Post

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Aug 22

🧵🧵An extensive thread about the subversive hold Qatar has on K-12 education in America and what we can do under this administration to change that.

Mind you the available data isn’t up to date. That means the actual effects as of today are much worse.

I don’t want ANY foreign governments to spend 30 million dollars in the American public school system. This is not even addressing what’s happening in colleges, this is K-12. Much less a theocracy that is opposed to the west, supports terrorism and is guilty of human rights violations.

This should concern every single person. It is not a partisan issue.

We need to change the reporting requirements so that foreign countries cannot subvert our children’s future with anti-American and anti-western propoganda.

From 2009–2017 the Qatar Foundation’s U.S. arm, Qatar Foundation International (QFI), disbursed at least $30.6 million to American public schools and supporting initiatives, largely to stand up or expand Arabic language and “culture” programs.

These grants commonly fund teacher salaries/benefits, curricular materials, assessments, professional development, travel, and local cultural programming, and they require ongoing monitoring and data reporting to QFI.

A representative primary source…the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) grant contract documents the operational model in detail, including classroom observation rights for QFI staff, use of specific progress‑monitoring tools, and a mandate to stage 6–8 cultural activities per term.

While QFI markets itself as an independent education philanthropy, Qatar’s government has simultaneously pursued an overt soft‑power strategy (media, sports diplomacy, cultural diplomacy) and hosted the political office of Hamas in Doha during key periods facts that color the perceived intent behind K‑12 engagement.

1. The K‑12 model maximizes curricular adjacency and teacher dependency on QFI resources and networks;

2. QFI‑connected content channels have included material with explicit loyalty messaging to Qatar and lessons that legitimize terrorism;

3. The overall environment correlates with spikes in K‑12 antisemitic and anti-American sentiments even where direct causation cannot be proven.

QFI is a Washington, DC‑based entity created to support Arabic teaching and “Arab world” cultural programming across North America and Europe.

Its own materials emphasize grants to teachers, schools, districts, and teacher networks (Arabic Teacher Councils), plus professional development and exchanges. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2017 that Qatar Foundation QFI’s parent channeled $30.6 million to U.S. K‑12 schools and related initiatives from 2009 to 2017.

Below is an example of the types of awards that are granted to K-12 schools:

Tucson Unified (AZ): multi‑year grant totaling $465,000 (2013–2018) to stand up Arabic language/culture courses, with detailed terms and a line‑item budget (teacher salaries, materials, cultural events).

Austin ISD (TX): $100,000 grant to launch Arabic language and culture in 2016–17; subsequent district budget notes additional QFI support.

Washington Latin PCS (DC): about $1.04 million in cumulative QFI funding since 2009, according to the foundation’s reporting cited at the time.

New Haven (CT): $61,036 in 2025 to retain/add Arabic teachers, expand cultural activities, and build Seal of Biliteracy pathways; district confirms QFI as the funder.

Houston ISD – Arabic Immersion Magnet School: board agenda lists a “Detailed Budget for Qatar Foundation Grant” for AIMS; local coverage documented protests centered on QFI’s role.

Awards typically pay for core instructional costs (salaries, materials) plus program extras (cultural events, teacher PD, travel), and they often seed programs that districts later absorb into base budgets.

Read 9 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Jul 19

Unpopular opinion, but it’s true.

🧵🧵The Middle East Mirage: How Both Parties Got It Wrong on Qatar, Turkey, and Syria

For over two decades, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been defined by a dangerous mix of wishful thinking, strategic hypocrisy, and bipartisan neglect. The result? The United States props up authoritarian regimes that bankroll extremism, betrays its most loyal allies, and loses credibility in a region that remains as volatile as ever.

At the heart of this dysfunction lies a stubborn refusal by both Republicans and Democrats to confront two key facts: Qatar and Turkey are not reliable partners, and Syria is not a war that can be ignored into resolution.

Qatar: Our Billion-Dollar “Frenemy”

Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East—Al Udeid—and serves as a diplomatic backchannel to Hamas, the Taliban, and Iran. But it’s also the world’s most successful double-dealer. Behind the curtain of shiny PR campaigns and think-tank donations lies a regime that:

•Harbors Hamas leadership in Doha.

