EXPLOSIVE: Massive Election Corruption Report Details 824 Findings Across 800 Pages of Search Warrants and Investigative Documents

A newly released 799-page report titled “An Attack Upon U.S Critical Infrastructure” details the 2020 election corruption and beyond.

It provides a list of 18 prioritized and recommended election investigations, along with 8 search warrants. Entities named include Runbeck Election Services, Elections Group LLC, The Office of Georgia SOS, Tyler Technologies, Associated Press, and many others.

All assertions in the report are drawn from forensic analyses, sworn legislative testimony, court filings, IG investigations, vendor invoices, open-source intelligence, government communications obtained through litigation and FOIA, and more.

The Full Report contains 9 sections. This is followed by “Appendix A,” which provides the detailed findings and sources. Also available is the shorter 10-page Executive Summary.

TGP reported on the Library of Evidence used for this report, which proves President Trump’s assertions that our elections can be stolen.

This new report documents 824 findings bearing directly on the security of the 2020 election. It covers the effects on 12 U.S. States and the activity from nine nations.

Of these findings, 553 are established facts, 155 are disputed facts, and 116 are reasonable, analytically supported inferences.

Patrick Colbeck, primary author and COO of the Election Crime Bureau, said: “The report is proof that the narrative ‘there is no evidence of election fraud’ is itself a deliberate fraud, as the report demonstrates.”

In other words, anyone who claims there is no evidence of 2020 election malfeasance is just not a credible person.

This report is organized by ten converging vectors, proving that malfeasance occurs in almost every aspect of our election system. In January 2017, our elections were deemed “critical infrastructure”.

They are one of the 16 sectors whose physical and virtual assets are so vital to the Nation that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, economic security, public health, and safety.

Mr. Colbeck stated: “The report has been shared with numerous DOJ and elected officials.”

TGP confirmed that detailed presentations were given to at least one Congressman, along with key election integrity groups.

According to Colbeck, the report has had “near-zero mainstream media coverage” even though it’s the most extensive election report ever produced.

Here’s an example from page 72:

3.2.5 – Remote Access Findings. Live absentee ballot processing was remotely taken over. The Election Management System was left on the internet during the count. On October 23, 2020, a Fulton County poll worker reported that the computers for absentee ballot processing had been remotely accessed. The remote party was in control and deleted data. In emails, the incident was documented by the Chief Investigator of the GA SOS Investigations Division, but no criminal referral followed.

These 799 pages are the foundation to justify rapid federal and state investigations. They also supply an evidentiary basis for identifying, prosecuting, and deterring anyone responsible.

Our failure to respond to these election manipulations and attacks invites repetition and jeopardizes our constitutional government.

The report highlights dozens of “Key Takeaways”, and other important “Observations”. We list several below.

KEY TAKEAWAY (Components)

“The machines contained Chinese components. The data center ran on Huawei. The code was maintained in Serbia. The poll worker files lived on a server in Beijing. The CIA analysts declined to report Chinese interference in writing, on the record, for political reasons. Iran was charged. The E.O. 13848 sanctions trigger was never pulled. By every measurable layer of the system, a foreign adversary had a path in. And the intelligence architecture built to close that path was deliberately left open.”

KEY TAKEAWAY (Certification)

Certification was not a checkpoint – it was a closing mechanism. In every decisive battleground state, officials certified results over missing records, statutory violations, mathematical impossibilities, and canvassers operating under duress. The last institutional brake on a defective election was never applied; it was bypassed, coerced, or falsified out of the way.

KEY TAKEAWAY (Challenges)

“They didn’t need to rig the count. They needed the pre-election challenge to be too early, the post-election challenge to be too late, the discovery request to be denied, the forensic sample to be too small, the protocol order to never arrive, and the attorney who kept filing to lose her license. By the time the public was told the courts found no evidence, the courts had made certain they never would.”

Section 2.3 discusses the 64 lawsuits. Plaintiffs couldn’t get records from government agencies or NGO’s. Judges evaluated evidence without ordering discovery, often because they found initial evidence (affidavits, expert reports) to be speculative or inadmissible hearsay. Judges just didn’t want election cases in their courtrooms.

Disposition of 64 lawsuits claiming election malfeasance.

REMOTE ACCESS

The Federal Government contracted with an NGO called the “Center For Internet Security” to secure our electronic voting systems – while we are told they are not connected to the Internet.

NGO FUNDING

“Private money selected the jurisdictions. Private operatives ran the operations. Private attorneys defended the officials. Private NGOs built the voter lists. By 2020, elections in key cities weren’t administered by the government — they were administered by a privately funded network that answered to its donors.”

RECORD DESTRUCTION

“Without the adjudication logs, you can’t know who changed the votes. Without the ballot images, you can’t verify the count. Without the EMS database, you can’t trace the chain of custody. Without the drop box videos, you can’t confirm the deliveries. Each record destroyed was a question that can never be answered. That may have been exactly the point.”

