Trump's Global War Room: Dept. of Education, Musk, Lebanon, Iran

https://x.com/StealthMedical1/status/1902836038739038445

https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1902391614791905566

Trump’s Global War Room

CIA, JFK Files, Gaza, Iraq, Russia

https://x.com/angertab/status/1902182356175483175

Green Beret discusses JFK assassination

https://t.co/xFRgAqtMHy

JFK Files

https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1902058221583659456

Trump’s Global War Room

Houti’s defy Trump by firing ballistic missiles:

https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1901760822851801315

Trump’s Global War Room

Join us.

https://x.com/i/spaces/1yoKMogQQNnJQ

Join us. Why America Bombed Yemen. Iran is next.

Legal and Political Implications of Autopen-Signed Pardons

Discussion

A post on X from Donald J. Trump’s account raised questions about the validity of certain pardons issued by former President Joe Biden, asserting they were signed with an Autopen without Biden’s knowledge. The pardons were granted to members of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and Biden family members. The post, which received 12 ReTruths and 31 Likes, also suggested an investigation into the committee for allegedly destroying evidence. This article examines the legal precedents and political implications of these claims.

Legal Analysis

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2) grants the president the authority to issue pardons, without specifying a required signing method. Autopen—a device that mechanically replicates a signature—has been used by past presidents, such as Barack Obama for the 2011 Patriot Act extension, and a 2005 Department of Justice opinion under George W. Bush affirmed its legality for certain documents. The central issue here is whether Biden authorized the pardons. If authorized, the pardons are likely valid, as electronic signatures are generally admissible in court with proper documentation. Without evidence of unauthorized use, there is no clear legal basis to challenge the pardons’ validity.

Pardons in Question

Biden issued preemptive pardons to protect individuals including January 6 Committee members, Fauci, Milley, and family members like James Biden from potential future legal actions. If these pardons were deemed invalid, recipients could face legal scrutiny, though no precedent exists for overturning a pardon based on the method of signing.

Political Implications

The discussion on X reflects ongoing debates about the pardon process and its transparency. It could prompt further examination by lawmakers or the Department of Justice into the use of Autopen in official documents. Public discourse may also focus on the motivations behind preemptive pardons, potentially influencing future policy discussions on executive clemency.

Investigating the Committee

The post mentions potential evidence destruction by the January 6 Committee, which, if proven, could violate federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1519). However, congressional committees are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause for legislative acts, making any investigation complex. Evidence of intentional misconduct would be required to pursue legal action.

Additional Context: Autopen and Authorization Concerns

Some reports have noted that Biden’s administration frequently used Autopen for official documents, raising questions about the extent of his direct involvement. This has sparked debate about the delegation of authority in the pardon process, though it does not necessarily undermine the pardons’ legality.

Conclusion

The validity of Biden’s Autopen-signed pardons likely depends on whether they were authorized, a standard that aligns with existing legal practices. The discussion may lead to further legal and political scrutiny, potentially shaping how future administrations handle clemency and document signing processes.

Sambo: The Russian Art of Combat and Resilience

Sambo, a dynamic martial art born in the Soviet Union, blends practicality, adaptability, and raw physicality into a system that’s as much about self-defense as it is about competition. Short for samozashchita bez oruzhiya—Russian for "self-defense without weapons"—Sambo emerged in the early 20th century as a response to the harsh realities of a turbulent world. Today, it stands as a testament to human ingenuity, combining elements of judo, wrestling, and indigenous fighting styles into a versatile and formidable discipline.

Origins: A Fusion Forged in Necessity

Sambo’s story begins in the 1920s, when the newly formed Soviet Union sought to equip its military and law enforcement with an effective hand-to-hand combat system. Two key figures, Viktor Spiridonov and Vasili Oshchepkov, laid its foundations. Spiridonov, a veteran of World War I, focused on practical self-defense, incorporating techniques that worked for smaller or injured fighters. Oshchepkov, trained in judo under its founder Jigoro Kano, brought a scientific approach, blending Japanese grappling with Russian folk wrestling styles like Georgian chidaoba and Tatar kuresh.

Their work converged under the Soviet state’s push for a unified system. By the 1930s, Anatoly Kharlampiev, a student of Oshchepkov, refined and popularized Sambo, earning recognition as its official founder. Kharlampiev’s vision was simple yet ambitious: create a martial art that could adapt to any situation, from street fights to battlefield encounters. But Sambo didn’t emerge in a vacuum—it built on a rich, if less formalized, history of Russian martial traditions.

