Foreign policy Germany Must Rearm No self-respecting great power should be in the position where Berlin is now.  (Photo by WOJTEK RADWANSKI/AFP via Getty Images) “Germany has been periodically mature and powerful—but never together”, a German diplomat told me over a quick dinner in Washington, DC, which is hauntingly beautiful on an autumn Friday night, with most people leaving town after work. It is a bitter reflection, made with an implicit sigh of repressed anger. A Polish court ruled in the morning that the Ukrainian man allegedly responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline will not be extradited to Germany. As the noted scholar and sage of “rules-based order,” Thucydides, once wrote: The weak suffer what they must.  “If Ukraine and its special forces, including the suspect, organised an armed mission to destroy enemy pipelines, these actions were not unlawful. On the contrary, they were justified, rational, and just,” the court ruled. The judge added, “The German nation was from our point of view hostile towards Ukraine as it was cofinancing the enemy—Russia.” One of course marvels at the pretzel logic, while also appreciating that, in a classic fashion, this is a sovereign judgement and ruling from a “court” in the original sense of the term.  International law is anything but customary and is almost always inevitably subservient to the balance and distribution of power. If there’s anything that is a lesson from this sorry episode, it is that the Germans, failing to act in a mature way, have now lost all real power as well as respect in Europe.  Consider, from Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “Polish court denied extradition to Germany of a Ukrainian national suspected of blowing up Nord Stream 2 and released him from custody. And rightly so. The case is closed.” The finality is palpable. Or from Vice Premier Radek Sikorski: “When a foreign aggressor is bombing your country you may legitimately strike back by sabotaging the aggressor’s ability to finance the war. It is called self-defence.”  It doesn’t take a genius to question the logical ends of those assertions. Poland, Germany, and NATO are not officially at war with anyone, much less with Russia. Is the destruction of sovereign financial assets by an agent of a third party in open seas an attack on sovereignty, or is it not? Is an Ukrainian agent destroying a sovereign property of a NATO member country, an attack on NATO? Can Germany seek Article 5 consultation? Given that the European Union still buys Russian energy, will Germany conduct such an operation on Polish soil in future under any pretext? If Poland buys any Chinese goods, no matter how small, can the U.S. harbor German agents who destroy Polish property? Will any other power, not just the U.S. or China, but Turkey or India, allow this to happen to their sovereign financial assets? If the rules-based order is harboring agents blowing up sovereign financial assets, the bill must come due someday.  But what does Tusk’s “rightly so” imply? Poland’s primary opposition to Nord Stream wasn’t because it is Russian energy or that it profits the Russian war machine—Poland continued to benefit from Russian gas even after the war broke out, and it has been reported that they did not stop after Nord Stream was bombed. Poland’s objection was that the pipeline bypassed Poland.  Germany’s central desire towards institutionalizing peace on the continent suffers from the same predicaments and disadvantages as those of the reigning global hegemon, just on a smaller continental scale. The logic of a post-war European political union was to hide and in some ways temper both German financial hegemony and ethnic Pan-Germanism under obtuse, multi-layered rules and performative subservience: a legalist mix of Friedrich Naumann’s liberal central European empire and Richard von Kühlmann’s concept of “limited sovereignty.” Germany tried military hegemony twice and it never worked well for anyone, least of all for the Germans. It was as cursed by fate, too powerful and not mature enough. This time, it wanted to be a mature responsible power.  But the logic of power and empire dictates that you cannot be a vegetarian predator. America can perform subservience to the whims of EU and NATO occasionally to achieve long-term political alignments; the entire world still understands where the real power is. Germany, on the other hand, was the first country to disavow hard power since 1989, followed three and a half decades later by giving up nuclear energy independence. The result is a strange dynamic: Germany, the economic and manufacturing powerhouse of Europe, is surrounded by small protectorates with blood-animosity over distant past historic sins who simultaneously are egging on Germany to rearm, spend, and protect them, while harbouring fugitives who destroy sovereign German wealth.  And Germany has allowed itself to be chained this way. While “chain-ganging” is bad enough in foreign affairs, somehow it feels far worse and unnatural when it is accompanied by a small protectorate’s sanctimony. This is clearly unsustainable. Germany must rearm. But even now, the Bundeskanzler is instinctively trying to square the circle to couch the need for German hard power, under the rules of the EU: Spending money is not enough; there needs to be a Europe-wide debt adjustment, a European stock exchange. But why? If Poland, the largest net beneficiary and recipient in terms of nominal figures, receiving the highest total amount of EU funding, can simply ramp up to spending 4 percent of GDP on defense, Germany can too. It certainly doesn’t need European affirmation; it simply needs to reverse domestic policies, cut regulations for foreign start-up investments, invest in nuclear energy, and return to mandatory conscription.  Germany already has friends in the current U.S. administration who are begging Berlin to return to a 1989 force posture. An American desire to “shift the burden” and encourage Germany to rearm rapidly, should, if not for anything, rectify this decades-old unnatural order in Europe. The post Germany Must Rearm appeared first on The American Conservative.

