It’s Not About Aliens… The Continuing Government Cover-Up Is The Story (VIDEO)
June 26, 2026
For decades, Americans were told there was nothing to see. UFOs were the stuff of conspiracy theories, late-night radio, and little green men. Now the government admits unidentified aerial phenomena are real. Congress is holding hearings. Whistleblowers are coming forward. Files are being released.
But here’s the biggest takeaway from all of it: this story is far less about aliens and far more about government secrecy.
Despite years of promises about transparency, we still know next to nothing about alleged crash retrieval programs. We still have no answers about reported crash sites.
We still have no explanation for whistleblower claims that the government recovered so-called “non-human biologics.”
And we still have unelected bureaucrats and intelligence officials deciding what the American people are allowed to know.
If there is nothing to these claims, why won’t the government fully open the books? If there is something to them, why are they still hiding it?
The reality is the cover-up may be the biggest story of all. Not necessarily a cover-up of extraterrestrials, but a cover-up of information, technology, programs, and knowledge that has been kept from the American people for generations.
JUST IN: Trump Says Iran Had a “Foolish Violation” of Ceasefire by Launching Drones at Cargo Ship in the Strait of Hormuz
June 26, 2026
Strait of Hormuz
President Trump accused Iran of a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire and 60-day memorandum of understanding on Friday after Iran launched drones at a cargo ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.
The attack comes amid disagreement over Iran charging “transit fees” or tolls in the Strait, which US officials have repeatedly said will not be allowed. However, Iran has reportedly been noncommittal to allowing toll-free shipping in the Strait.
Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps struck a Singapore-flagged commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official confirmed to CBS News.
The cargo vessel in the Strait of Hormuz was struck by an “unknown projectile” on Thursday evening near the Oman coast, according to the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations. The U.S. official confirmed the vessel was hit by an Iranian drone.
The U.S.-approved route for ships to travel through the Strait of Hormuz involves hugging the Omani coastline, while Iran has called for ships to travel along a northern route.
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority, the agency set up by Iran to manage transit through the Straight of Hormuz, said in a statement after the attack, “Any passage through routes outside the framework designated by PGSA will not be covered by safe passage guarantees and will not be entitled to insurance coverage or related liabilities.”
It added, “The consequences arising from passage through unauthorized routes shall be the responsibility of the owner, operator, and vessel commander.”
The UN has since paused plans to evacuate stranded ships through the strait, with the UN’s International Maritime Organization Secretary General, Arsenio Dominguez, citing the attack. Dominguez wrote on X, “Seafarer safety remains paramount. To ensure coordinated approach & navigational safety, the IMO evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity.”
More from Fox:
Trump responded, saying the US shot down three of four drones and accusing Iran of a “foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement.”
“One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way,” Trump said.
Full statement below:
The Islamic Republic of Iran shot at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz. One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way. We knocked down three other Drones. Obviously, this is a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Judge Holds County Prosecutor in Contempt For Violating Publicity Order But Denies Tyler Robinson’s Request to Strike Death Penalty from Charlie Kirk Murder Case
June 26, 2026
Utah Judge Tony Graf found one of the county prosecutors in the Charlie Kirk murder case in contempt for violating a publicity order but denied Tyler Robinson’s request to strike the death penalty from the case.
BREAKING: A Utah judge just found one of the county prosecutors in the Tyler Robinson case in contempt for violating the court’s pre-trial publicity order.
This comes as the judge also denies Robinson’s request to remove the death penalty from the Charlie Kirk murder case.… pic.twitter.com/xYMQZ5hx92
Robinson fatally shot TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 during an event at Utah Valley University.
Tyler Robinson allegedly used a Mauser 98 .30-06 rifle to kill Charlie Kirk.
Robinson was charged with:
– Count 1: Aggravated murder (capital offense)
– Count 2: Felony reckless discharge of a firearm causing bodily injury
– Count 3: Felony obstruction of justice for hiding the firearm
– Count 4: Felony obstruction of justice for discarding the clothing he wore during the shooting
– Count 5: Witness tampering for asking roommate to delete incriminating messages
– Count 6: Witness tampering for demanding trans roommate stay silent, and not speak to police
– Count 7: Commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child
Earlier this year, it was reported that newly-released search warrants revealed Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson’s damning handwritten note to his transgender lover, Lance Twiggs.
Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson and roommate Lance Twiggs
The newly-unsealed affidavit revealed that Tyler Robinson wrote a handwritten letter to his live-in lover Lance Twiggs, AKA, “Luna” in which he admits to a plot to kill Charlie Kirk.
“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it,” Robinson wrote.
Investigators also recovered DNA, a palm print on the roof of the Losee Center building.
According to a new report, a bullet fragment recovered from Charlie Kirk’s body was identified as a .30 caliber that matched the rifle used by Tyler Robinson.
Tyler Robinson’s lover, Lance Twiggs, has been granted limited “use immunity” to testify in person at an upcoming hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case.
Prosecutors said in a court filing that they want to cross-examine Lance Twiggs.
The prosecutors plan to present Lance Twiggs’s text exchanges with Robinson and recorded statements during next month’s preliminary hearing.
WATCH: Border Czar Tom Homan Announces 10,000 New Immigration Agents Nationwide, Tells Cartel Threats ‘Come Get Some!’
June 26, 2026
Border Czar Tom Homan has announced a major expansion of immigration enforcement resources, including the deployment of 10,000 new agents nationwide.
Homan, speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to the Majority” conference in Washington, DC, on Friday, noted that the administration has already achieved a record, historic year of deportations.
“We had a record, historic year with deportations… But now we’ve got 10,000 more agents on board. Wait until next year!” Homan said.
WATCH:
JUST NOW: Border Czar Tom Homan terrifies the left, announcing 10,000 THOUSAND new immigration agents have surged nationwide
“We had a record, historic year with deportations…”
Homan also detailed how Trump offered him his job. He recounted the president saying to him, “You’ve been bitching about [border security] for four years, you want to come fix it?”
“How do you say no to that?” Homan said.
WATCH:
WOW! President Trump said to Tom Homan before appointing him to his administration:
TRUMP: “You’ve been b*tching about [border security] for 4 years, you want to come fix it?”
Can’t Beat Them, Ban Them: Globalist NGO Report Attempts to Reignite AfD Ban Debate, Again
June 26, 2026
Via ccnull.de
Germany’s globalist ruling establishment—increasingly unpopular at home—is once again flirting with the most anti-democratic weapon in its arsenal: banning the Alternative for Germany, the national-conservative party that has become the country’s strongest vehicle for a citizen-led revolt against mass immigration, anti-free speech censorship, and regime unaccountability.
This latest anti-democratic offensive has not come from the German people. It has come from a legal opinion produced by the NGO Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, or GFF, which claims that AfD is unconstitutional under Article 21 of Germany’s Basic Law, according to reports from German media.
The organization’s name translates as the Society for Civil Rights—a remarkably ironic title for a group whose report is now being used to build the case for removing millions of German voters from meaningful democratic representation.
The GFF report runs more than 3,000 pages and relies on public material. Its authors reviewed speeches, social-media posts, party programs, parliamentary motions, press releases, and policy documents from across AfD’s national, regional and local structures.
The NGO argues that AfD violates Germany’s democratic order and the guarantee of human dignity. It accuses the party of promoting an “ethno-cultural” understanding of the German people and of seeking to disadvantage foreigners, Germans with a migration background, Muslims, asylum seekers and other groups.
The report also claims AfD threatens democratic competition by targeting political opponents. It says the party intends to use criminal prosecution against rival politicians and alleges that supporters are intimidating opponents and other groups.
“Radical forces have gained the upper hand within the AfD,” the report claims. It says more than 2,500 pieces of evidence show party goals and supporter behavior directed partly against democracy and partly against human dignity.
The GFF also says it found more than 220 pieces of evidence suggesting AfD wants to prosecute politicians from other parties for political decisions. The report argues that party discipline has not been used against many figures accused of promoting unconstitutional positions.
Yet the report also contains a revealing admission. According to reporting on the document, it does not establish that AfD seeks to abolish parliamentary democracy or that the party has an “essential affinity with National Socialism.”
That point is significant. If the report cannot show that AfD wants to abolish parliamentary democracy, then the ban campaign looks more like a pathetic attempt to contain the largest political party, while the old, establishment parties’ popularity continue to decrease precipitously.
The message, for German patriots, from the establishment is quite clear. Berlin’s old parties cannot defeat AfD on immigration, crime, energy, sovereignty, free speech or living standards, so they are reaching for courts, NGOs and anti-democratic bureaucratic machinery.
The report, to nobody’s surprise, was immediately seized upon by the failing Social Democrats and Greens, which together have 25.5% of the vote—well below AfD’s 29%. SPD leader and Labour Minister Bärbel Bas called for “legal steps,” declaring that when democracy is threatened, “all Democrats are obliged to act.”
Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil urged security authorities to examine the document “in detail.” Former SPD co-leader Saskia Esken said the argument that a ban proceeding had no chance of success was now “definitively off the table.”
The Greens, per usual, were even more aggressive. Green co-chair Britta Haßelmann called for talks with parliamentary leaders from the CDU/CSU, SPD and Left Party on a formal motion to ban AfD.
“We need legal proceedings to ban the AfD,” Haßelmann said. Green politicians Ricarda Lang and Till Steffen also pushed for a review procedure, with Lang declaring on X that “the AfD is demonstrably unconstitutional.”
The legal process is clear. Neither the Greens nor the SPD can ban AfD by themselves; only the Bundestag, the Bundesrat or the federal government can file a party-ban application, and only the Federal Constitutional Court can make the final decision.
But the political intent is equally clear. Germany’s failing, deeply unpopular establishment is openly discussing whether to use the state to destroy the opposition party that most directly challenges its immigration policy, climate ideology and post-national worldview.
Germany has already seen one major party-ban failure in recent history. The Constitutional Court rejected an effort to ban the NPD in 2017, finding that the party lacked the real capacity to impose its program.
AfD is entirely different because it is not marginal. It sits in the Bundestag, holds seats across regional parliaments and has become the central opposition force for Germans who believe their country is being transformed without consent.
In the eastern part of Germany, the party enjoys as much as—and even over in some cases—40% of the vote.
That is precisely why its opponents are afraid. In the NPD case, political irrelevancy helped save the party from being banned; in the AfD case, democratic strength is being treated as evidence of danger.
AfD won 152 Bundestag seats in the 2025 federal election, adding 69 seats. Recent polling places AfD well ahead of any other party in terms of popular support, making a ban attempt look far less like a defense of democracy than an attack on democracy’s outcome.
The establishment’s twisted logic is increasingly naked. If Germans vote for the approved parties, democracy is healthy; if they vote for AfD, democracy must be protected from the voters.
This is not unique to Germany. Across Europe, national-conservative, right-wing parties are smeared as threats to democracy while NGOs, regime media networks, and courts are mobilized to police the boundaries of acceptable politics.
It’s worth noting that AfD’s rise did not happen in a vacuum. It was fueled by mass immigration, failed integration, crime fears, housing pressure, energy chaos, economic decline, and the suffocating censorship culture that tells Germans they must not notice what is happening in their own country.
For millions upon millions of voters, AfD is the only major party willing to say that strong borders matter, citizenship matters and Germany belongs to the German people. That is why the push to ban represents a direct attack on national self-determination.
The NGO behind the report describes itself as independent and donation-funded. Reporting cited in the source material says GFF has received support from major philanthropic foundations, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Luminate, Stiftung Mercator, the Alfred Landecker Foundation and Demokratie-Stiftung Campact.
That funding profile has only intensified suspicion on the right. To AfD voters, a foundation-backed NGO helping revive a ban campaign against Germany’s main anti-massimmigration party looks like the globalist infrastructure of soft authoritarianism.
The timing is also striking. AfD has questioned the role of publicly or indirectly funded NGOs in German political life, including their influence over migration policy, public debate and government-aligned activism.
Now this latest NGO report is being used by failing establishment parties as ammunition against AfD. The circle could hardly be more obvious: the party challenges the NGO-political complex, and the NGO-political complex tries to remove the party from the ballot.
The free-speech implications are enormous. The report treats statements, slogans, policy proposals and parliamentary activity as evidence of potential unconstitutionality, raising the question of whether immigration dissent itself is now being reclassified as a threat to the German state.
A democracy that cannot tolerate calls for stricter borders, deportations, remigration, national preference, criticism of Islamization or prosecution of officials who betrayed public trust is not defending pluralism. It is narrowing the boundaries of permissible thought until opposition becomes illegal.
AfD’s opponents claim they are protecting the constitutional order. But banning a party—the most popular party in the country—supported by millions upon millions of Germans would create a far deeper legitimacy crisis than allowing voters to decide the future of immigration, sovereignty and national identity.
Germany’s ruling class faces a choice. It can solve the crises that made AfD powerful, or it can try to outlaw the party that gave those crises a voice.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
JUST NOW: Border Czar Tom Homan terrifies the left, announcing 10,000 THOUSAND new immigration agents have surged nationwide
