▶️ VDH: WHAT IS THE DEMOCRAT ALTERNATIVE TO TRUMP?
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VDH: WHAT IS THE DEMOCRAT ALTERNATIVE TO TRUMP?
www
he Pavlovian Left goes berserk at the mere prospect of each new Trump initiative. Its escalating reactive venom and hysteria are calibrated to the success of Trump’s latest policy. Yet the new hard-left Democrat Party offers no counter-agenda to explain its furor. Still less do Democrats attempt bipartisan efforts to craft shared legislation.
Take foreign policy. Democrat senators trashed the recent Trump-Putin Alaskan summit as a failure. Then they became depressed when, just days later, an entourage of European leaders and President Zelensky of Ukraine suddenly flew to the White House.
The Euros praised Trump for offering some sort of negotiated pathway to peace after over three years of war and some 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, and captured on both sides—on Europe’s doorstep. So why did Democrats object to such negotiations by Trump?
Was the reason that no such thing occurred during the Biden Administration, when Putin invaded Ukraine, after his earlier invasions during the Obama era?
What is the Left’s alternate plan? The old Biden idea of supplying Ukraine with enough money and arms to keep fighting and dying, but with no path to either victory or a negotiated peace? Would they prefer a fourth, fifth, or sixth year of war, or an additional one million casualties?
The more Trump pressed almost all NATO members to pay their promised two percent of GDP on defense, the more Democrats grew irate over Trump’s overseas influence.
NATO members now want to raise defense spending to five percent of GDP and gush that Trump is “Daddy.” Democrats steamed at that, since Europeans are supposed to hate Trump, not admire him for rebooting NATO. Would they prefer the old, disarmed NATO?
Under the Biden Administration, over 10 million illegal aliens flooded the country, sometimes 10,000 a day at the southern border. More than half a million criminals swarmed in.
Yet now there is essentially zero illegal immigration and over 100,000 criminal aliens deported. A million who entered illegally have voluntarily gone home. Yet the left has fought the enforcement of immigration law tooth and nail. Do they believe that it is lawful and moral to break immigration law but immoral and illegal to enforce it? What is their solution?
To allow in 20, 30, or 40 million more illegal aliens to distort the census and bring in new voters and constituencies? Is their plan to protect 400,000 illegal-alien criminals to roam at will? Or to add another 600 sanctuary jurisdictions that will not hand over criminal illegal aliens to immigration authorities?
Democrats used to support reciprocal tariffs to save American jobs and businesses—while warning of Chinese mercantilism. But now they blast Trump for negotiating tariffs with dozens of nations in efforts to reduce an unsustainable $1 trillion trade deficit. So far, Washington projects $300 billion in new revenue.
Foreign businesses have promised to invest between $10 and $15 trillion within the United States. Trading partners have lowered tariffs on U.S. goods and services. So why the left-wing frenzy? Do they object to too much new federal income? Is there too much new foreign investment? Are new foreign tariffs too low on U.S. exports? Are Democrats worried that China may lose money?
In 35 minutes of precision bombing, Donald Trump disabled the Iranian nuclear program that was readying nuclear weapons. Few Iranians and no Americans died. No wider war followed. And the Democrats still cursed the Trump action.
Did they prefer the Obama-era “Iran Deal” that had brought Iran to the threshold of nuclear acquisition? Did they want theocratic Iran to have nuclear weapons to threaten democratic Israel?
Do Democrats complain that Trump tweets too much and sometimes is crude in his postings? Not really. California Governor Gavin Newsom tries to out-Trump on social media.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett responds with scatological attacks. Democrats in Congress let off f-bombs. What explains the Democrat nihilism?
One, the prior Biden Administration was among the most aimless, corrupt, and unpopular in modern history. So the contrast with Trump’s successes is too hard to bear.
Two, Democrats so hate Trump the messenger that they seek to destroy his entire message, even when it benefits their own country and the world at large. If Trump conducts peace, they prefer war. If he wages war on crime, they side with the criminal. If he stops illegal immigration, they want more illegal immigrants.
Three, they fear they have no alternatives to the Trump record, because his agenda is common sense and supported by a majority of Americans.
