Tag: democrats

RFK Jr. Had No Idea What This Dem Rep Was Saying…and He’s Not Alone

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing a tough challenge on Capitol Hill. He hasn’t testified before Congress in months, so defending his positions, the MAHA agenda, and some of the HHS cuts turned into a fierce confrontation. While the media and Democrats hoped he would stray from his message, they even admitted he’s remained consistent (via WaPo):

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended his controversial record leading the nation’s health department, as Democrats argued his changes on vaccines threatened public health in America and pushed back against his proposed budget cuts.

On Thursday, Kennedy kicked off a marathon of seven congressional hearings where lawmakers grilled him for the first time in more than seven months. The hearings will continue through next week.

Kennedy’s health department has recently undergone a major leadership shake-up, and he’s leaned into his messaging around food and nutrition as GOP pollsters warn of the political risks of vaccine skepticism ahead of the midterms. But for hours on Thursday, lawmakers quizzed him on vaccines, fraud in federal government programs and the budget request for his department.

That doesn’t mean some fireworks went off, like when Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) asked this question, which left the HHS secretary aghast—he didn’t know what she was talking about:

REP. SEWELL: You’re NOT a doctor, you have no medical degree!

RFK: 24 of the 26 HHS Secretaries have not had medical degrees.

SEWELL: Have you ever re-parented a black child?

RFK: I don’t even know what that phrase MEANS. I’m not gonna answer something I didn’t say.

SEWELL: You said it.

RFK: I’d like to hear the recording! I don’t even know what it means!

The man is calm and collected; most Trump officials know how to play this game, even the ones who have been fired for other things. 

Keep reading

UNHINGED: Purple-Haired Radical Rosa DeLauro Has Total MELTDOWN Over Raw Milk

Far-left Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the same purple-haired radical we’ve repeatedly exposed for her unhinged public meltdowns, completely lost it Thursday during a House hearing while grilling HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over Americans’ right to drink raw milk.

DeLauro demanded that RFK Jr. publicly condemn raw milk as “dangerous” and essentially toe the corporate line pushed by Big Pharma and pasteurized milk lobbyists. When Kennedy refused to play along with the fearmongering, the 83-year-old Connecticut congresswoman went full meltdown mode.

“You are the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Is there not some moral responsibility or compunction to say, ‘Don’t drink raw milk, don’t do that, because it’s unpasteurized and can cause serious harm to your health?’ Is that not something you view as your responsibility?

“If I were the head of HHS, I would by God say don’t take raw milk! It is dangerous to your health and if you can’t say that well maybe there are some other conclusions that can be drawn!” DeLauro said.

Kennedy told lawmakers that agencies should “inform the public” and “let people make a choice,” rather than dictate behavior outright.

This is the same Rosa DeLauro whom The Gateway Pundit previously reported on when RFK Jr. absolutely buried the purple-haired Democrat back in May 2025 during his first major HHS hearing. She tried to lecture him then too, and got completely owned.

The radical left, Big Pharma, and the corporate food cartel hate raw milk because it represents everything they despise: freedom, tradition, local farms, and real nutrition that doesn’t come in a plastic-wrapped, government-approved package.

Keep reading

This Isn’t Just Trump’s War on Iran. Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster.

nlike the invasion of Iraq, which received the support of a sizable minority of congressional Democrats, Donald Trump’s war on Iran has received near-universal criticism. Still, the party has focused primarily on process-style critiques — such as the legality of declaring the war under the Constitution and the war’s economic impact — rather than the humanitarian consequences and flagrant violations of international law.

That should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the U.S. bipartisan consensus on Iran: For over 20 years, a number of prominent Democratic leaders — and in some cases, large majorities of congressional Democrats overall — have helped paved the groundwork for Trump’s war by issuing exaggerated and alarmist statements about Iran’s supposed danger to the region, threatening the use of military force, and undermining diplomatic initiatives, sometimes even criticizing Republicans from the right.

