Did You Know: The Southern Poverty Law Center published a dishonest attack against Charlie Kirk ONE DAY before his assassination?

The SPLC infamously put TPUSA on its "hate map."

This was not the first time its "hate map" was used by a radical to justify political violence.

In 2012, a gunman walked into the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian advocacy group.

He said “I don’t like your politics,” pulled a gun, and shot the unarmed security guard Leo Johnson in the arm. Johnson tackled and disarmed him, stopping the attack.

The attacker, Floyd Corkins, wanted to k*ll as many people as possible because the FRC opposed gay marriage and he found it via the SPLC’s "hate map." He got 25 years in prison.

So, the SPLC put out this statement one day before Charlie Kirk's assass*nation.

“Turning Point USA’s primary strategy is sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights activists,” SPLC argued.

“TPUSA and its spokespeople often warn their audience that their children, wives, religion, way of life and they themselves are under attack by various constructed enemies. TPUSA exploits complicated feelings of insecurity and anxiety to manufacture rage and mobilize support to revive and maintain a white-dominated, male supremacist, Christian social order.”

In December 2025, Rep. @ChipRoyTX held a hearing to investigate the SPLC's links to left-wing political violence.

Here is a partial transcript of his opening statement:

"Today, the Subcommittee meets to examine a troubling reality: one of the most politically motivated, financially lucrative, and ideologically extreme nonprofits in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has been permitted to wield extraordinary influence over federal civil rights policy, law enforcement training, and even private sector mechanisms that increasingly determine who can participate in civic life.

This situation marks a significant departure from the SPLC’s early reputation as a group focused on concrete litigation against civil violence and organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. Over time, the SPLC has transformed into what critics describe as a political fundraising machine built around an ever-expanding, ideologically driven 'hate' mission.

Since 2000, the SPLC has published an annual “hate map,” which places bright red markers across the United States to indicate the locations of designated hate groups. This map is widely circulated in the media and has been used by activists and even federal agencies as though it were a neutral source of intelligence.

This raises an important question: how did a tax-exempt political organization come to label a wide range of groups as extremists? These include mainstream faith-based organizations, parental rights advocates, certain Muslim groups that reject terrorism, student organizations like Turning Point USA, and others who disagree with its ideology. Critics argue that these labels are fed into federal systems, potentially contributing to real-world consequences, while the organization continues to raise funds based on the fear such designations generate.

The SPLC maintains that it is engaged in monitoring extremism, but critics argue that its work functions more like a political weapon than a neutral watchdog. SPLC leadership has acknowledged that its designations are based on ideology rather than criminal behavior or evidence of violence, meaning its 'hate group' labels reflect opinion rather than objective criteria.

Examples often cited include organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which focus on immigration policy but are labeled as hate groups by the SPLC. Critics also point to more recent incidents, including a 2025 extremism bulletin that flagged certain public figures for their policy positions rather than any unlawful activity.

Concerns about real-world consequences are often tied to the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council. The attacker reportedly used the SPLC’s hate list to identify the target. Despite this, federal agencies have continued to reference SPLC materials in various contexts, including intelligence products.

A similar pattern is alleged in later events, where individuals or organizations labeled as extremists were subsequently targeted, raising questions about whether such classifications contribute to a broader climate that could enable violence.

These concerns extend to the role of federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Education. Critics argue that reliance on SPLC materials raises serious questions about accountability, objectivity, and the potential chilling of speech. They question how a private organization, with no formal oversight, became so embedded in federal decision-making processes.

More broadly, the SPLC is described as part of a larger network of foundations, donors, media organizations, and advocacy groups that collectively shape narratives around extremism. This network is said to influence corporate policies, public discourse, and government action, often framing ideological disagreement as a civil rights or security issue.

Critics argue that this represents a shift in the purpose of civil rights enforcement—from protecting equal treatment under the law to policing political dissent.

They contend that such developments narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech and blur the line between advocacy and violence.

This is why the hearing is considered significant. Supporters believe that a thorough investigation is needed to follow funding sources, examine coordination among organizations, and understand how these networks influence federal policy. They argue that many of those affected are ordinary Americans—parents, religious leaders, students, and community members—exercising their constitutional rights.

Civil rights laws, they emphasize, were not intended to penalize individuals for holding religious beliefs or advocating policy positions such as border security. At the same time, the financial incentives tied to expanding 'extremist'
classifications are substantial.

The SPLC reportedly holds hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, with a large endowment and additional funds in investment vehicles.

