Tag: race

James O’Keefe Exposes MASSIVE $100 BILLION Federal Contracting Scam

An explosive new undercover investigation by O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) released Monday on X has blown the lid off a massive federal contracting scandal, a $100 billion scheme exploiting taxpayer-funded minority-preference programs under the Biden Administration.

In a shocking undercover video posted on X, OMG revealed how ATI Government Solutions, a federal contractor supposedly “Native American-owned,” admitted to exploiting the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program to grab over $100 million in no-bid government contracts, while outsourcing up to 80% of the work to other firms.

“I tell you pass-throughs are a great thing!”
“We only do 20%… The rest goes to subs.”
“And remember, there’s no competition.”

James O’Keefe, posing as representatives from a fake cybersecurity firm called “Sev-Zero Solutions,” met Cromwell under the guise of hiring her catering side business.

Within minutes, the ATI executive bragged about how the company leverages its Native American tribal affiliation with the Susanville Indian Rancheria to obtain exclusive federal contracts, then turns around and pays subcontractors to do almost all the work.

O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) reported:

Within two minutes of sitting down with Melayne at a restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, she volunteered the entire scheme – no prompting, no hesitation. She told us she was the Director of Contracts for ATI Government Solutions. Then she dropped the real bombshell:

“Because we’re Native American-owned, we’re heavily favored for government contracts.” “There’s no bidding war.” Said Cromwell

She explained how ATI uses its tribal status to lock down multi-million dollar no-bid contracts, then passes off the majority of the work to subcontractors-firms that would never qualify on their own. Meanwhile, ATI keeps the lion’s share of the cash. Cromwell revealed to our undercover journalist;

“So, a lot of our subcontractors bid on contracts that were perfect in their industry, but because they weren’t Native American, they wouldn’t win it,” she said. “So we bid on it for them, they become our sub, and it’s an automatic win because you’re Native American status. There’s no bidding war.”

Under the 8(a) system, meant to empower disadvantaged businesses, “pass-through” contractors such as ATI serve as paper fronts, taking much of the money off the top while doing little or none of the work. Cromwell admitted the company performs only 20% of its multi-million-dollar no-bid federal contracts, subcontracting out the remaining 80% – a textbook case of a “pass-through” scheme.

“Correct. Yeah. They’re doing most of the work. But you want to really stay on, make sure they’re on time.”

“So, we do about 20% of the work.”

“You don’t want to share that,” – Cromwell added.

In short, ATI secures the contracts, gets the money, acts as a passthrough and it’s the tax payer who gets screwed over.

On paper, ATI is owned by the Susanville Indian Rancheria, a federally recognized native american tribal entity, in northern california.

Arian confirmed to us that if they were to appear as the owners of our company it would make it easier to obtain government contracts, and goes on to claim that we may need to relinquish 51% of the ownership to them.

OMG Undercover Journalist: “So really, it’s really just coming up with a number that you would want in order to appear to be the owner of our company. So we’ll discuss what percentage you would get when we come to the signing of the contract.”

Melayne confirms that ATI is abiding by this 51% tribal ownership…on paper.

“51% On paper. Correct. as long as it’s on paper. That you’re 51%, you’re good to go.” Said Cromwell.

ATI may be 51% tribally owned by the Susanville Indian Rancheria ON PAPER, But Melayne revealed to us that ATI was founded in collaboration with the Rancheria by two caucasian DC executives; Firmadge Crutchfeld and Scott Deutschman. And that they manage all of ATI’s operations.

In 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration awarded a record-breaking $183 billion in federal contracts to “small businesses,” including those under “socially disadvantaged” categories like 8(a).

But as the OMG exposé shows, many of these firms are front companies exploiting racial-preference loopholes to funnel billions to private consultants and politically connected insiders.

Keep reading

Cincinnati Police Chief Who Was Sued For Anti-White Discrimination Placed on Leave

Cincinnati Police Chief Terri Theetge was placed on paid administrative leave after she was sued for anti-white bias.

“The City continues to face serious public safety challenges that underscore the need for stability at the command level. Therefore, I’ve named Assistant Chief Adam Hennie as Interim Police Chief. Our focus remains on maintaining stability within the department and ensuring the highest standards of service to our residents. I have full confidence in Interim Chief Hennie and the department’s command staff to continue their dedicated work at this time,” said City Manager Sheryl Long, WLWT reported.

