Blog

Report: Democrats Set $20 Million Plan to Win Back Young Men

The Democrats reportedly plan to spend $20 million as part of an elaborate plan to win back all the young men President Donald Trump captured.

According to the New York Times, top Democrat donors have been huddling it up at luxury hotels since the 2024 election in an effort to turn the tide on young men.

“Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places,” national political correspondent Shane Goldmacher wrote.

The Democrats reportedly coded the plan SAM – Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan.

“The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online,” wrote Goldmacher. “It is code-named SAM — short for ‘Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan’ — and promises investment to ‘study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.’”

The plan even reportedly goes so far to recommend that Democrats start “buying advertisements in video games, among other things.”

The report follows the Democratic National Committee (DNC) moving to oust David Hogg as vice chair of the party even though he was appointed specifically to bring young men back into the fold.

“The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has taken steps towards removing gun control activist and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg as vice chairman,” Breitbart News reported earlier this month.

Keep reading

The So-Called Trump-Ramaphosa ‘Ambush’

Nothing highlights the poverty of the media-Democratic mind than its weary use of echo-chamber buzzwords. Once Pravda-like instructions are sent out from DNC operatives, mindless media anchors mouth them in lockstep as gospel.

So, it was with the supposed “ambush” when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump. Trump indeed pressed his guest on a number of issues, from the decades-long targeted killing of white agriculturalists on their farms by black hit teams that have totaled somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500, depending on how one defines such targeted killings.

Trump further wanted an explanation from Ramaphosa on his government’s new legislation aimed at land confiscation without compensation, and the de facto vanishing number of Boer farmers.

Trump was further bewildered by Ramaphosa’s assertion that the new law would not be used to take private property without paying for it (“No, no, no, no. Nobody can take land”), when in fact that was the very purpose of the new legislation in the first place. Trump also showed Ramaphosa videos highlighting a resurgence of South African extremism of the tired “Kill the Boer” sort.

The dictionaries define “ambush” roughly as “a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a hidden or concealed position.”

Ramaphosa’s visit was no surprise. He, not Trump, requested it. Ramaphosa spoke openly to the media before the meeting that he was planning to convince Trump that there were neither widespread killings of white farmers nor arbitrary confiscation of land.

In sum, Trump was the host; Ramaphosa was the guest, who requested the meeting to present his case for a return of a number of concessions from the U.S. He knew Trump would raise issues that had estranged South Africa from both the president and Congress, and he was calmly prepped, as expected, to offer counterarguments.

But why was Ramaphosa so eager for a meeting?

He knew that South Africa had enjoyed a rare, sweetheart, one-of-a-kind, no-tariff deal from the U.S. that had empowered his nation in the last few years to vastly expand its exports. In 2024, South Africa achieved a staggering near $9 billion surplus with the U.S.

Yet Ramaphosa and South Africa have a funny way of expressing gratitude for the free trade magnanimity accorded by the U.S.—especially both as a recipient of nearly $500 million in annual foreign aid and after raising asymmetrical high tariffs on lots of U.S. imports.

Recently, the South African ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled after he gratuitously slandered his host, the president, as a white “supremacist”—supposedly playing on “white victimhood as a dog whistle” out of fears of non-white demographics.

Keep reading

Canada’s Alberta Province Heading Toward Secession Referendum

Alberta is careening toward a referendum with the possibility of a divorce between the conservative, oil-rich province and liberal Canada.

Initiating the Referendum

Less than 24 hours after globalist Mark Carney and his leftist government won control on April 28, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced a bill lowering the threshold needed to trigger a secession referendum. The bill, which has since passed, reduces the necessary number of signatures from 20 percent of voters who participated in the last general election to 10 percent, which equals somewhere around 200,000 names. It also increases the number of days allowed for collecting signatures by an entire month, from 90 to 120 days.

Citizen groups have already collected hundreds of thousands of signatures, according to reports. The Alberta Prosperity Project, for instance, says it has gathered about 240,000. The secession referendum will take place in 2026 if enough signatures are verifiably collected.

A recent Angus Reid Institute poll found that 30 percent of voters “say they would vote to leave [the] federation, whether to form their own country or to join the United States.” 

Keep reading

FBI arrests two Pakistani men for operation of massive immigration fraud scheme in Texas

The FBI has arrested two men from Pakistan living in Texas who are accused of operating an immigration scheme that sold fraudulent visa applications.

