Blog

Terror-Linked CAIR Urges Officials to Arrest James O’Keefe and Cam Higby For “Using Fake Muslim Identities, Accents and Religious Stereotypes” in Undercover Voter Sting

Terror-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is now calling for a criminal investigation into James O’Keefe and Cam Higby for dressing up as Muslims and using fake Middle Eastern accents during an undercover sting.

James O’Keefe and Cam Higby went undercover in Muslim garb to expose Minnesota’s insane ‘voter vouching’ system.

O’Keefe and Higby used hilarious fake Arab accents during their undercover sting.

The election worker told James, “You’re the ID,” when he asked if he could vouch for other people.

Keep reading

AI causes higher interest rates

AI companies have borrowed so much money this year that they’re pushing up interest rates for the entire economy. Nomura estimates tech borrowing alone now equals 25% of what the US Treasury issues in bonds, five times more than last year. Bank of America says the surge has added about 0.3 percentage points to the 10-year yield.

Bond managers are selling Treasuries to buy AI corporate debt instead because it pays more. My Take AI companies are now competing with the US government for the same pool of lenders, and the lenders are picking the corporate bonds. Alphabet’s 30-year pays 6.4%. A Meta data center bond pays over 7.5%.

At those rates, a 5.2% Treasury loses the fight for capital every time. That’s one of the reasons long-term rates have stayed so stubborn even as the Fed tries to bring them down. JPMorgan expects $5.5 trillion in AI infrastructure spending through 2030, and most of it will be borrowed. That borrowing raises the cost of money for everyone, the government, your mortgage, small businesses trying to get a loan.

The AI buildout has reached the scale where it moves rates for the whole economy, and most people paying higher borrowing costs have no idea that a data center arms race is one of the reasons why. 

Keep reading

White British Students Set to Become a Minority in UK Schools Within 10 Years, MP Warns

An analysis of public data conducted by a Member of Parliament has found that White British students are set to become a minority in UK classrooms within a decade.

Neil O’Brien, the Conservative MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and Shadow Minister for Policy Renewal and Development, has noted that the impacts of decades of mass migration into Britain are set to have significant impacts on the demographic makeup of the country, and are likely to accelerate.

The lawmaker revealed his findings in an extended essay post analysing public data on jobs, births, and schools, in a bid to fill in understanding gaps that grow during the decade-long interim between national censuses and inform the debate in a country where compared to some European nations, government data on immigration and demographics can be poor.

According to O’Brien, Department of Education data shows that 2026 became the first year on record in which White British students represented fewer than 60 per cent of all pupils in UK state-funded secondary schools for the first time in history at just 59.4 per cent.

Extrapolating the trend lines, O’Brien’s model predicted that by the year 2036, White British students would become a minority in their own schools.

The MP noted that the rapid pace of change means that students who are starting their education this year will still be in school as foreigners overtake them as the majority.

This could have potentially dire consequences for such students, given that White working class students are already the most systematically disadvantaged of any group in the country.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ to Deploy RECORD 1,000 Federal Monitors to Polling Places Nationwide for Midterms

The Trump Justice Department is preparing to flood polling places across America with a record 1,000 federal monitors for the November midterm elections, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon announced this week.

Dhillon told Bloomberg the deployment will be “probably going to be a historic number for a Republican administration.”

The Civil Rights Division has long sent monitors to ensure compliance with federal voting laws, but the scale under President Trump’s second term marks a sharp escalation in the fight for clean elections.

“We just did it in the primary. We will do it to the tune of approximately 1,000 election monitors in the November election. This is something that DOJ does,” Dhillon said during a Monday interview on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power, according to Bloomberg Law.

The monitors will observe whether elections are conducted fairly, looking at language access issues, disability access barriers, and places “where there may be voter fraud issues.”

Keep reading

NSA Blocked Reports Of China Interference In US Elections From Reaching Trump: Declassified Docs

Newly declassified intelligence emails reveal that decisions were made by National Security Agency (NSA) leadership to block reports of Chinese influence in American elections from reaching President Donald Trump.

Four pages of emails, all dated March 13, 2020, were released on Aug. 18 by the White House Government Transparency Task Force.

According to one email—written by an unidentified NSA employee following a meeting about intelligence reporting foreign efforts to target the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections in the United States beginning in 2014—internal concerns were raised about the agency’s suppression of the reports.