PRIVILEGED ACCESS

“In Michigan, only vendors could inspect the machines. In Wisconsin, only private operatives controlled the ballot room. In Georgia, only NGO volunteers had untrained access to the voter registration system. Across 2020, the people with the most access to your election were the people with the least accountability to you.”

As extensive as this list of findings may be, not all were released. Whistleblowers and other investigators are encouraged to share their findings with TGP or the Election Crime Bureau at nexus@electioncrimebureau.com.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

Trump to Deliver Primetime Address on Elections

The Epoch Times)—With midterms just months away, President Donald Trump is poised to speak to the nation about elections.

Trump is scheduled to address the nation on the subject on July 16 at 9 p.m. ET.

Although he has held off on offering details, Trump confirmed to reporters on July 14 that his address will concern voter integrity and related issues.

“Our country has to shape up,” the president said in the Oval Office during an appearance with Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaid. “Without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that same day that he did not know what Trump intends to address on July 16.

“We are focused on the 2026 election,” he said.

Election Integrity Efforts Trump’s address comes amid wider efforts from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to bolster the integrity of federal elections.

Earlier in July, the president fired members of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, which assists election officials and manages the certification of voting systems, including electronic voting machines.

Trump has also issued executive orders on election integrity that have faced setbacks in the courts.

Blue states have sued the Trump administration over its effort to create a nationwide list of eligible voters. On June 25, a district court judge in Massachusetts sided with them, ruling that states maintain significant control over elections under the Constitution.

In Washington on June 26, a district court judge blocked the administration’s updated citizenship verification database, ruling that it ran afoul of the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974.

On July 7, a Georgia district court judge quashed subpoenas from the Justice Department seeking information about election workers in Fulton County, Georgia, in 2020.

Also in July, Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, sent letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, cautioning officials that they may be criminally liable if noncitizens are on their voter rolls.

SAVE America Struggles The president has also repeatedly called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. That GOP-backed legislation would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo identification at the polls.

Although SAVE America has passed the House, it has stalled in the Senate.

Republican leaders are seeking to incorporate SAVE America-like policies into a third reconciliation bill.

Budget reconciliation would bypass the Senate filibuster, enabling Republicans to pass legislation with a simple majority. Yet, some election integrity measures could run afoul of the Senate parliamentarian, who advises on what legislation can be passed via reconciliation.

The parliamentarian previously advised that SAVE America provisions do not comply with the Byrd Rule, a constraint on what can make it into the budget reconciliation process.

House Republicans on July 15 released a $95 billion framework for the third reconciliation package that could include funding for states to establish photo ID requirements during elections.

The House Budget Committee announced there will be a July 16 markup on the legislation. Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) pledged the package would help “safeguard the integrity of our elections.”

Democratic lawmakers voiced worries about the president’s upcoming speech.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Epoch Times on July 15 that “having been deeply involved with the intelligence community for the last decade plus, I would be shocked if there was some major new piece of intelligence that never was shared.”

“I’ve been concerned since the beginning of the year that there’ll be efforts to try to rig the elections or take a suspect or false piece of intelligence and use it as a reason to take some kind of action.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) expressed similar concerns about the speech’s implications for the White House’s approach to the midterms, telling reporters on July 15 that he and his colleagues “are red-teaming what they might do and how we can combat it ahead of time.”

Stacy Robinson contributed to this report.

TRIBUNE: The Failure of Leo XIV

InfoVaticana ^ | July 6, 2026 | Pedro Gómez Carrizo

There was a time when excommunication could bring an emperor to his knees or cause an entire nation to apostatize. But excommunication is no longer what it once was, and that is the work of the very Church that today wields it against the FSSPX. History knows these diminished echoes, those tragedies that repeat themselves as farces, as Marx described when he identified Napoleon III as a ridiculous imitation of his uncle. Nor is Leo XIV Gregory VII. 

But if farce is already a fairly appropriate term to describe this case, with Tucho Fernández, carrying all his record of absurdities, leading the excommunication, we have an even more fitting term for it. It was given to us by the great Valle-Inclán, and as you may have guessed, the term is esperpento. With the aforementioned cardinal, and with the brand-new pontiff who backs him, Canon Law has gone for a stroll down Callejón del Gato. Yes, there we have the guardian (sic) of the Doctrine of the Faith turned into a grotesque distortion of his own office. The image of the censor of Écône appears at the bottom of the glass, brandishing the Code, after having turned doctrine into something viscous, adaptable, sentimental, contextual, liquid… Such a scarecrow dressed in purple would have delighted Valle-Inclán, who would have known how to make the most of the theatrical effect of that excommunication. 

Taking oneself so tragically seriously when one has long since lost all composure provokes an emotion composed of several ingredients, among them astonishment and laughter, even second-hand embarrassment, but certainly not reverential fear. That such a figure should promote an excommunication in the name of the purity of ecclesial communion is simply the height of it all. It is the height of it because one of the aspects that most separates the excommunicated from the excommunicators is that the former denounce, precisely, the extent to which the latter have emptied their acts of meaning.