Russian Martial Arts History: From Fistfights to Folk Wrestling

Russia’s martial heritage stretches back centuries, rooted in a rugged landscape and a culture shaped by survival. Long before Sambo, hand-to-hand combat thrived in forms both practical and ritualistic. One of the earliest documented traditions was kulachniy boy—fistfighting—dating to at least the 10th century. These brutal, communal brawls, often held during festivals like Maslenitsa, pitted villages or teams against each other in bare-knuckle slugfests. Rules were loose: no biting or eye-gouging, but punches, kicks, and grapples were fair game. Chronicled by travelers and later Soviet ethnographers, kulachniy boy was less a sport than a test of grit, fostering a raw, unpolished fighting spirit.

Beyond fistfights, regional wrestling styles flourished across the vast Russian Empire. In the Caucasus, Georgian chidaoba emphasized throws and leglocks, with fighters in short jackets grappling for dominance—a clear precursor to Sambo’s kurtka-based techniques. Tatar kuresh, practiced by Turkic peoples along the Volga, focused on standing grapples and trips, often tied to ceremonial events. In the steppes, Cossack communities honed borba—a mix of wrestling and striking—used in training for cavalry raids. These folk styles varied wildly but shared a common thread: practicality over pageantry, shaped by climates and conflicts that demanded resilience.

Military traditions also played a role. From the medieval druzhina warriors to the Tsarist era, Russian soldiers trained in close combat, often with weapons like sabers or staffs. Hand-to-hand skills were secondary but present—think bayonet drills or improvised grapples when disarmed. By the 19th century, exposure to European boxing and Asian martial arts trickled in via trade and conquest, notably in the Far East where Russia bordered China and Japan. Oshchepkov’s judo training in the early 1900s was a pivotal bridge, introducing codified grappling to a culture already rich with instinctual fighting methods.

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 supercharged this legacy. The Soviet state, obsessed with physical culture (fizkultura), saw martial arts as a tool for forging a disciplined populace and a capable military. Traditional fistfighting was discouraged as chaotic, but its energy was redirected. Wrestling styles were studied, systematized, and fused with foreign imports like judo and jiu-jitsu, setting the stage for Sambo’s birth. This wasn’t just evolution—it was a deliberate synthesis, blending Russia’s rough-hewn past with a modern, utilitarian vision.

Two Branches: Sport and Combat

Sambo evolved into two distinct forms: Sport Sambo and Combat Sambo. Sport Sambo, akin to judo or freestyle wrestling, emphasizes throws, takedowns, and submissions like armlocks and leglocks. It’s a competitive discipline, with practitioners vying for dominance on the mat under strict rules. Combat Sambo, however, is the rougher sibling—designed for real-world scenarios, it adds strikes, kicks, and even weapon disarming techniques. This duality makes Sambo unique: it’s both a regulated sport and a no-nonsense survival tool.

The Techniques: A Toolbox of Control and Chaos

Sambo’s techniques are its beating heart, a pragmatic mix of leverage, power, and improvisation drawn from its Russian roots and beyond. In Sport Sambo, throws like the ukemi (a judo hip toss) or the suplex (a wrestling classic) send opponents crashing to the mat, executed with a tight grip on the kurtka. A Sambist might feint high, then drop for a double-leg takedown, echoing kuresh’s low attacks.

On the ground, submissions shine. The ude garami twists the shoulder until it screams, while the straight armbar (juji gatame) snaps the elbow with ruthless efficiency. Leglocks—Sambo’s hallmark—include the kneebar, hyperextending the knee, the achilles lock, crushing the ankle tendon, and the infamous heel hook, a ligament-shredding twist. Combat Sambo adds chokes: the rear naked choke from behind, the guillotine from the front—both lethal in skilled hands. These moves flow together, rooted in the adaptability of folk wrestling and Soviet pragmatism.

Training Methods: Forging the Sambist

Sambo’s training is relentless, reflecting its military and folk origins. It starts with ukemi drills—falling safely from throws—then shifts to grip-fighting, building iron hands through kurtka tugs. Techniques are dissected: throws and submissions like the heel hook are drilled solo, then with resistance, until they’re instinctive. Conditioning is punishing—burpees, kettlebells, and sprawling mimic fight demands. Sparring (randori) is live and grueling, blending throws, submissions, and strikes in Combat Sambo. Mental grit is forged through scenario drills—knife disarms, escapes—making failure a lesson. By 2025, tech like video analysis complements this old-school grind.

Sambo’s Global Rise

Initially a Soviet secret, Sambo spread post-WWII, hitting Eastern Europe, then the world after 1991. The International Sambo Federation (FIAS) now governs it, with Olympic recognition but no Games slot yet. Its MMA impact is undeniable—Fedor Emelianenko’s heel hooks and throws still echo in cages today.

Philosophy and Appeal

Sambo’s core is adaptability—borrow what works, ditch what doesn’t. Its simple kurtka uniform belies a deep system where leverage trumps force, appealing to soldiers and civilians alike.