•Bankrolled Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, during the height of the civil war.

•Spends hundreds of millions influencing U.S. universities and think tanks, from Georgetown to Brookings, to shape American foreign policy from within.

And both parties let it happen.

The Obama and Biden administrations embraced Qatar as a “progressive” Gulf state and gave it a diplomatic free pass. The Trump administration, for all its tough talk on terrorism, allowed Qatari lobbyists to wine and dine officials and even floated arms deals with minimal oversight. Pam Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General and Trump ally, reportedly earned six figures per month lobbying for Qatar while the regime funded Hamas.

Why? Because Qatar pays handsomely. And Washington, left and right, has a price.

Turkey: NATO’s Rogue Elephant

Then there’s Turkey—a NATO member that behaves more like a regional bully than a Western ally. Under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has:

•Attacked U.S.-backed Kurdish forces fighting ISIS.
•Bought Russian missile systems in defiance of NATO protocols.
•Jailed journalists, crushed dissent, and turned into a de facto autocracy.

Yet the U.S. response has been tepid at best. Presidents from Bush to Biden have tiptoed around Erdoğan, terrified of losing access to the Incirlik Air Base or angering a refugee gatekeeper to Europe.

Even Trump who once claimed he’d bring troops home allowed Turkey to invade Kurdish regions in Syria in 2019, abandoning America’s most loyal battlefield partners. Democrats condemned the betrayal but did nothing to change course once they retook power.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s lobbying arms—from the Turkish Coalition of America to multi-million-dollar D.C. firms—continue to grease wheels on Capitol Hill.

Read 7 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Jul 17

🧵🧵How did Epstein get all of his money...maybe it was Mossad, the CIA and the tooth fairy all in one.

Or he might have just been the original Bernie Madof before he was the original Bill Cosby.

I always bring the receipts (sources and citations at the end of the thread).

In the late 1980s, Jeffrey Epstein wasn't a billionaire.
He was a "consultant" working with Steven Hoffenberg, the CEO of Towers Financial — a firm that would soon run one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

And Epstein? He allegedly designed it.

From 1987–1993, Towers Financial sold over $460 million in fraudulent promissory notes to investors.
Steven Hoffenberg later testified that Epstein was the architect of the fraud.

“He was the brains. He created the Ponzi scheme.”
— Hoffenberg (via Washington Post, 2019)

Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein’s partner at Towers Financial, directly stated that Epstein “took north of $50 million”, financing his opulent lifestyle through Towers funds.

Hoffenberg admitted giving Epstein a $2 million no-repay loan in 1988, well before the collapse.

Towers had purchased $400 million+ in fraudulent promissory notes between 1988–1993 suggesting substantial misuse of investor money.

Hoffenberg was arrested in 1993. He spent 20 years in jail for defrauding investors. He was found dead in 2022 at 77 years old.

Despire testifying that Epstein was the mastermind of the Ponzi scheme, Epstein was never charged. According to Hoffenberg, Epstein walked away with $50 million dollars.

Epstein never had a license, degree, or formal position.
He was "just a consultant" — which gave him plausible deniability.

But behind the scenes, he:
– Created offshore accounts
– Forged financial documents
– Built shell companies to move investor funds
– And took a massive cut

Hoffenberg later testified that Epstein was the “architect” of the fraud:

Helped create phony bonds and shell companies.

Designed fake financials to make the company appear profitable.
A
ided in raising capital from investors under false pretenses.

Epstein reportedly used offshore bank accounts and “complex financial structures” to hide stolen funds.

They attempted hostile takeovers of Pan Am and Emery Air Freight using investor money. They failed.

Read 15 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Jul 15

🧵🧵How much do you think people like Obama, Clinton and other leftist aligned global interests would hide for the opportunity to access $1 trillion dollars worth of foreign investment in oil, aviation, banking, shipping and telecom contracts?

Do you think they would look the other way when they realized one of the key shady power players had a team of women plus all of his staff procure and fly out underage girls that he abused in his depraved world?