“We did not know why we were here, trying to defend the election and identify threats to it, if we were unable to actually report what those threats were because of issues like this,” the NSA employee wrote.

According to another email, NSA analysts had proposed releasing the reports in 2018.

Task force officials are digging through files to determine why evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to influence the elections was not passed on to the president, Congress, and some intelligence leaders, including then Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, now CIA director.

Certain aspects of the reports on the Chinese election influence were censored because “it was judged that some of the details regarding the 2016 election were ‘sensational’ and so required a limited distribution [redacted],” an NSA analyst wrote, noting that colleagues tried for 16 months to get the information published.

“People higher in the chain than us—including but not limited to people at ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence]—time and again failed to make real decisions in a timely manner,” they said.

Intelligence officers were told in February 2020 that the office approved the report, and analysts prioritized its delivery, but the NSA deputy director blocked its release, according to the documents.

George Barnes served as NSA deputy director from 2017 to 2023.

“[The deputy director] explained that he was concerned that releasing the [redacted] at this time—in the current political climate, with an acting [director of national intelligence (DNI)] who had been tasked … to ‘clean house’ in the intelligence community, and with an administration that is suspicious of the [intelligence community] and aggressive in removing anyone who stand in their way—would damage NSA’s credibility,” the analyst wrote, referring to Trump appointee Richard Grenell, who became acting DNI on Feb. 20, 2020.

The analyst said the deputy director was concerned that releasing the information could be viewed as political in nature because of the two-year delay.

“I lacked the courage to point out that we, [redacted], had processed the information in a timely manner, and the delay in releasing it was due in part to decisions and inaction on the part of people in the room,” the analyst wrote.

According to the analyst, the deputy director also sought to keep the NSA’s reputation separate from the CIA, FBI, and ODNI—agencies he perceived “had been tarred as hosting or being part of the ‘deep state.’”

The analyst said the deputy director thought publishing the report would “destroy that trust.”

“He felt the questioning of NSA that would ensue would have ramifications on the credibility of NSA reporting overall and would result in morale problems among the broader NSA workforce, a la when the [redacted],” the analyst wrote.

Other elements of the gathered intelligence were excluded from reporting because it would have been impossible to conceal the identity of members of Congress, the analyst said. Such cases require special approval, as dictated by the “Gates Procedures,” established by Robert Gates, former director of Central Intelligence, in 1992.

Keep reading

Cam Higby’s TikTok Account Permanently Banned After He Posted Clips Exposing Minnesota’s Insane ‘Voter Vouching’ System

TikTok permanently banned journalist Cam Higby’s account after he posted two video clips from his undercover report inside Minnesota polling stations.

James O’Keefe and Cam Higby went undercover in Muslim garb to expose Minnesota’s insane ‘voter vouching’ system.

“Under Minnesota’s Statutes § 201.061, a registered voter can sign an affidavit affirming that they know another individual resides in the same precinct, allowing that person to register at the polls without presenting standard proof of residence. One registered voter can vouch for up to eight people,” O’Keefe said.

“We wanted to find out what this actually looks like inside a polling place and how far election workers would let us take it,” he said.

O’Keefe was dressed in a ‘thobe’ and Cam Higby wore a black burka as they entered polling stations across Minneapolis.

“I have a question about the vouching program, yeah? Vouching? I can vouch for them but they are not registered,” O’Keefe asked the poll workers.

“Yeah, that’s fine,” the poll workers said.

Keep reading

Meta Faces Unprecedented Legal Reckoning Over Youth Mental Health As Massive Multistate Trial Begins

Meta Platforms is facing a critical juncture in its battle over youth online safety. Just weeks after suffering a massive legal defeat in New Mexico, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram is now defending itself in a California federal court against a bipartisan coalition of 29 states. The states say Meta deliberately designed its platforms to addict children and harvested their data in violation of federal law.

The California Showdown

A sweeping multistate trial opens Tuesday in Oakland, California, overseen by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Attorneys for Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky – leading a bipartisan group of 29 states – will deliver opening statements. Those four states’ claims about addictive design and deceptive marketing are what this trial tests, while all 29 states are involved over data-harvesting claims. 

Interestingly – the eight-person jury hearing the case won’t actually decide it. Rogers empaneled it in a purely advisory capacity, which is rare. The jurors will answer specific questions she selects, and she is free to disregard their findings entirely when she issues her ruling after the trial concludes in October, Reuters reports.

