We are building a citizen army across America fighting for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that will end the rampant corruption of our federal government and ensure Free and Fair Elections. The massive amounts of money spent in our elections from outside special interests, often with little to no transparency, is drowning out the voices of average citizens and distorting the most fundamental principle of America - a country dependent upon the people alone. By working together, we can solve this problem and ensure true representative government in America for ourselves and future generations with an amendment to the Constitution. Wolf-PAC is using a proven strategy of going through our state governments to achieve an amendment. Learn more about our plan and how to become an active citizen by visiting our website.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians
Oct 05, 2025
There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.
It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.
The NBC News poll, conducted from August 13 to September 1, surveyed respondents on a variety of topics, including President Donald Trump’s approval, the top issue for voters right now, and even what voters think about vaccines.
These things have been broadly covered in the press. But what has received less coverage now that the focus has shifted away from what is happening in Texas, California, Missouri, New York, and more is the threat mid-decade redistricting poses to voters.
The poll found that 82% of respondents said they want redistricting done by a nonpartisan commission, not the party in power. Even most members of the majority party in their state do not think politicians should be picking their voters.
For example, 71% of Republicans in GOP-controlled states say they would prefer redistricting done by a nonpartisan commission. Yet in the same week as the poll’s release, Missouri’s Republican-majority advanced their own mid-decade gerrymander.
This, of course, follows a new map approved in Texas, which is ground zero for this tit-for-tat redistricting fight. Texas did it, so California did it. Missouri is doing it, so New York or Maryland or Illinois may do it.
And yet, 88% of Democrats in states controlled by their party also prefer a nonpartisan redistricting commission over legislative-drawn maps. The No on Prop 50 campaign in California sent out the NBC News poll results over email.
Proposition 50 will be on a November 4 special election ballot, where voters can approve or reject a new congressional map drawn by the legislature.
If approved, the map could give the Democratic Party over 90% representation in the state’s congressional delegation.
Those responsible for the proposition, including Governor Gavin Newsom, know how their voters feel about legislative gerrymandering. He says he wants to see independent redistricting commissions used at a national level but insists that his party must “fight fire with fire.”
- YouTube www.youtube.com
In fact, Proposition 50 includes a section in its summary that says it “[e]stablishes state policy supporting use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide” – even as it will do exactly what most voters say they don’t want.
In other words, it will implement a partisan gerrymander approved by the Democratic majority in the legislature. It will sidestep the state’s independent redistricting commission, approved by voters in 2008 and 2010.
Prop 50 does not abolish the independent commission. It says the new congressional map will be in place until the commission redraws and approves new maps after the 2030 census. However, it is worth noting that this means 3 congressional election cycles under the new map.
Whether it is Texas or California, the question to ask is: What happens to the trust and confidence of the political minority when the majority says to them that on a whim, they will take away their opposition’s representation all but completely?
Texas’ maps will have to be struck down in court while California voters are left to wonder what happens the next time the Democratic majority decides they need to “fight fire with fire” again.
The answer to the question is: The partisan majority doesn’t care. When the system puts the self-serving interests of private political parties over meaningful and accountable representation, it all becomes a game to Republican and Democratic leaders.
“They did it, so we have to do it.” Then the other side will turn around and say, "They cheated first."
Even now, 82% of voters say they want politicians out of the business of choosing whose vote matters. Yet, Texas and California were only the beginning. More states are trying to expand the controlling party's majority in Congress or nullify the other side’s gains, completely ignoring what voters want.
Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians was first published on IVN and re-published with permission.
Shawn Griffiths Is An Election Reform Expert And National Editor Of IVN.us.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Harnessing the Electoral Power of Black Joy
Oct 04, 2025
As is often the case in U.S. elections, Black voter turnout will be crucial this fall. Voters in heavily Black cities like Atlanta, Georgia, and Charlotte, North Carolina, will decide whether to re-elect their Black mayors. In New Jersey and Virginia, Black voters will exert a powerful influence in gubernatorial and state legislative races, among other races around the country.
However, to drive voter turnout within these communities, it’s imperative to recognize that in Black communities, voting is often a declaration of Black joy and a commitment to show up for one another. It’s a celebration of the power of every individual and of the collective, as well as a remembrance of those who fought for enfranchisement. And despite the increasingly fraught environment of modern elections, generating a celebratory atmosphere that evokes these positive emotions encourages political engagement—and voter turnout.
