Sick: Oberlin College Student Leader Wants to “Bring Back Political Assassinations” Following Politically Motivated Murder of Charlie Kirk

Julia Xu is a radical leftist student at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, who serves on the college’s advisory board of the school’s Gender, Sexuality, and Attraction Initiatives and participates with Students for a Free Palestine.

Following the politically motivated murder of Charlie Kirk, Julia voiced her support for political assassinations as a way to silence political opponents.

In a social media post under the handle @bringbacktheguillotine, she said, “We need to bring back political assassinations.”

She continued, “I don’t feel bad and I don’t think that everyone deserves the right to free speech. Some people should be afraid to express their opinion in public.”

The Post contacted Xu, who appeared to backtrack, saying she apologizes and is “deeply remorseful” for her statements.

Although Oberlin condemned Xu’s apparent support of political violence, it does not appear that she will face any formal consequences.

Oberlin’s President Carmen Twillie Ambar said, “Last week, in an open letter, I wrote ‘there is no place for political violence in the America that I love.’ It threatens our sense of safety and well-being and it violates the sanctity of the nation’s civil discourse.”

“I want to emphasize that the views expressed in the student’s post do not reflect those of the faculty member who teaches the class referenced. Nor does the student’s post reflect the views of Oberlin College.”

The college has not addressed how it will keep conservative students safe on its campus in the face of a fellow student advocating for executions.

The Gateway Pundit has reached out to leadership at Oberlin and will update this story if they provide a comment.

Keep reading

The Unique Evil of the Left

Is it too much to say that since the French Revolution, the left has been the source of virtually all political evils, and continues to be so in our day?

There can be no doubt that great cruelty and violence can be and have been inflicted in the name of preserving the existing order.

But when we compare even the worst enormities of the more distant past with the leftist totalitarian revolutions and total wars of the twentieth centuries, they are in general a mere blip. The entire history of the Inquisition, said Joe Sobran, barely rises to the level of what the communists accomplished on a good afternoon.

The French Revolution, and particularly its radical phase, was the classic manifestation of modern leftism and served as the model for still more radical revolutions around the world more than a century later.

As that revolution proceeded its aims grew more ambitious, with its most fervent partisans demanding nothing less than the total transformation of society.

In place of the various customs and settled ways of a France with well over a millennium of history behind it, the radical revolutionaries introduced a “rational” alternative cooked up in their heads, and with all the warmth of an insane asylum.

Streets named after saints were given new names, and statues of saints were actually guillotined. (These people guillotining statues were the rational ones, you understand.) The calendar itself, rich with religious feasts, was replaced by a more “rational” calendar with 30 days per month, divided into three ten-day weeks, thereby doing away with Sunday. The remaining five days of the year were devoted to secular observances: celebrations of labor, opinion, genius, virtue, and rewards.

Punishments for deviations from the new dispensation were as severe as we have come to expect from leftism. People were sentenced to death for owning a Rosary, giving shelter to a priest, or indeed refusing to abjure the priesthood.

We are plenty familiar with the guillotine, but the revolutionaries concocted still other forms of execution as well, like the Drownings at Nantes, designed to humiliate and terrorize their victims.

Given that the left has sought the complete transformation of society, and given that such wholesale change is bound to come up against the resistance of ordinary people who don’t care for having their routines and patterns of life overturned, we should not be surprised that the instrument of mass terror has been the weapon of choice. The people must be terrified into submission, and so broken and demoralized that resistance comes to seem impossible.

Likewise, it’s no wonder the left needs the total state. In place of naturally occurring groupings and allegiances, it demands the substitution of artificial constructs. In place of the concrete and specific, the Burkean “little platoons” that emerge organically, it imposes remote and artificial substitutes that emerge from the heads of intellectuals. It prefers the distant central government to the local neighborhood, the school board president over the head of household.

Thus the creation of the departments, totally subordinate to Paris, during the French Revolution was a classic leftist move. But so were the totalitarian megastates of the twentieth century, which demanded that people’s allegiances be transferred from the smaller associations that had once defined their lives to a brand new central authority that had grown out of nowhere.