“Assistant Chief Adam Hennie has been named interim chief,” the outlet reported.

Recall that Theetge previously blamed social media after a violent mob of mostly black males beat a white couple at jazz festival over the summer.

Teresa Theetge held a press conference on the beating of the white couple.

Theetge said five people in connection to the mob beating were charged. She also blasted social media posters for their coverage of the mob beatings.

“The post that we’ve seen does not depict the entire incident. That is one version of what occurred,” Theetge said.

“I think by the irresponsibility with social media is it just shows one side of the equation quite frequently without context, without factual context, and then people run with that and then it grows legs and it becomes something bigger that we then have to try to manage as part of the investigation,” she said.

“Social media and mainstream media and their commentaries are misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding any given event,” she added.

Keep reading

Texas declares war on plan to seize one of America’s richest counties and turn it into a ‘melanated’ community

Texas is suing a man state officials claim is trying to ‘overthrow the local government’ of an oil-rich county by offering black people free houses to move there and vote how he wants. 

Carpetbagger Malcolm Tanner bought two five-acre plots of land in Loving County, on the Texas/New Mexico border, according to the state’s lawsuit.

The Indiana man, who claims to be running for president in 2028, has offered the land to up to 1,000 ‘melanated people’ for free. 

‘It’s a movement going on called the “melanated people of power,” Tanner says in one Instagram reel. 

‘It don’t matter where you are on the world. It could be Africa, Asia, as long as you melanated. That’s the only thing that matters. It’s for us. It’s for us.’

‘Do not miss out on your opportunity to be a homeowner, to have a deed.’ 

Through social media posts, Tanner explains that he will take over Loving County, which he calls ‘Tanner County.’

In the state’s lawsuit, Attorney General Ken Paxton claims he will get his melanated residents to vote as he wants, easily outvoting the 64 citizens recorded by the last US census – but with a total taxable value of over $18 billion in 2024 thanks to petroleum.

Already dozens of people have taken him up on his offer to move and collect $5,000 a month, the state claimed in a lawsuit.

‘Despite there being no homes or utilities on the land, Tanner has induced dozens of people, including many women and children, to move onto and inhabit the land without any provision for the proper disposal and treatment of sewage,’ Paxton said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

‘These individuals are forced to live in RVs or other makeshift shelters.’

Keep reading

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

Here Are 6 Key Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Landmark Race-Based Redistricting Case

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in a pair of high stakes redistricting cases that could significantly reshape American electoral politics.

Known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, the matter focuses on a dispute over the use of race in Louisiana’s congressional map. While the state’s initial map included a single black-majority district, a lawsuit and subsequent legal battle led lawmakers to redraw the map to include a second black-majority district, producing another legal battle that centered on the state’s allegedly unlawful use of race when creating the new map.

During oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the respective cases and the longstanding judicial conflict over provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2) and 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Jackson Said What About the Disabled?

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from making ill-advised statements, whether they be in interviews or opinions. So, it wasn’t surprising when the Biden appointee suggested race be considered by states in redistricting because black Americans are systemically “disabled” and don’t have legitimate access to the elections process.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said, effectively arguing that it doesn’t matter whether such discrimination is intentional or not.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

Thomas Asks a Simple (Yet Meaningful) Question

As the longest serving member of the current court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as a critical voice of reason in many matters that come before the highest bench in the land. One of the ways he does this is through simple, yet meaningful, questions to parties in oral arguments.

While questioning Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, Thomas asked “what role” the federal district court’s block on the state’s initial map “play[ed] in development of” the new map that included a second black-majority district. The state solicitor general disclosed that the court’s order is the “only reason” Louisiana drew a new map.

“Justice Thomas, [that court decision] is the only reason [this new map] exists,” Aguiñaga said. “We fought tooth and nail in the Robinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second majority-black district. As you know, under protest, we drew [the new map] because the threat was that the federal courts would do it if we didn’t.”

“We would never pass [the new map] in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas,” he added.

[READ: In Race-Based Redistricting Battle, Louisiana Urges SCOTUS To Uphold America’s ‘Color Blind’ Constitution]

DOJ Official Silences Sotomayor

Arguing on the side of Louisiana, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan got into a testy exchange with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor over the Pelican State’s creation of a second-black majority district.

In debating the racial and political motivations behind the creation of maps like Louisiana’s, Mooppan noted the racial double standard that exists where if the block of voters in question were white, there wouldn’t be a debate about whether there should be an additional district tailored to their community.