America Joe Rogan’s Unprincipled Immigration Politics ‘FanDuel Americans’ aren’t woke, but they’re not right-wing either. (Photo by Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC) Popular podcaster Joe Rogan this month condemned President Donald Trump’s deportation actions. “The way it looks is horrific,” said the former Trump supporter. He said the aggressive efforts to remove criminal aliens upsets “everybody who has a heart.” Instead of mass deportations, Rogan argues Trump should offer amnesty to illegal aliens. It’s confusing that Rogan is shocked by the man he endorsed acting on his chief campaign promise. It’s not like Trump hid his desire to remove millions of illegal aliens from the country.  But Rogan isn’t alone in his criticism. Other “Brocasters,” such as Theo Von, also lambast Trump’s immigration moves. Zach Bryan, one of the most popular musicians for bros, even released a song condemning ICE.  The Brocasters and their young male audience played a significant role in Trump’s 2024 win. It’s notable that these prominent figures are turning on the president over his primary issue. It begs the question if “FanDuel Americans”—the normie young men who cast their ballots for Trump—share Rogan’s view and whether the president may lose these bros merely for deporting illegal alien rapists and murderers. Last year I coined the term to describe a demographic that was open to backing Trump but much less right-wing than they are sometimes portrayed. They’re young and not woke. They aren’t reactionaries and don’t desire a counter-revolution. They’re even fine with many of the changes that characterize multicultural America. What they want is a country that allows them to earn a living and have plenty of amusements free of politics. Namely, they want to get woke out of the way of placing parlays on FanDuel. They’re not extremely political. Their primary interests are sports, making money, and having a good time. They get their news from Barstool and Joe Rogan. They don’t see Trump as the anti-Christ. They see him as the better alternative to the nagging liberals who imposed white privilege training and mandatory pronouns on them. They weren’t bothered by the calls for mass deportations during the election. Trump received a tremendous level of support from this demographic, unsurprisingly given the warm reception he received on the campaign trail from leading Brocasters. Exit polls show that Trump won a majority of men under 30 in 2024, a rare feat for a Republican. Following the impressive result, there have been a slew of media reports on how young men are turning to the right.  But a different picture is starting to emerge. Trump’s youth support has sagged as of late. In February, a majority of young voters approved of him, with over 60 percent of men under 30 holding a favorable view of the new president. By late July, Trump’s approval among young men had plummeted to 27 percent, one point lower than for young women. It’s improved a bit since then, but the president’s approval is still far from the February high. The economy is the primary reason for the drop in approval, but young people aren’t showing much enthusiasm for Trump’s immigration agenda either. In a recent New York Times poll, over 60 percent of voters under 30 oppose mass deportations. That contrasts with the majority of the general population that supports the measures. Nearly 60 percent of this demographic agreed with the statement that the U.S. government “is mostly deporting people who should not be deported.” Meanwhile, 51 percent of Americans think Trump