ToWhomItMayConcern

Please review comments to this post @AAGDhillon @DLHoskins @HarmeetKDhillon @EdMartinDOJ @EagleEdMartin 👇

@EndWokeness Wow... If someone breaks into your house and has a baby in your living room, that baby is not your heir. It's not your child because it was born on your property. That's birthright citizenship. This is so painfully obvious to anyone with a brain.

@Unite4Freedom Amazing the speed of politicians and lawyers under threat of allowing citizens to control tax dollar spending

Want to get a Politician's Attention? – Threaten to make Elections Secure We are seeing unprecedented ‘speed’ as those fighting to maintain our current corrupt election process in place, race to the courtroom. Multiple lawsuits have already been filed responding to the executive order President Trump signed on March 31, 2026. The primary legal challenge was filed on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, by a coalition of high-profile Democratic leaders and organizations. Democratic Multi-Org Lawsuit Details •Plaintiffs: The lawsuit was filed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), along with other party organizations. •Main Argument: The plaintiffs argue that the executive order is unconstitutional. Specifically, they contend that the U.S. Constitution grants the power to determine voter eligibility and manage elections to individual states and Congress, not the Executive Branch. •Specific Targets: The lawsuit seeks to block the administration's plan to: - Compile federal lists of "verified" eligible voters via the DHS and Social Security Administration. - Restrict the U.S. Postal Service from delivering mail-in ballots to anyone not on those federal lists. The Civil Rights Coalition (Filed today, April 2, 2026) A broad coalition of civil rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts today. •Plaintiffs: The coalition includes the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and several others. •Core Argument: This suit specifically targets the "federal screening regime." They argue that by using the USPS to filter ballots based on federal lists, the administration is effectively creating a "poll test" or a federal gatekeeper that has no basis in the Constitution. •Key Concern: They allege the DHS data used for these lists is notoriously prone to errors (citing issues with the SAVE system), which could disenfranchise eligible naturalized citizens and low-income voters. For decades, DC politicians have "talked" about election security. They offer soundbites, empty promises, and zero action. But look at what happens when the current system is challenged: They are in court within 24 hours, fighting tooth and nail to defend the status quo. The hypocrisy isn't just a glitch - it’s the strategy. The Data Doesn’t Lie (Even if They Do) At Unite4Freedom, we’ve spent 2 1/2 years digging through the trenches of state election data. What we found is undeniable: •Illegal & Uncertifiable Results: Data patterns that defy logic and law. •Systemic Failure: If it’s not intentional, it’s gross incompetence. Either way, it’s a violation of Federal law. •The Irony: States claim their data is "private" when the DOJ asks, yet they dismiss their own systems—like SAVE—as "unreliable" the moment the public starts asking questions. The Constitution isn’t a suggestion. Under the Supremacy Clause, states don't get to "regulate" their way out of Federal mandates. They cannot use local bureaucracy to diminish your civil rights or bypass federal standards for transparent elections. The Law is already on our side. We just need leaders who will follow it. We aren't just asking for change; we are demanding validity. A system that hides its math is a system that has something to fear. Don't just watch history happen - help us write it. •Join the Effort. •Become a Volunteer. #U4F #Election2026 #Constitution

