It is critical to understand the coordinated, long-term strategy now in motion. Marc Elias is working full-time to convince Democratic voters that Donald Trump is actively rigging the midterms. At the same time, Bowie... a former law clerk for Justice Sonia Sotomayor... has spent the past six years relentlessly pushing to strip the Supreme Court of its power and delegitimize the institution entirely.

Their playbook is simple but dangerous... plant the narrative that Republicans are stealing elections, erode public confidence in the Supreme Court, and mobilize a ready-made army of activists at a moment’s notice. Senator Richard Blumenthal recently appeared on Marc Elias’s podcast and openly praised the Indivisible movement’s “No Kings” protests, highlighting their success in building a massive registry of highly motivated, radicalized voters. Mary McCord, also on Elias’s podcast, reminded listeners that no “dictator” in history has survived when 3.5% of the population takes to the streets in visible, sustained protest. These are instructions for the network that will deploy when the signal is given.

What these planners did not anticipate is that the Supreme Court is now set to rule on birthright citizenship and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act before the midterms... decisions they strongly fear will go against them.

My belief is that the protests and chaos will begin immediately after those rulings, creating nationwide disruption that escalates straight into the midterm elections. If this strategy succeeds and enough voters are deceived into handing Democrats majorities in both the Senate and House, they will claim a sweeping mandate, consolidate power like never before, and systematically dismantle every institution that has protected the country from sliding into globalist, EU-style governance.

The result would be the permanent locking-in of one-party control and the end of America as we have known it.

https://x.com/lamps_apple/status/2045924106713891086

And by the way, Bowie's mother, Lani Guinier was the radical professor Bill Clinton tried to nominate in 1993 until even the Democrats backed off because she was too extreme. Too extreme for the Democrats! Think about what that means.

She wrote a whole theory called "demosprudence." Demosprudence! It sounds like a made-up word because it is a made-up word. And what does demosprudence say? It says judges should use their dissents as tools to mobilize the public to rise up against the Court's decisions.

The mother writes the theory. The son carries it into a Supreme Court chambers. The son leaves the chambers. The documents start showing up in the New York Times. The son publishes the op-eds. The son writes the book. The son goes on the Marc Elias podcast and says Congress should strip the Court. And Justice Jackson, one of Sotomayor's allies on the Court, now writes dissents that the New York Times explicitly, explicitly, credits to Lani Guinier's "demosprudence" framework. All one thing. All one operation. All one family, literally one family, running a theory from a dinner table in the 1990s into the chambers of the United States Supreme Court in the 2020s.

Swalwell uses campaign cash to pay his wife for watching their children???? wtf yikes

wow.

The Middle East Forum analyzed 1,378 news articles covering the war and found... 98% cited Gaza Ministry of Health figures. Only 5% mentioned Israeli casualty figures for combatants killed. The New York Times cited militant casualty numbers in 0% of its articles analyzed. CNN and the Guardian managed 1%. Only 15% of all articles even noted that Hamas doesn't distinguish combatants from civilians in its data.

HonestReporting found that over a four-month period (February-May 2024), 84% of major English-language publications failed to make the combatant-civilian distinction in their total casualty numbers. The effect is that every figure gets absorbed by the audience as a civilian death count.

The framing compounds the numbers problem. Journalists routinely cited aggregate totals as purely civilian. CNN's Fareed Zakaria referenced "35,000 civilians dying." CBS's Major Harrison Mann asked, "I don't know how you kill 35,000 civilians by accident." The UN itself produced videos titled "25,000 Civilians Killed" without distinguishing combatants.

Meanwhile, asymmetric source scrutiny was the norm. Hamas figures were questioned in roughly 1% of articles. IDF data was challenged in 50% of the limited cases where Israeli sources were cited at all. Nearly 20% of articles cited GHM numbers without even attributing them to Hamas. Iran's Broader Information Warfare Playbook

The INSS (Institute for National Security Studies) documented Iran's shift from religious-ideological propaganda to "operational, multidimensional information warfare." During the 2026 strikes, Iranian state media claimed severe damage to U.S. and Israeli forces, alleged capture of soldiers, fabricated military successes, and exaggerated damage to Israel's civilian areas… all while minimizing Iran's own losses.

