Voter Fraud: Los Angeles County Woman Pleads Guilty To Paying People In Skid Row To Vote

A woman who worked as a longtime signature collector for ballot initiatives pleaded guilty on June 8 to paying homeless people in Los Angeles’ Skid Row and elsewhere $2 or $3 to register to vote.

Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, of Marina del Rey, also known as “Anika,” entered a plea to one count of paying another person to register to vote, a federal charge that carries a penalty of up to five years behind bars.

Sentencing was scheduled for Aug. 31.

According to her plea agreement, for nearly 20 years, Armstrong periodically worked as a “petition circulator.” In that role, she was paid by coordinators to collect voter signatures on official petitions that qualify initiatives, referendums and recalls for California state ballots. Prosecutors said Armstrong drove around the Los Angeles area to find registered voters to sign the petitions.

After gathering enough signatures, Armstrong returned the petitions to her coordinators, who then paid her a set amount for each registered voter’s signature. The amount she was paid varied depending on the specific ballot initiative. Because her coordinators only paid for signatures attributable to registered voters, Armstrong endeavored to ensure the people who signed her petitions were registered voters, court papers show.

Armstrong admitted soliciting signatures in Skid Row, a convenient place for the defendant to collect signatures because of its high concentration of people in a relatively small area who were willing to sign petitions in exchange for cash.

Armstrong regularly paid amounts between $2 and $3 to induce people to sign her petitions, officials said.

Prosecutors said some homeless people did not have an address to put on the forms, so on occasion, Armstrong provided her own former address in Los Angeles to write on the registration form. Such registration forms simultaneously registered an individual to vote in California elections and in federal elections.

This is not an allegation, this is not a theory, this is an example of admitted voter fraud,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said when Armstrong was charged. “We’re going to aggressively prosecute voter fraud.”

A video shot by conservative media figure James O’Keefe and reposted by an account called “Real America’s Voice” showed a woman handing cash to a homeless person. In a post on social media, O’Keefe said his video led to Armstrong being charged.

Essayli said on June 5 that his office has “multiple” probes underway into alleged voting fraud. While declining to provide any specifics, he pointed to the Armstrong case as an example of the sort of thing he is investigating.

“Yes, there is evidence of election fraud in California,” he said.

The comments came one day after President Donald Trump publicly accused Democrats of engaging in election fraud in California, pointing to the legally established mail-in voting process.

Essayli also said his office is working with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon in an effort to audit the state’s voter rolls.

Essayli said previously that Armstrong’s arrest coincided with arguments in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the dismissal of a lawsuit over voter registration records.

The DOJ sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber last year, demanding the state hand over the unredacted voter file, which includes registered voters’ full names, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

The DOJ claimed it had the right to access the data under powers granted by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act.

In January, a Santa Ana federal judge dismissed the case after finding that the DOJ’s request for the information violates federal privacy laws. The defense also argued that the Trump administration wants to use the data to help enforce its immigration policy.

Keep reading

How Washington is Silently Tokenizing Your Bank Account

Have You Heard of the CLARITY Act?

If you missed it, you’re one among many. Reporting on the subject has been slim. No one wants to talk about it. Certainly, we don’t. But we will. Because it’s important.

We’re referring to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or the CLARITY Act for short, which recently advanced out of the Senate Banking Committee via a 15 to 9 vote. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is getting queued up for a Senate vote.

Currently, Senate committee staff are merging the CLARITY Act framework with the companion Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act. The combined bill requires a full Senate floor vote and must survive conference reconciliation before heading to the President’s desk.

Congress has about two months of session time left before the August recess to get the bill to President Trump’s desk for signature. After August, very little gets done through the midterm elections in November. With a little luck, the Act will stall out.

One of the points of contention leading up to the Senate Banking Committee vote had to do with the stablecoin yield provisions. What you need to know, as you’re herded into stablecoins, is that you, as a stablecoin holder will receive no interest from the underlying Treasuries the stablecoins are backed by.