Abdul Hadi Murshi and Muhammad Salman Nasir, originally from Pakistan, have been accused of submitting fraudulent applications for visas and for adjustments of status to unlawfully enter and remain in the country. Both men were arrested in Texas and face multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, visa fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The pair were also charged with unlawfully obtaining and attempting to obtain United States citizenship.

“Major arrests out of [Dallas],” FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X. “Abdul Hadi Murshid and Muhammad Salman Nasir — two individuals out of Texas who allegedly oversaw and operated a criminal enterprise circumventing American immigration laws by selling fraudulent visa applications. Well done to our FBI teams and partners in the investigation.”

The indictment alleges the defendants exploited the EB-2, EB-3, and H-1B visa programs by placing classified ads in newspapers for jobs that did not exist. These ads were used to falsely satisfy Department of Labor requirements that employers must first offer positions to US citizens before sponsoring foreign workers. Once the fraudulent labor certifications were secured, the defendants allegedly submitted petitions to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) along with green card applications for the visa seekers.

To create the illusion that the positions were real, the defendants accepted payments from the visa seekers, then returned a portion as purported wages.

Keep reading

Gadhafi’s ‘Missing Billions’ Stashed in US and Southern Africa, Officials Say

Billions of dollars stolen by former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi are hidden in clandestine bank accounts and secret vaults in the United States and two southern African countries, say intelligence operatives and financial investigators.

The latest news was first reported by online magazine, Africa Confidential, on May 9.

According to the report, Libya’s Asset and Management Recovery Office says at least $50 billion in oil revenues pillaged by Gadhafi between 1994 until his murder in 2011 were invested in “debt instruments”—including treasury bonds—using front companies, nominees, and banks that routed the money via Europe to the United States.

Separately, intelligence agents and a former top government official in Pretoria told The Epoch Times about $20 billion stolen by Gadhafi is spread across banks in South Africa.

They added that $30 million in cash flown by Gadhafi to South Africa in the months before his execution by rebels is now hidden in Eswatini—the small kingdom neighboring South Africa and the continent’s last absolute monarchy that was formerly called Swaziland.

The man leading the hunt for Libya’s missing public funds, Asset and Management Recovery Office Director-General Mohammed al-Mensli, confirmed that hundreds of billions of dollars were stolen during Gadhafi’s brutal military rule.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Stands By While Lower Courts Carry On Ripping Up The Constitution

There is a judicial coup underway in the U.S., and the Supreme Court is refusing to stop it. Yet another unpunished hit to the Constitution happened this week when a federal judge in Texas ordered President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to hand over sensitive communications with the El Salvadoran government about one of its Alien Enemies Act deportees.

In his initial order, Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the Trump administration to confirm the “current location and health status” of Venezuelan Widmer Josneyder Agelviz-Sanguino, who was allegedly one of the 238 deportees flown to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, within 24 hours.

The Clinton appointee also demanded that the Trump administration disclose “the legal basis for his continued detention,” ensure Agelviz-Sanguino can establish contact with his lawyers, and detail “any logistical arrangements made with El Salvadoran authorities.”

After multiple extensions, the Trump administration handed over information to the judge under seal, according to legal news outlet Law & Crime. Ellison, however, deemed the documents insufficient and issued a subsequent order demanding that the U.S. government file a “declaration describing all actions taken by Defendants and the U.S. Embassy since May 19, 2025.”

The order claims to require details like “Names/titles of El Salvadoran officials contacted, methods of contact, and copies of all written communications” and “Timeline of follow-up attempts and plans to escalate such attempts if no response is received.” Ellison even mandated a description of the “specific El Salvadoran law cited as justification for Agelviz-Sanguino’s detention” down to the “Statute name, article number, English translation, and verification of its applicability to Venezuelan nationals.”

The Department of Justice appealed the order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an administrative stay on Ellison’s demands Friday morning.

As Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at The Article III Project noted, Ellison’s order is “completely insane.”

“Article III does not get to tell Article II how to conduct foreign affairs – nor does it get to surveil sensitive diplomatic discussions,” he wrote.

Yet, until the Supreme Court ends the unbridled injunction and order madness, the Trump administration is at the mercy of an unconstitutional supremacy that has infected even the furthest limbs of the judicial branch.

