Blog

Antifa activist who celebrated Charlie Kirk murder arrested on child sex crime charges in New York

A queer-identified Antifa activist who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been arrested in upstate New York on suspicion of felony child sex crimes.

Justin Robert Stroup, 37, of Plattsburgh, N.Y., was arrested on April 30 by the New York State Police following a joint investigation involving Plattsburgh City Police and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). He allegedly shared child sex abuse material.

Stroup is a leftist activist and guitarist for the left-wing death metal band Dead Solace. The band announced on Instagram after the news of his arrest that they were immediately disbanding.

“This decision follows recent actions by a member that do not align with our values, our expectations of one another, or the respect we believe should exist within our community,” the band said in a statement.

In 2022, Dead Solace performed a charity concert in Burlington, Vt., co-organized by Planned Parenthood. 

Keep reading

Mamdani Berates Billionaire Outside His Residence Near UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassination Site

Citadel CEO Ken Griffin responded to a viral Tax Day video from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in which he was filmed outside of the billionaire’s penthouse promising to charge new taxes on the property of wealthy individuals.

The democratic socialist, whose city is facing a budget crisis, released a video on April 15 vowing to impose a new pied-à-terre tax on the non-primary residences of wealthy New Yorkers.

Mamdani is seen in the video on the street outside Griffin’s penthouse, which was purchased in 2019 for $238 million — marking the most expensive home sale in American history, according to a report from Fox Business.

“This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million, whose owners do not live full-time in the city,” Mamdani said in the video.

“Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million,” he continued, calling out Griffin by name.

Griffin responded with remarks at an investment conference in Oslo, Norway, saying that he was disturbed by the “personal attack” and the possible security ramifications.

Keep reading

Multiple Biden officials bash former Cabinet official, gobsmacked by their rise CA governor race

Former Biden officials are anonymously taking aim at one of their own, ex-HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra, as he appears to ascend in the California gubernatorial race.

Becerra has emerged as a leading Democratic candidate in California’s jungle primary for governor after Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s dramatic exit from the race last month.

His rise, however, is mystifying his former Biden administration colleagues, according to a report from Politico.

“Six former Biden administration officials, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about a former colleague, acknowledged the subject of Becerra’s unlikely rise has come to dominate their group chats and conversations,” Politico reported Thursday.

“‘It gets the biggest laugh every time we send around a poll,’ the first former official said, describing the perception across the administration that the former HHS secretary was ineffective on the COVID response, a migrant health crisis at the border and other matters,” Politico continued. “‘He ran one of the most consequential agencies in government at the height of the pandemic. But he took a backseat to Dr. Fauci and his team, didn’t visibly lead on implementation and had to go through layers to get to POTUS even as a Cabinet member.'”

Keep reading

California Immigration Judge Sues Trump DOJ; Claims She Was Fired for Being a Registered Democrat Woman Over 40

A California immigration judge has filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Justice, alleging she was terminated because she is a registered Democrat, a woman over 40, fluent in Spanish, and had ties to immigrant-rights groups.

Kyra Lilien had been in the San Francisco Immigration Court since 2023, before transferring to the Concord Immigration Court in 2024.

Last July, Lilien was notified that her two-year probationary period would not be converted to a permanent appointment.

The 14-page lawsuit, filed this week, names the DOJ and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.

Lilien claims she met or exceeded all performance standards and received the highest possible ratings in her probationary reports for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

According to TRAC Immigration data, she denied just 34% of asylum claims brought before her.

Despite this, she alleges her removal violated her civil and First Amendment rights.

Lilien’s attorney, Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law in Maryland, told local station KTVU that Lilien “didn’t fit their mold” and that the actions taken against her were “impermissible and unlawful.”

“She didn’t fit their mold,” Owen said. “And what they did to her was impermissible and unlawful.”

The suit claims that immigration judges who were terminated or not retained around the same time were overwhelmingly female and points to internal memos issued by then-acting EOIR Director Sirce Owen in early 2025.

Those memos criticized “extremist leftist organizations” involved in illegal alien advocacy and Biden-era hiring practices that promoted illegal immigration and DEI hires.

Lilien, KTVU reports, “used to be program director for Jewish Family and Community Services, which largely helps Afghan refugees settle in the United States, and was the immigration program director for Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland.”

The complaint also names nearly 30 other immigration judges from across the country who were similarly fired or not converted from probationary status, including 14 from the Concord and San Francisco courts.

Keep reading

Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to free speech. This right has long differentiated the United States from other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Canada where laws against so-called “hate speech” laws exist and are enforced.

Thankfully, America is different. In our country, even alleged hate speech is protected speech to ensure democratic principles and debate.