The interest, as stated in the GENIUS Act, goes to stablecoin issuers. You, as a holder of stablecoins, get absolutely diddly-squat. This is the new money regime that’s being put in place. If successful, you’ll have to live with it. Your kids will too.

We are currently 55 years into America’s grand experiment with pure fiat money. If you recall, this cycle that kicked off in 1971 when President Nixon slammed the Bretton Woods gold window shut.

Today, U.S. government finances are buckling under the weight of unprecedented debt. But instead of letting the system face its inevitable economic reckoning, central planners are working overtime to pull off another historic monetary switcheroo.

Genesis

Nixon’s action in 1971 wasn’t the first time the terms and conditions of the dollar were changed. Other instances include the issuance of Greenbacks during the Civil War or FDR’s gold confiscation in 1933.

Once again, the state is radically re-engineering the form and feel of the U.S. dollar. The goal is to mask an outright sovereign debt crisis by forcing the global economy onto a digitally native, stablecoin-anchored dollar.

This isn’t some far-fetched proposal for the distant future. In fact, the legal trap doors are already shutting. It began with the GENIUS Act in 2025, and now, the forthcoming CLARITY Act is arriving to finish the job.

Will it work? Your guess is as good as ours. But if you’re trying to build and preserve wealth, you cannot afford to ignore this.

The architecture of this new financial order was codified when the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act was signed into law on July 18, 2025.

For the uninitiated, stablecoins are cryptocurrencies pegged to a steady asset, usually the U.S. dollar. Their primary purpose had been for parking funds or moving liquidity across digital assets. For example, if you were speculating on the price of bitcoin and thought it was due for a price correction, you would sell bitcoin and hold stablecoins with the hope of buying back bitcoin at a lower price in the future.

The GENIUS Act changed the game by legally mandating that any Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer (PPSI) must back their tokens 100 percent, one-for-one, with high-quality, liquid assets – specifically cash and short-term U.S. Treasuries.

This framework ties the burgeoning global digital asset economy directly to Uncle Sam’s liabilities. Every single time an issuer mints a digital dollar, they are legally compelled to buy a piece of U.S. debt. As global trade, tokenized assets, and instant 24/7 settlements scale up, the structural demand for these regulated stablecoins will become massive.

If successful in its intent, this would translate to a virtually bottomless, non-taxpayer-funded credit pool for the U.S. Treasury. It would also artificially preserve the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency while keeping the government’s deficit machine running at full tilt. In other words, the mega U.S. government debt bubble could blow out orders of magnitude greater from its already lofty level.

Make no mistake, this is the birth of the new digital dollar. It is not a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) issued directly by the Federal Reserve. Instead, the government outsourced the infrastructure to private-sector issuers. Over time, legacy paper cash will be systematically relegated to a niche, ceremonial relic.

Keep reading

Crime Doesn’t Pay, But US Government Grants Do

InSight Crime, a thinktank which claims to fuse “investigative journalism with academic rigor,” accuses Nicaragua’s government of “hiring assassins” to hunt down and kill opponents abroad. This bold accusation is based on no more than “circumstantial” evidence, strongly suggesting political motivation. This fact-impoverished rush to judgment reflects a more general bias of the US-aligned corporate press, which seeks to demonize Nicaragua and its Sandinista political leadership.

The focus of the thinktank’s article is the death of Roberto Samcam, a former Nicaraguan army officer, exiled in Costa Rica. He was assassinated by gunmen in his home in a gated community in the capital, San Jose, on June 19, 2025. InSight Crime says he was killed because he was “fomenting regime change” in Nicaragua. Supposedly linked to this crime are two failed attempts to murder a Nicaraguan associate, Joao Maldonado, also exiled in Costa Rica and – like Samcam – an opponent of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

So far, almost a year after Samcam’s murder, the authorities have made four arrests in the case. All the arrested are Costa Ricans and none have been brought to trial. Keny Navarrete, a Nicaraguan criminal incarcerated in Costa Rica, is said to have coordinated the assassination. Navarette, who has no known connection to Nicaragua’s government, has been serving multiple sentences in Costa Rican prisons since 2016: supposedly he was able to orchestrate the crime from his prison cell.