Ultimately, the hearing is framed as an effort to reaffirm a core principle: that the Constitution—not private organizations, donors, or political pressures—defines the limits of American liberty. The goal, as stated, is not to restrict free speech but to ensure transparency and accountability in how influence is exercised within the federal government.

The American public, it is argued, has a right to understand these connections and their implications for civil rights, free expression, and democratic participation." Here is the testimony of an SPLC organizer:

"My name is Andrew Sypher, and I serve as the Executive Vice President of Field Operations for Turning Point USA.

In this role, I have overseen the organization’s growth across college and high school campuses, helping build what has become the largest campus chapter network in the country. My work has also included managing major events, such as Charlie Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” tables. These events centered on open dialogue with students who held opposing views and played a key role in expanding his reach on social media. Through direct, often challenging conversations, he connected with millions of young people in a way that emphasized engagement rather than division.

Over time, both Charlie and Turning Point USA have faced criticism from organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). According to critics, the SPLC characterizes their campus activities as harmful and applies labels such as “hate group” to organizations with differing political viewpoints. They argue that this approach can blur the distinction between genuine extremism and ideological disagreement, potentially misleading institutions that rely on such classifications.

Shortly before his death, Charlie expressed concern about being included on the SPLC’s “Hate Map.” He argued that placing groups like Turning Point—whose members advocate for constitutional principles, the Bill of Rights, and pro-life, pro-family positions—alongside historically violent organizations could increase the risk of targeting.

Following his death, supporters described his warnings as prescient. Charlie was killed during one of the same open-dialogue campus events he had long promoted. Those events were often intended to reduce tension and encourage constructive debate among students. Supporters say his work reflected a commitment to free speech, drawing students not only for the spectacle but to see how difficult conversations could be handled in a more human and less hostile way.

Those who continue his work describe it as an effort to preserve that approach. They reject the idea that controversial or opposing viewpoints should automatically be labeled as harmful speech. Instead, they argue that limiting dialogue can deepen divisions, while open conversation offers a path toward understanding, even among people with strong disagreements."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1971472003522830453

revolver.news/2021/06/federa…

Let's check in on where @AOC stands on the Jimmy Kimmel cancelation.

Oh. @AOC H/T @51marine1

The New York Times is not a "newspaper." It's a psyop.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1967309589499789452

"The United States of America is still reeling from the worst border invasion in its history.”

“This invasion could not have been accomplished without a colossal partnership with the NGO community."

The Biden regime led the biggest human trafficking operation in history.

This was nothing less than a state-led foreign invasion of the United States.

It was absolutely criminal. We are all still waiting for basic accountability. Video credit: @WallStreetApes

Here are the names of journalists assessed as laundering classified information in the Russia Hoax.

The New York Times. Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal.

All had reporters who appear to have participated in recycling the Democratic Party's talking points based on faulty and misleading intel dumps.

This is not "journalism." This is being an accomplice to state propaganda.

These "journalists" are partly responsible for dividing the nation for years and seeking to overturn the will of the people as determined by a free and fair election.

This is Russia Hoax ground zero. And it was all part of an operation to carry out a "coup" against a duly elected president. The New York Times piece was particularly egregious in rehashing a "scoop" on Carter Page and repeating baseless innuendo about Roger Stone.

This publication won "Pulitzers" for its "journalism."

This is nothing less than state propaganda. It isn't "reporting."

JUST IN: Anti-ICE RIOTERS are now attacking police in Atlanta.

Major cities under radical siege include: New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, and now Atlanta.

This is the least surprising development of the day.

The radical left is funding anti-ICE protesters. And leading Democrats are deliberately inciting riots.

The Democratic Party has become the enemy of the American People. Anti-ICE protest funders:

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1931508083127362024

It's my view that the Soviet Union faked its own death and what we are experiencing is "global convergence" towards international socialism.

The Soviet Union could have crushed the Velvet Revolutions. Instead, it chose to suddenly become "benign" and let them happen? I don't think so.

The truth is that the KGB's foreign subversion of the West was complete.

The USSR became the CIS. The KGB reorganized, an illusion of "democracy" was erected, and Putin was made the supreme leader of Russia.

In place of "communism" there was a switch made to activist causes like the "climate crisis." Mikhail Gorbachev was an early leader in this globalist movement.

The United States' Al Gore, who became a "green prophet," was also a top liaison to Russia after the "fall" of the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the socialists' gameplan was to watch the West destroy itself and become more like the old Soviet Union.

Big picture: China and Russia made cosmetic reforms to "communism." The West is becoming more communist under the big lie of "defending democracy."

