Media slowly adjust expectations and point viewers right where I’ve pointed them for over a year

I’d like to open the week with a little bit of a “humblebrag.” On Friday afternoon, I received a package from the White House. Inside I found a copy of my book, The American War on Election Corruption, signed by President Trump along with a wonderful letter.

I had dropped the copy off with one of the President’s aides after I saw him (President Trump) in Florida in May, and I’m very pleased to have received it back with such a nice note that will be passed down someday to my children.

Since the President’s address on election interference Thursday, that book has surged again.

I didn’t step up for accolades or recognition, however. I jumped into the fray in 2020 because I knew our elections were in a state of despair significant enough to jeopardize our entire national future. I have continued to wield a heavy hammer on elections in the years since, and still get flak from the corruption enablers in the media. Democracy Docket has a particular axe to grind with me:

“All hell is going to break loose with the president’s address Thursday on election interference,” Seth Keshel, a leading anti-voting activist, wrote on social media. “It will compel action and make the pressure to pass the SAVE America Act overwhelming and will mandate change at the highest levels,” Keshel added.

If Marc Elias still thinks I’m worth crapping on, I suppose there’s still gas left in my tank for decrying electile dysfunction, and I remain a worthy adversary of those who wish to subjugate us through the corruption of the voting process. I have remained on point, rarely straying from what I know best. Because we suffered under the rule of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., for four years and are currently swimming upstream against the Murkowskis of the world and never-ending Democrat lawfare, the repairs to our electoral system are taking a long time; long enough, in fact, that the most critical ones are at risk of not happening under the Trump 47 administration.

This means that all of my electoral assessments are made with the corruption of elections accounted for. Remember, the laws of the various states dictate what types of ballot counts and, by extension, candidate performances are possible. I can feel good about Iowa with its strong voting laws in the same election cycle I feel bad about Washington, with its ballot collection free-for-all that is certain to impact the WA-3 decisive seat the GOP candidate is polling well in.

I’ve been directing traffic on the 2026 midterms since the infant days of the Trump 47 administration, which terrifyingly is already three-eighths of the way to completion. Believe it or not, I am already taking on questions regarding the next two election cycles. I have come to realize that election season is an enduring thing that never really ends, kind of like how the NFL season proliferates itself through the calendar in unique ways.

I’ve had to make some changes to the electoral math because of the various redistricting changes impacting 10 states:

AL, CA, FL, LA, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX, UT

My assessment for those, cumulatively, goes as follows:

+12 GOP
+5 DEM
3 toss-ups

That makes +7 net for the GOP, pending the outcomes of CA-48, FL-25, and TX-34. It’s safe to say, thanks to the scrapping of the Virginia quasi referendum, that the GOP won the redistricting war – but we all know legislatures in Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina didn’t go far enough or we’d probably already have this year’s race in the bag.

On that note, the winds are blowing early. Normally we don’t get hedging until after Labor Day. I’m referring to the period in which media blowhards come up with something like, “It looks like voters are coming home and sticking with the GOP after all, and perhaps Wyoming isn’t due for a blue tidal wave after all.”

“Because of Redistricting, analysts estimate that Democrats need to win by 3 to 4 points to gain a majority in the House. Per WSJ. 2026 Generic congressional ballot — Democrats: 48%, Republicans: 45% (Washington Post/Ipsos poll, 7/9-7/13).” — OSZ (@OpenSourceZone), July 18, 2026

MSM reporters are starting to follow suit as the so-called “generic ballot” tightens:

“Right now, the most likely outcome for Democrats would be winning anywhere between 214 and 228 seats. In roughly three-quarters of those scenarios, they would have a majority in the House.” — @ercovey (linking Cook Political Report: ‘Democrats Remain Narrowly Favored for the House; CPR Moves Six Races in Their Favor’) — Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza), July 16, 2026

Right now, the generic ballot sits at D+4.7% (meaning Democrats turn out at a rate 4.7% greater than Republicans). However, factoring in just the last six polls, all within four points, we see D+3.0%. Like our presidential races, Democrats being packed into blowout districts requires them to find the widespread appeal they lack in order to win the decisive seats. We have never held a midterm under the current boundaries in what is the most tightly gerrymandered national map ever produced, so no one really has any idea how big the Democrats would need to win the House popular vote to pull a bare majority (218 seats). Most people, like Cillizza above, are thinking 3-4 points at minimum. Makes a lot of sense when you look at the reality of it all.

My safe forecast (seats highly unlikely to be competitive) calls for 203 Republican seats and 187 Democrat seats, which accounts for 390 of 435 seats. I can then “lean” 22 more seats I have a feel for (but in which an upset could potentially happen), and I wind up with 209 Republican to 203 Democrat.

The problem with the broad brush analysts, or pure propagandists, is that they don’t get granular with the analysis. They take a generic ballot and try to apply it to maps that have seats cut so much to favor one party and try to make it work – like sticking a CD into a VCR. Folks, it doesn’t matter if the generic ballot turned out to be D+10.0% or if gas wound up at $9 per gallon in November – Georgia is going to produce 9 GOP seats and 5 Democrat seats.