Samcam’s criminal record 

InSight Crime notes in passing that both Samcam and Maldonado were “charged with crimes” in Nicaragua, but nevertheless the author, Steven Dudley, asserts that “Samcam was not a criminal.” Curiously for a prize-winning crime investigator, Dudley completely ignores the real violent crimes carried out by Samcam, Maldonado and the groups they led in the Carazo region of Nicaragua in 2018, during a coup attempt against its Sandinista government. An email to InSight Crime asking why he omitted Samcam’s backstory received no reply.

Keep reading

Woke Canadian lawmakers fly into hilarious rage after conservative asks country’s top scientist to define a woman

Liberal members of Canada‘s parliament desperately tried to silence a conservative member when he asked the country’s chief science advisor to define a woman.

At a recent meeting of the parliament’s Standing Committee on Science and Research, conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Vincent Ho asked, ‘What is the definition of a woman?’

The simple question immediately sparked outrage with other members of the committee, who jumped down Ho’s throat and seemingly attempted to prevent Chief Science Advisor Mona Nemer from replying. 

Ho asked the scientist: ‘Before you became chief science advisor, you were a molecular geneticist by training, right? So you know a thing or two about X and Y chromosomes. So, I wanted to ask you, what is the definition of a woman?’

Immediately, Liberal Party of Canada MP John-Paul Danko took issue with the question and said: ‘Point of order, chair. Point of order.’ 

A point of order is a formal request to enforce chamber rules addressed to a speaker or committee chair, and it is typically issued when MPs believe there has been a breach of procedure.

‘It is pride month, in understanding Order 18, which prohibits personal attacks, insults and offensive language,’ Danko continued, before Committee Chair Salma Zahid interrupted him and said: ‘This is getting into debate.’ 

Undeterred, Danko raised his voice and said, ‘Where this question is going is highly offensive. Highly offensive. I ask the member to withdraw his comments.’ 

Zahid, who is also a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, then repeated, ‘This is getting into debate. I will deal with it. MP Ho, I would request to be respectful of everybody.’

The conservative MP explained that he was asking the question because the Census asks people to state their gender and sex, and he wanted to understand the chief science advisor’s ‘view on this.’ 

Another Liberal Party of Canada MP, Taleeb Noormohamed, then also raised a point of order and said: ‘The witness is here in her capacity as the chief science advisor. 

‘Her opinion on any matter as an individual is actually not relevant to her mandate. And so if the question is in the scope of her mandate, I would be interested to see if Mr Ho could rephrase the question… within the context of her mandate.’ 

Zahid accepted the point of order and asked Ho to reframe his question, to which the conservative MP replied, ‘I just want to hear the answer.’

After a bit more back and forth, Nemer, the chief science advisor, was finally able to answer Ho’s question. 

Keep reading

Washington’s Business Exodus

Washington state’s business climate continues to deteriorate under the weight of record tax increases and burdensome regulations. A spring 2026 survey by the Association of Washington Business (AWB) reveals alarming trends, nearly 1 in 4 employers (24%) are now actively considering relocating their businesses out of state, up sharply from 17% in the previous quarter and nearly triple the level from winter 2025.

Another 55% of business leaders are considering moving their personal residences elsewhere, citing the state’s escalating tax burden as the top challenge. This flight is no surprise. Washington’s business tax climate has plummeted from 6th best in the nation in 2014 to near the bottom today, with the state now ranking among the worst for small business survival.

Major tax hikes enacted in 2025 are now hitting businesses hard. Starting in late 2025 and accelerating into 2026, the state increased Business & Occupation (B&O) tax rates for service businesses and introduced new surcharges. Large companies face a 0.5% surcharge on taxable income over $250 million, while advanced computing firms saw their surcharge jump dramatically. These changes, part of the largest tax increase in state history, are projected to reduce state GDP growth by up to 0.5% in 2026 (nearly $4.5 billion) and cut wages by billions more.

