Posts By

Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism

Michael walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism
Loading
/

The most recent development in the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and its parent companies, Dow Jones and News Corp, occurred in July 2025. Trump initiated a $10 billion defamation lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida federal court on July 18, 2025, following a Wall Street Journal article published the previous day. The article alleged that Trump sent a “bawdy” birthday letter and a sexually suggestive drawing to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump denies the authenticity of the letter, calling it “fake” and claiming it does not reflect his writing style or behavior, and accuses the defendants of acting with malicious intent to harm his reputation.

The lawsuit names Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo as defendants, alleging libel and slander. Trump’s legal action followed his direct warnings to Murdoch and the Journal’s editor, Emma Tucker, against publishing the story, which he claims they ignored. The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones have stated they stand by their reporting and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, who previously handled a 2023 lawsuit Trump filed against his former lawyer Michael Cohen, which Trump dropped before a scheduled deposition. Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s merits, noting that Trump must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a defamation case, and the $10 billion damages sought are considered unusually high and potentially unrealistic.

The lawsuit has strained the long-standing, complex relationship between Trump and Murdoch, a media mogul whose outlets, including Fox News, have historically supported Trump but have also faced his criticism. Some reports suggest the suit serves as a warning to other media outlets, raising concerns about press freedom. There are no updates beyond July 2025 indicating further court proceedings or resolutions as of my last available information.

This isn’t just a defamation suit—it’s a tactic. Trump’s lawsuit is part of a larger pattern in which journalism isn’t merely questioned, but threatened—by legal firepower intended to force editorial compliance, intimidate sources, and discourage scrutiny. It tests whether a free press can operate freely when powerful political figures use litigation to police narrative boundaries.

1. Weaponizing Lawsuits to Regulate Truth

Trump’s case isn’t likely to succeed on legal grounds—New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high bar for defamation. But that may not be the point.
Like SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), this action imposes financial and legal burdens meant to:

  • Stall or chill investigative reporting

  • Shift editorial policies toward “safer,” less critical ground

  • Force outlets to weigh the legal cost of “getting it wrong” against journalistic boldness

What this implies:
A political figure can regulate journalism not with laws, but with lawyers.

2. Political Oversight Through Fear, Not Policy

Unlike traditional government censorship or regulatory control, this is oversight through intimidation:

  • Editors become risk managers

  • Reporters self-censor to avoid being the next target

  • Media companies weigh “is it worth it?” instead of “is it true?”

This form of “soft censorship” doesn’t require legislation—it requires deep pockets, loyal followers, and a willingness to attack institutions.

3. Eroding the Public’s Trust by Destabilizing the Source

When Trump sues The Wall Street Journal, it’s not just about setting the record straight. It’s a message to his base:

“Even your trusted conservative outlets are lying—only I speak the truth.”

This isolates his followers from any independent source of verification—making journalism itself the enemy.
The result?

  • Loyalty trumps objectivity

  • Tribal narratives override shared facts

  • Journalism is seen as either “ours” or “theirs”

4. The Long-Term Cost: Press as Political Risk, Not Public Service

The chilling effect doesn’t stop at WSJ. Smaller outlets, freelance journalists, even whistleblowers see what happens when you challenge political power with inconvenient facts.

If the new precedent is:

  • “Report on power at your own risk,”
    then journalism is no longer a civic tool—it’s a liability.

In an era where power no longer needs to pass laws to control speech, it simply needs to raise the cost of telling the truth. And that cost is now being paid in court.

And one more thought, just who do you think is paying for all this?

Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation

Emma walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation
Loading
/

In an age of rampant misinformation, understanding the distinction between genuine fact-checking and merely seeking evidence to support a preconceived notion is crucial. While both involve reviewing information, their fundamental goals and methodologies are worlds apart. Actual fact-checking is a process of impartial verification, while searching for supporting documentation is often an exercise in confirmation bias.

The Goal: Truth vs. Affirmation

Truth012

The primary objective of fact-checking is to determine the accuracy of a claim, regardless of the outcome. A fact-checker starts with a question: “Is this statement true?” They then embark on a comprehensive and unbiased investigation, gathering all relevant evidence, both for and against the claim. The ultimate goal is to present a verified and accurate picture to the public.

Conversely, the principal aim of searching for supporting documentation is to find evidence that validates a pre-existing belief or argument. The starting point is not a question, but an assertion. The individual is not seeking to test the validity of their claim, but rather to find proof that they are correct.

The Process: Investigation vs. Advocacy

The methodologies employed by fact-checkers and those simply seeking support differ significantly.

Fact-checking is a meticulous and often lengthy process that includes:

  • Identifying verifiable claims: Not all statements can be fact-checked. Opinions, for instance, are not subject to this process.

