Today in our current body politic we are inundated with the word FASCIST! The history of the word goes back to the early 20^th century with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. These were fascist dictators. Over the years there was also Saul Alinsky who applied certain tactics to radical left wing activism. Ridiculing someone with fascist and other slanderous put downs were part of the psychological warfare against political opponents. If you are aware of Saul Alinskys’ 13 Rules for Radicals, you will be able to apply it to today’s political discourse. I am a strong believer in knowing your history, helps you understand your present, and enables you to predict the future. 

If you follow politics, you will see that some things are done repeatedly from a playbook. These political strategies are used and are tried and true as the Rules for Radicals. These are used over and over because they work, they are successful. When something works you keep using them until they cease to be effective. Certain things can manipulate human behavior and that’s why they are so effective in politics. You are influencing a mass of people, and people like to be accepted into the herd and peer pressure comes into play to make you acquiesce to the current climate. Racism is a great example. No one wants to be called racist. So, calling someone racist puts them on the defensive and isolates them. So, in addition to fascist, racist is used in the left wing demonization of political opponents.

But back to fascism, there are the tell tale signs of political manipulation in today’s political environment. Conservatives will be frequently called far right. They will be frequently called authoritarian. They will also depict deportations as racist and trying to enforce a racial purity. The word autocracy will also be in the pot of slanderous gumbo. Putting all these things together are part of the definition of a FASCIST. This is why those specific words and terms are used over time. These are used to paint a picture of a dictator in the unassuming minds of the public. The word fascist is used deliberately, although in no way shape or form is President Trump a fascist, but reality does not matter in the left’s political world. Another rule for radicals is if you push a negative long enough and hard enough it will break through and be taken as the truth. 

Once these rules are recognized you become aware of the manipulation, and this strange political dance becomes increasingly understandable. The ridiculous slander starts to make sense to the political strategist’s mind. I would think why would a person say something so ridiculous, stupid and untrue? Then, when I go back over the Rules for Radicals and communist tactics it makes sense and gives me a much better understanding of the madness.

One of the main rules is: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

This is exactly what is being done with Donald Trump. They go after a person, not a corporation. Personalizing it increases the focus on the target unambiguously. Another rule that goes right alongside this is: Ridicule is a man’s best friend. If you are watching the lamestream media (which is dying) you will notice incessant ridicule of the current POTUS. This is by design. This is also why the president has decent poll numbers and not outstanding numbers like he should have that would normally come from his monumental achievements. So, these are many of the reasons that you will see outright lies and vicious slander. It has many functions but all supporting a political slight of hand. Driving a president’s poll numbers down, isolating him, making him toxic, thus degrading his support. This works because many do not pay close attention to the small and /or big lies that are told in the media every day. We must note that there is a method to the madness.

Hillary Clinton was personal friends with Saul Alinsky. She wrote her honors thesis on Saul D. Alinsky. She was not in lock step with all his theories, but he offered her a job while she was in college before she went to Yale University Law School. So, there is ample reason to believe she really took these rules to heart. She served as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama who was a community activist. Community activism was largely based on Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals. It was to manipulate the public image and opinion on whatever the political issue of the day was. I would ask my Democrat left leaning friends: before Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois, what did he do? He was a community organizer or community activist. What did a community organizer do? They generated discord in the community to push for or against a certain political issue. They organized marches and protests. You see the number of protests that are currently happening. Now you understand it is not just for an issue but to get the top news media to get said protest on air to sway public opinion. Visuals are more important than the substance of the march. When these protesters are interviewed many are severely inarticulate and many have only a vague idea of why they are there. But they have the visual and that is the goal. Mission accomplished. The purpose of protests from the left are always the same. But you will see the media will not cover the protests from conservatives in the same way that they cover the protests from leftists. Perfect example let’s take January 6^th. The media and the left drone on and on about January 6^th like if it were the devil himself had come up straight from hell. And to this day this is the holy grail of leftists’ complaints. One riot. While they ignore the hundreds of riots from BLM, Antifa, Occupy Wall Street and others. Mind you they are responsible for HUNDREDS of riots, billions of dollars of property damage to businesses, hundreds of police injuries, deaths, arson and damage to government property and the attempted murder of police. But they will memory hole all of that and proudly yell, but January 6^th though! 