The right (properly understood), meanwhile, according to the great classical liberal Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “stands for free, organically grown forms of life.”

Keep reading

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country’s critics, according to leaked emails

A widely noted dataset of purportedly leaked emails from former Israeli minister of defense Benjamin Gantz appears to show that David Ellison, the new head of media conglomerate Paramount, was coordinating with the recently retired commander-in-chief of the Israeli military on a nascent campaign to sabotage critics of the Israeli military’s activities in Palestine.

The previously unreported emails appear to show David Ellison being recruited in December 2015 as a core American supporter of a nascent Israeli government effort which Gantz labeled the “Counter-BDS Initiative.” The original concept of the program, according to leaked emails and PowerPoint presentations, was to raise $1 million each from twelve prominent Jewish philanthropists in order to fund “state-of-the-art cyber technology as a soft weapon” and to contract the controversial private intelligence firm Black Cube to spy on and disrupt activists.

David and his father, Larry Ellison – the centi-billionaire founder of the enterprise database company Oracle – have come under increased scrutiny as a result of their joint financing of an $8 billion merger between Paramount and David’s own media company, Skydance. The purchase took place alongside Paramount agreeing to pay $16 million to President Trump over editorial choices regarding an interview with former Vice President Harris. Focus further increased on Wednesday, when Larry Ellison was reported to have overtaken his business partner Elon Musk as the world’s richest man.

Larry Ellison’s ties to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent opponent of Gantz, are well known. According to reporting in Haaretz in 2021, the Oracle founder went as far as offering Mr. Netanyahu a seat on his company’s board.

The New York Times further reported on Wednesday that David Ellison is considering appointing the former New York Times opinion columnist Bari Weiss as co-president or editor-in-chief of the CBS News division of Paramount. The possible role comes alongside Ellison’s widely reported consideration of a roughly $100 million acquisition of Weiss’s ‘anti-woke’ media outlet, The Free Press, which prominently criticized CBS for its handling of a contentious interview conducted by its anchor Tony Dokoupil with author Ta-Nehisi Coates on September 30. “The sad truth is that Coates is not speaking truth to power,” editorialized The Free Press, in response to Coates having criticized the Israeli military’s ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip.

Paramount has also received criticism for its recent appointment of Kenneth R. Weinstein, a former head of both the conservative think tank Hudson Institute and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as the conglomerate’s new ombudsman for CBS News.

The previously unreported emails between David Ellison and former Israeli military chief Benjamin Gantz are part of an archive originally released by the hacktivist group ‘Handala’, which is widely believed to be associated with Iranian intelligence, with the U.S.-based nonprofit Distributed Denial of Secrets serving as the primary intermediary for journalists. A related repository of leaked emails from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, also published by Handala, led to recent reporting on Barak and the convicted child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein discussing potential investments in the now-defunct data analytics firm Fifth Dimension, which Gantz chaired from 2015 to 2018.

Keep reading

J.D. Vance Says 26 Percent of Young Liberals Justify Political Violence. Here’s What the Data Really Say.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has elicited egregious reactions across social media. On the left, some have reacted to his murder by calling Kirk a Nazi and likening him to Adolf Hitler. Others callously mocked Kirk and celebrated his assassination. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has assigned responsibility for the tragedy to those who demonized Kirk, and Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday that the Justice Department will go after those “targeting anyone with hate speech.” The Daily Wire‘s Matt Walsh has gone so far as to say he “cannot ‘unite’ with the Left because they want me dead” and “will spit on my grave when I die and laugh in the faces of my wife and children.”

On Monday, Vice President J.D. Vance echoed this us-vs.-them mentality while hosting Kirk’s podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show. During the episode, Vance said that America must confront the difficult truth that “24 percent of self-described quote, ‘very liberals,’ believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent” and “26 percent of young liberals believe political violence is sometimes justified.”

However, Vance cherry-picks data from a YouGov poll released two days after Kirk’s assassination to paint an inordinately bleak picture of the state of American political discourse.

