No Party Politics

Directions

No Party Politics Hello I only Post Vetited Truths about All Governments.

Help Stop this two party war by dissolving this two party system and make a majority vote system without party affiliated labels on the Ballots, DMV and any other official registration applications.

Google?What percent of 18 to 35 year old American voters consider themselves voter independent?Data from the Pew Researc...
08/22/2026

Google?
What percent of 18 to 35 year old American voters consider themselves voter independent?

Data from the Pew Research Center shows that roughly 45% to 55% of young adults depend on their parents for financial help but vote their conscience.
Those that don't engage in the political system equate to slightly less than half.

Stats of 45% of young adults aged 18 to 34 say they are completely politically independent.
55% receive some form of influence by increasing rent, or daily expenses.

Younger vs. Older:
Independence increases with age;
young adults aged 18 to 24 are major influence
While those in their early 30s are independent at much higher rates.

Google?

What percentage of Americans have $50,000 in savings?

Approximately 11% of Americans have $50,000 or more in liquid cash savings, according to representative consumer survey data from YouGov and Statista.

Because the vast majority of U.S. households hold significantly less cash, looking at broader data sets provided by the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances reveals a deep divide between traditional bank savings and retirement investments.

Google?
What percent of 18-30 year olds live at home?

Approximately 49% to 50% of young adults aged 18 to 29 live with their parents in the United States, according to recent data from the Federal Reserve and the Pew Research Center.
When expanding the age bracket slightly to include adults up to age 34 or looking at broader multi-year averages, the overall share sits at roughly one in three (33%) for ages 18 to 34.

Breakdown by Age Groups

Young adults in their late teens and early twenties drive the highest percentages, which taper down as age increases:

Ages 18–24: Roughly 57% to 58% live at home, heavily influenced by college-age students and early career formation.

Ages 25–29: About 20% reside with their parents.

Ages 30–34: Around 11% to 13% continue to live in the family home

GOOGLE?Why do human people that have the power to stop the military industrial complex NOT STOP THEM?1. Powerful leaders...
08/09/2026

GOOGLE?
Why do human people that have the power to stop the military industrial complex NOT STOP THEM?

1. Powerful leaders do not stop the military-industrial complex because it creates massive economic wealth, funds millions of jobs across key voting districts, and gives nations global military dominance.

2. Politicians rely on defense money to win elections.Economic Power and Jobs.

3. Factory towns:
A. Defense factories spread across many states.

4.. Local jobs:
1. Closing them causes massive job losses.

5. Voter pressure:
A. Lawmakers protect jobs to win votes.

5. Political Influencer campaign money:

A. Defense firms donate huge sums to political campaigns.Lobbying: Companies spend billions to convince lawmakers to buy more weapons.

6. Revolving door:

A. Former officials often work for defense contractors later.

7. National Security Fears global power:

A. Leaders believe big militaries keep countries safe.

8. Fear of enemies:

A. Officials always claim new threats require more weapons.

9. Status quo:
A. No leader wants to look weak on defense.
SO EVERYONE DIES FOR MONEY GREED AND NO ONE DOES ANYTHING TO STOP IT.

Yes, many analysts see parallels between Venezuela's severe economic/humanitarian crisis and Cuba's "Special Period," wi...
12/12/2025

Yes, many analysts see parallels between Venezuela's severe economic/humanitarian crisis and Cuba's "Special Period," with deep US-Cuba ties, but Venezuela is a chaotic oil state, not a disciplined Soviet client, with its own unique crisis fueled by hyperinflation, shortages, and massive emigration, now heightened by renewed US military pressure under the Trump administration and linked to Cuba through advisors and oil deals, making it a complex "new" crisis, not just a repeat.
Key Parallels to Cuba's Crisis (Special Period):
Economic Collapse & Shortages: Similar to Cuba after the Soviet Union's fall, Venezuela faces hyperinflation, food insecurity, and scarcity of basic goods (bread, milk, medicine).
US Confrontation: The US has a long history of tension with Cuba, now mirrored by aggressive US policy (sanctions, military posturing) against Venezuela's Maduro government.
Cuba's Involvement: Venezuela provides Cuba with subsidized oil in exchange for Cuban doctors, teachers, and military advisors, creating a strong bond and mutual support system.
Key Differences & Unique Venezuelan Aspects:
Oil-Dependent Chaos: Venezuela's crisis stems from mismanagement of vast oil wealth, leading to state incompetence, unlike Cuba's centrally planned economy.

