I was curious as to how the United States can continue to engage in proxy wars without an official war declaration from Congress so I finally did the research.

THREAD 🧵🧵

You’ve heard of the CIA’s covert ops.

But you may not know about Section 127e—the Pentagon’s shadow authority to fund, arm, and direct foreign proxy forces with almost no oversight. And it’s how the U.S. runs wars you never hear about.

What is Section 127e?
It’s a legal authority buried in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Full name: 10 U.S. Code § 127e – Support of Special Operations for Irregular Warfare.

Passed after 9/11 and expanded under Obama, Section 127e allows U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) to:
•Fund and train foreign militaries or militias
•Embed with them in combat
•Launch joint operations
•With almost zero transparency

These aren’t advisors.
Under 127e, U.S. forces can command, plan, and direct the actions of foreign troops—without a declaration of war.
It turns militias into covert extensions of U.S. Special Forces.

The budget?
Classified.
But documents leaked in 2022 revealed that 127e operations had been run in:
•Syria
•Yemen
•Somalia
•Niger
•Cameroon
•Egypt
•Tunisia
•Afghanistan
And elsewhere.

🧵🧵What is The Resistance Lab—and why is it one of the most dangerous organized forces resisting Trump 2.0?

A look inside the movement, its training programs, tactics, and why it poses a serious threat to the Constitutional Republic.

The wink-wink nod-nod to nonviolent resistance is a cover for what they actually do, which is what we have seen happen all across the country at Tesla locations .

I would just like to remind everybody if Democrats get power, they will not go after Teslas, they will go after you and me.

The Resistance Lab is a project launched by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), now expanding nationally. Its mission: to train thousands of Americans in “nonviolent resistance” to fight back against the second Trump presidency.

The Lab partners with Harvard’s Nonviolent Action Lab, led by political scientist Erica Chenoweth—a global expert on civil resistance.

Again, the word nonviolent is Orwellian on purpose.

Chenoweth’s 2011 book “Why Civil Resistance Works” is widely cited. They’ve advised governments, activists, and international organizations on resistance strategy.

In short: Resistance Lab isn’t just grassroots—it’s built on academic theory and institutional power.

I wonder if this has anything to do with President Trump wanting to pull a federal money from Harvard University?

That’s a rhetorical question because I think this has a lot to do with his decision.

🧵🧵How a network of activist legal orgs worked to stop Trump’s border and immigration agenda — and how they’re already doing it again.

During Trump’s first term, a coordinated legal resistance formed to challenge nearly every aspect of his immigration agenda. The coalition included:
•ACLU
•American Immigration Council
•AILA (Immigration Lawyers)
•National Immigration Law Center (NILC)
•RFK Human Rights
•CASA

These groups weren’t operating independently. They were part of a well-funded, tightly coordinated legal-media-advocacy complex backed by Democratic elites and progressive donors. Their mission: use lawfare to paralyze immigration enforcement.

🧵🧵 Let’s review color revolutions. Since we are in the middle of one, I think it’s time to brush up on the tactics.

At its core, the purpose of a color revolution is to create division and disruption.

What’s a color revolution?
It’s a mass protest movement that overthrows a regime—usually after a disputed election.
But it’s rarely organic. These movements are engineered with foreign backing and a toolbox of psychological and social warfare.

The players:
•NED (National Endowment for Democracy)
•USAID
•U.S. State Department
•Open Society Foundations (Soros)
They fund, train, and arm “civil society” in info war, protest choreography, and regime change logistics.

🧵🧵 The actual constitutional crisis has absolutely nothing to do with President Trump, but because people don’t know their history, they don’t even understand how our constitution works.

The constitutional crisis started with Woodrow Wilson. And from there every other progressive democratic leader has slowly but surely ripped it apart more and more.

Donald Trump is actually returning us back to what it means to be a constitutional republic. Not the other way around.

It didn’t start in the 1960s. It started with Woodrow Wilson, the first president to openly reject the Founders’ vision. He believed the Constitution was outdated and that government should evolve with the times—“living Constitution” ideology begins here.

Wilson despised the checks and balances system. He called the Founders’ framework “mechanical” and obstructive to “efficient” governance. In other words: too much constraint on centralized power.

Under Wilson, we got the Federal Reserve (1913) and the income tax (16th Amendment)—two massive shifts away from decentralized government and individual economic liberty.

Then came FDR, who capitalized on the Great Depression to expand federal power through the New Deal. He tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 after they kept striking down his policies. A direct attack on judicial independence.

The New Deal created the administrative state—a fourth branch of government, unelected and unaccountable. Agencies began writing laws (regulations), interpreting them, and enforcing them—violating separation of powers.

🧵🧵 The Global Judicial Insurrection: How the Left Captured Courts in Brazil, Israel, as a trial run and is now working the U.S.—With Help from NGOs and USAID

Across the globe, the political Left has developed a powerful and repeatable strategy: when electoral victories are uncertain, capture the courts. Through a mix of litigation, media campaigns, international pressure, and vast NGO funding networks—often backed by U.S. taxpayer money—left-leaning elites are using judicial institutions to override democracy, impose ideological agendas, and insulate power from voters.

We saw the blueprint for this coordinated attack in Brazil, and Israel first, and now it’s being applied in the United States. Here’s how it works—and who’s funding it.

Brazil: Lawfare and Judicial Censorship

In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has become a hyper-political institution, operating well beyond its constitutional role. Under the leadership of figures like Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the court has:
•Prosecuted political opponents without due process
•Shut down media accounts critical of the Left
•Imprisoned Bolsonaro supporters for “disinformation”
•Interfered in elections and barred candidates from running

This is no longer about the rule of law—it’s about lawfare.

Behind this transformation is a well-funded network of NGOs and civil society groups. Major funders include:
•Open Society Foundations (George Soros)
•Ford Foundation
•USAID and other U.S. State Department affiliates

These groups have funded training for judges, legal education initiatives, and activist infrastructure that frame opposition as “fascist” or “anti-democratic.”

The result: Brazil’s highest court now operates as a de facto ideological enforcer.

Israel: Defending Democracy by Overriding It

Israel’s Supreme Court has long wielded enormous power—able to strike down laws, veto executive appointments, and block national reforms based on vague standards like “reasonableness.”

In 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government proposed modest judicial reforms, including:
•Letting elected officials influence judicial appointments
•Curbing the court’s ability to override democratically passed laws

This triggered mass protests and global outrage—but not spontaneously. Major Israeli and international NGOs orchestrated much of the unrest, including:
•The New Israel Fund
•Shatil
•Movement for Quality Government in Israel

These groups receive substantial funding from:
•Foreign governments (especially in Europe)
•Private U.S. foundations
•State Department–linked networks such as USAID

These NGOs coordinated mass mobilization, legal appeals, media narratives, and international pressure. The message: judicial reform = authoritarianism—even when proposed by an elected parliament.

Once again, foreign-funded groups used “democracy” language to defend judicial supremacy over the will of the people.