In a 1929 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the Constitution secured “freedom for the thought that we hate.” In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a ruling that the First Amendment serves “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

This constitutional protection has been increasingly threatened recently, particularly by pro-Israeli forces that have tried to frame any criticism of that government as “anti-Semitism” and thus hate speech punishable by law. This has included everything from arrests, to squashing campus debate to buying TikTok to an attempt to cover up human rights absuses in Gaza. President Donald Trump has even issued executive orders that use vague definitions of what constitutes “anti-Semitism” that comes with criminal penalties.

Mark Levin is an American-born Zionist radio host who is an outspoken advocate for Israel’s government, regularly calling anyone who criticizes the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and conflict in Gaza “Nazis.”

Toward this agenda, Levin recently appeared to not agree with his own country’s free speech rights. On his latest Sunday Fox News program, unironically called Life, Liberty and Levin, the neoconservative pundit explained why free speech liberties in the U.S. have gone too far.

Seemingly worried that certain speech is protected in the United States, Levin said in the wake of the Secret Service taking down a shooter at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday, “First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected.”

“And you hear people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment?” Levin said. “They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes.”

Keep reading

This Is Why the U.S. Can’t Use the Oil It Produces

The United States produces more oil than any other country in the world—averaging 13.3 million barrels per day (MMb/d) in 2024. But strangely, the U.S. also imports about 6.5 MMb/d of crude. This paradox confuses many Americans. Why doesn’t the U.S. just use its own oil? The answer lies in infrastructure mismatches, refinery design, trade economics, and federal laws that restrict the flow of domestic oil.

  1. 🧪 Light Oil vs. Heavy Oil: Not All Crude Is Created Equal
    The U.S. primarily produces light, sweet crude oil, which is low in sulfur and viscosity. Meanwhile, many American refineries—especially those built in the 1970s and 80s—were designed to handle heavy, sour crude, the kind that comes from countries like Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada.

Over 60% of U.S. refinery capacity is optimized for heavy crude processing.
Upgrading a single refinery to handle lighter crude can cost between $100 million to $1 billion.
This means that even though the U.S. produces oil, it’s the wrong kind of oil for its aging refinery infrastructure. So we export light crude (often to Asia and Europe) and import heavy crude to feed our refineries.

  1. 🏗️ Refinery Location and Infrastructure Gaps
    The second major problem is geography. Much of America’s oil production comes from inland fields like the Permian Basin (Texas/New Mexico) or the Bakken Formation (North Dakota). Meanwhile, many of the refineries that need oil are located on the East and West Coasts, far from those production zones.

California, despite being a top 5 oil-producing state, imports ~75% of its crude due to limited pipeline access.
The Keystone XL cancellation and other pipeline delays exacerbate this logistical mismatch.
It’s often cheaper to import oil from the Middle East or Latin America to coastal ports than it is to move domestic crude across the U.S. via expensive trucking, rail, or limited pipelines.

  1. ⚖️ The Jones Act: A Shipping Law That Backfires
    The Jones Act, passed in 1920, requires that any goods (including oil) transported between U.S. ports must use ships that are U.S.-built, -owned, and -crewed. These ships are vastly more expensive to operate than foreign tankers.

A Jones Act tanker costs up to $75,000 per day—nearly 3x more than foreign vessels.
This makes it cheaper to ship oil from Saudi Arabia to New Jersey than from Texas to New Jersey.
The law, originally meant to support the American maritime industry, now creates bottlenecks in the oil supply chain—making domestic crude more expensive to move than imported oil.

Keep reading

 ‘Raped’ schoolchildren tell of ‘monsters in the bathroom’ and draw chilling pictures of snarling blood-covered staff

A NURSERY school where children reportedly spoke of a “monster in the bathroom” is facing accusations of violence and sexual abuse.

The Munay Waldorf School in Zaragoza, Spain has now closed amid a sweeping police investigation.

Two members of staff have been accused of raping children as young as three.

At least 10 families have filed complaints, with around a dozen children allegedly describing sexual assaults, physical violence and intimidation inside the school – which catered for just 20 to 30 children aged 0 to 6.

The school follows the controversial holistic education system created by Rudolf Steiner, the Austrian philosopher.

One mum told Spanish newspaper El País her daughter began showing severe anxiety during her time at the school between 2022 and 2023.

The devastated mum said her daughter was becoming withdrawn, frightened and refusing to use the toilet.

“She told me there was a monster in the bathroom and she never went because it scared her so much. When we went to pick her up, the first thing she did when she came out was wet herself,” she said.