THE CITIZENSHIP CHECKMATE: Why the "Firewall" Governors are Panicking On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued the Executive Order "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections." This is a massive shift toward administrative transparency. The order: Directs the DHS and SSA to provide states with "Citizenship Lists" to identify and purge non-citizens from voter rolls. Mandates new USPS security protocols for mail-in ballots, including unique tracking barcodes and restricted delivery lists. The Resistance: Pritzker and Newsom Democratic governors have immediately moved to block the order, branding themselves as "firewalls" against federal intervention. Governor J.B. Pritzker (IL): "We will not blindly follow illegal orders because Donald Trump wrote them down on a piece of paper. Illinois follows the laws of the land – not the decrees of an aspiring king hell-bent on disenfranchising millions of voters... This is another illegal, extreme, and dangerous attempt to take power away from the American people." The Claim: Pritzker calls this an "illegal power grab" to benefit private tech interests, specifically citing Elon Musk. The Defiance: He has stated Illinois will ignore federal participation lists and rely solely on state statutes for verification. Governor Gavin Newsom (CA): "As President Trump escalates his politically motivated assault on California's safe and secure elections, we will not stand by while he sows distrust and seeks to undermine the fundamental right to vote... we will not let Donald Trump burn our Democracy down 175 years later." The Strategy: Newsom signed a counter-order to "strengthen AI standards," effectively attempting to separate California’s data systems to prevent federal access. The Litigation: He has already directed the California AG to lead a multi-state lawsuit, claiming "irreparable harm" to the 2026 midterms. Cutting Through the Rhetoric Don't be distracted by the political theater. Let’s look at the facts: The Billionaire Irony: Pritzker claims to be fighting "billionaire influence," yet he is a billionaire himself, making excuses for using state power to block data transparency. The Civil Rights Reality: Newsom claims to defend "civil rights," but this EO explicitly cites HAVA and the NVRA—existing federal Civil Rights laws designed to protect the integrity of every legal vote. Pro-Compliance, Not Anti-State This Executive Order isn't "taking power" from the states; it is providing them with the data they need to follow federal law. The logic is simple: Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting. Federal law already mandates that voter rolls must be accurate. This EO simply orders federal agencies to stop withholding the data required to satisfy those mandates. If the goal is Valid, Transparent, Auditable, and Certifiable elections, why would any state refuse the data to achieve it? The clock is ticking and the midterms are right around the corner. Follow us as we continue to to break down this important Order and significant step in the direction of secure elections. Join us. Let’s get this done. #ElectionIntegrity #2026Midterms #TransparencyNow #U4F

Wrong. The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures. The Supreme Court has interpreted “manner” broadly to include “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices,” etc. The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants (“requirements payments”) explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding. The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls (“list maintenance”), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy. Trump’s EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS’s SAVE program). Moreover, Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive. - HAVA already does exactly this—grants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards. - The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding “federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law.” This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes. Finally, Trump’s EO’s core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures: - USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable “Official Election Mail” envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processes—they simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service. This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds. Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections. The democrats are toast.

Today, a federal Executive Order just validated everything Unite4Freedom has been saying. For 2.5+ years, we were told this wasn’t happening. Ignored. Mocked. Dismissed. whitehouse.gov/presidential-a… Not theories. Not narratives. LAW. STRUCTURE. ENFORCEMENT. Let’s be clear what just happened: ➡️ Federal agencies are now directed to verify citizenship using SSA + DHS + SAVE data ➡️ States will receive citizenship-based eligibility lists ➡️ Ballots issued to ineligible individuals? Now a prosecutable offense ➡️ Mail ballots must have trackable, auditable identifiers ➡️ USPS, DOJ, DHS coordinating on election-related violations ➡️ Election records must be preserved for forensic review This is EXACTLY what Unite4Freedom has been fighting for. For 2.5+ years Unite4Freedom said: • You cannot certify what you cannot verify • Eligibility must be tied to real, provable identity • Ballot issuance must be controlled and accountable • Election systems must be auditable — not trusted • Records must be preserved — not disappear And now? It’s written into federal action. This isn’t about politics. This is about election validity under the law. The Constitution requires a republican form of government. That means elections must be verifiable — not assumed. What this EO signals is simple: The era of “just trust the system” is over. The era of prove it has begun. Unite4Freedom didn’t follow the noise. We followed the records. The law. The evidence. And now the direction of federal enforcement is aligning with that same foundation. Real voters. Real votes. Real counts. Real proof. This is not the end. It’s the beginning of accountability. Thank you President @realDonaldTrump #ElectionValidity #Unite4Freedom #WeThePeople #ProofNotTrust #RepublicanFormofGovernment #Constitution