If you look at it this way, everything makes perfect sense. Note: "Communism" is being used here to describe an authoritarian collectivist system run by elites. It does not pertain to the propaganda forms used to brainwash pseudo-elites.

The Globalist Elite's Assault on the West

"It’s time to stop pretending this is normal. Because if they can do it to Le Pen, Bolsonaro, Georgescu, Trump, or Elon Musk—they can do it to anyone."

All across Western civilization, globalists are making one thing clear: Don’t stand in the way of our political agenda, or we will burn your country to the ground.

France Is Trying to Jail the Opposition—Literally

Marine Le Pen is leading in the polls for the 2027 French presidential election. That’s a big problem for the French establishment, so they’re doing what tyrants always do when the people don’t play along—they’re trying to jail the opposition.

Prosecutors say Le Pen misallocated EU assistant funds. Not stole, not pocketed—just used the money to pay party staff instead of bureaucratically approved assistants in Brussels.

No personal enrichment, no lavish lifestyle—just typical campaign operations. For that, they want to ban her from office and hit her with a five-year sentence.

Anyone who witnessed the corrupt 2024 election campaign can sense a familiar theme.

But here’s the real scandal: the French court could enforce the ban immediately, even while Le Pen appeals. That would take her off the ballot next week—despite leading every major poll.

They call it “provisional execution.” It's rarely used, usually reserved for violent criminals. Now they want to use it to kneecap a presidential frontrunner.

The Macron regime isn’t even hiding it. The man overseeing the court’s next move is Richard Ferrand—a longtime Macron ally with zero judicial background. This is the guy picked to oversee the Constitutional Council. He got the job thanks to political maneuvering, not legal expertise.

They’re not defending democracy. They’re defending Macron’s power and trying to crush the one woman who could end it. Kamala Harris Broke Campaign Laws, No One Cares

Now let’s talk about hypocrisy. In 2003, Kamala Harris broke campaign finance law in her San Francisco DA run—violated the city’s spending cap, misled voters, and got slapped with what was then the largest fine ever issued.

Did she get banned from office? Was she dragged through the courts for “undermining democracy”? Of course not.

In 2024, her presidential campaign burned over a billion dollars—handed cash to Oprah’s company, hired radical activist groups, paid influencers, flew private jets all over the country. Massive overspending, shady payments, ties to groups pushing anti-American ideas.

But Harris walks away clean. She even got floated for another White House run. Meanwhile, in France, they want to jail Le Pen over internal staff allocations from a decade ago. The double standard isn’t just obvious—it’s the whole point.

"The American people are truly going to be shocked at what they see."

Do you think we will get the whole truth about the JFK assassination?
My view: Unless this report has some damning revelations on the roles of the FBI and CIA in the JFK assassination plot, I will assume the real files were burned a long time ago.

BREAKING: Climate United 'Slush Fund' is Now Subject of 'Ongoing Criminal Investigation'
thekylebecker.com/p/china-connec… If you haven’t been following the Climate United Fund scandal, then buckle up, because it’s one hell of an electric vehicle ride on the corruption superhighway.

In a major update, it was reported today that the "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund" program was the subject of an “ongoing criminal investigation,” per @juliekelly2:

- The FBI recommended placing a 30-day administrative freeze on eight slush fund recipients in light of “credible information” of possible criminal violations.

- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for the financial agreement with Citibank be terminated and the grant funds immediately returned.The EPA Inspector General has opened an investigation.

- Further, as Zeldin reported last night on X, he has terminated all agreements with the grant recipients--so-called climate "nonprofits" including one started by Stacey Abrams last year.

If you’re not up to speed, here are the basics on this developing scandal.

🧵The Shadow Government: New Evidence the Biden Presidency Was Almost Entirely Run by 'Autopen'

“I'm going to get in so much trouble for saying all this. But these are the people who ran our country for the last four years.”

The shadow government is being dragged into the light. The disturbing developments about where our money has been going are flooding in on a daily basis.

But less forthcoming is the answer to a question that has been on Americans’ minds about a four-year absence of leadership that looks absolutely vacuous in relief to the vigorous and unrelenting Trump presidency: Who actually ran the Biden presidency?

A tantalizing lead has surfaced, courtesy of a report by the Heritage Foundation’s @OversightPR.

"Whoever controlled the autopen controlled the presidency. We gathered every document we could find with Biden's signature over the course of his presidency. All used the same autopen signature except for the the announcement that the former President was dropping out of the race last year. Here is the autopen signature."