According to that poll, which was conducted immediately following Kirk’s murder, the majority (55 percent) of “very liberal” respondents said violence is never justified to achieve political goals. An even larger majority of self-described liberals (68 percent) shared this view. Similar majorities of “very liberals” (56 percent) and liberals (73 percent) said it was always or usually unacceptable for “a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose.” (It’s possible that at least some of the liberals who answered “yes, violence can sometimes be justified” had in mind edge cases like armed resistance by Jews against the SS, not the assassination of peaceful political pundits with whom they disagree.)

It is true that larger majorities of “very conservatives” (88 percent) and conservatives (83 percent) said political violence is never justified. Likewise, 90 percent and 91 percent, respectively, said it is “always or usually unacceptable” for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose. While the disparity between American liberals’ and conservatives’ condemnation of political violence and its celebration is notable, the fact remains that a majority of even “very liberal” Americans reject political violence outright and denounce its celebration.

Concern about political violence is bipartisan: 90 percent of Democrats regard political violence in the U.S. as a problem, as do 89 percent of Republicans. Considering that even more Democrats regard political violence as a “very big problem” following Kirk’s murder than they did following the murder of Minnesota’s Democratic Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman, it cannot be said that they only care about political violence when it’s enacted against their political allies.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s murder, it’s important to recognize that the majority of Americans are united in denouncing political violence and those who celebrate it.

Keep reading

Welcome To Big Brother’s Digital Prison, Part I: Central Bank Digital Currencies

Globalist leaders are working at full speed to introduce central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). A CBDC is a digital currency that is issued directly by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank in the EU’s eurozone, and the Bank of England in the UK.

A CBDC will be the final straw that ensures that every dream of suppression and control that the globalists nurture will come true. Several of those dreams are already a reality, including shutting down dissent and free speech, as in Europe, where people are routinely fined and arrested for saying things their governments do not like. A host of other controlling measures are already in the works, including herding people into “15-minute cities” where it is easier to monitor them, keep tabs on their use of private cars, decide what they can and cannot eat – ideally “ecologically preferable” bugs and lab-grown meat, no beef or cheese — track their “carbon footprints”, determine where and how they can travel, oversee their vaccines and so on.

The Oxford-educated, German economist Richard A. Werner said in an interview last year.

“The push for CBDCs is the final step in a multi-decade program by central planners to increase their power over the people and over countries. This is the ultimate step because the powers of CBDCs are so extraordinary that, I mean, even the worst dictators of past centuries could only have dreamt of having such enormous power over the lives of so many people.

“We are talking about a very dystopian future if we allow central banks to issue central bank digital currencies. You know, even if the original designers and heads of central banks who are launching this are super well-meaning, you know, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, we just know what human nature is like and history is the best guide…

“I think the power would be abused, if not by the original generation of launchers, then by the next generation…. It will be a completely totalitarian system of such frightening proportions, it’s hard to imagine…

“The micromanaging decision [about your spending] will then be automated and… you have no right to appeal the algorithm… You just won’t be able to use your money for certain things and then there is nothing that you can do… That by definition ends freedom….

“Dictators like Stalin and other dictators, they could only have dreamt of, you know, the enormous power that central bank digital currencies give to central planners… We are talking about dystopian digital prisons that will be created through central bank digital currencies, because the programmability – and this has been mentioned in the studies by the central banks – include of course geography, and there is this proposal for climate change, whatever reasons, that people… should stay within their 15-minute walking small local area… and there will be digital controls… when you walk with all your RFID chips in your cards and your CBDC anyway, of course you will be immediately recognized if you’re out of the area and you will be punished. It’s a digital prison.”

Keep reading

Milei Raises Government Spending While Pledging Zero Deficit

Argentine President Javier Milei has built his presidency around a single rule: zero deficit. Yet even as he vows to keep the budget balanced, his new 2026 plan raises pensions, health, and education spending. The shift comes just a month before midterm elections, testing whether his austerity brand can survive political reality. 

Since taking office in December 2023, Milei slashed billions in spending, froze public works, and cut federal funding to provinces, among other austerity measures. University and health budgets were hit especially hard, leading to layoffs and reduced services. Retirees saw their benefits shrink as inflation eroded payments, while tighter rules limited access to pensions. As a result, Argentina reached its first primary surplus in more than a decade and its first full-year surplus in 123 years. But the cost was steep: Consumption plunged and poverty spiked above 50 percent before easing in recent months.

