Post

More from @Ansgar_3

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 28

Investigation into the Open Society Foundations’ Role in Global Migration and United States Immigration Policy Influence

🚨It would be easier to ask what George Soros does not have his money/influence in🚨

The Open Society Foundations (OSF), established and funded by George Soros, represent a vast network of philanthropic influence that extends across borders, impacting migration patterns and immigration policies worldwide. This report examines OSF’s embedded role in facilitating migration from origin countries through humanitarian and advocacy programs, while simultaneously supporting legal and policy efforts within the United States to enable the long-term stay of immigrants. Drawing on documented grants and organizational ties, the analysis reveals a pattern of indirect support that, while ostensibly focused on human rights and equity, contributes to increased migration flows into the US and influences domestic policy to favor permissive immigration frameworks.
OSF’s global expenditures exceed $23 billion, with significant portions directed toward international NGOs that operate in both origin and destination countries. These organizations provide aid along migration routes, legal education on US asylum processes, and advocacy against local deterrents in countries like Mexico and Central America. In the US, OSF funds litigation, lobbying, and policy research that challenge deportation, expand asylum protections, and promote integration, often intersecting with federal programs for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC). This dual approach—pushing from abroad and pulling from within—creates a coordinated ecosystem that amplifies migration pressures on the US border.

Key findings include:

• OSF’s grants to international NGOs in origin countries create “pull factors” by offering support during journeys, indirectly encouraging migration toward the US.

• In the US, OSF-backed advocacy influences policy through lawsuits and lobbying, benefiting NGOs that receive billions in federal funding for UAC processing and resettlement.

• Soros’s influence is deeply embedded, with OSF serving as a hub connecting global and domestic efforts, often in partnership with USAID and other entities that recycle US taxpayer dollars into these networks.
This report recommends immediate congressional oversight, including audits of OSF’s tax-exempt status, investigations into potential violations of lobbying laws, and reforms to federal funding mechanisms for migration-related NGOs to ensure transparency and alignment with national security interests.

The Open Society Foundations, funded primarily by George Soros with over $32 billion in contributions, operate as a global philanthropic entity dedicated to promoting open societies, human rights, and democratic reforms. While OSF’s mission is framed as advancing equity and justice, its funding patterns reveal a systematic approach to influencing migration and immigration policies. This influence spans from origin countries, where grants support programs that aid migrants en route to the US, to domestic advocacy that seeks to reform US laws for easier entry and prolonged stays.
OSF’s role is not limited to direct grants but extends through a web of international NGOs that receive funding for humanitarian aid, legal support, and policy lobbying. These organizations, many with headquarters in the US or Europe but operations worldwide, form a network that indirectly facilitates migration by addressing push factors abroad (e.g., poverty, violence) and advocating for pull factors in the US (e.g., expanded asylum, reduced deportations). This report details OSF’s embedded influence, listing all relevant organizations, their international connections, and how their work ties into US policy.
The analysis highlights how OSF’s grants, often routed through fiscal sponsors or partnerships with USAID, create a cycle of influence that benefits from US taxpayer dollars while shaping immigration outcomes. Although OSF maintains that its activities are lawful and humanitarian, the pattern raises concerns about organized efforts to alter US sovereignty through philanthropy.

OSF’s Global Migration Funding in Origin Countries
OSF allocates millions annually to programs in origin countries, particularly in Latin America and Mexico, that provide aid along migration routes. This funding, while presented as humanitarian, includes legal education on US asylum processes, support for migrant caravans, and advocacy against local deterrents, creating incentives for northward movement. OSF’s grants often flow through international NGOs with operations in both origin regions and the US, forming a seamless chain that indirectly pushes migration toward American borders.

• International Rescue Committee (IRC): OSF provides grants to IRC for global refugee support, including programs in Mexico and Central America where IRC operates aid stations offering food, water, medical care, and legal advice on US asylum claims. IRC’s international connections include headquarters in New York (US) and offices in over 40 countries, including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These efforts tie into US policy by preparing migrants for border processing, with IRC advocating for US reforms from abroad.

• Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS): OSF funds HIAS for refugee advocacy in origin countries like Mexico, where HIAS provides legal education on US immigration laws and support for migrants en route. HIAS has international connections with offices in the US (New York headquarters), Europe, and Latin America, collaborating with UN agencies. This aid indirectly facilitates entry by equipping migrants with knowledge of US asylum pathways, while HIAS lobbies for US policy changes from its global network.

• Catholic Charities International: OSF grants support Catholic Charities’ humanitarian programs in Mexico and Central America, including aid for migrants traveling north, such as shelters and legal orientation on US rights. Catholic Charities has international connections through its US-based headquarters and affiliates in over 200 countries, partnering with Vatican networks. These efforts influence US policy by advocating for family reunification and reduced border restrictions, creating a pull toward the US.

• Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières - MSF): OSF funds MSF for medical aid in migration hotspots like the Darién Gap (between Colombia and Panama) and Mexico, where MSF provides care to US-bound migrants. MSF’s international connections include headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland) and operations in 70+ countries, with US offices advocating for policy changes. This support indirectly encourages migration by mitigating journey risks, while MSF lobbies US policymakers for humane border policies.

• Amnesty International: OSF grants to Amnesty for anti-racism and human rights advocacy in Latin America include reports on violence pushing migration toward the US. Amnesty has international connections with headquarters in London (UK) and sections in over 150 countries, including the US. Their work influences US policy through lobbying for asylum expansions, tying origin-country aid to US immigration reforms.

• Human Rights Watch (HRW): OSF provides funding for HRW’s monitoring of abuses in origin countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua, which include recommendations for US asylum protections. HRW’s international connections include headquarters in New York (US) and offices worldwide. This advocacy indirectly facilitates migration by highlighting conditions that qualify for US refugee status, while HRW lobbies Congress for policy changes.

Read 15 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 26

This isn’t about who reported first, it’s about collaboration.

When we combine independent research on George Soros’s networks with @ryanmauro CRC report (Sep 2025) on OSF funding $80M+ to pro-terror groups, we uncover a fuller picture of what’s being weaponized against us: dark money fueling extremism, division, cultural manipulation, and narrative control. capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Re…

Let’s collaborate for truth. @ryanmauro for insights, plus @glennbeck @bennyjohnson @nicksortor @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @TheJusticeDept @FBI @StateDept
time for investigations into these networks!

CRC report: OSF’s $83M+ grants (2016-2023) to 53 groups linked to terrorism/extremism, e.g., Category 1 ($23.275M for domestic violence like riots/sabotage), Category 2 ($50.571M for Oct 7 endorsements/PFLP ties). Emphasizes opacity (censored grants) and calls for IRS revocations/sanctions.

Below I’m gonna show what I have found via my research over the past 2 years combining close to 2 almost million and possibly more!

Taxpayer subsidies enabling OSF’s agenda. OSF’s tax-exempt status means $11-13B in foregone revenue (37% rate on $32B+ contributions), indirectly funding extremism. Broader connection: This subsidizes not just CRC’s terror grants but cultural infiltration, amplifying division through unaccountable billions.

Not in CRC’s: OSF’s youth indoctrination via $258M to LGBTQ+ causes (2020), $36M trans-specific (2023), $50M youth pledge (2023)—infiltrating subcultures like furry/anime to “normalize confusion.” Connects to CRC’s Astraea ($5.182M, Oct 7 endorsement) by showing how “human rights” grants radicalize youth into extremism pipelines.

Deeper link: OSF to Astraea ($5.5M awarded 2024) for trans/queer activism intersecting Antifa (“Trantifa”) armed collectives. CRC focuses on Astraea’s terror endorsements; adding youth targeting reveals weaponized grooming, blending cultural warfare with CRC’s violence enablement.

OSF’s $47.2M to Tides for LGBTQ+ since 1997, plus $10.1M+$7.4M (2009-2014). Tides as fiscal sponsor shields extremism (CRC notes this opacity); broader: Enables untraceable flows to radical trans convenings, connecting CRC’s sabotage training to generational radicalization.