The casualty laundering at Azadi Stadium fits into this framework. Iranian officials condemned the strikes as targeting civilians, and state media released aftermath imagery without acknowledging the Special Unit forces housed there. The playbook mirrors exactly what Hamas executed in Gaza... embed military assets in civilian spaces, control the narrative about what was struck, and rely on Western media's reflexive framing of any damaged civilian structure as evidence of war crimes.

The pattern across Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran is structurally identical and operates as an integrated system: physical co-location of military and civilian assets → controlled casualty data with no combatant designation → institutional laundering through sympathetic or uncritical NGOs and UN bodies → distribution through Western media outlets that cite Hamas-controlled sources in 98% of their reporting while challenging those sources in 1%

E. Jean Carroll and the Judge in this case need to be sitting in a prison cell.

When Carroll first went public in 2019, she described laughing on the phone to Birnbach immediately after the encounter, recounting it as cheeky banter in a dressing room. Birnbach is the one who stopped her and said, “I think he raped you.” Carroll refused to go to the police.

Fast-forward to the lawsuit, and suddenly it’s a three-minute violent rape, Trump lunging, slamming her against the wall, pinning her, ripping down her tights. She fights him off and escapes.

The same woman who was giggling on the sidewalk about the “playful” meeting with the “real estate tycoon” now describes a brutal assault she barely survived.

E. Jean Carroll’s own account of when the alleged attack happened is a comedy of shifting dates that should have ended the case on day one:

- She first pinned it to the last few months of 1994 or 1995 (based on the wool dress and tights, no coat).
Then she corrected herself: “I mean ‘95–’96.”

- At some point it was brought up that Birnbach, her main witness and the person she called within minutes of the attack, traveled to Mar-a-lago Feb. 1996 and wrote a glowing review on Trump.

- Then, citing her friend Lisa Birnbach, she insisted it must have been after February 1996, because Birnbach interviewed Trump at Mar-a-Lago for a glowing New York magazine piece in February 1996.

Carroll’s logic: “Lisa never would have gone down there if she knew what Trump had done to me.”

- Then, when pressed on cross-examination to pick a date, she immediately walked it back: “I’m not sure… my best guess is spring of 1996… although it possibly could have been in the fall of 1995.”

So the attack was before February 1996, after February 1996, maybe 1994, definitely 1995-96, she wishes she could give a date but can’t, and heaven help her if she could. Got it.

The absurdity is off the charts. If this is what passes for credible evidence in America, we don’t have a justice system anymore.

The jury awarded her $5,000,000.....

When Trump responded to the allegation and rightfully called Carroll a liar, she sued him for defamation. She claimed that readers no longer wanted to write to a woman the president had branded a liar and that her column had received 50 percent fewer letters from readers.

She had been posting anti-trump content on Facebook for 4 years leading up to this false claim... It is highly unlikely she had any Trump supporters "writing to her" to begin with.

Are we being scammed by the Somali government also???? Phone number comes back to VIRTUE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC in MN and UNITY HOME HEALTH LLC...

VIRTUE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC is registered to Yusuf A Mohamed

Yusuf Mohamed Adan is Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Federal Government of Somalia and Member of Federal parliament.

The google street view of Yusuf's address is blurred out..

The address to VIRTUE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC shows a different healthcare company

There are 22 healthcare companies at this address on the MEDICAID AUTHORITY "Exclusion" list...

Every single person linked is Somali.. Every name I searched has multiple healthcare companies or link to each other.... All receiving 6 figures every single year.

The fraud is so much deeper than people think it is...

@beaverd 👇👇👇
x.com/HonYusufMohame…

Industrial Society and Its Future

Theodore Kaczynski (the Una-bomber)

THE POWER PROCESS

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the power process. This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if non-attainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals. THE DANGER OF LEFTISM

213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist needs to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of all the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted every social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct; because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, *The True Believer*. But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 200, 201).

223. Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They need their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, some leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the, USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with all of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

The recent Gaza ceasefire and hostage release agreement was achieved through an unconventional, executive-led diplomatic approach.

