Vandalizing our World War II Memorial is a despicable attack on a sacred monument honoring the Americans who fought and died for our freedom. Those Americans include my father and grandfather.
This morning, we are filing two felony charges, Depredation Against Property of the… pic.twitter.com/7EQxGWtdue
If Republicans were doing this, there'd be a civil rights investigation.
Ahead of the Michigan Senate primary, the media pushed polls claiming that Abdul Mohammed El-Sayed was far ahead of Haley Stevens when it actually out to be a fairly close and narrow race.
Now we had a repeat of that in the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign where polls were projecting a Hong win by between 18 to 25 when Crowley narrowly defeated her in the actual race.
The pollsters will claim that they ‘dropped the ball’, but these are very similar ‘errors’ involving vast leads being assigned to socialist candidates right ahead of the election. The net effect of these polls was voter suppression against Crowley and Stevens voters who were seen as less motivated and driven than the socialist candidates. It worked in the Michigan race, but didn’t in the Wisconsin race.
It’s easy enough to manufacture such a swing by undersampling black and working class voters, the Stevens and Crowley base, while oversampling white leftists, suburban woke moms, college students and so forth
What that amounts to, ironically enough, is the very thing that Dems and the media accuse Republicans of, black voter suppression.
This is the second Dem primary race in which the pollsters engaged in black voter suppression by oversampling white leftists in an attempt to depress black voter turnout for the non-socialist candidates.
If Republicans were doing this, there’d be a civil rights investigation.But it’s leftists doing this and so it’s treated as some sort of innocent error.
---
Sundance, "Surprise Defeat for DSA Communist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin"
The DSA Communists are claiming election rigging in Wisconsin as Francesca Hong has been defeated by DNC party approved candidate David Crowley.
The current status of the race is Crowley with 39.78% (313,321) and Hong with 39.37% (310,110). Crowley leading by more than three thousand votes
The reason for the apoplexy is that all polling showed Hong with an easy 20-to-25-point lead heading into election day.
State Navigate polling had Francesca Hong +22, Public Policy Polling had predicted Hong +18, Marquette University polling (the gold standard) had Hong +25, then State Navigate polling had Hong +29, and finally Public Policy Polling had another easy win at Hong +20.
Therefore, the only way the DSA Communists can reconcile the outcome of Hong losing is to believe that some other malevolent force was involved in the actual counting of the ballots.
Malevolent force below the fold:
American race relations are at a crossroads. In the years since our current racial bargain was struck in the 1960s, our country has coped with its contradictions and imperfections by the very American method of muddling through. That has worked for a long time, but soon it won’t work anymore. We will have to choose between one path and another. There are two reasons for this, and they are unavoidable.
The first reason is demographic. Our racial bargain was made for a country that was biracial and almost 90 percent white. It will no longer work for a country where white people are a minority and the non-white population includes multiple races, including some that were hardly present in the United States when the racial bargain was struck. There were fewer Chinese Americans in 1960 than there are Egyptian Americans today and fewer Mexican-born Americans then than Venezuelan-born Americans now.
For Generation Z, the beneficiaries of our system of racial benefits are no longer a marginal 10 percent of the population. They are a demographic majority. Non-white Zoomers—and, to an extent, white women as well—benefit from both demographic predominance and an explicit or tacit boost in any head-to-head competition with white men, which, in combination, means that affirmative action is no longer a matter of white Americans sacrificing the occasional promotion. It means white men in particular are effectively shut out of many prestigious fields and institutions, especially in the lower rungs.
This is both unfair and unworkable. Unfair, because a white Zoomer does not feel toward the son of an Indian computer programmer or the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant the same moral obligation he feels toward the descendant of slaves. Unworkable, because the challenge of making every institution match our national demographics becomes more difficult as our diversity gets more diverse. Diversity used to mean making sure there was a black person in the room. Now it means finely calibrating multiple demographics, which requires putting race at the forefront of personnel decisions.
The second reason race relations are approaching a crisis is that our racial bargain was supposed to be temporary. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was quickly agreed that some racial favoritism was justified to compensate for the black minority’s unequal starting point. The temporary nature of this favoritism was crucial to the deal. The imperative to treat citizens equally under the law was the moral claim on which the whole civil rights movement was based. Race-based remedies were only “transitional,” promised one chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and would “fall into disuse once the job is done.”
At the time, it was sincerely expected that black and white outcomes would converge. A study by the Urban Institute in 1971 extrapolated black progress over the previous eight years and predicted exactly when the catch-up would occur for various metrics such as poverty rates, college completion, and infant mortality. The one that would take the longest, life expectancy at thirty-five years, was predicted to reach white levels in 2019.