James Biden, the brother of President Joe Biden, has faced scrutiny as part of a House Republican impeachment inquiry in...
11/11/2025

James Biden, the brother of President Joe Biden, has faced scrutiny as part of a House Republican impeachment inquiry into the President's family's business dealings, which included allegations of "influence peddling" and financial misconduct. The specific allegations against James Biden primarily involve his business activities and recent accusations of making false statements to Congress.
Allegations and Investigations
Influence Peddling: House Republicans claim James Biden and other family members used the "Biden brand" to gain business deals and payments from foreign entities, allegedly receiving over $20 million in total. Democrats and the White House deny these claims, stating there is no evidence the President engaged in misconduct.
False Statements to Congress: In June 2024, House Republican committee chairmen recommended James and Hunter Biden be charged with making false statements to Congress during transcribed interviews. Republicans allege James Biden lied about President Joe Biden's involvement in a deal with a Chinese energy firm, citing a business associate as contradictory evidence.
Americore Health Lawsuit: James Biden was involved with Americore, a healthcare company that filed for bankruptcy. A trustee sued him in 2022, claiming he failed to repay over $600,000 in loans allegedly secured by using his family name to "open doors". He settled the lawsuit for $350,000, and federal authorities have investigated some of these dealings.
Financial Transactions: Banks have flagged over 150 transactions related to James or Hunter Biden's foreign business affairs as "suspicious activity reports" (SARs). These reports are common and do not automatically indicate wrongdoing.
Current Status
The House Republican criminal referrals regarding false statements to Congress have been sent to the Department of Justice. These referrals do not have the force of law on their own. The civil lawsuit related to Americore has been settled.
It is important to note that no "atrocities" in the sense of war crimes have been credibly alleged against James Biden. The term "atrocities" in search results refers to war crimes committed by paramilitary forces in Sudan, not the allegations against James Biden. The allegations against James Biden primarily concern financial misconduct and allegedly lying to Congress.

Yes, a president can still be tried for treason after leaving office, even if they attempt to exclude themselves from pr...
11/11/2025

Yes, a president can still be tried for treason after leaving office, even if they attempt to exclude themselves from prosecution. The Constitution allows for criminal prosecution of a former president after an impeachment trial, and a former president is not immune from being tried for actions taken while in office. The specific charge of treason is complicated, but the legal framework exists for a former president to face a criminal trial.
Post-Impeachment Prosecution: The Constitution explicitly states that after a judgment in an impeachment case, the convicted person is still "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law," notes PwnAllTheThings.
No Absolute Immunity from Prosecution: While presidents are granted immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, this immunity does not apply to unofficial acts and is not absolute, explains Wikipedia and Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.
Leaving office does not grant immunity from prosecution: A president can be held accountable for their actions after they leave office, and they can be impeached to expedite this process.