As we document in our new book, Party at the Ballot Box, using packages of celebratory and educational materials to cultivate Black joy motivates Black turnout. Black voters, and especially Black women, are repeatedly told that their votes are important and are urged to turn out to vote. This project was more than that. It wasn’t reminders to vote with the usual message about civic duty. The packages didn’t talk about dire threats to democracy or the power of Black voters to influence election outcomes.
They were, instead, a party in a box: noisemakers, candy, confetti, and coloring books with crayons. They were boxes of Black joy focused on individual communities: posters and t-shirts that declared “I love Baltimore so I vote” and reminders of local civic pride like “Detroit vs. Everybody.”
This campaign, Party at the Mailbox, first emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was piloted in Baltimore by Black Girls Vote founder Nykidra Robinson and Baltimore Votes co-founder Sam Novey. And the pilot showed immediate promise. In the June 2020 primaries, turnout was 31.4 percent among low-propensity voters in households that received a box, compared to just 19 percent among low-propensity voters in households that requested one but weren’t randomly selected to receive one.
In subsequent elections from November 2020 through November 2024, we expanded our project to other Black-majority cities, including Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Richmond. We sparked joy among voters and increased turnout. In Richmond in November 2022, turnout among Black women randomly selected to receive a Party at the Mailbox package was 83.3%, almost two percentage points higher than in the control group at 81.4%. In Detroit in November 2022, the turnout among Black women who received packages was 64.8 percent, compared to 63.8 percent in the control group. In Philadelphia in November 2024, the packages increased turnout by 4.5 percentage points, from 64.8% to 69.3%. Especially in local elections where the margins can be razor-thin, any percentage increase in voter turnout can impact the results.
One Black mother from Baltimore noted the importance of encouraging voters to turnout, saying that community organizations like Black Girls Vote know how to “rally people to come in and just make great efforts.” She said the packages reflected an understanding of the importance of voter education in voter turnout, stating that Black Girls Vote “understand[s] how their influence in the polls will make a difference.” Another voter told us how they used the contents of the box as their “own little marketing tool” to reach out on social media and remind friends to vote.
Contrary to noticeable reminders or social pressure messaging, both popular methods in the voter mobilization space, we call this the Voter Community Celebration Model—a get-out-the-vote method where the individual is acknowledged and intentionally celebrated as an active participant in American democracy as a voter, regardless of party affiliation.
In addition to increasing turnout, the project made voting fun. People expressed joy in being recognized as a community member in a city they loved, even as they noted the economic and political challenges facing them.
A 45-year-old Black mother of two from Atlanta told us that the project made her feel like she and people in her community were being celebrated for their voting efforts. “It was the first time in my lifetime to see people so excited about just coming together to make a change.”
A 42-year-old Black woman from Philadelphia told us that receiving the package made her feel like part of a historical moment “with the element of fun behind it.”
Elaine Nichols noted in 2023 that Black joy has always served as an act of “resistance, resilience, and reclamation”. From enslaved women participating in outlaw parties to Black social media groups resisting subjugation by building online communities, joy has consistently been a significant factor influencing Black political participation.
Despite the sometimes hostile and often polarizing nature of recent election cycles, celebrations can still bring people together to encourage the prosocial behavior of voting as an expression of community power and joy.
Joy matters, and we saw the effect of that joy in our research. We do not doubt that joy will also matter this November.
Melissa R. Michelson is Dean of Arts & Sciences at Menlo College.
Stephanie L. DeMora is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stony Brook University.
Sarah V. Hayes is a PhD student at Georgetown University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Pro-Palestine protesters march down H Street in response to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit with President Donald Trump, in Washington D.C. on Sept. 30, 2025.
Photo by Bridget Erin Craig/UPI
Pro-Palestine Protesters March in D.C. Amid Netanyahu Visit
Oct 04, 2025
Pro-Palestine protesters marched the streets of Washington, D.C. on Sept. 29 calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, and condemning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit with President Donald Trump.
