Thursday, March 20, 2025

FOIA: Biden’s Army Trained Soldiers to Believe Pro-Lifers Were Terrorists and Jews Invented Terrorism


When President Trump fired several of the military’s top brass this past February, the mainstream media echoed the headlines in the usual doomsday tone we’ve all come to expect, labeling it as “unprecedented” and that it was a cause for “concern” that endangered the traditional nonpolitical role of the military. Well, based on what we uncovered, it appears a shake-up in leadership was in order.

One of the most recent egregious examples of weaponization by the federal government under the Biden administration came to light this past fall when it was discovered that the U.S. Army was training soldiers at Fort Bragg (known for a short time during the Biden administration as Fort Liberty) to view pro-life groups, including our longtime client Operation Rescue and maybe soccer moms with “Choose Life” license plates, as “terrorist groups.” It was shocking.

We took immediate legal action on behalf of Operation Rescue by sending a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, demanding all information to be turned over involving this offensive, so-called anti-terrorism briefing.

We followed up the FOIA request with a demand letter to the U.S. Army calling for it to apologize and cease mislabeling our client as a terrorist group in its training materials. As we explained at the time:

"The idea that those who stand for the sanctity of life – a fundamental tenet of many faiths and a constitutionally protected belief – could be equated with terrorists is not only factually incorrect but also represents a dangerous conflation of peaceful advocacy with violent extremism. This situation is reminiscent of past attempts by government entities to stigmatize and marginalize conservative and Christian viewpoints."

Further, as we stated in our demand letter:

"[T]hese Army officials did not merely identify our client and the other pro-life groups as terrorist organizations as if in some passive statement of opinion – which itself would have been problematic. Instead, they used these materials to train soldiers as they prepare to take on installation access control duties, warning them to consider our client a terrorist organization as they go about their duties."

To our even greater dismay, after receiving our demand letter and FOIA, the Secretary of the Army later admitted that this egregious mischaracterization had been going on “for at least the last seven years,” raising serious questions about the erosion of religious liberty and freedom of speech within our armed forces.

Thankfully, the Secretary of the Army responded to our demand letter, acknowledging by name that Operation Rescue is not a terrorist group and stating that this training “inaccurately referenced non-profit public advocacy organizations National Right to Life, Operation Rescue, . . . as terrorist groups, which is inconsistent with the Army’s Antiterrorism policy and training.”

FOIAs are a waiting game, but after a seven-month wait, we’ve had a recent development in this case and have just received the full PowerPoint presentation in accordance with our FOIA request. The full presentationreinforces the finding we suspected: The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), under then-Commander-in-Chief Biden, was effectively training American troops to view pro-life organizations – and everyday pro-life Americans – as equal to Islamic terrorists.

Without any distinction or clarification, the presentation lists Operation Rescue and anyone with a “Choose Life” license plate as “terrorist groups” right after al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hamas and right before listing terrorist attacks like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. It was every bit as defamatory of pro-life groups as we thought.

However, the PowerPoint presentation also proved that the DOD didn’t only label pro-lifers as terrorists; it also provided its version of the history of terrorism, which it claims began with “‘Zealots of Judea’ in the first century A.D.” In other words, they blame the roots of terrorism on the Jews. 

Our Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs and head of the ACLJ’s Jerusalem office, Jeff Ballabon, had this to offer on this outrageous revelation: 

"If you look back just a couple of decades, and even maybe more recently than that, dictionaries and encyclopedias, when they define terrorism, it all starts with . . . the French Reign of Terror, and that’s when the notion of terrorism really starts then. Now, there was violence way before – the time of the Bible also. So there’s a seamless narrative that’s being created on the internet . . . that’s being used by sources to create this idea that . . . the Jews are the ones who brought terror and violence into the world, . . . which is, of course, the exact opposite of reality, which is, again going back to those sources a few years ago in the modern world, it’s attributed to whom? Surprise, the Palestinians. Because they’re the ones who actually launched global terror into the world."

Is this misguided history, soft bigotry, or antisemitism? You can view the full set of slides here and decide for yourself.