Fascism, is used by fascists, to paint their political opponents as such. Projection. Accuse your opponents of what you are doing or are already guilty of. The Democrats demonstrated their hypocritical fascist stance during COVID. Take this shot or lose your job. Close your business or be arrested. You cannot go to church. You cannot visit your elderly relatives in the hospital even if they were dying in hospice. Many lost the last few precious moments with their loved ones because of Democrat Fascist policies. This is what fascism looks like. Lie to the public and tell them you will have immunity once you take the shot. Lie. You cannot transmit the disease once you take the shot. Another lie. We will take two weeks to bend the curve. Lie. We don’t know where the disease came from, BIG LIE! So, when you see the leftists saying something that is demonstrably ludicrous, know they are using their fascist playbook.

Michael Ameer

News@11

BUY NOW – The Black Trump Supporter: The Reawakening Of a Nation

In a move that has electrified conservatives and sent shockwaves through globalist circles, President Donald J. Trump has greenlit a sweeping Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) investigation targeting billionaire philanthropist George Soros and his sprawling network of nonprofits. Announced via a fiery Truth Social post on August 15, 2025—”Soros has been poisoning our democracy for decades. Time to RICO this clown and his puppets!”—the probe marks the first federal use of RICO statutes against a political financier, blending antitrust muscle with election interference claims. As indictments loom and allies rally, this saga isn’t just legal theater; it’s a blueprint for how America’s reopened playbook of accountability could reshape philanthropy, activism, and the deep state itself.

The Spark: From Campaign Rhetoric to DOJ Directive

Trump’s beef with Soros dates back to his first term, when he accused the Hungarian-born investor of bankrolling “paid protesters” during the 2016 transition and Charlottesville unrest. But post-2024 reelection, with a Republican trifecta in Congress and a DOJ loyal to his vision, rhetoric turned to action. The catalyst? A July 2025 whistleblower leak from the Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros’ flagship, revealing $500 million funneled through shell entities to influence 2024 battleground states—allegedly including voter registration drives in Pennsylvania and Georgia that federal auditors later flagged as “irregular.”

On August 10, Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump stalwart, issued a sealed indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., the RICO Act originally crafted to dismantle Mafia syndicates. The 127-page filing paints OSF and affiliates like the Tides Foundation as an “enterprise” engaging in a “pattern of racketeering activity” via wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to subvert elections. Key allegations:

• Election Meddling as Extortion: Soros-linked PACs allegedly coerced tech firms (e.g., via $100 million to Media Matters) to suppress conservative voices, qualifying as “extortionate threats” under RICO.
• Foreign Influence Pipeline: Ties to EU grants and Hungarian expatriate networks funneled $200 million to U.S. DAs like Alvin Bragg and Larry Krasner, who pursued Trump cases—framed as a “bribe-for-prosecution” scheme.
• NGO Laundering: Over 300 entities, from Color of Change to the ACLU’s voting rights arm, received “dark money” rerouted through Cayman Islands trusts, evading IRS disclosure.

Trump, in a Mar-a-Lago presser, dubbed it “RICO for the globalists,” vowing to “claw back every crooked dime.” The DOJ’s task force, Operation Shadow Ledger, has subpoenaed 47 organizations, freezing $150 million in assets and raiding OSF’s New York offices on September 5—footage of agents carting servers went viral, amassing 50 million views.

