Batya Ungar-Sargon: The Political Left Intentionally Cultivate Real Life Violence

Batya Ungar-Sargon makes a strong case that the violent killing of Charlie Kirk is not a "both sides" issue:

I'm finding myself very caught between, on the one hand, wanting to honor his legacy of unity through debate and coming together to take down the temperature, and then wanting to honor his legacy of telling the truth. And the truth is this is not a both sides issue. The killer killed him, according to police reports, because he found Charlie Kirk to be spreading hate. This is a view shared by every single prominent Democrat.

Yes, there are people on blue sky advocating for violence, but what actually caused this was the utterly quotidian, utterly ubiquitous demonization of the political opposition from the left, and it has just led to violence because they said the other side were Hitler and Nazis. They said that speech is violence. To combine those two things together is to sign the death warrant of prominent conservatives, and that is what we are seeing again and again and again.

And it is utterly facetious to suggest that there is any comparison between political violence on both sides. Every example they bring is not actually showing that, whether it's Governor Shapiro whose attempted assassination was from a free, Palestine leftist, or whether it was the Minnesota assassinations, which were from somebody who said he was operating at the behest of Democrat Governor Tim Walz. There is a culture among Democrats at the highest level to suggest that their political opposition are a danger, and that suggests that their lives are forfeit.

And I want to come together. I do. I love what Shanks said. It brought tears to my eyes. I reached for a tissue while you were playing Charlie's words. But at the same time, we cannot unite with people who are lying to our faces about who we are, who will not take responsibility for the fact that they suggested that we are Nazis because of totally legitimate views that reflect the majority of Americans.

So what I say is, let the left say we were wrong. It is legitimate to vote for Donald Trump. It is legitimate to be pro life. It is legitimate to believe that there are only two genders, and we were wrong to suggest that that was not the case. We were wrong to say that that is hateful. When they say that, I am waiting with open arms to take down the temperature.

Continue ReadingBatya Ungar-Sargon: The Political Left Intentionally Cultivate Real Life Violence

Thomas Massie Update on Smith Mundt Act

https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1967227762592338048

Mike Benz discussed the Smith Mundt Act with Joe Rogan, as summarized by Wall Street Ape:

The Smith-Mundt Act is trending on X, don’t let this momentum die

We must Restore the Smith Mundt Act and call it The Charlie Kirk Act to end legalized mainstream media propaganda

Mike Benz talks with Joe Rogan about what Barack Obama really did by repealing the Smith–Mundt Act

It’s SO MUCH BIGGER than just allowing use of propaganda on Americans, it allowed for: ‌

- Infiltrate and co-opt the universities

- The unions

- The media

- The politicians

- The judges

‌

It allowed ‌

- Foreign policy establishment can fund groups that effectively work with prosecutors domestically or that work at media, dual sort of dual use

- To give them foreign grants to do media propaganda abroad but they operate here, or social media censorship to coerce foreign countries to pass foreign censorship laws that explicitly and are intended to attack US social media companies and in US peer-to-peer speech ‌

“1948, Congress recognized the Frankensteinian monster they were creating by authorizing a covert permanent department of dirty Tricks. And this is their phrase, not mine, to do this cloak and dagger to infiltrate and co-opt the universities, the unions, the media, the politicians, the judges, the whole swarm army. You know what I have been calling for a long time, the USAID Truman Show” ‌

“That are effectively a movie set being constructed by the US State Department and its sister influence orgs — The CIA” ‌

“So the Smith–Mundt Act was always designed to say, listen, you can do this dirty stuff abroad, but it can't come home. We have that protection, which lasted for 70 years and only, we only lost it a decade ago.” By BARACK OBAMA ‌

ALL THESE THINGS and more were to be allowed to be used OVERSEAS ONLY, the Smith–Mundt Act was created to ensure that ‌

But then Barack Obama got installed, he repealed the Smith–Mundt Act and now ALL THESE TOOLS were used against the American people and we paid for it all ‌

Every person in America needs to watch every second of this video. There would not be a single Democrat voter left. Obama was installed to start the takedown of America and use our own agencies against us ‌

You could also argue THIS is why we have so many activist judges

Continue ReadingThomas Massie Update on Smith Mundt Act

How Could it be that Politicians We Disagree with Come to be Seen as Facists?

Why don't we simply see politicians we disagree with as politicians we disagree with? How is it that so many people seem then as so morally degenerate that we need to get rid of them and the end justifies the means?

The end result of this conditioning is what is currently flooding BlueSky (the social media platform catering especially to people leaning to the Left) in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk:

Continue ReadingHow Could it be that Politicians We Disagree with Come to be Seen as Facists?

Nellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

Nellie Bowles, at TGIF:

Here’s MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd shortly after Charlie was shot: “I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” And: “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.” And also: “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, we have no idea.” That makes more sense, right? A right-wing gun nut pointing a gun directly at the guy talking and pulling the trigger to celebrate him—that is definitely the most likely scenario. Later, facing outrage for its coverage, MSNBC apologized for these comments and ended Dowd’s contract.

