Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Beltway Rollup:
(2) FCC TO BAN CCP-CONTROLLED TELECOMS TEST LABS: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced new rules intended to block Chinese government and other adversary efforts to assert control of the U.S. wireless equipment certification process. According to the FCC, a review of currently approved test labs found a number of these labs had ties to the Chinese Communist Party and are involved with the Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA).
​
(3) FBI JOINT ADVISORY: RUSSIAN HACKERS TARGETING U.S. LOGISTICS: According to a recent Joint Cybersecurity Advisory from the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA), a Russian state-sponsored hacking campaign is targeting U.S. and NATO logistics and technology companies.

The hacks are conducted by Russian GRU Unit 26165, also known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 (APT28) or Fancy Bear.
According to the notice, Russian state-sponsored hackers have targeted the defense industry, ports, airports, maritime targets, and air traffic management in NATO countries including the United States.

Why It Matters: U.S. supply chains remain vulnerable to cyberattacks from foreign adversary-linked hackers. The manufacturing and logistics sectors have seen a surge in cyberattacks, especially ransomware, over the last four years. State sponsored cyberattacks could take the form of ransomware attacks ostensibly conducted by criminal hackers, or surreptitious cyber incidents that impede U.S. manufacturing and supply chains that appear to be industrial accidents or routine equipment failure. - R.C.

That is amazing.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-farhud

Heh heh.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/immigration-expert-warns-chinese-illegal-080031312.html?guccounter=2&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucGFyYWdvbnByaWRlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE6xi7Qt98s1qWOpZOiC86JPV0opizhGWiW3z9Cjd_Knl3qoKTh6Ih7cENgIhf3zq4lYbmiGQNNHpBbTYogWt4fMIYogpHQTAu9WFjf8JhVqCEBE76JE373YUdh1wtGtXdfM7qiBWW8ERulaeHOsDhkcqYZbL_sgxSx58xh6-IqM

From two months ago.

https://danconiajournal.substack.com/p/on-folding-when-you-ought-to-fight?fbclid=IwY2xjawKUrZVleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETExMlBCZ3Z3UDVmZE8xQm9WAR4E18Iiq1uIsXUdbFYuOD2-0kxUedULOahw_KEUUDU1A7FAuMm69gpiSn0DjQ_aem_EnkQZSMrt_KgChNDg74y_w

https://danconiajournal.substack.com/p/the-lighthouse?fbclid=IwY2xjawKdVCFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFqcDFWWlR5SmY0ZXpKbkYxAR68akOdbpeOmF-HmWG7BASjQ9URZ5qgd6yGdDVnvlHPsQU1zbbzSMAVUf8Aaw_aem_K0hfN5STRqfpdkgFNFThuA

The Lighthouse
How we cut through the fog of the Misinformation Age
Francisco D'Anconia
May 21, 2025

Come pull up a chair and let’s talk a while about something important. It’s something that’s been on my mind a lot lately, especially as we tackle some of the more complex and complicated issues facing the country today. I’m sure you’ve noticed it, too.

It’s getting harder to think. Or at least, to think clearly.

Not because we’ve lost the ability, but because clarity has become a real danger to a lot of different competing agendas. It’s a battle. Every day, we’re flooded with contradictory headlines, finely tuned propaganda, and half-truths positively dripping with sincerity. You start to wonder not just what’s true, but if there’s anybody out there who even wants you to know the truth anymore. The more noise you absorb, the more your instincts feel scrambled. Common sense starts to look like those old TVs we had when we were kids, fuzz and bars and double images because the signal is just enough out of phase to see, but not clearly. So how do you cut through it? How do you realign the antenna? What do you do when you can't trust the signal?

This isn’t rhetorical. These are questions I wrestle with every day, just like you probably do. I mean, at its core, it’s the reason this Journal exists. It’s my virtual attempt to find high-quality minds, sit across from you for a few minutes, and have a real conversation about how we cut through the fog. Not with slogans. Not with spin. But with method. With rigor. With thinking. Sure, that will come with emotion – we’re human and that’s a part of how we all function. But the emotion should be a result, an effect. If we feel betrayal, it should come after we see that we’ve been betrayed. If we feel angry, it should come after we see clearly that something is wrong. I never want to join the ranks of those who helplessly and ineffectually scream at the sky in a vain attempt to make the world accommodate my feelings, and I don’t want to encourage such nonsense in anyone else. No, ours is an effort to discern truth from fiction, results from narratives, real outcomes from spin and shine.