  • Gathering diverse evidence: Fact-checkers consult a wide array of sources, including primary documents, expert opinions, and data from reputable institutions. They actively look for conflicting information to ensure a well-rounded view.

  • Evaluating sources: A critical component of fact-checking is assessing the credibility and potential bias of each source of information.

  • Synthesizing and concluding: After weighing all the evidence, a conclusion is drawn about the veracity of the claim, often with a nuanced explanation of the findings.

Searching for supporting documentation, on the other hand, is often characterized by:

  • Cherry-picking data: Individuals may selectively choose evidence that aligns with their views while ignoring contradictory information.

  • Ignoring source credibility: The reliability of a source may be overlooked if the information it provides is favorable to the individual’s argument.

  • Avoiding contradictory evidence: There is no active effort to find information that might challenge the initial belief.

The Mindset: Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias

At its core, the difference between these two activities lies in the mindset of the individual. A fact-checker approaches a claim with a healthy dose of skepticism and a commitment to objectivity. The goal is to be a neutral arbiter of facts.

In contrast, someone searching for supporting documentation is often operating under the influence of confirmation bias. This is the psychological tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This can lead to a skewed and inaccurate understanding of an issue.

In essence, a fact-checker’s loyalty is to the truth, wherever it may lead. For someone simply seeking to support their own views, their loyalty lies with their pre-existing beliefs.

The song “Love Makes the World Go Around”, On X it’s HATE.

Hate03

Sometimes you just wake up and the first thing you see is some Troll posting something they found and out of ignorance have fact checked it while cruising X dot Com while having their morning constitution sitting on their porcelain throne and ….. Get the idea?

Okay, so what got me going? The Muslims, those horrid decapitators of the innocence.

So to start off, here it the image posted showing how evil the Koran is.

Gws874gwoaank8v

My goal is to encourage you to think critically and formulate your own questions. To preserve your freedom, rely on intelligence as your primary tool, supported by strength, because oppressors depend on force paired with ignorance.

All of this was done while my Pot of Coffee was brewing, (Yah, because you all are to cheap to buy me a cup).

Since I was on X I took a copy of the image and asked Grok to analyze it.

‘Grok, can you analyze and fact check this image?’

Yes, I can analyze the image you provided. The image contains a list of alleged Quranic verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) with interpretations suggesting violent or intolerant actions toward non-believers, Jews, Christians, and others, framed under the question “A religion of peace?” The image appears to be designed to provoke or challenge perceptions of Islam.However, without the ability to perform a web search at this time, I cannot fully fact-check the exact wording or context of these verses against the Quran. Based on my general knowledge, some of these citations may be taken out of context or inaccurately quoted. The Quran, like many religious texts, contains a range of verses that can be interpreted in different ways depending on historical context, scholarly analysis, and translation. Many of the verses listed are associated with specific wartime situations or defensive measures, and mainstream Islamic scholarship often emphasizes verses promoting peace and tolerance, such as “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).For a precise fact-check, I would need to consult the original Arabic text and authoritative translations, which I cannot do without searching. I suggest you provide the specific verses or context you’d like me to address further, or I can offer to search for more detailed information if needed. Would you like me to proceed with a search?

‘YES’

Thank you for confirming. I have analyzed the image and fact-checked the listed Quranic verses using available information. The image provides interpretations of verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) that suggest violence or intolerance, but many of these are either misquoted, taken out of context, or lack complete translation.

  • 2:191: The verse mentions killing those who wage war against Muslims and expelling them from where they expelled Muslims, but it specifies this is in response to aggression and oppression, with a call to cease if they stop (2:192-193).
  • 3:28: This advises not taking disbelievers as allies during war, not a general prohibition on friendship.
  • 3:85: States that Islam is the only acceptable religion in the sight of God, but this is a theological claim, not a call to violence.
  • 5:33: Describes punishment for those who wage war against God and the Prophet, including crucifixion, but applies to specific crimes like highway robbery or sedition, not all non-believers.
  • 8:12: Refers to striking the necks of enemies in battle, a wartime context, not a general command.
  • 8:60: Encourages preparing military strength to deter enemies, not to terrorize indiscriminately.
  • 8:65: Urges Muslims to urge others to fight, but in the context of defending the community.
  • 9:5: Known as the “Verse of the Sword,” it calls to kill polytheists who broke treaties, but is limited to a specific historical context and followed by offers of peace (9:6).
  • 9:30: Criticizes Jews and Christians for certain beliefs, calling them accursed, but does not mandate fighting them.
  • 9:123: Instructs fighting disbelievers near Muslims, again in a defensive or wartime context.
  • 22:19: Describes punishment in hell for disbelievers, not an earthly command.
  • 47:4: Permits striking disbelievers’ necks in battle, with instructions to release or ransom them if they surrender.