Fourth, the left cannot stop Trump’s success. Nothing seems to destroy him—not the raid on his home, not 93 lawfare indictments, not efforts to strike him from state ballots, not two impeachments, not even two assassination attempts.
Instead, all that has only made him stronger—and thus more hated. ✪
▶️ CRACKER BARREL SUCCUMBS TO WOKE
CRACKER BARREL SUCCUMBS TO WOKE
mmm
OKE & DEI are divisive scourges upon our country & society. While there’s some commonsense relief that the mindless leftist onslaught is finally being thwarted, the remaining holdouts infuriate even more — read the room, already. One such place is Cracker Barrel, and its recalcitrant resistance to robust all-American (especially Southern) values is incongruous with its traditional country motif.
Corporate logos represent a company’s identity, values, and mission. For Cracker Barrel, the original iconic logo welcomed good, hearty folks with a nice elderly gentleman (perhaps a patriarch, perish the thought) sitting in a wooden chair beside a barrel upon which his left arm seeks deserved rest. It really conveyed Southern warmth and charm. Now, the new logo conveys a bland… never mind, I don’t know what, such is its uninspiring, androgynous-like design. Perhaps the unintended message is “keep driving,” there’s a cozier restaurant around the country bend.
Julie Felss Masino is the wayward CEO, and Sarah Moore is the chief marketing officer — your instinctive impressions may be well founded. But irrespective of their political leanings, Masino seems intent on repeating the stubborn resistance that pervaded Bud Light and Target. For example. Masino is truly cracked as she maintains that feedback on their new logo has been “overwhelmingly positive.”
My goodness, the obvious first step in fashioning any business solution is recognizing the problem, but Masino seems isolated in her C Suite fiefdom, unaware of the “overwhelmingly negative” feedback (especially among once-loyal and traditional customers) about her logo and restaurant interior design changes. With such willful and wanton ignorance of customer zeitgeist, how can she possibly retain the confidence of the board, shareholders, and customers?
Here’s a map showing the locations of Cracker Barrel restaurants:
Now here’s a map showing congressional districts by party. For the most part, the two maps mirror one another: the red districts (tending more conservative) overlap nicely with the restaurant locations:
It’s noteworthy that locations are very sparse on the leftist coast. One may reasonably wonder: as with Bud Light, is Cracker Barrel going to sacrifice its traditional customer base for the sake of going woke? Don’t Julie and Sarah realize that going woke usually means going broke?
Perhaps worse than the horrid new logo that defaces the charming old stores and restaurants is what appears on their website. They even have a “Culture and Inclusion” webpage that features a series of scrolling images including what one may reasonably conjecture is two “mommies” with a hapless child on their laps (as of 08/21/25). Though I suppose it could be a mother with a daughter who is at least a generation older than her little brother. Nope, given Cracker Barrel’s inclinations to stick it to commonsense Southerners, it really must be two “wedded” mommies.
Clearly, if one may dare believe one’s lying eyes, Cracker Barrel is being mismanaged by crackpots. They shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them, even as they feed us not just good ol’ country cuisine, but a smorgasbord of DEI sides that causes indigestion. The abandoned old farmer may have leaned on the barrel, but Masino needs to be draped over it – metaphorically speaking. Corporate governance: do your job. You’ve already lost over $100 million in value after the new logo release. ✪
▶️ FIVE TROUBLING FACTS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT KING CHARLES
FIVE TROUBLING FACTS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT KING CHARLES
nnn
or over 500 years, every British monarch has inherited the title “Defender of the Faith,” meaning defender of Christianity. But in 1994, Charles III, the Prince of Wales, declared that he wished to be called “Defender of Faith,” meaning defender of all religions.
Significantly, the faith King Charles seems most eager to defend is not the Church of England, which he heads. As commentator Tim Black observed, “Charles, it is fair to say, is an unabashed Islamophile.”
I was raised a Christian in the Islamic culture of Egypt. I can tell you with assurance that mainstream Muslims want to live in peace. But I’ve also known Islamist hard-liners who want to conquer the West. So, it troubles me that King Charles seems unable to distinguish between mainstream Muslims and Islamists.