With that in mind, I’d like to spend a few minutes in honest reflection with you.

You’ve undoubtedly noticed that these entries come in fits and starts at times. I don’t adhere to a schedule or put things out in this Journal just to post content. I write when I feel I have something to say. Usually, that follows a lot of research and analysis, as well as lots of conversations with the smartest people I know. What you read is the result of a process that combines those things with a career’s worth of training in analysis and analytic tradecraft. While I’ll freely state my opinions on all kinds of things, I don’t “guess” here when it comes to assessments. I don’t just parrot the Left or Right’s spin because it suits me, and I sure as hell don’t take the word of elected officials, career bureaucrats, or legacy media outlets. I analyze. I assess. I give you my best whack at a topic and I try to tell you how I got there.

When we looked at the Trump tariffs on China, you didn’t see me speculate about whether it was a good or bad idea. I built an Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) model and tracked China’s reactions in real time, not through blogs and social media posts, but through primary sources, trade metrics, financial signals, and on-the-ground reporting from sources I can verify. When protests erupted in five Chinese provinces, I didn’t need a pundit to explain what it meant. I’d already mapped out that very contingency and knew what it told us about Xi’s shifting strategy. This kind of thing is referred to in intelligence work as a “reflection.”

When President Trump’s Middle East tour unfolded, same thing. I didn’t look to the op-ed class to tell me whether Trump’s moves were “reckless” or “historic.” I catalogued and graphed reactions, statements, funding flows, ceasefires, and realignments. I applied methodology, not partisanship. I told you what to watch, both to determine whether my assessment held up, or to see if it was falling apart. Both matter – you have to know what signs point to being right, but you also have to be aware of the signs that tell you “I blew it.” And what reflections do we see?

We see Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar maintaining their typical “Arab Solidarity” by advocating for the Palestinian people which simultaneously distancing themselves from Hamas. That’s a big deal. We see them investing heavily with U.S. partners on tech and AI, as well as “buying American” at scale in the transportation sector. We see China reacting all over the place, from overt concessions to back-room deals to save face to diplomatic admissions that Trump’s strategy is working. I’ll get into these in more depth in just a minute, but go back and look at the original assessments and you’ll see these indicators were called out specifically.

I showed you how the methodology worked with Crossfire Hurricane and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. I didn’t accept Barr’s word. I didn’t look to Durham. I didn’t follow what Mueller omitted. I read and broke down the 7 binders of newly released information as well as the raw information we already had available. I went source by source. I tried to see (and show you) how those sources connected and where the threads crossed. It’s harder this way, but it’s the only way to escape the narrative trap. What’s more, if you don’t do it that way, then at some level you’re just picking sides and believing whichever partisan hack you identify with most.

And that’s the point: We are being manipulated. Constantly. Left, right, and center. We know that. We talk about it constantly. And we know the only protection we have is disciplined thinking.

You’ve seen me say it before. We’re always just one new fact away from realizing we were wrong about everything. That’s the unwritten creed of every serious analyst. It’s why we revisit our conclusions. It’s why, even now, we should continue to test the models we’ve built. We’re not afraid to change our minds — but only if the evidence demands it. Every “change” should be an improvement, an evolution based on better information. That’s why we look for reflections. It’s why we go back and test those indicators to see if we’re on the right track or if we blew it and didn’t consider something important along the way. It’s our mechanism for accountability and for self-awareness.

So, let’s do a quick review of what I’ve put out for your consumption and how those assessments hold up.

In my report on China’s Next Move, I projected that China would offer overt trade concessions in response to internal protests and market pressures, and that Xi would also attempt to quietly negotiate behind the scenes to save face on bigger issues.

Result? Assessment Confirmed. Quiet negotiations are underway. Tariff offsets are being explored even as a public deal favoring the U.S. is announced. Xi’s level of control depends on his ability to keep internal and external influences in balance, and every upset of that balance benefits the U.S. The hypothesis still stands.

