Origins of debunked Trump-Russia narrative, newly declassified docs shed light

Newly declassified documents are raising fresh questions about the origins of the discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative that overshadowed much of former President Donald Trump’s first term.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, this week released emails from 2016 that, while not formally authenticated, purport to show high-level coordination between liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and senior Democratic officials — including members of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The emails, attributed to Leonard Benardo and Jeffrey Goldstein — two top officials at Soros’ Open Society Foundations — suggest a coordinated effort to amplify concerns about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia as a means of deflecting from scandals swirling around Clinton at the time, including her use of a private email server and questions about donor influence during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Keep reading

Sitting U.S. Senator Now Implicated in Russia Hoax Cover-Up

In recent weeks, a scandal of epic proportions has come to light, confirming that the Obama administration rigged intelligence to concoct the Russia collusion narrative against Donald Trump, and the conspiracy went all the way to the top: Barack Obama himself.

This is no longer hearsay, thanks to two explosive document releases from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. They reveal a conspiracy coordinated between the highest levels of America’s intelligence community and the White House — an open assault on the presidency in retaliation for Trump winning the election.

Barack Obama personally ordered the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to rely on the notorious, unverified Steele Dossier, an opposition research hit job that even career analysts derided for its lack of credibility. The dossier’s only real value was its utility: fueling Democratic cries of collusion and giving the legacy media a weapon to batter the new administration. Inside the agencies, voices of dissent were crushed. Analysts warned the dossier was junk, but their objections were overruled. The process became not about facts but about constructing a narrative at any cost.

Amid this corruption, a senior analyst tried to do the right thing. He witnessed former CIA Director John Brennan warping intelligence and sought to raise the alarm. 

Keep reading

Cincinnati official under fire for celebrating brutal attack: ‘They begged for that beatdown!’

An Ohio city council member disturbingly claimed that the victims of the Cincinnati downtown brawl were asking to be assaulted during the ruthless mob attack.

“They asked for that beatdown,” Cincinnati Councilwoman Victoria Parks replied to video of the July 27 brawl on Facebook.

“I am grateful for the whole story,” she added.

The 67-year-old Democrat angered Cincinnati’s police union boss, who blasted Parks for the comments and called for her resignation.

“It’s unconscionable that an elected official would be celebrating violence in the very city she was voted to serve,” Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police president Ken Kober told Fox News Digital. 

Keep reading

The Graveyard of Progressive Misadventures

Sometime after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the American Left began exploring, then embracing, and finally enacting agendas that proved not only unhinged and unworkable but also fatal to the left-wing project itself.

How did the party so alienate the middle classes when it once professed it was the sole party and protector of those in-between? How did the Democratic Congress sink to a 16 percent approval rating in a current liberal Quinnipiac University poll? How could 63 percent of registered voters view the Democrats unfavorably in a recent Wall Street Journal poll?

In sum: despise the middle class, then lose elections.

At the turn of the millennium, globalization generated massive wealth by opening a 6-billion-person consumer market to the rising global powers of Silicon Valley, media, academia, law, finance, and transnational corporations. The result was a Democrat Party increasingly dominated by a new and different sort of “committed” left-wing billionaire.

The Democrat Party, by the turn of the century, had become a home for the ultra-rich, the upscale professional classes, and the subsidized poor. And its new initiatives reflected the values, ideas—and pretensions—of the globalized bicoastal elites, from reimagining a sustainable green economy to “diversity” and apologetics for America’s culpability abroad.

In the ancient days of the 1990s, Bill Clinton ensured that the Democrat party was for strong borders, legal-only immigration, and protection of union jobs from cheap imported labor. Abortion was to be safe, legal—and “rare.” Now, abortion is often praised and worshipped by the left, as if it is integral to saving a warming planet.

Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 Democrat Party platforms would have been written off as racist and xenophobic.

Once illegal immigration began spiking under Obama, and the old union lunch bucket classes were nearly rendered inert by globalization, the mainstream party began pivoting to open borders.

It assumed that impoverished illegal aliens would soon become new progressive constituents to replace vanishing American working-class voters. “Demography is Destiny” and “The New Democratic Majority” became party mantras.