Yes, Elon Musk sells private shares to fund his ventures, and he has also used private share sales and inter-company cas...
11/07/2025

Yes, Elon Musk sells private shares to fund his ventures, and he has also used private share sales and inter-company cash flow to fund other ventures like xAI. He sells shares of his private companies, such as SpaceX, to investors in select groups, including his close associates, who then can sell them to other wealthy individuals or through special purpose vehicles (SPVs).
How he funds his ventures
Selling private shares: Musk has a tight circle of investors, including his close associates like Valor Equity Partners, who buy shares in his private companies like SpaceX and xAI. These investors can then sell these shares to a wider circle of wealthy investors.
Using cash from shareholders: Musk has used cash from shareholders in one of his companies, like Tesla, to fund his other ambitions, such as the AI company xAI. This practice has raised legal challenges.
SpaceX's interval liquidity program: SpaceX has an "interval liquidity program" that allows its shareholders to buy and sell shares two to three times a year. SpaceX maintains significant control over who the investors are and the price at which they buy shares.
Why this funding method is important for Musk
Funding high-cost ventures: The technology and AI industries require massive capital to fund research, development, and global operations.
Building a private empire: By funding these high-cost ventures through private share sales and inter-company cash flow, Musk has been able to build a private empire alongside his public companies. This gives him more control over his ventures and allows him to keep them out of the public eye as long as possible.

It is not possible to provide an exact number of prostitutes working in the Virgin Islands, both due to the illegal natu...
10/21/2025

It is not possible to provide an exact number of prostitutes working in the Virgin Islands, both due to the illegal nature of prostitution in the U.S. Virgin Islands and the difficulty in tracking such activity. However, reports from government agencies and victim advocates indicate that s*x trafficking and prostitution are significant issues in both the U.S. and British Virgin Islands.
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)
Expect current numbers to be larger due to non reporting since..
A 2022 article from the St. Thomas Source cited a report from the Human Trafficking Institute showing that in 2020, the U.S. Virgin Islands federal courts handled more s*x trafficking cases per capita than any U.S. state.
A 2019 investigation by the same news source found that s*x trafficking was an extensive and well-known issue in the territory, involving the illegal smuggling of women for forced prostitution.
A 2007 study identified 101 migrant female s*x workers in St. Croix and St. Thomas. The study focused on substance use and HIV risk, with findings relevant to the prevalence of s*x work.
Federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have conducted operations that have exposed prostitution and human trafficking rings.
British Virgin Islands (BVI)
Prostitution is legal in the BVI, but soliciting and procuring are illegal.

The industry primarily operates in brothels and strip clubs, especially in the capital of Road Town.

Since the s*x work is not fully regulated, with many workers potentially unregistered, precise numbers are not known.
As is the case in the U.S. Virgin Islands, migrant workers are involved in the s*x trade.

Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known dron...
10/12/2025

Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions. The lack of coverage was surprising, given that the Air Force expects to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs over the coming decade at around $30 million each, making this one of the Pentagon’s costliest new projects. But consider that the least of what the media failed to note. In winning the CCA contract, Anduril and General Atomics beat out three of the country’s largest and most powerful defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman — posing a severe threat to the continued dominance of the existing military-industrial complex, or MIC.

For decades, a handful of giant firms like those three have garnered the lion’s share of Pentagon arms contracts, producing the same planes, ships, and missiles year after year while generating huge profits for their owners. But an assortment of new firms, born in Silicon Valley or incorporating its disruptive ethos, have begun to challenge the older ones for access to lucrative Pentagon awards. In the process, something groundbreaking, though barely covered in the mainstream media, is underway: a new MIC is being born, one that potentially will have very different goals and profit-takers than the existing one. How the inevitable battles between the old and the new MICs play out can’t be foreseen, but count on one thing: they are sure to generate significant political turbulence in the years to come.

The very notion of a “military-industrial complex” linking giant defense contractors to powerful figures in Congress and the military was introduced on January 17, 1961, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to Congress and the American people. In that Cold War moment, in response to powerful foreign threats, he noted that “we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” Nevertheless, he added, using the phrase for the first time, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Ever since, debate over the MIC’s accumulating power has roiled American politics. A number of politicians and prominent public figures have portrayed U.S. entry into a catastrophic series of foreign wars — in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — as a consequence of that complex’s undue influence on policymaking. No such claims and complaints, however, have ever succeeded in loosening the MIC’s iron grip on Pentagon arms procurement. This year’s record defense budget of approximately $850 billion includes $143.2 billion for research and development and another $167.5 billion for the procurement of weaponry. That $311 billion, most of which will be funneled to those giant defense firms, exceeds the total amount spent on defense by every other country on Earth.