is deporting the people who should be deported. The poll did not break down the age demographic by gender, so young men could be closer to the general population in their views than their female peers. But young men who previously supported Trump may agree with Rogan on the issue. Rogan’s agenda for immigration is basically to the establishment consensus of the Obama era. We deport a few criminal aliens, we get some beefed-up border security, and then we give the majority of illegals a “pathway to citizenship.” This is supposedly a centrist view between the open borders of Joe Biden and the mass deportations of Donald Trump. The problem is that this view was rejected at the ballot box in both 2016 and 2024. It’s a view Rogan himself rejected when he endorsed Trump. The president still boasts strong support among the public for his immigration agenda. It’s just not as strong among the Brocaster audience. Even if enthusiasm for mass deportation is cooling among FanDuel Americans, it’s too hasty to conclude that this issue will doom Republican chances among this demographic. For one, their main issue is the economy, not immigration. If they have good jobs that allow them to place more bets and go out on the weekend, their approval for Trump will likely continue to go back up. They’ll not care so much about the ICE raids they see on TikTok and Reels. They’ll be too busy having a good time to concern themselves with this matter. This is not the demographic out protesting ICE. There are no typical bros trying to free criminal aliens and blocking ICE vehicles. It’s pretty much entirely elderly resistance liberals, Antifa types, and local Hispanics from the community getting raided. While they might disagree with the videos they see, FanDuel Americans are not bothered enough to go out and protest. That’s not their thing. They’re busy with other stuff. Like Rogan and Theo Von, their immigration views aren’t set in stone. Brocasters are upset about the deportations because of the videos they see and how quickly they forget the effects of open borders under Biden. It can easily shift in the other direction if their mind is fixated on other angles. Last year, Rogan was excoriating the Biden administration for flying illegals all over the country. Now he wants them given amnesty. Their stance is determined by fleeting emotions rather than firm principles.  While young men could easily return to the MAGA fold, it’s worth remembering that they’re not as right-wing as some conservative commentators imagine them to be. Too often, the American right mistakes the opinions seen on X with those of Zoomer men as a whole. They forget that X is a niche platform and that many of these BASED posters are older than Zoomers. X isn’t real life. It’s true that fully engaged young conservative men—the ones who consume a lot of political content and join Turning Point USA—are significantly more right-wing than the millennial conservatives were a decade ago. The recent “racist messaging scandal” within the Young Republicans illustrates this. But they’re not the majority of their peers. They’re a fraction. The majority are FanDuel Americans, not BASED and Redpilled Zoomers. That’s better than young men being woke, of course. But it’s necessary to keep in mind. If they were “extreme” right-wingers, they would revolt against the Brocasters turning on Trump over deportations. Instead, many of them are still listening to Rogan as they place their bets on this week’s NFL games. The post Joe Rogan’s Unprincipled Immigration Politics appeared first on The American Conservative.