Soros’ Empire Strikes Back: Denials, Lawsuits, and Diaspora Defenses

At 95, Soros—net worth $7.2 billion—remains defiant from his Bedford, New York estate. In a rare Bloomberg interview on August 20, he dismissed the probe as “authoritarian revenge,” likening it to Orban’s crackdown in Hungary. OSF’s statement called the charges “baseless smears designed to chill free speech,” filing a countersuit in federal court alleging First Amendment violations and selective prosecution. Soros’ son, Alex, who helms OSF, rallied allies: a coalition of 200+ NGOs penned an open letter to the UN, warning of “democratic backsliding.”

Legal experts are split. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe blasted it as “McCarthyism 2.0,” arguing RICO’s “enterprise” prong doesn’t fit ideological funding. But NYU’s Rachel Barkow, a former sentencing commissioner, concedes the case’s strength: “If prosecutors prove a coordinated pattern—like the 2020 election grants mirroring DNC strategies—it’s airtight.” Precedents abound: RICO felled the Gambino family in the ’80s and Enron execs in the 2000s, with civil provisions allowing triple damages—potentially bankrupting Soros’ web.

Internationally, blowback mounts. The EU Parliament condemned the “witch hunt” on September 10, while Hungary’s Viktor Orban toasted Trump with a Budapest billboard: “Finally, Justice for the Puppet Master.” Protests erupted in D.C., with Code Pink and Black Lives Matter decrying “fascist overreach,” met by MAGA counter-rallies chanting “Lock him up!”

The Bigger Play: RICO as Trump’s Weapon Against the “Swamp”

This isn’t isolated—it’s salvo one in Trump’s “Accountability Winter.” Parallel probes target ActBlue for “straw donor” schemes and the Ford Foundation for DEI grants deemed “anti-white discrimination.” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, wielding subpoena power, hauled OSF execs before a September 12 hearing, where one exec invoked the Fifth amid leaked emails showing “Trump neutralization” strategies.

Critics fear a slippery slope: Could environmental groups face RICO for climate lobbying? Evangelical donors for abortion fights? Yet Trump allies like Stephen Miller frame it as leveling the field: “Soros spent billions unopposed; now we fight fire with law.” Polls show 62% GOP approval, per Rasmussen, with independents at 48%—a rare bipartisan hook on “big money in politics.”

As discovery unfolds—expected to unseal donor lists by October—whispers of plea deals swirl. Will mid-level operatives flip on Soros’ inner circle? The octogenarian himself faces no direct charges yet, but civil forfeiture could strip his influence. In Trump’s America, RICO isn’t just for mobsters; it’s the great equalizer, promising to audit the auditors and prosecute the philanthropists. Whether it endures Supreme Court scrutiny or crumbles under appeals, one truth endures: the hunter has become the hunted.

In the early afternoon of September 10, 2025, the American conservative movement suffered a seismic shock. Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA)—a powerhouse organization that mobilized young voters for Republican causes—was fatally shot while delivering a speech at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The attack, captured on video and witnessed by hundreds of students and attendees, has ignited national outrage, a frantic manhunt, and a torrent of speculation that threatens to deepen rifts within the right-wing ecosystem. As the nation grapples with the loss of a polarizing yet influential figure, questions swirl: Was this the act of a lone radical, a foreign hit, or something engineered to sow chaos? This article examines the official account, the burgeoning theories implicating Israel, and the growing schism among alt-right voices over “who got Charlie.”

The Official Narrative: A Swift Manhunt and a Suspect in Custody

According to law enforcement and federal investigators, the assassination unfolded with chilling precision during Kirk’s campus event, part of TPUSA’s ongoing efforts to engage Gen Z conservatives. At approximately 2:23 p.m. MDT, as Kirk addressed a crowd on topics including election integrity and cultural conservatism, a single gunshot rang out from a distance of about 200 yards. The bullet struck Kirk in the neck, severing his carotid artery and causing him to collapse onstage. He was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital despite immediate medical intervention.