Over time, the competition for billion-dollar Pentagon contracts has led to a winnowing of the MIC ecosystem, resulting in the dominance of a few major industrial behemoths. In 2024, just five companies — Lockheed Martin (with $64.7 billion in defense revenues), RTX (formerly Raytheon, with $40.6 billion), Northrop Grumman ($35.2 billion), General Dynamics ($33.7 billion), and Boeing ($32.7 billion) — claimed the vast bulk of Pentagon contracts. (Anduril and General Atomics didn’t even appear on a list of the top 100 contract recipients.)

Typically, these companies are the lead, or “prime,” contractors for major weapons systems that the Pentagon keeps buying year after year. Lockheed Martin, for example, is the prime contractor for the Air Force’s top-priority F-35 stealth fighter (a plane that has often proved distinctly disappointing in operation); Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 stealth bomber; Boeing produces the F-15EX combat jet; and General Dynamics makes the Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines. “Big-ticket” items like these are usually purchased in substantial numbers over many years, ensuring steady profits for their producers. When the initial buys of such systems seem to be nearing completion, their producers usually generate new or upgraded versions of the same weapons, while employing their powerful lobbying arms in Washington to convince Congress to fund the new designs.

Over the years, non-governmental organizations like the National Priorities Project and the Friends Committee on National Legislation have heroically tried to persuade lawmakers to resist the MIC’s lobbying efforts and reduce military spending, but without noticeable success. Now, however, a new force — Silicon Valley startup culture — has entered the fray, and the military-industrial complex equation is suddenly changing dramatically.

Along came Anduril
Consider Anduril Industries, one of two under-the-radar companies that left three MIC heavyweights in the dust last April by winning the contract to build a prototype of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Anduril (named after the sword carried by Aragorn in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings) was founded in 2017 by Palmer Luckey, a virtual-reality headset designer, with the goal of incorporating artificial intelligence into novel weapons systems. He was supported in that effort by prominent Silicon Valley investors, including Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund and the head of another defense-oriented startup, Palantir (a name also derived from The Lord of the Rings).

From the start, Luckey and his associates sought to shoulder aside traditional defense contractors to make room for their high-tech startups. Those two companies and other new-fledged tech firms often found themselves frozen out of major Pentagon contracts that had long been written to favor the MIC giants with their bevies of lawyers and mastery of government paperwork. In 2016, Palantir even sued the US Army for refusing to consider it for a large data-processing contract and later prevailed in court, opening the door for future Department of Defense awards.

In addition to its aggressive legal stance, Anduril has also gained notoriety thanks to the outspokenness of its founder, Palmer Luckey. Whereas other corporate leaders were usually restrained in their language when discussing Department of Defense operations, Luckey openly criticized the Pentagon’s in**ed preference for working with traditional defense contractors at the expense of investments in the advanced technologies he believes are needed to overpower China and Russia in some future conflict.

Such technology, he insisted, was only available from the commercial tech industry. “The largest defense contractors are staffed with patriots who nevertheless do not have the software expertise or business model to build the technology we need,” Luckey and his top associates claimed in their 2022 Mission Document. “These companies work slowly, while the best [software] engineers relish working at speed. And the software engineering talent who can build faster than our adversaries resides in the commercial sector, not at large defense primes.”

To overcome obstacles to military modernization, Luckey argued, the government needed to loosen its contracting rules and make it easier for defense startups and software companies to do business with the Pentagon. “We need defense companies that are fast. That won’t happen simply by wishing it to be so: it will only happen if companies are incentivized to move” by far more permissive Pentagon policies.