My forecast informs me that Democrats, presumably at 203 seats (to the GOP’s 209 seats) before addressing the 23 decisive seats, have an absolute cap of 226 seats (203 + all 23 decisive). Looking at which seats I have listed as decisive seats, I can assure you they won’t win all of them (AK-AL and ME-2 are daunting tasks), meaning their likely ceiling is in the low 220s already. The GOP, at a likely 209 after leaners, has a higher potential ceiling, maxing out at 232 seats if they won every decisive seat – which they almost certainly wont.

So, the stars are aligning like this:

Democrat ceiling of 226 seats, floor of 203.
Republican ceiling of 232 seats, floor of 209.
Neither party has a high ceiling or low floor.

I feel confident that the winner of the House majority will hold between 218 and 223 seats, barring a major change in forecast or world conditions between now and Election Day (election season is here in less than two months thanks to mail-in ballot nonsense). Because the GOP has a higher ceiling, the pressure is on the Democrats. Every day, more bad news:

“PA CD-8. Bad news for the Dems. Shop owner & ’24 US Sen nom Leila Hazou (Green) jumps into race vs US Rep Rob Bresnahan (R) & Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti (D). This race is a top Dem target.” — Politics1 (@Politics1com), July 19, 2026

Most folks were already thinking Rob Bresnahan in PA-8 has the best chance to hold one of the three decisive seats in the Keystone State (with PA-7 and PA-10 being the other two). A Green candidate is only going to harm the Democrats, who will have the benefit of a Josh Shapiro reelection blowout as a tailwind. Then we have articles like this:

“Gov. Katie Hobbs is considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in a swing state that’s been on the 2020 election denier frontlines for years.” (USA TODAY: ‘Trump ally seeks makeover ahead of critical Arizona governor’s race’) — USA TODAY (@USATODAY), July 19, 2026

After months of phony polling, now we have Andy Biggs about to win a huge primary victory tomorrow and start on the warpath to dethrone the “veto queen” of Arizona, Katie Hobbs. Hobbs has wasted substantial money already, and now her race isn’t the slam dunk it’s been made out to be. All of this leads me to one conclusion:

This is a rare midterm opportunity for the President’s party to make gains, and that can only be done if we get serious about micro-targeting the races that can be won. I have been mapping precincts and districts for these decisive seats, and also for separate counties. If you want to sponsor that work for your campaigns locally, contact me at skeshel@protonmail.com.

The new media – the ones that get it right – are the ones with a consistent track record of being right. Hopefully the media hedging happening right now gives you confidence that you are subscribing to someone who “gets it.” Thank you for all of your support; now let’s go take some scalps.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

It only matters what happens moving forward.

I live in two universes most of the time. This is the curse of “knowing too much.” Now that President Trump’s address has wrapped, I am in the clear to tell you I knew what was coming down the pike beforehand. I was part of a small group given access to this information in order to help shape the information space.

All five points of the speech unfolded exactly as we were told they would. Here they are:

• Proof of foreign tampering within election infrastructure (primarily China, but other nations included) dating back to 2018 and impacting the 2020 presidential election
• Intelligence community concealed the breach(es) from President Trump’s first administration
• Proof that electronic voting systems can be manipulated, Venezuela named
• Identification of registration fraud, focused on Michigan, occurring in the 2020 election (also concealed for years)
• Proof of non-citizens on voter rolls (over 278,000 in a small sliver)

I wrote in Wednesday’s article that I expected the address to fall within four categories (including within multiple categories):

• A total “nothingburger”
• Announcement of emergency measures
• Pressure for the SAVE America Act
• Decimation of all 2020 (and associated) media narratives

Now, with the address behind us, here is my evaluation and diagnosis:

So far, I’d grade it a C.

Dead average. The good news here is that the test may take place in multiple parts, thereby affording opportunity for higher marks. When I say I straddle two universes, I would explain that in these two ways:

• Election integrity minds are underwhelmed and asking “Great, but now what?”
• “Normies” are thrilled and in awe of the new revelations

Take a look around the online space. To me, there is no consolation in having people say, “You were right!” I’ve known for almost six years that the 2020 presidential election was rigged in a way that would make Boss Tweed blush, and gave enough proof in The American War on Election Corruption that the media won’t touch it. It’s been obvious to me as long as I’ve been a watchman on the wall.

Yet there are people ranting and raving about the declassification (in a good way). Brian Cates is one who never takes his eye off the ball, and he’s been positive. Just now, as I write today’s article, here is Cleta Mitchell with some positive news:

“@SecMullinDHS will host a press conference today at 11 am EST to outline mitigation measures DHS is legally obligated to commence following the speech last night by @realDonaldTrump detailing the threats and vulnerabilities to America’s election system. That is required by…” — Cleta Mitchell (@CletaMitchell), July 17, 2026

That would satisfy “emergency measures,” the second bullet listed above for courses of action.