Well, that’s MSNBC. But CNN? Within a few hours of Charlie’s slaughter, CNN anchor Abby Phillip was calling for the video to be censored, and did her best to do so from her pulpit. “The degree to which the algorithm on this platform is pushing video of the shooting is incredibly disturbing. There has to be some human that can turn the dial down in a situation like this.” Odd how reporters want much, much less reporting. Funny how she didn’t say that about a situation like, I don’t know, George Floyd’s killing. It’s almost like it’s political. ...

And then came the New York Times obituary. A classic. The headline: “Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Provocateur and Close Ally of Trump, Dies at 31.” Right-wing provocateur. A person trying to provoke, if you think about it. As though there’s no belief system behind it. Just a provocateur. For the sake of it. In the mainstream media worldview, there are two kinds of people: those fighting for left-wing causes, who are described as people of conviction, activists for justice, deep believers in equality. And then there are those fighting for right-wing causes, who are described as provocateurs, cynics, racists, and shills. Archconservatives. They eventually changed the headline. But here’s the New York Times’ obituary: “He was so vocal in his willingness to spread unsupported claims and outright lies—he said that the drug hydroxychloroquine was ‘100 percent effective’ in treating the virus, which it is not—that Twitter temporarily barred him in early March 2020. But that move only added to his notoriety and seemed to support his claim that he was being muzzled by a liberal elite.” Fascinating. A man is murdered in public, in the middle of the day, while practicing his First Amendment rights, and the paper of record decides this must be the perfect moment to do fact-checking about hydroxychloroquine.

What you need to know from this: If your politics are that of a standard normie conservative man, your New York Times obituary will find the various things you said that weren’t exactly right (he got into hydroxychloroquine in 2020! Can you believe that?) and they’ll paint them in the sky. My politics are lib centrist, and these people would certainly celebrate my death, highlight my many errors, and refer to my defense of the SAT as my “repeated advocacy for a return to slavery” or something. What I’m saying is: Just try to stay alive because when you die, a New York Times reporter gets to juice your corpse for likes on Bluesky. MSNBC will invite talking heads on the air to suggest that the shooter could have been your mom who forgot to turn the safety on, we simply don’t know."

Nellie's TGIF column at The Free Press is one of my favorite parts of every week. I highly recommend it.

Continue ReadingNellie Bowles Exposes that Left Wing Media is Always About Agenda, not Curiosity

Getting the Facts Straight First

On all topics we need to get the facts straight before we can have any meaningful conversations. Joe Rogan brings up two examples regarding immigration.

1. FAR more people were deported under Obama than under Trump I and II. Look it up or see the link in the comments.

2. Hillary Clinton position on illegal immigration in 2008: Re people in the US illegally,

If they've committed a crime, deport them, no questions asked. They're gone. If they are working and law abiding, we should say, "Here are the conditions for you staying: You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English. And you have to wait in line."

What changed after Hillary Clinton took this strong stand that would convince her to reverse her stand? And for most elected Democrats and their supporters, what changed? What changed that would reverse their positions on warmongering, censorship, immigration, COVID mandates, experimental transgender medical interventions and the "need" for primary school teachers to confuse their students about whether they are boys or girls? How is it possible that so many people would flip their positions without a massive revelation of new facts to justify the flip? I suspect that the mechanism is social contagion (of the type discussed by Abigail Shrier), but what was the driver of the contagion? I suspected it is the highly coordinated actions by NGOs, many of whom were financed through the federal government (though USAID). The evidence is starting to pour out, starting with the Twitter Files

Here are Grok's numbers of deportations under Trump and Obama:

During Barack Obama's presidency (2009-2017), the U.S. government carried out approximately 3 million formal removals (deportations) of noncitizens. This figure refers specifically to removals, which involve a formal court order and often carry long-term consequences like bars to reentry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some sources cite higher totals for Obama (around 5.3 million) when including voluntary returns at the border in addition to formal removals.

During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2021), approximately 1.2 million noncitizens were formally removed. Other estimates put this at around 2.1 million when including returns.

As of late August 2025 (about seven months into Trump's second term), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had deported nearly 200,000 people. When including actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, and self-deportations, the total rises to nearly 350,000 deportations since January 2025. By September 2025, this number would likely be slightly higher but still far below Obama's totals.

Overall, far more illegal immigrants were deported under Obama than under Trump's second term to date (or even his first term).

Rogan's conclusion, we are being subjected to a "massive concentrated psyop."

Grok on PsyOp:

A psyop, short for psychological operation, refers to planned activities designed to influence the perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors of targeted audiences, often through the dissemination of information, propaganda, or other non-violent means. In a military context, psyops are used by armed forces—such as the U.S. Army's Psychological Operations (PSYOP) units—to convey selected messages that support strategic objectives, like persuading enemies to surrender or building support among allies. This can involve tactics such as leaflet drops, broadcasts, social media campaigns, or cultural engagements to shape opinions without direct combat.

The term is closely related to psychological warfare (sometimes called PSYWAR), which encompasses broader efforts to demoralize opponents or rally support using misinformation, rumors, or symbolic actions. Outside of official military use, "psyop" is sometimes invoked colloquially or in conspiracy theories to describe perceived manipulative campaigns by governments, media, or other entities, though this is more informal slang than a formal definition.

Also see Robert Malone's new book, Psywar.

Continue ReadingGetting the Facts Straight First