CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Multiculturalism as a subversive movement is the defining political schism of our time. Is is the fulcrum point for numerous civilization changing events and a direct trigger for the exponential decline of the western world. Anyone who ignores the effects of multiculturalism will be oblivious to the many disruptions coming to our lives today and in the near future.

In 1992, Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott (a member of the globalist Council On Foreign Relations) wrote an essay for Time Magazine called “The Birth Of The Global Nation.”  In that article, he outlined the globalist view of national sovereignty as temporary and cultural boundaries as obstacles that could be subdued by luring countries into economic interdependency.

Talbott dismissed cultural distinctions as arbitrary and cited the incoming formation of the European Union as an example of supranational governance over otherwise separate and unique cultural identities.

However, the globalists ran into some problems. Westerners might have been able to create supranational ties because of shared cultural roots, but they were not going to open their borders to the rest of the world without being forced. From around 2012 onward, a program of multiculturalism was introduced with mass immigration as the primary weapon.

We have seen disastrous results ever since. Portions of Europe are facing societal collapse, and this was by design. Keep in mind, globalism does not necessarily need borders to fully disappear, but it does need national identities and loyalties to disappear. Specifically, western societies must be diluted and their heritage erased for the globalist “New World Order” to move forward.

The fastest way to do that is to overwhelm western demographics with mass movements of people who hold completely contrary ideals . In light of the plague of riots in France this past week led by mobs of migrants and Marxist activists (globalist pawns), I thought it might be important to once again clarify why the third world should never be allowed to settle in the western world.  The threat is not just from globalists; it also comes from the same migrants that globalists use as a battering ram against the west.

Like the great catastrophes of the past, from the Bronze Age collapse to the fall of Rome and the near destruction of Europe in the Middle Ages, mass immigration of certain groups (often aided by corrupt governments) annihilates progress, cripples security and erases cultural stability.

Unlike Europe, the US under the Trump Administration has seen major successes this year in blocking illegal (and “legal”) immigration from third world enclaves (Muslim immigration has plunged by 96%). So much so that leftists (and some libertarians) are outraged over the epic drop in Muslim and Hindu migrants. Their argument in favor of the multicultural agenda? They claim that America was founded with the intention of open immigration of ALL peoples.

This is simply not so. In fact, the Founders were highly selective about who they allowed into the US. Our constitutional heritage is often used as a justification for multiculturalism. However, these claims are based on deception and a deliberate misrepresentation of our roots.

The United States was never a migrant “melting pot”. This idea has been perpetuated over the past several decades in popular media and political discourse until it became sacrosanct in the minds of many Americans, but it’s not real – It has always been a fantasy fabricated by Hollywood and the political left.

There has also been a comprehensive effort among “independent” organizations to misrepresent the intentions of the Founders. The motive is to sell conservatives and independent voters on the notion that third-world immigration is perfectly in line with the constitutional framework of our nation.

I see this claim often among more left-leaning libertarian activists as much as I see it among progressives; the idea that borders are somehow contrary to the American virtues of freedom. These people simply don’t know their history, or they are ignoring history in favor of their own narratives. If the Founders’ original system was in place today, America would look dramatically different and far less liberal.

At the very beginning of America’s national history, the Founding Fathers established the Naturalization Act of 1790, allowing only “free white people of good moral character” to immigrate as legal citizens. The standard remained in place in one form or another for hundreds of years and did not officially end until 1952 with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Then came the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson (Johnson’s liberal policies have become an enduring nightmare for the US ever since his presidency). The Hart-Celler Act ended the National Origins quota of the 1920s, which required that the vast majority of immigrants come from European nations and restricted migrants from third-world countries.

The argument that the Founders imagined America as a sprawling buffet for every malcontent in the world is utterly fabricated. They did not view the US as an open air bazaar welcoming any culture from any backwater location to take advantage of what our ancestors built over the course of centuries. The vast majority of migrants up until the 1960s were from western nations with similar cultural foundations. The melting pot claim is a lie.

The Founders did not intend for cultures with completely incompatible religious and ideological beliefs to take root in the US. And if these people did immigrate, assimilation was expected and required. While the Founders argued in favor of religious freedom, they understood that certain groups exist as an antithesis to the western ideal.