In 2024, the Democratic Party platform criticized “Trump’s fecklessness and weakness in the face of Iranian aggression during his presidency” by not responding militarily to attacks by Iran and groups in Iraq and elsewhere that share Iran’s strategic objectives. The platform cited four separate incidents that took place under his first administration, failing to acknowledge that each was a direct result of Trump’s aggressive policies against Iran, including the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian general.

By contrast, the party’s platform praised President Joe Biden for having “authorized precision airstrikes on key Iranian-linked targets,” which it claimed would “deter further aggression by Iran.” It praised “America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel and our unrivaled ability to leverage growing regional integration among U.S. partners to counter Iranian aggression.” Though eager to stress military means to counter Iran, the platform failed to directly call for a return to the Iran nuclear deal under the Obama administration, which considerably reduced regional tensions — a deal that Biden campaigned on reinstating but failed to do.

The month after the release of the party platform, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris attacked Trump in a presidential debate, declaring that her administration “will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”

Keep reading

The Winner at the DNC’s Latest Meeting? Israel, Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide

In the aftermath of last week’s big meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans, supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance have been quite content. “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions,” the president of Democratic Majority for Israel said. The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, a former national security advisor to Kamala Harris, expressed gratitude to the DNC’s leadership.

Why did pro-Israel groups voice so much pleasure and praise – not only for the sidelining of pro-human-rights resolutions but also for the process that sidelined them? The answer has to do with the DNC’s mechanism that thwarted changes in positions on Israel. A panel named the Middle East Working Group gummed up all efforts to align the DNC with the views of most Democratic voters, even while supposedly hard at work.

Last Friday, the transparent thinness of the pretense caused Politico to headline an article this way: “Inside the DNC’s Middle East (Not) Working Group.” But the not-working group had been functioning quite well – as a charade for delay and obfuscation.

The day before the derisive headline appeared, the DNC Resolutions Committee dispensed with a resolution about events in Gaza and the West Bank. Its provisions included a declaration that the DNC “supports pausing or conditioning U.S. weapons transfers to any military units credibly implicated in violations of international humanitarian law or obstruction of humanitarian assistance.”

That resolution critical of Israel went nowhere, which is to say it went to the so-called working group, also known as a “task force.”

Assisting the diversion as chair of the Resolutions Committee was political strategist Ron Harris, described in his home state of Minnesota as a “longtime Democratic Party insider.” He made false claims during the meeting: “I know that the task force has met once a month since it was created…. I have the confidence that work is happening…. These are people working really really hard over a very thorny issue…. They are doing their work…. They’re hearing from experts and all sorts of things.”

The falsehood that the task force had met “once a month,” when actually it had scarcely met, was enough reason for me to contact Harris and ask where he’d gotten that (mis)information. He replied that it was “according to the DNC staffer coordinating the process.”

The basic problem with the working group is not only that it hasn’t done much of anything in the nearly eight months since DNC Chair Ken Martin announced it with great fanfare. The underlying hoax is that it was set up not to reflect the views of registered Democrats nationwide.

Polling is clear. Three-quarters of Democrats agree that “Israel is committing genocide,” and a large majority are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis by a 4-to-1 margin. But only a minority of the Middle East Working Group’s eight members has a record of supporting Palestinian rights, while several are firm supporters of Israel. The oil-and-water mix seems destined for stalemate or mere platitudes. But stalemate and platitudes appear to be just fine from here to the horizon for DNC leadership.

Such stalling mechanisms and scant real representation are as old as the political hills. In this case, an unfortunate boost has come from James Zogby, who for decades bravely worked inside the Democratic Party and elsewhere to advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, in sharp contrast to U.S. foreign policy.

Keep reading

Blue Double Standards: California’s Swalwell Case

Media outlets across the country lit up in mid-April with the same jaw-dropping headline: California’s top Democratic contender for governor had just been forced out of the race over explosive sexual misconduct accusations.

In a matter of hours, Rep. Eric Swalwell lost every major endorsement, watched his campaign collapse, and was effectively tossed into the political dumpster.

On the surface it looked like another MeToo reckoning in a party that loves to lecture the rest of us about women’s rights. But scratch the surface, and the real story is far uglier – a textbook case of Blue double standards.