The Raw Roots of Sumo: Exploring Early Techniques of a Fighting Art

Sumo today is a spectacle of tradition—massive wrestlers clad in mawashi, clashing in a sacred dohyo, bound by centuries-old rituals. But long before the referees, the salt, and the professional stables, sumo was a rougher beast—a practical, brutal contest born from combat and necessity. Its early techniques, though poorly documented, reveal a fighting art forged in the dirt of ancient Japan, blending raw power with instincts honed for survival. Let’s peel back the layers of history to explore what those primal moves might have looked like.

A Time Before Rules

In its infancy, sumo had no ring, no standardized belts, and no rulebook. Fights broke out wherever space allowed—village clearings, palace courtyards, or muddy fields. The objective was straightforward: overpower your opponent. Whether that meant hurling them to the ground, shoving them out of a contested patch, or leaving them unable to rise, the focus was on dominance, not finesse. This was no sport yet; it was a physical argument settled with flesh and force.

The earliest hints of sumo come from texts like the Nihon Shoki (720 CE), which recounts a legendary bout in 23 BCE. Nomi no Sukune, a figure shrouded in myth, supposedly crushed his rival Taima no Kehaya in a contest ordered by Emperor Suinin—possibly with fatal kicks and stomps. True or not, the story paints a picture of sumo as a no-holds-barred struggle, far from today’s controlled clashes. Practitioners weren’t athletes in the modern sense; they were farmers, laborers, or warriors, their techniques shaped by daily toil and the need to prevail.

The Core of Early Sumo: Power and Leverage

Without a dohyo to define boundaries, early sumo leaned heavily on pushing and driving—an ancestor to the modern yori-kiri (frontal force-out). Imagine two hulking figures locking shoulders, gripping whatever they could—clothing, arms, or bare skin—and shoving with all their might. The aim was to bulldoze the opponent backward until they yielded or fell. It was less about technique and more about momentum, fueled by low, grounded stances that maximized a wrestler’s natural heft.

Throws were another cornerstone. Techniques resembling uwatenage (overarm throw) or shitatenage (underarm throw) likely emerged from this era—crude but effective ways to flip an opponent onto their back. These weren’t the polished tosses of judo; they were rough heaves, powered by a twist of the hips or a yank on an overextended limb. Haniwa figurines from the Kofun period (300–710 CE), depicting stocky wrestlers mid-grapple, suggest a reliance on hip-driven leverage—a tactic suited to toppling foes in open space.

Dirty Tricks and Breaking Balance

Striking, though rare in today’s sumo, probably had its place. The Nomi no Sukune tale mentions kicks, and early fighters might have used open-hand slaps—wilder versions of modern tsuppari—to stun or push back rivals. Leg sweeps and trips, echoes of ashi-waza (leg techniques), could’ve been common too, especially against a charging opponent. Picture a wrestler sidestepping at the last second, tugging their foe down with a move like hataki-komi (slap-down)—a battlefield trick turned wrestling staple.

Balance was everything. With no ring to step out of, victory often hinged on making the other guy hit the ground first. Early sumo fighters likely improvised, pulling and twisting to disrupt footing. A move like sukui-nage (scoop throw), where you scoop an opponent’s leg to upend them, feels like a natural outgrowth of this scrappy mindset. Stamina mattered too—prolonged shoving matches doubled as tests of endurance, a trait prized when sumo briefly served as warrior training in the Kamakura period (1185–1333).

From Chaos to Codification

These techniques weren’t named or taught in schools—they were organic, shaped by the terrain (mud, grass, or stone) and the stakes (pride, land, or life). A wrestler might grab an arm and twist it into a primitive kote-nage (arm-lock throw), or hoist someone with a tsuri (lifting) grip to expose their weakness. If it worked, it stuck. Blood and broken bones were likely par for the course—details later scrubbed as sumo intertwined with Shinto purity rites.

By the Edo period (1603–1868), peace under the Tokugawa shogunate tamed sumo’s wild edges. The dohyo emerged, rules solidified, and the 48 (now over 70) kimarite (winning techniques) were codified. What began as a chaotic fighting art became a cultural institution, its lethality swapped for symbolism. Yet the explosive starts, the focus on force and balance, still carry the DNA of those early days.

Echoes of the Past

Early sumo techniques were a raw toolbox: pushing, pulling, throwing, tripping, maybe even striking—all driven by practical physics and human grit. They lacked the elegance of modern sumo, but they didn’t need it. In a world without referees or rankings, they were tools to win, plain and simple. Today’s kimarite preserve their spirit, polished into a form that honors a time when sumo was less about glory and more about getting the other guy down—however it took.