The FBI and Utah County Sheriff’s Office swiftly identified 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, a local resident and self-described “Democratic Socialist of America” member, as the prime suspect. Robinson, described in court documents as a reclusive figure with a history of online radicalism, allegedly used a high-powered rifle equipped with a suppressor. Shell casings recovered at the scene bore inscriptions with “anti-fascist” and pro-transgender slogans, such as “Trans Lives Matter” and “Smash the Patriarchy,” fueling initial speculation of a politically motivated attack from the far left.

A multi-agency manhunt ensued, spanning Utah and neighboring states. Robinson evaded capture for nearly a week, reportedly fearing a police shootout upon surrender. On September 18, he turned himself in peacefully at a remote sheriff’s outpost in Orem, prompted by a text message to his roommate days earlier: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The note contained a confession and instructions for disposal of evidence. Prosecutors filed first-degree murder charges on September 16, with Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray citing “overwhelming ballistic and digital evidence” linking Robinson to the scene.

The investigation revealed no broader conspiracy—at least not yet. The ATF confirmed the rifle and casings were left behind, suggesting a non-suicidal mission where escape was prioritized. Robinson’s online footprint included posts railing against Kirk’s views on LGBTQ+ issues, affirmative action, and immigration, aligning with antifa-style rhetoric. Kirk, a vocal critic of “gender ideology” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which he called an “anti-white weapon”), had long been a lightning rod for progressive ire. Even in death, his legacy drew fire: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned his “ignorant” rhetoric on civil rights and antisemitic undertones in a congressional resolution, sparking backlash from conservatives who decried it as politicizing tragedy.

As of today, Robinson awaits arraignment, with the FBI dismissing foreign involvement but monitoring for “copycat threats.” A memorial service is scheduled for Sunday, already marred by reports of a gunman arrested at the venue—heightening fears of escalating violence.

The Israeli Conspiracy: From Mild Criticism to a Suspected Mossad Hit?

While authorities point to domestic extremism, a darker narrative has exploded online, particularly among alt-right and paleoconservative circles: Israel orchestrated Kirk’s death to silence an emerging critic. Proponents argue the timing, method, and aftermath scream professional assassination, with Mossad fingerprints all over it.

Kirk’s final weeks were marked by subtle but seismic shifts. In late August, he publicly questioned “secular Jewish donors” funding open-border policies, a comment that veered into territory long taboo on the mainstream right. On September 10—the very day of his death—he elaborated on his podcast: “This is a beast created by secular Jews… Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal policies.” Hours later, he was gone. Kirk had also rejected a $150 million “hush money” offer from pro-Israel lobbyists during a heated confrontation in the Hamptons, New York, and declined an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel extended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whom Kirk had begun portraying as overreaching in U.S. affairs.

Conspiracy theorists cite the hit’s hallmarks: a precise neck shot from afar, echoing IDF tactics in Gaza (where X-rays of civilian wounds show similar entry points). Witnesses reported “two elderly Jewish men” creating diversions with pellet guns, allowing the shooter to flee. A private jet linked to a Jewish foundation (with ties to child advocacy groups, per unverified claims) allegedly vanished from radar post-shooting, ferrying the assassin out. Netanyahu’s eerily prescient tweet—”Sadly, that trip will never occur”—mere minutes after the attack, and Israel’s swift media blitz (murals, songs, and dedications honoring Kirk as an “Israel martyr”) only fueled suspicions.

High-profile voices amplified the theory. Podcaster Clint Russell speculated it was an intelligence op to fracture the right, while Alex Jones—initially skeptical—later hosted discussions probing foreign angles. Even international observers, like Iranian professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi, quipped about the casings’ odd inscriptions: “Why pro-trans messages? To narrow suspects? It was Israel.” On X, threads dissected NSA intercepts of 12 Israeli-origin phones near the site and demanded an autopsy (still unreleased) to confirm ballistics.