Doctrine is little more than the report of a working group, always dependent on context; morality has dissolved into that mercy without judgment that accompanies the sinner while trying not to inconvenience him; the liturgy has for decades suffered from parochial creativity; Germany has for years been rehearsing schism in installments, and the Communist Party of China has been ordaining bishops; the Curia appoints cardinals to serve under religious prefects, while homosexual couples are blessed as long as they do not pray in Latin; pastoral care no longer means leading souls toward the truth, but rather sugar-coating that pill until it is completely hidden, and synodality has managed to make old heresies re-emerge, shiny and fresh out of a brainstorming session. It is no surprise that with such an emptying-out, the Doctrine of the Faith has ended up in the hands of a cardinal who, without shame, disputes Ratzinger while flirting with contextual theology. 

Yes, for this prefect, backed by the new Pope, ecclesial acts are nothing more than noise. So too is excommunication, despite being the Church’s gravest penalty, for even the most serious weapons become ridiculous when wielded by someone who has turned his own authority into a matter of opinion. How can Rome expect its excommunication to be taken seriously after having spent decades demonstrating that everything, or almost everything, could be nuanced, contextualized, negotiated, tolerated, reinterpreted, or blessed with a footnote? It is Rome itself that has devalued for decades the language with which it now seeks to judge. It should not be surprised that its liquid theology fails to impress. Or is not everyone good, excommunicated or not?

That Rome which disorders its own signs of governance and then expects its penal order to sound terrifying has earned, by its own efforts, that its most solemn gesture may sound, in too many Catholic ears, like the night-watchman’s whistle. They have no right to complain.

Max Weber would have understood the scene instantly: no authority lives on command alone. Rome retains all its power, but it has squandered a great part of the credit of its authority. And that is not easily recovered. It is gained through coherence, proportion, justice, and fidelity to the deposit of faith… And not even the first step has been taken! When one is sunk, what one must do is stop digging, and the digger Fernández never lets go of the shovel. His excommunication fails twice: juridically, because with a Note it attempts to project onto priests, faithful, and adherents the schismatic condition that can only be declared by means of a penal Decree; politically, because it fires from an authority that has for years been wetting its own gunpowder.

Thus, the sentence dissolves into the voluntarism of one who takes as juridical reality what he barely manages to formulate as a threat. Víctor Manuel Fernández has achieved the feat of turning the Church’s gravest penalty into an esperpento of canonical technique and a public confession of impotence.

And with that impotence he also reveals his weakness. Carl Schmitt would surely have smiled at Rome’s action, considering how much it laid bare the seams. Whoever administers the exception points out where he recognizes the danger, and while Rome has created exceptions left and right for what is most inadmissible, it has placed before Écône an impassable boundary. That “selectivity of the exception” betrays the shortcomings of authority: with Germany everything is process; with Écône, an absolute limit.

The post-conciliar Church has finally discovered that Hell is not empty, but it only sees there the followers of Lefebvre. These children are the only ones given a stone when they ask for bread. There is no better way to confess that the problem is not disobedience, but the direction in which one disobeys.

Leo XIV’s inability to manage that disobedience has made me think, by contrast, of the king in The Little Prince. Saint-Exupéry granted this character a prudence that Prevost has not shown. That monarch waited for sunset to order the sun to set. He knew an elementary truth of governance: an order that is born defeated does not ennoble the sovereign, it exposes him, and Leo XIV has inaugurated his pontificate with that exposure. The first great scene of his reign has been the solemn administration of a fracture.

Wishing to appear as guarantor of communion, Prevost has been portrayed as heir to a squandered authority. He received a Rome accustomed to tolerating the intolerable, and after entrusting the delicate task to the man who symbolizes the worst doctrinal drift, he chose to respond to Écône with the severest gesture when his own word had already been publicly ignored. Without restoring order, he has recorded that he had failed to impose it. 

If the signature is Tucho’s, the failure is Leo XIV’s.

“We want the faith of the Church in order to remain in the Church. And we want the Church for the faith and in the faith,” Pagliarani has said, and it is something that not even the Pope who excommunicates them calls into question. Écône speaks of preserving, receiving, transmitting; it speaks of priests who celebrate the Mass, preach the faith, and administer the sacraments as the Church received them. And to all this Rome responds with its power of governance.

Showing the muscle of power is easy, but it does not seem the best way to recover authority. Because what is no longer so easily achieved is convincing others that the FSSPX’s concern arose from an intolerable indiscipline and not from a genuine and holy necessity, attended to for the Glory of God, for the good of souls, and for the sanctification of its members and followers, now excommunicated or clumsily threatened with excommunication.

Too many Catholics have suffered the remnants of its fire to accept without further ado that the refugees are the arsonists. Let us hope in Christ for the Pope’s blessing upon his sons of the Fraternity.

House Votes to Lock the Clock – for Good

As my colleague Ward Clark reported on Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives moved the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make Daylight Saving Time permanent throughout the United States, from committee to the House floor for a vote. On Tuesday, the full House voted and passed the Act, 308-117.

The House on Tuesday voted to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide, amid a yearslong push to end the twice-annual clock changes.

