The Left Wants Anti-ICE Activists Monitoring Your Next Election

A left-wing donor network, affiliated with the Tides Foundation, is planning to train volunteers who monitor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to act as election monitors in the upcoming 2026 midterms. This initiative is part of a broader $450,000 training budget aimed at enhancing election monitoring strategies.

The Movement Voter Fund (MVF) is behind the plan, explicitly including training ICE-watch volunteers as election monitors in its fundraising materials.

Minneapolis and North Carolina are identified as regions where this transition is already in progress.

The training will also cover other poll monitors and election observers.

MVF aims to engage youth and immigrant voters through various organizing efforts and media campaigns.

Three training partners are named: Freedom Trainers, the Horizons Project, and States at the Core, each associated with nonprofit sponsors.

Training content will emphasize nonviolent resistance techniques like boycotts and strikes, derived from global movements.

The People’s Election Playbook outlines a strategic approach to mobilizing voters, including voter outreach, registration checks, and direct action if results are contested.

The plan to train ICE-watch volunteers raises concerns about potential voter intimidation and interference during elections, as critics warn about the implications of having politically active observers at polling places. 

https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/the-left-wants-anti-ice-activists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3382126&post_id=216171349&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6dl2nb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Inside the Left’s Plan to Turn Your Church Into an Anti-Trump Political Machine

 The activities of Faithful America, a progressive Christian group that, with funding from the Indivisible organization, is actively working to change church practices and engage congregations in political activism against conservative viewpoints.

1. Organizing Efforts:

Faithful America is leading a church-organizing tour aiming to encourage pastors to remove American flags from their sanctuaries and replace traditional prayers.

The organization promotes campaigns supporting the abolition of ICE and the Transgender Bill of Rights, providing resources and guidelines for pastors.

2. Political Goals:

The group aims to “target and dismantle” foundational aspects of the Trump administration, advocating for political actions intertwined with faith.

Through its “Preacher’s Toolkit,” Faithful America suggests specific actions such as removing American symbols from worship settings to combat Christian nationalism.

3. Community Engagement:

Faithful America encourages church members to participate in local political activities by attending school board meetings and lobbying.

It advocates for nonpartisan voter registration and provides resources for church involvement in social justice movements.

4. Pressure Tactics:

The organization employs campaigns to exert pressure on conservative figures and entities. This includes petitions against conservative politicians and private organizations, which they label as promoting discriminatory practices or ideologies.

Its members have successfully campaigned for the removal of individuals like James Altman due to controversial statements and for influencing organizational policies, as seen with World Vision.

5. Funding and Support:

Indivisible, a prominent anti-Trump organization backed by significant liberal funding, is financing Faithful America’s tour.

The collaboration with Indivisible raises questions about transparency regarding how funds are sourced and allocated for their joint initiatives.

6. Combine Faith and Politics:

The group’s strategy involves blending religious beliefs with specific political objectives, suggesting that political advocacy is a moral duty for Christians. Their initiatives include supporting inclusive practices and addressing issues like racial injustice and LGBTQ+ rights from a religious perspective.

Faithful America, supported by Indivisible, is transforming how churches engage in political discourse by promoting progressive causes and advocating for the removal of political symbols associated with conservatism in worship settings. Their activities highlight a concerted effort to influence religious communities to participate actively in political campaigns and social justice efforts, advocating for a shift away from traditional conservative values within churches.

https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/revealed-inside-the-lefts-plan-to?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3382126&post_id=216373394&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6dl2nb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Getting Conservative Fiction Published Is Mission Impossible

Armando Simón discusses the difficulties conservative writers face in getting their fictional works published. He shares personal experiences and observations about the current publishing landscape, which he believes is increasingly hostile to conservative values.

Cultural Shift Against Conservative Values: Simón argues that the moral foundation of society is being weakened by cultural forces rather than just political ones. He cites Taki, who claims that "bad guys are winning" in the cultural battleground.

Rejection from Publishers: Simón reflects on his and others’ struggles to publish conservative fiction. He mentions that publishers, especially those aligned with conservative ideals, often focus exclusively on nonfiction, limiting avenues for fictional works.

Self-Publishing Difficulties: While self-publishing is an alternative, Simón expresses disappointment that self-published books struggle for visibility amidst a vast sea of other self-published titles, particularly on platforms like Amazon.

Examples of Censorship: He provides various examples of how conservative views face censorship. For instance, the American Booksellers Association’s reaction to Abigail Shrier's critical book on transgender issues highlights the consequences of expressing dissenting opinions. Moreover, he mentions that publishers sometimes change the content of existing works to align with "woke" ideologies without authors' consent.