In my report on President Trump’s Middle East Tour, I forecast that the President’s agenda was engineered to take advantage of transactional opportunities to shift Middle East partners toward America, and to realign regional power to undermine the CCP’s agenda.

Result? Assessment Confirmed. Record levels of foreign investment in the U.S. coming in. Saudi, UAE, and Qatar maintain support for Palestinians, but have distanced themselves from Hamas in particular. China in particular has squealed in pain at the result of Trump’s deals. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned U.S. deals with the Gulf states as “unilateral bullying” and “a targeted campaign to suppress China’s AI industry.” Chinese analysts have begun warning of “U.S. encirclement in the digital domain,” especially as Middle Eastern tech infrastructure begins to shift from Chinese-managed systems to U.S.-regulated architecture. And finally, Beijing is reportedly accelerating its Military-Civil Fusion strategy and pursuing alternative regional footholds in Africa and Central Asia.

So yes — we should revisit. We should refine. We should keep checking. That’s the difference between propaganda and principled analysis. One seeks converts. The other seeks truth.

For many of you, this is why you’ve stayed with me. It’s why you continue to invest the time and effort in wrestling with all of this, and it’s why you’re willing to put in the work to pick apart the ideas I put in front of you. You know we aren’t just screaming into the sky. We’re cutting away the narratives and rhetoric that have been so carefully designed to preserve agendas, and we’re getting to the truth.

I’m also seeing a lot of new readers. This Journal is being shared in places it hasn’t been shared before, and there are new eyes and new minds dipping their attention in for a trial run. To those people: You know something’s wrong. You know the mainstream feels broken. Let this be your invitation to start thinking clearly again — not by trusting me, but by reading and thinking for yourself and seeing where those thoughts lead you. You should be testing my assertions and assessments, too. I certainly do. If you do, I’ll wager that even when we disagree, you’ll be able to follow the reasoning to my conclusions instead of the rhetoric.

And of course, there are my reflexive critics. Those who see me align with President Trump and immediately decide to hate whatever comes next. To those folks, understand I don’t see you as an enemy. But your refusal to test your assumptions makes you your own worst enemy. You call it “resistance.” I call it willful blindness. If you’re a critic, I offer you a challenge - prove me wrong. The source material is public. My methods are transparent. Apply the same rigor to the same information and let’s see what happens when you think for yourself.

The issues we grapple with here are complex. They’re complicated. They’re made much tougher to understand by the incredible armies of competing interests who profit by making sure these issues are impenetrable to the common person. They earn viewers and advertising dollars by shared outrage, engagement by feeding passions rather than encouraging comprehension. It’s an ecosystem that’s evolved to destroy progress whether it was ever intended to or not. Here, my goal is to change things for the better. To do that, we have to start with truth. We have to act based on what is objectively true, and that means we have to spend some time cultivating the skills, the discipline, and the intellectual rigor to cut through the bullshit.

Thanks for coming with me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-administration-bars-harvard-from-enrolling-international-students/ar-AA1FiMTj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=c8b9c44be9024343b24190022a7123cf&ei=6

I don't disagree.

Mahipal is a good friend.
===============================

The Sandbox That Breaks Empires: Why Pakistan and Afghanistan Will Shatter—And Why India Won’t Step In

Recently, several people asked me privately why I believe Pakistan and Afghanistan are heading toward fragmentation. Some even pressed further: “Do you think India will be the one to make this happen?” My answer was simple—no, India won’t enter that geography. When they asked if it was because India is afraid, I replied, “Let me tell you a story,” and began to lay out the analysis.

The Graveyard of Ambitions

Central Asia—especially the lands we now call Pakistan and Afghanistan—has been a magnet for outsiders with grand plans. Alexander the Great, the British Empire, the Soviets, and the Americans all marched in, convinced they could impose order, only to leave battered and empty-handed. Each time, the region shrugged off foreign rule and returned to its own rhythms.

Five Unbreakable Rules

What makes this land so resistant to outside control? There are five rules that every would-be conqueror ignores at their peril:

1. Mountains Eat Armies
The terrain is unforgiving. The Hindu Kush and the deserts of Baluchistan turn supply lines into nightmares and advanced technology into expensive scrap.

