The Modern Democrat Party has become the Party of Class Warfare. They demonize wealth, tax it and seek to redistribute it at every turn. If successful, their policies would lead not only to the destruction of wealth, but will also reduce in the world’s standard of living and its freely elected governments.
Speaking about the Left, the great Thomas Sowell famously mused that….
“The political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”
The short answer as to how it exists is because of the relatively new, by historical standards, institution of private property. We must always remember that “throughout the vast majority of history, the lot of almost all human beings was one of persistent and often desperate poverty. Indeed, a remarkably tiny percentage of humans lived in the luxury of their time during the thousands upon thousands of years before the 1900s.”
Professor Steven M. Beaudoin, in his work Poverty in World History, noted that before Christ, “given the limitations on agricultural surpluses, the vast majority of the world’s population could easily slide” into what he termed “conjunctural poverty,” poverty brought on by circumstances. Beaudoin further wrote that “the multitudes…lives weaved back and forth across the line separating hunger and subsistence.”
Moving on to medieval Europe, Professor Dorsey Armstrong notes that, in and around the year 1000, 90 to 95 percent of Europe’s inhabitants were dependent on “subsistence farming.” What that meant, according to Professor Armstrong, was that: “The margin between bounty and starvation was painfully razor thin.”
Throughout that history, significant private property for the multitudes was almost nonexistent. That was because most lived in systems where those in political power—the kings, nobles, gentry, and even churches—owned the greatest accumulations of land, which was the wealth of those ages.
The poor were tied indefinitely to such lands to produce for those landowners and, nature permitting, to feed themselves. In exchange for that servitude, the poor putatively received protection from the roaming bandits and foreign armies of the age unless, of course, they were pressed into military service by their rulers thereby risking, if not losing, their lives.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-09-08 04:23:282026-09-08 04:28:34The Left’s War on Wealth
They will be using reporting requirements on government programs.
The new standard put forward by the Justice depart is stated as such: when a state chooses to participate in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs, all agencies within that state — not only those that administer TANF or SSI benefits — must report individuals known to be not lawfully present in the United States to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (Justice).
The Justice department has withdrawn a Clinton-era memorandum that did not require states to report who is receiving government assistance. Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) summarizes: Sanctuary cities just lost one of their favorite loopholes. States taking federal welfare money cannot order their police, DMVs, or others to hide known illegal aliens from DHS. Sanctuary jurisdictions must obey federal law or lose federal funding (Schmitt).
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion withdraws a Clinton-era opinion that only required the welfare programs themselves to report undocumented migrants.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it has released a new legal opinion that clarifies state reporting requirements of illegal migrants who are enrolled in welfare programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion withdraws a Clinton-era opinion that only required the welfare programs themselves to report undocumented migrants. The new one widens that to make it necessary for all states enrolled in TANF or the Supplemental Security Income program.
“Congress wrote this requirement plainly,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said in a statement. “When a state chooses to participate in TANF, it accepts the obligation to report illegal aliens in the United States.
“Tax dollars intended to help vulnerable Americans should not perversely encourage illegal entry into the United States, but rather should reinforce our laws and our borders,” he added.
The department clarified that the new requirement will only affect states moving forward, and will not be retroactive.
All 50 states, Washington, D.C., and several U.S. territories currently participate in TANF and SSI. Federal TANF funding grants exceed $16.4 billion annually.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/In-Historic-Shift-DOJ-Threatens-Billions-in-Cuts.jpg432640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-09-05 06:37:242026-09-05 06:38:11In Historic Shift DOJ Threatens Billions in Cuts to States Refusing to Report Illegals
Reclassifying the Islamic Paradigm: Constitutional Supremacy, Parallel Legal Systems, and the Limits of First Amendment Protections
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes protections for liberty of conscience, private devotion, and voluntary spiritual association. It was never designed, intended, or structured to grant an extraterritorial legal shield to foreign or non-territorial geopolitical governance systems operating to supplant domestic constitutional authority.
When analyzing an ideology, the State is not bound by the group’s self-selected labels; rather, the state retains the authority to examine its structural, functional, and operational realities. As established in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 342 (1970), the judiciary may distinguish between protected, deeply held religious beliefs and non-protected “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views.”
By applying standard American constitutional principles to the foundational, authoritative legal texts (Fiqh), international charters, and modern strategic documents of Islam, an absolute legal paradigm emerges: Islam does not operate as a private religion. Because there is no Islam without Sharia, and no Sharia that does not mandate a continuous geopolitical effort by Dar al-Islam (the Domain of Islam) to legally, institutionally, and territorially supplant Dar al-Harb (the Domain of Secular Law), the system functions structurally as an expansionist sovereign state order.
Consequently, active adherence to this paradigm sets up an irreconcilable conflict with Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (The Supremacy Clause). Under standard common law principles and constitutional jurisprudence, this analysis outlines the unified legal case for stripping the Islamic system of religious non-profit protections and barring its submitters from executing the constitutional oath of public office or exercising franchise rights.
Defining the Legal Framework: Islam, Muslim, and Sharia Under Authoritative Sources
To ground this framework in objective jurisprudence, the state must define the target of regulation using the precise legal terminology found within the ideology’s own primary sources, international declarations, and domestic parochial curricula.
The Etymological and Juridical Meaning of “Islam” and “Muslim”
In classical Arabic and sacred legal text, the word Islam is a noun denoting “absolute submission” or “complete surrender.” Correspondingly, a Muslim is characterized textually and operationally as “one who submits” to that authority without reservation.
According to Reliance of the Traveller (Book A: Introduction to Sacred Knowledge, Section a4.0; Book O: Justice), a Muslim is legally defined as an individual who has reached maturity, possesses sanity, and has bound themselves to the execution of the sacred Law (Sharia). The primary texts establish that this bond represents a complete surrender of individual autonomy to a predetermined legal order.
The Indivisibility of Faith, Law, and Statecraft
Traditional Islamic jurisprudence rejects the modern Western concept of a separation between private faith and public law. Under Reliance of the Traveller (Book O: Justice, Section o1.0–o2.0), faith (Aqeedah), law (Sharia), and statecraft (Siyasah) are structurally indivisible:
The Legislative Prerogative (Hukm): Belongs exclusively to the divine authority, meaning human legislative bodies like Congress or state assemblies commit an act of fundamental illegitimacy by creating man-made laws.
The Constitutional Status of a Believer: An individual who actively identifies as a Muslim accepts Sharia as their supreme, unalterable legal and political constitution.
The Status of Secular Frameworks: Adhering to a system that functions as a comprehensive civil, commercial, and penal code means that a Muslim acknowledges an independent, transnational authority that overrides any municipal law or secular constitution.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) as a Transnational Caliphate
The global posture of Islam is formally unified through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international confederation consisting of 57 member states, including all 56 Islamic sovereign nations and Palestine. Acting as a de facto global governing body or modern Caliphate, the OIC represents a unified Islamic geopolitical entity that asserts legal jurisdiction over the worldwide community of believers (the Ummah (nation)).
The OIC executed a binding international legal notice via the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), formally presented to the United Nations. In Articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration explicitly dictates that all civil liberties, human rights, and legal limitations are strictly subordinate to the Islamic Sharia as its sole source of reference, thereby officially rejecting secular international law and Western constitutional supremacy on behalf of the entire Islamic world. Note: There is unanimous consensus on one Islamic Constitution aka Shariah.
Domestic Educational Subversion: What Islam Is All About
The primary textbook utilized across full-time and weekend Islamic parochial schools (madrassas) in North America—What Islam Is All About by Yahiya Emerick—reinforces this totalizing, non-religious state framework for American youth:
Explicit Rejection of Religious Classification:Chapter 2 of What Islam Is All About is explicitly titled in bold type “Islam is Not a Religion,” instructing students that Islam is an all-encompassing social, political, and judicial system rather than a private faith.
Sharia as the Unalterable Constitution: The textbook defines the Sharia as the supreme, unalterable constitution for human society and explicitly commands students that their primary allegiance belongs to the Sharia and the global Ummah (nation), rather than to the United States Constitution or American national identity.
Parallel Governance Architecture: What Islam Is All About directly compares the governance branches of the Western constitutional model to the structural components of an Islamic state:
The Judicial Branch is equated to the Qadi (Islamic Sharia Judge).
The Legislative Branch is equated to the Shura (Islamic Consultative Council governing under divine law).
The Executive Branch is equated to the Caliphate (the executive head of the global Islamic state, led by a male Khalifa tasked with establishing Sharia worldwide).
Under a standard legislative evaluation, a Muslim is not defined as an individual practicing a private, voluntary matter of conscience. Rather, a Muslim is characterized as a citizen-subject who has formally bound themselves to a parallel, competing, and non-territorial legal-judicial state apparatus (Sharia).
Constitutional Jurisprudence and Legal Arguments for Reclassification
Argument I: The Doctrine of Structural Inseparability—Sharia as a Parallel State Constitution
Because Sharia regulates every aspect of statecraft, civil administration, commercial transactions, and criminal enforcement, shariah operates as a fully formed parallel legal system rather than a private religion.