In 2003, Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously wrote, “We expect that twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” in her decision in Grutter v. Bollinger upholding affirmative action at the University of Michigan. There were a handful of conservatives at the time who would have told her that this was optimistic, based on the available data, but these voices were marginalized as politically incorrect. The conventional wisdom was with Justice O’Connor.
Today, two years away from Justice O’Connor’s twenty-five-year deadline, the conventional wisdom has changed. Everyone can see that the long hoped-for convergence has not materialized. Affirmative action is still necessary to achieve colleges’ desired racial diversity. We have created a black middle class, but blacks from wealthy households on average still have lower SAT scores and lower credit scores than whites from poorer households. Large disparities in violent crime rates still persist, as do disparities in wealth, in part because houses in black neighborhoods still have persistently lower home values.
Both the left and the right have registered the stubbornness of these racial gaps. The recent popularity among liberals of radical authors such as Ibram X. Kendi, who proposed an amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting “racial inequity” and a new government agency to implement it, was a symptom of this disillusionment. As equality of opportunity recedes as a plausible goal for the civil rights regime, having failed to arrive after three generations, there is a growing market for pessimists like Kendi who want to shift the goal to equality of outcome.
So that is the situation we face: The old racial bargain is breaking down, due to a combination of changing demographics and a dawning realization that racial outcomes are not going to converge any time soon. One possible path forward is to throw out the old racial bargain and establish a new one based on equality under the law. The other possible path is to accept permanent racial favoritism at every level of society.
“The old racial bargain is breaking down.”
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Laura Loomer became infamous for spreading conspiracy theories online. Now, as she travels across Ukraine to see the damage inflicted by Russia in its yearslong war, she wants to admit that she fell for some falsehoods of her own.
A close ally of President Donald Trump, Loomer has completely reversed her longtime criticism of Ukraine and is urging fellow conservatives to be wary of Moscow's propaganda, which she blames for duping large swaths of the American right.
"You don't need to listen to a podcaster and let them influence your opinion about a country. You can look at those facts yourself," she told The Associated Press in Kyiv shortly after returning from a trip close to the front line in Ukraine's east. The interview was supposed to take place in Loomer's hotel, but it had to be moved to the building's underground bomb shelter as the city faced another ballistic missile attack.
Loomer has remained influential with Trump despite not having an official role, and she said they spoke over the phone after she sat down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She also said that she expects to meet with Trump after returning from her trip.
Loomer's turnaround on Ukraine has been welcomed by the country's leaders, whose relationships with Trump have been strained at times. But it has also stirred confusion, surprise and suspicion in the United States. She continues to insist that Ukraine is not paying for her travels.
As Trump and Zelenskyy prepare to meet on Tuesday in Washington, Loomer said it's clear that her trip has already made a difference, refocusing attention on the war as Congress debates new sanctions intended to punish Russia.
"It's looking good for Ukraine, right?" she said. "Going into this meeting next week at the Oval Office is looking pretty good."
Loomer says she was 'bamboozled' to oppose Ukraine
Loomer had spent years minimizing the war and amplifying Russian propaganda until she made a dramatic reversal this week.
"I've come to realize I was bamboozled by Russian propaganda and I came to believe a lot of untrue things about Ukraine. I used to think that this was a country full of Nazis," Loomer told Zelenskyy as she interviewed him for her show on Rumble, an online video platform.
Loomer blamed her indoctrination on getting banned by American social media platforms, leading her to try Telegram, where Russian media is widely shared.
"The Russians," she added, "are very good at capitalizing on people's rage. And I was very angry," she said, recounting her feelings about the 2020 election, which she falsely maintains was stolen from Trump despite all evidence to the contrary.
She said her change in perspective had been gradual as she started to see podcasters like Tucker Carlson "turn on President Trump" while having their rhetoric amplified by Russian sources.
Loomer, who casts herself as an independent journalist, told the AP she believed her reversal was already changing minds within Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement.
"Oh, 100%," she said. "I've received messages all day from different people and media and politics and people just who follow me online who said, 'Wow, I didn't realize how much we've been lied to.' 'Wow you really opened my eyes.'"
Loomer was welcomed with open arms
Ukrainian officials seemed to recognize the opportunity to win over an ardent Trump ally with a large online following. In addition to her interview with Zelenskyy, Loomer had audiences with top Ukrainian officials and the country's chief rabbi.
"It takes courage to come to Ukraine and not be deterred by Russian propaganda or air raid sirens," Zelenskyy's office wrote on social media.