A risk. The post The song Queen almost released instead of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Things are starting to get very interesting ahead of 2026… With multiple red states now re-drawing their Congressional maps, Democrats are poised to lose a significant amount of seats — even if Newsom’s gerrymandering attempt in California succeeds. That’s already bad news for Democrats, but it gets even worse. The Supreme Court is also getting ready to rule on a case that could gut the Voting Rights Act. If this happens, Democrats could lose 19 more seats before 2026! Rightfully so, Democrats are beginning to freak out, and CNN is sounding the alarm. Watch this: Democrats are PANICKING over how many seats Republicans will gain with redistricting. And if the Supreme Court rightly guts the racist portions of the Voting Rights Act, that’s another 19 Dem seats GONE and Democrats are SUNK. pic.twitter.com/BSJLvvwBVW — Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) October 20, 2025 Here’s a clearer clip of that CNN segment: BREAKING: Panic is worsening among Democrats after it sinks in just how many Republican House seats will be picked up through redistricting by 2026 “Democrats could lose 19 SEATS! This is a HUGE amount!” “Florida could be a gold mine! […] EVERYTHING left over is an… pic.twitter.com/6W6QNhz8xx — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 14, 2025 BREAKING: Panic is worsening among Democrats after it sinks in just how many Republican House seats will be picked up through redistricting by 2026 “Democrats could lose 19 SEATS! This is a HUGE amount!” “Florida could be a gold mine! […] EVERYTHING left over is an advantage to the Republicans!” “The Supreme Court is CONSIDERING the end of the Voting Rights Act!” Total devastation. Within the next few months, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act, which currently allows Democrats to segregate districts based on race. Sounds rather unconstitutional, doesn’t it? Reuters has more details on the upcoming SCOTUS hearing: The Voting Rights Act, a landmark law barring discrimination in voting, was a product of the U.S. civil rights era, sought by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Martin Luther King, passed by Congress and signed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Six decades later, it faces its greatest threat, with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, looking poised to hollow out one key section after gutting a different one in 2013. The court is expected to rule in the coming months in a case argued on Wednesday concerning a map delineating U.S. House of Representatives districts in Louisiana. The conservative justices signaled they could undercut the law’s Section 2, which bars voting maps that would result in diluting the voting power of minorities, even without direct proof of racist intent. In doing so, the court would not be striking down the Voting Rights Act. But the question is what will be left of the law after the court issues its decision. “If the court further weakens Section 2, states and localities, including those with long histories of discrimination, could be free to draw maps that systematically silence Black, Latino, Native and Asian American voters,” said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project. Black people make up about a third of the population in Louisiana, and white people make up a majority. The state has six U.S. House districts. Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature added a second Black-majority district in response to a judge’s ruling that an earlier map it had approved containing just one Black-majority district likely harmed Black voters in violation of Section 2. A group of white voters sued to block the map. They argued that the map was guided too heavily by race in violation of constitutional provisions promising equal protection under the law and that the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race. Those provisions were ratified to safeguard the rights of Black Americans following the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended the practice of slavery in Southern states including Louisiana. President Donald Trump‘s administration sided with the white voters. It stopped short of calling for invalidating Section 2. But it proposed a framework for cases involving Section 2 that would clamp down on “excessive consideration of race” and give states more leeway to accomplish “race-neutral principles,” such as protecting lawmakers already serving in Congress. Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told the justices that “under the Constitution, the problem is not the mere consideration of race in districting. The problem is when race subordinates traditional neutral principles and is the factor that cannot be compromised.” The framework that Mooppan promoted would supplant a test set by the Supreme Court in a 1986 case called Thornburg v. Gingles for determining when an electoral map has sufficiently diminished minority voting power to be deemed unlawful. “The reason why Section 2, as it’s being construed in Gingles, is a problem is it’s saying that you have to create a district for Black Democrats that you would never create for white Democrats in a Republican state,” Mooppan said. The Justice Department’s approach would “effectively gut” Section 2, according to George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton. “If