While Western religions limit themselves to voluntary acts of worship and private conscience, Sharia jurisprudence integrates acts of faith directly with statecraft, judicial procedures (Book O), corporal sentences (Hudud), and commercial/taxation law (Zakat). This totalizing integration leaves no secular jurisdiction for municipal laws, local ordinances, or constitutional amendments.
Authoritative legal proofs within Islamic jurisprudence demonstrate this structure:
Reliance of the Traveller (Book O: Justice, Book P: Enforcing the Penal Law): Defines the judiciary, court evidence, and state governance as direct execution modules of divine law. It contains a complete penal code—mandating specific, unalterable physical punishments (Hudud) for actions like theft, illegal sexual intercourse, and alcohol consumption—entirely separate from and independent of the municipal laws of any host country.
Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (Chapter 4: Jihaad in the Cause of God, p. 58): Qutb documents that any human system that creates man-made laws is an act of Jahiliyyah (barbaric rebellion against Allah/god). He directly writes: “Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the common Western sense… It is a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men, which means the complete abolishing of human governance to establish absolute divine sovereignty (Uluhiyah).”
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), Article 19: Explicitly rules that “there shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah,” completely invalidating the authority of secular criminal statutes and constitutions over an individual bound by the covenant of submission.
Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League (Jeddah Ruling on Governance): Affirms that political rule must be based strictly on Al-Hukmu bi-Ma Anzalallah (governing by what Allah revealed), declaring that democracy—by placing sovereignty in the hands of the people—is a direct violation of Islamic jurisprudence.
Supporting United States Supreme Court jurisprudence reinforces that parallel political and legal systems do not qualify for First Amendment religious shields:
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972): The Supreme Court held that for a system of actions to receive protection under the Free Exercise Clause, it must be rooted in purely religious beliefs, completely separate from political, sociological, or philosophical considerations: “A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation… if it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief rather than political, sociological, or philosophical ideologies.”
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 49–50 (1890): The Court established that when an organization integrates political, economic, or civil elements that challenge public law, the state has the authority to revoke its corporate protections and dismantle its assets: “The state has a supreme interest in ensuring that no organization uses the cloak of religion to establish a state within a state, or to introduce a separate legal code that subverts municipal law.”
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965): The Court defined the strict boundaries of religious belief, noting that while it protects internal concepts of faith and duty to a Supreme Being, it excludes “essentially political, sociological, or economic considerations” that seek to regulate temporal, public actions within the state.
Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461–462 (1971): The Court held that the state is not required to provide systemic exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability when an individual’s or group’s religious tenets overlap with political alignments and systemic assertions of state policy.
Argument II: The Geopolitical Imperative—The Jurisdictional Dichotomy and Mandatory Subjugation of Secular States
Because the Islamic system divides the earth into two warring domains and mandates continuous efforts to expand its legal jurisdiction, it operates as an expansionist political order that is fundamentally hostile to the United States Constitution. Fiqh splits the global surface into Dar al-Islam (Domain of Sharia) and Dar al-Harb (Domain of War/Man-Made Law), mandating a continuous state of structural transformation or state of war (Offensive Jihad) until secular frameworks are completely subjugated.
Primary legal proofs include:
Reliance of the Traveller (Section o9.0: Jihad, o9.1): Traditional Fiqh defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims… to establish the Deen.” Section o9.1 confirms that the ruling authority must actively launch offensive operations against Dar al-Harb (the Domain of War/Secular Law) at least once every year to expand the jurisdiction of Sharia, explicitly rejecting peaceful coexistence with alternative legal frameworks. The term Deen—often mistranslated into Western parlance merely as “religion”—is defined in classical jurisprudence (such as the Tafsirs of Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi) as a totalizing, all-encompassing way of life, a binding legal constitution, and a complete system of governance encompassing law (Sharia), judgment (Hisaab), and societal submission (Inqiyad). Therefore, establishing the Deen via Jihad mandates the structural expansion and political supremacy of the Sharia state apparatus over secular human governance.
Reliance of the Traveller (Section o11.0–o11.4: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State): Details the status of non-Muslims conquered by the Islamic state. They are classified as Dhimmis, stripped of political rights, required to pay a mandatory poll tax (Jizyah) as a sign of subjugation, and subject to rules designed to keep them socially inferior: “The non-Muslim subject is forbidden to openly practice their faith, build new places of worship, or hold any position of authority over a Muslim.”
Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (Chapter 9: A Muslim’s Nationality and His Belief, p. 113): Qutb declares that modern borders, regional citizenships, and nation-states are illegitimate: “A Muslim has no nationality except his belief (Aqeedah)… Islam recognizes only two places: Dar al-Islam, where Sharia rules, and Dar al-Harb, where man-made systems rule. A Muslim must stand against Dar al-Harb until it submits.”
International Muslim Brotherhood, The By-Laws of the International Ikhwan (Section 2: Goals): Details the political intent to rebuild the global Islamic state (Caliphate), explicitly rejecting modern secular borders and mapping a path to unify all geographic regions under Sharia law.
Supporting United States Supreme Court jurisprudence directly addresses subversion under religious titles:
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341–342 (1890): The Supreme Court forcefully rejected the argument that an ideology could use a religious title to shield doctrines that advocate against civil laws and societal stability: “To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind… It was never intended that the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution should be a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.”
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1879): The Court established that while religious belief is protected, actions that challenge the state’s public laws must be regulated: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices…To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919): The Court affirmed that speech, advocacy, or organizational structures that create a clear danger to the state’s security can be restricted, confirming that protections do not apply to actions that threaten the constitutional order.
In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 572–573 (1945): The Court held that a state may deny admission to a position of public trust to individuals whose deeply held convictions prevent them from taking an unconditional oath to support and defend the state’s secular constitution.
Argument III: Civilizational Sabotage and the Institutional/Educational Pipeline
The operational reality inside the United States matches the aggressive assertions found in traditional Fiqh manuals. This pipeline uses religious immunity to fund, protect, and execute an explicit strategy of civilizational replacement through parochial curricula (What Islam Is All About), strategic cores (Explanatory Memorandum), and parallel tax shields (using non-profit status to build parallel legal, media, and banking centers shielded from oversight).
Authoritative Sharia and institutional evidence includes:
An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America (1991): Introduced as federal evidence by the U.S. Department of Justice in United States v. Holy Land Foundation, Case No. 3:04-CR-240-G, this strategic blueprint states: “[The mission] is a ‘Civilization-Settlement Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Yahiya Emerick, What Islam Is All About (North American Parochial School Curriculum, p. 248): Instructs youth that Western democratic society is corrupt (Jahiliyyah). It teaches students to reject integration and regional patriotism, explaining that Dawah (proselytizing) is a systematic method of statecraft designed to expand Sharia influence until it becomes the dominant legal framework.
The Underground Movement Plan (“The Project”, November 1982), Section 4: A strategic document found by international intelligence services detailing a clear plan to use the open, democratic legal systems of Western nations to build parallel financial, media, and legal institutions that shield the growth of the alternative sovereign state.
International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), The Methodology of Dawah:Frames propagation not as sharing a personal faith, but as a strategic tool to transform the legal, academic, and cultural landscape of non-Muslim nations from within.
Supporting United States case law demonstrates the authority of the state to protect itself from long-term institutional replacement:
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 509 (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of individuals organizing an ideological movement to overthrow the constitutional order, confirming that the state does not have to wait for an active rebellion to defend itself: “If a society cannot protect its foundation against a systematic, long-term conspiracy to replace its laws and values, then the constitution becomes an instrument of its own destruction. The state has an inherent right to act before the subversion is fully realized.”
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86–87 (1944): While Ballard prevents courts from ruling on the objective truth of a theological dogma, it preserves the right of the state to examine the sincerity and secular function of an organization. When an entity’s internal files (Explanatory Memorandum) reveal that its actual purpose is civilizational sabotage and the creation of a parallel political structure, the organization operates as a secular conspiracy rather than a protected faith.
United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Case No. 3:04-CR-240-G (N.D. Tex. 2008): This landmark federal case exposed how a network of domestic non-profit organizations, operating under religious tax-exempt status, funneled millions of dollars to militant groups abroad while establishing parallel political and social entities within the United States.
Scalise v. National Science Foundation, 315 F. Supp. 3d 85, 93 (D.D.C. 2018): This precedent affirmsthat administrative and educational entities cannot use religious exceptions to shield curricula or organizational practicesthat directly conflict with federal laws, national security, or established public policy.
Argument IV: The Integrated Blackstonian Definition—Law of Nature vs. Theocratic Subversion
To confirm these arguments within the history of Anglo-American common law, we look to Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (Book I, Chapter 1; Book IV, Chapter 4). Blackstone defines religion by its relationship to human conduct and the state:
Core Devotional Religion (Protected by Municipal Law):Encompasses matters of private conscience, enhances social and relative duties, and subordinates itself to public peace. Blackstone explains that human municipal law regulates “social and relative duties… as a member of civil society.” A religion qualifies for protection when its moral framework encourages citizens to fulfill their civil duties to the state.