For example, Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur’an in 1765 mainly as a legal and historical text and later used Islam as an example of a religion that, in his view, stifled freedom of thought and relied on coercion.

John Adams once listed Muhammad among “sober inquirers after truth,” yet in other writings he described him as a military fanatic (this is usually the case after people go deeper into Islam and learn the ugly details).

Contemporary Protestant writers of the era commonly considered Islam an ideology spread by the sword and as a political system more than a religious system. Back then they still hadn’t forgotten the horrors of the Muslim invasions into Europe; invasions that led to the Crusades. America’s very first war overseas was an executive action without the approval of congress against the Barbary Pirates – Fanatics backed by Muslim governments that had been terrorizing European ships for centuries.

Hinduism and other Asian or African traditions received less detailed comment from the Founders and were usually grouped under “pagan” or “Gentoo.” The presence of these groups was sparse or non-existent in the US until the mid-1900s. Most slaves who practiced native religions ultimately converted to Christianity, or their children did.

The US banned the importation of slaves in 1808 under a law signed by Thomas Jefferson.

Many Founding Fathers including Jefferson, Madison and Monroe wanted to deport slaves back to Africa to a colony under American protection rather than continue the institution – Not just because they had misgivings about the practice, but because they were concerned that the slaves, even if they were freed, would ultimately be incompatible with western culture and that conflicts would arise.

Jefferson laid this out clearly in “Notes on the State of Virginia” (Query XIV, 1785). He called slavery a moral and political evil and favored gradual emancipation, but argued that freed blacks and whites could not live together peacefully. In other words, even Jefferson, a staunch defender of personal liberty, understood that certain cultures will inevitably clash if kept in proximity and in large numbers.

This is not to say that black people can’t function in the US or Europe, many clearly do just fine. But it is also clear according to the crime rates (13% of the population and 50% of the violent crime) and political stats (87% supporting leftist policies) that Jefferson was right to be concerned.

The Founders were realists who respected practical limits on society for the sake of stability; they were not anarchists. That is to say, they understood than not all freedoms are good and some restrictions must be applied, including borders and logical cultural discrimination. I would argue that if their rules were still in place today, America would be far better off.  Specifically their limits on immigration.

Before the 1960s, about 84% of the foreign-born population in the U.S. had migrated from Europe or Canada. Latin American inflows existed (especially from Mexico) but were much smaller in scale than they have been in recent years.

The Hart-Cellars Act abolished country-specific quotas and replaced them with a system emphasizing family immigration. This opened legal pathways from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. New immigrant flows then shifted rapidly: By the 1970s, the majority of arriving immigrants came from Latin America and Asia rather than Europe.

Immigration from Europe and Canada fell from 84% in 1960 to 42% by 1980 and only 13% in recent years. Latin America and Asia became the dominant regions of origin for new citizens. It is not a coincidence that from the mid-1960s onward the US suffered increasing economic and social instability, along with skyrocketing crime rates.

It was not until Donald Trump took office in 2025 that illegal border crossings plummeted back to 1960s levels and third world migrant populations have actually started shrinking.

The establishment of LBJ’s unprecedented welfare rollout combined with surging immigration led to an intense strain on US debt and infrastructure. It’s not surprising that the dollar was decoupled from gold only a few years later; it was the only way to artificially increase the money pool to pay for so many federal subsidies. As in Europe, the majority of third world migrants in the US utilize welfare as soon as they arrive.

As I noted in my article “Pillagers vs Producers: There’s Only Two Ways To Save The Western World”, there is an inherent instinct among certain cultures to either build wealth and resources, or steal wealth and resources. The third world is largely rooted in pillaging; we have seen proof of this time and time again.

Is some cases this is because they operate on tribal methods that have not changed for thousands of years. In other cases, it is because people from undeveloped nations are conditioned to accept and even defend socialism and authoritarianism – modernized forms of pillaging.  They have never lived any other way and western ideals of self reliance, independence, free markets and meritocracy are completely alien to them. The government is mother and father and if they want something they must beg the government for it, or loot it.