Our troops already have enough challenges to face without political forces injecting Left-wing, pro-Palestinian, and anti-life rhetoric into their training. This was a Deep State effort to label pro-life Americans – and the dedicated pro-life organizations that have spent years offering counseling, support, and alternatives to abortion – as terrorists. Such actions are nothing less than un-American. We will keep you apprised as additional FOIA documents are delivered to us.




at

Victor Davis Hanson: What More Can Musk Do?

Elon Musk’s SpaceX successfully brought home stranded astronauts after months of delay. Musk has surpassed Boeing and even NASA, yet political narratives overshadow his success.
So what’s causing this unpopularity? Victor Davis Hanson breaks down this phenomenon on today’s episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” “ Go back two or three years ago and [Musk] was an iconic Renaissance figure, we were told, by the very people who are now calling him disloyal or purely or not completely an American. This is one of the strangest phenomenon of our time.”



at

X22, On the Fringe, and more- March 20

 



Deep State Is In Our Sights | On The Fringe
0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

at

"Victor Davis Hanson Is Saying What Everyone Else Won't..."

Victor Davis Hanson unloads on the left’s hysteria—and he’s had enough. After just 8 weeks of Trump’s counterrevolution, the media and political elites are already losing their minds. But Hanson cuts through the noise to expose the real failures that led us here. 🔹 The Border Crisis Fallout – 12 million people didn’t just disperse across the U.S.—they were deliberately funneled into specific regions, creating chaos, crime, and economic strain for working-class communities. Meanwhile, the elite remain untouched. 🔹 The Debt Catastrophe – With $7 trillion borrowed and inflation soaring to 9% in 2022, the Biden administration left behind an economic disaster. Trump’s cuts? A drop in the ocean compared to the real damage. 🔹 The Ukraine Debacle – Hanson dismantles the revisionist history about the war, revealing how Biden’s weakness—just like Obama’s—signaled to Putin that he could invade without consequence. 🔹 Media Manipulation – From gas prices to inflation, the media spins reality to fit their narrative. Hanson calls them out—why won’t they just tell the truth? 🚨 So here’s the question the critics won’t answer: If Trump’s plan is “wrong,” what’s the alternative? Hanson exposes the political class’s total failure to offer real solutions. Watch now.



at

Bondi charges three in attacks on Tesla property amid Musk cost-cutting

 

at

This Is No Time to Blackpill


I’m pleasantly surprised that the Trump 2.0 momentum has continued generally unabated with a couple of lulls since January 20th. Sure, there have been some tangents, like the tariff-related stock market correction and uppity judges pushing the envelope as to their power, but those appeared to have been taken into account. Those contingencies appear to have been planned for. In other words, these are fights we knew we’d have to have, and we’re having them right when we want to have them. Why is Trump doing all the tariff stuff now? Because now is the furthest possible time from November 2026. His goal is to force the bitter medicine down America’s throat now so that we will be feeling good just in time for the midterm elections. As for the judges, Trump is leveraging the world‘s largest law firm to fight back. He’s bringing test cases. And he is strategically finding ways around the outrageous rulings. He’s forcing a resolution on his terms, one way or the other.

Trump is serious about all the winning and it shows.

Look, the tariff stuff was hard because it’s no fun watching your 401(k) drop lower than the standards of a Bulwark staffer’s wife. However, those of us who’ve been doing this for a while know that things go up and things go down, and then they go up again, particularly when Republicans are in office and have a chance to do Republican things. That’s what Trump is trying to do. There’s a problem with our trade policy and it’s been a problem for as long as I can remember, and since I’m super old, I remember a long time. America has a huge trade deficit with almost all the rest of the world. That means we’ve import in more stuff than we export out. Similarly, countries around the world have huge tariffs against us, and you would think that America would have the same tariffs against them, but that’s not so. We don’t have reciprocal tariffs. We let these little pipsqueak countries, like Canada, tax our goods while they subsidize their own producers, and we spent the last few decades shrugging and asking, “Well, what are you going to do?” even as our jobs migrated overseas, and vast swaths of America are impoverished. Now, that doesn’t matter to the people making the rules. The three richest counties in America are the ones surrounding Washington, DC. Think about that. The rest of the country is going through economic turmoil while the people making the decisions that, incidentally, contributed to said economic turmoil are raking in the cash.