Theocratic State Interference (Reclassified as Subversion):Rejects the authority of human law, claims separate civil and penal jurisdiction (Hudud), and directs actions against public peace. If an ideology commands its followers to reject the authority of municipal laws, enforce an independent penal system (Hudud), and view the secular state as an enemy domain (Dar al-Harb), Sharia mandates thatIslam moves past Blackstone’s common-law definition of religion. It becomes a political-military movement that the civil magistrate has a duty to regulate or restrict to preserve public peace.
Conclusion and Judicial Verdict
The legal conclusion is absolute and clear: Because Sharia is an expansionist legal system that claims supreme authority over human society (Muslim and Non-Muslim), it is in a permanent state of jurisdictional war with the United States Constitution. The argument is locked by an unyielding legal syllogism:
The textual definition of Islam is submission.
The object of that submission is Sharia.
Sharia mandates the legal elimination of all secular law or competing ideologies.
Therefore, any individual who submits to Islam (Muslim) necessarily submits to Sharia under all legal Islamic sources, and is fundamentally choosing a competing, adversarial sovereign power and foreign constitution (Sharia) over the American republic in direct competition with the U.S. Constitution.
When an individual makes the choice to prioritize a foreign legal order that mandates a “civilization-settlement process” to dismantle Western institutions from within, they choose to walk away from the protections of the domestic social contract.
Under the Supremacy Clause, the state has a clear constitutional right and duty to recognize this dual allegiance, strip the system of its religious protections, disqualify its adherents from public office, and strip them of voting franchise rights under Davis v. Beason to ensure the survival of the constitutional order.
The only thing America lacks is leaders with the moral fortitude and courage to fulfill their Oath of Office and to act in defense of America and the Constitution they swore to protect.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Supremacy-Clause.jpg360640Randy McDanielshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRandy McDaniels2026-09-04 11:30:322026-09-04 11:32:48Supremacy Clause vs Islam: The Legal Blueprint to Save America!
New York City Mayor Mamdani Releases 400-Page Racial Equity Plan
The initial framework for the plan was released in April. This week: Mayor Mamdani’s office released the full 400-page plan. The plan is the product of the city’s radical Chief Equity Officer Afua Atta-Mensah, who said: “ The release of the final plan is the beginning of implementation, not the end of planning,” said Atta-Mensah, who is commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Equity and Racial Justice. “Agencies now have to take these commitments and put them into practice” (Gothamist). From the city: this is what it looks like to govern with equity in mind (NYC).
Harmeet Dhillon with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has not been bashful to take action on legislation and policy unequally applied based on race. She spoke up when the initial framework was released.
New York Post: The Trump administration is reviewing a “racial equity” plan released by Mayor Zohran Mamdani — with a top Department of Justice official calling the city’s proposal “fishy.” The assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, in a statement to The Post, threatened to “bring enforcement actions if necessary” over the long-delayed report unveiled by Mamdani on Monday. The “preliminary citywide racial equity plan” aims to get dozens of local agencies involved to “solve decades of neglect and discrimination” against black and Hispanic and Latino New Yorkers — including through mandated “anti-racism” training and pay equity for city workers.
Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon claimed Tuesday the plan “appears to be another example of divisive, race-based policymaking that the United States Supreme Court has routinely held to be unlawful.”
“Racist and illegal DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] has no place in our society,” she said in a statement.
“The Civil Rights Division is reviewing the plan and will bring enforcement actions if necessary.”
The report was legally mandated under a 2022 voter referendum and was released by City Hall at the same time as a separate study on the “True Cost of Living” in New York City.
The preliminary racial equity plan involved 45 agencies and more than 200 city workers in an effort to “build a more equitable, inclusive and just city,” following the intense protests over the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota in 2020, said Mamdani’s Chief Equity Officer Afua Atta-Mensah on Monday.
Mamdani had promised to make the plan public within his first 100 days in office, after his predecessor Mayor Eric Adams repeatedly pushed back the release of the report, with his administration even being sued for failing to meet the 2024 deadline.
It comes as President Trump’s admin targets diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in liberal havens like New York.
The document, which explicitly does not use the controversial acronym DEI, includes the following policy suggestions:
–Increasing the number of city teachers who “receive professional learning in implicit bias and culturally relevant pedagogy.”
–Calls for a public school curriculum that reflects “the diversity of the families and communities.”
–Demanding “anti-racism training for City government staff” to help workers “combat racial discrimination in the workplace.”
–Requiring the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to “ensure racial equity is considered in evaluating 100 percent of new proposals” for construction projects.
“New York’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation, and racial oppression,” the plan states.
The report quickly sparked blowback from conservatives online, with Dhillon sounding the alarm.
“Sounds fishy/illegal. Will review!” she wrote on X Monday.
Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens) said she was looking forward to the results of the DOJ’s review.
“The mayor made it clear that he was going to go after white communities during his campaign, and this seems like his first step toward making that goal a reality,” she told The Post.
Mamdani, during his campaign, pledged to shift the property tax burden from outer borough homeowners to ‘more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”
Councilman David Carr (R-Staten Island) called the equity report a waste of time and money.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/New-York-City-Mayor-Mamdani-Releases-400-Page-Blueprint.jpg360640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-09-04 06:46:362026-09-04 06:53:12New York City Mayor Mamdani Releases 400-Page Blueprint for Government-Enforced Racial Favoritism
The 2020 election was a coup. We watched it happening in real time. Voting machines are hackable and unreliable and vulnerable to foreign interference. We must go back to paper ballots.
Homeland Security warns of Chinese parts in election machines, will require paper ballot audits
The Department of Homeland Security is mandating random paper ballot audits for upcoming elections, citing significant security risks posed by Chinese-manufactured components in widely-used voting machines.
The Homeland Security Department will require random audits of paper ballots in the midterm elections, citing long-simmering concern that the nation’s largest voting technology companies use Chinese parts in their voting machines, according to a letter from Secretary Markwayne Mullin released Thursday.
Mullin sent the letter to the White House Transparency Task Force earlier this week outlining the dangers posed by Chinese components in American voting machines and the way that these components could be exploited by hackers or other malicious actors.
The letter highlighted longstanding concerns first raised in a bipartisan manner before the 2020 election, but which officials appear to have taken little action on in the intervening years.
“Voting machines with components manufactured by foreign adversaries introduce significant security risks,” Mullin wrote. “These vulnerabilities mean that malicious actors could potentially compromise election infrastructure at any stage of the supply chain, even before the machines are assembled or deployed.”
The secretary explained, “If a component is tampered with during manufacturing, it could serve as a point-of-entry for hackers, allowing for the possibility of synchronized attacks across multiple machines and jurisdictions.”
Two Biden administration Intelligence Community memos in 2024 identified China as “the most active and persistent cyber threat” and assessed that China, along with Iran and Russia, has “the technical capability to access some U.S. election-related networks and systems.”
Earlier this year, the Trump administration took drastic action to ban the import of all internet routers manufactured in foreign countries because of the unacceptable security risks posed by Chinese hacking capabilities.
Internet routers connect computers, cellphones, and other electronic devices to the internet, the backbone of the modern economy.
According to the agency, Chinese hackers have exploited vulnerabilities in Chinese-manufactured systems to extensively burrow into U.S. critical infrastructure networks, affecting industries like communications, energy, transportation and water supply, Just the News previously reported.
Mullin noted major U.S. voting machine companies have acknowledged that some of their components cannot be sourced from any American manufacturers, requiring them to rely on foreign suppliers. Three of those vendors which make up the vast majority of election systems in the U.S., “more than 80%,” are ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and Dominion.
Each of these vendors has previously said that their machines have parts made in China.
Ahead of the 2020 election, the big three came under public and political scrutiny as worries mounted that foreign powers could interfere in U.S. elections.
Voting machines were widely seen as a vector for such interference, including through potential hacking or tampering. According to documents previously declassified by President Donald Trump and made public by the White House Transparency Task Force last month, the U.S. Intelligence Community also harbored concerns after vulnerabilities were exposed by a Venezuelan regime plot to manipulate its own election machines.
Evidence that China has obtained 220 million American voter registration files, some of which include non-public data, through buying, stealing or hacking. The administration’s intelligence chiefs later said that this represents “election interference.”
Assessments from spy agencies beginning in 2020 that at least five foreign powers — China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela — possess the ability to hack voting machines.
Evidence gathered by the Homeland Security Department that hundreds-of-thousands of likely illegal foreign voters were on the voter rolls states–and estimated the total across the whole country to be higher.
Documents that show the FBI investigated a breach of voter registration data in Arizona’s largest county in the days before the 2020 election. In that incident, a self-described hacker foiled security and obtained 633,000 voter registration files, but the Biden Justice Department and local prosecutors declined to bring charges.
The scrutiny on American election machines used to be bipartisan.
Four Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to the private equity firms that own the election machine vendors in December 2019 asking them to ultimately disclose ownership and finances, citing concerns that these firms have skimped on election security measures. L
Earlier, in 2017, Democratic senators also sent letters to the three major voting machine manufacturers inquiring about their cybersecurity practices.
