Most Corrupt Series: Elizabeth Warren | Forgotten History

 Elizabeth Warren built her brand as a fearless reformer an anti corruption crusader against Wall Street excess and political insider trading. She presents herself as the champion of the middle class, a populist warrior who took on the big banks and won.

But behind that facade lies a complicated and often contradictory record. From questionable financial disclosures to deep ties with corporate donors and ethical conflicts involving her family’s finances, Warren’s record tells a different story one of a political insider masquerading as an outsider.

For a politician who has made transparency a rallying cry, Warren’s own financial disclosures have consistently raised eyebrows.

Her Senate financial filings show a net worth oscillating between $8 and $12 million, making her one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Much of that wealth comes not from salary, but from corporate consulting work prior to her Senate career and, later, book deals leveraged through political fame.

Between 2010 and 2020, Warren earned over $3.7 million in book royalties and advances, according to Senate records. She has publicly attacked politicians for similar post office cash ins, yet her publisher contracts matched the same mega deal structures used by the very elites she criticizes.

More troubling is her failure to disclose multiple speaking engagements and consulting fees from legal work during her time as a Harvard Law professor.

Many of those cases especially Dow Chemical v. Brown and Travelers Insurance v. Bailey involved major corporate interests she later condemned as a Senator.

Critics within oversight organizations like OpenSecrets and Judicial Watch have repeatedly noted a pattern: Warren’s rhetoric condemns the same sectors from which she quietly drew lucrative payments.

Elizabeth Warren’s political identity rests on opposition to Wall Street influence. Yet her 2020 presidential campaign received major contributions from firms connected to Goldman Sachs, Google, and Apple executives, often through bundled donations and super PAC channels.

The irony was unmistakable:

She publicly rejected Super PACs until Persist PAC quietly emerged, run by former campaign officials, funneling millions through opaque donor structures.

The PAC’s initial funding, over $14 million, came from just a handful of undisclosed contributors.

Despite denouncing corporate money, Warren’s campaign accepted major international law firm contributions, including firms representing pharmaceutical giants and credit card companies.

During Senate hearings, Warren grilled CEOs over conflicts of interest. But as her critics note, her own donor ecosystem mimicked the very structure she condemned a controlled opposition theater dressed as reform.

Before politics, Warren taught bankruptcy law at Harvard. Her annual salaries from the 1990s through 2010 frequently exceeded $350,000–$400,000, not counting additional consultant pay from legal filings and expert witness work.

Internal Harvard tax filings show she also had access to the school’s elite financial privileges, including subsidized mortgages and insider investment options.

At the same time, she criticized the rigged system that provides such benefits to the elite a system she directly benefited from.

Her fellow Harvard colleagues described her as a gifted academic who played the populist card when convenient. In political circles, that became the defining irony of her career, the professor who made millions railing against privilege, while living in the very epicenter of it.

In one of the most infamous personal scandals of modern politics, Warren claimed Native American ancestry throughout her academic career. Documents released by Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania revealed that she self-identified as Native American on personnel forms coinciding with her push for tenure.

When questioned, Warren cited family stories and later released a DNA test showing 1/1024 Native ancestry a revelation that backfired disastrously, with Cherokee Nation leaders condemning the act as deeply offensive and inappropriate.

This incident exposed a deeper issue: self-promotion at the expense of truth. Warren apologized, but the forgery of narrative trust had already eroded her credibility among many Americans.

Investigations into property holdings reveal that Warren and her husband, legal scholar Bruce Mann, bought and sold multiple high-value homes in Massachusetts and D.C., leveraging capital appreciation while championing real estate regulation.

A closer look at property records indicates transactions through trusts and LLCs, often used for tax minimization perfectly legal, but politically tone-deaf for someone decrying tax loopholes for the rich.

Moreover, Mann’s advisory roles in multiple nonprofit housing initiatives have overlapped with policies Warren publicly supported and funded through legislation, raising questions about shared financial benefit under the guise of altruism.

Throughout her tenure, Warren’s positions have exhibited strategic reversals. She endorsed free enterprise in early academic papers, later demonizing capitalism as predatory.

Once a Republican leaning technocrat, she reinvented herself as a social populist progressive, adjusting ideology to momentary political winds.

On several defense appropriations bills, Warren voted to fund military actions and arms transfers she publicly condemned at rallies.

This pattern underscores the central question of the investigation. Is Elizabeth Warren a reformer or merely a reform shaped brand built on contradiction?