We keep hearing about free trade, but that’s not what people who don’t like American tariffs want. If we had free trade, we could freely sell to other countries just as they could freely sell us without their home government covertly subsidizing local producers to artificially lower the costs. But just like giant corporations don’t really want free enterprise – what they want to do is use the government to regulate their smaller competitors out of existence – the free traders don’t really want free trade. They want America to continue taking it on the chin and other places. Trump is onto that scam, and he’s trying to change the system. He’s doing it the smart way, acting right at the beginning of his term, leaving lots of runway to land a revitalized economy before November 2026.

As for the court stuff, he’s also doing the smart thing. Understand what’s going on here. All these bizarre District Court rulings are bizarre – nothing like them ever happens in normal litigation. For you non-lawyers, this is totally freakish stuff. You are not hallucinating. Your gut is correct. This is all wrong. So, why isn’t John Robert stepping in with the Supreme Court? 

Great question. That’s because he’s an institutionalist who wants to try to get back to normality. In other words, he wants these cases to proceed like other cases where you have proceedings in the district court, get a reasonable order that at least complies with the substantive law, and then go through an appellate process. That’s how normal stuff works, but he’s one of those people who doesn’t understand that you can’t normal abnormality back into normality. When you are faced with people doing things outside the normal procedures, you can’t strictly insist on using normal procedures because they’ve already sidestepped those. You are got to prevent them from being rewarded for their misconduct. Unusual wrongdoing requires unusual acts to remedy it.

Think of it this way. Violence is generally wrong. We all accept that, at least normal people do. But when someone’s doing violence to you, you need to do violence to them. Under John Roberts’s theory, by doing violence in self-defense, you’re contributing to the violence. But that’s not so. You’re stopping the violence the only way you can. The only way Justice Roberts is going to stop this stuff, which is essentially the mass violation of the rules of procedure to exceed the proper power of lower courts, is by unusual procedural responses. A court typically doesn’t step in right away to resolve a bad ruling. It usually goes through a multi-step process. But when these district courts stop Donald Trump’s administration from exercising its legitimate power – the power invested by the American people, and they elected it – the wrongdoers get what they want. They win. And what gets rewarded gets repeated. You can’t wait for a long, drawn-out appellate process to fix the wrongs because that doesn’t fix the wrongs. It rewards the wrongs.

And John Roberts is going to find himself with an ugly choice. He can step into this extraordinary situation with an extraordinary response and shut it down. That’s the smart choice. He doesn’t want to do that, and we shouldn’t want him to have to do that, but he does have to do that. Trying to honor norms that no longer exist merely encourages more norm-breaking. We learned that from Republicans who played by rules that no longer exist for far too long and cost us a great deal. 

His other alternative is to do nothing and pretend everything is normal. That’s going to force Trump to respond because Trump can’t have a hundred liberal judges micromanaging the executive branch forever. We saw a preview of the endgame when some random judge ordered three planes full of Third World scumbags turned around in the air from Central America. Well, they landed, and their scummy foreign criminal cargo is now residing in El Salvador’s terrorist prison. Now, there’s enough ambiguity in the situation that it’s unclear that the administration, considering the timeframe, could have even complied with the order even if it wanted to. And while the administration is publicly sounding the “whomp whomp” horn on social media, and anonymous leakers are claiming it was outright defiance, the Administration is not admitting outright that it ignored this judge’s order. That’s smart. To the extent possible, while doing everything it can to circumvent these rulings as written, the administration should not outright refuse to obey the judiciary – yet. You use a can of Raid on a roach, not a tactical nuclear bomb. While the judiciary has no enforcement mechanism, meaning that if it gets too obnoxious, the executive can conceivably just refuse to follow its directives – this itself is a component of the Constitution’s checks and balances, not an aberration – it doesn’t make sense to do it now. We don’t want to change the focus from “Democrat judges want to keep gangbanger illegal aliens in America” to “Donald Trump is refusing to obey the courts.” He can keep his H-bomb in his pocket for if and when it becomes clear Justice Roberts will not get a hold on his out-of-control branch.

