Saturday, August 2, 2025

The Problem with Government 'Of, By, and for' the People


“I go on the great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us?”—James Madison

Americans today—indeed, it’s nearly unanimous on our earthly globe—accept democracy (or, “republic,” the representative type of democracy) as the supreme form of human government.  The people should choose their leaders; government should be “of, by, and for” the people.  That is just a given.  It’s an integral part of our zeitgeist.

The Left—the least democratic ideology in existence—endlessly shouts “democracy!” and how Trump is destroying it. The official name of North Korea is “The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea.”  China is “The People’s Republic of China.” Russia, under communism, was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” Even totalitarians (like Democrats) try to hide under a faΓ§ade of “democracy” or “republicanism.”  The “people” must rule.  

Of course, we know that “democracy” is a farce in China and North Korea, but we take it seriously here in America. Democracy has basically become the standard by which we judge everything, even morality. The people have the final say. If the people (through their elected representatives) decide something is “moral,” then it is. Same-sex marriage is a perfect example. Earlier generations of Americans would never have dreamed that two men or two women could get “married.” But their morality was based on Judeo-Christian thought, not on “the people decide”—democracy. Now, especially the Left, insists upon this, and we are all to “get in line” with the majority (which is all democracy is, rule by 50%+1), and the Left wants the “minority” to shut up, not fight back. Thank the Lord for “X” and the First Amendment. The Republican Party has largely disappeared from this fight.

But in this “of, by, and for” the people government, indeed, “democracy”—as currently defined by the Left—becomes the judge, even of history.  God, Columbus, our Founding Fathers, etc., are all “evil” because they didn’t measure up to the Left’s current standard of what “democracy” means. If the “people” decide that men can become women simply by saying they are, and that children can be mutilated to change their gender at their own whim, then, well, that’s “democracy.” Read the James Madison quote at the beginning of this article again. “Democracy” now defines “virtue” and “wisdom.”  

Madison would never have agreed with that, of course. “Democracy is the most vile form of government,” he said, and for the very reasons I described above.  What happens if the “majority” becomes unvirtuous and unwise? What happens if the “people” become tyrannical? Can “tyranny” be “democratic?” Adolf Hitler came to power “democratically.” Was Nazi Germany a “democracy”? Is North Korea?  They say they are. There is something not quite right here.

“The aim of every political constitution,” Madison wrote in “The Federalist,” no. 57, “is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess the most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society, and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” That’s all well and good, Mr. Madison, but how do we define “virtue”?  What is “wisdom”? Who defines those terms now? Well, in one sense, folks, the Left DOES want “democracy” now; they just want to make sure they define it. And educate it, which they have done quite well in the past few generations, thank you very much.  That is exactly what Madison feared: “Democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” John Adams concurred: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” And, historically, they are right, and the truly wise see it happening in America today.

“In the U.S., [just over a century] of full-blown democracy has resulted in steadily increasing moral degeneration, family and social disintegration, and cultural decay in the form of continually rising rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and crime.” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Democracy: The God That Failed”). Not to mention same-sex marriage, transgenderism, pedophilia, humongous federal debt, an invasion by illegals, the welfare state, and a host of other things our government “of, by, and for the people” has given us. It’s really hard to argue with what the above men said.

The answer, of course, is to make sure that, if we want a democracy, we absolutely must educate the vast majority of people in what true virtue is, elect leaders of virtue and wisdom, and make sure we remove those who do not possess such. Again, the question of “what are wisdom and virtue?” arises, and the Left, and perhaps the majority of Americans, now reject the answer our Founders gave to that question: “Education is useless without the Bible” (Noah Webster). “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded” (Madison). We’ve seen, and are seeing now, what happens when we let “the people” be the final arbiter of what “virtue” and “wisdom” are. Perhaps we should learn from history and return to the True Source of those most needed ideals.

“The belief in a God, All-Powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources…” (James Madison). When democracy rejects that, and it usually does eventually, it destroys itself. In a nutshell, the problem with government “of, by, and for” the people is that it elects too many Nancy Pelosis and AOCs. We must restructure the education system.