Here are five facts you should know about King Charles III and Islam:
✪ Charles Has Studied Arabic To Better Understand The Quran
In 1996, Nazim Al-Haqqani, the grand mufti of Cyprus, announced that Prince Charles was a closet Muslim, saying, “Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam? Yes, yes. He is a Muslim.”
No, King Charles did not convert to Islam, but it’s easy to see why Al-Haqqani thought so. King Charles is clearly enamored of Islam and the Quran.
He studied Arabic with a private tutor so that he could read the Quran in the original language. At his Highgrove House residence, he expressed his love of the Quran by creating the Carpet Garden, inspired by Turkish carpet designs. “I planted fig, pomegranate, and olive trees in the garden,” he said, “because of their mention in the Quran.”
✪ His Passion For Islam Has Affected His Judgment
King Charles’ admiration for Islam has earned him many friends in the Muslim world. Some of those friendships, however, seem to have compromised his better judgment.
On three occasions, from 2011 to 2015, Prince Charles accepted cash-filled luggage from a friend in Qatar. Those gifts; donations to the prince’s charitable fund, totaled three million euros. They were in the form of €500 notes; the so-called “bin Laden denomination,” often used for financing terrorism. There’s no hint that Charles benefited personally or did anything illegal.
The donor was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (aka “HBJ”), one of the richest men in the world. HBJ was Qatar’s prime minister from 2007 to 2013. He also owned the $400 million luxury jet that Qatar recently gifted to President Donald Trump.
In addition to currying favor with King Charles and President Trump, Qatar has spent an estimated $2 billion financing the terror organization Hamas. Qatar has also spread the Islamist propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood through Al Jazeera. As the Sunday Times concludes, Charles’ acceptance of Qatari cash casts doubt on his “impartiality in representing Britain on the world stage.”
✪ Charles Is Reluctant To Condemn Terrorism
For decades, Charles has been reluctant to condemn Islamist terrorism. After the July 7, 2005, London suicide bombings (in which 52 innocent people were killed & nearly 800 injured), Prince Charles was eager to defend Islam. He said, “Islam preaches humanity, tolerance and a sense of community … These acts have nothing to do with any true faith.”
Islamic Terrorists definitely disagree. They say that their actions conform to such passages as the famous Sword Verse: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Quran 9:5; see also 2:191 and 8:12).
✪ Charles Is Highly Critical Of Western Culture
For decades, King Charles has actively championed Islam as more enlightened than Western civilization — or even Christianity. In an October 1993 speech as patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, he declared, “Islam can teach us a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost.”
Terrorism, he said, is the result of “extremism,” and not Islamic ideology. “Extremism,” he explained, “is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity.” If that’s so, where are the Christian suicide bombers?
✪ Charles Is Prone To Wishful & Idealistic Thinking About Islam
It’s true that the Quran contains passages extolling peace and human liberty, such as Quran 2:256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error.”
However, Charles selects favorable passages and ignores violent passages to craft a sanitized version of Islam for himself. He projects onto Islam what he wishes it to be, without admitting what it is.
If only King Charles would go to his Muslim friends and urge them to consider Christian-inspired values of freedom, human rights, and tolerance. That is what a Defender of the Faith should do.
The King’s adoration of Islam undermines his role as the Defender of the Faith. In the 21st Century, when the relevance of the British monarchy is being widely questioned, King Charles has chosen to cast even more doubt on the crown’s role in matters of faith and culture. His irrational embrace of Islam has shattered the Christian foundation of the British crown.
Perhaps it’s time for this quaint but obsolete British tradition called “royalty” to come to an end.✪
▶️ US MILITARY PREPARES FOR STRIKES ON MEXICAN CARTELS
⭐️ Pi In The Sky
US MILITARY PREPARES FOR STRIKES ON MEXICAN CARTELS
yyy
he Trump Administration has issued directives for the U.S. military to develop plans for lethal operations targeting Mexican drug cartels, according to investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein’s reporting. These plans, initiated in late spring 2025, involve Northern Command (NORTHCOM) preparing strike options by mid-September.
Military sources indicate the focus is on transnational criminal organizations, particularly the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels.
President Trump designated these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations early in his term, enabling broader national security responses.
The State Department formally labeled groups like Cartel de Sinaloa and Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion as Foreign Terrorist Organizations in February 2025.
This classification aligns with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s view that cartels should be treated as armed terrorist entities rather than mere drug traffickers.
U.S.-Mexico military relations remain cooperative, with ongoing joint training and intelligence sharing. However, any unilateral U.S. action inside Mexico raises sovereignty concerns for both governments.
High-level meetings, including a July 2025 session at NORTHCOM headquarters, emphasized the need for coordinated responses to shared threats.
NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gregory M. Guillot highlighted in February 2025 congressional testimony that cartels pose a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty through drug trafficking and migration facilitation.
He noted increased intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance efforts approved by the Department of Defense. Guillot also stressed closer operational compatibility between U.S. and Mexican forces than ever before.
The CIA has expanded drone reconnaissance over Mexico to identify fentanyl production sites, supporting the administration’s anti-cartel campaign.
Previous operations in Mexico involved the Joint Special Operations Command for targeted actions. Now, NORTHCOM’s Special Operations Command North is preparing target packages for potential air, drone, or ground strikes against high-value cartel assets.
Fentanyl trafficking by these cartels has contributed to a severe public health crisis in the United States. Provisional data show over 82,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending January 2025, following a dip to about 80,400 in 2024.
The intelligence community’s March 2025 threat assessment identified Western Hemisphere-based transnational criminal organizations as the most immediate danger to American security.
In April 2025 testimony, Gen. Guillot acknowledged that fentanyl-related deaths have not decreased significantly despite enhanced intelligence foundations. He requested more ISR resources and expanded authorities for advise-and-assist operations with elite Mexican units.
Mexico’s government has permitted limited U.S. special forces training, such as deployments in early 2025 for counter-cartel preparation. Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Colby Jenkins described these efforts as vital to denying cartels their objectives. Despite this, full approval for U.S. military strikes remains uncertain due to political sensitivities.
The administration views cartel activities as an invasion threat, justifying preparations similar to post-9/11 counterterrorism measures. Sources indicate President Trump’s focus on results prioritizes national security outcomes over potential diplomatic challenges.
Military planning integrates coordination with the FBI, homeland security agencies, and intelligence community. Potential operations could involve direct action by special forces, akin to U.S. strikes in other regions.✪
▶️ THE UNITED KINGDOM GOES FULL ORWELL
THE UNITED KINGDOM GOES FULL ORWELL
lll
he Online Safety Act was sold to the British public as a way to protect children from adult content, but fighting porn proved to be a trojan horse over fighting what the regime cared about.
Any Britons trying to read the Act probably never made it to Chapter 7 at which point the wooden horse legislation listed a ‘Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation’ and began handing out matching orders on how internet services are supposed to deal with the bogeys of unfettered speech. What does disinformation have to do with keeping kids from accessing porn?
Recent court hearings revealed that officials had stated that the real purpose was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children,” but regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.” There’s only one kind of censorship the British government is really into.
Rather than blocking pornography, the Online Safety Act was used to block videos of parliamentary debates about the Muslim sex grooming gang crisis in the UK. Not only wasn’t the Online Safety Act protecting children from being exposed to sexual content, it was being used to censor revelations about the complicity of the authorities in the sexual abuse of children.
The OSA is one of a series of pieces of legislation that seem designed to replicate Orwell’s nightmarish 1984 dystopia under the guise of reforming and protecting people from things.
Orwell’s inspiration for 1984 came from his time working for the BBC under the Ministry of Information which he sarcastically rebranded in the book as the Ministry of Truth. Today’s Ministry of Truth is OFCOM, the UK’s monstrous speech regulator, which, in a fitting tribute to 1984, is forcing Big Brother onto ‘Smart’ TVs. In an echo of 1984’s TVs playing government propaganda that can’t be turned off, the Media Act forces BBC and other government content to have a “privileged” role on internet connected TV’s. Whether or not anyone wants them to.
While “1984 was not an instruction manual” is a longstanding meme, it is very much an instructional manual for government officials who brag that the purpose of the Media Act is to “make sure public service broadcast content is always carried.”