Let’s clear the noise. Setting Election Day as Election Day doesn’t take voting away from anyone. That’s a distortion. Now let’s talk about the real distortion—Voter ID. You need ID to: • Enter the United States Capitol • Visit the United States Senate • Open a bank account • Cash a check • Fly domestically (as of Feb 2026, it must be REAL ID compliant or passport) But somehow… verifying identity for federal elections is “controversial”? In states like Illinois, IDs no longer reflect citizenship status. So what exactly are we verifying? 85% of Americans agree: this must be fixed. Yet the Senate is gridlocked. In fact, as of now (end of March 2026), the Senate is out of session on its Easter recess and scheduled to return around April 13–14. This isn’t complicated. This isn’t extreme. This is basic. We the People are watching. Stop the games. Do your job. Pass the SAVE America Act. Tag your favorite Senators, especially the ones standing in the way of its passage. @LeaderMcConnell @SenSchumer @lisamurkowski @SenatorCollins @SenMarkKelly @SenatorTester @MittRomney @SenatorDurbin @SenOssoff @SenatorWarnock @JohnCornyn @SenThomTillis @SenMikeLee @tedcruz @marcorubio @RandPaul @HawleyMO @JDVance1

This is maddening - We're being told that the 'X' platform is a space that promotes debate and the freedom of speech. According to Grok: Current X Civic Integrity Policy (as of November 2025 update)X states: "You may not use X's services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes." It targets misleading content that could affect participation, such as: Verifiably false or misleading info about how, when, or where to vote/participate. Content intended to intimidate or suppress participation. Instead of outright removal in many cases, X applies reduced visibility (deboosting). This includes: Excluding the post from For You and Following timelines for non-followers (and sometimes many followers). Removing it from search results, recommendations, trends, and notifications. Restricting discoverability so the post is mostly limited to your profile The policy was restructured in late 2025 to focus more on preventive measures against content that could "confuse people about how to participate" or undermine processes. Earlier versions (pre- and early Musk) were broader and often penalized "undermining confidence in elections" or "disputed claims about rigging/ballot tampering." Some of those broader "undermine confidence" clauses were narrowed, but automated scoring and reduced distribution for election-adjacent civic content still happens. Your video — a clean montage with patriotic symbols + text demanding "real votes, real counts, real proof" and calling it "our line in the sand" for election integrity — can easily trigger the system's automated filters. So, we still have 'someone' deciding what conversation is 'safe'

Can't wait!! Thank you for the invite!! #Holdtheline

We added a new guest Leah Hoopes for tomorrow night's X Space. Please share far and wide! Looking forward to the discussion, thank you to @GregStenstrom @hoopes_leah

An 83% consensus across Republicans, Independents, and Democrats isn’t noise — it’s a clear signal of where the country already stands. This isn’t about limiting votes. It’s about establishing a uniform, knowable standard that every citizen can understand and trust: 🔥One Election Day 🔥One clear receipt deadline 🔥One fully reconciled result When ballots arrive after that defined endpoint, the issue isn’t partisan — it’s structural: The system loses its ability to demonstrate a final, verifiable outcome. Even the polling reflects this reality: A majority of voters say late-arriving ballots erode trust, regardless of party. That should matter. Because in a constitutional republic, legitimacy doesn’t come from who wins — it comes from whether the process can be proven, observed, and closed with certainty. An 83% agreement across the electorate is rare. Ignoring it doesn’t protect elections. Aligning law with clear, enforceable standards does. Follow us for more information of Fair and Free Elections!

@SenMikeLee All states and major parties having election issues, including this month in Texas

All states issue Drivers Licenses to non-citizens. 19 states issue them to illegal immigrants. Some have already legalized non-citizen voting at the local level. There are 30 million non-citizens in America. This is all headed in one direction. Unless we SAVE America.

