Blog

One Label Under Blackmail: The Early Intersections of Diddy and the Epstein Network

Beginning in late 2023, a series of startling and unsettling allegations against Sean Combs –– a record executive and rapper known over the years by stage names like “Puff Daddy,” “P. Diddy” and presently “Diddy” –– have emerged. As the allegations and lawsuits facing Combs have snowballed, so, too, has public interest in the case. The sheer amount of accusations suggests that Combs, in addition to being very sexually and physically violent, filmed many assault encounters and orgies that occurred at his now notorious “Freak Off” parties, sometimes with hidden or security cameras. He also now stands accused of “operating an empire of sexual crimes,” with federal agents having alleged that several of Combs’ victims were of “barely legal” or “barely illegal” age at the time of their abuse. Combs’ apparent documentation of these events strongly suggests that he was interested in keeping these records for more than his perverse enjoyment, as either a form of a protection or as a means to control those who appeared in these films, i.e. blackmail.

As a result, speculation has grown about who is allegedly on the “list” of people filmed by Combs in this way, prompting comparisons to the alleged “list” of sex trafficker, pedophile and intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein. The comparisons between Epstein and Combs have only grown, with even the homeland security agents who raided Combs’ Miami home suggesting that Combs was “as bad as Epstein.”

However, as has long been a theme of Unlimited Hangout’s Epstein-related reporting, including the book One Nation Under Blackmail, the Jeffrey Epstein case has been poorly explored by the federal government, mainstream media outlets, and even many independent media outlets. A deeper examination of the Epstein case makes it clear that Epstein was not the sole mastermind or sole beneficiary of the sex trafficking and blackmail operation in which he engaged. Instead, Epstein served as an operator for a larger, monied network of oligarchs with extensive organized crime connections in addition to significant affiliations with intelligence agencies. He was also more than a sex trafficker for this group, having aided this network extensively in arms trafficking, money laundering and other crimes (many financial) that fall outside of the focus on his sex-related offenses.

It should come as no surprise upon closer examination of Sean Combs that, like Epstein, he was operating on behalf of a larger network that he did not ultimately control. Instead, it arguably controlled him. As this three-part series from Unlimited Hangout will endeavor to show, Combs was acting on behalf of an oligarch network that directly overlaps with that of Epstein. However, Combs used to influence a different industry and a different community for the benefit of these intelligence and organized crime-connected oligarchs. 

Keep reading

Why is Trump Using Tariffs? The Truth That Has Misled the World on Tariffs

For all the criticism of Trump and the risk of a global trade war, as Macron wants to unleash a trade war to elevate France to the top of the EU, if we just look at the data, we can see why Trump has taken this approach. Even those Republicans like Rand Paul joining the Democrats in calling tariffs a tax, none of them are looking at this issue objectively or seriously. Under the Biden Administration, not only was there a wholesale invasion of illegal immigrants, but on the trade front, he paid no attention at all, and most seemed to assume he was too senile to pay attention.

They are resoundingly calling Trump insane, mainly because they have something to lose. Free Trade has been one-sided. There is a risk that France will push to impose trade barriers against others to support their Marxist agenda. That will be devastating, but we see the world economy headed into a recession for the USA, yet a Depression for the EU. The fact that Trump imposed a 10% tariff on the UK but 20% on the EU is actually driving a wedge between Starmer’s dream of overruling BREXIT to get back into the Marxist utopia of the EU.

In addition, the belligerence of Macron is having an impact. There is a growing discontent with the European Union and the 20% tariff on the EU, with Macron vowing that full retaliation may prove to be the wedge that starts the fragmentation of the EU. Hungary has its own currency and can quickly leave the EU and resume trade with both the USA and Russia. Ukraine has long suppressed the Hungarian people trapped within the boundaries of Ukraine. The same is true for all of those members questioning the EU yet did not join the euro.

Keep reading

A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation

For many Americans, it is an article of faith that a vast and powerful federal government equals a great and strong nation. Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The more powerful the federal government, the weaker the nation. Contrariwise, the smaller and weaker the federal government, the more powerful the nation.