Buttressed by such arguments, as well as the influence of key figures like Thiel, Anduril began to secure modest but strategic contracts from the military and the Department of Homeland Security. In 2019, it received a small Marine Corps contract to install AI-enabled perimeter surveillance systems at bases in Japan and the United States. A year later, it won a five-year, $25 million contract to build surveillance towers on the US–Mexican border for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In September 2020, it also received a $36 million CBP contract to build additional sentry towers along that border.

After that, bigger awards began to roll in. In February 2023, the Department of Defense started buying Anduril’s Altius-600 surveillance/attack drone for delivery to the Ukrainian military and, last September, the Army announced that it would purchase its Ghost-X drone for battlefield surveillance operations. Anduril is also now one of four companies selected by the Air Force to develop prototypes for its proposed Enterprise Test Vehicle, a medium-sized drone intended to launch salvos of smaller surveillance and attack drones.

Anduril’s success in winning ever-larger Pentagon contracts has attracted the interest of wealthy investors looking for opportunities to profit from the expected growth of defense-oriented startups. In July 2020, it received fresh investments of $200 million from Thiel’s Founders Fund and prominent Silicon Valley investor Andreessen Horowitz, raising the company’s valuation to nearly $2 billion. A year later, Anduril obtained another $450 million from those and other venture capital firms, bringing its estimated valuation to $4.5 billion (double what it had been in 2020). More finance capital has flowed into Anduril since then, spearheading a major drive by private investors to fuel the rise of defense startups — and profit from their growth as it materializes.

The Replicator initiative
Along with its success in attracting big defense contracts and capital infusions, Anduril has succeeded in convincing many senior Pentagon officials of the need to reform the department’s contracting operations so as to make more room for defense startups and tech firms. On August 28, 2023, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, then the department’s second-highest official, announced the inauguration of the “Replicator” initiative, designed to speed the delivery of advanced weaponry to the armed forces.

“[Our] budgeting and bureaucratic processes are slow, cumbersome, and byzantine,” she acknowledged. To overcome such obstacles, she indicated, the Replicator initiative would cut through red tape and award contracts directly to startups for the rapid development and delivery of cutting-edge weaponry. “Our goal,” she declared, “is to seed, spark, and stoke the flames of innovation.”

As Hicks suggested, Replicator contracts would indeed be awarded in successive batches, or “tranches.” The first tranche, announced last May, included AeroVironment Switchblade 600 kamikaze drones (called that because they are supposed to crash into their intended targets, exploding on contact). Anduril was a triple winner in the second tranche, announced on November 13th. According to the Department of Defense, that batch included funding for the Army’s purchase of Ghost-X surveillance drones, the Marine Corps’ acquisition of Altius-600 kamikaze drones, and development of the Air Force’s Enterprise Test Vehicle, of which Anduril is one of four participating vendors.

Just as important, perhaps, was Hicks’ embrace of Palmer Luckey’s blueprint for reforming Pentagon purchasing. “The Replicator initiative is demonstrably reducing barriers to innovation, and delivering capabilities to warfighters at a rapid pace,” she affirmed in November. “We are creating opportunities for a broad range of traditional and nontraditional defense and technology companies… and we are building the capability to do that again and again.”

Enter the Trumpians
Kathleen Hicks stepped down as deputy secretary of defense on January 20th when Donald Trump reoccupied the White House, as did many of her top aides. Exactly how the incoming administration will address the issue of military procurement remains to be seen, but many in Trump’s inner circle, including Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance, have strong ties to Silicon Valley and so are likely to favor Replicator-like policies.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host who recently won confirmation as secretary of defense, has no background in weapons development and has said little about the topic. However, Trump’s choice as deputy secretary (and Hick’s replacement) is billionaire investor Stephen A. Feinberg who, as chief investment officer of Cerberus Capital Management, acquired the military startup Stratolaunch — suggesting that he might favor extending programs like Replicator.

