Both ‘Camps’ in the Right-Left Paradigm Play Into the Hands of Internationalists
Iran is knocking on the door: FBI Director Kash Patel makes a false statement to Fox News about Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in certain places.
I have been writing for at least three years that the globalists are in their final stages of bringing down America once and for all, and that their plan involves America becoming embroiled in a world war and a civil war simultaneously, writes Leo Hohman .
Add to that the possible collapse of the US dollar, and we can all say goodbye to the Republic.
What will shock many Americans is that Donald Trump will be the final pusher of the globalists’ plan. Biden was the instigator, opening the borders and ignoring laws, but Trump is the final pusher, acting tough in a way that exacerbates already palpable divisions and is prepared to respond to violence with even more violence. This will surprise many Americans, because Trump has profiled himself as an anti-globalist, and almost no one expected him to support the globalists on key issues like gun control and expanding federal power.
Washington attorney and activist Robert Barnes said earlier this month in an interview with The Duran that Attorney General Pam Bondi has close ties to the globalist deep state and is its strongest ally in the Trump administration. He said it was Bondi who persuaded Trump not to release the Epstein files and that Bondi is also not a supporter of the Second Amendment, as she was a strong proponent of anti-gun (“red flag”) laws as Florida’s attorney general.
Trump himself has never been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, so he doesn’t need much persuasion from Bondi to attack it in the wake of the Minnesota incidents. Just watch the rhetoric and you’ll see where this is going.
And it’s not just Bondi who’s after our guns. FBI Director Kash Patel said last weekend in an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo that anyone who comes to a protest anywhere in America with a weapon, as Alex Pretti did in Minneapolis, will be arrested.
Patel said:
You are not allowed to bring a loaded firearm with multiple magazines to a protest. It’s that simple. You do not have the right to break the law and incite violence. ( Pretti was carrying his weapon legally and responsibly in a public space, and he never even removed it from his holster .)
In the above statement, Patel demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the Constitution and state and federal law. That, or he does know the law but is outright lying to promote an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment narrative. I believe the latter is the case.
Under the Second Amendment and Minnesota Statute 624.714, permit holders may legally carry firearms in public, including during protests. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that carrying firearms in public is a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm is not legally considered an “incitement to violence.”
Patel’s statement was a shocking indication of how far we’ve already gone in neutralizing the Second Amendment. When a high-ranking federal official like the director of the FBI claims that perfectly legal behavior long practiced by Americans is suddenly illegal in the eyes of America’s largest federal law enforcement agency, it’s a lawless act of aggression against the Constitution.
Judging by the number of emotionally charged discussions we see on social media, it’s clear that both the left and the right are ready for a fight.
But who benefits from a collapse at home and war around the world, with Trump acting as a catalyst for both?
Both sides of the sharply defined left-right divide continue to escalate the situation in Minnesota.
Right now, the only thing holding up the protests is the weather. It’s bitterly cold in much of the country.
The situation is likely to escalate in the spring, potentially leading Trump to declare the Insurrection Act and martial law.
In that scenario, we all lose our rights as Americans under the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
Trump’s team is already claiming that Americans don’t have the right to go armed to a protest, which violates the Second Amendment.
Protests are inherently dangerous and perhaps the kind of place you don’t want to go unarmed.
But once our right to assemble freely and to keep and “bear” arms (bearing means you can have a weapon on your person in public spaces) is gone, it won’t come back.
This is happening exactly according to the Illuminati’s playbook: “Out of chaos comes order.” And the new order will be much more authoritarian and completely different from what we are used to in America.
The result will be unchecked state power, centralized in a single office, operating with complete immunity and without accountability.
In a January 21 article, The Guardian even reported that a left-leaning think tank conducted a tabletop exercise last year simulating the run-up to a second civil war in America.
It looked eerily similar to what we’re seeing happening in Minnesota now.
The Guardian reports:
“The developments in Minnesota closely resemble a scenario explored in a 2024 exercise conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law.”
Below is an excerpt from the article:
🔶️ Governor Walz has deployed the Minnesota National Guard to support local law enforcement, while Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act—an extraordinary measure that would grant him sweeping domestic military powers and potentially circumvent recent Supreme Court restrictions on the use of federal troops in law enforcement. An additional 1,000 ICE agents have been deployed to Minnesota, suggesting that Trump is essentially using ICE as a specialized paramilitary force to crack down on protesters and suppress dissent. And the Pentagon has deployed the Army’s 11th Airborne Division—about 1,500 active-duty soldiers—to enforce the president’s threat.
🔶️ This scenario bears a strong resemblance to one explored in a tabletop exercise by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) in October 2024. In that exercise, a president conducted a highly unpopular law enforcement operation in Philadelphia and attempted to federalize the Pennsylvania National Guard. When the governor resisted and the Guard remained loyal to the state, the president deployed active-duty troops, resulting in an armed conflict between state and federal forces. The most significant danger we identified is now materializing: a violent confrontation between state and federal forces in a major U.S. city.
🔶️ Although a different city and a slightly different sequence of events were chosen for the hypothetical scenario, the conclusions we drew about the possibility of green-on-green violence are directly applicable to the current situation. First, none of the participants—many of whom were former high-ranking military and government officials—found the scenario unrealistic, especially after the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, which granted the president criminal immunity for official acts.
Second, the study concluded that in a rapidly evolving emergency of this magnitude, courts would likely be unable or unwilling to intervene in a timely manner, leaving state officials without meaningful legal relief. State officials could file emergency motions to prohibit the use of federal troops, but judges would either fail to act quickly enough or refuse to rule on what they consider a “political issue,” leaving the conflict unresolved.
🔶️ Third, the University of Pennsylvania think tank warned that senior military leaders could be ordered to use force not only against state National Guard units, but also against unarmed civilians—and that they must be prepared to assess the legality of such orders. Any domestic use of federal troops must comply with the Department of Defense’s rules on the use of force and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Even under the Insurrection Act, federal troops cannot legally fire on protesters unless they are literally defending their lives from imminent danger.
🔶️ For members of the 11th Airborne Division, this may soon no longer be a theoretical question. Minnesota could be the first test of whether constitutional limitations on domestic military force still apply—or whether the United States is about to cross a line from which it cannot easily return.
CONCLUSION: It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on in the Minnesota crisis, because regardless of which side prevails, a crisis like this leads to more authoritarian control over our lives. You might see it as a black-and-white immigration enforcement issue, but there’s much more to it. Read my January 19th article , where I delve deeper into the less-discussed dark side of this operation.
Escalation is not what we want. It plays into the hands of the globalists, who are eager to destroy the remnants of our once-great republic and replace it with a totalitarian digital slave state based on digital IDs for everyone and digital tokenization of all assets. Now is the time to stand up for our constitutional rights, even if it’s people we dislike who are being stripped of them. Once you lose your rights, you never get them back, and America will never be the same. Our republic is already hanging by a thread, and this could be the final blow.
It’s also becoming increasingly clear how Civil War 2.0 will be fought. It won’t be a battle between states aligned along geographic lines. The second American Civil War will be fought in pockets nationwide, primarily in larger cities, but possibly elsewhere as well. We will slaughter each other in the streets, with factions of professional military and police forces fighting on both sides.
That fateful end can still be prevented and I hope that common sense will prevail.
The First and Second Amendments were not written into our Constitution to be used as weapons by corrupt politicians within a vicious two-party system whose primary purpose is revenge against the other party. This corrupt system is funded by statist bankers and globalists who hope to destroy our country. From what I’ve seen so far, they’re playing both parties like a fiddle.