Federal Election Commission records show that multiple complaints regarding Warren’s campaign in-kind contributions including improperly reported bundled donations were filed between 2019 and 2021.

Not one resulted in meaningful investigation. The FEC dismissed complaints on insufficient cause, highlighting once again the selective enforcement of political ethics when the establishment protects its own.

Such protectionism only reinforces why public trust in American institutions continues to collapse.

Elizabeth Warren embodies a paradox professing systemic reform while operating fluently within the very system she claims to oppose. Her journey from Harvard halls to Capitol hearings reads less like an outsider’s crusade and more like a calculated ascent through the corridors of controlled opposition.

Whether her legacy is that of a sincere reformer or a master of political theater, one truth remains: in American politics, anti corruption has become the most profitable brand of all.

Most Corrupt Series: Elizabeth Warren | Forgotten History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtDOHcb8wQg

Inside the Breach: The FBI’s Hidden Hand in January 6th

 While the corporate press framed January 6, 2021, as spontaneous insurrection, newly unearthed evidence including internal DOJ and Inspector General documents reveals a darker truth, that federal informants were not merely observing the chaos, but participating in it. These revelations suggest a managed crisis, not a grassroots riot, weaponized to politically neutralize dissidents and shape electoral outcomes.

According to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) review, the FBI had 26 confidential human sources (CHS) embedded in the crowd at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. This marks a stunning escalation in domestic infiltration mirroring infamous operations such as COINTELPRO, where infiltrators didn’t just gather intelligence, but provoked criminal acts to justify mass arrests.

Key points from the OIG findings:

26 FBI informants were physically present in the crowd.

Several crossed restricted lines, one entered the Capitol Building itself.

Some CHSs communicated with agents in real time as violence unfolded.

FBI agents later downplayed their informants’ roles, claiming these individuals acted independently.

The claim that these informants were passive observers collapses under scrutiny when one considers that trespassing, vandalism, and obstruction are all illegal acts none permissible even under monitoring assignments. If a normal citizen had followed their path, they’d face years in prison. Yet no informant appears to have been charged.

This incongruity leads to the obvious inference: they weren’t rogue informants. They were institutionally protected actors.

Capitol Police leadership had multiple advance warnings about possible unrest, including raw intelligence from DHS and FBI field offices. Internal memos show no actionable reinforcements were deployed. Multiple officers have testified that it seemed as though normal protocols were deliberately suspended.

Several barriers, normally designed to prevent unauthorized entry, were left unlocked or under-guarded. Footage confirms that many attendees, misled by these conditions, walked calmly into open doors hardly the portrait of a “violent coup” painted by cable news.

Perhaps the most insidious manipulation came not from rogue agents on the ground, but from mainstream media in the editing room.

BBC News broadcast a version of President Trump’s January 6 speech with crucial sentences cut out, notably his repeated calls for peaceful and patriotic protest.

The omitted section: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

In the BBC version, the edit made it appear that Trump called on the crowd to fight without the peace qualifier a classic psychological operation through selective omission.

The BBC later claimed it edited for brevity, but analysis of timecodes shows a nonlinear splice that changed context entirely.

Even worse, several major U.S. outlets, including reprints by NPR, The Guardian, and CNN, used the same truncated version within hours suggesting coordinated narrative alignment, not journalistic error.

Perhaps the most grossly manipulative element came a year later, when Vice President Kamala Harris compared January 6 to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, equating trespassing selfies with mass death and foreign attack. It wasn’t an offhand analogy it was a deliberate operation to saturate the population with trauma symbolism, transforming dissenters into domestic terrorists in public imagination.

This rhetorical inflation allowed new surveillance programs expanded DHS monitoring, social media tracking, and financial watch listing to be implemented under the banner of counter terrorism. It was a psychological continuation of the “Patriot Act” era this time, turned inward.

While networks ran loops of chaos, the real-time record of Trump’s commentary on January 6 tells a different story:

At 2:38 PM, Trump tweeted: Stay peaceful. No violence.

At 3:13 PM, he emphasized: We are the party of law and order. Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.

At 4:17 PM, he released a video urging immediate dispersal and reiterating that protest must remain peaceful.

Facebook and Twitter suppressed or flagged these posts, preventing most Americans from seeing his calls for calm. Later, these same statements were retroactively cited as evidence of too little, too late engagement despite clear timestamps showing the opposite.

Multiple eyewitness accounts suggest that certain individuals in tactical gear seen breaking windows and urging others inside were never arrested or identified. Video analysis by independent researchers maps these actors to known informants later cited in sealed filings.