These verses often relate to specific historical conflicts (e.g., battles during the Prophet Muhammad’s time) and are moderated by other verses promoting peace, such as 2:256 (“No compulsion in religion”) and 60:8 (kindness to non-hostile non-Muslims). The image’s interpretations exaggerate or omit context, presenting a skewed narrative. For a deeper understanding, consulting a full Quran translation (e.g., Sahih International) or Islamic scholars is recommended. Would you like me to search further or focus on a specific verse?

Compare Quran and Bible

‘YES’

Thank you for confirming. I have analyzed the image and fact-checked the listed Quranic verses using available information. The image provides interpretations of verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) that suggest violence or intolerance, but many of these are either misquoted, taken out of context, or lack complete translation.

  • 2:191: The verse mentions killing those who wage war against Muslims and expelling them from where they expelled Muslims, but it specifies this is in response to aggression and oppression, with a call to cease if they stop (2:192-193).
  • 3:28: This advises not taking disbelievers as allies during war, not a general prohibition on friendship.
  • 3:85: States that Islam is the only acceptable religion in the sight of God, but this is a theological claim, not a call to violence.
  • 5:33: Describes punishment for those who wage war against God and the Prophet, including crucifixion, but applies to specific crimes like highway robbery or sedition, not all non-believers.
  • 8:12: Refers to striking the necks of enemies in battle, a wartime context, not a general command.
  • 8:60: Encourages preparing military strength to deter enemies, not to terrorize indiscriminately.
  • 8:65: Urges Muslims to urge others to fight, but in the context of defending the community.
  • 9:5: Known as the “Verse of the Sword,” it calls to kill polytheists who broke treaties, but is limited to a specific historical context and followed by offers of peace (9:6).
  • 9:30: Criticizes Jews and Christians for certain beliefs, calling them accursed, but does not mandate fighting them.
  • 9:123: Instructs fighting disbelievers near Muslims, again in a defensive or wartime context.
  • 22:19: Describes punishment in hell for disbelievers, not an earthly command.
  • 47:4: Permits striking disbelievers’ necks in battle, with instructions to release or ransom them if they surrender.

These verses often relate to specific historical conflicts (e.g., battles during the Prophet Muhammad’s time) and are moderated by other verses promoting peace, such as 2:256 (“No compulsion in religion”) and 60:8 (kindness to non-hostile non-Muslims). The image’s interpretations exaggerate or omit context, presenting a skewed narrative. For a deeper understanding, consulting a full Quran translation (e.g., Sahih International) or Islamic scholars is recommended. Would you like me to search further or focus on a specific verse?

Compare Quran and Bible

Comparing the Quran and the Bible involves examining their origins, content, structure, and theological perspectives. Here’s a concise overview:Origins

  • Quran: Revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic over 23 years (610–632 CE) in Mecca and Medina. Considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God (Allah) as dictated by the angel Gabriel.
  • Bible: Comprises the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible, completed by ~100 BCE) and New Testament (written 50–100 CE). Compiled over centuries, it includes writings by multiple authors inspired by God, according to Christian belief.

Structure

  • Quran: 114 chapters (surahs) of varying lengths, arranged roughly by size (longest to shortest), except the opening chapter. Written in poetic Arabic, with verses (ayahs) revealed in different contexts.
  • Bible: 66 books (in Protestant versions), divided into Old Testament (39 books) and New Testament (27 books), including historical narratives, poetry, prophecy, and letters. Organized by genre and chronology.

Content Themes

  • God: Both affirm monotheism. The Quran emphasizes Allah’s oneness (Tawhid) and transcendence, rejecting the Trinity. The Bible presents God as one but with a Trinitarian nature (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in Christianity.
  • Prophets: Both recognize figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Quran views Muhammad as the final prophet, while the Bible ends with Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy.
  • Jesus: In the Quran, Jesus (Isa) is a prophet and messenger, born of the Virgin Mary, but not divine or crucified (4:157). In the Bible, Jesus is the Son of God, crucified, and resurrected for humanity’s salvation.
  • Law and Morality: The Quran provides legal and ethical guidance (e.g., Sharia), including dietary laws and prayer. The Bible includes the Mosaic Law (Old Testament) and Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Sermon on the Mount) emphasizing love and forgiveness.
  • Violence: Both contain verses on warfare (e.g., Quran 9:5, Bible Deuteronomy 20:10-18), often tied to historical contexts like defense or conquest, though interpretations vary widely.