The bill, titled the Sunshine Protection Act, passed in a 308 to 117 vote. In addition to keeping clocks shifted one hour ahead, which happens in the spring, the measure would allow states to use standard time if an exemption is in effect before the federal law is enacted. Hawaii and most of Arizona currently use standard time year-round.

“I don’t really know anybody who wants to change the clock anymore,” said Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey on Monday as the House Rules Committee considered the measure.

GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, who introduced the bill, said Tuesday the clock changes disrupt schedules “for no good reason.”

Read More: No More Fall Back: House Now to Vote on Permanent Daylight Saving Time

Sick of Changing Your Clocks? Trump Wants to End the Madness

This is performative theater and nothing more. There are more pressing issues for our country and on the House docket, like national security appropriations, bills to combat fraud, and government controls over AI and data centers. But fresh off the House’s July 4th recess, this was first up for consideration. According to Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley (CA-03), the decision to suspend the production of pennies is next in line. Since the Sunshine Protection Act is a Trump-endorsed bill, the slightly bipartisan margin of YES votes probably gives Democrats bragging rights that they are getting along and reaching across the aisle.

Whatever.

Proponents of the bill argue the change would have positive impacts on sleep schedules, people’s health and the economy, and would allow Americans to have more daylight hours in the evening throughout the year. Its critics say extended darkness in the morning hours of winter would have negative effects on health and safety.

As the bill heads to the Senate, at least one Democrat is on board. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) sponsored a 2022 bill in the Senate to do the same thing, and excitedly posted on X to her constituents claiming that she urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to bring it to the Senate floor.

WATCH:

These people can do nothing without a sprinkling of TDS. We will see how many of her colleagues sign on with her, or how many of the rogue Republican Senators vote NO or abstain just to stick it to Trump.

Queue the R.E.M.

‘It Doesn’t Get Bigger’: Trump Drops Hint on Thursday’s Yuge Announcement

President Trump, showman that he is, just dropped a serious teaser for what he’s calling one of the biggest announcements of his presidency. The announcement is set for Thursday in prime time.

Speaking during a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, ahead of the highly anticipated address to the nation, Trump described it as “really, really big news” and stressed a core truth that has been central to his message for years.

“Without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” he told the press.

The President was responding to a reporter’s inquiry speculating that the forthcoming announcement would be about “election machines and integrity.”

Trump confirmed it would address the aforementioned topic, along with a couple of other items.

READ MORE: Trump Cleans House at Election Commission for Resisting Citizenship Proof for Voters

Best Way to Honor Lindsey Graham: Pass the SAVE America Act Now

Given the direct quote about “free and fair elections,” the best bet is that Trump will use Thursday’s address to ramp up his push for the SAVE America Act.

The Act is the President’s top legislative priority. It is a key election-integrity measure that requires proof of citizenship and photo ID to vote. It is common sense.

Anyone serious about securing our elections against the kind of wildly anomalous results we saw in 2020 — including Joe Biden’s record 81-million-vote total — as well as the many instances of attempted or successful fraud documented on these very pages, should also treat it as a top priority.

“We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise,” Trump warned previously. “But if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the SAVE America Act, then we will not lose an election for a hundred years.”

GOP leadership is officially planning to add the SAVE America Act to the National Security-State spending bill this week.

Speaking of 2020, MS NOW is claiming that Trump will use the speech to suggest “that newly declassified intelligence reports reveal a foreign nation’s plans to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.”

Outside election interference was an obsession of the Democrats and the media not too long ago. It was all they cared about between 2015 and 2020. Now it’s simply not a thing.

Expect President Trump to frame the necessity of the SAVE America Act and concerns about the integrity of our elections as an urgent national security issue.

Rusty Weiss, Red State

The ICC never indicted Fidel Castro

Thumbs up to Secretary Rubio for going after the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Thumbs up to Secretary Rubio for going after the International Criminal Court (ICC).  The ICC has specialized in calling out our friends, such as the PM of Israel, and giving a pass to our enemies, like the late Fidel Castro.  Between the two, who do you think engaged in more human rights violations?  Who locked up more political opponents?  What country has an active free press:  Cuba or Israel?

Secretary Rubio is on target with this:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday issued a new broadside in the U.S. fight with the International Criminal Court (ICC), announcing a diplomatic effort by the Trump administration to dismantle the global tribunal.

Rubio issued the action call in an opinion article in The Wall Street Journal and a video message shared on social media.

His announcement comes after three of the court’s judges filed a lawsuit in New York last month against the Trump administration. The lawsuit argues sanctions levied against them are unlawful.

‘The U.S. is launching a diplomatic campaign with a simple message — sovereign states over globalism,’ Rubio wrote in his op-ed.

‘Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC — brick by brick, if necessary.’

A State Department official told Reuters the diplomatic tools include travel bans, visa revocations, increased sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organizations, and diplomatic pressure on other nations to withdraw from the ICC.

The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are 125 countries that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute, the agreement that established the court.

Rubio in his video message accused the ICC of being ‘a global tribunal staffed by unelected globalist bureaucrats who claim their power is almost unlimited.’