Part of the problem here is that many Americans have been taught to believe that the federal government and the nation are one and the same thing. They aren’t. They are two completely separate and distinct entities.

A good confirmation of this phenomenon is the Bill of Rights. Many Americans believe that it gives Americans their rights. Actually, the Bill of Rights protects the nation — that is, the American people — from the federal government, which confirms that we are dealing with two separate and distinct entities.

The Constitution called the federal government into existence. The type of government it established was what we call a limited-government republic. It was a very small government whose powers were extremely limited — that is, limited to the few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself.

That was how the Framers and our American ancestors wanted it. They wanted a small, weak federal government — one with very few powers.

One of the most important features of this new government was its lack of a vast, permanent military establishment. That was the last thing the Framers and our American ancestors wanted. They knew that a vast-permanent military establishment would convert the federal government into a powerful government. They didn’t want that. They felt that such a powerful government would constitute a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the nation. Thus, they fiercely opposed what they called “standing armies.” That’s why throughout the 19th century, America had a relatively small, basic army.

This unusual governmental structure brought into existence the most unique economic and political system in the history of man. By the time the 1880s arrived, the United States was a land of no income taxation or IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, Federal Reserve, paper money, (minimal) immigration control, gun control, drug war, minimum-wage laws, occupational licensure, (minimal) economic regulations, national-security state, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, torture, indefinite detention, compulsory school-attendance laws, (minimal) public (i.e., government) schooling systems, war on terrorism, foreign wars, foreign aid, foreign interventions, and state-sponsored assassinations.

The result of this unique governmental structure and economic and political system was the most powerful nation in history. The American people were characterized by a strong sense of independence, toughness, self-reliance, and can-do. They put their faith in themselves, in others, in free markets, in voluntary charity, in their families, and in God. They were fearless. No one dared to attack and invade the United States because to do so would be like swallowing a porcupine. The American people were simply too strong, precisely because their government was so small and weak.

It’s worth noting that this one-of-a-kind-system brought into existence the most prosperous and the most charitable nation in the history of mankind. From 1880-1910, real wage rates increased by 50 percent. When people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of weath, the result was the greatest amount of voluntary charity that mankind had ever seen. One man — John D. Rockefeller — actually gave away $500 million in his lifetime.

Keep reading

Trump’s Tariff Order Is Clear, Strategic, and Necessary—Critics Just Aren’t Reading It

Critics of President Trump’s April 2, 2025, executive order on tariffs argue that the policy lacks clarity or direction. Yet the order is anything but vague. In fact, it offers one of the most detailed diagnoses of America’s structural trade imbalances in decades—backed by specific data, a national security framework, and a roadmap for restoring fairness in global trade.

The problem isn’t the order’s content—it’s that few critics have bothered to read it.

At the heart of the executive order is the assertion that large and persistent U.S. goods trade deficits—totaling $1.2 trillion in 2024 and up over 40% in just five years—represent an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to America’s economy and national security.

These deficits, it explains, are not merely the result of market forces but the product of “disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers” erected by America’s trading partners.

The order doesn’t just assert this—it proves it. According to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has one of the world’s lowest simple average Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) tariff rates at 3.3%.

In comparison: Brazil charges 11.2%, China 7.5%, the European Union 5.0%, India 17%, and Vietnam 9.4%.

The imbalance becomes even more striking in specific sectors. The U.S. imposes just a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports with internal combustion engines, while the EU charges 10%, China 15%, and India a staggering 70%. On network switches and routers, the U.S. imposes no tariff at all, but India levies 10%.

For apples, the U.S. allows duty-free imports; meanwhile, India charges 50% and Turkey over 60%. These are not rhetorical flourishes—they are hard data used effectively to show just how unreciprocated U.S. market access has become.

More importantly, the order does not treat trade policy as a narrow economic matter—it places it squarely within the realm of national security.