2. Tribes Over Flags
Loyalty here is to the tribe, the clan, the village—not to distant capitals or imported ideologies. Attempts to forge national unity are met with skepticism or outright defiance.

3. Time Is the Ultimate Weapon
Outsiders think in terms of years or decades. Locals think in terms of generations. They can wait out any occupation or regime.

4. Proxies Always Bite Back
Every superpower arms local fighters to do their bidding. Those proxies inevitably become tomorrow’s warlords, insurgents, or enemies.

5. The House Always Wins
The region doesn’t just resist change—it adapts and outlasts. The invaders eventually leave, but the chaos and divisions they create remain.

The Coming Fracture

Pakistan and Afghanistan are not unified nations—they are patchworks stitched together by colonial borders and held in place by force, fear, and, increasingly, foreign money. Pakistan is a mosaic of Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, and Baloch, each with their own histories and grievances. Afghanistan is a jigsaw of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks, united only by their resistance to outsiders.

As pressure mounts—economic crisis, proxy wars, and internal strife—the seams are beginning to split. The likely future is not unity, but fragmentation: Pashtun regions straddling both countries, Balochistan seeking independence, Hazara and Tajik enclaves carving out their own spaces. The old map is fading, and a new, messier one is emerging.

Why India Won’t Step In

So, why won’t India intervene? Is it because India is afraid? The answer is more strategic than emotional.

India knows the story of this land as well as anyone. It has watched every empire—British, Soviet, American—march in with confidence and leave in defeat. India understands the five rules. It knows that the mountains and tribes cannot be subdued by force, and that any attempt to do so would only drain resources, create new enemies, and destabilize its own borders.

India’s strategy is not about fear—it’s about wisdom. The cost of entering this geography is far greater than any possible reward. In the sandbox that breaks empires, the smart move is to stay out.

Superpowers, Same Mistakes

Meanwhile, China and the United States are still learning this lesson the hard way. China believes it can succeed where others failed by building roads and ports. But infrastructure projects in Balochistan are blown up as quickly as they’re built. The United States, after two decades of war, now tries to manage the region from afar with drones and dollars, hoping to avoid the mess on the ground.

Both are missing the point. Central Asia is not a problem to be solved or a market to be opened. It is a crucible that melts down every imported idea and returns it as chaos. Globalization, with its promises of progress and connection, hits a wall here—and shatters.

Who Pays the Price?

It’s not the strategists in Beijing or Washington, nor the generals who plan the next intervention. The real cost is borne by the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan: families caught between warring factions, children growing up in refugee camps, entire generations lost to violence and uncertainty. Each new attempt to “fix” the region only deepens the wounds.

The Unyielding Lesson

Central Asia does not want to be tamed. It does not want to be remade in someone else’s image. The world’s most powerful nations can try, but they will only add their names to the long list of failures. The region will split and reshape itself on its own terms, not on the terms of outsiders.

In the end, the lesson is simple and brutal: some places cannot be conquered, bought, or globalized. They can only be endured. And in the sandbox that breaks empires, it is always the locals who pay the highest price—until the world finally learns to leave them alone.

(PS: The tribes living in the mountains and remote areas of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and their neighbors have always seen outsiders as oppressors. For generations, they have resisted anyone who tries to control them—whether it’s foreign armies, powerful governments, or big companies promising “development.” To these tribes, globalization feels like just another way for outsiders to take their land, change their culture, and tell them how to live. This region is one of the last surviving “Zomias”—places where people have managed to avoid being ruled by big states and have kept their own ways of life. For them, holding on to their independence and traditions is far more important than joining the global economy or accepting outside help. They want to decide their own future, not have it decided for them.)

Sounds more than plausible to me!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-and-russia-can-detect-f-35-fighters-now/ar-AA1F83oW?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=e65f1118fe5f4b76a50b17cecd8cbcf7&ei=28

What can be done about this problem? It’s unclear. But in order to solve a problem, one must first acknowledge it. We are fast approaching the period in which the United States military, with its absurd $1 trillion defense budget proposal, is rendered obsolete by cheaper, more innovative Chinese and Russian rivals.