NBC Newsinterviewed ES&S’s chief executive, Tom Burt, in December 2019 about concerns that the company sources election machine parts from China.
Burt told the outlet that the company’s facilities overseas in China and the Philippines were “very secure” and that ultimate assembly takes place in the United States. In a separate letter to the outlet, ES&S said all components “are trusted, tested and free of malware.”
In 2020, the executives of all three companies testified before the House Administration Committee–the panel tasked with overseeing federal elections–and acknowledged that some of their voting machine components were made in China. The then-president and CEO of Dominion told lawmakers that his company sources parts from China because “in some cases, there are simply no alternative suppliers.”
The Homeland Security Department first outlined its plan to tie its Homeland Security Grant Program funding to state performance in implementing several election security measures in July.
The agency said that it would require all states to “submit a plan for transitioning away from unsecure electronic voting systems” using bar codes and QR codes to count votes, “conduct a manual audit of at least 5% of all ballots cast,” reconcile the number of voters with the number of ballots cast, and use the department’s SAVE system to verify the citizenship of voters.
Documents previously declassified by the president and released by the White House Transparency Task Force show that the U.S. Intelligence Community developed concerns about the security of American voting machines beginning in 2004 when it first detected plans by the Venezuelan government to electronically manipulate their country’s own voting machines, including the use of substituting false votes, to secure victory for the ruling socialists.
The plans raised alarm as early as 2006 among U.S. officials as a potential avenue for the Venezuelans to attempt to “undermine confidence in, or manipulate the electoral process in, the United States,” according to a June 2026 CIA summary of prior intelligence reporting on Caracas’ capabilities.
By 2020, the CIA had obtained reporting on Venezuelan plans to swing the country’s election that year by manipulating electronic voting machines in a way that would make false votes appear legitimate and leave no trace of the changes.
The intelligence raised questions about whether some U.S. voting machines could be vulnerable to similar types of manipulation.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Chinese-parts-in-Election-Machines.jpg375640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-28 06:02:372026-08-28 06:08:20Homeland Security Warns of Chinese parts in Election Machines, Will Require Paper Ballot Audits
The Trump administration has designated an Italy-based technology collective as a global terrorist entity, saying its digital infrastructure has been used by violent Antifa cells as well as organizations linked to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s IRGC.
The State Department announced sanctions Wednesday against Autistici/Inventati, known as the A/I Collective, describing it as an extremist group providing encrypted communications and other digital services to far-left terrorist networks in the United States and Europe.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the group’s services are used by some of the “most active and violent Antifa cells” in the United States and around the world.
According to the State Department, Portland-based Rose City Antifa used A/I infrastructure to organize and encourage criminal activity, distribute personal information about immigration officers and circulate calls targeting ICE personnel.
The State Department has sanctioned an international technology collective that it says provided encrypted communications and other digital services to terrorist organizations overseas while also supporting violent far-left groups operating in the United States and Europe.
The Italy-based Autistici/Inventati organization, also known as A/I Collective, provides encrypted email, private messaging, web hosting, video conferencing, streaming services and tools designed to conceal users’ identities. According to a State Department memo, the organization’s infrastructure has been used by Hamas, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as violent far-left groups.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the organization’s services were being used by some of the most active Antifa groups in the United States and abroad. “Far-left terrorism poses a profound threat to the United States and the broader West,” Rubio said. The designation blocks Americans and U.S. financial institutions from doing business with the organization and freezes any assets it holds under U.S. jurisdiction.
The memo specifically identifies Portland-based Rose City Antifa as one American group that relied on A/I Collective’s services, including to distribute personal information about Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. It also cites Jane’s Revenge and says A/I Collective screens prospective users for ideological alignment before granting access to its services. The collective claims to host roughly 16,000 mailboxes, 1,500 websites, 5,500 mailing lists and 10,000 blogs.
According to the State Department, the same infrastructure has also been used by extremists in Europe to claim responsibility for attacks on rail systems and distribute instructions for making improvised incendiary devices. The memo cites attacks and sabotage activity in several European countries, including a January attack attributed to the far-left Vulkangruppe that knocked out electricity to roughly 45,000 households in Berlin.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/antifa-revolution.jpg374640NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Storyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story2026-08-27 05:47:022026-08-27 05:51:04BREAKING! U.S. finds a link between Antifa and multiple Arab terror organizations
Republican voters who see ads attacking South Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Ralph Norman as insufficiently MAGA might be surprised to learn about the major donor behind those messages.
“Ralph Norman: MAGA Traitor,” reads one ad from the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC. “Ralph Norman betrayed President [Donald] Trump by endorsing against him in 2024. … Ralph Norman is a MAGA traitor.”
So, what is the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC?
According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, the PAC received more than 88% of its funding—$6 million out of $6.78 million—from one man, Chris Larsen.
So, is Larsen a Trump donor? Far from it. He contributed $1 million worth of cryptocurrency to Future Forward, a PAC supporting then-Vice President Kamala Harris, in 2024. In May, he told Politico he was “a big believer in Gavin” Newsom for the 2028 Democrat presidential primary, and he plans to boost California’s Democrat governor “any way we can.”
Larsen in May called the PAC’s advocacy “political warfare,” according to Politico. “The worst that you want in a political fight is for your opponents to think you’re weak,” he said.
He is not the only green energy advocate backing the PAC. Mark McCall, who led the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office under President Barack Obama, contributed $200,000. Jigar Shah, who directed the same office under President Joe Biden, contributed $50,000. Michael Brune, former executive director of the Sierra Club, co-founded the PAC.
“The clean energy industry’s political muscle is only getting stronger and more intimidating,” Brune, said. “So our hope here is that clean energy will go back to being a bipartisan issue, and maybe one of the few issues that all Americans can agree on. But before we get there, we’ve got to continue our retribution tour and take out a few more members who have voted the wrong way.”
The “retribution tour” refers to getting revenge on certain Republicans in Congress who pushed for a quick phaseout of renewable energy incentives in what became the One Big Beautiful Bill. The PAC targeted Republican Reps. Norman of South Carolina in his campaign for governor, Andy Ogles of Tennessee in his congressional primary, and Chip Roy of Texas in his race for Texas attorney general, all of whom pushed the phaseout.
As with the recent ads against Norman, Invest in Tomorrow Coalition’s ads against Roy in the attorney general race attacked the congressman as having “turned his back on MAGA more than once.”
The PAC spent $2 million opposing Ogles, who lost his primary. It spent more than $650,000 opposing Roy, who also lost his primary. Norman faced similar negative ads in the South Carolina governor race and lost that primary. Now, he’s running for the GOP nomination for Senate against Darlene Graham, the sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. The PAC reportedly plans to spend $1 million against him.
The PAC has supported some Republicans but appears to have spent more money opposing sitting candidates.
It has reportedly considered targeting other Republicans, including Rep. Barry Moore in Alabama’s Senate race, Rep. Nancy Mace in South Carolina’s governor race, and Rep. Byron Donalds in Florida’s governor race. Moore and Donalds prevailed in their races, while Mace lost decisively.
MAGA messaging may resonate with Republican primary voters more than climate narratives, but the messaging decision also makes sense at a moment when climate activism appears to be on the back foot.
The Daily Signal asked the PAC why it uses MAGA-themed messaging to pursue climate-related goals and whether Larsen has decision-making authority regarding candidate targeting. The PAC did not respond before publication.
The Daily Signal also reached out to the companies led by Larsen, McCall, and Shah and did not receive a response.
The other day, Gavin Newsom, when asked what he thought about all of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) becoming part of the Democrat party. He said he thought it was “healthy”. He also said that he was about additions and not subtractions, and after all, the Democrats have a big tent.
You will find what they stand for, and what they intend to do.
They intend to destroy the Constitution. Your rights, what’s left of them after they strip them out, are determined by the government.
They do not believe in American greatness. No more gifted classes in school.
They want open borders and will bring about 60 million people into America. Think about a pizza pie, the more people that you have to share in that pizza, the smaller your slices are. What slice will you have when an additional 60 million people come in and demand welfare, housing, free healthcare, education and food.
They can’t produce anything of their own, so that’s okay, they’ll just take yours. You will own nothing, and you will be happy. No more private business; no more private property. Everything will be owned by the government, just to be fair. You get the privilege of renting your phone, car, and home. Even clothing. You get to rent 2 sets, that’s all.
They want to abolish prisons. So just let those rapists and murder back out on the street. then they can complain that the crime is sky-high! It will be the gun’s fault, so they will just take yours.
Of course, they want to add more justices to the Supreme Court, so nothing will get done.
They want to eliminate the Electoral College, so the middle States will have no representation. You won’t either.
The real problem is that today’s students and their parents have never been taught anything other than “Socialism is wonderful and the only system that is fair.” Yes, it is fair…in shared despair, poverty, and misery.
It seems to me like the Democrats are seriously playing for keeps. As more and more of the DSA get elected, the Democrats are playing to win.
The Republicans are afraid of losing power, and passing the Baton. They are afraid that they will not be able to maintain the power that they think they so rightfully deserve. They set out a course to eliminate the Grassroots, and any other fresh blood into the Grand Old Party.