By 2020, the party was controlled by open-borders radicals. Illegal immigration was seen as an adjunct to new Diversity/Equity/Inclusion obsessions. Suddenly, an entire array of racialist compound nouns appeared—white privilege, white rage, white guilt, white supremacy—without any consideration that whites, in total numbers, comprise the largest group of poor people, or that poor white people usually have zero in common with elite white progressives.

Keep reading

Pelosi: Newsom’s Right, 2026 Election ‘Is Being Rigged’

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Lead,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that she agrees with the assessment of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) that the 2026 midterm elections are being “rigged” by Republicans.

Host Jake Tapper asked, “Democratic governors…in places such as California are vowing to fight this tit for tat, do you support that? Should California respond with their own redistricted map to give Democrats more seats?”

Pelosi answered, “Yes. But before I go into that, let me just say that what you just described was the elimination of many minority seats in Texas, and that’s unfortunate, because the gerrymandering that they’re doing is also undermining the diversity that we need to have in the Congress. As far as California is concerned, we would go to a commission. We have a commission-based redistricting, instead of the gerrymandering that they’re doing in Texas. We’ve had a commission that has drawn the lines in California, we would alter that a bit in order to pick up the seats that we need. It’s not necessary if Texas doesn’t do this, but the Texas redistricting, and what the president has talked about in other parts [of] the country is indicative of the poverty of ideas that the Republicans have and they have to resort to this kind of gimmickry in order to try to hold the House. But we will hold the House and we will participate in California if Texas decides to go forward.”

Tapper then asked, “Your Governor, Gavin Newsom, said that ‘The 2026 election is being rigged’ by the Republicans. Is that how you see it?”

Pelosi responded, “Absolutely, absolutely. But it’s who they are. But, again, so much is at stake in this election. We fully intend to take back the House. We only need about three seats. I want 30, of course. And they know that. That’s why they have to go into this rigging process. But we will — again, we have the capacity to have more seats in California. We can win them in the election or we can ensure them in the change in the commission, now, with the caveat that the commission would, in the next redistricting, go back to drawing the lines.”

Keep reading

Delusional Seattle Democrats Blame Trump While Ignoring Their Role In Homelessness Crisis

In a recent op-ed, radio host Jason Rantz argues that Seattle Democrats outraged by President Donald Trump’s new homelessness executive order are ignoring their own responsibility for the crisis.

Trump’s order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” dismantles “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” strategies, which Rantz calls failed progressive experiments that worsened addiction, street crime, and homelessness. He says local leaders in cities like Seattle and Spokane are “predictably outraged” because the policy is “a direct rebuke to the failed progressive experiments that have crippled Seattle, Spokane, and other left-wing cities.”

Rantz writes that Washington Governor Bob Ferguson called the order “misguided and harmful,” while Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said it was impractical. Rantz counters that their criticisms are hypocritical, as these leaders presided over a surge in encampments, crime, and drug use.

He is particularly critical of “Harm Reduction” programs that distribute drug paraphernalia at taxpayer expense, claiming they enable addiction. “In less than five minutes, I walked away with glass pipes and other fentanyl smoking equipment, no questions asked,” he said of a recent visit to a Seattle facility.

Rantz also dismisses “Housing First” as ineffective, arguing it ignores root causes like mental illness and substance abuse. He claims the program “merely relocates the dysfunction indoors.”

Trump’s order ties federal funding to enforcement of laws against public camping, open drug use, and street crime, which Rantz says restores accountability. “When we stop normalizing drug addiction and homelessness, we offer real compassion — access to treatment, mental health services, and genuine rehabilitation programs,” he writes.

Keep reading

Democrats Accidentally Expose the Culprit for Food Inflation

The Democrats official X account posted a chart featuring US grocery inflation. The intent was to show the public that prices had reached record highs in 2025 under the Trump Administration; however, the graphic actually revealed the culprit for the rise in food prices.

Grocery prices skyrocketed in 2021, a year into the pandemic. Supply chain shortages were abundant, shipping docks were at a standstill, and countless food producers were forced to shutter their businesses to adhere to social distancing guidelines. World trade temporarily halted. We then had the Ukraine war breakout in 2022, disrupting Europe’s bread basket. Poor weather conditions resulted in low harvests, and a series of diseases spread to livestock and poultry. Every nation experienced a rise in food prices following the disastrous policies set forth in 2020, with most feeling the inflationary shocks starting in 2021.