Terrorism ties expand: CRC’s $2.3M to Al-Haq (PFLP front, sanctioned 2025), $18M to M4BL (Oct 7 glorification). Not in CRC: Pre-2016 trans grants ($2.7M 2007-2010, $3.19M 2011-2013) show long-term patterns—OSF building ideological foundations for CRC’s “resistance” rhetoric justifying violence.

Not in CRC: OSF funding ISD for “countering extremism” but shaping narratives (partnerships with ADL/McCain Institute). Broader: Weaponizes disinfo tools to censor opposition, extending CRC’s media glorification (e.g., Al-Jazeera $105K) to info warfare suppressing terror critiques.

Deeper: OSF alongside Gates/Omidyar/Hewlett in ISD ($1.33M State Dept overlap 2022)—narrative control justifies CRC’s funded blockades/sabotage as “activism,” connecting domestic unrest to global anti-Western campaigns.

Read 6 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 22

🚨ABOLISH THE IRS 🚨

Report on the Funding and Amplification of Youth Indoctrination Through Fiscal Sponsorships: Origins, IRS Interpretations, and Connections to Activism in Oregon and Antifa

This report examines the mechanisms through which fiscal sponsorships, enabled by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpretations of tax laws, have facilitated the flow of funds to organizations and initiatives promoting ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These funds, often channeled through foundations like the Tides Foundation and Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by George Soros, as well as government grants, have amplified activism that critics argue constitutes indoctrination of American youth. The report traces the origins of these communities, highlights their non-organic growth through targeted funding, and details intersections with Antifa in hubs like Portland, Oregon. Key findings include:
• The IRS’s Revenue Ruling 68-489 (1968) created fiscal sponsorship without congressional approval, allowing tax-deductible donations to support advocacy that skirts political activity restrictions.
• Major funding from OSF (over $2.7 million to trans-specific work between 2007-2010) and Tides (over $707,500 to trans groups in the same period) has scaled youth programs, protests, and education initiatives perceived as ideological indoctrination.
• Government grants from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have supported LGBTQ+ and trans youth programs, raising concerns about federal endorsement of controversial curricula in schools.
• The furry fandom, with strong LGBTQ+ and trans overlaps (furries are 7x more likely to identify as trans), originated organically in the 1970s but has been amplified through funded activism, intersecting with Antifa in progressive hubs.
• Portland, Oregon, serves as a case study, where Antifa’s history of militant anti-fascism (dating to the 1980s) blends with funded LGBTQ+ activism, leading to protests and events that influence youth.
Recommendations include congressional oversight to reform IRS rulings, audits of fiscal sponsors, and restrictions on federal funding for programs promoting gender ideology in youth settings. This report underscores that such developments have occurred without direct voter consent, potentially weaponizing social issues in the political climate.

The American people have historically voted for policies emphasizing traditional values, family structures, and educational neutrality. However, over the past several decades, a confluence of interpretive tax rulings, philanthropic funding, and government grants has enabled the amplification of ideologies related to LGBTQ+, transgender, and furry communities. These efforts, often framed as human rights advocacy, have been criticized as indoctrination of youth, introducing concepts of gender fluidity and non-traditional identities into schools, online spaces, and public discourse without broad democratic approval.
This report investigates how fiscal sponsorships—rooted in IRS Revenue Ruling 68-489—have served as a conduit for funds from entities like the Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation, supporting programs that intersect with Antifa activism. It traces the origins of these communities, their growth through funding, and their role in Oregon as a hub for radical activism. The analysis draws on historical records, funding disclosures, and recent events, including the 2025 designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization by President Trump, to illustrate how these mechanisms have contributed to a polarized political climate.