AMERICAN THINKER

POLL SHOCKER: Socialism Is Infecting The GOP As Well

Finding out that, by a 3-to-2 margin, Americans think the country is “evolving into a big government socialist state” is bad enough. Far more worrisome is finding out how many Republicans and self-styled conservatives are on board with one of socialism’s central tenets.

The latest IBD/TIPP Poll, which we are reporting on today, finds that nearly half of Americans agree that we’re sliding into socialism, and less than a third disagree. (See: “By 3-To-2 Margin, Americans Believe U.S. Is Turning Into A ‘Socialist State’: I&I/TIPP Poll.”)

It also finds that Republicans are more pessimistic about the future than Democrats, which strikes us as defeatism on the part of the GOP and willful ignorance by Democrats, whose party is now controlled by the Democratic Socialists of America.

The really disturbing findings in the poll were when we started asking about policy positions endorsed by the DSA.

We’re not too surprised that 51% of liberals say they’re “willing to pay higher taxes to support more social programs.” (Although the number should be 100%.)

But why do 30% of Republicans feel this way? And why in the world would more than one in five “conservatives” say they’d pay higher taxes for more services?

It gets worse.

The poll also asked whether respondents “believe the government should own key industries such as health care and energy.”

Incredibly, 43% of Republicans agree, as do 41% of conservatives. That’s barely higher than the share of liberals who want government ownership of key industries. (See the chart above.)

What in God’s name is going on here?

Does this reflect the rise of “nationalist” conservatives, who distrust the private sector and like big government almost as much as liberals? (Vice President JD Vance, who has described himself as “postliberal” conservative, was last seen bashing Milton Friedman in an interview that our friend Steve Moore described as “anti-free-market, big government gobbledygook.”)

Is it the result of President Donald Trump’s push to have the government buy up shares in companies? The New York Times reported this week that “over the past year, the Trump administration has made deals to acquire equity stakes in more than two dozen firms, an unusual practice that has extended the government’s influence over industries including semiconductors, nuclear energy, minerals, quantum computers and steel.”

Is it something in the water?

The only good news we can find in this poll is that your average Democrat isn’t at all on board with the socialists taking control of their party, which will become clear when we report on support for other DSA policy positions next week.

But what hope is there for the country if Republicans – and even more alarmingly, conservatives – have bought into a major plank in the socialist agenda?

The End of Free Broadcast TV?

than two years, the era of free, open over-the-air TV will come to an end and be replaced by a PPV-like experience.

Like the beginning of a cheesy Hollywood horror movie, Americans are about to see a gory transformation right before their eyes. In less than two years, the era of free, open over-the-air TV will come to an end and be replaced by a PPV-like experience.

Right now, on any given weekend afternoon, it is a glorious time to be an American television viewer. On local broadcast channels across the country, live (HD) high-definition sports feeds are able to be watched in our living rooms simply by using an antenna. For a growing community of modern cord-cutters, they are seeing a picture that is nothing short of jaw-dropping — nothing like the fuzzy picture quality of yesteryear. Watching a baseball game or a golf tournament over an indoor or outdoor antenna reveals deep, vibrant colors and fluid motion that easily rivals — and often defeats — the video offered with expensive cable packages or even internet streaming apps. Some of these OTA setups are so superior they rival 4k broadcasts.

It feels like a golden era of free consumer media choice. But this brilliant, high-definition view comes with a ticking clock. In the corridors of the FCC, local broadcasters are vigorously pushing a plan to permanently shut down our current broadcasting standard called Advanced Television Systems Committee 1.0 (ATSC 1.0). If media conglomerates get their way, February 2028 will mark the sudden end of free, open television as we know it, instantly transforming millions of perfectly functional smart TVs and local streaming tuners into a mountain of electronic waste — unless, of course, you pay a monthly fee.

The culprit is the impending forced migration from our reliable, foundational television standard, ATSC 1.0, to a new format known as ATSC 3.0, or NextGen TV. On its surface, the television industry markets NextGen TV as a highly progressive technological leap. Advertisements promise dazzling native 4K video, deep cinematic theater sound, and interactive, customized digital layouts. What the glitzy marketing completely omits, however, is that this entire ecosystem is wrapped inside a Trojan horse called Digital Rights Management (DRM) encryption.

This hidden digital wall introduces an entirely anti-consumer reality to broadcast television, resurrecting a corporate obsession with control that dates back forty years. In the late 1970s and 1980s, entertainment giants famously waged a scorched-earth legal war against the Betamax and the VCR, claiming that the ability to record free television at home would destroy the entertainment industry. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in, ruling that consumers had a legal right to utilize third-party hardware for home viewing and “time-shifting.” But while the courts protected the VCR, NextGen TV’s mandatory digital encryption all but undoes this landmark ruling for 21st-century home TV watching. It bypasses legal precedent entirely by programming your private wireless router to treat standard consumer electronics as immediate piracy threats. Because independent hardware companies cannot decode these strict digital keys without paying licensing fees, your existing whole-home streaming boxes will be instantly bricked, cut off from the local airwaves they were built to catch.