According to newly released evidence, nearly every document in the federal register bearing Joe Biden’s signature during his presidency was not signed by the man himself—but by an autopen.

The only known autopen exception? Biden’s letter announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.
As you can see, the signature is not only different, but underlined.

You might recall that the letter itself was a bizarre hodgepodge of statements cobbled together into a “resignation letter” that did not fit the moment of a president who was about to lose his chance at re-election, as well as incur damage to his legacy.

So, did Joe Biden actually sign his resignation letter? Or was it signed for him? We may never know the truth. But it does raise the possibility that it is a forgery.

There could be serious legal ramifications if Joe Biden’s signature was “forged” by autopen to make presidential authorizations in name only.

We will unpack the legal ramifications of the development, including a consideration of whether such “executive decisions” are constitutional; delve into the historical background on the autopen and its use by U.S. presidents; and dig up extremely suggestive leads on who was actually running the Biden presidency in absentia via autopen.

My extended analysis of the signatures of “Joe Biden” at the federal register is that the claim that the Biden administration was largely run by “autopen” appears to hold up.

House Oversight Project finds the "Biden presidency" was almost entirely run by autopen signature.

"We gathered every document we could find with Biden's signature over the course of his presidency," says @OversightPR.

"All used the same autopen signature except for the the announcement that the former President was dropping out of the race last year. Here is the autopen signature."

This is criminal. The Biden "presidency" didn't have a real president. People should go to jail for this. @OversightPR Don't give me the "but Trump does it too!"

Here is what it looks like when Trump signs major pieces of legislation or executive orders. Get the difference?

America and the European Union are at a crossroads.

The European Union needs America. But America does not need the European Union.

But it's not just U.S. taxpayer support for NATO that the European Union needs to provide for its own security. It needs America's military presence and warfighting ability.

The great majority of Europeans are unwilling to fight in wars to defend their nations from foreign aggressors.

One reason is because the EU has imported millions of migrants who have no loyalty to the governments or interest in preserving national cultures.

If you compare non-EU European states with EU member states you'll find a shocking difference: 61% of the former are willing to fight in wars, as opposed to just 32% in the latter, according to 2024 Gallup polling.

Popular support for EU member states is crumbling. This is why the European Union needs an external enemy to focus on, such as Russia, to "rally around the flag."

But in the EU's case, it is the Ukraine flag. That cause is wearing thin.

While many believe Russia is a strong and united foe that threatens Europe, this is a false perception. Only 32% will say on the record that they will fight in wars, while 20% say they won't and 48% say 'they don't know.' (It should be noted that it is illegal in Russia to say that you won't fight in a war. This is one cause for discrepancies you might find on Reddit and elsewhere that shows higher support in Russia.)

The United States has been experiencing its own collapse in popular support, which the Trump administration is attempting to reverse. Support for fighting in wars has been dropping in the U.S. since the first Gulf War, but it fell even further under Biden. Gallup polling shows that only 41% of Americans would be open to fighting in wars.

This has led to a crisis in military morale and a drop in recruitment. It will be a major challenge for the Trump administration to restore America's willingness to fight.

The Trump administration has a chance to accomplish this task because it is rejecting the disastrous path that the European Union has taken.

By securing the border and limiting foreign migration, reforming the military so that it focuses on warfighting, respecting the constitutional rights of citizens, and seeking a foreign policy of "peace through strength," the Trump administration can return America to its rightful place as a strong and great nation.


Ed. Note: In addition to summarizing EU-US relations, this post attempts to clarify posts misrepresenting Russians' willingness to fight in wars. These "polls" tend to grossly overestimate support and tend to falsely lionize Russia.

Secondly, there are a number of articles, such as by CNN, that seek to downplay America's support for NATO. These stories attempt to reject President Trump's claims that the US pulls the weight for NATO by arguing the US only pays a small percentage of the defense budget — namely, 15.8%.

However, this is only counting DIRECT spending and it is not accounting for INDIRECT spending that supports NATO's mission. The U.S. has by far the largest military budget of any NATO member and has extensive military operations in Europe.

NEW: @ElonMusk really has George Soros figured out.

"George Soros is a systems hacker. He is a genius arbitrager. He figured out that you could leverage a small amount of money to create a non-profit then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that non profit so you can take what might be a $10M donation and leverage it into a $1B NGO."

"Then the government continues to fund it every year, and it will have a nice sounding name like 'The Institute for Peace,' but really it's a grafting machine."

