Blog

BLM Activist Targets White Christians with a Disgusting Suggestion After Minneapolis Officials Move to Close Popular Dog Park

A Minnesota Black Lives Matter Activist declared war on whites earlier this week in a social media post while whining about the upcoming closure of a dog park.

As Fox News reported, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board recently voted 8-1 to close the Minnehaha Off-Leash Dog Park by the end of the year due to concern that it is part of the Mni Owe Sni (Coldwater Spring) Traditional Cultural Place.

The Minnehaha Dog Park is a 6.6-acre riverfront area that features hiking trails. Dogs with required permits can roam freely.

Alpha News notes that the land is sacred to Dakota tribes and officials believe there are unmarked graves from the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

“There was a concentration camp there at Fort Snelling, at the Bdóte area, and due to that, history there, there were a lot of relatives, ancestors who died over that winter,” Maggie Lorenz, executive director of Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi, told CBS Minnesota.

“Because of that, there were a lot of unmarked graves and burials around that area,” she added.

Chauntyll Allen, a St. Paul school board member and co-founder of Black Lives Matter (BLM) Twin Cities, was unhappy with the move to close the park and had a vile suggestion for the board.

Keep reading

California’s Voting System is Designed to Prevent Detection and Prosecution of Election Fraud

The recent Los Angeles mayoral primary placed California’s election mechanics under an unforgiving light. On election night Spencer Pratt held a clear path to the runoff against Karen Bass. Late mail ballots then arrived in batches that favored Nithya Raman so heavily that she overtook Pratt and finished with a 3,113-vote lead. NBC Los Angeles recorded one Friday update in which Raman received twice as many votes as Pratt, followed by continued narrowing on Saturday and the final overtaking on Sunday. Bass’s share stayed roughly stable at 34.68 percent while Raman climbed to 27.12 percent and Pratt fell to 26.69 percent. Observers noted that the arithmetic required for Raman to erase Pratt’s lead demanded an unusually large share of the remaining ballots, a distribution bordering on a mathematical impossibility under normal variation. The early leader’s margin collapsed only after the delayed counting of mail ballots from skidrow voters that California law permits counties to process for up to thirty days after election day.

This sequence did not occur in a vacuum. It unfolded inside a system built since 2020 on a series of deliberate policy choices. Assembly Bill 37 made permanent the practice of mailing a live ballot and return envelope to every registered voter before every election. In the 2024 general election California reported 22,595,659 registered voters and 13,034,378 mail ballots that were ultimately counted. That left roughly 9.56 million ballot packets that were printed, mailed, and never returned as counted votes. Those packets move through ordinary mail, apartment mailrooms, and forwarding addresses that may be years out of date. California law allows any person to return a completed ballot so long as the person is not paid on a per-ballot basis. The sole front-end control is a signature comparison performed on the identification envelope.

That comparison rests on standards that deliberately favor acceptance. Senate Bill 503 instructs officials to begin with the presumption that the signature is the voter’s own, to accept similar characteristics rather than an exact match, and to reject only when two officials determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the signature differs in multiple, significant, and obvious respects. No witness attestation is required. No photograph or other documentary identification is demanded at the point of return. If a question arises, the cure process allows the voter or a third party to submit a replacement signature by mail, email, fax, or other remote means, and some cure signatures may update the voter’s record for future elections. Once the envelope is accepted, the ballot is separated from it to protect secrecy. From that moment forward, any error or impropriety in the acceptance decision cannot be corrected without destroying the secret-ballot guarantee.

Keep reading

Despicable: Kathy Hochul Urges New Yorkers to Report ICE Agents Who Wear Masks to Prevent Being Doxed and Targeted by Violent Leftists

New York Governor Kathy Hochul took to X on Friday to encourage people in the state to report Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who wear masks while carrying out their duties.

Masks help to protect agents from doxxing and violence by leftist activists who have been compiling databases of their identities, family homes, license plates, and more.

In her posts, Hochul promoted a reporting form run by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, directing people to submit information on agents allegedly violating the state’s new law against masked law enforcement.

The first post read in full:

NEW YORKERS:

As of 12:00 AM, New York’s law prohibiting most law enforcement officials from wearing masks while carrying out their duties is now in effect.

New Yorkers have a right to know who is exercising law enforcement authority in their communities.

The second post linked to the reporting form.

Keep reading

The Empathy Weapon

This morning the New York Times published an essay by an immunologist who wasn’t vaccinated as a child, found science, got her shots, and now wants to help other parents see the light. It’s got that signature NYT sheen, is well written and emotionally compelling. And yet, if you’ve been paying attention to the media machine you can see that this piece is merely emotional blackmail. It’s sophisticated and speaks in the language of maternal love. The fact that it’s dressed in a lab coat is the tell.

The essay’s argument is simple: the author’s mother didn’t vaccinate her out of love. The author now vaccinates her own children out of love. The only difference is information and emotional support. The moral of the story? Parents who don’t vaccinate aren’t bad people – they just haven’t been guided to the correct conclusion yet.