This creates a massive, looming consumer hardware and environmental crisis that our regulatory agencies are actively ignoring. The public is completely unready for a February 2028 hard cutoff. Major electronics manufacturers continue to build and sell millions of budget and mid-tier smart televisions that operate with standard ATSC 1.0 tuners inside. When the signal switches off, these relatively new televisions will lose their core ability to receive free basic local news, sports, and even severe weather warnings. This coming mandate completely renders obsolete the existing hardware that consumers have paid good money for, solely to force you to pay a fee to see your local programming — the very reason many Americans have installed antennas in the first place.

The ultimate irony of this transition is that it completely subverts the legal pact of American broadcasting. Local TV stations receive free, exclusive licenses to use the public’s broadcast spectrum — an invaluable national resource — in exchange for a strict legal promise to provide free, open, and universally accessible programming that serves the public interest. By using digital encryption and charging fees to access, the broadcasters are breaking their agreement.

Advertisement

null

February 2028 is not far away. Right now, the National Association of Broadcasters is lobbying intensely to finalize these shutdown dates, betting that the average American won’t notice the trap until the screen goes black. The FCC has a firm regulatory duty to protect the public from this overreach. The FCC must step in to mandate that our public airwaves remain unencrypted, open, and completely accessible to Americans who refuse to pay cable fees for local television. If we stay quiet and allow this corporate capture to proceed unchallenged, free broadcast television will be quietly wiped away, and we will be forced to pay a ransom just to watch the very airwaves we collectively own. When a horror movie ends, we all leave the theater knowing that it was all just a scary story. What is coming for over-the-air broadcasting, however, is a real-world nightmare that won’t disappear when the house lights turn up.

Horace Cooper is an author and legal commentator

Related Topics: TVMediaElectronics

icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon

View & Add Comments10

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p

Powered by Givebutter

Advertisement

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Sponsored

Advertisement

Around the web

Advertisement

Older Homes May Qualify for Window OptionsHomeBuddy

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)Health Weekly

Endocrinologist: If You Have Diabetes, Read This Before It’s Removed!Health Weekly

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Here’s What It Would Cost to Install a Stair Lift in Your HouseHomeBuddy

Enlarged Prostate? Try This Tonight (It’s Genius)Health Weekly

Honey: The Greatest Enemy of Memory Loss (See How to Use It)Health Weekly

Enlarged Prostate Has Nothing to Do With Age: Just Stop Doing This One Thing!Health Weekly

Here’s The Estimated Walk-In Shower Price in 2026HomeBuddy

How Much Does a New Roof Cost for a 1500 Sq. Ft. House?HomeBuddy

Honey: The #1 Enemy of Memory Loss (See How to Use It Here)Health Weekly

Revcontent
icon

Trending

Advertisement

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

Endocrinologist: If You Have Diabetes, Read This Before It’s Removed!Health Weekly

Older Homes May Qualify for Window OptionsHomeBuddy

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Revcontent
icon

Most ReadLast 24hrsLast 48hrsLast 7 Days

Artículo

1

What Americans Don’t Appreciate About Iran

Artículo

2

Investing in Kids and Country

Artículo

3

A few hard truths for the gay cruise that’s not allowed to dock

Artículo

4

A military officer turns useful idiot

Artículo

5

Manufactured Moral Outrage

Top ContributorsLast 7 DaysLast 30 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

J.B. Shurk

Eric Utter

Joseph Ford Cotto

Andre Billeaudeaux

Ad Free / Commenting Login

EmailPasswordHOMEARCHIVESCARTOONSSUBMISSIONSABOUTRSS SYNDICATIONPRIVACY POLICYCONTACT

FOLLOW US ON

ad
ad
ad
ad
ad
ad

© American Thinker 2026null

This hidden digital wall introduces an entirely anti-consumer reality to broadcast television, resurrecting a corporate obsession with control that dates back forty years. In the late 1970s and 1980s, entertainment giants famously waged a scorched-earth legal war against the Betamax and the VCR, claiming that the ability to record free television at home would destroy the entertainment industry. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in, ruling that consumers had a legal right to utilize third-party hardware for home viewing and “time-shifting.” But while the courts protected the VCR, NextGen TV’s mandatory digital encryption all but undoes this landmark ruling for 21st-century home TV watching. It bypasses legal precedent entirely by programming your private wireless router to treat standard consumer electronics as immediate piracy threats. Because independent hardware companies cannot decode these strict digital keys without paying licensing fees, your existing whole-home streaming boxes will be instantly bricked, cut off from the local airwaves they were built to catch.

This creates a massive, looming consumer hardware and environmental crisis that our regulatory agencies are actively ignoring. The public is completely unready for a February 2028 hard cutoff. Major electronics manufacturers continue to build and sell millions of budget and mid-tier smart televisions that operate with standard ATSC 1.0 tuners inside. When the signal switches off, these relatively new televisions will lose their core ability to receive free basic local news, sports, and even severe weather warnings. This coming mandate completely renders obsolete the existing hardware that consumers have paid good money for, solely to force you to pay a fee to see your local programming — the very reason many Americans have installed antennas in the first place.