Summary of Facts

The announcement is not a “nothingburger.” Far from it. While it confirmed what a lot of people familiar with the elections crisis in America already knew or suspected, it’s important that it is recognized at the highest levels of government.

We did not get “emergency measures” announced from the President like we wanted. How this pans out rests on the subordinate agencies in the coming days and weeks. Grade to be determined.

The SAVE America Act was harped on with tremendous effort. I think we are well past the point of “calling our Senators” to get this across. They know it must be passed yet keep finding every excuse. This seems like a “box check” from President Trump.

Indeed, the official government narrative now records massive vulnerabilities and opportunities to rig our elections. We have reached terminal velocity now with how many minds can change on the issue, meaning only one thing.

The time to act is RIGHT NOW.

There must be accountability for those who have jeopardized our elections and those who concealed knowledge of the vulnerabilities from the President. We cannot simply continue to “expose” every issue. We know, and the hour is late. Let it be known I am not jumping the gun and throwing in the towel; how the address of July 16, 2026, will be remembered falls directly on the steps directly taken by those with the emergency authority to act to craft an entirely new system that eliminates opportunities to defraud the electorate, and what efforts are taken by the Senate and state legislatures to create a voting system that cuts down on mail and registration fraud.

So far, the address gets a C. It was a necessary box-check for the normies and to establish the new standard. It did not go far enough, in my opinion, in using the power of the executive with a mandate for change in proposing and implementing necessary changes in light of massive cheating covering many vectors of corruption.

But that may change beginning today, and so might the grade. The election corruption is fully exposed. The next phase of action must now occur in short order.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in the RealClearDefense. Budgets, National Priorities and the Radicalism)

In the last year, the country has seen the election and nomination of candidates who are Democratic Socialists of America. These include the Mayor of New York and Seattle, but most importantly a number of Senate candidates in Maine and Michigan. Some of the candidate views are controversial.

But former New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio says don’t worry about the often looney views held by some. They will not have sufficient support from Senate democratic colleagues to even get a vote on the Senate floor let along get a bill to the desk of the current President. Getting rid of prisons, the police and the border patrol, or seizing private property are not serious ideas (although being proposed) but most importantly says DeBlasio it’s not what people voted for.

DeBlasio tells Sean Hannity that people did vote for abolishing deportations, having universal government run health care and free college education, while eliminating carbon and greenhouse gases from energy production.

And such ideas are not new and have been pushed by the democratic party for many years.

For example, Medicare for all was first introduced in the House in 1993. And most Americans embrace Medicare for 65 million Americans, most of them over 65.

Free college education also sounds enticing given the multiple stories of graduating students carrying with them debt of $100,000 or more.

Open borders ideas are not new. We had that from 2021-4, and anywhere from 12-20 million illegal, unvetted migrants came to America. These people were welcomed by an administration seemingly unconcerned with the health, safety, security and economic impact of such a mass influx of unknown people into the country, often justifying such a strategy with a glib “we need more workers” while repeatedly assuring Congress and the country “the border is secure.”

And a carbon free energy world was first proposed in 1977 by Italian scientist Ceasar Marchetti.

What is surprising is the lack of a serious look at the U.S. federal budget impacts of such proposals.

Let’s begin by looking at some numbers.

Medicare costs $1.1 trillion yet Medicare premiums are only $440 billion annually. To support 350 million Americans would be costly. The average non-Medicare recipient uses $9000 in medical care compared to an average of $15,000 for a Medicare recipient. Since FY2014, Medicaid has risen 41% in costs and costs $894 billion in federal and state support, especially since the program was expanded to include all low-income adults. To cover all Americans under Medicare implies an annual additional cost of $2.6 trillion plus those currently under Medicare or $3.7 trillion. However, all annual health insurance premiums for government and private sector programs comes to $1.1 trillion so “Medicare for all” would send a new tax bill to all 166 million working Americans of $22,300 each, compared to the average Medicare tax of $6,600 now paid. The current Federal government is spending at a $7.1 trillion annual pace, so Medicare for all jacks that up to $9.7 trillion.

But there is more. Current U.S. government “college” outstanding loans are $1.9 trillion, which gives one an idea of what “free college education” would cost. This is not an annual cost but the U.S. government currently spends $126 billion each year even after the reforms implemented starting in 2025. To pay the current outstanding loans would require each of the 166 million working Americans to shell out another $11,400 each. So federal spending goes up to $11.6 trillion.

No internal U.S. deportations, the latter the idea of Senator Mark Warner, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would at least cost the U.S. $350 billion a year. Warner says once you get by the border patrol or get a visa to come to America, you are home free, working off the books, receiving universal health care and free education. So that costs very working American another $2200 a year. That puts Federal spending at $11.950 trillion.

