Joined February 2007
- Tweets17K
- Following1.2K
- Followers822
- Likes16.2K
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
🚨 A 10-year-old girl was abducted from her home in Canby, right here in my Senate District, early this morning. A 12-year-old child was also assaulted during the horrific incident.
I'm asking Oregonians across the state to please help spread the word and bring her home safely.
Violet Hay is approximately 5 feet tall, weighs 125 pounds, and was last seen wearing a green shirt and black shorts.
Law enforcement is actively searching for Violet. If you have ANY information that could help locate her, please contact Oregon State Police at 1-800-442-0776.
Please share this information far and wide. We need as many eyes looking for Violet as possible.
I am praying for Violet's safe return, for the recovery of the child who was assaulted and for the law enforcement officers working tirelessly to bring Violet home.
katu.com/news/local/10-year-…
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
Well.
UNDERCOVER: GAVIN NEWSOM SAYS THE DSA IS "GOING TO BE DOMINANT" AND "MAINSTREAM" IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
"The DSA, the energy and the desire and demand for bold change, not incremental change, is very much going to be dominant. I mean, that's going to be a mainstream Democratic movement. Absolutely. No question about that."
That's California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, speaking to an undercover journalist while campaigning in New Hampshire.
Asked by a "younger voter" who said "we don't want Kamala Harris, we want more democratic socialist policies":
"No one is arguing to manage the status quo and fail more efficiently."
"You can't play in the margins anymore. The system's broken. It's completely unbalanced, and we can't manage the decline. We have to completely reimagine."
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
If you are like me, you probably are wondering why Trump and the GOP members of Congress have been mostly silent over the uncovering of the Color Revolution plot.
I have some theories.
~1,300 words, please read if so inclined.
P.S., some of the hyperlinks have Easter eggs, have fun. (Don't worry, none of the links go to virus-ridden "Buy Ukrainian brides with crypto" sites.)
The @DemSocialists are exceptionally dangerous people.
I've been going through the Democracy Files leaks @DataRepublican has been releasing, and whether or not any of this ultimately meets the legal bar for seditious conspiracy. The plan these organizers are discussing doesn't hold together unless you assume their "non-violence" language is masking their true intentions from public consumption.
Their red line is the Insurrection Act as a potential triggering action, there may be others, but all of the potential triggering acts that have been hinted at are lawful actions. Nobody invokes the Insurrection Act over people walking down the street with signs. It doesn't happen. The Guard deployments in LA and Portland last year to counteract violent protestors weren't even the Insurrection Act. The only scenario where it actually gets invoked is one where there is sustained violence that local authorities can't or won't control.
So if your entire plan is built around what happens after the Insurrection Act is invoked, you are building a plan around mass violence happening. You can say "non-violence" as many times as you want. The plan doesn't work without the violence. That's a wink and a nod tactic to cya legally.
But understand the logic flow of what comes next. In the transcripts published by The Post Millennial and WECU, the talk is about governors becoming "the leading governing authority," about how to "wall off these illegitimate individuals," and about moving "into an extra-constitutional process." In other words, the federal response has been labeled illegitimate before anything has even happened.
That's where this starts to matter legally. The seditious conspiracy statute covers conspiring to oppose by force the authority of the United States, or to prevent, hinder or delay by force the execution of any law. The Supreme Court said back in 1887 that if federal officers carrying out the law are forcibly opposed by people who conspired for that purpose, that is exactly what the statute was written for.
If violence breaks out, and the federal government steps in to protect communities, and these same organizers then use ongoing violent protests to tell governors and the public that the federal government is no longer legitimate, that bleeds out of activism and into something far more serious.
Advocating an idea isn't a crime necessarily and the courts have been clear about that. But there is a big difference between teaching an abstract idea and lining up the lawyers, the bail money and the governing plan for the day after.
Maria Stephan, who co-leads the Horizons Project, the group that co-wrote the toolkit for these organizers, wrote in 2020 that calling the George Floyd protests violent riots "is simply untrue" and that the looting and vandalism were "a minute portion" of it, "largely committed by opportunists." Erica Chenoweth, whose 3.5% rule keeps coming up in these circles, co-wrote that claims the protests were overtaken by rioting "are false." Paul Zeitz wrote last year that troops had been "deployed against peaceful protestors" in LA. So they are obviously hiding behind legalese to cover their tracks while having a background of defining violent protests as non-violent.
All of this tells you exactly how they'll describe the violence when it comes. “It isn't really violence, it's a tiny percentage, it's opportunists, and the real threat is the federal response.”