UPenn student paper: School caving to Trump admin. over men in women’s sports is ‘fascism’

Badlands Media- August 2nd

 



Toxic Alliance: Europe’s Fraud Against the U.S.


The historic trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union agreed upon in Scotland marks a significant shift in the transatlantic relations. After the 2024 triumph of the conservative patriots in the United States, the long-standing alliance between Western democracies began collapsing.

European nations, well-known for their restraint in foreign policy, led the way to cautious denial of the new American vision, which President Trump called “the complete restoration of America.” It comes as a stunning change to the American people, especially given the fact that Europe’s high living standards are largely based on the U.S. support, dating back to World War II and continuing to the present day.

Europe’s Defense Issue

In recent years, the United States defense industry has seen a significant decline in European business. Countries like France, Germany and Poland, which have traditionally relied on Washington for support, have either cut their military spending or reduced their weapon purchases from American manufacturers. In addition, many of them have turned to Asian or Middle Eastern suppliers, whose military equipment often offers significantly poorer quality.

This is a crucial factor, as American arms manufacturers lose potential profits. Additionally, many NATO members have no real intention of fulfilling their new commitment to spend 5% of their GDP on defense, despite expressing public support for the initiative. Europe’s shift in defense procurement and spending can be seen as a technological and economic betrayal of its closest ally in the treaty.

Moreover, this issue concerns Washington’s peace initiatives, not just weapon purchases. Trump vowed to resolve the conflict and bring peace during his campaign, and he did make significant efforts. European nations, many of which had benefited from the U.S. support, have now become an obstacle to achieving even a ceasefire in war-torn regions like Ukraine or Gaza. However, other actors, including Ukraine itself, Europe, and Putin turned out to be substantial hurdles on a path to a comprehensive and sustainable deal.

The U.S.-EU Trade Agreement

The U.S.-EU trade agreement, signed on July 27, 2025, aims at restoring trade justice and enabling American businesses make more profits from the European market. One of the crucial parts of the deal is the provision for the 15% tariffs for EU goods. This measure comes as a significant economic relief for America after decades of unbalanced trade. Besides, EU’s Ursula Von Der Leyen agreed to invest hundreds of billions in the U.S. economy. Moreover, the deal reaffirmed the White House as a leading defense and energy contractor for Europe. This agreement is more than trade, arms and fuel benefits. It is about redefining the terms of the U.S.-EU partnership, and reestablishing justice and balance in profits.

It is worth mentioning that European nations have sought support from Xi to better position themselves against Trump’s tariff initiatives. Given that China has become a menacing adversary to the U.S., having our closest allies come to heel to Beijing after we asked to balance trade, raises lots of questions concerning their loyalty and trustworthiness.

Aggravating Partnership

Another actor pretending to be the most loyal partner to the U.S., but in fact has deliberately sabotaged the America first agenda, is Ukraine. President Trump has labeled the hostilities “the Biden war,” meaning it is the Democrat party and its weak leaders that are to blame for the crisis.

Surprisingly, the Ukrainians share the same view. Moreover, their actions suggest that they would prefer the Democrats to continue orchestrating the ongoing conflict. Otherwise, why would Zelenskyy have rallied for Kamala Harris at a military plant in Pennsylvania during the 2024 election campaign? Many pundits may have forgotten about Kyiv’s interference attempts, which were not recognized by the FBI and other intelligence community members. One can only speculate why this happened, but the answer may lie in the Democrat administration that occupied the White House at the time.

Nevertheless, as the 47th U.S. president clarified, “this is not our war, not anymore.” In fact, we have done a lot, more than Europe, more than anyone else. Given Sleepy Joe Biden donated some 350 billion taxpayer dollars, the new administration has decided to make some profit from our ties with Ukraine and make it a true partnership, not a “blank check” fraud.

Initially, the White House intended to make a deal concerning rare earth minerals. Essentially, we agreed to Kyiv’s offer, but on more favorable terms. But Ukraine failed on us, which resulted in the very Trump-Zelenskyy spat at the White House in February 2025.

The whole thing seemed as if support for Ukraine was nothing but our obligation, as if we owed them. However, there is no clause in the U.S. Constitution that requires American taxpayers to endlessly provide Zelenskyy with money because he is fighting Putin. Later, when Trump was left no choice but to put some pressure on Kyiv, we finally struck a deal. Yet, it is still unclear when the money will flow into the U.S. budget.