Data Republican analyzes the patterns behind the Conservatives being SWATTED.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1901466684398895135

The Billionaires Behind the Democrats’ War on Trump

A Grassroots Facade Masks a Well-Funded Resistance

Summary:

Group Launch: "Families Over Billionaires," formed by ex-Biden and Harris aides, emerged post-Trump’s 2025 inauguration to oppose his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Funding Source: Backed by an eight-figure sum, the group’s money traces to Arabella Advisors, a firm managing a dark money network, not grassroots donors.

Key Donors: Billionaires Bill Gates and George Soros fund the effort via Arabella, continuing a trend of elite Democratic support seen in 2024.

Strategy: Marketed as populist, the resistance relies on top-down financing to counter Trump’s agenda, raising questions about its authenticity.

When Donald Trump reclaimed the White House in January 2025, vowing tax cuts for the wealthy and a rollback of progressive policies, a new resistance movement sprang to life. "Families Over Billionaires," a group launched by former aides to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, positioned itself as the voice of everyday Americans fed up with trickle-down economics. Within weeks, it boasted an eight-figure war chest and a slick campaign amplifying its message across the country. But beneath the populist rhetoric lies a different story—one of ultra-wealthy donors, dark money networks, and a coordinated effort to thwart Trump’s agenda.

According to a recent investigation by The Free Press, this supposed grassroots uprising is anything but. At its core is Arabella Advisors, a shadowy consulting firm that manages a sprawling web of nonprofits, channeling millions from billionaire benefactors into Democratic-aligned causes. Far from a spontaneous outcry, "Families Over Billionaires" represents the latest chapter in a long-running saga of elite funding aimed at keeping Trump in check.

The Money Trail

The numbers tell the tale. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, "Families Over Billionaires" emerged with resources that dwarfed typical grassroots startups. Mia Ehrenberg, a former Harris campaign operative and the group’s spokeswoman, told The Free Press that it works with "grassroots organizers" to rally support. Yet the funding doesn’t come from small donors passing the hat—it flows through Arabella Advisors, a powerhouse in the world of progressive dark money.

Arabella’s network, often criticized for its opacity, has long served as a conduit for wealthy liberals looking to influence politics without leaving fingerprints. The Free Press names two of its heaviest hitters: Bill Gates and George Soros. Gates, the Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist, and Soros, the hedge fund titan with a decades-long record of bankrolling left-leaning causes, are among the ultra-wealthy donors propping up this anti-Trump effort. Exact figures are hard to pin down—dark money thrives on secrecy—but their involvement fits a familiar pattern.

This isn’t their first rodeo. During the 2024 election, billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Reid Hoffman poured millions into Kamala Harris’ campaign to unseat Trump. Bloomberg funneled $19 million to Future Forward, a pro-Harris super PAC, while Hoffman and his wife chipped in $10 million to the same group and $6 million to an anti-Trump Republican PAC. Trump, meanwhile, leaned on his own billionaire backers, like Elon Musk and Miriam Adelson, in a financial arms race that defined the cycle.

David Sacks: Why Democrats Are Hysterical Over Musk’s DOGE Cuts

https://m.primal.net/PiWL.webp

David Sacks just pinpointed the real reason behind the Democratic establishment’s meltdown over Elon Musk’s recent budget cuts at the Department of Energy’s (DOGE) green subsidy programs. And it’s not about policy—it’s about power.

According to Sacks, the outrage from Democratic politicians isn’t because Musk is doing anything wrong, but because he’s disrupting their cozy relationship with taxpayer money. In their minds, those funds don’t belong to the American people—they belong to them.

Musk: Thief or Reformer?

Speaking about his experience at the State of the Union, Sacks described a telling moment:

“I was up in the balcony looking down at the Democrats holding up these silly little signs. The sign I saw the most said ‘Musk steals.’”

This caught his attention. How, exactly, is Musk “stealing”? The billionaire isn’t pocketing federal funds—he’s returning unspent taxpayer money to the Treasury.

That’s when it clicked for Sacks:

“They actually have come to believe that this taxpayer money is theirs, and by returning it to the Treasury, Elon is stealing from them.”

The Swamp’s Real Fear

The Democratic establishment isn’t just frustrated with Musk—they’re panicking. By cutting off unnecessary subsidies and redirecting government funds away from waste and corruption, Musk and his allies are exposing just how deeply entrenched the swamp’s financial interests are in Washington.

Sacks put it bluntly:

“Of course, Elon isn’t stealing anything. He is making sure that the federal government is taking good care of our money, that we’re not wasting it, that it’s not going to corruption or fraud.”

And that’s exactly why they’re furious. The Democratic elite have built a system where taxpayer money flows effortlessly into pet projects, corporate handouts, and political allies—and Musk is cutting off the supply.

Draining the Swamp

Sacks argues that Musk’s approach—along with backing from key figures in the administration—is about restoring financial discipline and ending reckless spending. The result? A political class in full-blown hysteria because their cash cow is being taken away.