They're being evasive and misleading, intentionally.
The question now is what the full archive shows. If anyone on these calls is planning to physically resist federal law enforcement once it shows up, or keeps backing these movements after they've clearly turned violent, that's not politics anymore. And it’s worth repeating this last point. If the organizers of this say “peaceful protest” now, but advocate for advancing their plan to delegitimize the authority of the United States government after violent protests break out, they will be exposed to more obvious legal scrutiny.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
Holy shit.
This bombshell went under everyone's radar.
Tom Barrack, perhaps on accident, made an astonishing admission.
His direct quote:
"We installed Khomeini in 1979. We took out the Shah (of Iran)".
This is a senior American ambassador saying out loud that that the 1979 'revolution' was in fact a foreign backed coup to install Khomeini. The Shah was only overthrown because of direct American intervention.
It was not organic, and it was not the will of the Iranian people.
Rather, Jimmy Carter's blood stained hands were all over the ruination of Iran for generations.
The current islamic regime is a Democrat-stamped entity.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
This is brilliant. Please bookmark as DR will be updating the thread with subsequent dumps.
🚨🚨 THE ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK / THE DEMOCRACY FILES: A PRIMER 🚨
I will be using this thread to track all drops, so bookmark it.
I spent most of yesterday backing everything (now 312 gigabytes) up in various sources and getting the materials out to others. I also produced an AI video (below) to explain the whole thing to others are not on 𝕏 - feel free to distribute.
Here's the primer:
USAID, the foreign aid agency, had a democracy office. Inside the agency, it was called DRG.
Officially, DRG administered "democracy assistance." They'd go inside countries they thought were sliding into authoritarianism and help the opposition there. That assistance included election monitoring, judicary support, independent media, and civil society building.
You may have heard the term "color revolution." The model comes from Serbia in 2000, where trained student activists brought down Milosevic with the help of Western governments, after sustained protests. With the help of USAID's democracy office, this model was implemented in many other countries to topple governments: Georgia's "Rose Revolution" in 2003, Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and many more.
Then last year, DOGE shut down USAID. But the USAID democracy office didn't stop. They formed a group called the Democracy Renewal Group, the same initials as their office (USAID Democracy, Human Rights, Governance). Their goal: apply their own playbook to the United States itself.
This goal became a plan, called Renew American Democracy (RAD). It invoked the "4 B's" framework. Block - use lawfare and protests to make life harder for the Trump administration. Bridge & Belong - control dialogue and win people over. The final and most important B is Build. Build means redesigning the American government itself, and the crisis is the opening.
In their own words:
"We can take that breakdown moment and leverage it for a big structural reform, you know, refounding moment." - Danielle Reiff, DRG lead.
Calls show DRG working alongside DSA on ideas of creating a different government, one that does away with the Constitution itself.
DRG does not run the Block operations. They hand it to UDA, the United Democracy Alliance. One organizer calls it a "huge galaxy": lawsuits, street protests, non-cooperation. They list No Kings, Indivisible, MoveOn, 50501, and many other mega-activist NGOs among their members.
Another organizer calls UDA Erica Chenoweth's project. Chenoweth is the Harvard professor behind the three-and-half-percent rule of regime change: get that share of a country's populace onto the streets, and historically, the movement wins.
The UDA is very "hush-hush." They have no website, no roster, no filings.
Then come the red lines: things the Trump administration could do, such as calling the Insurrection Act on protesters, that would mean that the federal government, in their words, "crosses the threshold into illegitimacy." Nobody voted on those lines. There was no public debate. These red lines were developed within secretive working groups, and in a paper addressed to governors and staff.
In the words of Reiff/DRG:
"So that if there is a red line crossed in terms of a Constitutional crisis, like everyone's already pre-organized. And so Mike Smith actually said, he goes, oh, you guys have the day after tomorrow plan."
Cross a line, and the paper's options include states refusing to lend their resources to federal officials, and governors convening what it calls a "Third Continential Congress."
Running the UDA's Insurrection Act working group: Rear Admiral Mike Smith (RET) of National Security Leaders of America (NSL4A). NSL4A is also credited with operationalizing UDA, the blocking operations. NSL4A consists of about 1,600 ex-officers, spies, diplomats. They're turning red lines into indicators and running a situation room to monitor them throughout the midterms and beyond.
The NSL4A's lawyers told them to stop recording meetings in case of subpoenas. But the rest of the network continued to record. DRG works in conjunction with Renew to Thrive (R2T), which ended up accidentally publishing 400+ calls and thousands of documents. These calls and documents were never meant for our eyes, but it's them, on tape.