The political backlash hit hardest in the province of Buenos Aires—home to nearly 40 percent of voters—where Milei’s coalition suffered a defeat earlier this month. In response, Milei rolled out a 2026 budget that expands spending in areas he once vowed to shrink.

The plan increases pensions and disability payments by 5 percent, boosts health spending by 17 percent, and lifts education spending by 8 percent—all above projected inflation. As Martín Rodríguez Yebra of La Nación put it, the package amounts to “a white flag in the three battles that eroded his popularity this election year.”

Milei insists fiscal balance remains “set in stone.” The numbers partly back him up: total revenues for FY 2026 are projected at 15.6 percent of gross domestic product, up 0.2 percentage points from 2025. On paper, the budget still balances.

The biggest challenge is political. Without a congressional majority, Milei has relied on vetoes to block deficit-boosting bills. By conceding targeted increases, he hopes to blunt those challenges while courting centrists who dislike Peronist populism but remain wary of his radical cures. The October 26 legislative elections will decide whether he grows his foothold in Congress or stays boxed in.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this year, Milei handed Elon Musk a chainsaw—a symbol of his vow to slash the state. Now, with midterms looming, he is testing whether that brand of austerity can withstand political reality. Voters will decide whether the chainsaw keeps buzzing or runs out of fuel.

Keep reading

Teacher LIES About High School Student Who Was Suspended After Being Assaulted For Wearing MAGA Hat in Honor of Charlie Kirk

A high school boy in Laguna Beach, California, was suspended after being accosted for wearing a MAGA hat in honor of Charlie Kirk.

Laguna Beach is a liberal enclave in mostly conservative Orange County, California.

Zach Hornstein wore a MAGA hat on campus at Laguna Beach High School last Thursday to honor Charlie Kirk, just one day after the TPUSA founder was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University.

Hornstein said a girl grabbed his MAGA hat and threw it into the trash in the girls’ restroom. The girl used profanities to attack Trump.

He then jokingly told a group of girls to leave the country if they didn’t like the US.

“I made a joke towards them and said, ‘If you don’t like it here, Canada’s open borders, feel free to go,’” Zach Hornstein told Fox 11.

This is when a teacher lied about what Zach Hornstein said to the group of girls.

“They’re saying I told a group of girls to go back to where they came from, which I never said that,” Hornstein told Fox 11. “When they called in the girl that was involved, she literally told them that I never said that.”

Hornstein’s mother blasted the school and said her son was targeted for his conservative political beliefs.

“I think it’s a double standard,” Hornstein’s mother, Janet Semenova, said. “I think kids who have certain political beliefs are held to a different standard than kids who have other political beliefs.”

Keep reading

Trump Is Embracing ‘Daddy State’ Economics

The question of whether President Donald Trump has turned the United States toward a new “state capitalism”—one in which the government is not just economic referee but active player—has been answered. His second term brings policies that go well beyond traditional Republican pro-market orthodoxies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, and into direct involvement with production and capital. Yet this doctrine is less a coherent grand strategy than a set of ad hoc deals, sometimes pro-market and sometimes interventionist.

Some Trump policies—tax cuts, deregulating, talk of budget-deficit reductions—retain a traditional Republican tone. On the other hand, this administration’s protectionism and tariffs would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Republicans would also traditionally label the government’s acquisition of a 10 percent stake in Intel as socialism if proposed by anyone other than Trump. And other policies have the feel of mafia tactics made possible by the exercise of leverage, like letting Nvidia and AMD sell their chips to China in exchange for a 15 percent cut back to the U.S. government.

Trump also departs markedly from the past GOP playbook in his lack of recognition that the market allocates resources much better than politicians and bureaucrats do. He treats the market as a stage for negotiation to reorganize the world’s economies. Old-guard Republicans were globalists, whereas Trump built his appeal on “America First” nationalism and protectionism.