Pillagers cannot live peacefully with producers. It’s impossible. And for the leftists who claim that the west is “the biggest pillager of all”, the facts say otherwise. When European colonists came to the Americas, or to Africa or India, what they found was perpetually warring tribes, human sacrifice, cannibalism, genocide, slavery and little semblance of long term infrastructure. These places were wastelands.

They left these countries with the most modern technology and infrastructure of the age. And what did these people do with that inherited wealth? Nothing. They let it decay, or stripped it for temporary gains at the expense of long term stability. One need only look at what happened to South Africa in the last 30 years to see that westerners produce, and third worlders pillage.

According to polling data and voting data, third worlders lean overwhelmingly left when it comes to government power and open borders. Muslim respondents maintain some fundamentalist social beliefs which are considered conservative, but generally favor bigger government (71%), immigration openness (82%), and believe racial and ethnic diversity “strengthens” the U.S. (82%). Indian/Hindu migrants poll very close to the same numbers.  Meaning, immigrants will always perpetuate more immigrants, especially when immigration is made easy and they don’t have to work hard to earn citizenship.

Is the lack of multiculturalism the same as “ethno-nationalism”? Not exactly. Ethnic dominance is not the same as cultural dominance, though the Founding Fathers envisioned both for America. At bottom, third world cultures should be largely removed from the US, or at the very least, limited enough that they are not able to organize into sprawling ethnic communities which prevent assimilation.

This is not just to thwart the machinations of globalism, it’s also to protect the west from predatory invasions.

There is nothing in the birth of this nation that requires us to tolerate foreign influx. America is not a piece of clay for them to mold as they please. It is not an “economic zone” for them to pilfer. It is a nation and a culture built by western adventurers, settlers, conquerors and their descendants. No one else is entitled to live here and if they get the chance, they should feel lucky.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Wednesday has witnessed more direct attacks on Saudi territory launched by Yemen's Ansar Allah movement, coming soon after Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia announced they have triggered the Mecca Defense Pact.

Houthi spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree announced the fresh launch of ballistic missiles and drones targeting King Khalid International Airport in the capital of Riyadh; however, there's as yet no evidence of any impact. The airport has suffered hits earlier in the conflict, or at least fuel storage tanks near it, also as Aramco sites have come under frequent attack.

Aviation tracking platform Flightradar24 indicated a brief halt to both inbound and outbound flights at the airport in the capital. Riyadh has already been targeted several times in a matter of weeks.

Saree further said Abha airport has been targeted again, after it also came under attack the day prior. The Houthis additionally said they hit an air base in the city of Khamis Mushait and two military bases, Najran and Asir - both near the border with Yemen.

The Saudi side has only offered confirmation that it has tracked and intercepted a ballistic missile north of Riyadh. A missile on the Saudi city of Khamis Mushait was also reportedly stopped by air defenses.

To review of Tuesday's events, confirmation of destruction at least two Saudi airports has emerged, as The Wall Street Journal reports:

Attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels damaged two airports in southern Saudi Arabia near the border with the war-torn nation, the kingdom said Tuesday, marking the latest escalation in fighting that threatens global energy markets.

The attacks come after the kingdom and its allies in Yemen launched a counteroffensive seeking to retake territory along the Red Sea. The Houthis’ presence along the coast and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait threatens to further squeeze regional oil supplies.

Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation said King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Airport, a dual-use airport in the Red Sea city of Jazan, and Najran International Airport, were damaged in the strikes. Three people were wounded, the agency said.

Meanwhile, inside Yemen Saudi coalition forces continue to try and take back control of the Red Sea coast areas, with conflicting reports centered on who has control of the strategic port city of Mocha.

The fighting continues to take a huge toll on the civilian population, with the International Organization for Migration saying that over 201,000 people have been displaced since the renewal of fighting. In mid-September the same agency's tally was at 76,000 - suggesting a significant and rapid increase in displacement.

"People are running for their lives and finding nowhere safe to go," agency chief Amy Pope stated. "They need a roof, food and safety today. Our teams are on the ground, but the funding is not. I am asking donors to act now because every day of delay costs lives.”

Already Yemenis were suffering from prior rounds of wars, given there's been some level of a state of conflict between the Houthis and Saudis - and the Riyadh-backed Yemeni government - going back to at least 2014.

Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces staged a counter-offensive to retake the coast around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait up to the city of Mocha, the government said, pushing the Iran-backed Houthis out of most of the areas they seized last month https://t.co/Hgg3EtsaZ3 https://t.co/t9JGmyzWjE

— Reuters (@Reuters) October 7, 2026

More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk...

• US President Trump said they have to finish up regarding Iran and that the question is how, while he added that we will soon find out how they will finish up Iran and stated that Iran's drone-making capacity will soon be gone.
• US VP Vance told Reuters that Iran must make a "meaningful" reduction in its nuclear enrichment capacity to satisfy US demands and end the war. Vance added that the US remained open to an agreement but would require concrete Iranian nuclear concessions. Furthermore, the VP questioned who makes decisions in Tehran, following on from earlier comments by US President Trump saying that his biggest problem is that no one knows who is running Iran.
• US Secretary of State Rubio reiterated Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear program.
• Yemen's Houthi forces said they used drones to attack King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, while they targeted Abha Airport and Khamis Mushait using missiles and drones.
• Satellite imagery, cited by Sabereen, confirmed that there is still a fire at Saudi's Khurais oilfield.
• An Asharq reporter posted that Syria may join the war in Yemen, with the idea said to be under discussion, citing multiple sources, although no final decision has been made; it follows Syria's President visiting Saudi Arabia.

According to newly released White House documents, former special counsel Jack Smith's team monitored the phone and email metadata of Susie Wiles while she ran Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, and the travel of Trump family members.

The records show that investigators logged her contacts with journalists, defense attorneys, and political advisers.

The tracking covered Wiles' communications with at least five journalists, 21 different defense attorneys, and several political advisers, the documents show.The outlets she contacted included CNN, The Washington Post, Politico, and Just the News, but most of the names of whom she contacted were redacted.

Wiles now serves as White House chief of staff.

Investigators obtained the information through a pen register, also known as a trap-and-trace device. The tool captures metadata such as the numbers a person calls and the times of those calls, but does not record what the parties said. The surveillance formed part of "Plasmic Echo," the FBI's name for the investigation into Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents.

"These are First Amendment activities, reporting, social media, donating, political advice for campaigns, yet Jack Smith's team seemed very interested in them," a Trump administration official told reporters Friday.

An FBI memo dated March 10 included three pages of Wiles' phone contacts. A separate memo recorded that agents interviewed Wiles on April 7, 2023, and showed her four pages of communications.

The documents also describe what investigators wanted from the records. According to the files, the FBI's Washington Field Office and a redacted person or entity reviewed information associated with Wiles "to document WILES's telephonic communication with FPOTUS Donald Trump's attorneys and members of the 45 Office on and around 19 May 2023." On that date, the Special Counsel's Office informed the field office about correspondence with Trump's retained counsel.

On February 3, 2023, the FBI sent preservation requests to Google, Microsoft, MSN, and Yahoo, asking those companies to retain Wiles’ email records. The bureau also maintained records of how many times she spoke to various people through internal emails. These records included only metadata, not the actual content of the emails. Her social media posts were also monitored.

Smith's team even took interest in the political endorsements of Robert O'Brien, Trump's former national security adviser. "It looks like O'Brien is active in endorsing Republican candidates," an FBI email from Feb. 6, 2023, said. "Can FBI please look at his social media and see if there's anything of relevance we would want to ask him about?"

The release came days after the Senate Judiciary Committee found that Smith's investigators collected communications of numerous media organizations while investigating Trump and his allies. The committee's list included 60 Minutes, the AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, The Mark Levin Show, the Media Research Center, NBC, NPR, New York Magazine, Reuters, The Federalist, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

Records also show that agents tracked the travel of then former first lady Melania Trump and Barron Trump’s travel while the raid on Mar-a-Lago was being planned.

The release also included records of internal deliberations before the 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago. In a June 1, 2022, email, sent two months before the controversial raid, an FBI assistant special agent urged discretion and cooperation with Trump's lawyers. 

"Even as we continue down the path towards a search warrant, I believe that a reasonable conversation with the former President's attorney [redacted] ought not be discounted," the agent, whose name was redacted, wrote.

The same agent argued that the bureau could secure the documents through Trump's lawyers while the investigation continued.