The ultimate irony of this transition is that it completely subverts the legal pact of American broadcasting. Local TV stations receive free, exclusive licenses to use the public’s broadcast spectrum — an invaluable national resource — in exchange for a strict legal promise to provide free, open, and universally accessible programming that serves the public interest. By using digital encryption and charging fees to access, the broadcasters are breaking their agreement.

February 2028 is not far away. Right now, the National Association of Broadcasters is lobbying intensely to finalize these shutdown dates, betting that the average American won’t notice the trap until the screen goes black. The FCC has a firm regulatory duty to protect the public from this overreach. The FCC must step in to mandate that our public airwaves remain unencrypted, open, and completely accessible to Americans who refuse to pay cable fees for local television. If we stay quiet and allow this corporate capture to proceed unchallenged, free broadcast television will be quietly wiped away, and we will be forced to pay a ransom just to watch the very airwaves we collectively own. When a horror movie ends, we all leave the theater knowing that it was all just a scary story. What is coming for over-the-air broadcasting, however, is a real-world nightmare that won’t disappear when the house lights turn up.

Horace Cooper is an author and legal commentator.

Bolshevik Russia and the DSA’s Democratic Party Project, Part I – Is history repeating itself?

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have achieved some shocking successes in primaries in the United States this year, especially in New York and now Denver, where a youthful far-left radical defeated a 15-term incumbent and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The past is prologue and frequently a window into the future. The analysis provided here examines a specific historical claim: that the DSA’s decades-long push inside the Democrat Party follows the same “boring from within” logic the Bolsheviks used against the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks in 1917—a small, disciplined vanguard using a broader coalition’s legitimacy and infrastructure to gain position, growing more candid about maximalist goals as it consolidates power, with no intention of remaining merely one faction among many.

Drawing on current reporting about the DSA’s 2026 platform, primary results, and funding ecosystem alongside the historical record of the Russian Revolution, this two-part series works through the questions of where that parallel holds structurally, where it breaks down (method, institutional context, and end-state most notably), and what the primary and midterm evidence to date suggests about the DSA’s odds of consolidating versus stalling out.

Let’s get cracking!

The Bolshevik Precedent—Mechanics, Not Metaphor

The term “boring from within” (an actual phrase used by Leon Trotsky and later by American Communist Party theorists like William Z. Foster) describes a specific tactic: a small, disciplined, ideologically rigid vanguard does not build its own mass party from scratch. It penetrates existing left-of-center organizations—trade unions, socialist parties, soviets—outworks and outorganizes the incumbent leadership and eventually either converts or discards the host organization once that organization has served its purpose.

In 1917, specifically:

The Bolsheviks were a minority faction within Russian Marxism, split from the Mensheviks since 1903 over organizational discipline (a small vanguard party of professional revolutionaries vs. a broad mass workers’ party).

Through 1917, they did not initially control the soviets (workers’/soldiers’ councils)—the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) held the majorities in the Petrograd and other soviets through much of the year.

Lenin’s strategy was to radicalize the soviet rank and file through agitation (“All Power to the Soviets,” “Peace, Land, Bread”), outflank the SR/Menshevik leadership, who were cooperating with the Provisional Government, and win soviet majorities district by district and city by city—Petrograd and Moscow flipped to Bolshevik majorities by September–October 1917.

Once they had put themselves in the right position, the Bolsheviks executed the October coup in the name of “the soviets,” then systematically eliminated the coalition partners who had enabled their rise: the Left SRs (briefly allied in the first Bolshevik government) were purged after the 1918 Left SR uprising; the Constituent Assembly, where the SRs held the actual electoral majority, was forcibly dissolved after one day in January 1918; the Menshevik and SR party structures were banned outright by 1921–22.

The declared and executed intent was never power-sharing—it was total, permanent seizure, codified in one-party rule and the elimination of rival socialist competition, not simply rival capitalist parties.

That last point is the crux of the historical analogy people reach for: the Bolsheviks used their coalition partners as a ladder and then kicked the ladder away. And those actions included suppressing all dissent.

Does that seem familiar?

The DSA Parallel, Structurally

Applying the same lens to the current DSA project inside the Democrat Party, here are the structural moves that conform to the historical claim made above:

Decades-long infiltration, not a sudden takeover. As one recent column put it, the DSA “weren’t spending their time trying to win over Republicans. They were quietly reshaping the Democratic Party from within, “building infrastructure through years of recruiting candidates, building neighborhood chapters, and identifying low-turnout Democrat primaries where intentional grassroots movements could have an outsized impact—following a trajectory from Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign functioning as a DSA recruitment vehicle to AOC and Rashida Tlaib defeating establishment Democrats in primaries to the 2026 primary wave.