The IRS’s Role in Enabling Fiscal Sponsorships
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has played a pivotal role in shaping the nonprofit landscape through administrative rulings that interpret existing tax laws, often without direct congressional input or presidential approval. Fiscal sponsorship, a practice allowing emerging projects to operate under the tax-exempt umbrella of established 501(c)(3) organizations, exemplifies this authority. This mechanism has enabled the flow of tax-deductible donations to causes that, while ostensibly charitable, have been used to amplify ideological activism, including programs targeting youth with gender-related education and advocacy.
Origins of Fiscal Sponsorship: Revenue Ruling 68-489
In 1968, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 68-489, which permitted 501(c)(3) organizations to distribute funds to non-exempt entities without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, provided the sponsor retains “discretion and control” over the funds to ensure they are used for charitable purposes. This ruling effectively legalized fiscal sponsorship, allowing projects—many of which lack their own tax-exempt status due to their nascent or advocacy-oriented nature—to receive tax-deductible contributions through a sponsor. The ruling was an interpretation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires organizations to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, but it expanded flexibility for fund distribution.
Prior to this ruling, nonprofits were more restricted in supporting non-exempt activities. Revenue Ruling 68-489 changed this by ratifying arrangements where sponsors could act as intermediaries, provided they maintain oversight. This was not a product of congressional legislation or executive action; it stemmed from the IRS’s advisory committee recommendations in the 1960s, reflecting administrative discretion rather than voter-approved policy.
Mechanics and Impact on Nonprofits
Fiscal sponsorship operates in several models, such as Model A (comprehensive sponsorship, where the project is fully integrated into the sponsor) and Model C (pre-approved grant relationship, where funds are disbursed with less oversight). Sponsors like the Tides Center charge fees (typically 7-15% of funds) for administrative services, enabling projects to focus on mission without IRS compliance burdens.
The impact has been profound: Fiscal sponsorship has grown the sector, supporting over 10,000 projects annually and facilitating billions in donations. However, it raises transparency issues, as sponsors can aggregate anonymous donations, potentially shielding donors from scrutiny. In the context of youth indoctrination, this has allowed funds to flow to programs promoting gender ideology (e.g., trans-affirming education), often without public accountability. For instance, sponsors retain control but permit advocacy that borders on political activity, such as lobbying for school curricula changes.
Lack of Democratic Oversight
The ruling’s administrative nature means it bypassed Congress and the President, leading to concerns about unchecked influence. While Congress has reformed tax laws (e.g., the 1969 Tax Reform Act added excise taxes on foundations), fiscal sponsorship remains IRS-regulated, allowing significant funds to support divisive causes without voter input. This has enabled the amplification of activism in areas like LGBTQ+ youth programs, contributing to today’s polarized climate.

Read 14 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 16

In honor of @charliekirk11
Come for me, we are all Charlie Kirk
@POTUS @JDVance @bennyjohnson @nicksortor @RobertKennedyJr @JackPosobiec @AGPamBondi @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @EagleEdMartin
The American taxpayer you, me, hardworking families across this great nation, are footing the bill for a radical agenda that’s poisoning our kids’ minds and bodies, all in the name of this twisted “LGBTQ+ (Furry & Anime Fandoms as Standalone Communities fall under LGBTQ+ and arts more on this later) transgender lifestyle.” And it’s happening right under our noses, through a sneaky backdoor called indirect tax subsidies. We’re talking billions of dollars in foregone revenue your tax dollars essentially being siphoned off to prop up these woke foundations and fiscal sponsors that push gender confusion on innocent children.
First off, let’s call it what it is: indoctrination, not education. These elites in foundations like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Ford Foundation are dumping millions into fiscal sponsors—groups like Tides Foundation, Borealis Philanthropy, and Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice—that then funnel cash to activist networks. We’re talking $258 million poured into LGBTQ+ causes in 2020 alone, with $36 million specifically for transgender stuff in 2023. And guess what? A huge chunk of that is indirectly subsidized by you, the taxpayer, because when billionaires like Soros donate billions to OSF—$32 billion total!—they get massive tax breaks. At a 37% federal rate, that’s easily $11-13 billion in taxes the government doesn’t collect over the years. Ford’s $16 billion endowment? Same deal—hundreds of millions in foregone revenue every year. That’s money that could go to roads, schools, or border security, but instead, it’s enabling this grooming machine.