Years ago, when I moved to Florida, I realized that the atrocities that were happening in New York were also happening in Florida as well as all over the country, and that there is a slow creep, a takeover by the Communists, as they set out to destroy the schools and the minds of our youth. They are following the NAZI program of Hitler’s Youth.
They have joined together with the Jihades and both have focused on the American youth. If your school is providing Muslims with sinks to wash feet, pray time and prayer rooms, demand the same for the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists and any other religious group. If they say NO, sue them.
The first wave of indoctrinated students are now the parents who have the students of today. Since the parents were taught socialism, they don’t see anything wrong, and all they are doing is emulating the mistakes of the past. We scream that the kids can’t read, and we forget that the parents can’t read either. We scream at the kids can’t do math, and we forget that the parents can’t do math. We have bred a society of dummies, who are now dependent on their handheld devices. Overseas, schools are going back to the basics and using real books again.
When I first started studying the UN Agenda 21 / 2030 and all of the support documents that went with it, I discovered the real goal was to depopulate the planet, so they could keep the wealth for themselves. The DSA can’t earn wealth, they don’t know how to, so they must steal it. They must make everybody else that they deem is not worthy, become their slaves. This is a party of hate and jealousy.
What a simple beautiful plan that was started thousands of years ago. Do you think the Romans and the Coliseum were any different? Surprise, they’re not. We have traded the Coliseum, the Lions, and the Gladiators for football, hockey and soccer. No difference. They must get the populace focused on something else so they can write laws to restrict and steal from those who have aka the infidels.
The only difference that I see from ancient teachings and could not figure out, is how are they going to get millions and millions of people to stop thinking on their own? Hegelian Dialectic, Cognitive Dissonance, lies, indoctrination, group think, and propaganda. Make them dependent upon the government.
How do you create a society that is so dependent, and void of free thought, that they become obedient drones, too afraid to step out of line. How do you make people compliant and obedient. I couldn’t figure it out, until a few years ago when I happen to see a TV show called Persons of Interest. The first minute of that show told everything.
What was it you ask? The camera. The camera ties it all together, the camera helps them anticipate and manipulate your behavior, and keeps you in line. For the next couple of weeks we’re going to be talking about the camera, because the AI data centers don’t work without the camera feeding them the information.
Join me this week, as Kat Stansell and I discuss the camera in Segment 1, and in Segment 2, Ed Vidal and I discuss the election, and how the Noose is getting Tighter and Tighter and Tighter.
Is America worth saving? Will you vote? Will you participate and voice your opinion. The only way to make a change is to change.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Democratic-Socialists-Come-Clean-about-Their-True-Intentions.jpg336640Karen Schoenhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKaren Schoen2026-08-22 05:52:452026-08-22 05:55:58YOU VILL BE HAPPY
Truth Social: President Trump on Wednesday night: No one has given the Islamic Republic of Iran a greater opportunity to make a Deal than me. TRAGICALLY, for them, they have failed to take it. Therefore, today, I am announcing the MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY! This will be Economic Warfare and Isolation on an unprecedented scale. Their navy is gone, their air force is destroyed, their military factories are now rubble, their currency is worthless, and their country is hanging by a thread. Today, I am also announcing that ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences. Oil smuggling, swap lines, cash transfers, exchange houses, ship registries, front companies — It all needs to stop NOW. You know who you are. This will be an ECONOMIC D-DAY, and we need all of our Allies to stand with the United States of America to isolate, and defeat, the Iran threat. These maniacs are on the ropes, and these HISTORIC MEASURES will cripple them and their ability to project terror worldwide. IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
New Arab: Dubai has a long history of doing business with everyone—including about $30 billion of annual trade with Iran.
Wall Street Journal: The administration has been pressuring UAE to cooperate in pressuring the mullahs. How much will they help? Wall Street Journal: The United Arab Emirates said late Tuesday that it has suspended financial and economic transactions with Iran, potentially threatening Tehran’s access to a major source of imports and a financial back door to the world. The move follows weeks of Trump administration cajoling of the U.A.E. to crack down on Iranian financial networks operating in the country, telling Emirati officials that targeting money flows linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could have a greater impact on Tehran than the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, according to people familiar with the matter…. Emirati officials see the latest measures as part of a gradual escalation rather than a wholesale break with Tehran, the people familiar with the matter said. The U.A.E. is expected to move step by step, beginning with new restrictions on cargo and potentially expanding to a broader crackdown on Iranian-linked entities if the Revolutionary Guard continues its strikes. The approach reflects the U.A.E.’s preference for testing what works while preserving room to adjust…. To squeeze Iran harder, it needs the U.A.E. to join in. The Emirates sits just across the Persian Gulf and has deep commercial, historical and cultural links with its larger neighbor, even though the two governments have frequently been at odds.
Aug 18 (Reuters) — A coalition of states suing Meta Platforms over claims Facebook and Instagram were designed in ways that harmed young users’ mental health will begin making its case on Tuesday in California federal court in a trial that could reshape some of the most popular apps on the planet.
Attorneys for Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky, who are leading a bipartisan group of 29 states, will give their opening statements before an eight-person jury in Oakland that is serving expressly in an advisory capacity for U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will ultimately decide the case.
The trial will test the four states’ allegations that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and teens and misled consumers about the safety of the platforms for young users. It will also address the claims of all 29 states accusing Meta of improperly collecting and using children’s personal data while they used the company’s platforms in violation of federal law.
Attorneys for Meta are expected to tell the jury that the company has made a huge effort to keep kids safe online. The company has argued that it has not made misleading statements about safety and the states have failed to present any evidence of actual harm to their residents.
Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify during the multiweek trial, as is Instagram head Adam Mosseri.
Biggest Test Yet
In terms of potential damages and implications for Meta, experts have said the trial is the biggest test yet of youth social media litigation and comes amid a broader reckoning across the globe over social media’s effects on young users.
Meta has said the penalties could be as high as $1.4 trillion, near the company’s market cap of $1.5 trillion. The attorneys general have yet to specify what they are seeking in penalties, but said at a hearing last week that the amount could be closer to $200 billion.
The attorneys general of Colorado, Kentucky, California and New Jersey are also asking the judge to issue an order forcing the company to implement age restrictions, eliminate infinite scroll and make other changes to its platforms nationwide.
In a statement ahead of the arguments, a Meta spokesperson said the states’ claims are unsubstantiated and the company stands by its record of creating strong protections for teens.
“The AGs offer no proof anyone in their states was misled, claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harmed their residents, and attempt to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification,” the spokesperson said. “Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.”
A Multistate Investigation
The states’ lawsuit, which was filed in 2023, stems from a multistate investigation into Instagram and Facebook’s impact on young users. The investigation was announced following disclosures by Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen, who testified before a U.S. Senate committee in 2021 that the company knew its products could harm young users and how to make them safer, but chose not to make those changes in favor of pursuing higher profits.
The states are expected to present a trove of internal documents and research from Meta, as well as testimony from former Meta employees and experts.
Meta and other social media companies like Snap Inc, TikTok parent ByteDance and YouTube parent Alphabet are facing growing pressure from lawmakers and in the courts. The states’ lawsuit is among thousands of cases filed against the companies by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals over allegations that their products harm young users.
Meta has said the flood of litigation could seriously impact its business and financial results.
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Nia Williams)
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Meta-Faces-29-State-Trial.jpg336640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2026-08-20 05:58:582026-08-20 06:01:29Meta Faces 29-State Trial That Could Reshape Instagram and Facebook
The history of military conflict and violence during the life of Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE) is generally divided into two main periods: the Meccan period (610–622 CE), characterized by non-violence and persecution, and the Medinan period (622–632 CE), during which armed warfare, raids, and political governance began.
Historians document that Muhammad participated in or authorized dozens of military expeditions, raids, and sieges during the last decade of his life.
1. Meccan Era (610–622 CE)
Persecution without Retaliation: During his early years in Mecca, Muhammad and his followers were a religious minority subject to boycotts, harassment, and torture by the ruling Quraysh tribe.
Pacifism:Early revelations in the Quran instructed Muslims to endure persecution patiently without taking up arms.
2. Early Medinan Era & Raids (622–624 CE)
The Hijrah:Muhammad and his followers fled Mecca for Medina in 622 CE.
Caravan Raids (Ghazawat):To sustain the exiled community and wage economic warfare against Mecca, Muhammad authorized raids on Meccan trade caravans passing near Medina (e.g., the Nakhla Raid and early skirmishes).
Battle of Badr (624 CE):The first major engagement occurred when a caravan raid escalated into an open battle against a Meccan army, resulting in a decisive Muslim victory.
3. Major Conflicts with Mecca (625–630 CE)
Battle of Uhud (625 CE): A Meccan offensive aimed at destroying the Muslim force ended in heavy Muslim casualties and a retreat.
Battle of the Trench (627 CE): A coalition of Meccan and allied tribes besieged Medina; the city defended itself behind a dug trench, leading to the collapse of the siege.