The states argue that features like infinite scroll were purposely engineered to keep young users hooked, that Meta misled the public about the safety of its platforms for adolescents, and that the company improperly collected and monetized children’s personal data in violation of federal law.

The financial exposure is the largest of any case Meta has faced. The company has warned that maximum statutory penalties could theoretically reach $1.4 trillion, while the attorneys general have indicated they may seek around $200 billion.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that 85 percent of Americans believe social media can be addictive for children.

Beyond money, the coalition wants nationwide structural changes: age restrictions, deletion of algorithms and AI models built with children’s data, elimination of infinite scroll and notifications, strict time limits for young users, and an algorithm retuned to prioritize well-being over engagement. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri are both expected to testify, alongside former employees and outside experts.

What Happened In New Mexico

The multistate trial arrives on the heels of a devastating legal blow in New Mexico. On Aug. 6, State Judge Bryan Biedscheid ruled that Meta had created a public nuisance and ordered the company to pay $567 million into a youth mental health fund, allocating $420 million to treatment, $90 million to screening and assessment, $33 million to prevention and awareness, and $15 million to referrals and care coordination over five years. The award followed a $375 million penalty a New Mexico jury imposed in March for violations of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.

The award fell well short of New Mexico’s request. The state had sought $1 billion toward a $3.7 billion plan to expand children’s mental health services.

“The Court finds that the weight of the evidence presented demonstrates that Meta’s platforms are a cause of and substantial contributing factor to the youth mental health crisis in New Mexico.”

Biedscheid compared the platforms to a polluting factory, writing that the harms “do not stay contained” but migrate “to the real world” and burden families, schools, hospitals and law enforcement.

The order, a win for New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, also imposes five years of operational changes: monthly limits on teen use of Facebook and Instagram, restrictions on notifications, tighter controls on adult contact with minors, safeguards for AI chatbots, and enhanced review of child sexual abuse reports. Meta must file written progress reports twice a year. The template is now sitting in front of the 29-state coalition.

Meta’s Defense

Meta plans to appeal the New Mexico ruling and maintains that the attorneys general in the California trial are chasing an “outlandish payout” without proof of actual harm. “We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts,” the company said after the New Mexico decision.

The company argues it has invested heavily in creating a safe environment for teens, employing child safety experts and deploying technology to root out predators and harmful content. Company spokespeople have characterized the state lawsuits as an attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide problems, such as the complexities of age verification.

The litigation traces back to 2021, when whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before the U.S. Senate and provided internal documents indicating Meta knew its platforms could harm young users but prioritized engagement over safety.

Meta is not alone. Alongside Snap, TikTok parent ByteDance and YouTube parent Alphabet, it faces more than 3,000 federal lawsuits consolidated before Rogers and another 3,300 pending in Los Angeles state court. Eight states, including Tennessee and Arkansas, opted out of the federal case and filed in their own courts. Tennessee’s trial is already underway.

Meta has told investors that legal and regulatory blowback over youth safety “could significantly impact our business and financial results.”

Keep reading

Argentina Gives Government New Power to Bar or Expel Foreigners Over “Hate” Messages and Attacks on National Symbols

Argentina’s President Javier Milei has signed a new decree expanding the country’s immigration restrictions to cover certain speech and conduct directed against Argentines.

Decree 681/2026, issued on July 29 and published in Argentina’s Official Gazette on July 30, amends the country’s Immigration Law. It creates new grounds for denying entry to foreigners and for canceling the residency of foreigners already in Argentina.

Under the decree, authorities may act against foreigners who have directed oral or written “hate messages” or incited violence against Argentines as a people, or against an individual Argentine because of that person’s nationality. The measure also covers foreigners who participate in acts described as an “outrage” against Argentina’s national symbols.

The government argues that the measure is justified by national sovereignty, public order, social cohesion and the protection of Argentine citizens. The decree says Argentina has experienced an increase in messages of hate and acts of hostility directed specifically at the Argentine people, their culture and national identity.

The key question: What counts as “hate”?

This is where the policy deserves careful scrutiny.

The decree does not say that every criticism of Argentina or its government can be punished. In fact, it specifically states that legitimate expressions of ideological disagreement and political, academic or civic criticism protected by the Constitution are not covered by the new provision.

That distinction matters.

A foreign national who threatens violence against Argentines because they are Argentine is in a fundamentally different category from someone who criticizes President Milei, mocks Argentine politicians, condemns Argentina’s immigration policy, disagrees with its foreign policy or expresses an unpopular opinion about the country.