Is It Really About Democratic Values?

Zelenskyy’s recent actions have raised even more concern about Ukraine’s partner status. Once a post-Soviet republic that chose to become a Western-style democracy back in 2014, Ukraine is now halfway to downgrading to a Russia-like dictatorship. Zelenskyy introduced a law to reform the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), making the once-independent institution subordinate to the executive branch.

The controversial initiative sparked massive unrest across the country, inflicting severe damage to the authority’s reputation. Now, many Ukrainians demand either the bill’s abolition or Zelenskyy’s resignation. Protesters, many of whom are pro-Europe activists, criticize Zelenskyy, stating that he is gradually transforming into his main adversary — Putin. Others say the bill has made them feel the “Yanukovych vibes,” reminiscent of the ill-fated Ukrainian leader who was accused of severe bribery more than 10 years ago.

Zelenskyy’s recent sabotage of democratic values is not the only “red flag” we must pay attention to. Previously, Ukrainian officials imposed sanctions on their own citizens, even prominent backers of the regime like Oleksii Arestovich for their political views, which was a severe violation of human rights. Additionally, there are significant concerns regarding freedom of speech and censorship in Ukraine. The UN, as well as independent monitoring organizations, have sounded the alarm over the rapidly deteriorating state of affairs in Ukrainian media, claiming that state-owned outlets have replaced private ones, often with the help of law enforcement bodies. Not to mention the horrors of the local conscription officers.  They have earned a bad reputation for their harsh methods. Judging by the videos on social media, the people hate them. Freedom of faith in Ukraine is also reported to be compromised.

The New Approach

Americans are fed up with false partners that make fools of us and earn profits under crooked Democrats’ rule; Trump just changed all that. The time has come for the “common sense revolution” and America First agenda. That is why we must reassess existing alliances and partnerships, especially with nations that have shown willingness to align with our adversaries or abolish our values like democracy and human rights.



Are Democrats tacitly encouraging assassination hits on ICE agents?


On the July 23, 2025 edition of the Fox News show, Greg Gutfeld, in speaking of the CBP agent that was shot in the face by an illegal alien, Gutfeld said, “And you know Tyrus, when this story came out about this agent getting shot, the media wouldn’t say he [the shooter] is an illegal suspect.  They wouldn’t say anything about him.  Said an agent was shot on a rock in Central Park.”

In response, Tyrus said,

I have a problem with this, and maybe this is just… I don’t believe in coincidences, and there has been a concentrated effort to ‘out’ ICE agents.  And for two men... grown a** men to get on a scooter to go riding in a park with guns, to go rob?  That doesn’t make much sense to me.  But two guys looking to make a ‘hit’ on somebody that makes sense to me.  So, just how random is that?  How many millions of people do we have in New York just walking around, and these two illegals just happen to stumble upon a guy, who just happens to be an off-duty officer?  Bullsh**!  It’s a ‘hit’ in my opinion and we are lucky he was able to get through it.  And I would like to see the same vigor from our so-called government investigations that are dealing with this Epstein bullsh** and whatever Barack Obama did ten years ago.  I don’t give a d*** about any of that.  That is not a table issue for me and my family.  Right now, my table issue is our police officers, and our border agents are under attack.  We have senators or congressmen who are demanding they [officers] take their masks off so they can see their face, so they can expose their family.  So, I don’t see we meant well at all.  There’s that old saying, ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’ Well, we need to start sending some of these people to hell.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-CA), infamous for having an affair with a Chinese spyaccused ICE immigration enforcement officers of behaving like “bank robbers.” He stated, “I hope every state that is able to, and every community that is able to, unmasks ICE with their policies.  If you’re standing on the law, you can show your face.”

Unfortunately, Swalwell had not considered that masks are needed for safety.  Tom Homan defended the use of masks by agents stating, “The attacks on ICE is unprecedented, 700% increased.  And we are not even talking about the doxing of agents, their spouses and their children.”  Apparently, subversives are doxing ICE agents’ private information.