BINGO. @elonmusk You can read more about Soros here:
thekylebecker.com/p/george-soros…

A State within A State: The Progressive Left's 'Shadow Government' Revealed

"The system of NGOs, charities, and trusts constitutes an unaccountable 'parallel government' designed to transform the US into a globalist fiefdom run by privileged elites."
thekylebecker.com/p/a-state-with… ‘A State within a State.’

That’s what Mikhail Gorbachev called the KGB, the Russian version of the “deep state,” after the August coup of 1991.

The former Soviet premier invoked the term with the triumphal declaration: “There will no longer be a state within a state.”

Such were the heady times of the early 1990s in Russia after the formal demise of the U.S.S.R.

But the people’s victory was short-lived. The KGB, led by the ‘Grey Cardinal’ Col. Vladimir Putin himself, was staffed with survivors who were bent on adapting and eventually conquering the fledgling Russian ‘democratic’ state.

In the 1970s, the United States had its own version of ‘perestroika’: The “Halloween Massacre.” That’s when the Carter administration conducted a mass purge of CIA personnel on October 31, 1977, led by Admiral Stansfield Turner, the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new administration pared down 20% of the U.S. human intelligence (HUMINT) assets in the Intelligence Community’s workforce. This included 649 jobs cut through attrition, 154 forced retirements, and 17 outright firings. The layoffs targeted seasoned covert officers—some with roots back to the CIA’s 1947 founding—earning the event its grim moniker from the press and outraged insiders.

Seem familiar?

The Trump administration came into office with a whirlwind. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the stewardship of tech billionaire Elon Musk, has shined a bright light on the “shadow government” that was running the United States during the ineffectual and disastrous Biden administration.

DOGE’s forced transparency has unleashed unparalleled caterwauling in the establishment press, which has only furthered suspicions of the deeply embedded shadow government that subsists on waste, fraud, and abuse in the U.S. government.

More provocative than the line items DOGE has singled out for elimination, such as funding Sesame Street in Iraq and transgender surgeries in India, is the astounding realization that the entire U.S. system of NGOs, charities, and trusts constitutes an unaccountable “parallel government” that is designed to engineer consensus and transform the United States into a globalist vassal state run by privileged elites.

@DataRepublican, who runs an outstanding website where citizen journalists can research the vast web of corruption between U.S. agencies and so-called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), put it this way:

“I’ve said it again, I'll say it again. Taxpayer-funded NGOs function as a parallel government. Even worse, many sitting members of Congress are directly involved in them. They see themselves as the real government, prioritizing debates with other bureaucrats on the global stage over serving the people they represent. This is why critical issues like healthcare, education, and help for Helene victims are consistently neglected.”

This is a point I’ve made repeatedly as well: If you want to stop the transition of the United States into a post-constitutional oligarchy run by unelected elites and bureaucratic apparatchiks, stop the U.S. government’s funding and sheltering of billionaire trusts, fraudulent “charities,” and so-called Non-Governmental Organizations.

George Soros and the Trump 'Counter-Color Revolution'

"Donald Trump is now carrying out his own ‘counter-color revolution.’ It’s red, white, and blue."

Billionaire George Soros has maintained a long-standing, secretive alliance with the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including USAID—in a corrupt partnership to act as an “agent of chaos” to bring about regime change in nations around the world.

Soros infiltrated the foreign influence machinery crafted by the Reagan administration in the 1980s to further the goal of promoting “anti-communism” in Central and Eastern Europe, before co-opting that same machinery after the formal demise of the Soviet Union in order to propagate globalist objectives.

America was on the brink of succumbing to this whole-of-society plan to radically alter the nation into an unrecognizable, post-constitutional republic.

But, miraculously, Donald Trump’s unlikely election victory in 2024 marks a turning point in American history.

Due to Big Tech reforms at social media platforms like X, now under the ownership and stewardship of populist, free-speech advocate Elon Musk, we can start to build our own consensus on what went wrong and how we can dramatically course correct.

Let’s reflect on how the nation was brought to the edge of tyranny, as well as explore actionable ways to reform the institutions of America so that we can prevent the ultimate “colored revolution” of fundamentally transforming the United States.

But first, let us take a detailed look at the “Soros empire” — how this radical billionaire spread his sprawling network around the globe, and how Donald Trump is carrying out his own “counter-color revolution” to untangle this web and free the American people from its malign influence. The Origins of Soros’s Influence: A Fusion of Wall Street and State Department Interests

George Soros established the Open Society Foundations in 1979, initially as a financial maneuver benefiting his heirs. However, in the early 1980s, Soros aligned himself with the Reagan administration's newly formed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID to operate as a key conduit for U.S. intelligence efforts aimed at dismantling the Soviet Union.