Critics dismiss this as antisemitic paranoia, noting Kirk’s lifelong Zionism—he fiercely defended Israel against critics like Candace Owens and built TPUSA on pro-Israel foundations. Yet, the theory persists, with users like @ThoughtcrimeRA2 compiling “avalanche” evidence: Kirk’s admitted fears of “Israeli retribution,” the hit’s public spectacle (to terrorize moderates), and Jewish politicians pushing speech curbs in Kirk’s name.

The Alt-Right Rift: “Who Got Charlie?” Tears at the Movement’s Core—With Nick Fuentes at the Epicenter

Perhaps the most damaging fallout is the infighting engulfing the alt-right, where Kirk’s death has become a litmus test for loyalty and ideology. On one side, MAGA loyalists and Jones allies insist it’s a “TransRage” or antifa plot, citing the casings and Robinson’s leftist ties as ironclad proof. “No evidence for Israel,” Jones thundered in a viral video, warning against “division bait.” They view Israel theories as self-sabotaging, potentially alienating Trump-era allies and handing ammo to the left.

Opposing them are paleoconservatives and “America First” purists, who see Kirk’s killing as the ultimate red pill: proof of Zionist overreach strangling dissent. Figures like Laura Loomer (who pivoted from terror alerts to mocking the divide) and @kittenstormer argue ignoring Israel “absurdly” whitewashes the elephant in the room. “Kirk feared they’d kill him,” one post lamented, listing his rejections of Netanyahu’s overtures. This camp accuses pro-Israel right-wingers of complicity, with rifts spilling into personal feuds—e.g., Candace Owens’ “greatest friend” status with Kirk now questioned amid grief-stricken speculation about his “wavering” on Israel.

At the heart of this maelstrom stands Nick Fuentes, the 26-year-old firebrand behind the Groyper movement, whose rapid-fire reactions have both unified and splintered the fringes. Fuentes, long a thorn in Kirk’s side—labeling him a “Zionist shill” during the 2019 Groyper Wars—offered condolences in his first broadcast post-shooting, drawing over 2,000,000 viewers. “It felt like a nightmare & it has not fully sunk in,” he said, acknowledging Kirk as an “adversary” and “foe” but condemning the “public execution” as evil that “we can NEVER give in to.” He rebuked celebrants on the left and right alike, blasting Hasan Piker for failing to disavow the violence and vowing to “name & shame” enablers. Fuentes even invoked forgiveness and anti-violence virtues in a prescient pre-assassination clip, urging restraint against “retributive political violence.”

Fuentes’ pivot on the Israel angle ignited the powder keg. Calling it “unlikely” and “ridiculous” without hard evidence, dismissing Mossad whispers as “shifting goalposts.” This stance aligned him with Jones, who defended Fuentes against “baseless” Netanyahu payroll smears. Yet it drew fire from his own base: accusations of “covering up for Israel,” being a “FULL NATO SHILL,” or getting “the call” from Zionists flooded X, with some branding him an “accomplice” in Kirk’s murder. Groypers, once Fuentes’ loyal frog army, are in “shambles,” with leaked texts and memes painting him as betraying Kirk’s “martyrdom” for a leftist shooter narrative. One user quipped: “Charlie Kirk was a reasonable voice… Now they’ve killed him and we’re listening to Nick Fuentes more. It’s not going to get any better for the left.”

The schism mirrors broader tensions: pro-Israel neocons vs. isolationist nationalists. Posts show deleted tweets (e.g., a Bethesda game promo twisted as “anti-Kirk fascist” mockery) and heated threads debating evidence. “It’s putting people in danger,” one user warned of AOC’s “lies,” while others float wilder psy-op claims: Kirk faked his death, or it’s a deep-state op to ignite civil war. Fuentes’ defenders argue his restraint prevents “civil war” bait, but detractors see it as proof he’s “compromised.”

Kirk’s death wasn’t just an assassination; it’s a mirror reflecting the right’s fault lines, with Fuentes as the reluctant referee. Whether Robinson’s trial exposes more or the conspiracies fester, one thing is clear: the quest for “who got Charlie” may outlive the man himself, reshaping conservatism in its wake.