The demonstration, organized by the Palestinian youth movement, drew roughly 300 attendees, including D.C. residents and representatives of the Jewish community. The three-hour protest, which began at 6 p.m., featured guest speakers and highlighted concerns about civilian suffering in Gaza and perceived U.S. support for Israeli policies.
“It’s a genocide, hurt people hurt people, and now they’re doing the same thing to the Palestinians,” said Robin Galbraith, a pro-Palestine protester. “It was good to see people leaving the U.N., but this administration still supports those who continue this.”
Patti Mohr, another protester, said she attended in reaction to Netanyahu’s visit.
“This is his [Netanyahu’s] fourth time here. I know that Trump announced his 20-point plan and a lot of countries have supported Trump on this,” Mohr said. “I’ve been to Israel and been to the West Bank, I’ve saw what they live through and to hear what its like to live without freedom.”
Mohr added, “It is because of our country that it’s happening. We’ve vetoed six resolutions in the Security Council, and we’ve given them so much money.”
The protest began on H Street and marched toward 17th Street near the Blair House, where Netanyahu was reportedly staying. Police presence was heavy, though the National Guard was present. Several streets were blocked, and the area around the White House was barricaded with tall gates in response to Netanyahu’s visit.
Representatives of Neturei Karta International, a Jewish community opposing Zionism, were also present. They held signs reading “Judaism demands freedom for Gaza and all Palestine” and “Authentic rabbis always opposed Zionism and the State of Israel.”
Representatives of the Neturei Karta International group at the Pro-Palestine protest in Washington D.C. on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Bridget Erin Craig/UPI
In an interview with UPI, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, a longtime critic of Zionism, emphasized the religious and historical roots of his opposition.
“While Zionism was a movement of non-religious Jews, it was simply a transformation into a selfish, flawed goal to have a piece of land and not care about the Palestinian people,” Weiss said.
Weiss walked around sharing a booklet of historical photos documenting peaceful interactions between Jews and Palestinians, such as communities protecting each other’s places of worship and sheltering refugees.
“We have seen the culmination of what’s happening in Gaza.” Weiss said as he turned through the booklet. “We work with the people of Gaza, and we plead with world leaders.”
The protest briefly drew attention from The Fearless Tour, a conservative group that hosts debates on college campuses. They arrived with a sign reading “$100 if you can prove Israel is apartheid. Let’s talk,” and played songs including YMCA and God Bless the U.S.A. on a large speaker.
Fearless Debates commentators at the Pro-Palestine protest in Washington D.C. on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Bridget Erin Craig/UPI
Cam Higby, one of the Fearless Debates commentators, said “We started it to basically show the left that we’re not afraid to have discourse with people in the face of political violence … We hope to continue inspiring conversation among Americans left, right, and center.”
After their stop at University of Maryland on Sept. 29, they happened to be in Washington D.C. and showed up to the protest. In response to the premise of the protest, Higby said “It’s not genocide. When somebody attacks you, just like when Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, you have a right to retaliate. People die in war. It’s unfortunate.”
Tensions between protesters and the conservative group were brief, with police stepping in to separate the two sides.
As the protest attendees began to disperse, Weiss shared his intentions for Neturei Karta’s presence. “We urge people, whatever you can, as much as you can, stand up… like apartheid, it was the grassroots who brought about the uncomfortableness of governments and brought an end to it,” he said.
Looking towards the future, Weiss added “One day, this will urge everybody: do what you can, be on the right side of history, and we hope and pray it should happen soon in our days.”
The protest ended after three hours.
Bridget Erin Craig is a recent graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs.
Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook
Oct 04, 2025
In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.
The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.
To some, this may sound pragmatic. Why allow firms to gorge on subsidies without securing a tangible return? Yet the move is more telling as a symptom of desperation. America’s technological edge is eroding, and Trump’s gambit looks like a patchwork fix rather than a coherent strategy. History offers warnings aplenty. Britain’s nationalized coal and steel industries stagnated in the decades following 1945, hindered by bureaucracy and political interference. The Soviet Union’s much larger experiment produced inefficiency, corruption, and technological decay. Trump’s version is partial, but the risks are similar. A 10% government stake is not a neutral investment. It means leverage over boardroom decisions, research priorities, and strategic partnerships. Intel, already lagging behind Taiwan’s TSMC and pressured by Nvidia, can hardly afford additional interference from political appointees with shifting agendas.