Finally, estimates for the cost of eliminating carbon from energy production, now at 41 billion tons a year out of 61 billion tons of greenhouse gases, vary but on average would be $6 trillion a year. Given the U.S. produces 16% of energy worldwide, the U.S. would implicitly be required to spend some $960 billion a year to meet the goals of the Paris “climate accords.” However, as former Secretary of State Kerry has acknowledged, China and India produce together 5.8 billion tons of coal, or 70% of all coal worldwide. And India and China together are constructing 95% of all new coal based energy production worldwide. Given these policies, the greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon reduction goals cannot be met. So Federal spending is now estimated to be $12.910 trillion.

So, the Mamdani wing of the Democratic party would have the Federal government annually spend an extra $2.6 trillion for health care; $126 billion for free college; another $350 billion as a consequence of no deportations; and another $960 billion for no carbon energy, or a grand total of $4.036 trillion annually to meet just the top four socialist party objectives. And push overall annual U.S. government spending to $11 trillion.

The revenue required would be eighty percent of the current $5.3 trillion now collected by the Federal government.

All 166 million working Americans would each see their tax burden jump $24,300.

If you stole the entire $9 trillion wealth of every billionaire in America, they could pay the added bill for 2 years.

Apart from doubling the Federal tax burden of every working American, the only offsetting budget cuts proposed have been defense cuts especially nuclear deterrent cuts. Senators Sanders, Warren and Markey, and Representatives Khanna and Garamendi support unilaterally cutting our nuclear deterrent from 400 to 150 ICBMs, from 60 to zero strategic bombers, and from 12 to 4 submarines, reducing U.S. nuclear capability from 640 to 214 ICBMs and SLBMs and from 1550 warheads to 400. The savings would be minor as the cost of making our strategic bombers nuclear capability is 3%. Currently we only produce one SSBN annually so budget cuts would be in the outyears as they would be for the new Sentinel missile. Reducing Minuteman from 400 to 150 could implicitly eliminate two operating ICBM bases and overtime save annually some hundreds of millions and overall, no more than $1.3 billion annually, (as previous assessments often show base closings do not provide immediate cost savings but only in the very long run.)

True, Sentinel, Columbia and an upgraded D-5 will cost some $325 billion. But the proposed cuts will save funds only in the outyears when production will end. The savings of roughly $200 billion over some 20 years or $10 billion a year have to compared to $4 trillion in additional annual costs which are some 40-fold greater.

Spend $4 trillion more and save $10 billion makes no sense. It doesn’t matter what you call these ideas–socialist, communist, democratic socialist, or progressive. To repeat, the spending doesn’t make sense. And the budget cuts harm our national security and begin a process of disarmament.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Ernie Audino and appeared in RealClearDefense. How Not to Turn Iran into Vietnam)

It’s not by heeding the tired, old line that Americans don’t tolerate casualties. We do. We just don’t tolerate casualties for something of little value. And it’s not that the war with Iran is for something of little value, because there’s nothing more dangerous than a nuclear ayatollah. It’s by way of political leadership that decides why we initiated combat on Iran, and what we want out of it. If a president is uncertain of his political objective, how on Earth can the generals prosecute a strategy to achieve it? They can’t.

It largely comes down to a clear understanding of politics’ role in war.

Consider the West’s most influential theorist on war, Carl Von Clausewitz, who explains it well: “No one starts a war — or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so — without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it. The former is its political purpose; the latter it’s operational objective.”

During the Vietnam War, no clear, strategic objective drove our operations. Battlefield commanders (and a nation) were left asking:

Is it to contain Soviet or Chinese communism?
Is it to defeat North Vietnam?
Is it to defend South Vietnam?
Is it to defeat an insurgency?

Moreover, our inability to understand a comprehensible objective in Vietnam meant our citizens could not attribute a high value to it. Without that, no nation will muster sufficient domestic support to do what’s necessary to win, nor endure what’s required to achieve victory. Again, Clausewitz says it best: “Since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration.”

And so, with little domestic support for the war in South Vietnam, there was certainly no support for our taking the war to North Vietnam to destroy the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), the center of gravity (COG) for our enemy’s ability to operate. Consequently, we never went on the strategic offensive to achieve outright victory and imposition of our terms, choosing instead a limited war that incorporated civilian theories of economics. We saw limited war as a way to bargain. We even applied to it a novel, smart-sounding term, “graduated response,” which pin-striped advocates asserted would progressively “signal” to the north that we meant business and in turn motivate them to negotiate.

It signaled just the opposite…that we didn’t have the will to win.

No will to win, no hope of imposing our terms. No chance for victory.

Unfortunately, we’ve charted a similar course with Iran. Let’s start with our strategic objective. After the uprising began in December, the President said, “Help is on the way.”

Did that mean our objective was to topple the regime? Many interpreted it that way.

Was our objective, “total surrender”? The President said it was.
Was our objective a permanently non-nuclear Iran? After all, he did say he would not allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon.
Is our objective now to reopen Hormuz? Or is it to close Hormuz with a blockade?
Maybe it’s just to get Iran to agree to another ceasefire?