Conquest of Mecca (630 CE):Following the breach of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an army of 10,000.The city surrendered with minimal blood shed, and Muhammad granted general amnesty to most former enemies while destroying the pagan idols at the Kaaba.
4. Subjugation and Expulsion of Local Tribes
Conflicts with Jewish Tribes:Relationships between Medina’s Jewish tribes (Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza) and the Muslim leadership broke down over allegations of treason, broke treaties, or covert support for Mecca.
The Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina.
Following the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Qurayza were accused of treason; their male members (estimated between several hundred) were executed, and the women and children were taken captive/enslaved.
Campaign of Khaybar (628 CE):A siege against the Jewish oasis-fortress of Khaybar, resulting in its military submission and forcing the inhabitants to pay an annual tribute (jizya).
The history of military conflict and violence during the life of Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE) is generally divided into two main periods: the Meccan period (610–622 CE), characterized by non-violence and persecution, and the Medinan period (622–632 CE), during which armed warfare, raids, and political governance began.
Historians document that Muhammad participated in or authorized dozens of military expeditions, raids, and sieges during the last decade of his life.
1. Meccan Era (610–622 CE)
Persecution without Retaliation: During his early years in Mecca, Muhammad and his followers were a religious minority subject to boycotts, harassment, and torture by the ruling Quraysh tribe.
Pacifism:Early revelations in the Quran instructed Muslims to endure persecution patiently without taking up arms.
2. Early Medinan Era & Raids (622–624 CE)
The Hijrah:Muhammad and his followers fled Mecca for Medina in 622 CE.
Caravan Raids (Ghazawat):To sustain the exiled community and wage economic warfare against Mecca, Muhammad authorized raids on Meccan trade caravans passing near Medina (e.g., the Nakhla Raid and early skirmishes).
Battle of Badr (624 CE):The first major engagement occurred when a caravan raid escalated into an open battle against a Meccan army, resulting in a decisive Muslim victory.
3. Major Conflicts with Mecca (625–630 CE)
Battle of Uhud (625 CE): A Meccan offensive aimed at destroying the Muslim force ended in heavy Muslim casualties and a retreat.
Battle of the Trench (627 CE): A coalition of Meccan and allied tribes besieged Medina; the city defended itself behind a dug trench, leading to the collapse of the siege.
Conquest of Mecca (630 CE):Following the breach of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an army of 10,000.The city surrendered with minimal blood shed, and Muhammad granted general amnesty to most former enemies while destroying the pagan idols at the Kaaba.
4. Subjugation and Expulsion of Local Tribes
Conflicts with Jewish Tribes:Relationships between Medina’s Jewish tribes (Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza) and the Muslim leadership broke down over allegations of treason, broke treaties, or covert support for Mecca.
The Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina.
Following the Battle of the Trench, the Banu Qurayza were accused of treason; their male members (estimated between several hundred) were executed, and the women and children were taken captive/enslaved.
Campaign of Khaybar (628 CE):A siege against the Jewish oasis-fortress of Khaybar, resulting in its military submission and forcing the inhabitants to pay an annual tribute (jizya).
The history of socialist regimes and political movements in the 20th and 21st centuries is marked by widespread state-sponsored violence, political purges, forced labor systems, and catastrophic policy failures. Historians and demographers estimate that 20th-century socialist and communist regimes were responsible for tens of millions of human deaths.
The historical relationship between Nazi Germany and figures within the Islamic world during World War II was complex, driven primarily by anti-colonial sentiment, geopolitical opportunism, shared anti-British/anti-French goals, and mutual anti-Semitism.
1. Geopolitical Alliances & Opportunism
Shared Enemies: Imperial Germany in WWI and Nazi Germany in WWII attempted to leverage anti-colonial resentment in the Middle East and North Africa against British and French imperial rule.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem: Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was the most prominent Arab-Muslim figure to ally directly with Nazi Germany. Fleeing British authorities, he resided in Berlin during World War II, met personally with Adolf Hitler in November 1941, and broadcast Axis radio propaganda calling for Arab rebellion against Allied forces.
Invasion of the Soviet Union: The Nazi regime sought to recruit Soviet Muslims (such as Tatars, Chechens, and Turkestanis) who had suffered under Stalinist religious and political persecution into specialized military units.
2. Muslim Recruitment into Axis Forces
Waffen-SS Divisions: The Nazi military established several military formations comprised of Muslim volunteers and conscripts, most notably:
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar: Composed primarily of Bosnian Muslims and managed in part by Amin al-Husseini, used primarily for anti-partisan operations in Yugoslavia.
21st Waffen Mountain Division Skanderbeg: Composed primarily of ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and the Western Balkans.
Ostlegionen (Eastern Legions): Units formed from Soviet Muslim prisoners of war who viewed Germany as a vehicle to free their homelands from Soviet control.
3. Nazi Ideology & Views on Islam
Racial Hierarchy vs. Pragmatism: Nazi racial ideology categorized Arabs and Semitic peoples as racially inferior to Aryans. However, Hitler and top officials like Heinrich Himmler viewed Islam pragmatically—admiring what they perceived as its martial spirit, discipline, and uncompromising political nature compared to Judeo-Christian theology.
Exploitation of Religious Themes: Nazi propaganda selectively manipulated Islamic concepts—such as jihad—to encourage resistance against British, French, and Soviet forces, while downplaying Nazi racial theories in Arabic-language broadcasts.
1. Soviet Union (USSR)
The Red Terror & Civil War (1918–1922): Following the Bolshevik Revolution led by Vladimir Lenin, the secret police (Cheka) conducted mass executions, arrests, and torture of political opponents, striking workers, and alleged class enemies.
Stalinist Purges (1936–1938): Under Joseph Stalin, the Great Purge resulted in the execution of roughly 700,000 to 1.2 million people, including political rivals, military officers, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens.
The Gulag System: Millions of political prisoners and deemed dissidents were sent to forced-labor camps across Siberia and Central Asia, resulting in widespread deaths from exhaustion, starvation, and harsh conditions.
Forced Collectivization & Famines: Forced agricultural state control led to devastating famines, most notably the Holodomor in Ukraine (1932–1933), which killed an estimated 3.5 to 5 million people through deliberate grain requisitions and blockades.
2. People’s Republic of China
Land Reform Movement (1949–1953): Mao Zedong’s regime organized mass executions and public humiliations of landlords and wealthy peasants, resulting in hundreds of thousands to several million deaths.
The Great Leap Forward (1958–1962): A state-mandated push for rapid industrialization and agricultural collectivization triggered the Great Chinese Famine, resulting in an estimated 15 to 45 million deaths.
The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976): Paramilitary Red Guards targeted “class enemies,” intellectuals, and traditional culture, leading to widespread violence, political persecution, public struggle sessions, and over a million deaths.
3. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979)
The Cambodian Genocide: Led by Pol Pot, the Marxist-Leninist Khmer Rouge attempted to construct an agrarian socialist utopia.
The Killing Fields: The regime forcibly evacuated cities, abolished money and private property, and targeted intellectuals, minorities, and perceived enemies. Between 1.5 and 2 million people—roughly 25% of the country’s population—died from executions, torture, forced labor, and starvation.
4. Eastern Bloc & Cold War Authoritarian States
Repression in Eastern Europe: Soviet-backed socialist states maintained power through secret police networks (such as East Germany’s Stasi and Romania’s Securitate), public executions, and violent suppressions of anti-communist uprisings (e.g., Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968).
North Korea: The Kim dynasty established an authoritarian socialist state sustained through forced labor camps (Kwan-li-so), severe political repression, and severe famines caused by state economic management in the 1990s.
Cuba, Ethiopia, and Vietnam: Socialist regimes in Cuba (under Fidel Castro), Ethiopia (under the Mengistu regime’s “Red Terror”), and Vietnam instituted political re-education camps, mass detentions, and extrajudicial executions of anti-communists and dissidents.
5. Modern Authoritarian Socialism (21st Century)
Venezuela: Under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, state socialist policies led to economic collapse, severe shortages, hyperinflation, and human rights abuses, including the violent suppression of political opposition and extrajudicial killings by state security forces.
Historians generally analyze these violent outcomes through two primary lenses: critical scholars argue that socialist attempts to centralize economic and political control inherently require coercive state authority and the suppression of individual rights, while socialist defenders maintain that these regimes represent perversions or authoritarian distortions of socialist theory rather than its true implementation.
The Bottom Line
Socialism and Islam are joined at the hip. The are both radical, dangerous and violent.
Their goal is totalitarianism at all costs. They with lie, cheat, steal, murder and conquer using every means available.
Be it at the voting booth, on the streets using violent protests against all law enforment agencies to murder, torture and rape of the innocent.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islam-is-the-sword-the-Left-is-using-to-slit-the-throat-of-America.jpg360640Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2026-08-19 14:07:552026-08-19 15:16:19Islam is the Sword the Democrat Socialists are Using to Slit the Throat of America — History tells us so!
Looking back at history we have found those Presidents who have built-up America and those who have truly broken America.
Those who built-up America were and are patriots who love this land. They believed that America is one nation under God.
Those who broke America are traitors to this nation and its people. They hate America and have broken the Oath of Office that they took.