Watch this 👇👇👇

Report on Fiscal Sponsorship Mechanisms and Philanthropic Funding for LGBTQ+ and Transgender Social Justice Initiatives

This report examines the structure and application of fiscal sponsorship as a mechanism for channeling philanthropic funds, with a focus on its role in supporting LGBTQ+ and transgender social justice initiatives. Drawing from investigative threads on funding transparency, it incorporates detailed analyses of organizations, foundations, fiscal sponsors, and grant amounts from 2020-2025. Fiscal sponsorship enables efficient, often anonymous funding flows, but raises questions about accountability in activist networks. Key findings include significant grants from major foundations like the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and Ford Foundation to fiscal sponsors such as Tides Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, and Borealis Philanthropy, totaling millions for LGBTQ+ and transgender causes. Overall U.S. foundation funding for LGBTQ+ issues reached $258.1 million in 2020, with transgender-specific funding at $36.4 million in 2023, amid a 19% decline from 2022 to 2023. Recommendations include enhanced IRS oversight of fiscal sponsor reporting to ensure transparency.

Breakdown of Fiscal Sponsorship, NGOs, and Foundations

Fiscal sponsorship, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and foundations represent distinct yet interconnected elements in the nonprofit ecosystem, particularly in facilitating social justice funding. Understanding their differences is essential for evaluating funding flows and potential opacity.

Fiscal Sponsorship

Fiscal sponsorship is a legal arrangement in which an established 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (the sponsor) extends its tax-exempt status to a non-exempt project or group, allowing it to receive tax-deductible donations and grants without independent IRS registration. This model, governed by IRS guidelines, enables quick startup for initiatives while the sponsor handles financial reporting, compliance, and administration, typically charging 5-10% fees. Sponsors oversee funds to ensure alignment with charitable missions but maintain arms-length operational control to limit liability. Anonymity is facilitated through donor-advised funds (DAFs) and pass-through grants, where donors can remain undisclosed on public Form 990 filings. Cryptocurrencies can also be accepted as “property” donations, adding pseudonymity. As of 2025, the Fiscal Sponsor Directory lists 399 sponsors managing over 20,000 projects, with growth since 2000 in social justice sectors. Examples include Tides Center (140+ projects) and Fractured Atlas (4,000+ arts projects). This framework supports grassroots activism but can obscure funding trails, as sponsors are not automatically liable for project actions unless complicit.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
NGOs are broader entities operating independently of government, often as 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofits focused on advocacy, service delivery, or humanitarian efforts. Unlike fiscal sponsorships, NGOs must register with the IRS and file independent Form 990s, providing greater transparency but requiring more administrative resources. In social justice, NGOs like Equality Utah or Transgender Law Center directly implement programs, whereas fiscal sponsors act as intermediaries. NGOs can receive grants from foundations and may themselves serve as fiscal sponsors (e.g., Tides Foundation).

Foundations
Foundations are grantmaking entities, typically private (e.g., Ford Foundation) or donor-advised, that distribute funds to NGOs or fiscal sponsors for charitable purposes. They do not provide fiscal sponsorship themselves but often fund sponsors to amplify impact. Foundations like OSF and Ford emphasize social justice, with OSF awarding billions globally for human rights and Ford committing $2 billion to inequality initiatives. They enable indirect funding, such as OSF’s $10.1 million to Tides Foundation (2009-2014, with ongoing support) or Ford’s $7.2 million to Tides (2023-2026). This layering can anonymize donors while supporting activist networks.

Read 19 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 13

🚨The CIA Intelligence community has allowed Antifa to operate prove me wrong?🚨

@FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino @DNIGabbard @AGPamBondi @realDonaldTrump @bennyjohnson @JackPosobiec @RealAmVoice

Were are the Parlor servers?
I won’t stop we deserve the truth, Chaleie Kirk’s family deserves the truth!
@TPUSA

As conservatives, we’ve long warned about the dangers of radical left-wing groups like Antifa infiltrating our society. Declassified CIA documents from the 1950s reveal how Antifa was being trained in Austria by the Communist Party (KPÖ) as sleeper cells, with secret schools like the Alfred Klahr Seminar indoctrinating young functionaries in politics and public service. These were reserves held back until communists could seize power. Sound familiar?