Furthermore, since viewers insist on not watching government propaganda and instead watching cat videos, the next OFCOM proposal is to also force YouTube and popular video streaming sites to promote government propaganda into your algorithm whether you want it or not. If viewers still choose not to click, 1984 includes a helpful guide for having a gent with a mustache stare at them through their screen to make sure that they are watching the BBC.
And this is much easier in 2024, the year of the Media Act, than it was in either 1948 or 1984. The Orwellianism is only getting underway and it also has disturbing implications for America.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a British leftist group run by Imran Ahmed, a former adviser to future London Mayor Sadiq Khan, now operating out of Washington D.C, has been lobbying Congress for censorship, had also proposed giving OFCOM “emergency powers” to immediately force social media platforms to censor political content from the opposition.
The proposal came in the wake of the Starmer regime’s mass censorship and arrests of anyone who correctly identified the Southport mass murderer of little girls as a Muslim terrorist.
The massive censorship powers being vested in the OFCOM ‘Ministry of Truth’ are all the more remarkable considering that even Tony Blair had warned about the dangers of OFCOM being used to censor the media, but these days OFCOM tells media outlets that they must broadcast false claims that men are really women and targeted any dissent on COVID.
The various pieces of legislation granting OFCOM even more power are billed as “reforms,” but reforms are supposed to be aimed at government, instead the government is wielding more power over speech and calling it reform. The government monopoly over speech is being conducted under false flags, such as the Online Safety Act, through outright lies, like the false claims by the government that the Southport stabber of little girls wasn’t Muslim, and consists of both ‘negative’ censorship which suppresses free speech, and ‘positive’ censorship which rams government propaganda down the throats of the masses while suppressing competing views.
Underlying both the negative and positive censorship campaign is the silent recognition that government authoritarianism and policies like enabling Muslim mass migration have become so unpopular that the only way to perpetuate them is through mass censorship, propaganda and criminalization of speech. All the alarmism about “disinformation” and “right-wing violence” is the rhetoric of a political machine that has lost the argument and has nothing to resort to but force.
The Starmer regime can’t even begin to win the argument in the marketplace of ideas and so a phalanx of police forces is obsessively monitoring social media to suppress opposing views. No one wants to watch the BBC and the rest of the government propaganda machine, and so the regime has resorted to mandating that Smart TVs and later social media promote them.
It is no coincidence that OFCOM and Muslim mass migration have a common origin in the Blair Government. Or that both have grown in conjoined proportion and that legislation like the Online Safety Act are being rapidly deployed to silence the revelation of Muslim sex grooming gangs and other consequences of the mass migration that is destroying the United Kingdom.
79 years ago, Winston Churchill warned that “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” The new iron curtain is descending in an entirely different direction, no longer dividing Western and Eastern Europe, the free and the unfree world, in that familiar direction, but in the new and unfamiliar direction in which London, Paris and Brussels are the ones cut off and falling into the blackest and bleakest darkness.
If Churchill were alive today, he would be the first to warn of an icon curtain descending along Brighton, London, and Newcastle, in whose shadow freedom is lost, where speech is silent and the political system exists to enable Islamofascists and to silence the few remaining patriots resisting them. The United Kingdom has chosen to use 1984 as an instruction manual.
America could be next.✪
▶️ THE PAST DEMANDS PRESENCE
THE PAST DEMANDS PRESENCE
www
s revelations emerge out of Washington, DC’s establishment regarding the recent and criminal history of our intelligence and investigative agencies, we are hearing pleas to ignore the truth of these events, as they are in the past and no longer relevant. Another pleading is: things are going so well… Do we need to know all this?
Some history needs an eternal presence in any democracy, such as the knowledge of the arrogance that doomed the glories of ancient Athens or the concentration of power in the single party of the Julio-Claudians, which ripped up the Roman Republic.
However, the greatest of all histories is our own, and no greater example is furnished than by our founder, George Washington, following his victory at Yorktown by land and sea over the world’s foremost army and navy: Washington could have made himself an American Caesar, but instead, he laid down his office and resigned from the army he led so successfully by handing his power to the Congress, the people’s representatives. Washington’s example was unexampled in the history of the world since the days of Cincinnatus.