Historical Context of Censorship: Simón notes a trend where books that do not conform to current social beliefs are being altered or removed, referencing cases involving well-known authors like Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl.

Political Influence on Publishing: The article discusses how the publishing industry often responds to political pressure, resulting in the cancellation of books or authors that don’t align with popular liberal viewpoints. For example, publications hesitated to publish works by public figures like Scott Adams and Josh Hawley due to controversy and backlash.

Call for Conservative Fiction: Simón wishes for more support for conservative fiction, arguing that storytelling can be more influential than nonfiction when it comes to societal values. He criticizes the current trend where often low-quality writing gets published while valuable conservative works are ignored.

Impact of Censorship on Authors: The climate of fear and self-censorship within the literary community is a major concern for Simón. He believes that this culture not only harms free speech but also discourages creativity among conservative writers.

Simón's article highlights a troubling trend in the publishing world where conservative fiction is systematically sidelined. He calls for a renaissance of support for quality storytelling that reflects a range of values and perspectives, stressing that the current landscape inhibits meaningful discourse and creative expression. The piece serves as both a personal testament and a broader commentary on the state of literature and free speech today. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/09/21/getting-conservative-fiction-published-is-mission-impossible/

We Could, We Should, We Must

The reflects on their experience considering a move from New York City to Florida or Texas during 2021, during which they discovered a company named Oxitec that breeds genetically modified mosquitoes. This led to a broader contemplation of the implications of genetic engineering in the context of public health and ethical debates surrounding such technologies.

1. Personal Background and Migration Thoughts: In 2021, amid chaos in NYC, the author explored moving to Florida or Texas, states associated with freedom and low restrictions during the pandemic.

2. Discovery of Oxitec: In their research, the author learned about Oxitec, which had been approved by the EPA for the experimental release of genetically modified mosquitoes.

3. Moral Concerns: The author felt uncomfortable thinking that the places they wanted to escape to were testing grounds for GMO insects, questioning whether these states were actually traps set by larger entities.

4. Research on Alpha-Gal Syndrome: Recent studies have suggested genetically engineering ticks to spread a condition that causes an allergic reaction to red meat, framed as a moral enhancement. The authors of a paper published in the journal Bioethics argued that causing people to develop meat allergies is “morally obligatory."

5. Historical Context: The paper's arguments echoed ideas from previous years, notably from bioethicist S. Matthew Liao, who proposed similar concepts in 2016. This led to questions about possible covert efforts to push such agendas.

6. Tick Weaponization History: The piece delves into historical precedents, including efforts during the Cold War to weaponize ticks and diseases linked to ticks, drawing attention to the ongoing research and debate about health issues related to ticks.

7. Present-Day Implications: The author discusses the ongoing rise of alpha-gal syndrome in the United States, mirrored by increasing awareness and incidents of the condition. Cases of severe allergic reactions and potential fatalities highlight the alarming reality of such syndromes.

8. Genetic Engineering of Mosquitoes: The author reflects on the capability to release genetically engineered mosquitoes, discussing funding from foundations and technologies involved, such as gene drives, which could change ecosystems irrevocably.

9. Misinterpretations and Connections: There was a false assumption that Oxitec's mosquitoes could be linked to rising malaria cases; however, the disease is carried by a different mosquito species. Despite inaccuracies, the author asserts the need for scrutiny over massive public health interventions involving genetically altered organisms.

10. Societal Responses and Explanations: Media narratives often focus on climate change and wildlife populations as explanations for disease spikes, omitting discussions about the roles of genetic engineering or historical precedents.

11. Questions About Intentional Action: The author concludes by questioning whether any actions are being taken based on emerging bioethical considerations surrounding genetically engineered ticks and mosquitoes, raising alarms about the possible ramifications.

The exploration raises critical ethical inquiries about the intentions and implementation of genetic engineering technologies, especially concerning their influence on public health. The author connects historical endeavors with contemporary developments, fostering a discussion about the responsibilities of researchers, governments, and institutions in deploying such technologies without public consent or awareness. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/we-could-we-should-we-must/

Does the Press Understand the First Amendment?

The recent controversy surrounding President Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House and highlights the confusion among these media outlets regarding their First Amendment rights.

1. The Ban: President Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from accessing the White House. The ban received significant media attention, with the affected outlets claiming their First Amendment rights were being violated.