Still, these tangents aside, every day we’re getting more wins. Agencies are being closed. Bureaucrats are being fired. Contracts are being ended. The left doesn’t know what to do. It can’t focus on more than one thing at a time, and even if it could, the regime media isn’t what it once was. Look at the approval numbers. Trump‘s down a little bit, down to numbers that he would’ve killed for last term. And the Democrats? America is disgusted by them. Hemorrhoids poll better. They have managed to get themselves on the wrong side of every single 80/20 issue there is, and it’s beautiful.

Look, someday, the momentum will slow down. Nothing goes on forever. Everything goes in cycles. We’re going to have bad days and bad weeks. But that’s called “life.” Today, we are winning. We will be winning for the foreseeable future. And we’re setting the foundation for more wins to come.

Do not get blackpilled. Do not get discouraged. The people telling you the sky is falling are lying to you. The sky is where Elon Musk is rescuing the astronauts the government bureaucrats couldn’t bring home. 

We’ve got this. Let’s run up the score.



at

Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660m for defaming oil firm in protests

 A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation, ordering it to pay more than $660m (£507m) in damages to an oil company for the environmental group's role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history.

Texas-based Energy Transfer also accused Greenpeace of trespass, nuisance and civil conspiracy over the demonstrations nearly a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, argued that Greenpeace was behind an "unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer".

Greenpeace, which vowed to appeal, said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.

Protests against the pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation drew thousands, but Greenpeace argued it did not lead the demonstration and that the lawsuit threatened free speech. Instead, it said the protests were led by local indigenous leaders who were opposed to the pipeline.

The nine-person jury reached a verdict on Wednesday after about two days of deliberating.

The case was heard at a court in Mandan, about 100 miles (160km) north of where the protests took place.

Trey Cox, a lawyer for Energy Transfer, said during closing arguments that Greenpeace's actions caused between $265m to $340m in damages. He asked the jury to award the company that amount, plus additional damages.

Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline gained international attention during President Donald Trump's first term, as Native American groups set up an encampment trying to block it from passing near Standing Rock.

The protests, which saw acts of violence and vandalism, started in April 2016 and ended in February 2017, when the National Guard and police cleared away the demonstrators.

At the peak, over 10,000 protesters were on site. The group included more than 200 Native American tribes, hundreds of US military veterans, actors and political leaders - including current US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr.

The 1,172-mile pipeline has been operating since 2017. However, it still lacks a key permit to operate under Lake Oahe in South Dakota, and local tribes have pushed for an extensive environmental review of the project.

During the three-week trial, jurors heard from Energy Transfer's co-founder and board chairman Kelcy Warren, who said in a video deposition that protesters had created "a total false narrative" about his company.

"It was time to fight back," he said.

Energy Transfer's lawyer Mr Cox told the court that Greenpeace had exploited the Dakota Access Pipeline to "promote its own selfish agenda".

Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the group did not lead the protests, but merely helped support "nonviolent, direct-action training".

In response to the verdict, Greenpeace International's general counsel Kristin Casper said "Energy Transfer hasn't heard the last of us in this fight".

"We will not back down, we will not be silenced," she said.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said he believes "the verdict's magnitude will have a chilling effect on environmental and other public interest litigation".

"It may encourage litigants in other states to file similar lawsuits," he told the BBC.

Energy Transfer's legal action named Greenpeace USA, as well as its Washington DC-based funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc and its Amsterdam-based parent group Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace has counter-sued Energy Transfer in Dutch court, claiming the oil firm is attempting to unfairly use the legal system to silence critics.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, seeks to recover all damages and costs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87121e0j4yo
at

Time for the Trump DOJ and FBI to Deal the Pain


We’ve all seen those uppity federal judges presuming to tell the executive branch when it can deport enemy aliens, when it can fire useless government flunkies, and when members of the administration must stand or sit to pee. Like much of the lawfare against Donald Trump, this craziness is going to come to nothing. It’s all going to turn to ashes in their soft, girlish little hands. But here’s the thing – we control federal law enforcement right now. That means we get to set the agenda, and we need to ruthlessly and brutally use the law to defeat our enemies’ outrageous and disgraceful attacks upon patriotic Americans.