If law enforcement assets initiated entry breaches or directed crowd flow, the entire factual basis for insurrection charges disintegrates. That’s not conspiracy theory it’s entrapment.

Despite this emerging evidence, not a single mainstream outlet has issued corrections or called out the BBC for its deceptive splice. Industry watchdogs and journalistic associations remain silent proof of how deeply career incentives now depend on narrative loyalty over factual fidelity.

Modern media isn’t bound by truth; it’s bound by agenda. The state manufactures the crisis, the press sanitizes it, and both feed the illusion of legitimacy to the public.

January 6 looks less like a spontaneous storming of the Capitol and more like a managed provocation deployed for maximum political advantage. The heavy federal infiltration, the media’s synchronized distortion, and the disgraceful comparison to catastrophic national traumas all point to a coordinated strategy not of defense, but of domination.

History shows that false crises are often engineered to consolidate power. Whether Pearl Harbor intelligence, Operation Northwoods, or COINTELPRO, the formula never changes:

manufacture chaos, frame dissent, expand control.

Until every agency’s internal communications, every informant report, and every media editing log from January 6 are made public, the “official story” remains just that a story.

The truth is there, buried beneath classification stamps and nondisclosure memos and like all buried truth, it will surface because deceit, unlike justice, cannot withstand time.

The FBI's Role in January 6th: Were Sources Behind the Chaos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUgrc1ooZJ8

The Architect of Obstruction: Mitch McConnell and the Machinery of Power

The Architect of Obstruction: Mitch McConnell and the Machinery of Power

Few figures in modern American politics have amassed influence as enduring or as divisive as Mitch McConnell. From his modest beginnings in Louisville politics to his historic tenure as Senate Majority Leader, McConnell carved out not merely a career, but a system an invisible architecture of loyalty, financial patronage, and procedural dominance.

Where others sought charisma, McConnell chose control. Where others chased headlines, he mastered the rules. In Washington’s shadow government of committee chairs, PACs, and judicial appointments, his was the invisible hand that tilted history.

But this mastery came with a price. Buried beneath McConnell’s triumphs lies a record of strategic obstruction, conflicts of interest, and ethical ambiguities that define not just a man but an era.

Mitch McConnell began his ascent in the 1970s, first as Jefferson County Judge Executive and later as a Senator from Kentucky in 1984. His early playbook was simple: alliances with donors over ideology, incremental power over public visibility.

Even in his early campaigns, McConnell refused to anchor himself to specific policy convictions. Instead, he built a network of business leaders and local power-brokers in the Kentucky energy, banking, and tobacco industries. His fundraising operation quickly became one of the most sophisticated in the South.

That neutrality wasn’t cowardice it was calculation. McConnell didn’t fight the political weather; he learned to control the climate.

Central to McConnell’s empire is money not just as a political fuel, but as a governing philosophy.

The PAC Pyramid

Through entities like the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF) and Kentuckians for Strong Leadership, McConnell built one of the most powerful dark-money networks in modern politics.

The SLF alone raised over $475 million between 2010 and 2024, much of it from anonymous corporate donors funneled through U.S. Chamber of Commerce affiliates and shell entities.

Corporate Symbiosis

Behind McConnell’s political machine sit energy conglomerates, defense contractors, and banking lobbyists the same sectors insulated from regulation via Senate gridlock.

In exchange, McConnell blocks reforms from clean energy subsidies to anti-monopoly enforcement. While the public sees legislative paralysis, insiders see something else: protection money well spent.

Judicial Leverage

Perhaps McConnell’s most enduring legacy came in 2016, when he refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, solidifying the idea that Senate procedure can supersede electoral will.

That single move realigned the judiciary for a generation and won McConnell unprecedented loyalty from corporate and ideological sponsors seeking favorable courts.

The story of McConnell’s wealth and controversy cannot be told without Elaine Chao, his wife and former Transportation Secretary under both Bush and Trump admins.

The Chao family, through the Foremost Group, maintains expansive international shipping operations headquartered in New York, with frequent docking and shipbuilding activity in China’s state linked ports.

Multiple reports have flagged potential conflicts of interest arising from these ties, raising questions over whether McConnell and Chao’s political decisions indirectly benefited their family’s business empire.

Documents from her tenure at the Department of Transportation show that agency initiatives were promoted in Kentucky while other states’ projects languished an apparent effort to funnel grants toward McConnell’s home base in coordination with major campaign contributors.