"At a minimum, even if the President's attorney is correct and that the documents were all declassified (or believed to be declassified), it can be reasonably argued that the documents remain sensitive and should be properly secured until the matter of classification is sorted out," the agent wrote. "This conversation could easily be accomplished at the same time that WFO presses forward with the investigation and continues building out the search warrant."

The released documents do not say how Smith's team responded to that recommendation.

"Jack Smith’s surveillance operation was a disgraceful abuse of government power. Spying on political opponents is weaponization of law enforcement, plain and simple," White House spokesperson Lauren Bis told Fox News Digital. "Those responsible must be held accountable."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the disclosures in a post on X.

Again: this is objectively a bigger scandal than Watergate. The main difference is that the Democrat establishment & media happily look the other way when the DOJ is used to spy upon Donald Trump’s campaign chief, with no regard for the dangerous precedent set.

— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 5, 2026

"It’s hard to think of good justifications for this. To me, it feels a little Nixonian," he said. "If this report is true, then it's pretty bad. If true, then those in charge at the time better have some darn good explanations for surveillance of family members and advisors talking privately to lawyers or exercising their free-speech rights with the news media.”

Via The Cradle

There have been no nuclear negotiations taking place between Washington and the Islamic Republic, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing what it said was an Iranian official. 

"No negotiations [have] taken place with the US about Iran's nuclear program… Washington must first meet Tehran's conditions before nuclear talks can start," the source said. 

“US recognition of Iran's right to nuclear enrichment is Tehran's ?red line … [Iran] will not show flexibility on [enrichment] in any way,” the source added, a day after US Vice President JD Vance called for a scale-back of Iranian uranium enrichment. 

The source said that “Vance's comments are Washington's ideas and requests. ... Americans are free to make requests and have ideas, but they are at ?odds with Iran's demands.”

Vance had said on October 5th that Tehran must make a significant reduction in nuclear enrichment. 

“I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on ?their enrichment capacity,” he told Reuters.

He claimed that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Masoud Pezeshkian were in talks with the US, but added that it was “unclear how much authority they wield within Iran's power structure.”

“One of the things we picked up on is it's not totally clear how their country makes decisions,” he went on to say. 

US President Donald Trump also said again this week that nobody knows who is in charge in Iran.

“The problem is actually the opposite: it lies in the contradictory positions and mixed messaging from US officials,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said in response.

Tehran has repeatedly vowed that it will not compromise on its peaceful nuclear enrichment program. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Iran’s nuclear program has been “obliterated.” However, US intelligence reports have refuted this. 

The Wednesday Reuters report follows a Qatari Foreign Ministry statement to reporters saying that US–Iran talks were ongoing. 

“I can confirm that the talks are continuing and the exchange of messages between different parties is continuing via Qatar and its regional partners,” Qatari Foreign Ministry official Ibrahim al-Hashmi said during a press briefing. 

Last month, Iran was reported to have relayed a proposal to the US, offering to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume nuclear talks in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Trump publicly rejected the reported offer and has since renewed his threats to resume bombardment of Iran.

At the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September, Iran said that Tehran is demanding an end to the fighting on all fronts, a halt to US acts of aggression, the lifting of Washington’s naval blockade, an end to its economic war on Iran, and the release of Iranian assets in order for talks to resume.

???????? U.S. Vice President JD Vance said Iran must make a “meaningful” reduction in its uranium enrichment capacity to secure an agreement with Washington. ? “If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel?” Vance told Reuters, calling enrichment a “basic threshold issue.” ? He said Washington remained open to an agreement but would demand concrete steps: “We’re not going to trade words for actions.” ? Iran has reiterated that the nuclear file is not part of its current discussions with Washington and that it is not considering opening such negotiations while the war continues. ? Vance claimed the U.S. was in contact with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that “it’s not totally clear how their country makes decisions.”

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) October 7, 2026

As part of its overall demands for a final agreement, Iran is also demanding sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and a US military pullout from the region.

“The position of the Islamic Republic of Iran is completely clear and firm, and ?the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened until our seven conditions, based on the Islamabad ?memorandum of understanding, are met,” Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said over the weekend. 