Here are three great examples of where we can leverage the power we have from standing at the helm of federal law enforcement to get the kind of results we need to make the changes we want. Remember, we’re not here for the short haul. We don’t want to do things they will easily roll back. We want to establish precedents, and we want to establish an understanding on the part of our enemies that we’re going to hit them back twice as hard when they wage lawfare on us. The one thing we’re not going to do is something they tried to do. We’re not going to frame people. That’s morally wrong and unAmerican, and God has something to say about that in the Ten Commandments, so that’s never something we can do. But we don’t need to lie about them. We have only to address what they’re actually doing. And they’re doing a lot of bad things.

Let’s start with that autopen pardon thing. The demented eggplant who was masquerading as our president for the previous four years allegedly pardoned hundreds and hundreds of weirdos, losers, mutations, degenerates, and congresscreatures, to the extent that’s any different, before his humiliating ejection from office. However, people noticed that these pardons were not signed by hand. Rather, his handlers used an autopen. That’s a device that signs someone’s name mechanically. Presumably, it is done at the guidance and behest of the person whose name is being affixed to the document. This is where the controversy comes in. Joe Biden seems manifestly unable to have understood what he was doing with regard to these pardons.

So, the question is whether these pardons are legitimate and enforceable. The president’s pardon power is very broad, and nothing in the Constitution requires him to sign the document granting one personally. In fact, there’s nothing that requires a pardon to be in writing at all. It’s a plenary power, and arguably he can pardon someone simply by waving his hand and uttering the words “I pardon thee.”

Here’s my take and some people aren’t going to like it. He can autopen pardons all day long, and they’re absolutely effective. The discrete autopen issue is a certain loser in the courts, and it should be. But the question really isn’t how something got signed but, rather, whether Joe Biden actually meant to issue these pardons of all sorts of scumbag criminals or whether he, in his advanced state of dementia, thought he was signing off on a proclamation proclaiming National Ice Cream Cone Day.

His competence to issue these pardons is a real issue. Let me give you some more lawyer analysis you might not like. This theory has a practical problem. It’s going to be very hard, if not impossible, to prove he didn’t know what he was doing. The burden of proof would almost certainly fall on the government to invalidate the pardon rather than on the accused criminal asserting it. Then there’s the legal problem – it’s not clear that he had to know what he was doing specifically when granting pardons. He was president; he had not been removed by the 25th Amendment. So, you have an issue of proof – how do you prove he did not mean to give a specific pardon? – and a practical issue of law – does he even have to mean to give a specific pardon? I think the answer – after doing law for 30 years – will probably be that the first one can’t be proven and that he does not have to specifically know what he’s doing as long as he holds office. Sorry.

But hey, who cares what I think? That issue is not for me to decide. Other lawyers and judges might think differently, and I have (rarely) been wrong before. This important issue – it actually is an important issue – sounds like something that should be decided through litigation. How do you get this issue before the courts? Well, the courts don’t issue advisory opinions, so there must be a case or controversy between the United States government and some individual where the validity of a Biden pardon is at issue. That means the Trump administration should consider pressing charges against one of the allegedly pardoned individuals. 

Once again, we’re not here to frame people. It must be a real crime. But if there is a real crime and the only bar to prosecuting it is the alleged pardon, why not try it? Let the pardon recipient litigate it. Perhaps there is probable cause to believe that Adam Schiff or Liz Cheney is guilty of a crime for which they could be prosecuted but for the alleged pardon. If that evidence exists, and the DOJ has evidence of Joe’s incompetence – maybe it could just offer into evidence the video of the debate with Trump – why not give it a try? Make it a test case. Sure, that legal argument has never been used before and might get thrown out by the Supreme Court. But hundreds and hundreds of J6 defendants had to defend themselves against a novel legal theory brought by DOJ prosecutors which was eventually rejected completely by the Supreme Court, so cry me a river, Adam and Liz.

I warned you guys about the new rules. But you didn’t listen.