There is also Trump’s own record to consider. His first term brought significant corporate tax cuts, justified as a means of reviving the manufacturing sector. In practice, those tax breaks fueled stock buybacks and executive bonuses, not the renaissance of industrial America. With fiscal deficits swelling once again, the new equity strategy looks more like fiscal sleight-of-hand than genuine reform - dressing up subsidies as “investments” without addressing the structural weaknesses that left American industry vulnerable in the first place. Even the Intel stake, presented as passive, is already politically charged: Trump had previously criticized Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, as insufficiently loyal, before abruptly praising him once the deal was sealed. That hardly reassures investors who expect policy to follow economic logic rather than presidential temperament.
The contradictions deepen when viewed through the prism of financial capitalism. The global market thrives on predictability, mobility, and private autonomy. State ownership, even partial, introduces uncertainty and politicization. In this new arrangement, the government serves as both regulator and shareholder—a dual role fraught with conflicts of interest. Pension funds, institutional investors, and hedge funds that have long relied on Intel’s independence now face the reality of Washington sitting in the boardroom. If dividends are trimmed to finance a patriotic factory in Ohio, or if partnerships are blocked because they offend U.S. geopolitics, shareholder value will suffer. A country that once lectured the world on free-market orthodoxy is suddenly rewriting the rules of the game.
The case of Samsung illustrates the dangers even more clearly. Though no stake was ultimately taken, the mere suggestion sent shudders through Seoul and beyond. Samsung is not just a company; it is a linchpin of South Korea’s economic model and a pillar of global supply chains. The idea that Washington might demand equity in exchange for subsidies amounted to an implicit claim over the firm’s sovereignty. Such a precedent would deter investors, depress valuations, and inject geopolitical risk into one of the world’s most valuable corporations. More broadly, it signals to allies and rivals alike that American industrial policy has acquired an extraterritorial edge: subsidies will come with strings, and those strings may tighten around foreign boardrooms.
For South Korea, the prospect was especially troubling. A U.S. stake in Samsung would have created pressure to align with Washington in its trade confrontation with China, potentially at the expense of Seoul’s careful diplomatic balancing. It also raised the specter of foreign interference in dividend policy, overseas expansion, and supply chain management. The logic is destabilizing: if the U.S. can nationalize by stealth, why should Beijing or Brussels not respond in kind? Trump, who rails against globalization, risks undermining the very financial flows and cross-border trust that sustain American influence.
What emerges is less a coherent strategy than a symptom of late-stage capitalist insecurity. The free-market certainties once trumpeted by Reagan and Thatcher have given way to ad hoc intervention, driven by panic about declining competitiveness. Yet unlike the European dirigisme of the past or the Chinese model of state capitalism, the American experiment comes without a broader social contract. There are no welfare protections or long-term visions attached to it - only the blunt insistence that equity must be handed over if subsidies are taken. The Intel stake may have been dressed up as passive, but its political resonance is unmistakable. And its potential replication is already being floated. Commerce Secretary Lutnick hinted that similar demands could extend into the defense sector, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Palantir asked to yield stakes or revenue-sharing arrangements in exchange for government contracts. Markets have taken note: Lockheed and Boeing shares rose on the prospect of closer state backing, while Palantir fell on fears of diluted independence.
National security is the last refuge of justification. Chips, after all, are the backbone of everything from smartphones to missile systems. Protecting domestic capacity seems self-evident. But will a 10% government stake in Intel actually achieve that? More likely it will entangle the company in congressional oversight, politicize its decisions, and create frictions with international partners. The brush with Samsung shows the folly of this approach. Forced equity could invite retaliatory measures abroad, further fragmenting global supply chains and inflating costs for consumers worldwide. What is framed as protection may well become isolation.
The irony is sharp. A president who once denounced socialist meddling and celebrated corporate freedom is pioneering a form of politicized capitalism that blends the inefficiencies of state control with the inequities of the private market. The ghosts of past experiments hover over Washington’s boardrooms: Britain’s decline, the Soviet Union’s sclerosis, Argentina’s faltering industries, Egypt’s hollow nationalizations. Each believed state ownership could rescue national power. Each discovered that politics and enterprise rarely coexist without damage.
Trump’s America may soon add its own chapter to that story.
Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More