The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the third and most potent of the Force Acts, was passed at Grant’s specific request. This law made it a federal crime for individuals to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.

Crucially, the Klan Act empowered Grant to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and deploy the U.S. military to suppress insurrections. He did not hesitate to use this authority, famously declaring martial law in nine South Carolina counties in October 1871, sending in federal troops, and arresting hundreds of Klansmen.

President Ulysses S. Grant’s technique for quelling the violent uprisings against Black Americans and Republicans in the post-Civil War South was a strategy of direct, presidentially-led, federal force aimed at destroying terrorist organizations. This stood in stark contrast to Congress’s later “solution,” the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was a legislative measure focused on social integration in public accommodations, a goal Grant did not prioritize and a law his administration failed to enforce.

Faced with the rampant terror of the Ku Klux Klan, which used murder, whippings, and intimidation to suppress Black voting and dismantle Republican state governments, Grant adopted a policy of aggressive federal intervention. His method was rooted in a series of laws he urged Congress to pass, known as the Enforcement Acts or “Force Acts,” between 1870 and 1871.

---

Key elements of Grant’s technique included:

• Creating a Federal Law Enforcement Arm: In 1870, Grant signed the act creating the Department of Justice, providing the federal government with the legal apparatus to prosecute white supremacist groups directly.
• Targeting Terrorist Conspiracies: The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the third and most potent of the Force Acts, was passed at Grant’s specific request. This law made it a federal crime for individuals to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.
• Wielding Presidential Power: Crucially, the Klan Act empowered Grant to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and deploy the U.S. military to suppress insurrections. He did not hesitate to use this authority, famously declaring martial law in nine South Carolina counties in October 1871, sending in federal troops, and arresting hundreds of Klansmen.

Grant’s approach was, in short, a military and legal campaign aimed squarely at the source of the violence. It was designed to protect the fundamental political rights of African Americans—to vote, hold office, and serve on juries—by dismantling the paramilitary organizations that sought to deny those rights. For a time, this strategy was highly effective, shattering the KKK’s power in many areas and allowing for a period of relative peace.

(more…)

Dec 22, 2016

Obama Administration Scraps Post-9/11 Immigrant Registry: In a move to preemptively block its use by the incoming administration, President Barack Obama’s administration officially dismantled the regulatory framework for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The program, which had been dormant since 2011, had required registration and tracking of male immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Entry-Exit_Registration_System

The theory posits a complex and troubling intersection of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its support for terrorist proxies, and the burgeoning world of cryptocurrency. This emerging threat is amplified by the inherent vulnerabilities of global internet infrastructure and a shifting geopolitical landscape that includes the rise of Sharia-compliant finance.

At the heart of the theory is the idea that Iran and its proxies, being technically adept, are exploiting the decentralized and often anonymous nature of cryptocurrency to bypass international sanctions and fund their activities. This concern is not merely speculative; U.S. lawmakers have raised alarms about Iran’s potential to generate a billion dollars a year through Bitcoin mining, directly funding groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

This digital financing of terrorism is made possible by the sketchy nature of the internet’s core protocols, such as the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which can be manipulated to redirect traffic and steal digital assets. The physical infrastructure of the internet, particularly undersea fiber optic cables, also presents a significant vulnerability.

Further complicating this picture is the rise of Sharia-compliant cryptocurrency, a key component of Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030.” While presented as a modernization of finance, it also creates a financial ecosystem that could be more easily exploited by actors seeking to operate outside of traditional Western financial systems.

Into this volatile mix come figures like Michael Saylor, who are seen as useful fools or sophisticated players promoting a system that could be used by adversaries of the U.S. and Israel. Their advocacy for Bitcoin, coupled with the fact that mining operations can continue in countries like China despite official bans, highlights the difficulty of controlling this new financial frontier. To date, no comprehensive public forensic investigation of the relevant blockchains has been undertaken to trace these illicit financial flows.

This web of influence also has a domestic political dimension. The activism and political rise of figures like New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani can be viewed through this lens. As an outspoken critic of Israeli policy and a prominent voice in the Democratic Socialists of America, Mamdani’s political positions are seen by some as part of a broader ideological shift within the United States that is more critical of traditional U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Within this theory, such domestic political movements could be seen as creating a more permissive environment for the agendas of state actors like Iran and their proxies, distracting from and potentially undermining efforts to counter them.