Anyone not asleep through the last few years may recognize the game.

In 2021, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul stood before a congregation and told them the vaccinated were “the smart ones,” that those who refused were “not listening to God,” and that the faithful needed to go out as “apostles” and convert the unbelievers. It was cheap, crude, and disgraceful on so many layers.

And then there was Bill de Blasio. In the middle of the city’s vaccine push, the mayor of New York went on camera dangling a plate of burger and fries, moaning “Mmm, vaccination” like he was filming a McDonalds commercial.

I’ve never been more ashamed to be a New Yorker than watching those two represent my hometown during that period.

The Times essay is precisely the same sermon for a different congregation. Three pitches for the exact same product. De Blasio dangled fries at people who couldn’t afford to say no. Hochul played to the soul. The Times aims square at the laptop class. The approach may look different but the reveal is obvious: there is only one correct answer and the institutions hold it. These are all merely tactics to get the holdouts to convert.

Keep reading

With Friends Like This: GOP Senator Joins Forces with Elizabeth Warren to Push the Largest Tax Hike in Over FOUR DECADES

The one thing conservatives could generally count on from Republicans was their consistent opposition to tax increases. But one GOP Senator has decided to toss that principle aside and join forces with one of America’s most notorious leftists.

On Tuesday, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) and Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (D-MA) wrote an editorial published by the far-left New York Times, which outlined their plan to ‘save’ Social Security.

Moreno and Warren correctly note that Social Security is facing a major funding crisis. By late 2032, the fund from which most Social Security beneficiaries are paid will be severely depleted unless Congress takes action.

If Congress does nothing, Social Security benefits could be cut by more than 20 percent.

The Senators write that instead of reducing the benefits, the government should adopt what they call a common-sense solution: lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap.

Warren and Moreno say that this is one way to make the payroll tax and solve the Social Security funding crisis for “another generation.”

More From the New York Times:

For 2026, the payroll tax cap, or taxable maximum, is $184,500. Workers and their employers each pay 6.2 percent on wages up to that amount. (Self-employed individuals pay 12.4 percent.) Today, the maximum Social Security withholding for one worker is $22,878, or 12.4 percent of $184,500. Not a penny more, even if an individual’s salary far exceeds $184,500.

Since the vast majority of Americans make less than that, most people are paying Social Security taxes on 100 percent of their earnings, while the highest earners are paying on only part of theirs.

Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck than a wealthy corporate lawyer? This is doubly unfair in an economy in which top earners’ wages, over time, have pulled far ahead of those of the average worker.

According to one estimate, eliminating the payroll tax cap would inject around $3 trillion into the program over the next 10 years. Lifting the cap so that all income is treated the same would generate substantial revenue that would extend the solvency of Social Security for another generation.

But what Warren and Moreno do not tell readers is that lifting the payroll tax cap would result in the largest tax increase in more than four decades.

This proposal would have a particularly devastating impact on sole proprietors, and costs would fall entirely on working Americans.

Moreover, the plan is more radical than any tax hike Joe Biden proposed.

Here is the National Review with the damning details:

That would represent a $3.4 trillion tax hike over a decade. As a share of gross domestic product, it would be the largest tax hike in over 40 years — eclipsing Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, according to the Tax Foundation.

Not only would it represent a stunning betrayal of his own voters, as Moreno signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge against any tax increases — it would even violate the $400,000-a-year Joe Biden threshold for tax increases.

Such a massive tax increase would also have crushing economic effects. Employers who don’t want to absorb the increase in payroll taxes will have to hire fewer workers or keep wages lower. It would place a significant burden on small business owners who operate as sole proprietors and pay self-employment taxes. And at a time when affordability has become a major issue, these costs would fall entirely on working-age Americans.

What makes Moreno’s turn to the hard left more distressing is that he has been one of the Senate’s most reliable MAGA warriors, particularly on immigration.

Keep reading

Backlash as Texas Approves ‘Unconstitutional’ Mandatory Bible Lessons in Public Schools

As education officials in Texas ban hundreds of books that run afoul of their interpretation of Christian morality, the State Board of Education on Friday approved a required reading list that forces the state’s more than 5 million public school students to read from the Bible.

The Republican-controlled SBOE voted 9-5 with one abstention to approve the list, which includes passages from the Book of Exodus as well as the Shepherd’s Psalm and the myths of Adam and Eve and David and Goliath.

“We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” Republican board member Brandon Hall—who is also a youth pastor at Cavalry Baptist Church in Springtown—said during a Thursday press conference in Austin.

That “truth” omits or marginalizes climate change, US imperialism, women’s history, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, slavery, and racism.

Evelyn Brooks, the only Republican SBOE member to vote against the required reading list, told CNN on Friday that she believes the board’s move is “unconstitutional.”

Keep reading

When Extremists Run The Government

Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day.  