Should that first-order confusion remain, our generals can brilliantly accomplish their operational objectives, and they have, yet our nation will never transform that into strategic, political success. So far, our military has downed every aircraft in the Iranian air force. We’ve sunk every warship in the Iranian navy. We’ve destroyed a staggering amount of Iran’s drones and ballistic missiles and launchers, and we’ve disrupted Iran’s entire defense industrial base. And yet, the regime remains hostile. Given that we’ve not violently imposed our will on the enemy, no one should be surprised that we’ve been unable to demand terms and achieve political success.

But here’s the inexplicable part – we then unilaterally chose to cease combat and try bargaining. Our adversary presented no compelling military reality to cause us to stop fighting, but we chose to stop just the same and negotiate. We chose not to violently end the regime’s nuclear weapons ambitions, but somehow, we told ourselves they’ll do it now, because we’re asking them politely. We chose not to force open the Strait of Hormuz, but we subsequently expected to do that with a signature. To be sure, we simultaneously signaled more painful strikes in the future, but just as in Vietnam, this does not signal a will to win. Worse, when we hit Iranian assets during our self-imposed ceasefire, we sometimes were quick to communicate that it was done in self-defense. It’s almost like we were apologizing.

There’s no question that we adopted a strategic defensive, but that can only make sense for us if time is not of the essence. Clausewitz observed that those who adopt the defense assume that the situation will improve over time if they just wait for it.

The irony is our situation with Iran is NOT improving, and we don’t have all the time in the world to wait. We’ve proffered an endless series of negotiations. We’ve engaged in repeated, humiliating supplications. The conditions didn’t change. The behaviors didn’t change. Yet, somehow, we expected a different result lurked just around the corner. Meanwhile, the calendar continued scrolling to the right, toward our mid-term elections.

President Trump now says the ceasefire is over. Good. So, rather than repeat our strategic missteps in Vietnam, how do we learn from them?

Let’s start with the objective. Not only must it secure for us a vital national interest (in this case, a permanently non-nuclear Iran), but its great stakes and high value must be clearly understood by American citizens. The duty to make that case resides with the president. It’s his responsibility to convince us that it’s worth fighting for, and it’s worth winning.

Unfortunately, destroying Iran’s air force can’t win it by itself. Neither will sinking all their boats. Nor will destroying the drones and missiles and defense industrial base. And gaining a signature on a piece of paper sure can’t do it. Only a stated objective to end the Islamic Regime can generate a suitable effort capable of terminating Iran’s ambition to build or acquire a nuclear weapon. So far, President Trump has ruled out ending the regime.

Should he change his mind, ending the regime won’t happen by magic. It will require the transition of all elements of national power to the strategic offensive, something we were unable to do in Vietnam, but something entirely possible in Iran. In 1967 that would have required bringing the decisive fight to Hanoi to destroy the enemy’s COG, the North Vietnamese Army. Today our enemy’s COG is the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Its remaining hardliners must be brought to the psychological tipping point where they conclude that their survival as an organization is no longer inevitable, and that their physical destruction is likely. They must be brought to the point where they fear the Iranian population more than the population fears the regime’s levers of repression and internal control. To the apocalyptic core of the IRGC, costs incurred are irrelevant, but losing the ability to physically control the population is not.

Iranian citizens overthrew a regime in 1979, and they did it without the support of the world’s greatest superpower. They can do it again in 2026, but they cannot do it today without a major power first setting conditions on the ground for them. They cannot do it without close air support. And they WILL NOT do it without hearing President Trump say his objective is to topple the regime and commit to a strategic offensive to accomplish it.

And he must mean it.

Brigadier General Ernie Audino (US Army, ret.) is a Senior Military Fellow, Kurdistan Program (U.S. Chair) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank.

Four possible courses of action tied to the president’s address

President Trump is set to address the nation tomorrow evening on a matter of grave importance. Leaks and media coverage are all over the place, but they seem to have the range dialed in: election interference. Be mindful that engagement seekers online are willing to throw out anything to catch your attention – “this is about Georgia’s senators,” or “they found the hackers” and similar comments are everywhere. Until we hear from the man himself, all bets are off.

To my wonderful subscribers here, please understand I have no choice but to keep things at surface level today. Friday, should there be no change in plans in scheduling or plan (delayed speech, etc.), you can expect a full review of exactly what is made known to the public, with no obligation for me to continue to be cagey. As such, this article is shorter than most; still, given the subject matter, it is of vital national importance.

President Trump’s address tomorrow, assuming it provides evidence of catastrophic breaches, vulnerabilities, or interference pertaining to our election infrastructure, stands to bring out any combination of four outcomes:

I. Nothingburger

“If the left really thought a nothing burger was coming down the pipe Thursday night, they wouldn’t be using up so much damn energy trying to get in front of it, or coordinating their messaging across the entire Uniparty network of oxygen thieves.” — Seth Keshel (@RealSKeshel), July 14, 2026

The odds of this being a nothingburger or “rug pull” along the lines of digital trading cards are approximately zero percent. You can tell just by watching the preemptive defensive tactics adopted by media and leftists. We’ve heard from both Georgia senators, who were in fact illegitimately elected in 2020 when David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, despite finishing first on November 3, 2020, were artificially held below 50% and forced into runoffs, which both Democrats “won” on January 5, 2021. Whipped dogs yelp the loudest, I’m told.