Federal watchdogs opened inquiries in 2020, which were abruptly closed without charges a decision critics called institutional protectionism typical of Washington’s mutual immunity pact.

In Kentucky, McConnell constructed his mini empire through federal earmarks, development funds, and subsidized projects that coincidentally traced to donor networks.

Infrastructure projects in Louisville and Paducah have repeatedly benefited companies whose executives rank among his top campaign contributors.

The Bluegrass Pipeline project, opposed by local residents, received quiet federal support after McConnell negotiations.

State-level journalists uncovered that contractors tied to Chao’s transportation networks also gained access to lucrative logistics contracts in the region.

It’s not old-fashioned bribery it’s legalized favoritism dressed in bureaucratic order. McConnell doesn’t need to bend the law when he is the lawmaker.

McConnell’s philosophy of governance is simple: power is not about passing laws it’s about preventing them.

He engineered the longest government shutdowns in U.S. history to stall budget negotiations favorable to Democrats.

He blocked more legislation than any Senate leader in history, including bipartisan election integrity bills and foreign lobbying transparency measures.

He expanded the filibuster’s reach, weaponizing procedural technicalities as political shields.

To his critics, obstruction was treason against democracy. To his defenders, it was discipline proof that the system rewards those who understand it, not those who moralize against it.

Either way, McConnell turned gridlock into a governing strategy, perfecting stasis as a tool of preservation for corporate and partisan interests alike.

Strikingly, McConnell’s power is rooted not in rabid populism but in elite continuity. His relationships with major think tanks the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, and the U.S. Chamber mirror a bureaucratic monarchy cloaked in the flag of conservatism.

He’s anti populist at his core preferring predictability to passion, donor loyalty to ideological risk. Even under Trump’s rise, McConnell hedged both sides, supporting judicial confirmations while subtly insulating the establishment from populist infiltration.

McConnell didn’t resist the populist wave; he domesticated it.

By 2024, as younger Senate voices called for transparency and anti corruption reforms, McConnell’s influence began to appear less like leadership and more like an infection baked into the bones of American governance an operating system no election could uninstall.

McConnell’s longevity is not a glitch it’s the system working as intended. Ethics rules are toothless, FEC oversight is gridlocked, and Senate transparency laws rely on self-reporting.

His career exemplifies a painful truth. America’s corruption doesn’t wear the face of chaos it wears the face of procedure, order, and decorum.

When rules become the weapon, the appearance of civility becomes indistinguishable from the machinery of control.

Mitch McConnell transformed the U.S. Senate from a legislative chamber into a fortress of elite continuity. He is not a demagogue but a technocrat of power, a man who proved that corruption need not scream it only needs to whisper, before the gavel falls.

His story isn’t about scandal in the traditional sense. It’s about a deeper rot the normalization of governing for special interests under the banner of order.

The Mitch McConnell era teaches one enduring lesson:

when corruption is organized, it doesn’t look like disorder it looks like Washington.

Most Corrupt Series: Mitch McConnell | Bought and Paid For

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNCRQrdihqo

Fired Washington Post Reporters Protest Outside Paper’s Offices Like a Mob of College Social Justice Warriors

 Washington Post faced significant layoffs, cutting one-third of its workforce, including many journalists from its climate reporting team. This has sparked protests from the laid-off staff, reflecting deeper issues within the journalism industry.

• Layoffs at the Washington Post: The Washington Post laid off around 300 employees, which is about 30% of its staff. The decision was aimed at addressing financial losses the company was experiencing, reportedly losing hundreds of millions per year.

• Protests by Laid-off Employees: Instead of focusing on job searches, many of the laid-off reporters protested outside the newspaper's offices. A chant led by one protester emphasized their former role, saying, “Who makes the Post? We do.”

• Impact on Climate Reporting: The layoffs included 14 out of 19 climate change reporters. The Washington Post was recognized for its extensive climate journalism and previously won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage on climate issues. The reduction raises questions about the newspaper's journalistic priorities.

• Cultural Reflection: The protests were likened to actions from college campuses, indicating a view among the laid-off staff that political activism is an appropriate response to their situation rather than taking individual accountability for their job loss.

The Washington Post's layoffs and the subsequent protests reveal challenges within the media industry, such as the sustainability of their business models and the cultural attitudes of some of its staff. The heavy cutbacks reflect broader trends towards financial strain in traditional news outlets and the shifting dynamics of journalistic priorities.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/fired-washington-post-reporters-protest-outside-papers-offices/

Ilhan Omar’s Winery EXPOSED As FAKE Shell For Alleged Money Laundering

 An investigation into ESTCRU winery, co-owned by Ilhan Omar’s husband, Timothy Mynett, suggests the business may not be legitimate and raises questions about potential fraud linked to Omar's financial situation.