Office vacancy rates reflect the pain. While Seattle’s downtown vacancy remains among the nation’s highest (hovering between 28% and 35%+ in Q1 2026 reports), the broader Puget Sound region and state face similar pressures from remote work shifts and corporate relocations. Companies like Starbucks are shifting hundreds of jobs to lower-tax states such as Tennessee. Other firms have issued WARN notices and moved operations to Idaho, Utah, and beyond.

High-profile exits and stalled expansions are mounting. Entrepreneurs report that Washington’s combination of high taxes, regulatory red tape, and hostile policies makes growth nearly impossible.

Bottom line is as the high earners and companies leave the state, the revenue from increased taxes, including the new income tax, will dry up and politicians in Olympia will be left scrambling for new sources of tax revenue. The $1,000,000 threshold on the income tax will fall in the blink of an eye.

Politicians have to restore small business owners’ confidence in the regulatory environment and keep the promises they are making. Just 3 months after signing the income tax into law, lauding it as the way forward for the state, Governor Ferguson is now claiming he will veto any change to the exemption threshold in order to garner support to keep the legislation in place. History indicates that Ferguson’s claim might be a little “flexible,” and that’s the problem. There is no predictability for business owners.

Keep reading

California Was a Paradise, Then Newsom Happened

People talk about the California disaster, but I don’t think we fully appreciate the severity and the manifestations of it. And the best barometer to discover that is how many people are leaving. It’s estimated that somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 Californians left in ’25, ’26. 

Now, the problem with that is they’re not leaving a barren state. They’re not leaving a cold Alaska. They’re leaving the most beautiful state in the country that for years under a bipartisan system of Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and to some extent Arnold Schwarzenegger, it had wonderful governance. 

So, why are they leaving? Why have 11 to 12 million people, a quarter of the present population, left California?  

Well, the Reason Foundation just did a comprehensive study of all the roads in all the states and ranked them according to congestion, quality of roads, bridges, everything. California was 49th, 49th in the country. 

In terms of school scores, it’s down to about 40 to 41 in the nation, even though it’s 13th in the amount of money it spends. It’s got one-third of all the homeless people, maybe up to nearly a half in some studies.  

It’s got a third of all the welfare recipients. Twenty-two percent of the people live below the poverty line. 

Think of this. It has the highest gasoline taxes in the nation and the highest gas prices, and that’s a combination. It refuses to tap its considerable fifth-in-the-nation oil and natural gas reserves to the full extent that it could. 

It shut down the timber industry. It shut down the mining industry. 

So, we’re paying because of our green fanaticism on oil blends, and we’ve been driving out oil refineries, and we have these high taxes. 

We’re paying $7 to $8 a gallon right now for gas. We have the highest electricity rates in the continental United States. Only Hawaii has it higher. Think of that.  

We have some of the highest property crime rates in the country. San Francisco, until recently, was the highest property crime rate city per capita in the nation. 

Our sales tax is among the top 10. We have the highest income taxes. Now, we know why this is the problem.  

We know why, why this all happened. We haven’t had a Republican governor in nearly 20 years since Arnold Schwarzenegger left. We have no statewide offices that are Republican, no attorney general, no lieutenant governor, no state controller, nothing. 

We have 52 seats in the Congress. We only have seven, you know, it’s like 12% … We only have seven Republican congressmen, and yet Donald Trump almost got 30%, 40% of the vote. So, we have less than a third of what we should be proportionally represented in Congress.  

All of the state and local judges, after 20 years of governance by left-wing [officials], are left-wing themselves. 

So, the judicial, the executive, and the legislative branches are all one party, supermajorities in both legislatures. No statewide officer that’s a Republican.  