After a successful ICE raid in San Diego, CA, local city councilman, Sean Elo-Rivera posted on Instagram that ICE agents are “terrorists” and after criticism, stood by his comments.  In response, acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons stated, “I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks.  I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”  Then he asked, “Is that the issue here that we’re just upset about the masks?  Or is anyone upset about the fact that ICE officers’ families were labeled terrorists?”

Illinois lawmakers are pushing to unmask ICE.  California lawmakers are pushing to unmask ICE.  Massachusetts lawmakers are pushing to unmask ICE.  New York lawmakers are pushing to unmask ICE.  Michigan lawmakers are calling for ICE agents wearing masks to be jailed.  Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced legislation to require officers to identify themselves without masks.

House Speaker Mike Johnson stated that the Democrats who are pushing for ICE agents to unmask are the same “people who mandated mask wearing for years in America” during the COVID era.

Johnson stated that Democrats like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries say that ICE agents should not be wearing masks as they arrest these illegal migrants.  Johnson stated,

From the people who mandated mask wearing for years in America.  It’s absurd.  They need to back off ICE and respect our agents and stop protesting them.  [The agents are] …trying to uphold the rule of law, and they don’t want to be targeted by Democrat activists.

In speaking of unmasking agents, Johnson continued and said, “Why?  So that they can target them?  So they can put their names and faces online and dox them?  That’s what these activists do.  So we have to protect those who protect our communities.”

In response to Democrat lawmakers on Capitol Hill trying to pass their unmasking legislation, President Trump stated,

Well, they would not be saying that if they didn’t hate our country.  And obviously, they do.

These officers are doing a tremendous job.  They’re great patriots.  If you expose them because of, you know, statements that have been made by Democrats and others on the left, usually mostly, I think, probably exclusively, you put them in great danger, tremendous danger.

And it’s sort of funny when people picket in front of Columbia, in front of Harvard and they have masks on more than masks.  I mean you can’t see anything.  Nobody complains about that.  But when a patriot who works for ICE or Border Patrol puts a mask on so that they won’t recognize him and his family, so they can lead a little bit of a normal life after having worked so hard and so dangerously, there’s a problem with that.

This is the problem with Democrats, they have a lot of bad things going on in their heads.  They’ve become very…they’ve lost their confidence, number one.  And they’re really, they’ve become somewhat deranged.  I want to do whatever necessary to protect our great law enforcement people.  And they are right at the top of the list.

So, with Democrat lawmakers demanding the unmasking of ICE and Border Patrol agents, are they tacitly encouraging criminal activity against our government’s law enforcement agents and their families?



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


Data Analyst Can Hardly Believe Numbers He’s Seeing With the Dem Party: Their Brand Is ‘Complete Garbage’


RedState 

Some days, it feels like we're just kicking a dead horse when covering Democrat polling numbers of late. If, say, kicking a dead horse felt really, really good.

Hold on for a second as I warm up my kicking leg.

CNN Data Analyst Harry Enten delivered a brutal analysis of the Democratic Party, surmising that their negatively viewed "brand" is dragging down presidential aspirations for some of their top names.

The party, at least when it comes to the presidency in 2028, is seeing something they haven't seen before, according to Enten. They are "historically divided."

The numbers specialist indicates that at this stage of the game, Democrats have historically seen a frontrunner for the presidency rise to the top. Not so this time around.

"It is a complete and utter mess. It is messier than a hoarder’s basement,” Enten said, noting that for the first time since 1992, no candidate has emerged with support rising above 25%. Even Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden achieved that.

“At this particular point, there is no one—no one—in the Democratic race for president who’s polling at 25% plus,” he said, a blow to some clear hopefuls such as California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He went on to urge some other lesser-known names to jump into the fray and capitalize on the terrible numbers.

“The water is quite warm," Enten urged. "If you’re a Democrat potentially thinking about running in 2028, jump right in — because at this point, there is no front-runner.”

Contrast that with the Republican Party. There is no doubt who leads the GOP right now, and his Vice President, JD Vance, is already a clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

Worse, Enten pointed out that it's the entire Democratic Party as a whole that is dragging down the folks supposedly at the top. They are lacking in messaging and direction, and their brand is viewed quite negatively. CNN host Kate Bolduan wondered if that negativity was an albatross around the necks of their presidential candidates.