Key Differences

  • Revelation: The Quran is seen as unaltered and final; the Bible’s texts evolved through translation and canonization.
  • Afterlife: Both describe heaven and hell, but the Quran details physical rewards/punishments (e.g., 22:19), while the Bible focuses more on spiritual states.
  • Scriptural Authority: Muslims believe the Quran supersedes previous scriptures (including the Bible), which they view as corrupted. Christians see the Bible as the complete revelation.

Similarities

  • Both promote faith, prayer, charity, and moral living.
  • Shared stories (e.g., Noah’s flood) reflect a common Abrahamic heritage.

For a deeper comparison, specific topics (e.g., specific verses, ethics) could be explored. Would you like me to focus on any particular aspect?

“NO”

When Truth Is a Liability and Laughter a Crime

When Truth Is a Liability and Laughter a Crime

There was a time in America when satire was celebrated — a necessary pressure valve in a democracy, a mirror that reflected uncomfortable truths through the safety of humor. But today, that mirror is being shattered, not by mobs or movements, but by boardrooms and political power.

The recent cancellation of The Late Show — conveniently following an administration’s sustained pressure campaign — is more than a programming change. It’s a warning shot across the bow of every parent company, streaming platform, and publication: comedy that speaks truth to power is no longer good for business. Or rather, it’s no longer safe for business.

Colbert01

Why did Paramount fold? Why now? And who’s next?

We are witnessing a quiet but forceful reshaping of the public square. Instead of government censorship, we get corporate compliance. Instead of storming newsrooms, leaders merely have to hint — threaten a lawsuit here, suggest regulatory pressure there — and truth buckles under the weight of liability.

Donald Trump’s threat to sue The Wall Street Journal if it published an article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein isn’t just a blustering headline — it’s an attempt to preemptively kill reporting that may be factual, inconvenient, or worse: undeniable. Whether or not the story sees daylight, the chilling effect already spreads.

What we’re left with is a hollowed-out discourse. Facts are rebranded as attacks. Jokes become “fake news.” And networks — fearing backlash more than boredom — simply choose silence.

It’s not about whether you liked Colbert or hated him, whether you trust the Journal or cancel your subscription. This is about whether we still believe truth matters. Whether satire still has a place. Whether comedy, critique, and inconvenient reporting are signs of a functioning democracy — or symptoms to be suppressed.

Because when power no longer fears the truth, it doesn’t argue with it. It simply erases it.

I Grew Up with the Truth — Now I Watch Them Bury It

Michael walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
I Grew Up with the Truth — Now I Watch Them Bury It
Loading
/

I Grew Up with the Truth — Now I Watch Them Bury It

I grew up believing truth had power. That facts could stand on their own — maybe bruised in the headlines, maybe doubted in the moment — but ultimately stronger than lies. And when the truth got too hard to face, we had satire. A comedian could say what a politician couldn’t. Laughter was a lifeline — not just for humor, but for honesty.

Now I watch that lifeline being cut.

The recent cancellation of The Late Show hit harder than I expected. Not because I thought Stephen Colbert could save the country with a monologue, but because I saw the message behind it. This wasn’t just a show ending — it was a warning. When those in power start making parent companies like Paramount nervous, satire becomes expendable. Not because it isn’t working — but because it is.

Colbert01

Then came the threats against The Wall Street Journal. Trump warning of lawsuits if they print a story connecting him to Epstein — whether the article is airtight or not — sends a message louder than any denial: “Tell the truth, and I’ll destroy you.” And just like that, the reporting gets delayed, the story shelved, the truth silenced.

This isn’t about left or right. It’s about a shift in the ground we’re standing on. We used to debate the facts. Now we debate whether they matter at all. Truth has become a liability. Satire, a threat. I never thought I’d see the day when a punchline could get you canceled — not by angry audiences, but by political pressure disguised as business decisions.

I don’t know where we go from here. But I do know this: when leaders fear jokes more than journalists, we’re in trouble. And when journalists start pulling punches to keep the lawyers away, we’re already there.

So yeah, I miss the laughs. But what I miss more is what those laughs meant — that we still had the freedom to question, to expose, to say it out loud.

And I’m not ready to give that up.

Covert Agency Manipulation

COINTELPRO, short for Counter Intelligence Program, was a series of covert and often illegal projects conducted by the FBI from 1956 to 1971, aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations deemed subversive.

Authorized by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, it targeted groups like the Communist Party USA, civil rights movements (including Martin Luther King Jr.), Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, and anti-Vietnam War organizers, among others.The program used tactics like wiretapping, smear campaigns, forged documents, psychological warfare, and encouraging violence between groups (e.g., between the Black Panthers and other organizations).

Notable examples include attempts to discredit MLK by spreading false information about his personal life and pressuring him to commit suicide. COINTELPRO’s actions often violated civil liberties and constitutional rights.It was exposed in 1971 when activists stole documents from an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, and leaked them to the press.