This sense of a shifting world order is further amplified by J.D. Vance recently suggesting that the United Kingdom could become the “first truly Islamist country” with nuclear weapons. This statement reflects a growing anxiety in some political circles about the changing demographics and political landscape of Europe.

Ultimately, this theory paints a disturbing picture of a new world order in which cryptocurrency, vulnerable internet infrastructure, and shifting geopolitical alliances could be leveraged by adversaries to undermine the security of the United States, Israel, and NATO.

You have to question Charlie Kirk’s Bitcoin promotion; he’s acting like a hype man for a Ponzi scheme, leading Americans to get financially slaughtered by buying the top.

I honestly think Charlie Kirk was lying about Bitcoin … I have a growing suspicion about Charlie Kirk’s stance on globalist, potentially Sharia-compliant Bitcoin. I believe he may be financially incentivized, or “on the take,” especially as Bitcoin’s value has increased. His public commentary on cryptocurrency may have been influenced by undisclosed financial interests rather than pure conviction.

In the months leading up to his untimely death in September 2025, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk emerged as a vocal proponent of Bitcoin, describing himself as a “big fan” of the cryptocurrency.

His views evolved from a general support for pro-crypto legislation to a more detailed, bullish outlook on Bitcoin’s future as a significant asset class.

Kirk’s pro-crypto stance was evident in his celebration of the passage of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act and the Anti-Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Act.

He publicly lauded these legislative measures, viewing them as a victory for President Trump’s administration and a crucial step in fostering a favorable regulatory environment for cryptocurrencies in the United States.

However, it was during a notable appearance on “The Iced Coffee Hour” podcast in late June 2025 that Kirk elaborated on his personal conviction in Bitcoin. In a clip from the episode titled, “‘I’m A BIG Fan!’ – Why Charlie Kirk is Bullish on BITCOIN,” he articulated his belief that the world’s wealthiest families were beginning to allocate significant portions of their capital into Bitcoin.

According to Kirk, this influx of institutional investment was a primary driver of his bullish sentiment. He reasoned that as traditional avenues for wealth preservation, such as real estate in major global cities or blue-chip stocks, become saturated, affluent investors are increasingly turning to Bitcoin as a viable alternative. He pointed to Bitcoin’s inherent scarcity, ease of transfer, and growing mass adoption as key factors that have positioned it as a “winner” in the evolving financial landscape.

While Kirk’s commentary often aligned with the political objectives of the Trump administration, his advocacy for Bitcoin also touched on themes of individual financial empowerment and a critique of centralized financial systems. His support for the anti-CBDC legislation, for instance, suggested a preference for decentralized digital currencies over government-controlled alternatives.

It is important to note that while Kirk’s enthusiasm for Bitcoin was clear, he was also challenged on President Donald Trump’s broader and sometimes fluctuating stance on cryptocurrencies. Nevertheless, by the summer of 2025, Charlie Kirk had firmly established himself as a prominent conservative voice in support of Bitcoin, championing its potential as both a sound investment and a tool for financial freedom.

During a 2018 campus event, Kirk was publicly confronted by a student who questioned him about TPUSA’s funding sources. The tense exchange, where Kirk deflected the questions, was captured on video and circulated widely online.

From AI: In March 2025, the late conservative commentator Charlie Kirk and former White House strategist Steve Bannon appeared on California Governor Gavin Newsom’s podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” as part of the governor’s stated effort to engage in “honest discussions” with a wide range of political viewpoints. The appearances, however, were interpreted by political observers as a strategic move by all three figures to appeal to broader audiences and advance their respective political agendas.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I __hate__ Bitcoin and all the others and stablecoins too (I call it rat poison like Berkshire used to). But that’s obvious from my posts.

Turning Point Action’s “Chase the Vote” Initiative: In 2024, Kirk’s affiliated organization, Turning Point Action, launched a “Chase the Vote” initiative focused on ballot chasing and early voting. This was seen as a major strategic reversal, as Kirk and others in his circle had spent years casting doubt on the security and validity of those same voting methods following the 2020 election.