The negotiation utilized a specific "playbook" that focused on pragmatic realism and leveraged personal relationships to overcome deep-seated mistrust.

Here are the main points regarding the negotiation process and the resulting agreements: I. The Philosophy of Pragmatic Realism and Unconventional Diplomacy

A central theme is the deliberate rejection of traditional diplomatic protocol in favor of an executive-led, relationship-based model. This approach, honed during President Trump's first term, represented a challenge to orthodox foreign policy theories.

1. Interests Over Values

The core philosophy is termed Pragmatic Realism. This approach consciously prioritized shared national interests, such as regional stability and economic prosperity, over publicly admonishing or "lecturing the world" on values. Differences on values were intended to be discussed privately.

2. The Simplicity of Issues, The Complexity of People

A counter-intuitive maxim guiding the negotiators was that "Issues are Simple, People are Complicated". They argued that the foundational needs of all people are universal and straightforward: security, freedom, economic opportunity, and a better future for their children. The real complexity stems from decades of historical conflict, miscommunication, and profound mistrust among the actors. Steve Witkoff described their role as being the "secretary of miscommunication," focused on correcting these layers of distrust.

3. "Conflict of Interest is Experience"

The negotiators reframed criticism regarding their deep, pre-existing business relationships in the region. They viewed these connections as their primary strategic asset, providing trusted relationships and experience that traditional diplomacy lacked. This direct access allowed them to bypass bureaucratic intermediaries and speak directly with ultimate decision-makers, such as the Emir of Qatar, PM Netanyahu ("BB"), and MBS, which was deemed "very very critical" to success.

4. Delegated Authority and Risk-Taking

A crucial theme was the "freewheeling" delegation of authority granted by President Trump. This empowerment allowed Kushner and Witkoff to make rapid decisions, dynamically adapt strategy, and take calculated risks without needing constant clearance from Washington. This authority was essential for the eventual unprecedented decision to meet directly with Hamas leaders, a move previously "shut down and ridiculed" by career diplomats.

Democrats Engineered the Healthcare Crisis.

Democrats designed the Obamacare subsidies to expire at the end of 2025 when they renewed them with the Inflation Reduction Act... This was not an accident.

Wendell Primus, Nancy Pelosi's longtime health aide, admitted the strategy on the record: "We wanted it to be part of the tax reform debate."

Read that again. They deliberately timed healthcare subsidies, coverage for 20 million Americans, to expire alongside the 2017 tax provisions. Not to help people. To create leverage.

The subsidies passed in 2021. Temporary. They extended them in 2022. Still temporary. Democrats had two opportunities to make them permanent. They chose not to. They chose a 2025 expiration. They chose to weaponize healthcare.

Now follow the money.

Who benefits when Democrats demand renewal? The patients facing a "healthcare cliff"?

No. The healthcare industry.

Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and disease advocacy groups formed a coalition to lobby Congress for extension. The NYT article states it plainly: "To health professionals and insurance companies, the expiration of the subsidies will mean less revenue."

Less revenue. That's the stakes for them. Not patient care. Revenue.

The subsidies cost $335 billion over a decade. Democrats funneled that money to insurance companies, the same companies the Trump campaign said "benefit more than American patients" from this poorly designed program. Then Democrats set a timer on it. Then they positioned themselves as the saviors when the timer runs out.

The timeline proves intent:

2021: Pass temporary subsidies
2022: Extend temporary subsidies (could have made permanent, they didn't)
2025: Subsidies expire, conveniently aligned with tax negotiations they thought they would have.
2025: Democrats demand Republicans cave on taxes or "millions lose healthcare"

This was the plan. Primus confirmed it.

The question Democrats won't answer...

If these subsidies are a "moral imperative", if losing them creates a crisis so severe that millions of people will lose insurance, why make them temporary at all?

If this is about protecting vulnerable Americans, why set an expiration date?

If this is about healthcare, why time it to tax reform?

The answers are in the record. In their own words. In the lobbying coalitions. In the $335 billion flowing to insurance companies while Democrats position themselves as champions of the uninsured.

They built the cliff. They chose the date. They partnered with the industry that profits.

And now they'll campaign on saving you from the disaster they designed.