This led to public outcry, congressional investigations (notably the Church Committee in 1975), and the program’s official termination. However, its legacy raised lasting concerns about government overreach and surveillance of citizens.

MKUltra was a covert CIA program, officially running from 1953 to 1973, focused on developing mind control and interrogation techniques through human experimentation. Authorized by CIA Director Allen Dulles, it aimed to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing during the Cold War. The program involved illegal and unethical experiments on unwitting subjects, including U.S. and Canadian citizens.Key aspects:

  • Experiments: MKUltra tested drugs (notably LSD), hypnosis, sensory deprivation, electroshock, and psychological manipulation. Subjects included prisoners, mental patients, and unaware civilians, often without consent.

  • Scope: It spanned 80+ institutions, including universities, hospitals, and prisons, with 44 colleges involved. Over 150 subprojects explored everything from chemical interrogation to behavioral modification.

  • Notable Cases: Experiments like dosing people with LSD in public settings (e.g., Operation Midnight Climax in San Francisco) or the death of Frank Olson, a scientist who was unknowingly given LSD and later died under suspicious circumstances, highlight the program’s recklessness.

  • Secrecy and Destruction: In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered most MKUltra records destroyed, leaving limited documentation. Surviving details emerged through 1975 Freedom of Information Act requests and investigations.

The program was exposed publicly during the 1975 Church Committee hearings, alongside COINTELPRO, revealing gross violations of ethics and civil rights. It was officially halted, but its legacy fuels distrust in government and speculation about continued covert programs.

The following is a fictionalized storyboard outlining potential Covert Programs, fictionalized to avoid legal or other repercussions. But feel free to read between the lines. The setting is somewhere else.

“Invisible hands leave visible fingerprints.”

“The Architects of Influence”

The Setting: Republica

A modern democratic nation, constantly on edge. Its people vote, protest, and dream freely — but shadows linger behind the curtain.

1. The Watchtower Agency

Covert01

(Inspired by the CIA)

A secretive agency born after the Great War. Officially foreign-focused, it keeps Republica safe. Unofficially, it seeds coups abroad and whispers narratives at home.

Key Tactic: “Feather & Quill” — placing storytellers in key media posts to control the plotline without writing it themselves.

  • Notable Operation: “Mockbird” — where agents whispered headlines into trusted ears, shaping what the people feared, hated, and ignored.

  • Modern Twist: Funded a network of independent news “hubs” that subtly echoed official lines with a local accent.

2. The Sentinel Bureau

Covert02

(Inspired by the FBI)

Meant to defend from internal sabotage, but often defined what “subversion” meant based on the politics of the day.

Key Tactic: “Echo Disruption” — infiltrating activist circles and sowing paranoia, false friendships, and betrayal.

  • Notable Operation: “Harpy” — a campaign to dismantle the Unity March Movement by labeling them enemies of order and peace.

  • Fallout: The movement imploded from within; the leaders never fully trusted each other again.

3. The Listening Vault

Covert03

(Inspired by the NSA)

A faceless cathedral of code. It doesn’t act — it watches, collects, connects.
“If you whisper, they can hear it. If you think it, they may predict it.”

Key Tactic: “Mind Lattice” — linking data from every citizen into behavioral profiles for “national security modeling.”

  • Revelation: A rogue technician leaked the truth to the public. Instead of outrage, the people shrugged. “If you have nothing to hide…”

4. The Forge

Covert04

(Inspired by Cambridge Analytica, military psyops, and political data firms)

A private, unregulated lab where public will is melted and recast into programmable segments.

Key Tactic: “Soul Maps” — personalized emotional profiles built from likes, clicks, and idle complaints.

“They don’t sell ads — they sell certainty.”

  • Use Case: A political faction buys access before the election, deploying fear-based ads to suppress enemy voters and ignite their own.

5. The Ministry of Tomorrow

Covert05

(A fictional mashup of think tanks, media outlets, and social platforms)

Not officially government. Not officially anything. But its ideas somehow always reach the top.

Key Tactic: “Consensus Sculpting” — the art of turning radical ideas into breakfast-table common sense.

“The people chose it — we just helped them want it.”

  • Example: A new law restricts protest zones. Within a week, every morning show host is saying “Well, you can’t just let mobs run the streets…”

Epilogue Chapter: The Mirror Room

Covert06

A small room beneath the Capitol of Republica. No one lives there — but the walls reflect every decision made upstairs.
In the center, a marionette stage, strings dangling. But no puppets.

The message?

“If the people believe they chose the show, do they need to know who built the stage?”

Republica isn’t real. But the shadows behind it often are.
We’re not told to think anymore — just to choose sides.
But when the stage is rigged and the script already written… what good is a vote?