adopted, Section 2 cases would still exist on paper but would be nearly impossible to win,” Overton said. “Courts could dismiss claims before trial, giving state legislatures free rein to entrench their power and sideline voters of color.” In practice, if SCOTUS limits Section 2 of the Voting Rights amendment, then 19 of these Democrat race-based districts could be eliminated. But, even if the Voting Rights Act remains unchanged, Democrats could still lose around six to 12 seats total. Grok explained in-depth: Overview: Congressional redistricting typically follows the decennial U.S. Census, but mid-decade changes are occurring in 2025 due to court orders, legal requirements, or partisan pushes led by President Trump to bolster the GOP’s slim House majority (currently 220R-215D). Republicans could net 6–12 seats, while Democrats might offset 3–5; uncertainties include lawsuits, referendums, and a Supreme Court case on the Voting Rights Act (VRA Section 2) in Louisiana v. Callais, which could enable broader GOP gains (up to 19 seats) if protections are weakened. Texas: Status: New Republican map signed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in August 2025, targeting Democratic urban/suburban areas; lawsuits filed, possible referendum. Current Delegation: 25R-13D (1D vacancy). Projected R Gains: +5. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +5 R. Notes: Dilutes minority voting power; aims to flip 5 Democratic seats. California: Status: Democratic legislature passed revised map in August 2025; requires voter approval via November 2025 ballot to bypass independent commission. Current Delegation: 9R-43D. Projected R Gains: 0. Projected D Gains: +5. Net Impact: +5 D. Notes: Targets 5 Republican districts; opposed by GOP figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger; could counter Texas if approved. Missouri: Status: New Republican map signed by Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) in September 2025; voter referendum possible via signatures; lawsuits challenging mid-decade redraw. Current Delegation: 6R-2D. Projected R Gains: +1. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +1 R. Notes: Splits Democratic-leaning Kansas City to favor GOP in 7 of 8 districts. Ohio: Status: Legally required redraw by November 30, 2025 (2021 map lacked bipartisan support per state constitution); GOP legislature proposing partisan map. Current Delegation: 10R-5D. Projected R Gains: +2–3. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +2–3 R. Notes: Targets Democratic Reps. like Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes; commission may intervene. Florida: Status: Republican select committee formed in August 2025; Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) supports redraw, potentially via census challenge for an extra seat. Current Delegation: 20R-8D. Projected R Gains: +2–3. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +2–3 R. Notes: Builds on 2022 DeSantis gerrymander; state constitution limits overt partisanship, but eyes suburban gains. North Carolina: Status: Republican legislature considering new map in October 2025 special session, per Trump’s urging. Current Delegation: 10R-4D. Projected R Gains: +1–2. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +1–2 R. Notes: Targets Democratic seats in Raleigh-Durham; Republicans hold 10 of 14 districts. Indiana: Status: Republican leaders discussing special session; state law limits to post-census, but supermajority could amend. Current Delegation: 7R-2D. Projected R Gains: +1. Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: +1 R. Notes: Targets Democratic Rep. Frank Mrvan’s Lake County district. Nebraska: Status: Republican leaders exploring mid-decade redraw; GOP state chair supports protecting vulnerable seats. Current Delegation: 3R-0D. Projected R Gains: 0 (defensive). Projected D Gains: 0. Net Impact: 0. Notes: Focuses on competitive 2nd District after Rep. Don Bacon (R) retires; limited offensive potential. Utah: Status: Court-mandated redraw ordered; GOP legislature must comply with nonpartisan commission ignored in 2022. Current Delegation: 4R-0D. Projected R Gains: 0. Projected D Gains: +1. Net Impact: +1 D. Notes: Could restore competitive Salt Lake City district. Louisiana: Status: Ongoing Supreme Court case (Louisiana v. Callais) on VRA Section 2; potential redraw if protections struck down (ruling expected 2026). Current Delegation: 5R-1D. Projected R Gains: +1. Projected D Gains: -1. Net Impact: +2 R. Notes: Could eliminate majority-Black district; timing may delay for 2026; Democrats filing legislation for 2026 session. Key Takeaways: Republican Advantage: Fewer hurdles in red states; potential net +12 if all succeed, locking in House control. Democratic Challenges: Limited by commissions in blue states (e.g., nascent efforts in NY, IL, MD unlikely for 2026). Uncertainties: VRA ruling could flip more seats nationwide but may not implement in time; overall reduces competitive races, entrenching partisanship. In summary, Democrats are screwed — and, they very well could be for a long time if Republicans gain enough seats to secure House control through 2030 and beyond… And, that doesn’t even take into account people fleeing blue states for red states. The 2030 census could prove to be another huge nightmare for Democrats that they just can’t wake up from. Get your popcorn. Let’s see how this all plays out.