Thousands of NGOs and billions of dollars are involved in this endeavor. Most of them believe they're saving democracy. The problem is that people who spent their careers deciding when other countries' governments had lost their legitimacy wrote that test for ours, in private, and planned for what comes after.
Who decides when your government is legitimate?
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
You can’t trust a governor whose solution to a $400 million problem was a $15 billion tax on Oregonians.
Higher taxes are not the solution. New leadership is.
The @WinterParkPD clearly employ lying officers. Disgusting. The Chief should be fired. I hope this Tesla driver sues these scumbags.
The original video: youtu.be/A4Q8q0KQQ14?is=9XSx…
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
As many of you know, in recent days Data Republican has been releasing transcripts, videos and audio recordings of a group of groups plotting to use violence to force President Trump to take protective actions (i.e., the Insurrection Act) that will result in the overthrow of our Constitution in favor of the will of Democrat governors.
These groups include former USAID employees and other ex-national security officials, and the plans they discuss are straight out of the color revolution tactics, techniques and procedures those same people have been using for decades to overthrow foreign governments unfriendly to the USA.
This is the biggest news story in decades, right?
Yet no one in the mainstream media will touch it.
Except to defend it.
See the below headline from today’s Washington Post (I’ll link to the full article below).
The plotters behind this effort are obviously alarmed by the recent public uncovering of their conspiracy, so they have done what any reputable Democrat determined to overthrow the electoral choices of the American people would do: run to a friendly press outlet to drop a soft-pedaled puff piece to run top cover for their efforts, and blame Trump.
If you read this article, it does not talk about a coup conspiracy. Instead it talks about a bunch of well-meaning, patriotic, anonymous ex-national security officials simply trying to protect America from the evil dictator Trump destroying “our democracy.”
This article itself is straight out of the color revolution tactics—it’s propaganda designed to condition a populace to accept illegitimate actions.
The Washington Post is part of the plot.
Stay frosty, friends. This will get worse before it gets better.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
The things that Data Republican is currently revealing are so outrageous and so shocking that many federal government insiders are simply dismissing them as being "not possible."
Such people are wearing the blinders of human nature. Their loyalty to the institution of the federal government they were/are a part of blinds them to the misdeeds of people from that same institution.
My article below explains; it's super short (~500 words).
Please read if so inclined.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
SWINGERS turns 30 today.
Jon Favreau wrote the screenplay in 10 days, drawing on his own struggles as an actor in LA after a breakup. The film turned his real-life frustrations into the indie comedy that helped launch his & Vince Vaughn’s careers.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
It is a great historical injustice that you can't burn down the buildings of revolutionaries who've never built any.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
The idea that mega billions in social welfare fraud ended up in the hands of ragtag recent immigrants is hilarious. There is no way that the powerful didn't cut themselves in on -- and organize -- one of the greatest orgies of legalized theft in human history.
Seven Days of Triggering Libs retweeted
Chris Van Hollen posted Thursday defending Ilhan Omar but was afraid to say she’s innocent. Most of her defenders are in the same boat. That’s because they see the walls closing in around Omar. Her actions, along with the investigation, make her look increasingly guilty.
He posted that the inquiry is the result of seven-plus years of Trump’s attacks on her, Somali-Americans, and the Muslim community. He called it a “fascistic abuse of power” and warned that if they can do this to a sitting congresswoman, they can do it to anyone. He never says Omar is innocent.
That omission is the tell. Van Hollen isn’t arguing that Omar’s immigration documents were accurate or that the birth-date claims against her are baseless. He’s arguing that the inquiry itself is illegitimate because it involves a Democratic member of Congress. The standard he applies isn’t whether the law was followed. It’s whether the person under review is on his side.
Democrats have used the same move for years. When someone they support is accused of misrepresenting facts on immigration forms, they skip the records and go straight to claims of abuse of power. Being elected doesn’t create an exception to the rules that govern how status is obtained. Van Hollen treats enforcement against Omar as an attack on entire communities rather than a review of specific paperwork.
This fits Van Hollen’s record. He has repeatedly stepped in for people facing removal and framed those cases as evidence that the system itself is the problem. Supporting Omar against a citizenship review is consistent with that approach. He’s not asking whether her immigration forms were correct. He’s saying the administration shouldn’t be allowed to check.
No one is above immigration law because they hold office. Van Hollen’s post makes clear he wants the inquiry stopped regardless of what the records show. That’s his position, it’s hypocrisy, and he’s proudly displaying it.