It’s not about policy. It’s not about ethics. It’s about power and control over billions of dollars. And Musk just proved that they fear losing that more than anything else.

You said:

make it clear this is his perspective

ChatGPT said:

David Sacks: Why He Thinks Democrats Are Hysterical Over Musk’s DOGE Cuts

David Sacks recently shared his perspective on why the Democratic establishment is in an uproar over Elon Musk’s recent budget cuts at the Department of Energy’s (DOGE) green subsidy programs. According to Sacks, their outrage isn’t about policy disagreements—it’s about control over taxpayer money.

Sacks believes that Democratic politicians view public funds as their own personal piggy bank, rather than belonging to the American people. From his viewpoint, Musk’s move to return unspent taxpayer money to the Treasury has triggered a meltdown because it disrupts this entrenched system.

Sacks’ Take: Musk as a Scapegoat

Reflecting on what he saw at the State of the Union, Sacks described a moment that stood out to him:

“I was up in the balcony looking down at the Democrats holding up these silly little signs. The sign I saw the most said ‘Musk steals.’”

This led him to a realization:

“They actually have come to believe that this taxpayer money is theirs, and by returning it to the Treasury, Elon is stealing from them.”

From Sacks’ perspective, the backlash against Musk isn’t rooted in legitimate concerns over policy decisions. Instead, he argues that Democratic politicians feel entitled to these funds and view Musk’s actions as a direct attack on their control.

The ‘Swamp’ Narrative

Sacks frames this situation as part of a broader effort to expose government waste and corruption. He claims that by cutting off unnecessary subsidies and returning funds to the Treasury, Musk is challenging a deeply embedded financial system in Washington. In his words:

“Of course, Elon isn’t stealing anything. He is making sure that the federal government is taking good care of our money, that we’re not wasting it, that it’s not going to corruption or fraud.”

Sacks suggests that this is what has the so-called “swamp” in a frenzy—because their financial influence is being threatened.

A Matter of Perspective

While Sacks presents a strong argument, it’s important to note that his perspective isn’t universally accepted. Critics would likely argue that Musk’s budget cuts could negatively impact green energy programs and jobs, and that the pushback from Democrats reflects concern over these issues rather than a sense of entitlement to taxpayer funds.

Ultimately, Sacks sees the hysteria as proof that Musk is disrupting a system of government waste and political favoritism. Whether one agrees with his take or not, his comments highlight the deep political divide over who really controls taxpayer money—and whether efforts to rein in spending are viewed as reform or theft.

https://www.mediamatters.org/google/right-dominates-online-media-ecosystem-seeping-sports-comedy-and-other-supposedly

Media Matters' View on Right-Wing Media Dominance and the Left’s Struggle for Influence

https://m.primal.net/PiVQ.webp

According to Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog organization, the right-wing media ecosystem holds overwhelming narrative dominance—a structural advantage that no amount of Democratic messaging can overcome without significant changes to the media landscape. From their perspective, this is not a messaging problem; it’s a media crisis that fundamentally shapes the political landscape in the U.S.

Media Matters’ Perspective: Why Messaging Won’t Fix the Left’s Problems

Many Democratic strategists and political analysts argue that their party simply needs better messaging to compete with the right. However, Media Matters disagrees. Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters, has been vocal in rejecting this idea. "Even if Dems had the perfect message, it wouldn't get anywhere. This isn’t a messaging problem; it's a media crisis," he argues.

From their analysis, the right has successfully built an expansive, self-sustaining media infrastructure that ensures their narratives dominate news cycles and public discourse. Meanwhile, Democrats focus on traditional campaign spending, including billions on paid advertisements, which Media Matters argues have little long-term value in shifting the media landscape.

According to their research, right-wing influence is not limited to news media—it has seeped into sports, comedy, and lifestyle content, allowing conservative narratives to spread beyond political audiences. Media Matters warns that this asymmetry in media influence will continue to shape American politics unless directly addressed.

Rejecting the “Left-Wing Joe Rogan” Solution

Some have suggested that Democrats need their own massively influential media figure, similar to Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson, to counterbalance conservative dominance. But Media Matters strongly disagrees with this approach.

Carusone argues that the modern information landscape is too fragmented for any single figure to balance the scales. Instead, they advocate for an expansion of progressive media across multiple platforms, with a more diverse range of voices capable of engaging different audience segments.

From their viewpoint, the right’s advantage isn’t simply a handful of powerful personalities—it’s a networked ecosystem of media outlets, influencers, and digital content creators reinforcing each other’s narratives. In contrast, they argue, the left lacks this infrastructure, leaving progressive ideas with fewer organic pathways to reach and influence the public.

Why “Pay-to-Post” Influencer Strategies Won’t Work

As Democrats look to digital influencers to help spread their messaging, Media Matters warns that many are repeating the same mistakes made in traditional political advertising. According to their analysis, political consultants are porting outdated ad-buy strategies into the influencer space, relying on “pay-to-post” campaigns that they argue are ineffective.