America should lend an eternal ear to the words of our nation’s founder:
“The preservation of our liberties depends on the quality of our education. The lesson of history teaches us the necessity of preserving liberty and fostering virtue.”
The occasion of America’s Constitutional Convention is another of the most original histories in the world. Fifty-five representatives of 13 new states and their people convened in the summer of 1787 to determine how the people would rule their government. For the first time in history, a system of government was devised that was not based on one or a few people determining the fate of every subject in a common keystone of tyranny.
Rather, a system of elections was devised whereby the people determined by vote who would represent their interests, and the United States government would therefore be ruled by the general citizenry deciding who their senators, congressmen, and president were.
Furthermore, a Bill of Rights was added to protect the common citizens of a government founded in liberty and based on the freedom of the individual. Those rights include the freedom of assembly (and therefore association), the freedom of faith, the freedom of the press, and the rights of the accused…including the presumption of innocence.
George Washington provided our history with other unprecedented acts. While holding the office of President of the United States, he executed laws he did not personally agree with, but did so according to his oath as chief executor of the nation’s laws. And, in accordance with the Constitution, Washington did what history has proved time and again to be the most difficult thing for any human being or single political party to do: he voluntarily relinquished his power to his successor, John Adams.
Which brings us to our more modern history. If history had more of a presence in our schools, we might have been prescient of things to come when it was noticed by some that the IRS was targeting associations of the conservative Tea Party movement, or that the Little Sisters of the Poor were being targeted by the HHS for their faith, or that Sharyl Atkisson was being targeted by the FBI for writing articles they did not approve.
Given history, we citizens might have foreseen the gathering of tyranny and the following consequences…
On December 9, 2016, one man, then-president Barack Obama, gathered 28 people, his few adamant loyalists, to criminally subvert the Constitution by the concerted efforts of his intelligence and investigative agencies, with the aid of a propagandist media, in a coup attempt to overthrow the duly and constitutionally elected presidency of Donald Trump.
Obama orchestrated a circular firing squad around the new administration with intelligence and leaks being invented and generated by agencies, with false, propagandist news stories being made up by the media, with Democrat politicians calling for investigations and public hearings and with Republican politicians consenting to them, all to create so much pressure, the Trump presidency could not survive it. One or a few people attempted to overthrow a president to maintain one political party’s power—that is historical—it is the doorway to humanity’s common keep of tyranny.
That Trump survived this orchestrated, unprecedented coup attempt launched by Obama’s praetorian guard is in keeping with a uniquely American history: some virtuous Americans never surrender.
What needs to be learned, written, and taught about this episode is that it could only have occurred because the last 100 years have proved an unceasing history of the concentration of wealth and power in one city, Washington, D.C., and in one office, the presidency.
History has proven time and again: when so much power and wealth reside in one place, one party, and one person, the temptation to keep that power is unbearable. That is the precise reason for the creation of our Constitution, which deliberately diffused power.
Should we ignore this episode of our history and just move on? Listen to Washington’s duly elected successor, John Adams:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever our wishes… they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. History always teaches us the value of the truth.”
The presence of history’s truth in our common education is an invaluable present a wise citizenry gives itself, to avert the pain of tyranny’s common prison. ✪
▶️ DONATE VIA PAYPAL (DEBIT & CREDIT CARD)
ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security
▶️ DONATE VIA ZELLE (DIRECT BANK CASH TRANSFER)
ZELLE is the perfect online alternative to PayPal. It’s an incredibly simple, secure, easy, fast and FREE way to send or receive money to recipients directly from your online banking account without a middleman. Best of all, there’s NO fees.
ZELLE is a service provided by your bank and is already built in to your online banking account. You only need to activate it first before using. If you’ve already activated ZELLE in your online bank or credit union account, you can donate to The New Americanist by using our ZELLE address:
vip@thenewamericanist.com
To activate your ZELLE, follow these easy instructions (a simple two minute process):
▶️ DONATE VIA SNAIL MAIL
▶️ RSBN LIVESTREAM LINK: Trump Makes An Announcement
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