A few days ago, we brought you a story about a teaching assistant who was arrested at Illinois State University after flipping over a Turning Point USA table on campus. Full scoop here: Teacher Assistant ARRESTED After Flipping Over TPUSA Table at Illinois State University Now, we have an update. The 27-year-old graduate student Derek Lopez has been fired from his job as a teaching assistant at the university. Actions have consequences. BREAKING: Illinois State University teaching assistant Derek Lopez, who was ARRESTED for flipping over a TPUSA table, has been FIRED from the University FAFO!pic.twitter.com/QD87lPnLdY — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 20, 2025 That haircut should be a criminal offense, in and of itself! I mean, look at this: BREAKING UPDATE: Illinois State University Police have confirmed that 27-year-old teaching assistant Derek Lopez, who attacked a TPUSA table, vandalized property, and assaulted staff during an on-campus event, was ARRESTED on charges of Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Damage to… https://t.co/JoI6jefzp9 pic.twitter.com/phUJ0r56fL — I Meme Therefore I Am (@ImMeme0) October 18, 2025 Fox News confirmed that Lopez has been fired: An Illinois State University teaching assistant has been fired after he was captured on video flipping a Turning Point USA table and tearing up the group's flyers. "While Illinois State University does not comment specifically on personnel matters, we can confirm Derek Lopez has been relieved of his duties as a graduate teaching assistant pending further investigation," the school confirmed in a Monday afternoon release. Lopez was released on orders to appear for his court date. He's facing charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property. 25 News Now noted: ISU Police said Lopez was released on a notice to appear in court. Disorderly conduct and criminal damage to property are non-detainable offenses under Illinois’ SAFE-T-Act.

It’s been two days now since President Trump posted an absolutely hilarious AI video of him literally dumping on ‘No Kings’ protestors. And, Harry Sisson is still crying about it! Today, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was asked to respond to the video, and he used it as a chance to praise the effectiveness of President Trump’s social media strategy. Watch Mike Johnson’s full response here: BREAKING: Speaker Johnson was just asked why President Trump posted a video dropping FECES on Harry Sisson and “No Kings” protestors JOHNSON: “ The president uses social media to make a point. He’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that!”… pic.twitter.com/30uEIQk157 — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 20, 2025 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson was just asked why President Trump posted a video dropping FECES on Harry Sisson and “No Kings” protestors JOHNSON: “ The president uses social media to make a point. He’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that!” “He’s using satire to make a point – he is not calling for the M*RDER of his political opponents. And that’s what these people ARE doing.” “In one of these photos…there is a picture of the president hanging in effigy by a noose. It’s unconscionable!” There is no moral equivalence between political violence and the video Trump posted. None. Well said, Speaker Johnson. And yet, Harry Sisson is seething even harder now. He immediately complained, calling Speaker Johnson’s response “pathetic.” Read Sisson’s full reply here: Mike Johnson was just asked about Trump’s AI video when he drops poop on me and other Americans his response was truly pathetic “You can argue he’s probably the most effective person who has ever used social media.” What??? pic.twitter.com/YNNmPwSRve — Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) October 20, 2025 Sisson is getting blasted in the comments, so here’s a backup screenshot in case he deletes that post: Of course, patriots took the opportunity to troll Harry Sisson even harder, with replies like these: It looked like a DIRECT HIT! I’d definitely call that EFFECTIVE! pic.twitter.com/EzvhIDXdBU — Mighty Magnet (@TheMightyMagnet) October 20, 2025 pic.twitter.com/xv1Yoz2QMl — Max Payne (@Maxwellpainn) October 20, 2025 Harry Sisson isn’t taken seriously by anyone. The fact Harry doesn’t realize this is even funnier. — Paul A. Szypula (@Bubblebathgirl) October 20, 2025 Liberals still can’t take a joke, and they certainly can’t meme like our president can!

