Category: Political Scope

@brentmoneytx

🎥 ICYMI: Congress recently held a hearing on concerns surrounding the influence of Sharia in the United States. Thank you to Mr. Spencer for clearly outlining the threat we face. I encourage you to take a moment to listen and understand why this issue deserves your attention. I’m proud to be a founding member of the Sharia-Free Texas Caucus in the Texas state legislature. We are committed to confronting these concerns head-on, defending our values, and taking decisive action, because we will not back down. #txlege #conservativesoftiktok #texaspolitics #sharia

♬ original sound – Brent Money

It could be stamped the First Lawfare ever, because it was, and it worked until the 2020 elections. But do your own research and find it yourself again. I did that since I couldn’t believe we allowed it.

MJTruthUltra On X

Rep. Harriet Hageman said something so absolutely insane I had to check it out.. and it’s true! She said since the mid 80’s, a Democrat-appointed Federal NJ judge entered consent decree that BANNED Republicans from serving as poll watchers.. so from the mid-80’s to 2020, republicans were not allowed to be poll watchers on national elections After the judge died, the order had to be renewed by democrats every 5-8 years until it was overturned by an Obama appointed Judge because it was so unconstitutional and illegal. She calls it one of the “most corrupt scams in American history” and notes that 2020 was the first election where Republicans could fully participate in that role.

🚨 Rep. Harriet Hageman said something so absolutely insane I had to check it out.. and it’s true!

She said since the mid 80’s, a Democrat-appointed Federal NJ judge entered consent decree that BANNED Republicans from serving as poll watchers.. so from the mid-80’s to 2020,… https://t.co/w1XIJnQjpo pic.twitter.com/nwu5gI5wIA

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) April 1, 2026

Let’s be clear: what exactly is this “list” everyone is talking about? It appears to be a compilation of recognizable names, some of whom may or may not be pedophiles. Jeffrey Epstein, as many are aware, was not only a pedophile and an enabler of others but also a prolific financier involved in various schemes. Consequently, the list could easily include a diverse group of individuals. Even if a name appears on this list, perhaps with a financial figure attached, the state would still be obligated to prove involvement in any illicit activities connected to Epstein.

Instead, the crucial evidence lies within THE VIDEOS. It has been widely reported that Epstein’s island residence was equipped with cameras in all rooms and areas. Moreover, it’s also public knowledge that the property was raided and evidence was seized. These videos, therefore, are the direct proof required to prosecute those involved in pedophilia, regardless of their identity.

Given this, why is there no widespread demand for these crucial videos? Instead, the public’s attention seems to be consumed by narratives promoted by the press, while we overlook the media’s historical behavior. Their agenda is clear: to divide, exploit, subvert, and undermine. Regrettably, we are assisting them in discrediting the current administration’s efforts. Pam Bondi’s error has seemingly overshadowed everything else; it’s startling to observe that some who previously supported this government are suddenly acting as if they’re advocating for Kamala Harris.

We should be demanding the VIDEOS! Where are they? The only piece of “evidence” we’ve seen from that collection is a photograph of Clinton in a red dress. The culpability of these alleged pedophiles rests in the irrefutable, graphic proof that their legal teams would be unable to dispute.

This particular video grabs exactly what I’ve been thinking for a while, some actions reek of extremism and are political suicide; stupidity at the least, which probably isn’t.

The narrative on the usual suspects’ broadcast surely is and will continue to exploit the human tragedy aspects of a situation like this. They omit, of course, any additional detail that could have weighed on the decision; there was not a mention of the reason she had a deportation order, or (and here I lack a legal input) why she never applied for admission under the Cuban Adjustment Act in five years. Did the husband ever claim her as it was his right to do?. All in all, something could have been considered for the child’s well-being.

Surely, there will be some who would argue she didn’t need to leave her child behind, those usually will be the ones who believe Cuba is a paradise of liberty of expression and ignore that she will have to depend completely on her husband, providing from the US in a moment the possibility of doing that is being considered to be halted by the government since the cuban regime is a declared enemy of the USA and classified as a terrorist state. At the same time, we have seen the hypocrisy of many raising hell in favor of keeping in our land gang members from Venezuela, Honduras, and El Salvador. Not a word about a little girl being stranded from her mother.