In any case – a nothing burger would leave us where we are today – waiting for the next break in a court, or for the Senate to do something. The problem for the uniparty and their media water carriers is that this scenario is about as likely as the Republican nominee dropping Idaho to Kamala Harris in 2028.

II. Emergency Orders

If the president unveils irrefutable evidence that foreign powers interfered in our elections, or has the capacity to interfere in our elections (including databases, infrastructure, and/or actual voting systems), this could compel Trump to use national security powers, or any agency involved in what is being declassified to act within their statutory authority. My friend Joseph DeMott suggested an interesting course of action that doesn’t seem too far off-base:

“Let’s see if my Trump gut still works. I think Trump is going to declare of state of emergency on Thursday leading into the Save Act that was stapled to the Defense bill in the house today.” — Joseph DeMott (@josephdemottx), July 15, 2026

This feeds conveniently into the third point…

III. SAVE Momentum

Yesterday, House Republicans advanced the text of the SAVE America Act to the Senate as part of defense-funding legislation by a vote of 215 to 211. From The Hill:

The 215-211 vote delivers a key win for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who had spent weeks trying to unify his conference as conservative hardliners pressed leadership to take more aggressive action on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act and legislation to codify President Trump’s border policies.

There have already been rumblings that the Republican “surrender caucus” may be willing to bite the bullet in honor of Lindsey Graham to get the SAVE America Act in the rear view mirror. Compelling evidence of our election systems being compromised will provide one hundred times more pressure on the Senate to act than we’ve been able to muster thus far (and that has been a lot of pressure).

IV. Narrative: Ruined

Christopher Krebs must be on a boat to some isolated nation, given that he is the guy who gave us the lie of “the most secure election in American history” to describe the 2020 quasi election. We’ve been assured that anyone challenging the 2020 election, or any other garbage since like the Kari Lake race or Spencer Pratt’s primary effort, is arguing in bad faith and simply suffers from poor sportsmanship.

Since we were all told to believe everything the government had to say about the 2020 election so far, and were persecuted into complying with COVID-19 tyranny based on junk science and magic eight ball shakes, then I would imagine the government coming out with new documentation regarding the state of our election infrastructure must be unimpeachable, right?

It all depends on what kind of proof is made public – but I dare say the narrative of “American elections are fraud-free” is on the ventilator right now, preparing for the plug pull.

Conclusion

I wish I could say more. Media will spin and find loopholes, but I’d wager the damage has been done for good if it is made public that our elections are susceptible to outside interference. If intrusions are not only possible, but documented, we are likely to see unprecedented action taken to provide needed public confidence that we are indeed represented by a government of, by, and for the people.

Remember: Trump hasn’t given up the fight for free and fair elections, and neither should you.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

(This article was written by Adelle Nazarian and appeared in the The Western Journal. The NY Primaries Were a Wake-Up Call: How Radical Islamist Alliances Have Captured the Democratic Base)

The recent New York Democratic primary results reveal more than typical political turnover. They expose a dangerous realignment within the American Left. What we’re witnessing is the systematic mobilization of Islamist organizations forging strategic alliances with democratic socialists and far-left activists, creating a powerful coalition that threatens the party’s traditional center.

The deliberate targeting and defeat of Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar exemplifies this troubling trend. As a moderate Democrat and the first South Asian woman elected to the state legislature, Rajkumar embodied the pragmatic wing of her party.

Her loss wasn’t an isolated upset. It represents part of a coordinated effort to purge moderate voices from Democratic politics. Across New York, we’re seeing well-funded insurgent campaign machines systematically target and eliminate centrist Democrats, replacing them with candidates who embrace increasingly radical positions.

In this highly charged new political landscape, American Jewish and Hindu communities have been uniquely vilified, alienated, and targeted. Longstanding peaceful minority groups who have contributed immensely to the fabric of New York are being pushed to the margins as the radical left consolidates power.

This is not organic grassroots politics; it is an engineered and highly strategic takeover.

Behind the rise of these socialist Democrats is a deeply concerning geopolitical web: Pakistan and Qatar-backed Islamist elements, propped up and sustained by the vast network of the global progressive ecosystem.

To understand the depth of this crisis, one must look at the specific institutions driving this radical alignment. Far-left socialist Democrats have entered direct tactical alliances with institutions linked to Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), which is now often referred to as the new Muslim Brotherhood.

These JeI-linked mosques and organizations are not mere community centers; they are extensions of an ideological movement with a dark, violent history.