According to the establishment media, the left-wing ‘No Kings’ protests that happened over the weekend were the largest and most genuine ever. Millions of people turned up to stick it to President Trump and voice their outrage at what he’s doing to this country! That’s exactly why they had to re-use old footage from 2017 protests… and they thought we wouldn’t notice. More on that here: 7-Million NO KINGS Turnout is ‘Biggest Ever’? Then Why Did Mainstream Media FAKE the IMAGES But, while the media lies, numbers don't. As it turns out, the organizers of the 'No Kings' protests were fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars from several big-name donors. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna just brought the receipts: The “No Kings” protest was completely organic, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise ? pic.twitter.com/dqA8UJnHb4 — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) October 20, 2025 Here's a closer look at that spreadsheet: In summary, according to this data, six foundations donated nearly $300 million to make the 'No Kings' protests happen. MKTruthUltra highlighted the numbers: HOLEE SHIZZLES! NO KINGS Financials Released! The Financers:- Arabella: $79M- Warren Buffet: $16M- Ford: $51M- Rockefeller: $26M- Soros: $72M- Tides: $45M $294,487,641 MILLION Source @realannapaulina pic.twitter.com/DtYgMjtXsP — MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) October 20, 2025 As always, it's the usual suspects: Soros, Rockefeller, Buffet... Arabella is another 'philanthropic firm.' And, by the way, 'Ford' here refers to the Ford Foundation, not the Motor Company. So, you can keep your F-150! The data originates from research conducted by political strategist Peter Schweizer's team: We traced $294,487,641 to the official No Kings 2.0 partners & organizers...all funneled through the same “Riot Inc.” dark-money networks: Arabella network $79.7M+ Soros network $72.1M+ Ford network $51.7M+Tides $45.5M+ Rockefeller $28.6M+ Buffett $16.6M+ pic.twitter.com/b6zFla79UP — Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) October 16, 2025 Bruner named the names behind these foundations in a blog post on The Drill Down: Billionaire #1: GEORGE SOROS Soros’s Open Society network pumped more than $72 million into official No Kings 2.0 organizers and partners. He’s the chief architect of the “Riot Inc.” protest model — and a veteran of color revolutions worldwide. Billionaire #2: MARK ZUCKERBERG Zuckerberg’s foundations funneled $50 million+ through Arabella- and Tides-linked groups to fund the same protest infrastructure now driving No Kings 2.0. Billionaire #3: HANSJÖRG WYSS The Swiss-born mega-donor is the largest foreign financier of the U.S. protest complex. GAI traced $245 million+ from Wyss to Arabella — the operational hub behind No Kings 2.0. Billionaire #4: BILL GATES The Gates Foundation dropped $100 million+ into the Arabella–Tides–Ford nexus funding this weekend’s global protests. Billionaire #5: MARC BENIOFF Salesforce’s CEO added another $20 million+ to the pot. Now, technically the roughly $300M was donated to the organizers of the protests, not individual people. But, in case you're curious, that amount would work out to around $40-$60 per "totally organic" protestor. That's according to the numbers being reported by the MSM, which estimates a 5-7 million nationwide turnout. On another note, $300M is a whole lot of dough for the giant flop we saw over the weekend... Can you imagine funding this?... If you needed 1 clip to describe No Kings Day it’s this one… Old. White. Cringe.pic.twitter.com/jMd679Ar4k — C3 (@C_3C_3) October 18, 2025 No Kings protesters in Chicago did a cringe dance on Saturday. Democrats don’t have positive policy, just embarrassing displays.pic.twitter.com/6im2wtc9yd — Paul A. Szypula (@Bubblebathgirl) October 19, 2025 What a terrible investment. Boy, what a great return on investment these guys received. — Bright1 (@BrightForGood) October 20, 2025