“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None,” Mooppan said. “And so what is happening here is their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”

Keep reading

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

Keep reading

Wait, an NAACP Lawyer Did Not Just Say That About the Voting Rights Act

Jeff will have more on the oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns race-based legislative districts and could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. It’s a case that if liberals lose, could see massive implications for the 2026 midterms. 

And yes, some of the arguments made by lawyers fighting to keep this provision in place are downright embarrassing. An NAACP lawyer said that race-based congressional districts are essential, since white Democrats don’t support black candidates regardless of party affiliation. You cannot make this up.  

That’s not true. In fact, one could argue that liberal white women are the reason the Democrats haven’t fallen into total irrelevancy. Second, white liberals are the most hyper-aggressive about these issues and have voted in droves for black candidates. Party affiliation be damned, frankly. These white Democrats now vote based on race alone. The only thing that stops them is seeing an “R” next to the name. There is nothing more insufferable than the white, college-educated progressive who even repels nonwhite voters, which we’ve seen since 2020.  

Keep reading

Clarence Thomas Wrecks Another Race Argument at SCOTUS

Supreme Court Clarence Thomas isn’t buying arguments that the Voting Rights Act allows for congressional districts to be drawn along racial lines (more specifically to help Democrats retain power in Washington D.C.). 

During a back and fourth with Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga Wednesday, who is opposed to race based lines, Thomas argued an all black district in the state wouldn’t exist without the state being forced to consider race in districting. 

“Would the maps that Louisiana have currently be used if they were not forced to consider race?” Thomas asked. 

“We drew it because the courts told us to!” Aguinaga explained. “They said a majority black district was required. And our legislature saw the marching order.”

Keep reading

Gorsuch Gets NAACP Lawyer To All But Admit Support For Racial Discrimination In Redistricting

UPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch got a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to all but admit support for states intentionally discriminating on the basis of race in the redistricting process.

The moment came during the Supreme Court’s Wednesday oral arguments for a pair of cases known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, which center on the Louisiana Legislature’s use of race when creating its recent congressional map.

As The Federalist previously reported, the matter first arose “following ‘a previous lawsuit … where plaintiffs argued that the prior map’ put forward by the state ‘violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes,’ according to Oyez.” A district court order and subsequent legal battle prompted the Louisiana Legislature to “draft a new map last year ‘that included a second majority-black district,’ which plaintiffs in Louisiana v. Callais contend violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by ‘prioritizing race in its creation.’”

While the Supreme Court was initially supposed to issue a verdict on the matter during its 2024-2025 term, the court announced on the last day of the session that it would be rehearing arguments in the case this fall. The justices notably issued an order over the summer instructing parties in the case to address the question of “[w]hether [Louisiana’s] intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Keep reading

KBJ Suggests Black People Can’t Vote, Compares Them To The Disabled

During oral arguments for a major case that could put an end to race-based gerrymandering on Wednesday, Democrat-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that race should be a consideration when drawing congressional districts because black people are systemically “disabled” and don’t have proper access to voting systems.

Jackson drew a comparison between the redistricting cases in question, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, and accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She implied that minorities like black people are systemically blocked from accessing voting polls (a demonstrably false claim) and compared this to disabled people not being able to access a building. She used this faulty comparison to bolster her underlying argument that past race-based discrimination should allow for a present race-based remedy.

“Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings,” Jackson said. She argued that whether such discrimination is intentional is irrelevant.

“I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. … We are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled. … We say that’s a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.”

The case considers possible 14th Amendment violations of a congressional district map in Louisiana. As The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood has reported, the origins of the case date back to 2022, “when the Louisiana Legislature drafted a congressional map with a single black-majority district.” This led to a lawsuit by a group of plaintiffs — “represented by left-wing groups like the ACLU” — who alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by “dilut[ing] black voting strength.” 

“Following an injunction barring the map’s implementation by a district court judge, continued litigation in the case ultimately resulted in the state redrawing the map to include a second black-majority district. This led to another lawsuit from a different group of plaintiffs, who claimed the state unlawfully prioritized race in the map’s creation and therefore violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause,” Fleetwood reported. “A three-judge panel on a separate district court agreed with these plaintiffs and blocked the new map’s implementation.”

The Supreme Court was initially slated to decide the case during its 2024-2025 term, but announced in June that it would rehear the case this fall.

Keep reading