In a sense, the Trump moment will fit past Washington patterns when it comes to the Pentagon in that the president and his Republican allies in Congress will undoubtedly push for a massive increase in military spending, despite the fact that the military budget is already at a staggering all-time high. Every arms producer is likely to profit from such a move, whether traditional prime contractors or Silicon Valley startups. If, however, defense spending is kept at current levels — in order to finance the tax cuts and other costly measures favored by Trump and the Republicans — fierce competition between the two versions of the military-industrial complex could easily arise again. That, in turn, might trigger divisions within Trump’s inner circle, pitting loyalists to the old MIC against adherents to the new one.

Most Republican lawmakers, who generally rely on contributions from the old MIC companies to finance their campaigns, are bound to support the major prime contractors in such a rivalry. But two of Trump’s key advisers, J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, could push him in the opposite direction. Vance, a former Silicon Valley functionary who reportedly became Trump’s running mate only after heavy lobbying by Peter Thiel and other tech billionaires, is likely to be encouraged by his former allies to steer more Pentagon contracts to Anduril, Palantir, and related companies. And that would hardly be surprising, since Vance’s private venture fund, Narya Capital (yes, another name derived from The Lord of the Rings!), has invested in Anduril and other military/space ventures.

Named by Trump to direct the as-yet-to-be-established Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, like Anduril’s Palmer Luckey, fought the Department of Defense to obtain contracts for one of his companies, SpaceX, and has expressed deep contempt for the Pentagon’s traditional way of doing things. In particular, he has denigrated the costly, generally ill-performing Lockheed-made F-35 jet fighter at a time when AI-governed drones are becoming ever more capable. Despite that progress, as he wrote on X, the social media platform he now owns, “some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.” In a subsequent post, he added that “manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway.”

His critique of the F-35 ruffled feathers at the Air Force and caused Lockheed’s stock to fall by more than 3%. “We are committed to delivering the world’s most advanced aircraft — the F-35 — and its unrivaled capabilities with the government and our industry partners,” Lockheed declared in response to Musk’s tweets. Over at the Pentagon, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall had this to say: “I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk as an engineer. He’s not a warfighter, and he needs to learn a little bit more about the business, I think, before he makes such grand announcements as he did.” He then added, “I don’t see F-35 being replaced. We should continue to buy it, and we also should continue to upgrade it.”

Read more, think deeper and become smarter, perhaps even wiser, one article at a time. Sign up for our free newsletters now.
Enter your email address

President Trump has yet to indicate his stance on the F-35 or other high-priced items in the Pentagon’s budget lineup. He may (or may not) call for a slowdown in purchases of that plane and seek greater investment in other projects. Still, the divide exposed by Musk — between costly manned weapons made by traditional defense contractors and more affordable unmanned systems made by the likes of Anduril, General Atomics, and AeroVironment — is bound to widen in the years to come as the new version of the military-industrial complex only grows in wealth and power. How the old MIC will address such a threat to its primacy remains to be seen, but multibillion-dollar weapons companies are not likely to step aside without a fight. And that fight will likely divide the Trumpian universe.

08/13/2025

All things Shall Pass. No Party Politics GeorgeHarrison counter to be covered up during World War II. This claim is based on documents released by the British government, which include a letter stating that Churchill feared mass panic and a loss of faith in religion if the public learned about a UFO sighting.
AI Overview

Churchill 'covered up UFO sighting' | London Evening Standard ...
Yes, it is claimed that Winston Churchill ordered a UFO encounter to be covered up during World War II. This claim is based on documents released by the British government, which include a letter stating that Churchill feared mass panic and a loss of faith in religion if the public learned about a UFO sighting.

08/13/2025

ASK GOOGLE NOW! IT IS IN A TRANSITION AND WILL ANSWER MOST QUESTIONS YOU HAD BEFORE THAT STATED ... THERE IS NO DIFINITVE ANSWER.
JUST Ask and SEE.

Address

Delray Beach, FL

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when No Party Politics posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Nearby government services