Next, we’ve got a real federal civil rights problem in Illinois. In the town of Deerfield, three middle-aged white women employed by the school allegedly tried to force 13-year-old girls to get naked in front of a boy. Of course, the boy was pretending to be a girl. Now, as a lawyer, I know there are always two sides to every story, and the girls’ allegations have not been heard or challenged. Further, when you hear something that sounds completely insane, you should at least take a moment to think that maybe there’s more to it than you have been told. But on the other hand, I can totally see committed leftist women allowing their SSRI-driven wokeness to drive them to do something horrible like this. 

Illinois is a leftist state with a leftist court system and a fat leftist governor, so the victims will get no relief by going to child protective services, though in a just society they could. Governor Hindenburg would never let a conviction stand – he would give them medals. No, this is akin to the Southern states during the Civil Rights Movement when local governments would not prosecute KKK killers. This is Illinois Burning. This requires federal intervention. 

There are federal civil rights violations, and the FBI under Kash Patel and Dan Bongino should step in and investigate the facts to get the full story. Hopefully, this will all prove to be a misunderstanding because it sounds pretty horrible. But if the facts come out as they have been reported, this was a potential crime that can be prosecuted in the federal courts. The federal government should put these monsters on notice that they will be punished for real if they do these things, and complicit blue state governors and courts will not be able to protect them from justice.

The third issue is swatting, and this one could actually kill people. Swatting occurs when a leftist calls a police department and sends them to a conservative’s house late at night claiming that the conservative has committed murder, has a gun, and is holed up inside the house. Well, you don’t have to be a genius to see how that could go very wrong. You have heavily armed, hyped-up cops going to what is probably a heavily armed citizen’s home in the middle of the night. That’s a recipe for somebody getting killed, whether it is somebody whose crime was participating in the political debate, or his kid, or a cop. And it’s happening a lot. The leftists are doing it all over the place and not just against big names. They apparently think it’s okay to murder political opponents and anyone else who gets in the way. We need to squash that like a bug.

Even assuming a local blue state law-enforcement agency would be willing to spend time on this kind of criminal activity, the technological issues of finding who is making the swatting calls require more advanced resources. The FBI has that technology and experience. It also has the mandate. The use of telephonic communication is squarely within federal jurisdiction—ever heard of wire fraud?

Kash Patel has already tweeted that this is a priority, but it needs to be a super-mega priority. We cannot allow political murder in our society because it won’t stop with false police reports. If it has not already happened, we need an FBI task force to get on it, and there are lots of FBI agents without much to do now that we’re not arresting people for praying about abortion or taking selfies in the Rotunda anymore. And these crimes must be charged as what they are: attempts to murder political opponents. This can also involve civil rights crimes because these actions are self-evidently designed to intimidate people into not exercising their right to free speech and to participate in the political process. It’s hard to imagine a more vicious attack on democracy than trying to kill other people for participating in it. There must be no mercy for these monsters.

So, that’s three great initiatives for federal law-enforcement, but there are so many others out there. We need to show that the Department of Justice will no longer target just us. We’ve got the reins until at least January 2029, so let’s ride this horse hard and put it away wet.



at

Here's the Graph Showing White College-Educated Women Have Gone Totally Insane


Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall


It’s not like we didn’t know this already, but college-educated white women are the scourge of society. They’re political maniacs with views so left-wing you’d think it’s satire. They’re all about being ‘woke,’ DEI, and other lunacies that don’t have a positive reception outside of a college faculty lounge. NBC News broke it down. The white vote remains crucial, and that will be the case in future elections, despite liberal America’s persistent claim that white voters, especially white men, won’t matter. It’s an assumption that was brutally gutted in 2024.

Yet, this is a core Democratic Party voter bloc, so these women who entrap them are beyond insufferable and bring nothing to the table regarding building a winning coalition. Sorry, they only like DEI and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—that’s it. They don’t even like the Democratic Party:

Steve Kornacki has more, where he once again zeroes in on class and education being the primary and most glaring divides among voters: 

It represents a layering of the education gap (which has exploded during the Trump era) on top of the more established gender gap. When these are combined, a gaping chasm emerges — and two specific groups come into focus. 

On one end are white men without four-year college degrees. This is a generally blue-collar demographic that is now deeply aligned with Trump and opposed to progressive politics. On the other end are white women with at least four-year college degrees. This is a more affluent demographic that has been racing leftward, particularly on cultural issues, and is squarely opposed to Trump. 

