LA is Ground Zero: Humanitarian or Insurrection?

Los Angeles has emerged as ground zero for a troubling phenomenon that raises questions about underlying motives and agendas. Some argue that orchestrated efforts are challenging the principles that have long defined the United States, using disruption and unrest as tools to destabilize the nation. This perspective too is having the effect of galvanizing conservative unity, reinforcing support for figures like President Trump by highlighting shared concerns about national identity and security.

Illegal immigration is at issue and remains a polarizing matter. Crossing the border without authorization is a clear violation of U.S. law, a fact not up for debate. Yet, the discourse often shifts legalities to emotional appeals, with sympathy for illegals sometimes overshadowing practical considerations. This dynamic, where compassion is leveraged for social clout, often, unfortunately, obscures reasoned debate.

The unrest in Los Angeles over the last days appears perplexing at first glance, but financial trails offer clarity. Organizations like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) have been linked to funding such protests, according to reliable reports. Demonstrators, some waving foreign flags, have clashed with authorities to resist deportation of illegals, while residents and businesses suffer amid the chaos. Local leadership, including Mayor Karen Bass, who served on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—an organization criticized in some circles for ties to U.S. intelligence and protest movements abroad—has faced accusations of inaction.

Compounding the issue, U.S. taxpayer dollars, unbeknownst to most all taxpayers, have been funneled through certain NGOs to support these activities, despite our nation’s dire financial straits. NGOs, often criticized as conduits for misappropriated funds, are under scrutiny.  Patterns are important, as they shed light on motivation and who is involved in demonstrations, like happening in LA.

1.  Funding Sources:

•  Wealthy domestic philanthropists with progressive and radical agendas

•  Taxpayer-funded grants to NGO’s fronting these agendas

•  Foreign entities with strategic interests

2.  Operational Engines:

•  NGOs and activist groups, including student organizations, allegedly paid to mobilize protests

3.  Participants:

•  A coalition of ideological groups, including communists, anarchists, and various activist factions

Critics argue that providing resources to illegal immigrants, while framed as compassion, strains public resources and undermines national priorities. Deportation, they contend, is a necessary measure to safeguard America’s future, prioritizing citizens’ welfare and the nation’s long-term stability.

One can argue that a deeper strategy is at play: a calculated do-or-die effort to exploit demographic shifts for political gain. The next U.S. Census in 2030 will count all residents, not just citizens, but including illegals, for congressional apportionment and electoral vote allocation. This means that higher populations in states like California, bolstered by some say as many as 4 million illegals, translate to more House seats and electoral power for those regions. The current unrest—protests, sanctuary city policies, and riots—is believed to most likely not be spontaneous but a preemptive campaign to preserve this political advantage. As the “Trump” deportations threaten to reduce these population counts, the stakes are high. Losing seats could erode the Democrat Party’s political influence, potentially forever. Understanding this situation makes responses by Democrats, well, understandable.

The tactics being used to counter such a possibly include: media campaigns to delay deportations; state-level resistance to maintain population figures; NGO-driven disruptions to complicate census accuracy; and protests designed to provoke federal responses, which are then framed by the media and politicians as overreach.

This perspective frames the conflict not as a fight for humanitarian ideals but as a struggle for political dominance, with the census as the battleground and representation as the prize. While the debate is complex, the focus on power dynamics does offer a lens to understand the intensity of the current moment and the "who" orchestrating the "how."