Earlier Republicans valued predictable rules, but as Cambridge legal scholar Antara Haldar noted in a Project Syndicate symposium this month assessing the direction of “Trumponomics,” the president “is willing to break any rule, norm, or promise…in the name of striking ad hoc corporate-style ‘deals.'” Where conservative-minded leaders of the past obscured the state’s role, Trump “flaunts it.”

Yet Haldar correctly argues that Trump’s approach differs from other forms of heavy-handed state control. It is neither the Chinese model nor that of the developmental state. It is “erratic, transactional, and short-sighted” and a rejection of the “quietly overbearing ‘Nanny State’…in favor of a commanding, patriarchal ‘Daddy State.'”

Princeton University historian Harold James, another participant in the symposium, sees Trump as a break from the past due to his revival of state-directed “industrial policy.” This started under former President Joe Biden’s administration, but there is no doubt that Trump’s pursuit of a manufacturing revival and reshoring of global supply chains, along with his tariffs and equity stakes in private companies and his overall aim to rebuild U.S. strategic capacity, fall well into that category.

Unfortunately, as James argues, Trump’s brand of industrial policy encourages “hyper-activist corporate lobbying, with large and well-connected enterprises getting the best ‘deals.'” In my opinion, all industrial policies end up this way, not just Trump’s.

Keep reading

Swimming instructor, 75, accused of molesting over THREE HUNDRED children he groomed at work

More than 300 children are believed to be victims of a 75-year-old swimming instructor who allegedly groomed and molested boys as young as 12 over almost 30 years.

The horrific accusations of abuse brought investigators close to tears as they recounted dozens of charges against Donald Douglas Williams stemming from his work teaching at a correctional facility for minors from 1988 to 2017.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said they believe Williams assaulted more than 300 youths between the ages of 12 and 18 over the course of 26 years, from 1989 to 2015, while he worked at the Nova Scotia Youth Centre. 

‘This instructor held a position of authority, and the young people he victimized should have been able to trust him and feel safe with him,’ said Staff Sergeant Rob McCamon, the acting officer in charge of Major Crime and Behavioral Sciences, during a press conference this week.

Williams is so far charged with 32 counts of sexual exploitation, 28 counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm, one count of sexual interference, one count of invitation to sexual touching, and one count of assault. 

All of Williams’s alleged victims were boys, except for one girl, according to police. 

While currently facing 66 charges, police expect more alleged victims to come forward as the investigation continues.

‘Because of the bravery and patience of those who come forward to report sexual abuse they suffered at the Nova Scotia Youth Centre so many years ago…we’ve been able to arrest and charge their perpetrator,’ said Sergeant McCamon. 

Keep reading

UK Police Show Up at Cancer Patient’s Door Demanding an Apology For Social Media Post

Just when you thought British speech policing had reached the bottom of the absurdity barrel, they bring a jackhammer.

In June, Thames Valley Police managed to dispatch one of their elite to investigate a grave national threat: an American cancer patient who may have written something a bit spicy on social media.

Yes. That’s not a joke. That is, in fact, the plot of a low-budget dystopian sitcom that the real world seems hell-bent on adapting in full.

Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, a member of the Free Speech Union, a cancer patient, and, as she put it herself, “an elderly woman,” was enjoying the blissful serenity of not being in prison when a Thames Valley Police officer showed up at her front door.

Why? Because “something that we believe you’ve written on Facebook has upset someone.”

Let’s pause here.

We are no longer talking about crime. We are no longer talking about justice. We are now fully submerged in the soggy underworld of “upset someone.”

This is what policing has become in Britain; knocking on doors to gently scold the sick and the elderly because someone got their feelings hurt.

“I’m a member of the Free Speech Union, and I’m an American citizen. I’ll have Elon Musk on you so quick your feet won’t touch,” Anderson told the officer, who probably realized at that exact moment that his day’s mission had veered into Monty Python territory.

The officer, in all his taxpayer-funded wisdom, suggested that Deborah Anderson could simply apologize and make the whole thing go away, as if groveling before the offended masses had suddenly become a formal step in police procedure.

It was less “serve and protect” and more “say sorry and maybe we won’t waste more of your time.”

Keep reading