be made in defence of Lammy’s opinion are neither here nor there: our foreign secretary needs to maintain the best possible relations with our most important ally. David Lammy has talked himself out of that job.

We cannot allow any foreign power to decide who serves in the UK cabinet and in what position. However, sacking or demoting Lammy at the earliest opportunity would demonstrate to the incoming administration that Starmer is serious about repairing the damage Lammy, by his infantile language, has caused to the special relationship.

This Government may not be all that keen on post-EU “Global Britain”, but given that the last time Trump was in the White House, he was far keener than either his predecessor or his successor to give us a transatlantic trade deal, Lammy’s sacrifice would be a small price to pay for smoothing the way to such a breakthrough.

Beyond the immediate implications for the Government and its foreign secretary, Harris’s humiliating defeat at the hands of a man who, in more serious times, really should never have been able to come within shouting distance of the White House, ought to signal a major rethink of progressive Left-wing politics across the democratic west. But will it?

The lessons were all there to be learned in 2016, when an arrogant, entitled Democratic Party crowned Hillary Clinton as their surefire winner in that year’s election. After all, who could fail to lose against someone as unappealing as Trump? And yet somehow, Clinton’s disdain for working class Americans without college degrees and her obsession with the rights of trans people to use women’s bathrooms in Oklahoma didn’t strike a chord with the electorate. It was a real mystery.

Eight years later, Joe Biden could have chosen to accept the inevitability of his advancing years and allowed his party to choose a new candidate last year, allowing the victor to be subjected to the usual rigours and scrutiny of the primary process.

Instead he made it impossible for the party and the country to choose anyone other than Harris, a woman who, when she stood against Biden for the Democratic nomination in 2020, resigned from the race without winning a single delegate to her party’s national convention.

It wasn’t just the method of her becoming the candidate that rankled with voters; it was her policy platform. Across America – and indeed, across much of the Western world – the curse of woke is wreaking terrible damage to politics and to society.

Gender ideology and critical race theory have their roots in the US, but like any virus, they quickly made their way across the Atlantic. Few viral clips on social media did Harris more harm than the one in which she introduces herself to an audience – from behind a mask, obviously – as “Kamala Harris, she/her”.

It’s not the self-congratulatory smugness that irked; it was the assumption that the cult of the pronoun is now not only obligatory but normal. Does she really not know how much ordinary Americans object to such nonsense? Does she not realise that many voters lump such language in with “taking the knee” and demands by Black Lives Matter protesters to “defund the police”? It’s all toxic – the language, the smugness and the policies that the White House advocated in the last four years to push the agenda.

Labour too must learn the lessons of a second Trump victory before they go too far down the same road. Because if British voters decided to follow the lead of their American cousins, our own politicians would have every reason to be nervous the next time the ballot boxes are opened.

Charles Malik in 1949 on the Future of Israel vis-à-vis the Arab World

Charles Malik, Doctor of Philosophy from Heidelberg, former President of the UN General Assembly and drafter of its Charter. Here is what he predicted 75 years ago, in 1949— something to ponder deeply, given that this is what Lebanon and the Arab world are experiencing today.

*  *  *

In a small book entitled Report on the Current Situation — 5 August 1949, republished by An-Nahar in 2002 and prefaced by the Lebanese journalism professor Ghassan Tueni, Charles Malik talks about the ‘phases of the Zionist movement’, ‘America and the Arab world’ and ‘the destiny of Lebanon’. These three themes are linked to Israeli strategies and their repercussions on Lebanese and Arab realities, as well as their complexities and dilemmas.

Malik begins his report with a description of the Arab situation, saying: ‘The Palestinian question has been and remains the most serious of all Arab questions, and its outcome is therefore that of the entire Arab world. The Palestinian catastrophe is a clear image of the Arab catastrophe, and the weaknesses that led to the Arab failure in Palestine are the same weaknesses that have led and will lead to complete defeats in the Arab world.”

Malik: ‘Everything that has happened so far in Palestine and concerning Palestine is only the beginning. As for the conclusion, it will either be the domination of the Arab world and its colonisation by the Jews, or its renewal as a modern world, respected and interacting with living civilisations in the creation and preservation of values. Either way, the near future will be darker than the present and more dangerous than the past.”