“I think that that is in large part of what’s going on is one of the reasons why there is no front-runner, nobody wants to put anybody up at the top of their ballot list, is because at this particular point, the Democratic brand is in the basement,” Enten responded. “It is total and complete garbage in the mind of the American public.”

“The Democratic Party’s net favorable rating — record lows in all three. Wall Street Journal, 30 points underwater. CNN, 26 points underwater. Gallup, 26 points underwater,” he added. “And that is being driven in large part by discontent within the Democratic base. The Democratic base wants something different.”

If you saw Chris Cuomo's viewers earlier today, what they seem to want is ... President Trump.

Even former Vice President Kamala Harris struggled to name a leader in the Democratic Party when questioned by late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert. In fact, she couldn't name one. Not one. Kamala, by the way, suggested she would not be running in the next presidential election cycle.

For those curious as to who is leading the way in 2028, Vance is the frontrunner with 28 percent in the betting odds markets, followed by Newsom (15 percent), AOC (9 percent), and Paternity Pete Buttigieg (8 percent).



We Don’t Need The Durham Annex To Know Hillary And The FBI Set Up Trump. We Watched It Happen


In fact, we didn’t need secret intelligence to expose the plan. 
It was playing out openly before our eyes in real time.



Just hours after the release of bombshell intelligence showing that the Clinton campaign orchestrated the Trump-Russia hoax, The New York Times and Washington Post rushed out articles that misrepresented the intelligence entirely — one falsely claimed Durham dismissed it, the other falsely claimed the FBI investigated it. In reality, Durham treated the intelligence as credible and preserved it in a classified appendix to his report without disclaiming or refuting it — because the facts were confirmed by what unfolded in real time.

Now, thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley, that once-secret appendix has been released. It contains raw intelligence obtained by the CIA in July 2016 indicating that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to “vilify” Donald Trump by tying him to Russia while relying on the FBI to drive the smear. At the time, the intelligence was routed to President Obama, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-FBI Director James Comey.

But rather than investigate Clinton for orchestrating a dirty trick operation that funneled false intelligence into the U.S. government, Comey and Brennan, with the apparent blessing of President Obama, turned their focus on Trump. Instead of treating him as the victim of a political smear campaign, they helped carry it out.

As the Durham appendix notes, both the CIA and intelligence analysts consulted by Durham assessed the intelligence as likely authentic. But the real strength of the intelligence — apparently left unstated by Durham or anyone else — lies in the fact that it was effectively self-verifying. The very actions it described — Clinton operatives accusing Trump of Russian ties, feeding false information into the FBI, and working with a cybersecurity firm to plant the Russia collusion narrative — were already unfolding in public, in real time, exactly as the intelligence outlined.

For example, on July 24, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robbie Mook appeared on national television and declared that the “the Russian” perpetrated the DNC email leak “for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump.” It was a striking accusation made without evidence, and it came at the time U.S. intelligence was receiving reports, described in the Durham appendix, that Clinton operatives had a plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Russian hackers.

The intelligence also included two emails allegedly sent by Leonard Benardo, a senior vice president at George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, formerly known as the Soros Foundation. These emails — reportedly obtained by hackers “affiliated” with the Russian government who breached Benardo’s account — provide striking insight into the Clinton campaign’s strategy. In the first email, dated July 25, 2016, Benardo allegedly outlined the plan’s strategic goals: “Julie says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump.”

“Julie” appears to refer to Julianne Smith, the NATO ambassador under President Biden and, at the time, a Clinton foreign policy adviser.

Benardo allegedly continued, “Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire.” That Benardo purportedly anticipated FBI involvement — indeed, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched just six days later — makes this exchange particularly significant.

In a second email, dated July 27, 2016, Benardo allegedly confirmed that Hillary Clinton herself had approved Smith’s plan to vilify Trump: “HRC approved Julia’s idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections. That should distract people from her own missing email, especially if the affair goes to the Olympic level. The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue.”

Perhaps the clearest evidence comes from Benardo’s purported reference to the role of the so-called cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which he mentioned in a crucial line: “In absence of direct evidence, CrowdStrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media.”