Loomer also got a tour of Dormition Cathedral of Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a monastic complex that came under Russian attack last month.
"Laura is very powerful and she's very authoritative in the U.S., so I hope that everything she has seen by her own eyes will help her to spread the truth when she is back at the U.S.," Tetyana Berezhna, the deputy prime minister and Ukrainian minister of culture, told the AP. "I do really hope and I believe that her visit will have a huge impact on relations with the U.S. administration."
While some have tried to downplay Loomer's influence with the president, he has often followed her advice. She occasionally traveled with him during the 2024 campaign, and last year he purged his National Security Council staff after she raised concerns about their loyalty in an Oval Office meeting.
Trump appears to be tracking Loomer's trip, sharing video of her conversation with Zelenskyy on social media.
"Very good!!!" he wrote on Thursday evening.
The conspiracist denounces conspiracy theories
Loomer has a long history of spreading conspiracy theories. She once shared a video that called 9/11 an "inside job" and amplified a lie about Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats in Ohio, which Trump went on to repeat during a presidential debate with Kamala Harris.
Although Loomer may have changed her mind about Russia's invasion, her bigoted views have not budged.
"One thing I really love about Ukraine is I haven't seen a single Muslim here," she posted on Saturday. "It's so refreshing."
But in the interview, she bemoaned how influential podcasters can spread misinformation.
White supremacy comes in all forms. https://t.co/w4qyN2Lip7
— Donovan Richards Jr. (@DRichardsQNS) July 20, 2026
from Google AI:
Black activists criticized DSA Founder Michael Harrington for prioritizing economic "class-first" socialism over distinct civil rights issues. Prominent leaders argued his approach downplayed systemic anti-Black racism. They also condemned his close ties to labor unions during the 1968 New York City teachers' strike, which pitted white-dominated unions against Black community control initiatives.
Core Criticisms
- Class Reductionism: Critics argued that Harrington’s economic focus on abolishing poverty erased the unique, lived experience of racial discrimination. They felt his framework reduced all Black suffering to economic inequality.
- Institutional Alliances: Harrington aligned closely with conservative labor leaders. Black activists viewed these unions as barriers that blocked Black Americans from jobs and fair housing.
- The 1968 Teachers' Strike: During this strike, Harrington supported the teachers' union. Many Black activists viewed the union's actions as a direct assault on Black self-determination in local schools.
The Core DivideHarrington believed that racial equality was impossible without first changing the capitalist system. He argued that a multiracial coalition, built primarily around the labor movement, was the only way to achieve lasting social change.
In contrast, Black activists asserted that racism was deeply woven into American society. They argued that focusing solely on class failed to dismantle the white supremacy that existed in all aspects of daily life.
Historical Perspective
Harrington was a civil rights advocate who marched in the South and worked with Bayard Rustin. However, as the 1960s progressed, the Black Power movement emerged. Activists in this movement increasingly rejected the old socialist strategy of making civil rights wait for a broader economic revolution.
"Why, Mike, we never knew we were poor until we read your book."
...when Neo-Fascists put a WEF DEI-ESG Compliance Nazi on your Corporate Board of Directors
from Google AI:
The German Stock Corporation Act of 1937 (Aktiengesetz 1937) legally shifted corporate focus away from shareholders toward the state.
Alternatively, the legislative act that granted the Nazi regime total, sweeping control, is the Enabling Act of 1933.
1. The Stock Corporation Act of 1937 (Aktiengesetz)
Historically, this is the most famous legal mandate linking corporate governance, "stakeholder" theory, and Nazi ideology.2. The Enabling Act of 1933
- The Shift: It officially stripped shareholders of their primacy.
- The Law: It legally mandated that a company's board of directors must manage the enterprise not to maximize shareholder profit, but to serve the interests of the Volksgemeinschaft (the public good of the "people's community") and the Nazi state.
- The Result: It stripped corporate democracy by giving the executive board absolute power over shareholders, effectively embedding the Nazi Führerprinzip (leader principle) into corporate law.
If your query is about political stakeholders or structural control, the Enabling Act (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich) is the foundational law of the regime.
- The Law: Passed on March 23, 1933, it allowed Hitler’s cabinet to enact laws without the approval of parliament.
- The Result: It legally dismantled the Weimar Republic, completely sidelined political opposition, and centralized absolute power.
3. Economic Exclusion Decrees
If you are looking for laws targeting specific corporate stakeholders based on ethnicity or nationality, the regime utilized several decrees:
- The 1938 Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property: Forced Jewish citizens and business stakeholders to register assets, paving the way for forced "Aryanization" and asset theft.