The mum later compiled a blue file folder filled with transcripts of conversations, audio recordings, videos and a sketchbook she says documents her daughter’s recollections.

The paper trail included chilling drawings of a man with blood around his mouth and exposed genitals.

Keep reading

Leftist Mob Runs Trump Supporter Out of Concert: Crowd Erupts in Vulgar ‘F-ck Trump’ Chants Until They Flee in Viral Video

A Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat was mercilessly harassed and driven from an Ashnikko concert at Hard Rock Live in Orlando after the liberal crowd spotted him and unleashed a torrent of obscene anti-Trump chants.

The disturbing incident occurred Tuesday night during the performer’s “Smoochies Tour” stop at the venue.

A viral TikTok video captured the moment the crowd noticed the man’s red MAGA hat, immediately jeering and shouting him down before breaking into repeated chants of “F-CK DONALD TRUMP! F-CK DONALD TRUMP!”

The supporter, clearly caught off guard, covered his face and quickly left the venue as the mob continued its tirade.

The TikTok user who posted the clip, who uses the name @ahorrorborealis, captioned the video, “He got so embarrassed he covered his face and left! Like literally WHO told you you could be HERE?!”

The video has since exploded online, with many on the left celebrating the public shaming of a conservative simply for wearing political apparel to a concert.

Reddit’s r/PublicFreakout thread was filled with mocking comments speculating the man was either “delusional” about Trump support or trying to provoke a fight.

Ashnikko announced that she is “queer,” “gender-fluid,” and uses she/they pronouns after facing backlash for “fetishizing” transgender people.

The Hollywood Mask reports, “In May 2021, Ashnikko came out as pansexual on Twitter while she was being criticized for fetishizing transgender people because of her song.”

Keep reading

Minimum Wage is Maximum Folly

rogressive lawmakers in Washington, D.C., recently introduced legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour. But rather than discuss the merits of an increase, our representatives would be wise to debate the scheme itself.

Advocates of minimum wage present the policy as a means to uplift low-income workers. But for more than a century, it has steadily produced outcomes starkly at odds with this goal. It is far more than an economic policy. It is a statement on our society’s underlying assumptions about human freedom, responsibility, and the proper limits of government power. When examined honestly, minimum wage reveals an unsettling truth: symbolic compassion often produces actual misery, and the people paying the highest price are those least able to bear it.

Let’s look at how this policy originated. The popular narrative claims the minimum wage was created to protect low-skill workers from exploitation. But the historical record tells a very different story — one so politically inconvenient that it has been almost entirely erased from public discussion.

In the early 20th century, Progressive-era reformers in the United States, Canada, and Australia supported minimum-wage laws explicitly as a tool to exclude undesired workers from the labor market. These undesired workers were usually minorities, immigrants, women, or the poor. The logic was simple: raise the cost of competitive labor. After all, the appeal of hiring unionized white men is greatly reduced when a black laborer, an immigrant, or a woman is available to do the job at a far lower wage. 

The intention was not hidden. Economists and policymakers wrote openly about the need to prevent “inferior” workers from “undercutting” others through their offer to work for lower pay. Early advocates were quite clear that raising the cost of hiring low-skill workers would reduce their value, making them less employable. They supported the legislation for precisely this reason.

Milton Friedman noted bluntly, “The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people with low skills.” Walter E. Williams went even further, calling it one of the few government policies whose historical intent and modern consequences aligned perfectly: it reduced employment among low-skill workers, disproportionately harming minorities.

Minimum wage is a policy born not of generosity, but of exclusion. Its intent was never to uplift. It was always to restrict.

Keep reading

Cory Booker Admits Dems Are Coming for Supreme Court if They Win Midterms

Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, said this week that Democrats are still eyeing major changes to the Supreme Court if they win the Senate in November.

During a Tuesday appearance on “All-In with Chris Hayes” on MSNOW, Booker openly discussed “reforming” the court.

Host Chris Hayes noted that many Democratic voters increasingly believe “something has to be done” about the court’s conservative majority.

He asked Booker whether going after the court had become a priority for Democrats seeking to regain power in November.

“The Supreme Court is another example of an area where most Americans agree,” Booker claimed.

Booker then argued in favor of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices.

“In addition, most Americans agree that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t sit on those benches until they’re so ailing,” Booker said.

“So, yes, we have to think hard about how we’re going to reform the court and bring it back into alignment,” he added.

He also accused the court of having eviscerated “years and years and years of progress” by ruling last week that states cannot gerrymander districts based on race.

Booker’s threat comes after years of Democrats and liberal activists openly floating proposals to restructure the court.

Keep reading