===============

This one reads like a feed from someone with skin in the game.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-f-35-s-advanced-stealth-doesn-t-make-it-invisible-just-hard-to-kill/ar-AA1EXmw7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=fe8d64b3aef24a4bb942ffa849602465&ei=38 

Disclose the Trump Crypto Dinner Guests
The public should know the attendees at his $TRUMP coin gala.
By
The Editorial Board
Updated May 20, 2025 6:34 pm ET

President Trump likes to blur lines between personal business and public office, but he’d help himself by calling off his Thursday gala with the top 220 holders of his meme-coin. If he won’t do that, he could at least disclose his crypto contest’s winners so Americans know who may be trying to buy access to the President.

Days before his inauguration, Mr. Trump launched a $TRUMP coin whose purported purpose was to “celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!” Sure. It happened that the coin could also enrich the Trump family. The fine print disclosed that the Trump Organization and affiliates held 80% of the coin tokens and therefore stood to benefit from any price appreciation.

A share of each trade is also routed to crypto wallets linked to the coin’s creators, so more trading generates more revenue for Trump businesses. Last month Mr. Trump set off a flurry of trading by announcing a dinner at his golf club outside Washington, D.C., on May 22 for the top 220 holders and an “ultra-exclusive private VIP reception” with the top 25.

The crypto user names and wallet addresses of the winners are listed on the Trump website leaderboard, but their real identities aren’t disclosed. Bloomberg News reported this month that 19 of the top 25 holders and more than half of the top 220 had bought the coin using foreign exchanges that claim to exclude U.S. customers.

This suggests most of the top buyers are foreigners. Might they be seeking a seat at the President’s table to influence U.S. policy, especially in foreign affairs? Mr. Trump claims he’s not doing anything wrong by holding the dinner. But even if he’s not violating any laws, the contest creates the risk of ethical conflicts.

If the contest is as above board as the President says, why not reveal the real names of the winners? Some of their identities are bound to come out anyway. The press, Democratic Attorneys General and Members of Congress are going to investigate. Mr. Trump lambasted President Biden over Hunter Biden’s artwork sales to secret buyers and pledged his Administration would be the “most transparent in history.” One way to fulfill that promise is to be transparent about his crypto investors.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IqlD5wijc8Y

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-inside-secret-illegal-antifa-headquarters

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-judge-slams-supreme-court-says-courts-are-not-a-denny-s/ar-AA1FaRCK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=85eede93fdd8403b80bf7f1ddfe6eb3f&ei=35

==================
WSJ
A Supreme Court Injustice to a District Judge
Justice Alito’s dissent gets it right: James Hendrix handled the Alien Enemies Act case commendably.
By Paul G. Cassell
May 20, 2025 12:57 pm ET

The Supreme Court held last week that the government needs to provide more notice to alleged alien enemies before deporting them. The 7-2 ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump wasn’t itself a surprise; the court had already signaled skepticism of the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But in the unsigned opinion, the justices did an injustice to James Wesley Hendrix, the presiding judge in Lubbock, Texas.

The high court accused Judge Hendrix of “inaction”—of failing to act quickly enough and thereby denying the aliens due process. In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) said this accusation was “unfair” and that “we should commend” the judge’s “careful approach.” The dissenters are right. Judge Hendrix’s service was exemplary. The majority was wrong to malign this judge and sent a disturbing message about procedural norms.

The case’s chronology is complex. On Thursday, April 17, Judge Hendrix was busy presiding over a complex criminal trial involving out-of-state minor victims who testified about sexual exploitation. That evening, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union left a voicemail with Judge Hendrix’s chambers on the aliens’ behalf, asserting that their clients were at risk of immediate removal.

In my experience, trial judges are unlikely to check voicemails after hours, let alone act on them. But Judge Hendrix promptly issued an order stating that any emergency relief must be requested through a formal motion, and the government would have 24 hours to respond. At 12:34 a.m. on April 18—Good Friday—the ACLU submitted an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. The motion included no deadline by which a ruling was needed.

According to the Supreme Court, Judge Hendrix’s timeline to address the motion began 34 minutes after midnight. That’s unreasonable. Judge Hendrix had no idea when or if an emergency motion would be filed. Was he expected to wait up all night to check if any motions came across the docket?