- The 1938 Decree on the Elimination of the Jews from Economic Life: Completely barred specific demographics from holding stakes or operating businesses.
- The 1940 Decree on Enemy Property: Allowed the state to appoint administrators to strip foreign shareholders of corporate control without consultation.
“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
00:00:00 Russophobia and anti-Semitism00:07:11 Nazi racism and colonial thinking00:13:25 Racism, essentialism and inequality00:19:29 Demodernization and private anger00:24:46 Why elites need enemies00:35:04 Stereotypes, diplomacy and deterrence00:46:51 Anti-Semitism, Israel and public debate00:54:09 Empire, culture and racism
"Rage generates more clicks than hope, so we use it as a shortcut to garner attention online,"
Joe Biden was a paradox, for he both honored and flagrantly disrespected the institutions he served.The news arrived with the weight of inevitability. Jill Biden confirmed publicly what few had said plainly: former President Joe Biden is living with advanced, stage 4 prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. At 83, the diagnosis is incurable. The moment commands genuine human empathy, and it deserves it.But empathy and historical honesty are not mutually exclusive. For the independent analytical observer, Biden's career presents a profound paradox — a man who built his entire public identity on institutional decency and democratic principle, only to undermine both in his final political act. History rarely affords a cleaner case study in the gap between projected virtue and practiced power.To understand the full weight of Biden's legacy, one must start where his reputation was most earned. During the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, Biden presided as Judiciary Committee Chairman with visible command. His objectivity, procedural discipline, and adherence to legislative decorum were genuine. Here was the old-school institutionalist at his best: fair, deliberate, and deeply respectful of the system he served.Yet this institutional mastery masked a persistent electoral weakness. Whenever Biden stepped away from the committee room and asked voters to choose him on his own merits, they declined — consistently. In his early presidential bids, he failed to capture even one percent of the Democratic primary vote. Insiders respected his process; the broader electorate did not see a natural national leader.Biden's transformation into a national figure came not through the electorate but through Barack Obama's selection of him as Vice President. A behavioral shift followed almost immediately — Biden could suddenly be seen sprinting to podiums, a deliberate optic broadcasting energy and vitality to compensate for a career defined by age and frequent verbal miscues.The deeper calculation surfaced at the end of the Obama presidency. A sitting Vice President is the natural heir apparent. Yet Biden hesitated, publicly citing the loss of his son Beau to cancer — a grief that was real and deserved respect. But the analytical record reveals a parallel truth: Hillary Clinton had nearly beaten Obama himself and had built an unstoppable primary machine. Biden, with his sub-1% primary history, faced a genuine prospect of humiliating defeat as sitting Vice President. Sitting out 2016 was not only grief. It was also calculated self-preservation.When Biden finally won the presidency, the chasm between his projected decency and his actual exercise of power widened steadily. He repeatedly denounced Donald Trump for degrading democratic norms, while himself proclaiming he would have taken Trump "behind the gym" in high school. The rhetoric of the principled institutionalist and the rhetoric of the street brawler rarely acknowledge each other. Biden deployed both without apparent awareness of the contradiction.More consequential was his handling of his family. For years he dismissed documented evidence surrounding Hunter Biden's financial dealings and personal conduct. Then, in his final weeks in office, he issued a sweeping preemptive pardon covering a decade of potential offenses — and justified it by claiming "raw politics" had infected the justice system. The man who had spent four years insisting he respected the Department of Justice's independence used the rawest executive power available to shield his son from it. In doing so, he dismantled his own central argument.The most consequential gamble came in 2024. Having built his reelection rationale on the declaration that "democracy is on the ballot," Biden fiercely resisted public alarm about his cognitive acuity — until a nationally televised debate made denial impossible. Under intense backroom pressure, he withdrew.What followed was the most revealing act of his career. Rather than calling for an open primary and letting Democratic voters choose their nominee, Biden instantly anointed Kamala Harris. Not a single popular vote was cast. The self-proclaimed defender of democratic process presided in silence over its bypass — a party coronation driven by elite calculation, not voter will. Subsequent analysis has documented how that decision fractured the coalition and contributed directly to defeat.History rarely renders flat judgments. Biden will be remembered as a man of genuine institutional capability — the composed chairman of a historic 1991 hearing, a long-serving public servant now facing an incurable illness with quiet dignity. That is real, and it counts.But history will also record the cold calculus. A leader who wrapped himself in constitutional principle for decades, then set it aside when the stakes became personal — to protect his son, to protect his party's grip on power, to avoid transparency about his own fitness for office. In pursuing historical greatness through a final series of high-stakes gambles, Joe Biden damaged the very asset he had spent a lifetime building: his reputation as a man who put the institution above himself. That tension — between the man he genuinely was and the calculations he ultimately made — is the defining story of his long career. No diagnosis changes it. Both are true, and history will hold both.