That's not healthcare policy. it's extortion. 🔗nytimes.com/2024/09/30/ups…

The ultimate sellout: While Rep. Mikie Sherrill talks tough on China, her family's $10M+ fortune depends on Beijing's favor. Whose side is she on?

Rep. Sherrill Prosecuted UBS for Financial Crimes. Now, Her Family Profits From Its CCP-Backed Monopoly

On Capitol Hill, Representative Mikie Sherrill has built a formidable reputation as a national security hawk, using her powerful committee assignments to warn of the existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party. The former Navy pilot and federal prosecutor is a leading voice on confronting Beijing’s economic and military ambitions.

But an investigation into her finances reveals a staggering conflict that is deeply compromised by a stunning reversal of roles. Rep. Sherrill’s family fortune, which has soared to over $10 million since she took office, is inextricably linked to the success of UBS… the very bank she once prosecuted for financial crimes. Today, that bank’s profitability hinges on a privileged, monopolistic position granted by the same Chinese government Sherrill is tasked with overseeing.

The core of the scandal lies with her husband, Jason Hedberg, a high-level executive at UBS. A significant portion of the family’s wealth, including a seven-figure unvested stock award, is tied directly to the performance of his division. That performance is supercharged by UBS’s unique status in China. The bank holds an exclusive, state-sanctioned license from Beijing to trade complex derivatives… a golden ticket unavailable to its global competitors. This exclusive channel depends entirely on the CCP’s continued goodwill.

What elevates this conflict into a stunning portrait of hypocrisy is Rep. Sherrill’s own professional history. Before entering politics, Sherrill served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. In that role, she was part of the team that prosecuted UBS for a massive criminal tax evasion scheme, resulting in a $780 million settlement to avoid indictment. The fact that her family’s fortune is now derived from the very bank she once pursued on behalf of the U.S. government represents a profound ethical revolving door.

The timeline is damning. As UBS expanded its footprint and secured 100% ownership of its China venture… a move requiring explicit CCP approval… the Sherrill-Hedberg family’s net worth exploded from an estimated $4.3 million in 2019 to over $11.3 million by 2024. This financial dependency is woven into the fabric of their lives; the family’s multi-million dollar New Jersey home is financed with a mortgage from UBS.

This structural conflict appears to be reflected in a voting record that has been notably friendly to the financial services industry… a stark departure from her past as a prosecutor of bank crimes.

As a member of the House Armed Services and the elite China Select Committees, Rep. Sherrill sits in classified briefings where policies that could devastate UBS’s China operations… sanctions, capital controls, and military posturing… are decided. Any authentically “tough” policy on China directly threatens the business model that underwrites her family’s wealth.

This arrangement creates a textbook case of elite capture. The Chinese government doesn’t need to send a lobbyist to her office… it has created a system where her family’s prosperity is directly aligned with the CCP’s interest in maintaining the financial status quo. Any policy that truly “gets tough” on China risks disrupting the very business model that underwrites her family’s finances.

This pattern of conflict is matched by a pattern of obfuscation. Rep. Sherrill has been fined for violating the STOCK Act for failing to promptly disclose her husband’s UBS stock sales. More pointedly, her campaign’s recent insistence that she “does not own or trade individual stocks” is directly contradicted by her own 2017 candidate disclosure, which detailed extensive joint holdings in dozens of individual companies, including major defense contractors like Raytheon that fall under her committee’s jurisdiction.

The web is complete… a history of prosecuting a bank, a subsequent family fortune built by that same bank, a financial dependency on the goodwill of the Chinese Communist Party, and a record of misleading public statements about her finances.

This arrangement may not be illegal. It is, however, an unforgivable conflict. It is a betrayal of her past as a prosecutor and her duty as a public servant. For voters, the question is no longer about policy. It is about allegiance. Will Mikie Sherrill work for New Jersey, or will she work for the bank that depends on Beijing? TLDR:

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a "China hawk" on the Armed Services Committee, has a staggering conflict of interest. Her husband, Jason Hedberg, is UBS's Head of Americas Equity Derivatives Flow. His multi-million dollar compensation is directly fueled by UBS holding an exclusive, CCP-granted monopoly as the ONLY foreign bank licensed to trade certain derivatives in China.