Central Antifa School in Ogre — report about an Antifa training school (Camp No. 2040, Ogre); includes course info and note that the school was deactivated after a course ending 18 Dec 1949.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Antifa School in Ogre, Latvia — CREST entry / FOIA record referencing the Antifa school at Ogre.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

German Antifa School in Russia — report about a German Antifa training facility in the Soviet Union; describes curriculum and pledges required of graduates.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Trained Antifa Personnel — list/notes about Antifa courses and some named participants or cadres.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Organizations, blocs and action groups

Action Groups in Germany overview of anti-fascist groups forming in Germany after occupation; covers left-wing nuclei and organizational activity.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Association of Democratic Antifascists (Verband demokratischer Antifaschisten) — CIA file on a postwar Antifa association and related consolidation.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

League of Anti-Fascist Freedom Fighters (Verband Antifaschistischer Freiheitskampfer) — CREST/FOIA document on this organization and its character/controls.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Committee of Anti-Fascist Resistance Fighters — East German committee activity and reconstruction efforts (1950s).

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Political blocs / meetings / propaganda

Meeting of the “Antifa” Bloc — report on a meeting of the so-called “Antifa” bloc (postwar political bloc activity).

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

“Einheitsfront” of Anti-Fascist Democratic Bloc Parties — CREST record on the anti-fascist “popular front” style arrangements in the Soviet zone of Germany.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

German Press in Bucharest / related press notes — mention of German Anti-Fascist Committee activity in Romanian/Bucharest contexts.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Soviet / Communist indoctrination and programs

Russian Communist Indoctrination Program / Political School for Anti-Fascist Doctrine — report describing Soviet political schools used to instruct anti-fascist personnel (for POWs, refugees, German cadres).

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Other / contextual items
•Director of Central Intelligence — references to anti-fascist demonstrations etc. — various CREST summaries touching on anti-fascist actions and historical persons/events.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

Historical biography & CIA stories referencing anti-fascist resistance (example: Maria Gulovich) — CIA Story pages that include anti-fascist resistance examples (useful context).

cia.gov/stories/story/…

I could keep going, but I think you get the point by now! Let’s continue…

Fast forward to America today—this is exactly what we’ve seen under the radical left’s playbook. Antifa and their allies have indoctrinated our kids through schools and universities, inserting sympathetic politicians at every level: mayors like Ted Wheeler in Portland, governors like Jay Inslee in Washington, and even attorneys general who refuse to prosecute left-wing violence. DHS records from 2020 show internal debates on labeling Antifa-inspired actors as “Violent Antifa Anarchists Inspired” (VAAI), admitting they’re organized, using social media to incite violence, and attacking federal facilities night after night. Yet, these cities protected them.

cia.gov/readingroom/ho…

congress.gov/event/118th-co…

🚨This is important🚨

Are Antifa Members Domestic Terrorists?
According to news reports, since 2016 counterterrorism experts at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been warning about the threat of violence from antifa supporters. At a DHS press conference on June 2, 2020, Acting Secretary Chad Wolf stated that DHS is “looking at designating [antifa] an organized criminal activity.” At a DOJ press conference on June 4, 2020, Director Wray confirmed active FBI domestic terrorism investigations involving antifa supporters and other extremists.
The FBI and other federal law enforcement must rely on their working definitions and available tools to appropriately investigate these incidents.
FBI Terrorism Investigations. The FBI is the lead agency for federal terrorism investigations (28 C.F.R. 0.85(l)). Its top priority is protecting the United States from terrorist attack. The FBI uses the term “domestic terrorism” for investigative purposes as defined in 18 U.S.C. §2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities that
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
While an individual may still have committed criminal acts that are widely considered domestic terrorism, the individual cannot be charged with committing an act of domestic terrorism under current federal law. For example, Timothy McVeigh, widely considered a domestic terrorist in the United States, was convicted of murder, conspiracy, and using a weapon of mass destruction in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially designate domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist “threats.” These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and beliefs about abortion.