What do you do about it? Well, who is the iconic victim? Who has been at the center of this maelstrom for the last 30 years? One man, Gavin Newsom

Keep reading

Europe 2.0, Beyond Brussels: The End Of The European Union As We Know It

Europe has reached the end of an era. Not the end of its history, but the end of its false form. For decades, the European Union served as the great substitute project of a continent that no longer dared to think politically. It promised peace without power, order without a people, unity without roots, and prosperity without cost. That was its founding lie, and it was a lie from the very beginning.

Political order does not grow out of procedural routines, commission papers, or moral self-incantation. It grows out of peoples, interests, borders, loyalties, and the willingness to defend what is one’s own. Legitimate authority rests on a people and its consent, not on an apparatus and its expertise. That older idea—that government draws its life from the governed rather than from the competence of its administrators—is precisely what Brussels has spent two generations trying to administer away.

That is why today’s EU is not the high point of European history but its bureaucratic state of exhaustion. It is too centralized to be free and too artificial to be binding. It commands an immense body of rules and possesses no sustaining political soul. It has institutions, but not the kind of historically grown legitimacy that holds a community together across generations.

And so it answers every crisis with the same reflex: more centralization, more redistribution, more standardization, more discipline. What is sold as the solution is only the problem enlarged.

Europe is not failing because there is too little Brussels. Europe is failing because there is too much Brussels. It is failing because of a political class that no longer sees the continent as a historical space but as an object of administration. It is failing because of an ideology that treats every organically grown difference as a defect and therefore regards peoples, traditions, and national particularities as raw material to be processed. And it is failing because of a functional elite that has learned to disguise power as morality and to pass off its own interests as universal values.

There is a name for this kind of governance: the administrative state—the permanent, unelected layer that survives every election, answers to no voter, and grows whether the public wants it to or not. Brussels is that layer raised to the continental power and freed from even the inconvenience of a national electorate. There is no European demos to vote the managers out. That is not a flaw in the design. It is the design.

The real scandal of Europe today is not even its material mismanagement but its intellectual arrogance. The Union behaves as though it could suspend history—as though cultures could be harmonized like technical standards, as though political loyalty could be decreed the way one issues a packaging regulation. As though a continent of radically different historical experiences, economic structures, demographic trajectories, and security realities could be pressed into one standardized form without damage. Yet the damage is already visible. The EU is not unifying Europe. It is wearing it down.

Keep reading

98-Year-Old Man Beaten with Broomstick and Chair by Democratic Socialists of America Campaign Worker Over Political Pamphlet Argument in Brooklyn Lobby

A 98-year-old man was brutally attacked by a 27-year-old woman handing out campaign flyers for a Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidate in a Brooklyn apartment building lobby at roughly on Thursday afternoon.

The elderly victim was left with minor head injuries after he was punched, kicked, and struck with a broomstick and a metal chair.

Tashara Abel, 27, was stuffing reelection flyers into mailboxes for Anthony Beckford, a DSA member and New York State Committee Member running for re-election as a Democratic district leader in the June 23 primary, when the elderly man walked in, and the two began arguing over the campaign materials, police and neighbors said, according to a report from the New York Post.

Abel “repeatedly punched and kicked the older man” before striking him with the broomstick and a metal chair, cops said.

Surveillance photos of the suspect leaving the building were released by police.

The victim was treated for his head injuries at the scene and declined being transported to the hospital.

CBS News reports:

Neighbors said they know the victim.

“He’s a fairly nice guy, so everyone who walks up and down here, either with their kids or are delivering stuff, like, they know who he is,” said neighbor Pierre Verna. “He’s a good guy, been around for a long time. So hopefully he’s alright.”

“Why would someone want to do something like that to someone like that? It’s heartbreaking. It’s sad. I don’t know. I’m confused as to why. What was the reason for that?” another neighbor said.

Beckford’s campaign told CBS that they are “reviewing the incident.”

“I am currently reviewing the situation to better understand the full circumstances, and I have personally reached out to the voter involved to ensure he is doing well and has the support he needs,” the statement began.