Jamaat-e-Islami-linked factions were directly responsible for horrific atrocities during the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, which disproportionately targeted Hindus. They have a documented history of ideological and material support for terrorist organizations like Hamas, which was responsible for the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel.

Anyone suggesting the massacre was retribution for the “occupation of Israel” is an accomplice to terrorism and should be monitored closely by the West.

The fact remains: The dangerous nature of this network is not a matter of partisan speculation. It has already caught the attention of federal lawmakers.

House Resolution 1140 explicitly acknowledges the severe threat posed by Jamaat-e-Islami elements, highlighting their involvement in radicalization, terror finance, and foreign interference that directly undermines domestic security and liberal democratic norms.

Confronting this reality requires immediate, targeted action from both sides of the aisle. The political center cannot hold unless both parties step up to address this dangerous realignment.

For Republicans, there is an urgent, tactical necessity to work tirelessly to expose the deep-seated influence of Jamaat-e-Islami within local and state politics.

For too long, the GOP has treated far-left victories as simple ideological differences over taxes or spending. They must realize this is a foreign-backed national security concern operating right on American soil.

By shining a relentless spotlight on these radical ties, conservatives can effectively fracture the progressive coalition, isolate the socialist Democrats, and defeat them at the ballot box.

Republicans must make JeI’s record a central talking point, demonstrating to independent and moderate voters that the modern far left has aligned itself with the perpetrators of historical atrocities and active terror networks.

For mainstream Democrats, the party faces a defining moment of existential risk. The defeat of moderate voices like Rajkumar proves that the radical wing is no longer content to sit at the table. They want to take over the House.

Democratic leadership must immediately engage in deep introspection and find the moral courage to vocally speak up against the infiltration of JeI-linked groups into their base.

Mainstream Democrats must reject endorsements, campaign funds, and alliances tied to these radical networks. Failing to do so will mean the utter alienation of traditional, moderate voting blocs, including the Jewish and Hindu American communities, and the complete transformation of the Democratic Party into a vessel for extremist ideologies.

It also means working within the party to defeat Democratic incumbents who are pushing the agenda of these Islamist groups before our very eyes in the halls of Congress.

If both mainstream political parties fail to take active steps to dismantle this alliance, the radical realignment witnessed in New York will soon become the national standard.

To avoid the risk of falling into the same fractures currently destabilizing the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and France, both sides of the aisle must act before the damage is irreversible.

Republicans must relentlessly expose and dismantle this extremist network, while Democrats must decisively purge it from their ranks to take back control of the American political center.

Adelle Nazarian is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank.

The death of Lindsey Graham brings all-new challenges for the Trump coalition

Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere in the desert (which may be preferable some days depending on the news cycle), you are certainly aware that South Carolina’s senior U.S. Senator, Lindsey Graham, died Saturday night after returning to Washington, D.C., from a trip to Ukraine. This led to the typical range of responses online when someone prominent dies, ranging from reflective, to poetic, to downright evil.

Before I get further into what it is I’d like to discuss today, the timeline of American political life has always fascinated me. Just as I find it fascinating that President John Tyler (our tenth president!) had grandchildren who lived well into the 21st century, I find it fascinating that Graham’s seat, which he held since 2003, had only been held by one other man since 1956. That man was the notorious Strom Thurmond, who switched his party affiliation to Republican from Democrat in 1964, the year of the Goldwater revolution (and a terrible national landslide for Lyndon Johnson).

Suffice it to say that Graham had been a Washington, D.C., fixture for a long time. Even longer when we consider his time in the U.S. House. Whether you liked Graham or not, this is a big deal, just as it will be a big deal when Mitch McConnell vacates his seat in the near future. The MAGA coalition is made up of the most ideologically diverse Republican group ever assembled. It includes the following:

• Old Guard Republicans (“Reaganites”)
• Neoconservatives (dwindling)
• Evangelicals/Social Conservatives
• Trade populists
• Reformed libertarians
• Other loosely aligned groups committed to outsiders like Trump only

This naturally means these factions are in constant competition (and conflict) with one another, and younger members of the alliance who don’t bolt for the doors struggle to reconcile their views with that of the old world – which Graham belonged to. Graham, as we all know, was very hawkish and came into conflict with President Trump over his views of foreign policy. He was also soft on illegal immigration and was an early critic of Trump’s heavy-handed proposals; yet he remained someone the President valued until his last breath.

I’m here to tell it like it is. It doesn’t mean you have to like it, and it most certainly doesn’t mean I even agree with the President, or anyone else’s, view of the entire matter – but let me help you understand why Trump looked past his differences with Graham and why there are now many unresolved issues related to his unexpected passing:

I. Obstacle or Not?

Every time there is a Supreme Court pick awaiting confirmation, or there is a life-or-death issue like the SAVE America Act up for a vote, every patriot in the world starts counting on their fingers:

• Murkowski
• Collins
• McConnell
• Curtis
• Tillis
• Plenty of Senate alumni such as Flake, Romney, Alexander, Cornyn and any other squishes looking to appease everyone

All of a sudden, that 53-seat majority doesn’t sound so great. We need 75 senators to get around the drama, back-stabbing, and uniparty scamming going on in Washington. One of my favorite subscribers brought up his grievances with Graham yesterday related to January 6, and his points are valid. Graham was very harsh over January 6 and critical of Trump, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he regrets going as far as he did.