@BasedMikeLee Material to present at your next speaking opportunity 👇real election problems from this month involving both Democrats and Republicans

Senate Democrats won’t fund DHS And they’re opposing the SAVE America Act It’s as if they want to extend Joe Biden’s lawless legacy in perpetuity

@GuySmith1713057 @ShawnSmith1776 @HarryU4f So, let’s say I have a CSV of a KnowInk county check-ins, and an XLSX of who the county says voted, and a tab-separated file from the state and they all disagree regarding who voted (mostly agree, but none is a superset of the others). What do we do now?

@ShawnSmith1776 @HarryU4f Dr. Daugherity: "I consider this a much more dangerous attack because it doesn't even require manipulation of the State Voter Rolls." (Because the KnowInk System can simply add Counterfeit Voters on the fly) rumble.com/v777gfk-this-s…

A much superior argument regarding the use of election machines: 1) We have a certification requirement for the machines that is being ignored. 2) They do not use meaningful validation tests. 3) The machine is a “black box we are forbidden to examine.” 1/

@BasedMikeLee @SenRickScott Read this into the record 👇

My friend @SenRickScott is speaking in the Senate right now I’ll be speaking soon—shortly after Rick completes his remarks We’re making the case that the Senate must (1) fully fund DHS, and (2) pass the SAVE America Act Any specific points you want me to cover tonight?

@DataRepublican @nicksortor If you have a list of addresses, I know a guy

@nicksortor Has anyone studied nursing home mail-in vote turnout in Alaska?

🚨 JUST IN: Lisa Murkowski has just submitted an AMENDMENT to the SAVE America Act, EXEMPTING people born before 1961 from having to prove their citizenship If you can't be bothered to prove you're a citizen, you have no business voting to begin with. Stop nitpicking and pass the freaking bill.

In the Texas 2026 primary U4F documented vote oscillations, injections and deletions… what should We the People do next? This should get over 1,000 votes.

@DataRepublican @Shilohmarx @lisamurkowski @Unite4Freedom

@Shilohmarx @lisamurkowski Do you have the Alaska voter list and history? Can you email me at datarepublicanx@proton.me ?

Alaska reported 611,078 registered voters in 2024. Alaska had 540,681 citizens of voting age in 2024. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) opposes the Save America Act. @lisamurkowski

@PeterBernegger Wow! Peter..and Anders! Do we get around to how these guys’ tech can be used to manipulate elections via Rev mode?

🚨 Tweet #29: How does a Clinton campaign lawyer end up delivering fabricated intelligence - built by a Georgia Tech professor - to the FBI? It did not happen by accident. Again: Rodney Joffe. Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Neustar. One of the most connected figures in U.S. internet infrastructure. And the man Durham identified as the primary architect of the Alfa Bank hoax. Here is what the documents now show: -Before the DARPA contract. -Before Mueller. -Before Alfa Bank. Joffe had already retained Manos Antonakakis as a consultant - through Neustar. Joffe is from South Africa. Confirmed in deposition testimony: Neustar contacted Antonakakis "on his Georgia Tech email account for consulting purposes." And Professor David Dagon - the man with the "DOJ/Mueller" folder - had already worked with Joffe previously on the Mariposa Botnet investigation. These were not strangers brought together by a government contract. They were a pre-existing network - with Joffe at the center - that the DARPA contract then institutionalized and funded. When asked under oath whether Sussmann had been his personal attorney, and whether Antonakakis had consulted for Neustar, Joffe gave the same answer to both questions: "I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights." He took the Fifth on Sussmann. He took the Fifth on Antonakakis. In the same breath. Durham proved the product was fabricated. These documents show who built the factory. Manos Antonakakis on left, Dave Dagon in middle of photo. Joffe testimony in other two images:

@EmeraldRobinson @DocPeteChambers Article here👇

The uniparty just stole the Texas primary election from @DocPeteChambers. Did you notice?