The “long march through the institutions” pipeline. The same reporting frames this explicitly as a farm-system strategy: school boards become city councils; city councils become state legislatures; state legislators become members of Congress; members of Congress become committee chairs, governors, Cabinet officials, and eventually party leaders—which is functionally the Gramscian “long march” applied to the American electoral structure rather than Bolshevik soviet capture but aimed at the same outcome: control of the institution from the inside rather than building a rival party.

The DSA does not hide the endgame. Where Bolshevik intentions were disguised in Menshevik/SR coalition rhetoric until the moment of the coup, the DSA has become notably candid. Its newly adopted platform, “Workers Deserve More!,” commits the organization to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, providing amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” It states outright that the goal is to “win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic,” requiring “building a new society from the ground up.”

One DSA National Political Committee member reportedly described the platform as “what a horizon of power looks like.” DSA co-chair Ashik Siddique, pressed on Soviet comparisons, distinguished the DSA’s goals from the USSR while confirming the destination is socialism, and confirming ambitions to make police and prisons “less necessary” in the United States. Moreover, according to video clips circulated by the Republican National Committee (not independently verified by me beyond the clip itself), Siddique reportedly stated that the movement’s goal is communism in a big-tent framing.

Coalition partners as vehicles, then targets. The Bolshevik-SR/Menshevik dynamic—use the coalition to gain position, then displace it—maps onto the DSA’s current posture toward establishment Democrats. Analysts note the DSA and other like-minded insurgent operations unseating incumbent Democrats in primaries, with a Washington Post columnist framing it as “a left-wing movement . . . poised to remake a national party in its own image. “New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s blunt response to critics who cast him as the new face of the party—”Let them“—indicates that the DSA no longer feels a need to disguise their ambition to be the party, not simply a faction within it.

Nonprofit/dark-money infrastructure as the “community organizing” layer. The tactic used for this—nonprofits channeling donor and public money to activist networks—is well documented, though mostly outside the DSA’s own corporate structure. Investigative reporting on adjacent movements (BLM, Antifa, campus/anti-Israel protests, Stop Cop City, etc.) has traced a decentralized network of agitators politically and financially supported by a vast web of progressive nonprofits, NGOs, foundations, and dark-money groups ultimately backed by big-money donors aligned with the Democrat Party, with fiscal sponsorship arrangements—where a large 501(c)(3) like the Tides Center “sponsors” smaller activist groups and thereby shields the sponsorship from independently disclosing its donors or filing a Form 990—used repeatedly to obscure the money trail.

A Georgia RICO indictment in the Stop Cop City case alleged that ostensibly charitable bail and defense funds were front groups controlled by anarchist organizers who used millions in tax-exempt funds raised for ostensibly charitable purposes to further a criminal conspiracy, and the EPA under Biden was reported to have entrusted $50 million in federal grant money to a coalition (Climate Justice Alliance) that maintained a page soliciting donations for that same bail/defense fund network.

That is the “taxpayer and donor money to left-wing activists” pattern that is well developed and continuously exploited for the BLM/Palestine protest and anti-ICE/open borders ecosystems.

What Is Genuinely Similar

The structural parallels between 1917 Russia and 2026 America are close enough to be worth stating plainly. In both cases, a small, ideologically disciplined vanguard operated inside a broader coalition rather than building a rival party from scratch—the Bolsheviks inside the Russian socialist movement alongside the SRs and Mensheviks, the DSA inside the Democrat Party (claiming 100,000-plus members against a party of tens of millions).

Both captured territory incrementally before making any national claim: the Bolsheviks won soviet majorities district by district, city by city, ahead of the October coup; the DSA win city councils, state legislatures, and low-turnout Congressional primaries, seat by seat, ahead of any national ambition.

Both used the host coalition’s legitimacy and infrastructure instrumentally. The Bolsheviks operated under the SR/Menshevik-dominated soviets’ banner until they no longer needed to; the DSA runs its own candidates on the Democrat ballot line and draws on the party’s fundraising and institutional infrastructure, increasingly primarying and replacing the incumbents whose party structure it relies on.

In both cases, the public platform grew more radical as power accumulated rather than more moderate—the Bolshevik line hardened from “all power to the soviets” into a one-party state; the DSA’s 2026 “Workers Deserve More!” platform is markedly more radical than the party’s earlier, softer messaging, timed almost exactly with its accumulating string of primary wins.

Both relied on a form of community organizing and street-level agitation as the recruitment and mobilization engine—agitation among soldiers and factory workers for the Bolsheviks, Alinsky-descended organizing models (OFA, Wellstone Action-style trainings) for the American progressive movement.

And both make explicit, stated claims to goals that would concentrate power in a body the movement expects to dominate: the Bolsheviks’ declared intent to never relinquish power once captured and the DSA’s institutional demands—abolishing the Senate, subordinating the courts and the executive to Congress—that would functionally concentrate power in the legislative branch it is working hardest to capture.

Concluding Thoughts

This ends Part I of this two-part series. Part II will discuss what’s genuinely different (especially tactics), the possibilities for DSA success or failure, and speculation on whether the DSA endgame will ultimately end in Bolshevik-style violence rather than a clean electoral outcome.

American Greatness