2. First Amendment Misunderstanding: The First Amendment ensures freedom of speech and press but does not guarantee specific access to government premises like the White House. The article argues that the media outlets misconstrue this right.

3. Media Responses: Each banned outlet issued statements emphasizing their commitment to defend their First Amendment rights. For example, CNN called the ban an “illegal assault” on their reporting rights while MS NOW expressed intent to take necessary steps for their defense.

4. Political Reactions: Some politicians, like Rep. Daniel Goldman, called for a media boycott of the White House to show solidarity against Trump’s actions, framing the ban as a broader attack on press freedom.

5. Irony Called Out: Former press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pointed out the irony in the complaints, highlighting that the journalists were still able to ask questions directly to the President, which itself reflects a level of access indicative of a free press.

6. Comparison with Previous Administrations: The article notes that former President Obama engaged in actions that restricted press freedom, such as controlling media access and rejecting numerous FOIA requests. This is contrasted with Trump’s situation to highlight perceived hypocrisy in current media outcry.

7. Press Credential Changes: It mentions how the Trump administration changed press credentialing rules in a way that was seen to target independent journalists, while previous administrations had established practices that favored certain outlets.

8. Public Response: The article stresses that the general public appears indifferent to this specific controversy, as polls indicate low trust in media overall.

The article concludes that the claims made by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico regarding First Amendment violations are flawed. It asserts that while the First Amendment protects the press, it does not mandate access to the White House, and the public's perception of these events shows diminishing interest in traditional media outlets. 

https://spectator.org/does-the-press-understand-the-first-amendment/

Data Analysis Proves Radical Communists Aren't the Fringe: Majority of Dems Are DSA

A recent Quinnipiac University poll indicates that a significant number of Democrats support the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The survey sheds light on the DSA's influence within the Democratic party and electoral implications for candidates associated with the group.

Democratic Support: 59% of Democrats identify as DSA supporters, while 30% do not. Among all voters, only 26% support the DSA.

Candidate Impact: 17% of respondents would be more likely to support a DSA-identifying candidate, while 43% would be less likely, and 35% see no difference.

Recent Elections: Several DSA candidates, like Darializa Avila Chevalier and Melat Kiros, have won primaries against incumbent Democrats.

Demographics: DSA supporters generally have high education levels but belong to lower- to middle-income brackets.

Platform and Criticism: The DSA launched a new platform called “Workers Deserve More,” proposing significant changes including drafting a new constitution, attracting criticism from Republicans.

The Quinnipiac poll highlights the DSA's growing influence within the Democratic party while also emphasizing the challenges DSA candidates face in elections, particularly from those opposing their socialist platform. 

https://www.westernjournal.com/data-analysis-proves-radical-communists-arent-fringe-majority-dems-dsa/

DOJ Charges 16 in Nationwide Sweep Over Alleged Illegal Voting and Voter Registration

 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced charges against 16 individuals for illegal voting and voter registration across the country. These actions highlight concerns regarding election integrity and unlawful practices.

Nature of Charges: The individuals are charged with crimes including voting as non-citizens, making false citizenship claims to register or vote, and committing related offenses like fraud related to naturalization and firearms.

Northern District of Texas: Eight individuals, including both illegal aliens and lawful permanent residents, faced various charges, such as voting illegally and making false statements about citizenship. For example, Moises Anwar Arellano-Alba, an illegal alien from Mexico, has been charged for voting in federal elections.

Western District of Texas: Monica Carzoli, a lawful permanent resident, admitted to registering and voting illegally in the November 2024 election.

District of Idaho: Avila Gomez, an illegal alien, allegedly voted in multiple elections under false pretenses and committed various fraud-related activities.

Northern District of Georgia: Three individuals, including one who voted multiple times, are stated to have illegally participated in U.S. elections.

District of Massachusetts and others: Other defendants from different states face similar charges related to illegal voting and voter registration, often involving claims of American citizenship when not eligible.

Legal Implications: Each of the charges carries various penalties, including potentially five years in prison for illegal voting and registration offenses. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This nationwide effort demonstrates the DOJ's commitment to addressing illegal voting and ensuring the integrity of U.S. elections. The charges against these individuals underline the critical importance of lawful participation in the electoral process. As investigations continue, it raises awareness about the significance of voter eligibility and the impacts of election fraud.

https://townhall.com/news/scott-mcclallen/2026/09/20/doj-charges-16-in-nationwide-sweep-over-alleged-illegal-voting-and-voter-registration-n2683270