A threat of violence is not the same thing as a political argument.

Incitement to violence is not the same thing as criticism of a president.

And an offensive political statement is not automatically a security threat.

Sovereignty is legitimate — but so is caution

Conservatives in the United States generally recognize that a sovereign nation has the right to control who enters and remains within its territory.

The United States itself gives the federal government broad authority over the admission of foreign nationals, particularly when national security or immigration law is involved.

Argentina is therefore not unusual in asserting that foreigners can be denied entry or removed under certain circumstances.

The difficult question is where immigration enforcement intersects with expression.

The Argentine decree itself attempts to draw that line by explicitly protecting legitimate political, ideological, academic and civic criticism.

But the practical application of the law will ultimately determine how meaningful that protection is.

Who decides what qualifies as “hate”?

The most important issue may not be the government’s stated objective of preventing violence.

Keep reading

BOMBSHELL: Trump Says Census Bureau Analysis Confirms Over 24,000 Noncitizens Voted in 2020 Election as 32 Million Records Remain to be Analyzed: “I WON THE ELECTION!”

President Donald Trump dropped a massive Truth Social bombshell Tuesday, revealing that the U.S. Census Bureau has begun cross-checking 2020 voter records against citizenship data, and the early results are devastating for the stolen election narrative.

In a post that should send shockwaves through the deep state and the corporate media that spent years gaslighting Americans, Trump wrote:

“The Census Bureau has begun checking the Voter Records from 2020 against their Citizenship Records. On the first 128,000,000 Voters, the Census Bureau proves that over 24,000 Noncitizens voted illegally! The Census Bureau is going to analyze the next 32,000,000 Voters, and this number will explode. I WON THE ELECTION! We must pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

According to official U.S. Census Bureau graphics, the preliminary analysis of the 2020 general election shows:

  • 160 million ballots cast
  • 128 million voter records linked to U.S. citizens
  • 24,000+ voter records linked to noncitizens
  • 32 million records that remain to be analyzed

That’s 24,000+ confirmed noncitizen voters on just the first 128 million records. The remaining 32 million have not even been fully processed yet. As Trump correctly noted, that number is only going to explode.

The Census Bureau’s own materials make clear these are not “clerical errors” or “mistaken registrations.” Noncitizen status was determined by the complete absence of any proof of citizenship combined with affirmative federal records proving the individual was a noncitizen:

NO U.S. birth record. NO record of becoming a citizen. NO U.S. passport. NO government citizenship record. NO other proof of citizenship. AND

  • A green-card noncitizen record
  • A visa issued to a noncitizen
  • A foreign-student noncitizen record
  • An enforcement noncitizen record
  • A DACA noncitizen approval
  • A noncitizen code held by an agency
  • A taxpayer ID issued to a noncitizen

In other words: zero evidence of citizenship + multiple federal records confirming noncitizen status = illegal voters who cast ballots in the 2020 election.

Keep reading

BOMBSHELL: Abdul El-Sayed’s Mother Worked for Terror-Linked Group That Funded Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Hamas

The mother of Democrat Michigan candidate for U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed, worked for a terrorism linked group that funded Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Hamas, according to a new bombshell report.

Just yesterday, the Gateway Pundit reported that El-Sayed’s half sister is a radical leftist professor at the University of Chicago who allegedly assaulted a police officer at an anti-ICE protest and now this. What’s next?

This family clearly has some serious issues.

From the Midwesterner:

Docs: Abdul El-Sayed’s mother worked for designated terror group IARA that ‘provided direct financial support’ to Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas

Jacqueline El-Sayed married El-Sayed’s father, Mohamed El-Sayed, not long after he immigrated to the U.S. in the early 1980s with Fatten Fathy Elkomy, the U.S. Senate candidate’s birth mother.

“They ended up getting divorced,” El-Sayed said of his birth parents during a 2017 speech before the Islamic Foundation. “And my mother, she remarried a gentleman who was working as a translator in the Middle East and moved back to the Middle East.”

From 1999 through at least 2004, Elkomy worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency, which operated over 40 offices throughout the world ostensibly focused on health care, orphans, and disadvantaged people in areas of conflict.

In October 2004, the U.S. Department of Treasury designated the worldwide network, along with five senior officials, as an organization supporting terrorism, including support for Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

Keep reading