“While volunteers may operate independently, anyone associated with my campaign is expected to conduct themselves with respect and professionalism at all times, and if it is determined that an individual connected to my campaign acted inappropriately, appropriate action will be taken,” the statement continued.

“We will continue to monitor this matter closely and remain prepared to cooperate with the appropriate authorities as needed, as our priority is maintaining a safe and respectful environment for all residents.”

Abel has been charged with three counts of assault, burglary, and criminal possession of a weapon.

Keep reading

The Praxian Genocidal Kill Chain — Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed how a group of Silicon Valley oligarchs, the self-professed “Praxians,” have seized control of the Trump administration and have aligned themselves with the “startup nation” of Israel. In my latest book, The Technocratic Dark State, I refer to the Praxians as NEONERDS, but we’ll continue to use their own moniker in this series of articles.

In Part 1, we also explored Praxian companies’ practical symbioses with Israeli SIGINT, especially Unit 8200. The evidence strongly indicates that the October 7th Hamas attack, which the Israeli Zionist Likud government cited as the justification for its genocidal destruction of Gaza, was a LIHOP false flag attack, in which an unknown number of Israelis were evidently killed—not by Hamas, but by their own military. That the attack proceeded unimpeded as it did was officially attributed primarily to SIGINT “failures.” Thus, the strong possibility exists that the Praxians participated in the extraordinary sequence of supposed SIGINT mistakes, oversights, and miscalculations that allegedly enabled Hamas to attack Southern Israel virtually unopposed.

The result of this LIHOP false flag attack was the deployment of the Praxians’ genocidal kill chains in Gaza. And now we have a larger Middle East conflagration. Not only have Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran, but the Israeli government, with Praxian kill chain assistance, is attempting to do to Lebanon what it has already done to Gaza. In Part 3, we shall see how the Praxians’ fingerprints are also observable in so-called intelligence “misjudgments” that led the US, for otherwise inexplicable reasons, to attack Iran.

Also discussed in Part 1 was how the Praxians have used their signature investment strategy—which they call “accelerationism”—to disrupt everything from markets to international relations by deploying “creative destruction” as their version of a “revolutionary tool.” Indeed, just as the Praxians’ accelerated “digital kill chain” is central to the devastation of Palestinian lives, so is it now featuring in a “new kind of war” in the Middle East.

Keep reading

Russia-China Summit Advances Multipolar Vision, Analysts Say

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping concluded a two-day summit in Beijing on May 20, 2026, signing roughly 40 cooperation documents and adopting a joint declaration on a multipolar world order, according to state media reports [1]. The declaration rejects the idea of a single ideological center and advocates for civilizational diversity, according to analysis by Ladislav Zemanek, a non-resident research fellow at the China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club [2]. Zemanek wrote that the partnership “is not a crusade against the West. It is a revolt against unipolarity — against the idea that one civilization, one ideology, and one political model should dominate the entire planet indefinitely” [2]. The summit came just days after Xi hosted U.S. President Donald Trump, a timing analysts described as deliberate [3].

Background of the Partnership

Russia and China first issued a joint declaration on multipolarity in 1997, according to historical records cited by analysts [2]. At that time, the Soviet Union had collapsed and American unipolarity seemed unchallenged, but both powers sensed the instability of a world organized around a single ideological center, Zemanek wrote [2]. The current partnership is rooted in opposition to unipolarity and perceived Western dominance of international institutions, officials said. Zemanek described the partnership as “a revolt against the idea that one civilization should dominate the planet indefinitely” [2].

Scholar Glenn Diesen notes that the relationship has evolved despite a historical power imbalance, including Russia’s appropriation of more than 1.5 million square kilometers of Chinese territory during the Qing Dynasty [4]. However, Diesen also observes that confrontation without established rules has spiraled from Ukraine to Syria, underscoring the need for major powers to consult on consequential issues [4]. The 2026 summit marked the 25th anniversary of the Russia-China Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which laid the foundation for the strategic partnership [1].

Keep reading