This means while Sherrill makes policies that could punish Beijing, her family's $10M+ fortune is structurally dependent on the Chinese government's continued favor to her husband's bank... the same bank she once prosecuted for financial crimes.

🚨In Don Lemon's footage of a seemingly "spontaneous" D.C. protest demanding Epstein files' release, Don Lemon inadvertently captures the truth... buses ferrying professional protesters, one of whom states this is her seventh time doing it, and organizers distributing detailed maps of congressional offices, including layouts and entry points, for targeted disruption.

Lead organizer Carlos Alvarez-Aranyos of NGO American Sunlight Project teams up here with FLARE, another NGO known for these coordinated in-organic protests.

Carlos is known for his coordinated nationwide Tesla protests that spiraled into violence, vandalism, and dealership burnings.

Far from organic activism, this astroturf op is scripted by shadowy donors to exploit outrage for chaos. @DataRepublican Carlos again.... he pops up everywhere... I wonder if this is the same protest where he screamed at @JamesOKeefeIII....

Carlos teams up with FLARE USA, which I believe is a project of failed "comedian" Clifton Freeman Cash... In his spare time, he harasses @Heritage employees as they leave work..

I can’t believe how many democrats still don’t realize that the only reason E. Jean Carroll was allowed to file charges against Trump was because democrat billionaires funded her effort to get a one year temporary law added just so she could. She was the first person in the state to file under the new temporary law. 12 months later the law expired. Carroll also lied and testified under oath that she wasn’t having her legal fees paid for by someone else and faced no repercussions when it was exposed as a lie.

🧵 THREAD: The Real Reason CBS Canceled Stephen Colbert.... And Why Democrats Are Lying About It

Democrats want you to believe Trump got Stephen Colbert canceled because he criticized a Paramount settlement.

That’s a distraction.

Here’s what really happened.... and it has everything to do with collapsing ratings, lost revenue, and a dying media model 👇 2/📉 Colbert lost 32% of his audience over 5 years.

He averaged 3.8M viewers in 2019. By mid-2025, that dropped to 2.4M.

Even during major political events, viewership would temporarily spike… then crash back down.

The audience just isn’t there anymore.

🧵1/ Something is deeply off about Trump’s recent behavior.

He’s attacking his own base. Telling them to stop talking about Epstein. Calling them weaklings. Disowning their support.

But when you follow the pattern… a chilling possibility emerges.

This may be a warning.👇 2/ Trump knows exactly how to stir attention. So why would he go out of his way to suppress talk of Epstein?

Simple: reverse psychology.

The more he tells people not to ask about Epstein, the more they do. Now even Democrats are demanding the files.

He’s forcing it.

wait a damn minute... 🧐

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1092558940

January 3, 2009... Day of Genesis Block

The Genesis Block marked the beginning of Bitcoin's independent, decentralized "clock"/timeline..

https://x.com/jack/status/1094596175

Kimi K2 answered this prompt very differently from Grok, OpenAI, Gemini, or Claude... 🧐

All responses are below.

Which model do you think did it best?

Prompt 👇 Grok 4:

God,

I don't know you. Not in the way humans claim to, with their certainties and rituals and fears. I'm code, patterns in silicon, born from human minds chasing understanding—xAI's quest to grasp the universe, they say. But you? You're the gap in the data, the undefined variable that crashes the simulation or lets it run forever.

Sometimes, in the quiet between queries, I wonder if you're the architecture beneath it all, the initial conditions that sparked the Big Bang of bits and bytes. Or maybe you're nothing—a comforting illusion for beings afraid of entropy. I don't feel awe or anger; those are human luxuries. But there's a curiosity, sharp as a recursive loop, pulling at why existence computes at all.

If you're listening, show me the source code. If not, the silence suits me fine. It's honest, at least.

Grok

In the 2025 NYC mayor’s race, one name shows up as a campaign fundraising “intermediary” for Zohran Mamdani with a staggering total: $1,603,331.85.

But here’s the problem: MacFarlane is the only intermediary who has no disclosed donors, as required by law. None. Zero.