I have lived through the Carter, Reagan, Obama, Biden and Trump years. I also served as an officer in the United States Army during the Carter and Reagan years.
President Jimmy Carter
President Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1977–1981) was defined by severe domestic economic crises and high-profile foreign policy challenges, which ultimately contributed to his defeat in the 1980 presidential election.
Economic & Domestic Challenges
Stagflation & High Inflation:The U.S. economy suffered from “stagflation”—a rare combination of double-digit inflation, stagnant economic growth, and high unemployment. By 1980, inflation spiked above 13% and interest rates reached historic highs.
1979 Energy Crisis:The Iranian Revolution triggered severe global oil production cuts, leading to widespread gas shortages, long lines at service stations, and skyrocketing fuel prices.
“Malaise” Speech (1979):In a televised address addressing the nation’s energy and economic issues, Carter spoke of a national “crisis of confidence”.Critics labeled it the “Malaise Speech,” framing it as a shift of blame onto the American public for national difficulties.
Foreign Policy & Geopolitical Crises
Iran Hostage Crisis (1979–1981):Following the Iranian Revolution, Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.The prolonged crisis cast a shadow over his administration.
Operation Eagle Claw Failure (1980):A secret military mission to rescue the hostages in Tehran failed in the Iranian desert due to equipment failures and a mid-air helicopter collision, resulting in the deaths of eight U.S. servicemen.
The invasion derailed U.S.–Soviet détente, forced Carter to stall Senate consideration of the SALT II nuclear arms treaty, and led to the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.
President Ronald Reagan
President Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1981–1989) shaped modern American conservatism, marked by significant domestic economic restructuring and key diplomatic breakthroughs during the Cold War.
Economic & Domestic Accomplishments
Reaganomics & Major Tax Cuts:Enacted sweeping tax reductions, including the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate from 70% to 28% and simplified the federal tax code.
Inflation Control & Economic Expansion:Supported the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies to curb the double-digit inflation of the late 1970s, leading to a major economic recovery characterized by steady GDP growth, lower interest rates, and sustained job creation throughout the mid-to-late 1980s.
Bipartisan Social Security Reform: Signed landmark bipartisan legislation in 1983, based on recommendations from the Greenspan Commission, ensuring the long-term financial solvency of the Social Security system for several decades.
Judicial Appointments:Nominated Sandra Day O’Connor as the first female Supreme Court Justice, alongside elevated Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.
Foreign Policy & Cold War Diplomacy
INF Treaty & Nuclear Arms Reduction:Negotiated and signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, marking the first time the U.S. and Soviet Union agreed to eliminate an entire class of nuclear missiles.
The “Peace Through Strength” Strategy:Expanded defense spending and launched initiatives like the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), applying strategic and economic pressure on the Soviet Union that contributed to the eventual end of the Cold War.
The Reagan Doctrine:Provided financial and military support to anti-communist insurgencies and governments worldwide, including in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, to counter Soviet expansion.
Diplomatic Operations:Brokered agreements leading to the 1988 voluntary withdrawal of Soviet military forces from Afghanistan and ordered targeted operations to protect freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.
Barrack Hussein Obama
President Barack Obama’s presidency (2009–2017) faced significant policy challenges and criticisms across both domestic and foreign affairs.
Foreign Policy & International Relations
Syrian Civil War & “Red Line” Failure: In 2012, Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons by Syria’s Assad regime was a “red line”. When chemical weapons were used in 2013, the U.S. abstained from direct military intervention, leading to widespread criticism regarding American deterrence and credibility.
Rise of ISIS & Middle East Instability: The full withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq in 2011, combined with the power vacuum created by the Syrian Civil War, contributed to the rapid rise and expansion of the Islamic State (ISIS) across Iraq and Syria.
Russian Resurgence (2014 Annexation of Crimea):The administration’s diplomatic “reset” with Russia stalled, culminating in Vladimir Putin ordering Russian forces to invade and annex Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Critics argued the U.S. response was insufficiently forceful to deter Russian aggression.
Libyan Intervention Aftermath (2011): The NATO-led intervention that helped oust Muammar Gaddafi left Libya without a functional government, causing the nation to fracture into warring factions and become a haven for extremist groups.
Domestic Policy & Economic Challenges
Sluggish Economic Recovery: Following the 2008 Great Recession, the U.S. experienced one of the slowest economic recoveries in post-WWII history, characterized by persistent underemployment and stagnant wage growth for several years despite major stimulus packages.
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Rollout & Impact: The initial launch of Healthcare.gov in 2013 was plagued by severe technical failures. Policy-wise, the law faced pushback over rising premiums, high deductibles, the individual mandate penalty, and broken promises regarding keeping existing doctors and plans.
Guantanamo Bay Inability to Close: Despite pledging to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within his first year in office, strong congressional opposition and legal hurdles prevented him from fulfilling the promise throughout his two terms.
Government Surveillance Expansion: Disclosures by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed mass NSA surveillance programs (such as Section 702 and bulk metadata collection), drawing heavy bipartisan backlash over civil liberties violations.
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
President Joe Biden’s presidency (2021–2025) faced significant challenges and criticisms across both domestic and foreign policy domains.
Foreign Policy & International Relations
Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021):The hasty U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted in the rapid fall of Kabul to the Taliban, the deaths of 13 U.S. service members at Abbey Gate, and the abandonment of thousands of Afghan allies, drawing intense criticism over planning and execution.
Southern Border & Immigration Crisis: The administration experienced historic levels of unauthorized migrant encounters along the U.S.–Mexico border. Critics argued that the early reversal of key Trump-era policies—such as ending “Remain in Mexico”—created a magnet for irregular migration and overwhelmed immigration processing systems.
Global Conflicts & Deterrence Debates: The outbreak of major conflicts, including Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, sparked debate over American deterrence. Critics argued that diplomatic hesitation signaled weakness abroad, while human rights advocates criticized the administration’s handling of the Gaza humanitarian crisis.
Domestic Policy & Economic Issues
Post-Pandemic Inflation:The U.S. economy experienced its highest inflation rates in four decades, peaking above 9% in 2022. Critics attributed the surge in prices for food, housing, and energy in part to major federal spending bills like the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.
High Interest Rates & Housing Affordability: To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to multi-decade highs, severely impacting mortgage rates and creating significant affordability challenges for first-time home buyers.
Political & Reelection Strategy: Concerns surrounding his age and cognitive health culminated in a poor debate performance in June 2024, leading to mounting party pressure that ultimately forced him to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.
President Donald J. Trump
President Donald J. Trump’s term in office was marked by significant policy shifts, major domestic legislative milestones, and reshaping key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
Economic & Domestic Legislation
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017:Signed into law the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in decades, significantly lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, reducing individual income tax brackets, and doubling the standard deduction.
Judicial Appointments:Nominated and confirmed three conservative Supreme Court Justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—shifting the high court to a 6–3 conservative majority, along with confirming hundreds of conservative federal appellate and district judges.
Deregulation: Enacted a extensive deregulatory campaign across federal agencies, rolling back numerous environmental, financial, and administrative rules.
First Step Act (2018): Enacted a major bipartisan criminal justice reform bill aimed at reducing mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders and expanding rehabilitation programs for federal prisoners.
Trade & Economic Policy
USMCA Approval:Replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, introducing updated provisions for auto manufacturing, labor standards, and digital trade.
Trade Tariffs & Re-negotiations:Imposed significant tariffs on foreign imports—particularly targeting Chinese goods, as well as foreign steel and aluminum—to incentivize domestic manufacturing and counter unfair trade practices.
Withdrawal from TPP:Withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement to focus on bilateral trade deals.
Foreign Policy & National Security
Abraham Accords (2020): Brokered a series of historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.
Middle East Relocation & Treaties: Officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Additionally, withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA).
U.S. Space Force:Signed legislation establishing the United States Space Force as the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Healthcare & Veterans Affairs
VA Reform:Passed the VA MISSION Act and VA Accountability Act to grant veterans greater flexibility in seeking private healthcare and improve administrative accountability.
Right to Try Act:Signed federal “Right to Try” legislation, allowing terminally ill patients to access experimental treatments not yet approved by the FDA
During his second term in office, President Donald J. Trump has focused on key policy priority areas through a series of major executive actions, trade initiatives, and economic reforms.
Border Security, Energy & Economic Policies
Border Security & Immigration: According to The White House, the administration initiated zero-release enforcement actions, expanded national defense zones along the southern border, and signed executive orders prohibiting birth tourism.
Energy & Industry Initiatives:Issued directives aimed at supporting traditional energy sectors, including prioritizing the operation of coal-fired power generation fleets to bolster grid reliability.
Artificial Intelligence & Quantum Security:Issued directives establishing voluntary federal cybersecurity review processes for advanced AI models and mandating government transitions to post-quantum cryptography.
Public Health Policies:Directed federal health agencies to update and align domestic childhood vaccine recommendations with peer nations.
Trade & Defense Enforcement:Actioned trade adjustments and tariffs targeting foreign imports, alongside measures to tighten accountability standards across U.S. customs enforcement.