• Journalistic Findings: Angela Rose visited the winery's listed address in Santa Rosa, California, and found it has significant discrepancies, suggesting it operates as a shell company.

• Lack of Business License: There is no valid business license for ESTCRU at this address, which is home to over 40 other licensed wineries. The property owner confirmed that Omar's winery is not located there.

• Financial Surge: The winery reportedly generated $15,000 in 2024, which skyrocketed to $5 million in 2025, despite producing no wine.

• Increased Scrutiny: Omar’s financial disclosure shows a drastic increase in assets, from $40,000 to between $6 million and $30 million. Most of this wealth is reportedly linked to the winery and a venture capital firm.

• Federal Investigation: The Justice Department began probing Omar's finances and campaign spending in June 2024. Although the investigation faced setbacks, renewed efforts have emerged to investigate potential improprieties.

• Political Context: Former President Trump has commented on Omar's wealth increase and the ongoing investigation, connecting it to broader fraud inquiries in Minnesota.

• Recent Controversy: Omar was recently accused of staging an incident to draw attention away from the investigations into her wealth.

The findings of Angela Rose cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of Ilhan Omar's winery and contribute to the growing scrutiny of her financial activities amid allegations of fraud. 

https://modernity.news/2026/02/05/ilhan-omars-winery-exposed-as-fake-shell-for-alleged-money-laundering/

Senate Bill Would Ensure Data Centers Do Not Pass Energy Costs Onto Consumers

 Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is advocating for a new bill that requires data centers to generate their own power on-site. This initiative aims to tackle the rising electricity costs associated with the increasing demand from these facilities.

• Data centers consume high amounts of electricity, often exceeding the capacity of local grids, leading to increased prices for consumers.

• The proposed legislation mandates that new data centers must have "behind-the-meter" power generation, reducing reliance on the grid.

• This shift is intended to prevent the costs of electricity spikes from affecting household bills.

• Alternatives such as "front-of-the-meter" arrangements are also suggested, where data centers would still contribute to the grid while managing their energy needs more cost-effectively.

• The bill’s specifics may adapt as it progresses through the legislative process.

The bill highlights the importance of managing energy consumption by data centers to protect consumers from increased electric rates. There are various methods to implement this, with the proposed approach focusing on on-site energy generation. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/senate-bill-would-ensure-data-centers-do-not-pass-energy-costs-consumers

The Leftist Bureaucracy Is Intended To Sap America’s Can-Do Spirit

 Leftist policies and risk aversion in government are undermining America's innovative spirit and effectiveness. It argues that the current bureaucratic attitude is leading to inefficiencies and a culture of dependency rather than self-governance and courage.

• Risk-Taking vs. Risk Aversion: Historically, America's progress has stemmed from a willingness to take risks and accept responsibility, contributing significantly to its global power status. However, leftist ideologies are promoting a culture of hesitancy and helplessness.

• Crisis in Governance: There's a growing sentiment among citizens that they cannot govern themselves, resulting in a retreat to bureaucratic safety nets that further discourage innovation and responsibility.

• Examples of Inefficiency: The article highlights several costly government projects that exemplify this risk-averse culture:

• NASA's Artemis Program: After spending $93 billion and facing delays, the project is still not operational, showing a preference for old designs over innovative approaches.

• New York’s East Side Access: This project ballooned to $11 billion and is much delayed, representing a failure in fiscal planning and execution.

• Boston's Big Dig: Originally estimated at $4 billion, it ended up over $22 billion and faced significant structural issues.

• Ford-Class Aircraft Carriers: Ongoing delays and cost overruns illustrate the consequences of poor project management and outdated technologies.

• FAA Modernization: Years behind schedule and over budget, it reflects the mismanagement in federal projects and systems.

• Cultural Shift: The article suggests a cultural shift towards accepting incompetence, weakening individualism, and fostering dependency on a "nanny state. "

The author warns that if leftist policies continue to dominate, they may lead to a societal collapse where individualism is sacrificed for collective governance. The message urges conservatives to resist these pressures to maintain America’s innovative foundation and encourage a spirit of personal responsibility.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/the_leftist_bureaucracy_is_intended_to_sap_america_s_can_do_spirit.html