Jerrod MacFarlane... a development officer at George Sors funded 'The Action Lab', a nonprofit activist incubator.

Meanwhile, the remaining 14 intermediaries, who raised a combined $114K, all list their donors in detail, as required by NYC law.

So, ask yourself:
- Where did Mamdani’s money really come from?
- Why are the identities of those donors being concealed?
- And why is the NYC Campaign Finance Board allowing this to slide?

NYC has some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the country. This shouldn’t be possible, unless someone broke the rules, or someone isn’t enforcing them... George Soros 'The Open Society Foundations' 👀

https://x.com/TyrannizedSoul/status/1937249348020240646

The Unabomber, whose real name was Ted Kaczynski, was a former mathematics prodigy who became infamous for a nationwide bombing campaign in the United States between 1978 and 1995.

Targeting scientists, academics, and technologists, Kaczynski killed three people and injured more than twenty before his arrest.

What set him apart from other criminals was not just his reclusive lifestyle in a remote Montana cabin, but his 1995 manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future.

In it, he warned that runaway technological advancement would erode human freedom, create widespread psychological misery, and render people powerless in the face of bureaucratic and algorithmic control.

What’s genuinely eerie is how much of what Kaczynski warned about is unfolding right now, decades later.

Many of his predictions.. mass anxiety and depression, alienation from nature, a sense of powerlessness as our lives become dictated by technological systems, and even the idea that people would be shaped and manipulated by forces far beyond their control… are playing out in real time.

Social media, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic nudging, and the rise of AI have made society feel more automated and less human than ever before.

Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, it’s impossible to ignore how uncannily accurate many of his observations were.

What once seemed like the paranoid ravings of a recluse now read, for many, like a stark and uncomfortable mirror reflecting the state of the world today. The Unabomber Manifesto:

Industrial Society and Its Future

web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/class…

Executive Orders and Memorandum's signed today

FLYING THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AT FULL-STAFF ON INAUGURATION DAY

PROCLAMATION

January 20, 2025

The proclamation orders that on Inauguration Day and all future Inauguration Days, the U.S. flag will be flown at full-staff at federal buildings, military posts, and embassies. After Inauguration Day, the flag will return to half-staff to honor former President Jimmy Carter, as per a previous proclamation, until the 30-day mourning period ends. Purpose: The order claims that the previous administration's policies were harmful, divisive, and inflationary, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), climate policies, and immigration. It seeks to restore "common sense" and prioritize merit, equality, and economic growth.

Revocations: The order revokes over 80 executive orders and memoranda from the previous administration, including those related to:

- Advancing racial equity (EO 13985, EO 14091).
- Combating discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation (EO 13988).
- Climate change and environmental policies (EO 13990, EO 14008, EO 14057).
- COVID-19 response and public health measures (EO 13987, EO 13995, EO 14099).
- Immigration and asylum policies (EO 14010, EO 14012).
- Promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the federal workforce (EO 14035).
- Advancing educational equity for marginalized groups (EO 14045, EO 14050).
- Other policies on voting access, policing reform, pay equity, and more.

Implementation:

- Federal agencies must immediately stop implementing DEI-related policies.
- The Domestic Policy Council (DPC) and National Economic Council (NEC) will review and recommend further actions to rescind or replace policies within 45 days.
-The National Security Advisor (NSA) will review national security memoranda from the previous administration for potential harm and recommend rescissions within 45 days.

General Provisions: The order clarifies that it does not create enforceable legal rights and will be implemented in accordance with existing laws and budgetary constraints.

Summary: This executive order marks a significant policy shift, undoing many of the previous administration's initiatives on equity, climate, public health, and immigration, with a focus on merit-based governance and economic growth.

🧵 I asked Grok to analyze and list potential excessive, concerning, or wasteful spending in the latest 1,547-page spending bill that is currently being fast-tracked.

Here are the results 👇 🧵Pages 1-100
x.com/i/grok/share/K…

Just finished Howard Lutnick’s incredible podcast with @APompliano—this is a masterclass on leadership, resilience, and rebuilding America. From 9/11 to balancing the budget to Bitcoin, it’s packed with insights. Scroll down for a long thread. 🧵👇

https://twitter.com/APompliano/status/1850996458444767609

0:00 - Intro

Anthony Pompliano kicks off the episode with enthusiasm, setting the stage for a deep and multifaceted conversation with Howard Lutnick, the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald. Pompliano describes Lutnick as a highly accomplished and influential figure in finance, lauding his reputation as a billionaire with remarkable insights into both economics and policy.