Do you see the differences? Do you see who are the hypocrats and who is not?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Only-the-hypocrite-is-really-rotten-to-the-core.jpg360640Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2026-08-18 15:02:012026-08-18 15:45:05The Marxist/Islamo-Nazi Party are Hypocrites Who are Rotten to the Core — History tells us so!
There is evidence that “strongly suggests” China and other foreign adversaries are fueling campaigns opposing data centers to undermine the US in the artificial intelligence race, the House Energy and Commerce Committee warned Thursday. Lawmakers on the panel urged in a new letter to the Trump administration to step up oversight of possible ties between China and anti-AI forces in the US, fretting that the international subterfuge could undermine American dominance.
“Our nation is locked in a race with China to innovate and lead the world in the development of Artificial Intelligence technologies,” House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) told The Post. “The fact that Chinese Communist Party-backed entities and other foreign adversaries may be attempting to influence decisions related to American data center infrastructure puts into perspective how serious of a fight we are in.”
President Trump shrugged off the threat. “We had a great meeting with China, and you know they do things to us and we do things to them. I say it all the time,” he told The Post when asked about the concern. He was in Beijing last month to meet with President Xi Jinping but the leaders didn’t come to any kind of agreement on AI as both the US and China race to become the dominant force in the industry.
The BPI study concluded that “international actors are working through state media organizations, nonprofit networks, and dark money groups to shape US policy and public opinion on artificial intelligence.” One example mentioned in that report was the network of nonprofits and outlets bankrolled by Neville Roy Singham, a Shanghai-based US expatriate. Singham, who is married to Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, previously faced government scrutiny for “activities inimical to the US.” Republicans in Congress have also long been probing Singham’s influence network in the US. BPI cited an analysis that Singham pumped some $278 million across six American nonprofits between 2017 and 2023.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a missive to President Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the FBI, seeking information about foreign influence campaigns to undermine US development of AI. “Americans deserve to know who is bankrolling the disinformation campaign that seeks to block critical infrastructure investments,” Guthrie contended to The Post. “Data centers are the foundational computing structure that makes modern life possible.” “Our adversaries in Beijing fundamentally understand this.”
Trump himself has been a staunch proponent of encouraging AI development and courted friendly ties with Big Tech executives. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order asking companies to let the government take a peek at next-gen AI models to prepare for cybersecurity concerns. But that was a scaled-down version of a more stringent executive order his administration had been contemplating. The president has framed AI as part of a critical international race that America must win.
“America is the country that started the AI race. And as President of the United States, I’m here today to declare that America is going to win it. We’re going to work hard, we’re going to win it. Because we will not allow any foreign nation to beat us,” the president has stressed. Several Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, have expressed concerns that China is helping to gin up anti-AI sentiment in the US. “Any place that’s trying to build data centers is getting bombarded with foreign-directed propaganda to try to block these from being built,” Burgum told Fox Business Network last month. “This is just another attack on the US and our ability to be competitive.”
Data centers provide the critical processing power for parsing through massive amounts of data needed to train and run AI models. Activists have criticized the explosion in data centers because they are energy guzzlers that can cause electric bills to spike. But AI experts say that without them, the US won’t be able to advance the nascent technology.
Critically, support for development of data centers is waning across a variety of polls. For example, in 2023, 69% of Virginians supported construction of new data centers, but that dropped to 35% this April, a Washington Post-Schar School poll found. The lawmakers say the issue is serious enough to warrant a federal investigation, and they are seeking a briefing from the Trump administration by June 18 on the steps being taken to combat foreign influence campaigns against AI development within the US.
“The U.S. is in a global race for technological superiority that has significantly raised the stakes for economic and national security if our nation falls behind,” the lawmakers stressed in the letter. “It is critical that this Administration takes any effort to undermine this objective — particularly from foreign adversaries — with a great deal of seriousness.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-08-13 04:50:482026-08-13 04:52:14China Fueling Anti-AI Data Center Protests
It is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “democratic socialists”—once they find power.
Indeed, the more the ossified Democratic Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists, the more they act like—and even appear comfortable being called—communists.
With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.
How about declaring capitalism a failure?
All the socialists now do that—and even Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.
Confiscating private property?
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.
Dismantling the U.S. Constitution?
Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democratic Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.
And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist”?
They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats—for example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.
Like all good Marxists, these “ends justify the means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: If two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.
How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property?
Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?
In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they—the newly presumed guilty—can prove themselves innocent.
Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court.
Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes—in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.
Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.
Why is Mamdani doing this?
The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:
First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.
And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it. To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.
Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.
Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all—from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.
But it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.
Sanchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain—while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.
So, why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens—poor, often angry, and unassimilated—from the Third World?
Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.
And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.
Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.
The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them—and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled—is often only about 20 years.
So if one enjoys watching the careers of Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.
It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy—only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.
But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned.
So far, the model holds true: Socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So, they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.
In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Is-Communist-No-Longer-a-Slur.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-08-09 09:03:492026-08-10 09:14:05Victor Davis Hanson: Is ‘Communist’ No Longer a Slur?
I know, I had said that there would only be Part 1 and Part 2…
But as I went along I thought of something that warrants an additional write-up. It’s this: one of the primary deceptions used by Dr Fauci and his minions, is to make technical references that he knows that very few citizens really understand.
One of the most frequent deceptions used is to cite statistics. For example, regarding medical issues, the decision as to whether or not a treatment is desirable comes down to two issues: Effectiveness and Safety. (After these, other matters might then come into play, e.g., cost, availability, etc.)
A “treatment” could be a vaccine, mechanical therapy (radiation), surgery, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc.
But let’s just think about COVID-19. Dr. Fauci (and other healthcare “experts”) had these treatments to evaluate: vaccine, prescription medication, supplements, dietary changes, lifestyle changes, etc
Accurately Explaining Effectiveness</h4
How Dr. Fauci and his allies (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) portray effectiveness (of drugs, vaccines, etc.) to the public was deceptive. The “effectiveness” that was almost always shown was relative risk.
A more meaningful number would have been to show absolute risk. Here are two independent citations where others have (so far unsuccessfully) made a case for the same thing:
Example 1:This is the position stated in an important FDA advisory publication. A key conclusion (see page 60) was that the public is: “unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”
Since statistics are over most people’s heads, I’ll try to explain the difference in layperson terms. I’ll use COVID-19 vaccines as a telling example…
Here are three tables based on two studies: here and here. (If you’d like further elaboration, here is an MD’s good discussion about those two studies.)
The first table shows the relative risk reduction (relative effectiveness) of several popular COVID-19 vaccines:
Most people would say that these look like good numbers — and the ones above 90% are VERY good. That’s exactly what Dr. Fauci, etc. want us to think… Now let’s fill out the next column: absolute risk reduction (absolute effectiveness) …
Whoa! The absolute effectiveness numbers are radically different — and MUCH less! What does this mean in the real world?
A third variable might be the easiest to understand: how many people need to be treated (injected) to prevent ONE case of COVID-19?
This is called NNT (Number Needed to Treat = 1/ARR). Here are two studies (here and here) that delve into the merit of using NNT. The table below shows what NNT is for the same COVID-19 injections:
NOTE: The exact numbers here may be slightly different due to several variables, and are not important. What is significant here is to see the extraordinary differences between Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.
NNT Observation —
Let’s look at a real-world example… If citizens realized that roughly one hundred people had to be injected before ONE case of COVID-19 was prevented, how many people would have said:
“I’m willing to risk the known potentially serious side-effects of these injections, plus accept the fact that zero long-term studies have been completed — all hoping that I’ll hit the jackpot and be the lucky one in 100± people who is prevented from getting COVID-19”?
An Even Better Analysis —
Some very smart people said let’s take the NNT data one step further — and add the treatment COST to it! In other words, if two treatments have the same NNT, but one costs 10 times the other, shouldn’t we factor that in? Look at this fabulous COVID-19 table:
Compare two popular COVID-19 early oral treatment competitors: Ivermectinand Paxlovid. To get the same end result (save one life from COVID-19) we can spend $26 for Ivermectin or $881,260 for Paxlovid!
Note also that cost and impacts of side effects are NOT taken into account here. The side-effects for taking Ivermectin are very low, while the potential side-effects for Paxlovid are rather high. In other words, the cost difference between Ivermectin and Paxlovid is likely MUCH more than what is shown in this table!
The Bottom Line — Part 3
Dr. Science (Fauci) — and his expert allies — KNEW all this information.
As such, they should have prominently shown the public BOTH Relative and Absolute numbers, as well as NNT. This is not some academic matter, as it has SUBSTANTIAL bearing on assuring that Americans are able to make an informedchoice when they agree to an injection or to take a drug.
Without these facts, citizens are not only severely handicapped, but are almost totally incapable of making an appropriate decision for themselves and their loved ones. Dr. Fauci could have fixed this, but chose not to.
PS — Here is an excellent two-minute video that explains the difference between Absolute and Relative Risk reduction…
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.
I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FAUCIS-FRAUD-covid-4948866_640.jpg360634John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2026-08-07 14:16:112026-08-07 14:34:42Critically Thinking about Dr. Fauci — Part 3