Food-at-home groceries rose 24% from January 2020 to January 2023. Grocery prices surged 25.8% by March 2024 and did not experience a downturn until April 2024 when prices dropped a mere -0.2% on the monthly. Grocery prices rose 22% to 25% under Biden’s presidency. “Prices are higher today than they were in July 2024, all in major categories listed below,” read the caption on the since-deleted graphic posted by the Democrat’s X account. If anyone cared to look, they would have seen that prices have fallen relatively flat under Trump, whereas they were skyrocketing under Biden.

Keep reading

Coalition Of Dem AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Effort To Weed Non-Citizens Off Of SNAP Program

A coalition of 20 attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit Monday, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal information about SNAP recipients dating back five years, violates privacy laws.

SNAP is a federally-funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food benefits to tens of millions of low-income individuals and families in the United States.

The new USDA demands, released last week, require states to provide a list of individuals who have applied or are currently receiving SNAP benefits, in addition to other information such as a list of their immigration statuses in the U.S., and information including their marital statuses, their residential and mailing addresses, and education and employment history, among other things.

The USDA has threatened to withhold administrative funding from states that don’t comply.

On April 24, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins issued a guidance to all State agencies directing them “to enhance identity and immigration verification practices when determining eligibility for the program.

Under Rollins’ direction, John Walk, acting deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, sent letters to state SNAP agencies, explaining that most noncitizens do not qualify for the benefits.

By law, only United States citizens and certain lawfully present aliens may receive SNAP benefits. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) established that ‘aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs.’ SNAP is not and has never been available to illegal aliens,” Walk wrote.

Specifically, the USDA asked states “to cross-check Social Security numbers with a death master file and to use the free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provided by the Department of Homeland Security” to verify immigration status.

An estimated 1.5 million noncitizens collected a total of $4.2 billion in Food Stamp benefit payments in fiscal year 2022according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.

Keep reading

Federal Funds For Local Obedience: Immigration Clause Puts Dems In Bind

A little-noticed provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” forces blue states and cities to make a tough choice: Comply with federal immigration law or lose federal money for criminal justice aid.

President Trump’s signature piece of legislation allocated $3.3 billion to the DOJ, some of which will go toward the Byrne-JAG Grant Program, a federal initiative created in 2005 which provides support for local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts. To access the new funds, which supplement the $499 million already appropriated for the Byrne-JAG program in 2025, localities must comply with a section of federal immigration law that forbids them from restricting communication between their law enforcement entities and the Department of Homeland Security regarding an individual’s immigration status. This provides an incentive for localities to share their information with federal immigration authorities, helping the Trump administration implement its immigration enforcement agenda, but it also runs the risk of misallocating federal support.

This condition poses a dilemma for Democrats: Do they accept the demands of the Trump administration in return for money they need to run their cities and localities? Or do they maintain their longstanding opposition to deportation and turn it down?

Across the country, Democratic Party leaders are competing to be the face of opposition to the Trump administration. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has tried to position himself as one of the leaders of the opposition to President Trump. New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has called himself “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare” and has stated that “I will not be working with the [Trump] administration on harming the people that I look to represent.”

But sticking with this position means their constituents won’t benefit from the additional funding that other localities will be able to use to lower their local fiscal burden and make their communities safer.

Keep reading

Dem Senator Flounders When Confronted with His Party’s Deleted ‘Trump’s America X Post

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona struggled to defend his party’s recent messaging on inflation during an interview Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

The interview followed a controversial post by the Democratic Party’s official account on X, which mistakenly blamed President Donald Trump for grocery price increases that occurred entirely during Joe Biden’s administration.

On Thursday, the Democratic Party’s verified X account shared a graphic labeled “Trump’s America” showing sharp increases in grocery prices between 2021 and 2024 — a timeframe during which President Biden was in office.

The post quickly drew criticism online for inadvertently drawing attention to one of the most persistent issues affecting American households under the Biden-Harris administration: rising grocery costs.

Keep reading