Marc Rich: The Original Sanctions Profiteer

Marc Rich pioneered the art of profiting from sanctioned regimes, most infamously by buying Iranian oil during the U.S. embargo and selling it through secret routes. He built vast wealth through opaque offshore companies, setting a model for navigating around sanctions, manipulating commodities markets, and leveraging global connections.

In the 1970s and 80s, he pioneered the spot oil market, buying crude on short notice and flipping it for profit.

He continued trading with Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and during the U.S. hostage crisis, blatantly violating U.S. sanctions.

He was indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading but never stood trial living in Swiss exile until he was controversially pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001, after significant donations to Clinton-linked foundations by his ex-wife Denise Rich.

Ehud Barak: The Israeli Connector

Barak, former Prime Minister and elite special forces operative, bridged the worlds of military intelligence, finance, and global tech. His name surfaced in U.S. legal chatter around Rich, but he was never charged.

He was very close to Clinton and Obama. He even lobbied on behalf of Marc Rich for a Clinton pardon. In late 2002, Haaretz reported that Barak “failed to reply to questions posed by federal prosecutors in New York,” which triggered talk of an arrest threat—but no action followed....

Barak and Rich had overlapping circles, particularly within elite financial, intelligence, and national security communities in Israel and Europe.

As a major figure in Israeli tech and defense, Barak later became chair of Carbyne, a surveillance-tech firm funded by Jeffrey Epstein, and invested in by Peter Thiel.

Barak moved seamlessly between national security, high finance, and global elite networks, making him a perfect bridge between past clandestine operations (Rich) and the modern data-security state (Carbyne, Thiel, Epstein).

Read 13 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Jul 13

🧵🧵Why was our FBI protecting Clinton for 30 years but somehow allowed an asset of a foreign government to get blackmail material?

That makes no sense.

What does make sense is that they looked the other way this whole time because of Clinton.

Receipts below:

1. Travelgate and Whitewater

In 1993, shortly after taking office, the Clinton White House abruptly fired seven nonpartisan employees from the White House Travel Office. These staffers had served under multiple administrations and were responsible for managing press and presidential travel logistics. The Clintons replaced them with close Arkansas allies, including a cousin of Hillary Clinton. Hillary initially denied involvement, but a 2000 report by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded she had played a “significant role” in the firings and provided “factually inaccurate” statements during the investigation. Nothing happened to her.

To justify the firings, the White House referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation into alleged financial mismanagement by the Travel Office. Critics including members of Congress and press associations viewed this as a politically motivated purge. The FBI’s decision to involve itself in what was essentially a personnel dispute enabled the Clintons to frame the firings as criminally necessary, rather than politically convenient. In the only criminal prosecution, longtime Travel Office director Billy Dale was accused of embezzling $68,000. However, the jury acquitted him in under two hours after no personal enrichment could be proven. The case highlighted the use of federal law enforcement to legitimize a politically charged action—and the FBI’s role in facilitating it without pushback.

Whitewater, meanwhile, began as a real estate investment in the 1970s between the Clintons and their friends Jim and Susan McDougal. The venture failed, but when Bill Clinton became president, the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan—run by Jim McDougal—drew federal scrutiny. Dozens of Clinton associates, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, were indicted and convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction. However, despite emerging evidence and the discovery of previously missing Rose Law Firm billing records implicating Hillary Clinton, the Clintons themselves escaped prosecution.

According to FBI field agents involved in the Whitewater probe, promising leads were often ignored or sidelined by upper-level DOJ and Independent Counsel staff. Kenneth Starr, initially tasked with pursuing the Whitewater investigation, eventually redirected the focus of his probe to President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky—a scandal that led to impeachment, but not accountability for the original financial misconduct.

Pattern Established: The FBI allowed itself to be instrumentalized—first by providing cover for Travelgate, and later by failing to insist on rigorous follow-through during the Whitewater investigation. This marked the beginning of a long institutional pattern of deferral, soft enforcement, and political calculus when dealing with the Clintons.