Carusone cautions that this approach not only won’t work but will make the problem worse. From their perspective, media creators and influencers cannot be engineered or micromanaged. Instead, they need resources and long-term investment to build independent platforms that organically attract audiences.

In their view, the key to success is building a sustainable media pipeline—not just renting short-term visibility through paid social media posts.

Media Matters' Take on Trump’s Media Ecosystem

From the perspective of Media Matters, former President Donald Trump’s influence is not just political—it’s deeply embedded in right-wing media. They argue that Trump has mobilized what were once considered fringe voices and brought them into the mainstream, using a powerful right-wing media network as his vehicle.

Many figures in Trump’s orbit—such as Steve Bannon, Kayleigh McEnany, and Stephen Miller—either emerged from or later moved into right-wing media roles. Media Matters sees this as part of a deliberate strategy that ensures Trumpism remains deeply entrenched in media culture, even when Trump is out of office.

According to their analysis, this vast media infrastructure serves as an echo chamber, reinforcing and legitimizing far-right narratives while leaving little space for competing progressive perspectives.

"Politics is Downstream of Culture": Why Media Matters Sees This as a Cultural Battle

Media Matters views political influence as a byproduct of cultural dominance. They argue that right-wing media has mastered theater, spectacle, and narrative control, making conservative ideas entertaining, engaging, and omnipresent.

In their analysis, this media strategy has helped normalize far-right ideologies, making them part of mainstream discourse rather than fringe perspectives. They warn that, without significant investment in alternative media infrastructure, the left will continue to struggle to compete for public attention and cultural influence.

Carusone sums up their concern by stating:

"Fascism is theater. And right now, Trump has quite a stage."

From their point of view, unless progressives create their own sustainable media landscape, they will continue to be reactive rather than proactive in shaping public opinion.

Media Matters Warns: Right-Wing Media Influence Extends Beyond Politics

One of the most striking points in Media Matters’ research is that right-wing media isn’t just dominating political news—it’s expanding into unexpected spaces. Their report highlights that right-wing narratives are now appearing in sports, comedy, and lifestyle content, reaching audiences who may not even realize they’re being influenced by conservative ideology.

By embedding right-wing views into everyday entertainment and digital content, Media Matters argues that conservative media outlets are shaping cultural norms well before audiences engage with overtly political content. They see this as a long-term strategy that will continue to shift public sentiment unless aggressively countered.

Media Matters’ Call to Action: Build a New Media Ecosystem

From their perspective, the solution to this crisis is not just better messaging or more political spending, but a fundamental restructuring of progressive media infrastructure. They argue that Democrats must:

Invest in independent content creators who can organically attract and engage audiences.

Build digital platforms that allow progressive voices to reach beyond traditional political spaces.

Create more “blue bubbles” in the media landscape by expanding the presence of left-leaning voices in multiple content niches.

Without these steps, Media Matters warns that the right will continue to dominate the media environment—and ultimately, the political conversation.

For a more in-depth look at Media Matters' analysis of right-wing media dominance, see their full report:

The Rise of Online Vigilante Groups: Digital Surveillance, Doxxing, and Political Warfare

https://m.primal.net/PiUC.webp

In the age of digital interconnectedness, online collectives are increasingly taking justice—and revenge—into their own hands. These loosely organized but highly motivated groups use facial recognition technology, open-source intelligence (OSINT), and social media tracking to target individuals based on political affiliations, military backgrounds, or past activities.

While some see these efforts as citizen-driven accountability, others warn that they are a dangerous evolution of doxxing and harassment, blurring the line between activism and digital vigilantism.

The “Sedition Hunters” and the War on Political Opponents

One of the most well-known groups in this space is Sedition Hunters, an online collective that initially formed to help law enforcement track down participants in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Using facial recognition software, crowdsourced video footage, and social media analysis, they have identified and reported numerous individuals to the FBI. Their work has led to the arrests of dozens of suspects, making them a formidable force in digital activism.

However, their methods have evolved beyond J6 investigations. Reports have surfaced indicating that Sedition Hunters have expanded their focus to conservative social media figures, journalists, and influencers, some of whom had no involvement in the Capitol riot. Their tactics allegedly now include SWATTING—the dangerous practice of making false emergency calls to provoke armed police raids on a target’s home. Victims have reported not only law enforcement arriving at their doors but also waves of harassing deliveries, such as pizzas and unwanted services, to their homes as part of psychological intimidation campaigns.

Some believe that it is the Sedition Hunters who are responsible for these SWATTING incidents, though definitive proof has yet to emerge. Reports indicate that the FBI is now investigating these incidents, as SWATTING is considered a serious criminal offense that puts lives at risk.