Read the full report here:

congress.gov/crs-product/IF…

The DOJ in 2020 called out New York City, Portland, and Seattle as “jurisdictions permitting anarchy,” where leaders defunded police, rejected federal help, and let Antifa-run zones like CHOP/CHAZ thrive with skyrocketing crime—525% increase in person-related crimes in Seattle alone. While conservatives were smeared as “domestic extremists,” left-wing rioters got a pass, with billions in damage during the 2020 BLM/Antifa protests. The government knew—DHS flagged Antifa’s violent opportunists in SITREPs—but did nothing to stop it. Complacency at its finest.

cia.gov/readingroom/do…

This bill was introduced in the House on January 9, 2025 by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. congress.gov/bill/119th-con…

It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day.

“Whereas members of Antifa are relentlessly dedicated to using acts of domestic terrorism in order to suppress opposing political ideologies:”

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That—
(1) this conduct of Antifa members, or any unlawful conduct performed at an Antifa-affiliated demonstration, is deemed to be domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code);
(2) the House of Representatives designates Antifa, and any other affiliated group or subsidiary of Antifa, to be a domestic terrorist organization; and
(3) the House of Representatives calls on the Department of Justice—
(A) to prosecute these crimes of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) by Antifa; and
(B) to use all available tools and resources to combat the spread of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) committed by Antifa.

@SpeakerJohnson WTF ??
What has not happened (so far)

No record of votes on the resolution in the full House.

No record of it being approved in committee (Judiciary) or being reported out of committee.

No hearings listed (at least not publicly in the standard legislative history entries) tied to H.Res. 26.

Status remains “Introduced” and “Pending: House Judiciary Committee.”

Why is this important and why do I want to know what happened to the Parlor servers? @FBIDirectorKash @FBIDDBongino

Read 9 tweets

JeremiahBullfrog3

@Ansgar_3

Sep 10

Every parent’s worst nightmare: A child goes missing. Or worse, gets caught in a broken system that’s meant to protect them but often fails.

As a mom/dad/guardian, I’ve felt that fear. But what if we could shine a LIGHT on the darkness?

Enter @P_MilkCarton – the game-changer for child protection.

Project Milk Carton isn’t just a website; it’s a lifeline.

The Guardian Decision Intelligence System pulls together REAL data from trusted sources like FBI, ACF, and more. State & national CPS stats? Check. Missing children alerts? Check. Foster care funding breakdowns? Absolutely. It’s transparency in action! 🌟 projectmilkcarton.org

Imagine clicking on YOUR state, zooming into YOUR county, and uncovering the TRUTH:
How many kids are in foster care? What crimes affect child safety?
Decision chains that reveal systemic flaws.
This empowers US – parents, advocates, educators – with FACTS to demand change. No more guessing; knowledge is power! 💪 #ChildWelfare

It educates like nothing else. Dive into crime data tied to kids’ safety. See where funding falls short, so we can fight for more.
For families torn apart by unfair CPS decisions, this is a tool to preserve what matters most: Keeping families together. Heartbreaking stories turn into actionable insights.

Check out this video for additional information on what you can expect. How to navigate to educate yourself and your communities for effective change to defend and protect our Children 🙏❤️

I’ve seen too many headlines about missing kids, exploited children, systems failing. Project Milk Carton turns grief into grit.

It’s for the voiceless – our children. By supporting, we build better protections.

VISIT and SHARE! Let’s make this viral. 🚀 projectmilkcarton.org

Together, we can reform child welfare. Educate yourself, empower your community, protect the innocent. If this thread touches you, RT, like, and tag a friend. Every share saves lives. Who’s with me? 🙌

The stats are heartbreaking—and they demand action NOW. According to FBI data and child welfare reports, over 546,000 kids were victims of abuse or neglect in 2023 alone, with neglect hitting 64% of cases. And once in foster care?
The dangers escalate. Up to 50% of foster youth report running away at least once, putting them directly in harm’s way.

acf.gov/sites/default/…

acf.gov/sites/default/…

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

JeremiahBullfrog3

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Ansgar_3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

JeremiahBullfrog3

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!