In March 2026, unconfirmed allegations surfaced regarding a 2022 Ukrainian plot to redirect U.S. taxpayer funds into Joe Biden's re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).The details regarding these disclosures and the current status of the investigation include the following:The Alleged Intercept SchemeAccording to declassified U.S. intelligence summaries originally reported by Just the News and later shared by President Donald Trump, the U.S. intercepted communications from late 2022. The records allegedly outlined a proposal where the Ukrainian government and U.S. personnel based at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) office in Kyiv would mask hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for clean energy infrastructure projects.The intercepted conversations suggested routing approximately 90% of those allocated funds through two American subcontractors, with the ultimate destination being the DNC treasury. The individuals recorded in the intercepts believed that once the funds were allocated, the money would be impossible to recall, even if the underlying infrastructure project was later canceled or deemed unnecessary.Tulsi Gabbard's Actions and DisclosuresUpon learning of these raw intelligence intercepts, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard ordered a review of the matter. Gabbard instructed USAID officials to scour their historical financial and contracting records to determine whether this proposed plot was ever operationalized or if it remained strictly theoretical conversation.Intelligence officials noted that Gabbard’s team found no substantive evidence that the intercepted communications were thoroughly investigated by the intelligence community during the Biden administration. Officials also stated that the original 2022 communication intercepts are not believed to be the product of Russian disinformation. Gabbard's review aimed to determine whether a formal criminal referral should be issued to the FBI.Current Status and Evidence
- No proof of implementation: To date, no verified financial data or formal investigative findings have shown that money was successfully laundered from USAID to the DNC. Ukraine has denied any financial wrongdoing.
- Separation of disclosures: These financial intercept disclosures are distinct from Gabbard's June 2026 declassification of documents regarding U.S. Department of Defense funding for foreign biological research laboratories in Ukraine and other countries.
from Google AI:
Haitian President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated in July 2021 as part of a complex conspiracy fueled by political ambition, greed, and a desire to seize control of the country. The plot was largely orchestrated by a group of foreign investors, local politicians, and former mercenaries who planned to topple the government and secure lucrative state contracts.
Several key motives and driving factors emerged from the investigation:Dozens of suspects have been arrested, and multiple individuals—including Miami-based conspirators and former Colombian mercenaries—have been convicted in U.S. federal court for their roles in financing and supplying the deadly plot.
- Seizure of Power and Greed: U.S. federal prosecutors revealed that conspirators in South Florida and Haiti plotted to oust Moïse and replace him with Christian Sanon, a dual Haitian-U.S. citizen. In exchange for their involvement, the plotters anticipated receiving highly lucrative government infrastructure and security contracts.
- Targeted Information: Leaked audio and investigative reports by The New York Times suggest some assailants were tasked with locating a secret document the President possessed. This list allegedly contained the names of corrupt elites and powerful figures involved in the regional drug and arms trade, which Moïse was preparing to hand over to U.S. authorities.
- Political Turmoil: Prior to his death, Moïse was ruling by decree and facing a major crisis of legitimacy. His plans to rewrite the constitution and overturn long-standing political monopolies had alienated powerful domestic oligarchs and opposition factions.
Why all that "Immigration Graft and Corruption" (Minnesota and California Welfare/ Pre-School Fraud/ Medical Scams) are ENCOURAGED by Government Officials. It all goes to "capacity building" the latest Oligarchy plot to overthrow and steal other country resources. It's Just Another CIA overseas rebel funding stream ala USAID.
The four-year graduation rate for Baltimore City Public Schools is 71.7%, while the average SAT score across the district is 867. These figures reflect ongoing challenges within the district, though the graduation rate recently hit its highest point since 2018. [1, 2]High School Performance BreakdownDistrict Academic Context
- Test Proficiencies: Only 12.6% of students test proficient in math, and 31% in reading. [1, 2, 3]
- School Variations: Averages vary significantly across different high schools. For example, magnet and specialized schools like the Baltimore School for the Arts boast much higher averages (e.g., a 1116 average SAT score). [1]
- State Averages: For comparison, the statewide average SAT score is 1001, and Maryland's statewide graduation rate sits higher, typically above 85%.
*PS - The 867 Average SAT Score represent the top ~60% of HS students who actually take the test