The Puppet Masters

The Puppet Masters
Intro to the Series

We get caught up in the little stuff — who’s president, how it happened, who to blame. We fixate on the face in front of the curtain — the clown or the statesman — but rarely ask who’s pulling the strings behind them.

We toss around vague culprits: “corporate America,” “the global elite,” “one world government.” But I don’t think it’s the oligarchs or the CEOs. I believe it’s the idealists — the ones who believe so deeply in their vision that they’ve become the puppet masters, manipulating outcomes in the name of the greater good.

So in this arena called politics, I’ll try to pull back the curtain. To shine some light on the power brokers we don’t elect, the movements we don’t see coming, and the hands guiding the show. I’ll offer some insight, some opinion — but the real mysteries? Those are yours to solve.

Because in the end, maybe the only real truth… is your truth.

Puppets

10% government stake in Intel – Good or Bad

·
Trump’s known investment profile: Public records and reporting show he has diversified holdings across multiple sectors (stocks, real estate, funds, etc.), including historical past holdings in companies like Intel. Yet, there is no indication that

2028 – The Presinator – Constitution, what Constitution?

·
Constitution, what Constitution?

Anger in America, Part 1: Why People Are So Angry

·
The truth is, millions of Americans feel cheated. They feel as if the deck is stacked against them, no matter how hard they work or how carefully they play by the rules. They see the

Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?

·
When leaders or high-ranking officials make financial moves that profit from economic decline, it undermines the very foundation of public trust. Reports suggest former President Trump and some government officials may have engaged in activities

Covert Agency Manipulation

·
Notable Cases: Experiments like dosing people with LSD in public settings (e.g., Operation Midnight Climax in San Francisco) or the death of Frank Olson, a scientist who was unknowingly given LSD and later died under

Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?

·
RFK Jr.’s rhetoric around detoxing children, rejecting vaccines, and elevating “natural immunity” taps into those old, unscientific veins — and when implemented from a position of power, they do carry population-level consequences.

Electorial College or Popular Vote

·
Democrats overwhelmingly favor the popular vote. Republicans strongly prefer the Electoral College. Independents lean toward the popular vote but are more divided. Overall, most Americans favor switching to a popular vote system.

Gerrymandering, The Cowards Confession

·
Let’s be clear: this isn’t clever strategy, it’s cowardice. It’s the political equivalent of moving the goalposts because you’re afraid to lose a fair fight. Even when done in retaliation, it’s still rigging — a

Gerrymandering: The Fire Trump Lit—and Why Everyone’s Getting Burned

·
The new Texas map, rammed through under Trump’s influence, would give Republicans nearly 80% of the state’s congressional seats—even though they win just over half the vote. This isn’t just a tilt; it’s a landslide

Get Back to the Issues

·
Voters deserve more than fear and name-calling. It doesn’t matter if the attack ads come from the right or the left—they’re distractions. What matters is whether a candidate will look us in the eye and

How Trump is Controlling Free Speech

·
I asked Grok "Trump sues everyone who says anything bad about him, I see it as his way of eliminating free speech through intimidation, am I missing something here?" Searched for "Trump lawsuits free speech

MAGA – Is it too Late Getting Back on Track

·
So where do we go from here? We don’t need to abandon what we believed — we need to reclaim it. Not with rage, but with resolve. Not by burning everything down, but by rebuilding what’s

MAGA – What Trump Turned It Into

·
Trump didn’t build on the core of MAGA — he hijacked it. He turned a movement meant to restore dignity into one that demands loyalty over honesty, anger over results, and spectacle over service. He didn’t

MAGA, What is MAGA? Before Trump Turned it into a Cult

·
When we look at the original core beliefs of MAGA — before they were distorted by authoritarianism, disinformation, and grievance theatrics — there were some genuinely resonant themes that connected with millions of Americans. Here's

Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t

·
Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t By Elephants Ink Room Most Americans can name Donald Trump. Many can name Joe Biden. Fewer can name Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. But almost

Politicians Make Promises With No Binding Obligation To Deliver

·
The Constitution protects broad political speech. Campaign promises are legally treated as opinions or aspirations, not contracts. Courts generally won’t police political lies — they leave it to voters, the press, and opponents to challenge

Politicization of Economic Data. When it sounds too good to be True, it Usually Is

·
On August 2, 2025, Trump abruptly dismissed Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), after a jobs report showing slow employment growth. He accused her of fabricating data without evidence—a claim widely

Project 2025 and Donald Trump

·
Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan developed by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, to reshape the U.S. federal government if a Republican—likely Donald Trump—returns to power in 2025. It's officially called “Mandate

Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism

·
In an era where power no longer needs to pass laws to control speech, it simply needs to raise the cost of telling the truth. And that cost is now being paid in court.

Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation

·
In essence, a fact-checker's loyalty is to the truth, wherever it may lead. For someone simply seeking to support their own views, their loyalty lies with their pre-existing beliefs.

WOKE – Got Lost

·
Like MAGA, the Woke just became angry, if it wasn't their way, it was wrong, so wrong it was as affront. They had to have demonstrations, they needed to shout, when all they really had

WOKE – In the Begining

·
The movement that would later be labeled “Woke” began as something far more grounded: a call to awareness. Awareness of how racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of exclusion had quietly embedded themselves in the

WOKE – What It Can Be

·
The solution isn’t to abandon the values of justice, inclusion, and equity — it’s to grow up with them. Maturity doesn’t mean compromise with cruelty; it means knowing the difference between real harm and honest

You Can Make a Difference

·
Most people don’t realize how powerful their voice truly is. Your elected representatives work for you — and when they hear directly from their constituents, it matters. Whether it’s by email, phone call, or even

Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t

Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t

By Elephants Ink Room

Most Americans can name Donald Trump. Many can name Joe Biden. Fewer can name Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. But almost no one knows the name Leonard Leo — and that’s exactly how he prefers it.

While the country fights over policies, Leo quietly builds the structures that decide them. He’s not an elected official. He doesn’t run for office. But over the past 20 years, Leonard Leo has done more to reshape the American legal landscape than any senator, any president, or any judge. And he’s done it behind the curtain.

A former vice president of the Federalist Society, Leo helped handpick the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, narrowed voting rights, and stripped environmental protections. But he didn’t stop at the high court — he built a pipeline. From district courts to appeals courts, Leo’s influence extends like a legal shadow network, placing loyal ideologues where precedent used to live.

And now he has the money to go even further.

In 2022, Leo received a jaw-dropping $1.6 billion donation — the largest single political gift in American history. Not to fund a campaign, but to build the future of American governance in his image. That means legal challenges against government regulation, climate policy, abortion access, and even how elections are certified. The playbook? It’s already written. It’s called Project 2025, and Leonard Leo is one of its architects.

He’s also the man behind the lavish, undisclosed gifts and trips to Supreme Court justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the kind of perks that would get a public servant fired, but which glide past ethics rules in a judiciary with no meaningful oversight.

And yet, the headlines rarely mention his name. That’s the danger. While we’re busy arguing on social media about candidates and slogans, Leonard Leo is writing the footnotes of history — in fine print most of us never see.

This isn’t conspiracy. It’s coordination. And it’s working.

So the next time you wonder how a fringe legal theory became binding law, or why public trust in the courts has cratered, remember this name. Not because he shouts it — but because he doesn’t have to.

Leonard Leo. The most powerful unelected man in America. And we’re letting him do it in silence.

1. He’s almost completely invisible to the public
Most Americans couldn’t pick him out of a lineup, and yet he has arguably reshaped more of the American political landscape than any living figure — without ever running for office.

2. He operates through permanence, not popularity
While presidents come and go, Leo’s real power comes from engineering a judicial supermajority and embedding his ideology into the law for decades — particularly through lifetime federal judges.

3. He has billion-dollar influence with zero accountability
Through his networks (like the Marble Freedom Trust), he’s moved $1.6 billion from donors into judicial appointments, legal activism, and media shaping — with almost no oversight or press scrutiny.

4. His agenda is deeply ideological — and strategic
This isn’t just about being “conservative.” It’s about remaking the constitutional framework:

Weakening federal oversight

Empowering state-level theocracy

Rolling back decades of precedent on voting rights, reproductive rights, regulatory power, and civil protections

He’s the architect behind decisions like Dobbs, Shelby County, and now the Chevron deference rollback — each systematically shifting power away from elected government and toward courts, corporations, and Christian legal theory.

So, a quick recap:

Former executive vice president of the Federalist Society

Longtime judicial kingmaker on the American right

Architect of the conservative legal revolution, including stacking the Supreme Court

Quiet hand behind Project 2025 — the policy playbook for a post-democracy conservative state

Why He’s Dangerous
He doesn’t run for office. He runs people who do.

He’s behind the curtain shaping judicial, legal, and policy infrastructure that outlasts any election.

His fingerprints are on decisions gutting voting rights, abortion access, campaign finance law, and federal agency power.

He builds systems, not headlines.

While Trump tweets and shouts, Leo writes the manual, places the judges, and engineers the undoing of the administrative state.

Bureaucratic reprogramming disguised as “liberty.”

He understands how to leverage chaos.

The louder the MAGA noise, the more quietly Leo’s network rewires the levers of power: Supreme Court, state AGs, education boards, religious coalitions, media outlets.

He has billions at his disposal now.