This collaboration, first realized under the guise of promoting civil society, allowed Soros to leverage his financial acumen in currency speculation while ensuring alignment with U.S. strategic interests.

As @MikeBenzCyber explains:

"Soros was speculating on the currencies of countries in Central and Eastern Europe while he had partnerships with the State Department in advance knowledge of operations to overturn those countries’ governments. This was the ultimate version of insider trading."

This is a critical analytical link between Soros and his sprawling empire:

"[Soros] basically had the ultimate insider trading, which is that he knew what countries were going to be toppled and therefore what would happen to their currency and could speculate through his hedge fund activities way in advance of that.

And then beyond that, you also have the benefits of anti-communism from the stuff he was doing because all of these communist countries held collectively trillions of dollars, especially with Russia of publicly held assets. The moment you become a private economy, all of those assets go up in a fire sale to London and Wall Street stakeholders. That is not only did they get to do the Forex speculation, not only did they get the Chamber of Commerce proceeds, but then they also got to dumpster dive at bargain basement prices for all the formerly federally held, publicly held assets of the people who lived in those countries, so that George Soros and the Harvard Endowment and all these civil society people could leverage those financial arms to gobble up the assets."

That's why when George Soros says he built his empire in the shadow of the former Soviet Empire, that's where that empire comes from.

Or you can watch George Soros himself explain it.

“When the Soviet Empire collapsed… I moved in and picked up the pieces… So this is how the Soros Empire is replacing the Soviet Empire,” he said.

The end of the Cold War saw Soros emerge as one of the primary financiers of post-Soviet transitions, enabling Western financial interests—especially those tied to the hedge fund community—to acquire massive stakes in privatized industries of formerly communist nations. This alignment of incentives between Wall Street and Washington cemented Soros as a linchpin of global regime change operations.

Fun fact: A blind man was put in charge of the Project of Government Oversight.

This is who the Democrats called up to oppose the DOGE agenda.

The blind literally leading the blind. You can't make this stuff up.
"These facts, as well as already-emergent legal challenges, make it unlikely that DOGE will provide the check against waste, fraud, and abuse that its proponents hope for."

Here is Mr. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudett's testimony. He thinks the IGs that allowed nearly HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS a year in waste, fraud and abuse were doing a 'bang-up' job and shouldn't have been fired.
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

Let's put this to rest now. George Soros, Bill Gates, Ford Foundation, and USAID have funded an organization that backed radical district attorneys.

Soros' Open Society Foundations (OSF) has received millions of dollars in USAID funding over the years throughout its vast NGO network.

So has the radical clearinghouse Tides Center.

USAID gave nearly $15 million to George Soros' Open Society Foundations during Obama's last four years in office.

USAID awarded the Tides Center $24.6 million in September 2016 for the Civil Society Innovation Initiative.

Open Society Foundations gave $25.8 million to the Tides Center just in 2021.

The Tides Center, in turn, backed radical district attorneys, particularly, through the project Fair & Just Prosecution (FJP).

FJP is a fiscally sponsored project of the Tides Center, so exact dollar amounts for donor support are obscured.

It should be added that Soros is not the only billionaire to back FJP. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation are also major players in this space.

Soros directly donated millions to PACs that endorse radical DAs who turn a blind eye to criminal aliens and whose soft-on-crime policies endanger the public.

In Texas, for example, Soros gave millions to the Texas Majority PAC, Texas Justice & Public Safety PAC, and therefore, to smaller recipient PACs.

Texas Majority Pac gave to the First Tuesday PAC, for example, which in turn backed radical DAs in Harris County.

The bottom line: USAID dollars have been indirectly aiding and abetting the damage that radical billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates are doing to the United States of America.

USAID's web of taxpayer funding for radical NGOs needs to end if Americans are to take a major step towards reclaiming their government.


H/T on the Tides Center screenshot: @MikeBenzCyber

https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1880239992808603991

It's not just Politico. The Associated Press has been raking in millions of dollars in government money for years.

The AP's bias also makes perfect sense.


You can check it out here:
usaspending.gov/search/?hash=3…

Fun Fact: @Politico received USAID funds.

Everything makes sense now.

@politico On Tuesday, it was reported that, "Staff at Politico did not get paid for the latest pay period. The company just sent several emails to employees saying it believes there was a technical error, and is looking into how to fix the issue."