Yet…when is the last time you remember counting Graham in that group you just knew would be parroting sexual assault claims against a judicial nominee or ignoring the fact that a bill has 75/25 support because it was intended to fix a nationally known crisis? That’s right.

Trump values loyalty.

From The Hill:

“This is a big blow to the SAVE America Act, let me tell you,” Trump told Welker.

Trump said he spoke with Graham earlier Saturday night, saying the late senator had just landed from Ukraine and told the president, “We’re all set for the SAVE America Act.”

“He sounded a little tired but perfect, but a little bit tired, and had a right to be,” Trump continued. “He was a worker; he was really a worker. But he sounded great, actually, but he actually said he was tired. But he wanted to pass the SAVE America Act, and I said, ‘We’re going to get it done, Lindsey, we’re going to get it done, I’ll see you, like soon. We might even meet today.’”

Graham, although overly hawkish on foreign policy (which most of the young MAGA coalition opposed him over), was rock-solid on judicial nominees – slamming home Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course, Amy Coney Barrett just ahead of the 2020 election with all of its headwinds and media insanity. He also was instrumental to the Trump agenda in his role in the next point:

II. Senate Budget Committee Chairman

Put the first point together with this one. Why do you think Graham, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was knocking on Trump’s door right at the very end over the SAVE America Act? That’s because the chatter from the Republican Congress has been about pushing that legislation across as part of a reconciliation bill, tying it to government cheese and big dollars.

“Hey, Lisa – you want that bridge in the Aleutians? It’s going to be in this next bill.”

“Thom, the people of North Carolina are counting on you!”

Politics is an ugly thing but it is a real thing. I’m married to a Freedom Caucus member who is all too willing to die on the hill of ideology but inevitably realizes, when necessary and appropriate, that not all hills must be died upon and that the long-term battles are the most important. Graham’s role in advancing Trump’s fiscal priorities, such as tax policy, through the Senate were and are instrumental to growing the MAGA economy:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who died late Saturday, served as one of the Senate GOP’s most trusted channels into Trump’s orbit, translating the president’s demands to skeptical senators while explaining the realities of the Senate back to the White House.

“He could go in and get something approved,” Trump said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” reflecting on Graham’s political skills. “He would just get people on his side. … I wouldn’t often ask, but if I had a problem with a Democrat he could work it out.”

III. If It Ain’t Broke…

Graham, at odds with many in the MAGA movement and a Senator with soft base support, nevertheless was one more incumbent with no concerns over a possible General Election upset. The left thought they had him in 2020, and here’s how that turned out:

For what it’s worth, South Carolina (as opposed to Georgia and North Carolina) has more of a Florida effect going on. Whereas Horry County (Myrtle Beach) was worth a margin of +33,242 for Romney in 2012, it was worth +79,394 for Trump in 2016; transplants to South Carolina are overwhelmingly Republican. This will have the same impact as it does in Florida, where I can view party registration, in that there is no blue wave the new red electorate cannot absorb.

Graham’s immediate replacement will be chosen in a special GOP primary set for August. That individual will take on left-wing whack Annie Andrews in November as an incumbent. Nikki Haley (thank God) is reportedly out, but Trey Gowdy, Nancy Mace, Mark Lynch, and Ralph Norman are kicking the tires on a run.

“Since Lindsey Graham’s last wish was the Save America Act, he should be replaced by a no nonsense freedom lover like Ralph Norman who will make sure that gets done.” — Tyler Bowyer (@tylerbowyer), July 12, 2026

All of those Republican candidates would win a General Election – even Mace, who makes everything about herself and apparently didn’t take the hint after a fifth-place finish for governor last month in the GOP primary.

Conclusion

Politics is a complicated world. Sometimes when we wonder why our favorite team’s general manager keeps that light-hitting catcher on the team, jeopardizing a strong offense, we find ourselves enlightened when we find out the future Hall of Famer on our pitching staff prefers to pitch to him, and not the guy who can hit (this was the case when I was a kid and Greg Maddux only wanted to pitch to Charlie O’Brien, rather than Javy Lopez, who could hit).

Graham’s value to Trump was not ideological, nor was it because he shared all of Trump’s views on immigration and foreign policy. In fact, they were opposites in many ways; yet Graham received Trump’s blessing because he was a necessary piece for advancing less glamorous policies through the Senate. Politics is the art of what is possible, and Graham’s death now provides ample opportunity to get the wrong person in office.

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

During the Gold Institute’s July leadership delegation to Seoul, Chairman Gen. Michael T. Flynn told Korean business leaders the U.S.-ROK alliance’s next chapter will be built on economic partnership, not just the 73-year military bond.