Keep reading

“Geofenced Every Event”: Democrats Caught Staging Another ‘Inorganic’ Color Revolution Operation Against Trump

Far-left, billionaire-funded NGOs—closely aligned with the rudderless and imploding Democratic Party—have been waging a psychological warfare operation against the American people. Framed as “grassroots,” the party of hate and violence—evident in their “Tesla Takedown” color revolution aimed at killing Tesla to pressure Elon Musk on DOGE—has been building momentum in recent weeks to segue into anti-Trump protests this weekend. The goal is to manufacture the illusion that Trump is wildly unpopular, leveraging a vast network of dark money-funded NGOs that supply rent-a-protesters to rallies nationwide. 

Ahead of anti-Trump protests, we uncovered the Democratic Party’s NGO war machine, totaling 186 NGOs, unions, and other radical leftist groups that supported Saturday’s mass mobilization efforts of rent-a-protesters and, of course, a grassroots component of the protests (mainly old white angry liberals). 

Late Friday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow openly boasted about the Democratic Party’s color revolution operation, even giving airtime to Ezra Levin of the NGO Indivisible Project, who attempted to convince the audience that the anti-Musk and anti-Trump protests are organic…

Keep reading

Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI

A district court judge awarded $6.6 million combined to four whistleblowers who sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on claims he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI.

Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar notified Paxton and his office on Oct. 1, 2020, that they had reported him to the FBI for allegedly abusing his office. The four were all fired by mid-November.

Travis County Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled Friday that by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the whistleblowers proved liability, damages and attorney’s fees in their complaint against the attorney general’s office.

The judgment says the former aides made their reports to federal law enforcement “in good faith” and that Paxton’s office did not dispute any claims or damages in the lawsuit.

“Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and otherwise retaliating against the plaintiff for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken Paxton and OAG, the court hereby renders judgment for plaintiffs,” Mauzy wrote in her judgment.

The court found that the four former aides of the attorney general were fired in retaliation for reporting allegations that he was using his office to accept bribes from Austin real estate developer and political donor Nate Paul, who employed a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.

Paxton has denied allegations that he accepted bribes or misused his office to help Paul.

“It should shock all Texans that their chief law enforcement officer, Ken Paxton, admitted to violating the law, but that is exactly what happened in this case,” Tom Nesbitt, an attorney representing Brickman, and TJ Turner, an attorney representing Maxwell, said in a joint statement.

Keep reading

Bombshell: Declassified CIA Files Claim Hitler Escaped to South America

Recently declassified CIA files have unveiled a long-standing and little-known chapter of post-WWII history: a covert operation to track down Adolf Hitler, 10 years after he was presumed dead. Contrary to the commonly accepted account of his suicide in a Berlin bunker in April 1945, intelligence agents in the United States and South America continued investigating the possibility that the infamous dictator had faked his death and fled across the Atlantic.

The records, originally classified but made public in 2020, reveal that American operatives believed Hitler may have escaped to Argentina, where he was hiding under an assumed name. In fact, as late as 1955—over a decade after the war—CIA informants were still gathering intelligence that suggested the former Nazi leader was alive and had relocated further north into Colombia.

The initial phase of the investigation centered on La Falda, Argentina, where a spa hotel was believed to be one of Hitler’s possible hideouts. According to a War Department file dated October 1945, the owners of the hotel had been ardent supporters of the Nazi regime. They were not only sympathetic to the ideology but had financially backed Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s chief propagandist. Their close ties to Hitler reportedly extended to shared vacations in Germany.

US officials were convinced that this secluded hotel would serve as a logical refuge if Hitler were to flee Nazi Germany. The information was relayed to the FBI with the implication that this location could be crucial to locating the fugitive leader.

Keep reading

Asda launches massive trial of live facial recognition technology that can pick up on thieves in SECONDS in an attempt to combat shoplifting ‘epidemic’

In a move branded ‘disproportionate’ and ‘chilling’ by anti-surveillance groups, the retailer is introducing the scheme in five shops across the Manchester area.

The technology has been integrated into Asda’s existing CCTV network and works by scanning images and comparing the results to a known list of individuals who have previously committed criminal activity in one of its stores.

If a match is found by the automated system, in a matter of seconds head office security will conduct a check and report it to the store in question immediately.