In 2022, he received $1.6 billion from Barre Seid, the largest known political donation in U.S. history — and he’s using it not to run ads, but to reshape the legal battlefield.

Why People Overlook Him
No bombastic rallies, no orange spray tan, no obvious cult of personality.

The media mostly sees him as “that judicial guy from the Federalist Society.”

But under the radar, he’s weaponizing legal legitimacy, which is far more enduring than any single politician’s charisma.

If Trump is the actor, Leonard Leo is the playwright — and the stage manager, and the guy who installed the trapdoor under the audience.

Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?

Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?

Yes, in the shadows of policy — though rarely called that:

  • Through environmental Malthusianism: “Too many people, not enough resources.”

  • Through selective policy neglect: Cutting public health programs or social safety nets knowing full well which populations will suffer.

  • Through experimentation: Historically, there’s a dark record — from Tuskegee to forced sterilizations — where “health” was used to justify control or reduction.

RFK Jr.’s rhetoric around detoxing children, rejecting vaccines, and elevating “natural immunity” taps into those old, unscientific veins — and when implemented from a position of power, they do carry population-level consequences.

It’s not always a Bond villain with a red button — sometimes it’s slow, ideological erosion of protections that keeps the vulnerable… vulnerable.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama

Sarah walker talks
Michael and Sarah Walker
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama
Loading
/

“Still Building Something Bigger”

Barack Obama didn’t come from money or power. He came from organizing neighborhoods, teaching the Constitution, and believing deeply in what ordinary people could do together. And though he made history in the White House, his legacy—along with Michelle’s—has only grown since he left it.

Before the White House: A Foundation of Service

Barack Obama began his career not in politics, but on the streets of Chicago’s South Side. With a Columbia degree in hand, he became a community organizer, helping struggling residents fight for jobs, housing, and opportunity. It wasn’t glamorous—but it was real.

Later, he graduated from Harvard Law School and became the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review. But instead of chasing prestige, he returned to Chicago—working as a civil rights attorney and teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

He didn’t seek the spotlight. He sought impact. That ethic followed him through the Illinois State Senate and into the U.S. Senate, where he gained national attention with a single line:

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America.”

Michelle Obama—Princeton and Harvard-educated—also began in corporate law but chose a different path. She left a high-paying job to work in public service, first in city government and later as the founding executive director of Chicago’s Public Allies, helping young people become leaders in their own communities.

Before becoming First Lady, she was a hospital executive developing programs that connected the University of Chicago Medical Center with underserved neighborhoods. She never needed fame. She chose purpose.

Cf44568e fe95 463e 9fb0 9260200364cd

The Presidency (2009–2017): Calm in the Storm

Barack Obama’s presidency was historic—but more than that, it was steady.

He took office during the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. His actions helped prevent another one.

The Affordable Care Act expanded health coverage to over 20 million Americans.

The Recovery Act saved jobs and rebuilt infrastructure.

Dodd-Frank added safeguards to a reckless financial system.

He ended the war in Iraq.

He repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

He ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

But perhaps his most lasting presidential achievement was emotional:
He led with dignity, grace, and zero personal scandal—modeling what character in leadership could look like.

After the White House: Service, Not Celebrity

When they left the White House, Barack and Michelle Obama didn’t disappear—but they didn’t cling to the spotlight, either. They started building again.

The Obama Foundation

Launched to train and empower the next generation of leaders. Its key initiatives:

The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago: More than a museum—it’s a hub for activism and leadership development.

My Brother’s Keeper Alliance: Created to support boys and young men of color facing systemic barriers.

Obamas

Michelle Obama’s initiative to educate and empower girls around the world.

Higher Ground Productions

Their Netflix-based storytelling company highlights hope, resilience, and truth. Its debut, American Factory, won an Oscar for Best Documentary. Projects like Crip Camp and Waffles + Mochi mix education with cultural connection.

The Written Word

Barack’s A Promised Land and Michelle’s Becoming became publishing phenomena, offering not gossip—but depth, vulnerability, and clarity.

Their book tours and speaking engagements continue to inspire civic engagement across generations.

They Could’ve Cashed Out—They Paid It Forward Instead

There are easier paths for ex-presidents. But the Obamas didn’t take them.

No gold-plated towers. No angry rallies. No grievance campaigns.
Just libraries, documentaries, classrooms, and community centers.

“I’m inspired by the young people I meet—confident, hopeful, and unafraid to make their voices heard.”
— Barack Obama

“When they go low, we go high.”
— Michelle Obama

Barack Obama didn’t just make history. He and Michelle are still making a future—one book, one girl, one young leader at a time.

“The best way to not feel hopeless is to get up and do something.” — Barack Obama
“Your story is what you have, what you will always have. It is something to own.” — Michelle Obama

That’s what real leadership looks like.