Critics argue that what began as a mission to uphold justice has morphed into an online inquisition against political opponents, bypassing due process and placing individuals and their families in harm’s way.

Facial Recognition as a Weapon Against Military Personnel

Another emerging trend involves international watchdog groups scouring social media to identify American and allied soldiers, using facial recognition to track their activities and tie them to alleged war crimes.

These groups, often associated with anti-war organizations or foreign intelligence networks, scan military personnel’s online footprints, particularly images posted on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Their goal is to compile dossiers on soldiers they suspect of being involved in military actions abroad, particularly in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Africa.

Once identified, these soldiers' names are submitted to international tribunals and human rights organizations, in an effort to have them arrested if they travel to certain countries with universal jurisdiction laws—nations that claim the legal authority to prosecute war crimes regardless of where they occurred.

There are already reports of American veterans being detained abroad or denied entry into countries that have adopted strict interpretations of international human rights law. With the rise of AI-powered surveillance, these risks are only increasing.

The Dangerous Future of Digital Vigilantism

The rise of these groups highlights a concerning shift in digital warfare, where facial recognition, OSINT, and coordinated online harassment become tools for political and ideological battles.

Loss of Anonymity: Individuals once considered private citizens are now at risk of having their entire digital history scrutinized and weaponized against them.

Escalating Harassment: Tactics like SWATTING and mass harassment campaigns pose direct physical dangers.

Weaponization of International Law: Soldiers and government personnel could face arrest abroad, even if they were following lawful orders under U.S. law.

As these online collectives continue to evolve, the line between activism and cyber harassment is becoming increasingly blurred. The question remains: who will hold these digital vigilantes accountable when they cross the line?

U.S. Airstrikes Against Iran-Backed Houthi Rebels Will Continue, Says Secretary of State Marco Rubio

https://m.primal.net/PiTe.webp

The United States has reaffirmed its commitment to sustained military action against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, citing the need to protect global shipping lanes from ongoing attacks.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that U.S. airstrikes against the Houthis "will continue" until the group’s ability to control global shipping is eliminated. The Houthis, a militant group aligned with Iran, have been responsible for a series of attacks on commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea, posing a significant threat to international trade and security.

The Strategic Importance of the Red Sea

The Red Sea is one of the world’s most vital maritime trade routes, connecting the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean through the Suez Canal. Roughly 12% of global trade passes through this waterway, making it a critical artery for international commerce. Any disruption in this region can have ripple effects on supply chains, leading to increased shipping costs, delayed deliveries, and global economic instability.

The Houthis have carried out numerous missile and drone strikes on cargo ships and military vessels, forcing some shipping companies to reroute around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, a much longer and costlier journey. These disruptions have raised concerns among world leaders and prompted U.S. and allied forces to take decisive action.

U.S. Justification for Military Action

"We're doing the entire world a favor by getting rid of these guys and their ability to strike global shipping," Rubio said, emphasizing the broader international consequences of Houthi attacks.

The U.S. military, alongside allies such as the United Kingdom, has launched a series of precision airstrikes targeting Houthi military infrastructure, including drone launch sites, missile stockpiles, and radar installations. These strikes are designed to degrade the Houthis’ offensive capabilities while sending a clear message that threats to global commerce will not be tolerated.

Escalating Regional Tensions

While the U.S. and its allies view military action as a necessary measure to protect international shipping, the strikes have further escalated tensions in the Middle East. Iran, a key backer of the Houthis, has condemned the airstrikes, warning that continued aggression could lead to a broader regional conflict. Tehran has long supported the Houthis with funding, weapons, and intelligence, positioning the group as a key proxy force in Yemen’s ongoing civil war.

In response to U.S. airstrikes, the Houthis have vowed retaliation, claiming that their attacks are a defensive measure against Western intervention in Yemen. Houthi leaders have warned that they will continue to target ships associated with the U.S., U.K., and their allies, raising concerns about the potential for further maritime disruptions.

International Reactions and Concerns

The international community remains divided on the issue. While some nations support the U.S. campaign as a necessary step to restore stability in global trade, others worry that prolonged military engagement in Yemen could worsen the humanitarian crisis in the region.

The United Nations and humanitarian organizations have warned that Yemen, already suffering from years of war, famine, and economic collapse, could face further devastation if airstrikes intensify. Calls for diplomatic engagement have grown, with some leaders urging a political solution rather than continued military action.

Additionally, shipping and insurance companies are closely monitoring the situation. The rising risks in the Red Sea have led to increased shipping insurance costs, while some carriers have halted operations in the area altogether, exacerbating global supply chain disruptions.

What’s Next?

With U.S. officials signaling that airstrikes will persist until the Houthis are no longer a threat, the situation is unlikely to de-escalate in the short term. However, whether military action alone can effectively deter the Houthis remains uncertain. Some analysts argue that a combination of military pressure and diplomatic efforts will be needed to bring lasting stability to the region.