Keep reading

“Oval Office Ambush” – Hilarious Compilation Shows Mainstream Media Hacks Parroting EXACT SAME Talking Points on Trump’s Explosive Meeting with South African President Last Week

A memo with talking points apparently went out to the leftwing media following Wednesday’s fiery Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the South African President.

During big news events, a phenomenon occurs where the leftwing media not only pushes the same narrative across every network, but in many cases, they read the same script. They would have us believe it’s a coincidence, but they’re clearly reading talking points, likely provided by the Democratic Party.

One example of this was after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went before the US Congress and demanded billions of dollars and weapons to continue his war with Russia. As The Gateway Pundit reported, Liberal hack reporters in unison began comparing Zelensky to Winston Churchill on every cable news channel.

This time, they were given the word “ambush.”

Here are some of the lines cable TV was pushing in their orchestrated attack after Trump’s epic Oval Office exchange with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa:

  • “Another dramatic scene in the Oval Office today. The tense confrontation, President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
  • Up next, another Oval Office meltdown. President Trump ambushing the President of South Africa.”
  • “President Trump is being accused of conducting something of a diplomatic ambush of South Africa’s President in the Oval Office.”
  • “President Trump orchestrated another Oval Office ambush today.”
  • “Today, Donald Trump meeting with the President of South Africa and attempting to ambush and humiliate that leader.”
  • “Zelensky territory, where, essentially, he was a bit ambushed inside the Oval Office.”
  • “It felt like an ambush in there, kind of like the President Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office.”
  • “This was an ambush. It was orchestrated.”
  • “Cyril Ramaphosa brought his best diplomatic self to this meeting, but nothing could have prepared him for this multimedia ambush.”
  • “It started as, to some degree, an ambush.”

Keep reading

European Kakistocracy Locked In a Forever War Against Russia

Never interrupt your enemy when he is committing serial suicide (in reverse American gore-style, when the serial killer always resurrects). In the case of the EU kakistocracy, serial self-destruction is always a given, and always skyrocketing.

So the EUrocrats in Brussels have just adopted their 17th round of sanctions against Russia – the sky is the limit – targeting nearly 200 tankers of the so-called Russian shadow fleet. The package, endorsed by EU member states, includes proverbial scores of asset freezes and visa bans.

The EU + UK combo is also scheming how to tighten the oil price cap on Russia to $50 a barrel, aiming to “hurt” Russia’s energy revenue.

Cue to a monster pipeline of laughter from the whole Global South, especially India and China. As if they would impeach any vessels of the shadow fleet, or if OPEC+ would care about a puny unilateral EUrocrat oil price cap.

To qualify EU actions as self-destructive anti-intellectualism is actually benign. The IQ of people at the top in Brussels is at dismembered worm level, exemplified by the Estonian batshit crazy chick in theory representing the foreign policy of 450 million EU citizens. Brussels has been reduced to a pathetic Estonian propaganda snake pit with a whiff of British accent.

The SVR has noted how there is a groundswell of despair in Brussels for the “mistake” of appointing the imbecile Estonian, universally known for “absolute incompetence” and a cringing “inability to build bridges” with EU leaders. She has already been removed from EU strategic defense policy planning.

Still, the sanctions package dementia will keep rollin’ on – redacted by careerists with fat salaries who only care about their own retirement gold package.

The next, the 18th, is supposed to be the largest sanctions package in History, according to the Brussels rumor mill, not only accusing Russia of multiples stances of Hybrid War and alleged use of chemical weapons (when it’s actually the neo-nazis of country 404 who resort to it) but targeting several Russian defense sector companies plus companies and intermediaries from third countries supplying sanctioned products to Russia.

Add to it the German BlackRock chancellor actively lobbying for an EU ban on the Nord Stream pipeline – blocking any possibility of a U.S.-Russia business cooperation, already signaled by Trump. This ban will be part of the 18th package.

Cue to Grandmaster Sergey Lavrov, who recently felt the need to emphasize that political EUro-trash banning the return of NordStream are “either sick or suicidal.”

Keep reading

Forcing Lawyers To Join Leftist Bar Associations Violates Basic First Amendment Freedoms

In courtrooms across America, a battle is being waged between state bar associations and attorneys who don’t believe the right to practice law should depend on their willingness to be associated with leftist political candidates and causes.

It’s a classic case of “join or starve,” with many states requiring lawyers to maintain membership in state bar associations, despite — or perhaps because of — the organizations’ increasingly liberal tilt.