The trial is just one of a battery of measures being taken by major stores to combat an ‘epidemic’ of retail crime – just as plummeting conviction rates have led to accusations that shoplifters are able to ‘act with impunity’.

They include Co-op, which has installed ‘fortified’ kiosks featuring toughened screen and keycode-controlled entry in hundreds of stores.

It is also trialling AI that uses CCTV to track suspicious behaviour.

Meanwhile Tesco controversially introduced weighing scales at its Gateshead to check whether customers using ‘Scan as you shop’ aren’t taking home extra goods.

Keep reading

Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction. You Should, Too

Though porn addiction is not diagnosable, and never has been, there is a large self-help industry surrounding the concept. Mostly online (though in religious areas, such as Utah, there are numerous in-person treatment sites), this industry promotes the idea that modern access to the Internet, and the porn that thrives there, has led to an epidemic of dysregulated, out-of-control porn use, and significant life problems as a result.

Over recent years, numerous studies have begun to suggest that there is more to the story than just porn. Instead, we’ve had growing hints that the conflicts and struggles over porn use have more to do with morality and religion, rather than pornography itself. I’ve covered this surge of research in numerous posts and articles.

Now, researchers have put a nail in the coffin of porn addiction. Josh Grubbs, Samuel Perry and Joshua Wilt are some of the leading researchers on America’s struggles with porn, having published numerous studies examining the impact of porn use, belief in porn addiction, and the effect of porn on marriages. And Rory Reid is a UCLA researcher who was a leading proponent gathering information about the concept of hypersexual disorder for the DSM-5. These four researchers, all of whom have history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does.

The researchers lay out their argument and theory extremely thoroughly, suggesting that Pornography Problems due to Moral Incongruence (PPMI) appear to be the driving force in many of the people who report dysregulated, uncontrollable, or problematic pornography use. Even though many people who grew up in religious, sexually conservative households have strong negative feelings about pornography, many of those same people continue to use pornography. And then they feel guilty and ashamed of their behavior, and angry at themselves and their desire to watch more.

Keep reading

Oh, That Influence Peddling: Times Finds Evidence Suggesting Hunter Acted As Foreign Agent

For years, some of us have written about the Biden family’s multimillion-dollar influence-peddling operation and the Justice Department’s refusal to charge Hunter Biden with being an unregistered foreign agent. Now, years later, the New York Times has found evidence suggesting that Hunter Biden was acting as a foreign agent as early as the Obama Administration, when his Dad was Vice President.

Last August, the New York Times ran a story about Hunter seeking help from the government for his client Burisma.  Ken Vogel just ran a follow-up story with damaging new details:

Hunter Biden sought assistance from the U.S. government for a potentially lucrative energy project in Italy while his father was vice president, according to newly released records and interviews.

The records, which the Biden administration had withheld for years, indicate that Hunter Biden wrote at least one letter to the U.S. ambassador to Italy in 2016 seeking assistance for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, where he was a board member…

The State Department did not release the actual text of the letter.

That is precisely what many of us have been writing about in asking why Hunter was not charged with being an unregistered foreign agent as was the case under cases from Paul Manafort to Bob Menendez.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) covers anyone acting as “agent of a foreign principal,” including but not limited to (1) attempting to influence federal officials or the public on domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests in favor of a foreign country; (2) collecting or disbursing money and or other things of value within the United States; or (3) representing the interests of the foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

It is sweeping. So is the definition of what a “foreign principal” encompasses, including “a foreign government, a foreign political party, any person outside the United States (except U.S. citizens who are domiciled within the United States), and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

As I previously wrote,  special counsel Robert Mueller seemed to charge by the gross under the act. He hit a line of Trump associates with such allegations from Manafort to Michael Flynn to George Papadopoulos to Rick Gates. The Justice Department used FARA to conduct searches on the homes and files of former Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani, Republican counsel Victoria Toensing and others.

However, the Justice Department and Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to tie themselves into knots to avoid tripping the wire on FARA even as it discussed Hunter’s work for foreign clients.

Keep reading