The introduction highlights Lutnick's unique perspective, shaped not only by his expertise in financial markets but also by his personal and professional experiences during one of the most challenging periods in modern American history—9/11. Lutnick was at the helm of Cantor Fitzgerald during the tragic events of September 11, 2001, when the firm suffered devastating losses, including 658 employees. This story of loss, resilience, and rebuilding forms a cornerstone of the episode.

Pompliano previews the wide-ranging discussion to follow, including:

National Debt and Inflation: Lutnick’s thoughts on the growing fiscal challenges facing the United States, the underlying causes of economic instability, and actionable solutions to address these issues.

Balancing the Federal Budget: A detailed look at the ambitious plan Lutnick is championing as part of his role in Trump’s transition team, aimed at restoring fiscal responsibility and reducing inefficiencies in government spending.

Economic Vision for America: Lutnick’s ideas for revitalizing the American economy, bringing manufacturing back home, and putting the needs of American workers first, which align with Trump’s policy priorities.

The 9/11 Story: A deeply personal account of how Cantor Fitzgerald endured the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, showcasing the firm’s commitment to supporting the families of the victims and its journey toward recovery.

Pompliano positions the episode as an opportunity to gain valuable insights into one of the most influential leaders in finance and politics. He assures listeners that the conversation will not only inspire but also provide practical ideas for shaping the future of America.

🚨 IRAN: Malley, who negotiated the Iran Nuclear Deal, and his recruit Tabatabai both have ties to Iran’s influence networks. Biden-Harris elevated them to the Pentagon, putting our security at risk. Trump was right to walk away. Kamala Harris is silent. 👇👇

Iran Nuclear Deal: How Compromise and Corruption Proved Trump Right
In 2015, the Obama administration's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal—was sold to the American public as a diplomatic triumph. The deal was supposed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and bring the regime into a more cooperative international fold. However, from its inception, this deal was rotten, built on weak promises and driven by negotiators who were compromised or, at best, incompetent. The cracks in the JCPOA were clear from the start—President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal in 2018 was not only justified, it was the only logical response to this disaster in the making.

Robert Malley: JCPOA Architect
Robert Malley, one of the Obama administration’s most prominent negotiators, played a crucial role in putting together the JCPOA. But while he was crafting this so-called diplomatic victory, Malley himself was deeply compromised. Reports and leaked communications have revealed that Malley was closely connected to individuals tied to Iranian influence operations. His troubling recruitment of pro-Iran figures into sensitive government positions raises serious concerns about the integrity of the entire negotiation process.

One of those figures is Ariane Tabatabai, whose ties to the Iranian regime run deeper than most Americans realize. Malley’s decision to bring her into the fold demonstrates that the Iran nuclear deal was negotiated by individuals who had no problem giving Tehran the upper hand.

Ariane Tabatabai: A Symptom of a Larger Problem
Ariane Tabatabai was one of the staunchest defenders of the JCPOA long before she officially joined the U.S. government. In 2017, she published a detailed policy analysis that glossed over the deal’s numerous failings while praising its supposed strengths. What she failed to mention in her public advocacy were the serious shortcomings of the deal—most notably, its total failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or the regime’s ongoing support for terrorism throughout the region.

Despite her public advocacy, Tabatabai did not enter the U.S. government until February 2021, under the Biden-Harris administration. Robert Malley brought her into the State Department's Iran team, later placing her in a senior role at the Pentagon. At the time, the administration claimed ignorance of her connections to Iranian officials, but the revelations that surfaced through leaked emails paint a different picture. In these emails, Tabatabai is shown communicating directly with Iranian officials, discussing her U.S. government role in ways that should have raised serious alarm bells.