Why is the future darker and more dangerous?

Malik explains this by saying: ‘Israel’s entry as a member of the United Nations is not an act that puts an end to Jewish ambitions. The State of Israel, in its present situation and borders, is not a refuge for the invading Jewish power, but a gathering centre for it and a breeding ground for its growth, a starting point for its expansion and assault on neighbouring and distant Arab countries, politically, economically and socially. Jewish claims that in fifty years there will be only two states in the world — America and Israel — are not to be taken lightly.”

Malik: ‘I am certain that our future is one of Jewish colonisation and enslavement, and no one will mourn our enslavement.’

What about the dangers?

According to Malik, ‘the phase that ended with the creation of Israel is a preparation for the next complementary phase, which aims to effectively colonise and enslave the Arab world. In this phase, it will be a question of preparing for expansion in the Arab world and deepening the takeover of its resources.”

Where do the United States stand in all this?

Malik replies: ‘We have to interpret the aid and development projects emanating from the United States as being, for the most part, decoys aimed at appeasing the indignation of the Arab world. The window dressing seems attractive, translating empathy towards the Arab world and an interest in its development, but the aid is essentially linked, conditionally, on the perpetuation of the Jewish state.

What are Israel’s future strategies?

Malik answers this question by saying: ‘The Zionists have succeeded, but they will not be satisfied with this partial success, because their ambitions will not stop at the piece of Palestine they have conquered. The second phase is to prove that they are the chosen ones to develop the East, that they are the real force within it, that they represent its interests and determine its will.

The whole of Palestine does not satisfy the needs of the Jews; Israel wants to control the Arab world and be the heir to all its predecessors, whether Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Turkish or under [the British] mandate. Thus, Zionism wants to be recognised in a future era as the Mandate. The Arab world is Zionism’s living space, and I say: if nothing changes in the Arab world (temporary solutions, epidermal susceptibilities, disunity, drunkenness with the past, improvised policies, lack of real reforms), then I am certain that our future is one of Jewish colonisation and enslavement, and no one will mourn our enslavement.”

What advice do you have for Lebanon and the Lebanese?

Malik: ‘There is a danger that a secret agreement will be formed between Israel and certain short-sighted Lebanese, leading to a coup d’état in favour of Israel, but such a coup d’état will inevitably lead to chaos, then to Syrian intervention, followed by Israeli intervention, and therefore to a new war, and Lebanon will never come out the winner.’

Is there a greater danger lurking?

According to this premonitory report, there are innumerable dangers. Among these dangers, Malik says: ‘The day will come, and it may be soon, if not already, when nothing in the Arab world will be resolved or settled without Jewish consent, and then governments, systems and people will be maintained or overthrown at the whim of the Jews. A president or head of government will be formed or fall because Tel Aviv and world Jewry based in New York and other Western capitals want it that way.”

So what does the future hold?

Malik goes on to say: ‘The day will come when the Jews will succeed in convincing the West and some of our politicians and thinkers that they are the interface between the West and the Middle East in matters of economics, town planning, culture and politics. The day will come when all the economic, urban planning and rescue projects will be based largely on the Jewish will, aimed at forcing the Arabs to recognise Israel and cooperate with it. These projects will be designed to strengthen primarily Israel’s foundations and make it the cornerstone of the economic edifice and urban progress in the Middle East.”

How can we meet this challenge?

Malik links the factors confronting the Israeli challenge supported by the states of the East and West with the need for a liberating reform movement on an Arab scale. He asks: ‘Where can this liberation and reform movement be born in the Arab world? I doubt very much that any one Arab country can be the forerunner or carry its flame to the others. The only Arab countries left are Lebanon and Syria. I’m certain that the renaissance we want can only happen in Lebanon or Syria, or both. Is Lebanon aware of its responsibilities in this area, and is it prepared to cooperate with the new Syrian regime, without compromising any of its freedoms and independence?”

*   *   *

Francis Goumain – Translation from a French version

 

Project 65 and the war on election integrity

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.

TabletMag.com: The Democrats’ Insanity Defense

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

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.

Every Single Time: Democrats Plan For Color Revolution

 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 againThe 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 ventureState 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 goingState 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.