The pace of information release is increasing, all pointing to some kind of scamdemic type "emergency" following the same playbook from Trump 1.0 in the last year or so of his presidency. "They" tried to use the scamdemic as cover to implement their demonic world order through health passports and other totalitarian controls to solidify the globalist coup's grip on power. They are back at it again following the same playbook but different plays. They floated the plague out of a russian lab, the one you will read about below is straight up communist coup. We are told in advance so we can pray about and restrain these things:
In the closing months of 2026, with midterm elections approaching, a set of claims circulating from data analyst DataRepublican has drawn attention for its specificity. The argument is that progressive and left-wing networks have moved beyond public platform positions into operational planning for a multi-year sequence. If Democrats gain control of Congress in 2026, the Democratic Socialists of America and aligned street networks would function as deliberate “foot soldiers,” generating sustained clashes designed to cross a threshold that prompts the president to invoke the Insurrection Act sometime in 2027. Once that line is crossed, coordinated responses would follow: efforts to delegitimize federal authority and transfer practical legitimacy to Democratic governors. By 2028 the presidential election would be framed less as a normal contest between parties and more as a referendum on whether the existing constitutional structure should continue or be substantially rewritten to serve a younger, more diverse electorate.
The intellectual reference point is Erica Chenoweth, the Harvard scholar whose research on nonviolent civil resistance produced the widely cited “3.5 percent rule.” Chenoweth and collaborator Zoe Marks published a 2022 working paper, commissioned by progressive movement infrastructure, that explicitly called for building a “united democratic alliance” or united front capable of continuing contestation and constructing alternative institutions even if an authoritarian consolidation occurred. Public DSA platform language from 2026 goes further, endorsing abolition of the Senate, replacement of the presidency and Supreme Court with bodies subordinate to a unicameral Congress, and the drafting of a new constitution. These goals cannot be achieved through ordinary legislation; they require a break with the current constitutional settlement.
Why escalate rather than simply win 2028?
The strategic logic, under the assumption these plans are real, is that a conventional Democratic presidential victory in 2028 is neither reliable enough nor sufficient. A normal win leaves the Senate’s equal state representation, the Electoral College, judicial review, and the broader federal structure intact. Those features have repeatedly constrained the scale of change sought by the more radical elements of the coalition. Demographic projections that emphasize a “young and brown” electorate only strengthen the incentive: if the existing rules are viewed as permanently biased against that future majority, then waiting for 2028 under those rules looks like accepting structural disadvantage.
Contingency planning supplies another reason. The Chenoweth-Marks framework was written to prepare for partial or total loss of federal power. Street mobilization capacity already built through networks such as 50501, Indivisible, and the No Kings protests can be converted into pressure while a Republican administration is still in office. A 2026 midterm gain would give Democratic governors institutional cover for resistance. Waiting until after 2028 risks either losing the election or winning it under conditions that leave the constitutional obstacles in place and movement energy lower. Provoking a federal response that can then be portrayed as overreach creates a different political terrain—one in which state-level authority becomes the temporary center of legitimacy.
Not every participant needs to share the maximal end-state. In a model of overlapping incentives, mainstream actors may focus on ordinary electoral goals while more radical factions treat a managed crisis as the only realistic path to transformative change. The cumulative effect of their separate roles is what advances the sequence.
The earlier template: the 2020 crisis
This approach has a recent precedent. In the final year of the first Trump administration, the COVID-19 response functioned, for a significant segment of institutional and activist actors, as a crisis that expanded emergency powers, altered election administration, reoriented public health and corporate behavior, and shifted the boundaries of acceptable state action. What critics later called the “scamdemic” was not merely a public-health episode; it was a period in which extraordinary measures were justified under the cover of necessity, with lasting institutional and cultural consequences. Lockdowns, business closures, school disruptions, changes to voting procedures, and the rapid normalization of emergency governance demonstrated how a widely accepted crisis narrative could move policy and power farther and faster than ordinary legislative processes.
The parallel is not that the virus was fabricated, but that the response was leveraged by organized interests to achieve ends that would have been politically difficult under normal conditions. Emergency powers, narrative control, and the suspension of ordinary constraints proved effective. The current planning, if accurate, represents an adaptation of that lesson: rather than relying on a pathogen, the mechanism is deliberate street pressure timed to force a federal legal response, followed by a legitimacy transfer to sympathetic state governments. The cover changes—public health in 2020, democratic defense and anti-authoritarianism in 2026–2028—but the underlying pattern is the use of crisis to reconfigure institutional authority.
What remains unverified
DataRepublican has described obtaining large volumes of transcripts, recordings, and documents that reconstruct high-level discussions among groups that do not ordinarily leave public records. Those primary materials have not yet been released for independent examination. Until they are, the specific coordinating body, the precise operational timeline, and the degree of deliberate intent remain interpretive claims built on public platforms, published research, and protest infrastructure that do exist. Progressive organizations have openly discussed mass nonviolent action, scenario planning for contested power, and structural reform for years. The additional claim is that these elements have been assembled into a sequenced plan whose purpose is to force a constitutional rupture rather than simply win the next election.
Whether or not the full reconstruction holds, the public record already shows a faction that treats ordinary electoral success as inadequate to its goals and that has studied both nonviolent resistance theory and the practical advantages of crisis governance. The 2020 experience supplied one working model. The question now is whether a different model—centered on midterm gains, sustained street pressure, and a shift of legitimacy to governors—is being prepared for the years immediately ahead.
Please join with your brother in praying over the prayer targets today.
Glory to God
grace and peace