As the conflict continues to unfold, global attention will remain focused on the Red Sea and the broader geopolitical dynamics between the U.S., Iran, and their respective allies. The outcome of this standoff could have far-reaching implications for both regional security and the global economy.

The Sedition Hunters: Citizen Sleuths or Overreach in the Digital Age?

As rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, a group of online investigators emerged, calling themselves the Sedition Hunters. This decentralized collective of open-source intelligence (OSINT) enthusiasts—mostly ordinary citizens without formal law enforcement training—set out to identify and expose individuals involved in the attack. Using publicly available videos, social media posts, and various digital tools, they have assisted the FBI in what has been described as the largest investigation in American history. However, their methods and motivations raise important discussions about privacy, accountability, and the role of citizen-led investigations in law enforcement.

The Rise of the Hunters

The Sedition Hunters formed in response to the Capitol breach, with members sifting through vast amounts of footage on the day of the event. Their efforts combined civic engagement with technological expertise, using tools like GPS-tagged video mapping and public facial recognition databases to identify individuals. They assigned suspects coded monikers—such as “CatSweat” and “Zeeker”—to track their movements across platforms. Their website, seditionhunters.org, features “Do You Know” posters and calls for public assistance, and many of their leads have contributed to arrests. Supporters argue that their efforts have helped address investigative challenges faced by federal agencies, particularly in an era where digital forensics play a key role in criminal cases.

Ethical Considerations and Privacy Concerns

Despite their successes, the Sedition Hunters’ work exists in a complex ethical space. They utilize facial recognition and social media searches with no formal oversight, raising concerns about accuracy and due process. Their investigations have extended into personal spaces such as dating apps and online communities, sometimes relying on indirect clues to identify individuals. While many view this as an innovative approach to modern crime-solving, critics worry about potential misidentifications and the lack of accountability for mistakes. Unlike law enforcement agencies, which must adhere to legal standards, these independent investigators operate outside such frameworks, leading to debates about privacy rights and fairness.

Motivations and Public Perception

Supporters of the Sedition Hunters see them as committed individuals working to uphold the rule of law. Some are motivated by civic duty, while others are drawn to the analytical challenge. Their book, Sedition Hunters: How January 6th Broke the Justice System by Ryan J. Reilly, highlights their contributions to the broader investigation. However, skepticism remains about whether their work is purely about justice or if elements of self-promotion and digital vigilantism play a role. The informal nature of their organization—comprising volunteers from various backgrounds—raises questions about whether a lack of formal training impacts the reliability of their findings.

The Broader Implications

The Sedition Hunters have undeniably contributed to identifying individuals involved in January 6, complementing federal efforts. However, as law enforcement agencies refine their own digital investigative methods, the long-term necessity of crowd-sourced justice remains uncertain. The broader issue is whether this model of independent investigation sets a precedent for future cases. Could similar efforts be misused for political or personal purposes? While the group maintains a focus on identifying those involved in criminal activity, the potential for misuse in an era of heightened political division is a concern for some observers.

A Lasting Impact

As the 2026 statute of limitations for January 6 cases approaches, some members of the Sedition Hunters are considering their next steps. Their work has demonstrated how digital tools can empower everyday citizens to participate in large-scale investigations. However, their efforts also highlight the challenges of balancing public interest with privacy rights and legal safeguards. Whether viewed as a necessary complement to law enforcement or as a sign of growing digital vigilantism, the Sedition Hunters represent a significant shift in how justice is pursued in the digital age.

Schumer’s Leadership Crisis and the AOC Rumor

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faces a critical moment in March 2025, as detailed in The Bulwark’s "Chuck Schumer Is Facing a Biden Moment" by Lauren Egan. His support for a Republican funding bill, passed 54-46 on March 14 to avoid a shutdown, has angered Democrats who see it as a weak surrender to President Trump. Progressives, lawmakers, and groups like Indivisible have criticized Schumer’s leadership, echoing his 2024 push for Biden to step aside—now turned on him. This frustration has revived rumors that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) might challenge him for his New York Senate seat in 2028.

AOC, who called Schumer’s vote a “tremendous mistake,” has fueled speculation by mobilizing opposition. The rumor, dating to 2019-2021 and boosted by her 2018 upset of Joe Crowley, resurfaced as some House Democrats and X users urged her to run. While she’s dodged questions about a bid—telling CNN on March 13 she’s focused on party unity—her criticism highlights a progressive-establishment rift. Schumer, a senator since 1999 with strong wins (71% in 2016, 56% in 2022), remains formidable, and no firm evidence backs AOC’s intent. For now, his “Biden moment” and her potential challenge reflect Democratic tensions that could shape the party’s future.