During Capital Markets Day in Weissach, new Porsche CEO Michael Leiters offered Wall Street desks a bleak outlook, warning that the turnaround will take time and that operating conditions are unlikely to improve significantly over the next few years.

Leiters signaled to investors a shift toward value over volume. He said the focus is now on prioritizing higher revenue per vehicle and reducing dependence on China.

One such strategy, as Bloomberg reports, is for Porsche to raise average prices for its top-of-the-line sports cars by 20% and introduce a new model above the 911 as it seeks to recover after its disastrous entry into the electric vehicle space.

Sharp depreciation in used Porsche Taycans highlights the challenge of maintaining resale values for high-end EVs. 

A recent Goldman report points to a similar divergence at Ferrari, where collectors favor V8 and V12 combustion-engine models while hybrids face pressure in the secondary market (read report).

Average prices for Porsche's top-end models are expected to exceed €330,000 ($370,134) by the end of the decade, up from about €270,000 this year.

"The top priority is to further strengthen our unique sports-car brand across the entire lineup, with new, desirable models in particularly high-margin segments," Leiters told investors in Stuttgart earlier today.

New sports cars, greater exclusivity, stronger profitability: at its Capital Markets Day, Porsche AG presents its strategy ‘Sportwagenschmiede '35’, which focuses on its medium-term ambitions. More: https://t.co/M7yUGf3qu9 https://t.co/4mZNM13SJa

— Porsche Newsroom (@PorscheNewsroom) October 7, 2026

Leiters outlined new regional plans, emphasizing drivetrain flexibility in Europe and stronger competitiveness in North America through combustion-engine and hybrid models.

Leiters also outlined plans for a new mid-engine vehicle model above the 911 that would return the struggling German automaker to the supercar segment for the first time since the limited-production 918 Spyder debuted in 2013.

Porsche shares in Germany are flat on Wednesday morning. Shares remain down 64% since the peak of 120 euros in early 2023.

The Volkswagen subsidiary is targeting an operating margin of 10% to 15% over the medium term and 15% over the longer term, goals that hinge on a successful turnaround. Profitability tumbled to just 1.1% last year as restructuring costs, tariffs and soft demand weighed on earnings, before recovering to 7.8% in the first half of this year.

Volkswagen is also under severe pressure, shrinking its industrial footprint with a massive planned cut of 100,000 jobs, mostly in Germany, while Mercedes-Benz and BMW are also seeking turnaround plans.

The planned price hikes could support secondary-market values for high-end 911s by raising replacement costs and making existing models more attractive to buyers. 

Democratic congressional candidate Bernadette Greene-Placentia says she was sexually assaulted in mid-August while repairing a campaign sign late at night in the Sun City area, according to a Phoenix New Times report published October 7. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has confirmed it received a report on August 31 and that the investigation remains open.

Greene-Placentia is the Democratic nominee for Arizona's 8th Congressional District and is challenging Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh in the November 3 general election. The district covers parts of the northwest Valley, including areas of Glendale, Peoria, Surprise, Sun City, and Anthem. She is a longtime long-haul trucker and small-business owner who won the Democratic primary in July.

According to the New Times account, which draws on her interview, a police report, and conversations with family members, campaign staff, and others close to her, the incident occurred just after 2 a.m. on a Friday near 99th Avenue and Bell Road. She told the paper she had been making late-night stops to fix damaged signs throughout the summer. She said her recollection of the event is fragmentary. She informed campaign staff the following Sunday and her husband the next day, then contacted the sheriff's office more than two weeks later. Associates described her as withdrawn in the days afterward. A sheriff's office spokesman has declined further comment while the case is active. No arrests have been announced.

Greene-Placentia has said she initially hesitated to report the assault because she was embarrassed, but later chose to speak publicly. The Phoenix New Times story is available here.

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego posted the following in response: 

I'm absolutely heartbroken to hear this news, and I'm thinking of Bernadette and her loved ones during this incredibly difficult time. We cannot tolerate political or sexual violence in any form. Those responsible must be held accountable. Thank you for speaking out, Bernadette. We're with you.

— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) October 7, 2026

Additional coverage of the Phoenix New Times report has appeared from outlets including Newsweek and The Independent, which also cited confirmation from the sheriff's office that a report was filed August 31 and remains under investigation.

* * *