This was further confirmed by an accompanying memorandum in the intelligence package received by Brennan, Comey, and Obama in July 2016: “During the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated ‘attic-based’ technical structures, in particular, the Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect companies, from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications.”

The fact that CrowdStrike was apparently explicitly identified as the vehicle to push the narrative into the media in the absence of actual evidence is especially striking — because that is exactly what CrowdStrike did.

On June 14, 2016, The Washington Post published a now-famous article by Ellen Nakashima asserting that Russia had hacked the DNC. That narrative had not been publicly advanced before then. Incredibly, her sources were CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and Chief Security Officer Shawn Henry, who claimed with supreme confidence that Russian intelligence was behind the breach.

However, when forced to testify under oath in 2017, Henry struck a very different tone. He admitted that CrowdStrike “didn’t have direct evidence” that any data had been exfiltrated from the DNC servers. In fact, he could not even confirm there had been a hack, though he stated that “there are indicators that it happened.”

“There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated,” Henry said, adding, “we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

So why did CrowdStrike rush to tell the media that Russia was responsible? And why did The Washington Post run with it? The Clinton Plan intelligence gives us the answer: Planting that story was the entire point.

And the FBI’s role in putting “more oil into the fire,” as the purported email describes, wasn’t theoretical — it actually happened. Benardo not only allegedly foreshadowed the launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but shortly afterward, Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann walked into FBI headquarters with fabricated claims linking Trump to a Russian bank, Alfa Bank. Although the Bureau quickly debunked these claims, they continued to pursue them regardless. Meanwhile, starting a few weeks before Benardo’s emails, former British spy Christopher Steele — working on behalf of the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS — was feeding similarly false intelligence to the FBI, alleging that Trump was compromised by Russia.

Once again, the details revealed in the Clinton Plan intelligence perfectly align with what unfolded in real time. The Clinton team pushed fabricated stories while CrowdStrike took the lead on the technical front. The media amplified these claims, and the FBI actively participated by adding fuel to the fire, just as the email anticipated.

Later, in a 2020 press release, CrowdStrike claimed it had “proof” of Russian hacking. However, rather than presenting direct evidence, it pointed to the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — an assessment now shown to have been deceptively shaped by John Brennan — along with the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Mueller investigation. When challenged, CrowdStrike’s only defense was to cite government bodies that were themselves dependent on CrowdStrike’s assertions. This was by all appearances a circular lie.

In truth, CrowdStrike was not some neutral cybersecurity firm reacting to a real-world crisis. At the time of the DNC incident, it was a mid-level company with no particular prominence. After it pinned the DNC breach on Russia, it was catapulted to fame. Its valuation skyrocketed and has continued to rise since.

The connections run even deeper. Dmitri Alperovitch and Shawn Henry — the two CrowdStrike executives who appeared as key sources in The Washington Post article that seeded the Russia hacking hoax narrative — have significant political and institutional ties. Alperovitch is a vocal pro-Ukraine activist involved with the Atlantic Council, a think tank closely aligned with the Democrat Party. Meanwhile, Henry spent years as an executive assistant director at the FBI. His leadership role gave him deep ties to the very agency that would later rely on CrowdStrike’s analysis, helping to seed the collusion hoax and, as the emails put it, “put more oil into the fire.”

Even worse, the person who brought CrowdStrike into the picture, tasking them with looking at the alleged DNC hack, was Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign lawyer who was also pushing the Alfa Bank hoax and feeding fabricated data to the FBI. CrowdStrike, Sussmann, and Clinton’s legal team operated in coordination, with help from a compliant media eager to amplify their claims.

All of this was obvious to anyone willing to look. By the time the FBI and CIA received the Clinton Plan intelligence, every piece was falling into place: CrowdStrike had laid the groundwork for the narrative, Christopher Steele was feeding bogus intelligence, Michael Sussmann was pushing fabricated claims inside the FBI, and Robbie Mook was making unfounded accusations in public. The timeline fit perfectly and the actions aligned exactly. The intelligence wasn’t unverified — it was a detailed account of what was actually happening.

In fact, we didn’t need secret intelligence to expose the plan. It was playing out openly before our eyes in real time, and those who looked away became complicit in the greatest political deception in American history.