We can safely assume that Judge Hendrix didn’t see the emergency motion until his workday began on Friday. He later wrote that he “was working with utmost diligence to resolve these important and complicated issues as quickly as possible” and planned to rule by noon Saturday after receiving a government response. But he didn’t have a chance. At 12:48 p.m. on Friday, the ACLU demanded an emergency status conference and said if the court didn’t rule by 1:30 p.m., it would seek emergency relief from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hendrix was unable to resolve these complex issues in 42 minutes. No judge could have thoughtfully done so.

Once the appeal was filed, the district judge lost all jurisdiction. Later that evening, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Judge Hendrix. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee, wrote that the “failure to issue the requested ruling within 42 minutes” was no error. Judge Ramirez and her colleagues were right. Judge Hendrix not only didn’t abuse his discretion but performed admirably under extraordinary time pressure.

Yet, on appeal, the Supreme Court found error. The justices stated that “the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect” of ruling against the aliens. Whether it is 40 minutes, 14 hours or even 40 hours, the Supreme Court is simply wrong. Lower-court judges can’t be expected to decide complex issues on the fly, especially in the area of national security, where there are weighty interests on all sides. The justices should know this—they took 27 days to write their opinion reversing Judge Hendrix. Members of the Supreme Court have complained in other cases about their inability to resolve complicated constitutional issues on compressed time frames.

The Supreme Court has sent a regrettable signal to the lower courts: If a civil-liberties group comes to you with a purported emergency you should issue an immediate order against the government and resolve the details later. This amounts to a one-way ratchet in favor of civil-liberties claims without regard to competing considerations.

Justice Alito’s dissent correctly defends Judge Hendrix’s deliberation. It stands in contrast with that of other judges, who, as Justice Alito noted, “granted temporary injunctive relief without adequate consideration of the relevant issues.” We need more jurists like Judge Hendrix, and the Supreme Court should think more carefully about how its rulings could distort the work of the lower courts.

Mr. Cassell is a professor of criminal law at the University of Utah. He served as a federal district judge in Utah, 2002-07.



==================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-finally-wins-ruling-in-blow-to-tren-de-aragua/ss-AA1F5Uct?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=e65f1118fe5f4b76a50b17cecd8cbcf7&ei=19

A traitor. 

As Obama's point man for China he grifted $20M+ and in return let China create psuedo islands and militarize the South China Sea.

He led the invasion of our country with 10-20M illegal aliens.

He grifted Ukraine and by so doing exposed himself to pressures to provoke war with Russia.

He used intel agencies, DOJ, and the FBI to steal an election and persecute his opponent with prosecutions

He refused to recognize his grandchild.

https://tomklingenstein.com/doge-is-downstream-of-the-real-problem/?utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=6789986499068&utm_content=6789986499268&utm_term=6789986498868&utm_campaign=6789986499068&fbclid=IwY2xjawKZyU5leHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQAAAYs6yrZpGJyaWQRMWljbnREaVZ2RHRDZHhsRUEBHjqC2fbKPsV5_r54G6TlUpzploLoAK7G4hZ_zQ6kqCLyGsbGbfEt2Ukt6iNb_aem_CQpoKrgI5ZPmwCpkaAibew

IMHO the starting point should be to assert that we now live in a world of hyrid/full spectrum war. I think it important to make this point to meet the concern/propagancda that there needs to be a war or a Pancho Villa-like predatory incursion for the act to be applicable.

 

I've heard Chip Roy in various FOX interviews and have a positive impression of him as a serious Congressman.

 

https://humanevents.com/2025/05/20/joshua-lisec-the-13-life-lessons-we-all-learned-from-scott-adams-our-beloved-internet-dad

Grammar nazi here haha:

"The other thing I notice no where does it mention whoM they voted for."

 

The Harris campaign was a huge grifting operation.

Third

If Biden's cancer was known in advance of the decision to run again (whomever it was that made that decision) what suggests here is that there was a conspiracy to get Biden's corrupt, senile, and cancer ridden ass across the finish line, then 25th him and put Baraq's puppet (remember she was HIS choice for VP, not Biden's) Kackling Kommie into the Oval Office for Baraq's 4th term.