In response, the Freedom Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, challenging this forced membership arrangement as a flat-out violation of freedom of association.

The argument is straightforward: Lawyers in Oregon are being forced to be members of an organization that spouts political views they reject. The Oregon bar allows dissenting members to apply for a refund of money spent on political speech but maintains the requirement that all active lawyers be members of the association.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized there can be a violation of the freedom of expressive association when a group speaks and it’s assumed all members support the position taken. But ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon’s scheme, merely requiring the bar to add a weak disclaimer to indicate that not all members of the bar share its opinion when the bar speaks on a given topic.

But the Freedom Foundation lawsuit argues this misses the point entirely. Forced association itself is the problem.

To understand the gravity of the issue, consider a parallel scenario: Imagine a journalist required to be a member of a media association that consistently promotes views contrary to his or her own, or a teacher forced to support an educational organization that advocates for policies they find deeply problematic.

Can you even contemplate the outrage that would ensue if gun owners had to be members of an organization that actively supported, for example, banning all privately owned guns? Even if the organization made it clear that its position on banning guns is not the position of all its members, the very fact that gun owners must be members would itself violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading

“Reduce the Need for Personal Vehicles”: Top Massachusetts Democrat Wants to Limit How Many Miles Residents Can Drive or Drive at All, Because ‘Climate Change’

Massachusetts Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem (D) introduced a bill this year to create a commission with the goal of reducing the number of miles driven by residents in their cars because of ‘climate change’, with an ultimate goal to “reduce the need for personal vehicles.”

The 82-year-old Creem wants the state government to promulgate regulations that could fine residents for driving too much and force them into riding public transportation, using bikes paths and walking.

Excerpts from Bill S. 2246:

(b) No metropolitan planning organization shall approve a Regional Transportation Plan or Transportation Improvement Program developed pursuant to 23 CFR Part 450, and the department shall not approve a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, unless the plan or program, including any mitigation measures interlinked to individual projects within the plan or program, provides a reasonable pathway to compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions sublimits for the transportation set pursuant to section 3A of chapter 21N and to the statewide vehicles miles traveled reduction goals established by the secretary pursuant to section 81 of this chapter.

SKIP

(f) The department may promulgate rules or regulations for the implementation of this section.

Section 81. (a) To relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, and promote compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions limits established pursuant to chapter 21N, the secretary shall, in consultation with the secretary of economic development, the secretary of energy and environmental affairs, and the secretary of housing and livable communities, set a statewide vehicle miles traveled reduction goal for the year 2030 and for every fifth year thereafter. The vehicle miles traveled reduction goals shall be incorporated into: (i) the greenhouse gas emissions sublimits for the transportation sector set pursuant to subsection (b) of section 3A of chapter 21N; and (ii) the roadmap plans published pursuant to subsection (b) of section 3 of said chapter 21N.

SKIP

The council shall assess and report on strategies and plans necessary to reduce statewide vehicles miles traveled through the establishment of an equitable, interconnected, accessible and reliable network of non-personal vehicle transportation options and through land use policies that reduce the need for personal vehicles. The plan shall facilitate: (i) compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions limits and sublimits set pursuant to chapter 21N of the General Laws, with emphasis on compliance with the emissions limits and sublimits set for 2030; (ii) attainment of the numerical benchmarks for vehicle miles traveled set pursuant to section 81 of chapter 6C; (iii) the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods; and (iv) advancement of access to, and affordability of, non-personal vehicle transportation options.

The assessment shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the present condition of, and future needs for, non-personal vehicle transportation infrastructure and services, including, but not limited to, bicycle paths and lanes; bicycle sharing stations; pedestrian paths; bus, ferry, subway, and train services; transportation demand management programs; and microtransit programs ; (ii) the present status of, and future needs for, land use policies that reduce the need for personal vehicles; (iii) suggestions for optimal locations for new, expanded or improved non-personal vehicle transportation options in urban, suburban and rural areas including, but not limited to, low-income and moderate-income communities; (iv) discussion of programs and policies that may incentivize residents to adopt non-personal vehicle transportation options; (v) discussion of present and projected future costs and methods of financing those costs; (viii) recommendations to assist local governmental and private sector officials in expanding access to non-personal vehicle transportation options and in planning and developing compact, walkable neighborhoods; and (ix) identification and discussion of current policies and recommendations for policies, laws and regulatory actions that may facilitate reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Keep reading