After a rogue judge let two teenagers who brutally beat former DOGE employee Edward Coristine — a.k.a. ‘Big Balls’ — off the hook, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is stepping in. She just announced federal charges against two adult suspects in the gruesome assault. 19-year-old Laurence Cotton-Powell and 18-year-old Anthony Taylor are now facing multiple charges, including assault and robbery. Watch Judge Jeanine’s announcement here: BREAKING — @USAttyPirro announces the charges against two of BIG BALLS’ attackers. Lawrence Powell, 19, and Anthony Taylor, 18. faces charges including first-degree robbery (up to 15 years), assault with intent to commit robbery (15 years), & attempted carjacking (5 years). pic.twitter.com/PkB6tc7a1V — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 20, 2025 Pirro also revealed some disturbing facts about the case. One of the suspects, Lawrence Cotton-Powell, is a repeat offender who is well-known to law enforcement. Prior to the attack on Big Balls, he’s been cut slack by a liberal judge several times. We also learned that Edward Coristine wasn’t the only victim that night. These thugs also beat up another man named Ethan Levine. BREAKING: US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announces criminal charges for those who brutally targeted DOGE’s “Big Balls,” Edward Coristine. She reveals they took part in another crime of assault and robbery just minutes before. One of them is a known repeat offender let loose by a… pic.twitter.com/hVeb2RdGOE — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 20, 2025 BREAKING: US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announces criminal charges for those who brutally targeted DOGE’s “Big Balls,” Edward Coristine. She reveals they took part in another crime of assault and robbery just minutes before. One of them is a known repeat offender let loose by a judge multiple times. “We are announcing that Lawrence Powell, 19 years of age, along with Anthony Taylor, 18 years of age, are now charged with assault.” “After the robbery and assault of Ethan Levine, they walked in the direction of where another crime occurred within minutes. You have heard of this crime. Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old Doge person who was working in the administration. “On April 3rd of this year, Lawrence Powell was sentenced for a felony attempted robbery. A judge sitting in the criminal part in superior court with no criminal background, made a decision to give Powell probation in spite of his conviction on a felony attempted robbery. Within 31 days, by May 4th, Powell re-offends.” “That same Judge comes back and releases cotton Powell and tells him basically be a good boy.” “So after a felony of attempted robbery conviction, after a violation of probation, after a second crime, after a second conviction, after no compliance with see Sosa, the judges say, do better and they let him go. And guess what? Within 10 days he’s at it again with Ethan Levine and Edward Corstein.” A left-wing, activist judge has already let the two 15-year-old suspects off with a mere slap on the wrist, sentencing them to probation. This is utterly ridiculous, in light of everything we know about the gang of D.C. thugs. But, Pirro isn’t letting the two adult suspects off so easily. More from the Washington Examiner: Pirro named 19-year-old Laurence Cotton-Powell and 18-year-old Anthony Taylor as two of the alleged suspects in the August attack in a press conference Monday afternoon. Coristine’s assault brought crime in Washington, D.C., under a microscope, with President Donald Trump using the incident as part of his justification for declaring a crime emergency in the district. Last week, a district family court gave probation to two 15-year-olds who each pleaded guilty to their involvement in Coristine’s assault. The minors received no jail time. Pirro emphasized that Cotton-Powell had multiple criminal violations before the Coristine assault. Pirro railed against the district’s superior court for granting Cotton-Powell probation when he was sentenced for felony attempted robbery. “So, after a felony of attempted robbery, conviction, after a violation of probation, after a second crime; after a second conviction, after no compliance with [the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency]: the judges say, ‘Do better,’ and they let him go. And guess what? Within 10 days, he’s at it again with Ethan Levine and Edward Coristine,” Pirro said, referring to Cotton-Powell. Cotton-Powell was arrested in October 2024 on robbery charges, according to the Metropolitan Police Department. Pirro said her office is not aware of any criminal history for Taylor. Ethan Levine was the victim of a separate assault that happened on the same night within the area of Coristine’s assult. Pirro stood between images of Levine and Coristine during her remarks at the press conference and said Cotton-Powell and Taylor are suspects in both attacks. If you want to watch U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s full press conference on the ‘Big Balls’ case, you can do so right here: