Tag: donald trump

President Trump Designates ANTIFA as a “Major Terrorist Organization”

It’s about time!

President Trump on Wednesday evening announced he designated Antifa a “major terrorist organization.”

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said on Truth Social.

President Trump on Monday told reporters that he is “100%” willing to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

“I think it would start with Pam [Bondi],” Trump said.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated by a leftwing terrorist, later identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University last Wednesday. The shooter was revealed by law enforcement to have engraved his ammunition casings with Antifa and transgender slogans.

Trump said he will designate Antifa and other far-left radical groups as domestic terror organizations and said he wants RICO charges brought.

“Are there other groups that you can think of?” a reporter asked President Trump.

“There are other groups, yeah, there are other groups. We have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder. And also, I’ve been speaking to the Attorney General about bringing RICO against some of the people that you’ve been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation. These aren’t protests. These are crimes what they’re doing, where they’re throwing bricks at cars of ICE and Border Patrol. They come in a beautiful new car. They’re so proud and it’s Border Patrol, ICE, you know, it’s got whatever it is, and they’re throwing rocks at it. And after 50 yards, it looks like an old, beat up vehicle. It was just brand new. It was just bought for the purposes, and they don’t have to take that anymore. Let it be known, we’ll take responsibility. They don’t have to take it anymore, and they don’t want to take it. They were told by a past administration, it became almost a culture, if somebody throws a rock at you, do nothing. If somebody spits in your face, do nothing. And I say when they spit, you hit. Do whatever you want. You do whatever the hell you want,” Trump told reporters.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Expands Targets Across Global Narco Networks 

President Trump’s “America First” strategy – also described as “Hemispheric Defense” and alignes with the century-long Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s – has expanded through increased border security, elevated pressure on allies such as Canada and Mexico, punitive measures against adversaries including China, Venezuela, Colombia, and Afghanistan, and declaring fentanyl crisis as well as both a public health crisis and national security threat, while also expanding list of nations designated as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries. 

A White House statement to begin the week announced that the Trump administration invoked Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) to designate Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries.

Trump’s new designation for the countries listed above provides the administration with additional leverage, including the ability to impose severe consequences on foreign assistance programs if those governments fail to meet counterdrug obligations.

In effect, the designation gives Trump another bold tool to bring into line countries it views as complicit in the global drug trade network with drugs that eventually end up on the streets of U.S. cities, which have fueled an overdose crisis killing more than 100,000 Americans annually.

Keep reading

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading

The Strange Case of Summary Execution of Eleven Suspects in Caribbean Waters

The U.S. government has been executing suspected terrorists without indictment, much less trial, since the dawning of the Drone Age, on November 3, 2002. On that day, the George W. Bush administration used a Predator drone to dispatch six alleged terrorist suspects in a car driving down a road in Yemen, far from any battlefield. This unprecedented act of extrajudicial execution was precipitated by the attacks on U.S. soil of September 11, 2001, which set the stage for a new, sanguinary, period of military history.

Officials such as John Brennan, Barack Obama’s CIA director, and former CEO (from 2005 to 2009) of a private military contracting firm, the Analysis Corporation, assumed the lethal authority to incinerate potentially dangerous human beings, including U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki. Officials at the helm of what became a literal killing machine adamantly insisted on the necessity of deploying deadly force wherever they ordered missile strikes. The psychological climate in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, powerfully suppressed criticism, and the new techno-killers enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on the part of both the mainstream press and most of the populace. After years of launching missiles covertly, under a pretext of State Secrets privilege, the summary execution of suspects came eventually to be openly acknowledged by President Obama and widely accepted as completely normal, a standard operating procedure, whether carried out by the Pentagon or the CIA.

Even while thus terrorizing millions of innocent people, the perpetrators of the relentless targeted killing campaigns always characterized them as antiterrorism initiatives. As the nugatory, counterproductive “Global War on Terror” dragged on, fomenting anger among locals and creating more radical jihadists than it eliminated, the so-called battlefield expanded to include countries where war was never officially waged, as it had been by President George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. The inhabitants of Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Mali, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa were also regularly terrorized by the lethal drones flying above their heads, never knowing when or where the next missile would make contact with human beings on the ground.

Each successive president insisted that the AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force) granted by Congress to George W. Bush in 2001 and 2002 sufficed to make any suspected terrorist or associate identified by U.S. government authorities fair game for summary execution. Among the “authorities” enlisted to create kill lists were privately contracted analysts with financial incentives to locate persons suspected of terrorist acts, whether past or, preposterously, potentially in the future. Despite a long list of documented incidents involving the U.S. government’s annihilation of entirely innocent persons, and often their families as well, such as the case of Zemari Ahmadi in Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 29, 2021, so-called suspects continue to be “lit up” by missile strikes, provided only that whoever happens to be the commander in chief either agrees with the lethal determination or has delegated his war-making authority to those in his employ.

Many of the missiles have been launched by remote control, from unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), a.k.a. remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs), to eliminate persons in places where no ground troops would ever have been sent in to kill the suspects, because, among other reasons, they were not acting as armed combatants at the time of their death. The targets were not provided with the opportunity to surrender (most were not armed anyway) and in fact met their demise at the hands of the drone warriors only because of the development of the technological capacity to kill by remote control. No officials in the executive branch of the federal government ever publicly debated whether rejecting the advances made in the Magna Carta, the presumption of innocence, the very concept of due process, and the post-World War II Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a good idea. Instead, We Kill Because We Can became the U.S. government’s guiding principle throughout the Global War on Terror, as it evidently continues to be today.

Keep reading

Trump reveals secret third blast against Venezuelan boats as intensifying drug war prompts talk of invasion

American forces have blasted three Venezuelan vessels out of Caribbean waters in recent weeks, President Donald Trump told reporters Tuesday, revealing the expanding scope of his military campaign against  ‘narco-terrorists.’

The commander-in-chief posted a video to his Truth Social account on Monday evening showing U.S. military action against a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean.

It was the second apparent operation against what the administration claims are narcotic traffickers bound for America.

But not even a day later, the president divulged that an additional third strike was carried out on a ship after receiving a question about rising tensions with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

‘We knocked off, actually three boats, not two, but you saw two,’ the president said on the White House‘s front lawn just before departing for the U.K. with his wife, Melania Trump.

‘And the problem is, there are very few boats out in the water. There are not a lot of boats out in the water. I can’t imagine why. Not even fishing boats. Nobody wants to go take a fish,’ the president continued.

The video Trump posted on Monday evening shows a boat out at sea before being engulfed in flames following a military strike. Three confirmed narcotics traffickers were killed in the operation, the president claims.

The Trump administration is restricting congressional oversight of recent military strikes on Venezuelan vessels by barring senior House staffers from classified briefings, according to The Intercept.

Keep reading

How The Drug War Benefits Donald Trump And The State

From the standpoint of many U.S. officials, one can easily see why they find the drug war advantageous. Like the drug lords and drug cartels, there is a huge drug-war federal bureaucracy that has grown dependent on the drug war. There are, for example, generous salaries for federal judges (plus lifetime appointments), federal prosecutors, DEA agents, court clerks and secretaries, law clerks, and others, all of which would dry up if the drug war were ended and drugs were legalized. Just like the drug lords and drug dealers, the last thing these federal bureaucrats want to do is let go of the source of their largess.

But there is another benefit to the drug war, one that President Trump is now using to expand his militarized police state across America. That’s the violence that necessarily comes with the drug war. Trump is using that violence as a way to complete the destruction of freedom in America.

Here is how the drug-war racket works.

The U.S. government enacts drug laws that make it illegal to possess, ingest, or distribute drugs that have not been approved by the U.S. government. It would be difficult to find a better example of the destruction of a free society than drug laws. With the enactment of such laws, the federal government is declaring to the citizenry: “You are the serfs and we are your masters. We, not you, will decide what you possess, ingest, and distribute. If you disobey our edicts, we will punish you with incarceration and fines.”

But that’s not the end of it. The drug war not only destroys individual liberty and sovereignty, it also produces a black market — that is, an illegal market. Notwithstanding the government’s drug laws, there are still a large number of Americans, for whatever reason, who wish to continue consuming drugs and who are willing to pay large amounts of money for them.

Thus, black-market sellers of drugs enter the illegal market to meet this demand. Angry and chagrined over this phenomenon, federal officials crack down by targeting both distributors and consumers with things like mandatory-minimum jail sentences, asset-forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, racist enforcement, killing of drug lords, burning of drug crops, and more.

But all that this crackdown accomplishes is higher black-market prices and profits arising from the sale of illegal drugs. The ever-soaring profits attract more people into the drug-supply business. Competition for consumers inevitably turns violent — extremely violent, especially given the unsavory nature of black-market distributors. There are, for example, turf wars where drug suppliers do their best to kill their competitors.

Keep reading

Burning the Flag or Torching the Constitution: Only One Destroys Freedom

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”Ray Bradbury

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than President Trump’s latest executive order calling for criminal charges for anyone who burns the American flag—a symbolic act long upheld by the Supreme Court as protected political expression.

This push is not about patriotism—it is political theater.

For an administration under fire—from the Epstein cover-up to tanking approval ratings and mounting constitutional crises—flag burning serves as symbolic outrage staged as political cover, a culture-war diversion to distract from more serious abuses of power.

Consider the timing: on the very same day Trump announced penalties for flag burning, he also signed an executive order establishing “specialized” National Guard units to patrol American cities under the guise of addressing crime.

This is the real bait-and-switch: cloak military policing in patriotic theater and hope no one notices the deeper constitutional violations taking root.

In other words, Trump’s flag fight is a decoy.

Yet in today’s climate, where mobs on the left and censors on the right compete to silence speech they dislike, even this form of protest is under fire.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag of the United States in protest is an act of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

Keep reading

So Much for the Nobel Peace Prize

The first seven months of Donald Trump’s second term as president has seen a remarkable transformation. In his inaugural address, Trump said that “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” He promised to “measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.” “That’s what I want to be,” Trump said, “a peacemaker.”

Seven months later, Trump changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. It is not just a change of name. It is a change of “attitude,” that rebrands the image the Trump administration wants to project to the world. Trump’s executive order says the name change “conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities.”

From 1789 until 1949, the department was named the Department of War. As the Department of War, the U.S. won every war, Trump said. “And then we decided to go woke, and we changed the name to Department of Defense,” Trump said.” Pete Hegseth, whose sign on his door was quickly changed to “Secretary of War,” says that the U.S. is “going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.” That is not the language of a President or an administration that wants to be remembered as “a peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars that we end” and “the wars we never get into.”

Donald Trump has made no secret of his ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He has brought it up and campaigned for it in interview after interview and speech after speech. In June, Trump took to Truth Social to boast of his role in brokering peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia… and I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East… No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran… but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me.”

But the change of names to the Department of War betrays that campaign. And it is more than just a change of name. The rebrand reflects the ever bloating role of the military in the Trump administration to push out diplomacy and law enforcement. Trump pushed aside diplomacy that was working with Iran with an unprecedented bombing of Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities. And he has pushed aside law enforcement with military action against drug cartels in Latin America.

On September 2, the U.S. claims to have identified a speed boat that was running drugs for a Venezuelan drug cartel. They did not turn to law enforcement, as has, until now, been standard operating procedure by having the National Guard interdict the boat and arrest the suspected drug smugglers. Instead, either an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone fired on it, killing all 11 of its crew. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking for an administration that wants to be a “peacemaker” that is judged by “the wars we never get into,” explained that “What will stop them is when we blow up and get rid of them.”

In order to prevent the flow of drugs into the United States, Trump and his Department of War have sent three Aegis guided-missile destroyers, several P-8 spy planes and at least one nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. Apparently insufficient to deal with the problem, the U.S. has now sent ten F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico to help carry out the operation against the drug cartels.

Keep reading

Washington Projects Its Drug Problem Onto Latin America

A big Cadillac limo with Jersey plates was parked down the block. Few locals in East Harlem even owned cars, let alone new ones. Curious, I asked the street kids what’s up. They casually explained that the mafioso come weekly to collect their drug money. Later I found a playground, which served as a veritable narcotics flea market each night. If a blanquito from the suburbs and some third graders could uncover the illicit trade, I wondered why the officials – who plastered the city with “keep New York drug free” signs – couldn’t do the same.

That was in the late 1960s, and I am still wondering why the US – the world’s largest consumer of narcotics, the biggest money launderer of illicit drug money, and the leading weaponry supplier to the cartels – hasn’t resolved these problems.

One thing is clear: the drug issue is projected onto Latin America. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly warned of “evil narco terrorists [trying] to poison our homeland.” Drug interdiction has been weaponized as an excuse to impose imperial domination, most notably against Venezuela.

Since Hugo Chávez was elected Venezuela’s president in 1998 and initiated the Bolivarian Revolution – a movement that catalyzed the Pink Tide in Latin America and galvanized a counter-hegemonic wave internationally – Washington has tried to crush it. In 2015, then-US President Barack Obama accused Venezuela of being an “extraordinary threat” to US national security when, in fact, the opposite was the case; the US threatened Venezuela.

Obama imposed unilateral coercive measures – euphemistically called “sanctions.” Each subsequent administration renewed and, to varying degrees, intensified the sanctions, which are illegal under international law, in a bipartisan effort. But the imperial objective of regime change was thwarted by the political leadership of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in concert with the country’s people and in firm alliance with their military.

Now that draconian sanctions have “failed” to achieve regime-change, President Trump dispatched an armada of warships, F-35 stealth aircraft, and thousands of troops to increase the pressure.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded: “What Washington wants is to control Venezuela’s wealth [including the world’s largest oil reserves]. That is the reason why the US deployed warships, aircraft, missiles and a nuclear submarine near Venezuelan coasts under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.”

Maduro maintains his country is free of drug production and processing, citing reports from the United Nations, the European Union, and even the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Venezuelan president could have also referenced the findings of Trump’s own security agencies absolving him from the charge of directing the Tren de Aragua drug cartel.

And, speaking of collusion with drug cartels, Maduro could have commented on the DEA itself, which was expelled from Venezuela in 2005 for espionage. Regardless, the DEA has continued to secretly build drug trafficking cases against Venezuela’s leaders in knowing violation of international law, according to an Associated Press report.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez highlights that the DEA “has known connections with the drug trafficking world.” For example, an investigation by the US Department of Justice, revealed that at least ten DEA agents in Colombia participated in repeated “sex parties” with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels. In 2022 the DEA quietly removed its Mexico chief for maintaining improper contacts with cartels. This underscores a troubling pattern: DEA presence tends to coincide with major drug activity, but does not eliminate it.

The US “is not interested in addressing the serious public health problem its citizens face due to high drug use,” Maduro reminds us. He points out that drug trafficking profits remain in the US banking system. In fact, illicit narcotics are a major US industry. Research by the US Army-funded RAND Corporation reveals that narcotics rank alongside pharmaceuticals and oil/gas as top US commodities.

Keep reading

X Account That Predicted Charlie Kirk’s Assassination a Week in Advance Also Posted a Future Date for Trump Before Deleting Account

A now-deleted X account appears to have had prior knowledge of the brutal assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and subsequently posted a threatening date for President Donald Trump.

Trump was shot during an outdoor speech in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024.

The account, @TallyHallAlbum, posted an eerily specific “joke” on September 3, declaring it would be “funny if someone like Charlie Kirk got shot on September 10th LMAO.”

Just days after the tragedy, the user followed up with a cryptic reply: “did i” – and then escalated the threat by posting “Donald Trump. December 14th.” before scrubbing the entire profile from existence.

The FBI, under Director Kash Patel, has ramped up its investigation into at least seven suspicious social media accounts that displayed foreknowledge of Kirk’s murder, including this one, according to a report from the Washington Free Beacon.

These posts, spanning from August to just hours before the shooting, were deleted in the aftermath, raising serious questions about a coordinated plot involving radical left-wing elements, including ties to transgender and “furry” online communities.

Tally Hall is an obscure defunct rock band that broke up over a decade ago. Robinson and his live-in boyfriend, a transgender biological male named Lance Twiggs, were both actively involved in their fandom online, which appears to be largely people who are confused about their gender.

This isn’t isolated. The Gateway Pundit’s reporting since Thursday has revealed parallel accounts like @NajraGalvz, who posted on September 9: “Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow I rlly hope someone evaporates him literally,” followed by “Lets just say something big will happen tomorrow.” Or @Fujoshincel, who teased “something BIG coming soon” on September 5 and gloated “Another Chud Bites the Dust” post-assassination. An unnamed account predicted on August 6: “September 10th will be a very interesting day,” later pleading the fifth.

According to new reports, Robinson confessed in a Discord group chat to his friends two hours before his surrender.

Robinson told the group of 30 people, “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. im sorry for all of this. im surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few moments. thanks for all the good times and laughs.”

Keep reading