Both groups pack a formidable punch. Eighteen percent of all voters last year were noncollege white men and 17% were college-educated white women. And they have come to exist in polar opposite political and cultural universes, each one unrelatable and probably unrecognizable to the other.

It’s why The View remains on television. It confirms James Carville’s biting criticism that his party has become too detached and female. It’s one of the reasons why blaming losses on sexism and racism are all the rage when it’s nowhere near the truth.

Good luck trying to win anything when the group you value the most doesn’t even like you and loves Ukraine more.

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File


Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Christopher Steele Is Thoroughly Wrecked Live - ‘Political Hack and Grifter’


Rusty Weiss reporting for RedState 

Christopher Steele of dossier fame was thoroughly dressed down as a "political hack and grifter" during an appearance on "Piers Morgan Uncensored."

Natalie Winters, co-host of "Steve Bannon's War Room," had Steele served up by Morgan on a silver platter and just eviscerated him for his efforts to sabotage President Donald Trump.

Steele, in the early part of the segment involving several commentators, made his case that Trump was engaged in a "pro-Russian Ukrainian peace plan."

Winters lay in wait until Morgan went to her for comment. And, like an agitated bull behind the gate at a bullfight, she came out horns down, full-sprint.

She began:

I know Christopher Steel probably wanted to go down in history as someone that [sic] colluded with the Clinton campaign to take down President Donald J. Trump, but I really think that you represent probably the ultimate grifter in the American political space.

She accused Steele of trying to "sabotage" Trump's peace efforts, and mocked his previous efforts to paint Trump as a Russian asset.

"I'm sorry. What stones do you even have left to turn over to try to corroborate your claim that President Trump is a Russian asset?"

Winters went after Steele for roughly three straight minutes uninterrupted. Former congressman Joe Walsh, a rabid anti-Trumper, could sense the beatdown. He put his head down and covered his face, as Steele tried to weather the barrage.

On multiple occasions, you can see Morgan wonder, and motion as if he might step in. But, much like Rocky Balboa in "Rocky IV," he never really threw in the towel. And Steele kept getting pummeled by Ivan Drago.

Winters hit the Hunter Biden laptop, the spies that lied about that laptop, and Russian disinformation. Jab, body blow, uppercut.

"You're a complete political hack and grifter, and I wish the American political scene didn't have your voice in it," she concluded.

At this point, Steele was probably feeling like a Russian mattress, so Morgan finally broke in and allowed him to respond and offer some sort of defense.

"My response is that I'm a professional intelligence officer, an expert on that part of the world. I'm not a politician," he said.

"I have a very strong U..S client base for which I've worked and produced information over many years, none of whom have ever made any such allegation against me." 

The Steele dossier and its salacious allegations against the President gave Democrats the framework to launch the Russiagate hoax. Our readers already know much of this.

The dossier has since been labeled by Axios as an “epic fail” by the media, which led to the Washington Post quietly editing numerous reports after the fact.

The New York Times and the Washington Post were jointly awarded the Pulitzer for their 2017 coverage of Trump and his alleged ties to Russian operatives during his first presidential campaign. Some of those reports referenced the dossier.

A lawsuit filed by Trump noted the Post had “retracted statements from several articles from 2017 relating to the Steele Dossier and other alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Indeed, the Post quietly edited two major articles that relied on the discredited dossier and added editor’s notes to at least 14 other reports.

Trump signed an executive order earlier in March suspending security clearances for employees of the law firm Perkins Coie and restricting their access to federal contracts. The order cited the firm's political activities, particularly its past work for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

Clinton, you may recall, outed her general counsel and former Perkins Coie lawyer, Marc Elias, as having facilitated funding for the infamous dossier.

"The people doing it came to my campaign lawyer [Elias] and said, ‘Would you like us to continue it?'” she said of the research behind the dossier.

“He said yes,” Clinton continued during an interview on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”

Winters, meanwhile, celebrated her thumping of the ex-British intelligence officer on Morgan's show.

"What if I told you I just destroyed Christopher Steele on @PiersUncensored," she wrote on X.

Indeed, she did. Well done.



at