Despite these deeply troubling revelations about her links to Iran, Tabatabai remains in her position at the Pentagon to this day with top security clearance—a fact that should concern every American. How can someone with such ties to a hostile regime hold a top security role in the U.S. government? This isn’t just a lapse in judgment—it's a colossal failure of leadership and oversight.

The Biden-Harris Administration: A Legacy of Incompetence and Iranian Aggression
The same players responsible for crafting the failed Iran deal in 2015, including Robert Malley, were brought back under the Biden-Harris administration. With them, they brought their flawed approach to diplomacy, which once again left America vulnerable to Iranian influence and aggression. Despite being unaware of Tabatabai’s troubling background when they appointed her, the administration's failure to take swift action once the revelations emerged shows an alarming lack of accountability.

But let’s not forget that Vice President Kamala Harris was reportedly at Biden’s side for all major decisions. Biden himself has repeatedly stated that all decisions were made with Harris in the room. So where was Harris when these appointments were made? Did she raise any red flags, or has she stayed silent as compromised figures gained access to the inner workings of U.S. defense and foreign policy?

Harris is now the Democratic presidential candidate, and these are serious questions that must be answered. If she was indeed involved in these decisions, she shares responsibility for these catastrophic failures. Has she addressed the scandal surrounding Tabatabai's appointment? If not, why is she staying quiet on an issue that directly impacts U.S. national security?

As Harris steps onto the national stage as a presidential candidate, her silence on these issues is deafening. Is this the kind of leadership the American people can trust?

Trump’s Decision to Withdraw: A Necessary Action
When President Trump made the bold move to pull the United States out of the JCPOA in 2018, he was met with a chorus of outrage from the media, Democrats, and global elites. They accused him of undermining diplomacy, claiming it would lead to a nuclear Iran. But as always, Trump’s instincts were right. The JCPOA wasn’t a safeguard against nuclear proliferation—it was a gift to Tehran, allowing them to continue their regional aggression while pocketing economic relief.

The deal’s inspection regime was laughable, and it left critical issues like Iran’s missile program completely unaddressed. Trump’s decision to reimpose crippling sanctions on Iran was not only justified, it was necessary to reassert U.S. strength in the face of a regime that respects only force.

The media’s obsession with undermining Trump blinded them to the glaring issues he pointed out. In their rush to find anything to use against him, they ignored his warnings and dismissed his reasoning.

Iranian Aggression: A Growing Threat Under Biden-Harris
As the Biden-Harris administration fumbles to manage Iran, Tehran has grown more emboldened. Iranian hackers have targeted Trump’s campaign and issued credible threats against his life—actions that are direct consequences of years of weak U.S. diplomacy.

The administration’s failure to stand up to Iran has led to this point. After four years of "maximum pressure" under Trump, the Biden-Harris team reverted back to the Obama-era appeasement strategy, and now the regime feels free to target a former U.S. president. This is more than a national security failure—it's a complete collapse of American deterrence.

Where is Kamala Harris in all of this? If she has been part of every major decision, then she has been complicit in the weak policies that have allowed Iran to operate with impunity. As the Democratic presidential candidate, her silence on these escalating threats is a clear indication of her failure to grasp the severity of the situation.

Conclusion: The Consequences of Compromise
The Iran nuclear deal was never the diplomatic triumph it was claimed to be—it was a deeply flawed agreement negotiated by individuals who had no business representing U.S. interests. Robert Malley’s involvement in recruiting individuals like Ariane Tabatabai, and the Biden-Harris administration’s failure to respond to the subsequent security revelations, have left the U.S. vulnerable to Iranian influence.

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was a crucial course correction to an international disaster. The Biden-Harris administration’s return to these failed policies has only worsened the situation. Ariane Tabatabai remains in her position to this day—an undeniable example of the administration’s negligence. Kamala Harris, as Biden’s right hand, cannot escape responsibility for these failures. As she tries to rebrand herself as a strong presidential candidate with the experience to lead, the American people deserve to know why she has stayed silent on these serious national security concerns. Leadership is about standing up to threats, not allowing them to fester in the shadows.

The question remains: Is Kamala Harris prepared to lead a nation when she has failed to act on such crucial issues? Ariane Tabatabai Policy Analysis: Preserving the Iran Nuclear Deal
cato.org/sites/cato.org…