For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious.  For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking.  For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”

“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word.  It means nothing.  It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct.  Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss.  Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.  The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic.  Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.”

Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.”  To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism.  To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith.  One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.”  Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes.  We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congresswho define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.”  For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.”  Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.”  If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.

In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure.  

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections.  By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American.  Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists!  If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.

In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism.  

Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt.  Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens.  Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices; Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food.  Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities.  Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct.  Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy.  Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars.  Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world.  Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet.

Keep reading

Residents of Massachusetts Coastal Community Left Stunned After Receiving Letter Explaining Why They Should Not Fly American Flags on THEIR OWN PROPERTY

Residents of a small Massachusetts island community are shocked and furious upon learning from town officials that they may not be able to fly American flags to celebrate the nation’s upcoming 250th birthday.

As Fox News reported on Saturday, homeowners on Plum Island received a letter from the town of Newbury warning them last week that it had become aware of multiple “devices and materials intended to deter” protected shorebirds from frequenting beach and dune systems.

These materials included “mylar streamers, flags, and reflective materials.”

The letter goes on to mention that homeowners could face significant financial penalties for failing to comply with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, which Newbury town officials have vowed to enforce.

“Activities intended to deter protected shorebirds from utilizing suitable habitat may be viewed as harassment or disruption of normal feeding, nesting, or migratory behavior,” which is prohibited under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and “carry significant regulatory and financial penalties,” the letter reads.

“Non-compliance may result in state or federal enforcement actions and, thus, the Town urges residents to comply with applicable state and federal wildlife protection laws.”

When Fox News went to speak with the residents, they were stunned to see flags included in the letter.

Keep reading

California’s $20 Million Attempt To Silence Medical Speech

In a trial set to begin June 24, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta is asking a court to do something that should alarm every American, regardless of where they stand on abortion: punish nonprofit organizations with ruinous fines for speaking about a lawful medical treatment.

The target is not fraud. These charities offer their services for free.

It is not patient harm. There is no evidence of any patient being harmed.

It is not even illegal conduct. The underlying treatment remains perfectly legal.

The target is speech.

Heartbeat International and Real Options are pro-life nonprofits that provide information and care to women who first take the abortion drug but regret that choice and want to continue their pregnancies. California wants to impose penalties approaching $20 million because these charities have dared to tell women that another option may exist.

Twenty million dollars. That number alone should tell us what this case is really about.

No reasonable observer can believe that bankrupting charities is a proportionate response to truthful and non-misleading statements about a free service designed to help a woman exercise her constitutional right to continue her pregnancy. This is not consumer protection. It is political warfare conducted through the machinery of a government that wishes to silence speech it does not like.

What’s most remarkable is what California cannot prove.

After years of investigation, subpoenas, discovery, and litigation, the attorney general has failed to identify a single woman harmed by APR treatment. Not one. No parade of victims. No evidence of widespread deception. He set up a website practically begging for complaints and still could not muster a single woman claiming she was misled or harmed.

Instead, seven women have publicly shared the stories of how Heartbeat International and Real Options helped them successfully reverse their abortions. Three mothers are slated to testify from the stand about their joy at reversing their unwanted abortions.

Still, the state asks the court to punish the very charities who helped these women continue their wanted pregnancies simply because government lawyers disagree with their viewpoint on the scientific evidence regarding APR.

That is a dangerous precedent.

Scientific disagreement is not fraud. If it were, much of modern medicine would not exist. Medical consensus is not handed down from on high. It evolves. Researchers debate. Physicians challenge prevailing views. Studies are published, criticized, replicated, and revised.

The proper response to disputed science is more debate, more research, and more evidence – not government censorship backed by eight-figure penalties.

Yet that is precisely what California seeks.

Keep reading

University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine Honor Man Who Burned Jewish Woman to Death

In June of 2025,  one of Joe Biden’s illegals attacked Jews in Boulder, Colorado, during a walk to call attention to the hostages still being held by Hamas terrorists at the time.

During the attack, he injured 13 people, including a Holocaust survivor, and killed a dog.

The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, who is Egyptian and in the country on an expired visa,  was initially charged with 16 counts of attempted murder in the first degree.

One of his victims, 82-year-old Boulder, Colorado resident Karen Diamond, suffered third-degree burns from the attack and, after fighting for her life for three weeks in the hospital, succumbed to her injuries and died.

In May 2026, Soliman was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus thousands of additional years on other charges (first-degree murder, attempted murder, assault, use of incendiary devices, animal cruelty, etc.). He faces separate federal hate crime charges.

Despite his barbaric acts, University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine have chosen to honor a “man who sacrificed his comfort and his proximity to empire, willingly expending his own liberty in attaining his objective.”

Jonathan Turley shared on X, “At the University of Colorado, Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine, honored the “man who sacrificed his comfort and his proximity to empire, willingly expending his own liberty in attaining his objective.” The man? Mohamed Sabry Soliman who burned to death a Jewish woman…”

Keep reading