In 1996, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, it was revealed that the White House had improperly obtained and reviewed over 900 FBI background files on former Republican officials, many of whom had served in previous administrations. This included sensitive and private information gathered through security clearances—data that, by law, should never have been accessed without specific authorization and legitimate purpose.

The files were requested by Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, a Clinton political appointee with no prior experience in handling classified records. Livingstone claimed that the request was made in error, citing an outdated Secret Service list. This explanation was quickly adopted by the Clinton White House as a “bureaucratic mistake.”

Yet the scale and nature of the breach raised alarm across Washington. The victims of the data breach included James Baker, John Sununu, Tony Snow, and even former Reagan-era cabinet officials—a who's who of Republican leadership. The fact that this treasure trove of political opposition research ended up in the Clinton White House without consequence prompted concerns of political espionage, misuse of intelligence, and a dangerous precedent of turning federal security mechanisms into partisan tools.

Despite the serious implications—unauthorized access to sensitive FBI files, potential violations of the Privacy Act, and improper handling of government records the FBI’s response was strikingly muted. The Bureau conducted an internal review but did not pursue charges against any White House officials. Instead, it allowed the administration’s narrative of “clerical error” to stand. Craig Livingstone ultimately resigned, but no one was prosecuted.

Congressional hearings led by Republicans were convened, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was asked to review the matter. Starr concluded that although the actions were “grossly inappropriate,” there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. Hillary Clinton, who many believed had recommended Livingstone for his position, denied under oath that she knew him prior to his hiring—a claim later challenged by several witnesses but never prosecuted as perjury.

Institutional Implication: The FBI’s decision not to pursue legal remedies despite a clear breach involving politically sensitive data demonstrated an early pattern of deference. Rather than challenge executive overreach, the FBI enabled the administration to control the narrative, framing an invasive political act as mere clerical mishap. In doing so, the Bureau signaled to future administrations that violations committed in the name of political preservation could be tolerated, or at least quietly buried.

Read 16 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Jul 9

🧵🧵Pam Bondi’s Epstein Dilemma: The Legal Trap Behind the Withheld Files

When former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was appointed U.S. Attorney General, she promised a new era of transparency especially regarding the long-shrouded Jeffrey Epstein files. With public pressure mounting, Bondi announced that “tens of thousands” of videos and records existed, and that her Justice Department would make them public.

But that promise has quietly unraveled.

Instead of full disclosure, the DOJ has backpedaled. A recent memo claimed no “client list” exists. Bondi has delayed further releases. And the explosive evidence she once suggested was on the verge of public exposure remains sealed, redacted, or buried.

The reason, though unspoken, is now becoming clear(at least to me): Bondi is legally bound to defend the FBI in a civil lawsuit filed by Epstein’s victims and releasing the files could fatally damage that case.

The Florida Lawsuit That Changed Everything

In September 2024, eight women (six listed as “Jane Does,” plus Laura Newman and Sandra Ward) filed a civil suit against the U.S. government. The lawsuit alleges that the FBI received credible tips as early as 1996 about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and failed to act. That failure, the plaintiffs argue, enabled two more decades of exploitation, abuse, and cover-up.

The suit was originally filed in Washington, D.C., but on June 30, 2025, a federal judge transferred it to the Southern District of Florida (the very heart of Epstein’s criminal empire and the jurisdiction where the FBI’s Miami field office oversaw the controversial 2006 non-prosecution deal).

That transfer wasn’t just procedural it was tactical. And I think that it changed everything.

Why Bondi Can’t Release the Epstein Files Now

1. She’s Legally Obligated to Defend the Government

As Attorney General, Bondi is the federal government’s top lawyer. In this case, the United States is the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Her job is to defend the FBI and argue that it did not act negligently in handling the Epstein case.

That means her DOJ is responsible for filing:
•Motions to dismiss
•Claims of sovereign immunity
•Arguments that the statute of limitations has expired

Any public release of sensitive documents (emails, surveillance logs, case memos, or footage) could undermine those defenses. If the files confirm that the FBI knew more than it admitted or failed to act on specific tips, the plaintiffs’ case is strengthened and the government’s is fatally weakened.

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Insurrection Barbie

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!