California’s 2026 gubernatorial race was already shaping up as a nightmare for Democrats.

Golden State voters are fed up with years of progressive experiments that delivered sky-high taxes, rampant homelessness, and a cost-of-living crisis that’s driving families out.

For the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011, Republicans have a genuine shot at flipping the state red.

Recent polls told the tale. Conservative TV host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco were trading the top spots with support in the 14-17 percent range.

Democrats were scattered behind them, with Swalwell – until the scandal hit – polling as the strongest in the fragmented Blue field.

Don’t forget California’s peculiar “jungle” primary system. All candidates run on one ballot in June. The top two vote-getters – regardless of party – advance to November.

That means the general election could feature two Republicans, two Democrats, or one of each. With the Democratic vote split among a half-dozen hopefuls, the math was already terrifying for the party of Gavin Newsom. A strong Republican showing could lock them out entirely.

Then came the bombshell. In the first week of April, detailed allegations of sexual assault and misconduct poured out – including claims from a former staffer who said Swalwell assaulted her in a New York hotel room.

More women came forward with stories of inappropriate messages, unwanted advances, and worse. Within days Swalwell suspended his gubernatorial bid and later resigned from Congress.

Democratic leaders raced to distance themselves. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for him to drop out. Nancy Pelosi said the allegations should be handled “outside of a gubernatorial campaign.”

Keep reading

Democrat Senator Ruben Gallego Now Accused of Sexual Misconduct

I recently wrote that rumors suggested Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) might be the next domino to fall after sexual misconduct allegations took down Eric Swalwell.

Well, it’s happened. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has confirmed that the previously unnamed senator she accused of “very disturbing” misconduct earlier this week is, in fact, Gallego.

Luna confirmed this during an interview with CBS News’ Major Garrett, who pressed her about the cryptic X post she made on Wednesday.

When Garrett asked her point-blank who she was talking about, Luna didn’t dance around it.

“We are talking about an Arizona senator that was very closely tied to Eric Swalwell,” she said, confirming it was Gallego when Garrett named him directly. She also noted that she’d already been in contact with Thune’s chief of staff and that the matter had been referred to Senate Select Committee on Ethics for investigation.

So what exactly is “very disturbing”? Luna laid it out, albeit carefully. “Without, I guess, getting too graphic, there is a woman that allegedly is coming forward with attorneys, wants to go on record about an incident that occurred between the two of them at the same time, and the event was sexual in nature, allegedly.”

Luna added that the allegations extend beyond that, pointing to what she described as two separate campaign finance violations.

Luna was clear that she was not positioning herself as an investigator. She’s one House member, not a prosecutor, not an ethics committee, and not the Senate. But she made it clear she has no interest in doing what she says too many of her colleagues have done.

”I’m not going to be like some of my colleagues that waited, you know, forever and a day to bring this information forward,” she said. “I think that if this is happening, that it needs to be dealt with.”

When Garrett asked whether any of the allegations against Gallego sounded criminal to her, she said, “I think that if it involves people that were potentially trafficked, yes.”

That’s a serious word, and Garrett pushed her on it, but Luna didn’t back down: “I think any time that you are knowingly engaging in purchasing someone for sex, that that is something that should be taken seriously.” She noted the U.S. already ranks among the worst countries in the world for human trafficking according to the State Department’s own Trafficking in Persons report.

Luna connected the dots to a broader pattern she says has been an open secret in Washington: “A lot of this behavior was circulating publicly. People had heard about it, but they didn’t present it to the appropriate authorities.” She also took direct aim at Congress’s infamous slush fund used to settle sexual harassment and assault claims quietly. Three-quarters of Congress voted to protect that fund, she noted. House Committee on Oversight had to subpoena the records, which she expects to arrive the following week.

She even acknowledged the obvious counterargument: that false allegations exist and ruin careers. But given what’s already surfaced about Swalwell and the fact that multiple members of Congress are now reportedly under active ethics scrutiny for similar conduct, she concluded that the risk of inaction outweighs the discomfort of speaking out. “Most people don’t have these types of allegations. Most people don’t have these types of rumors floating around about their offices,” she said.

“I don’t want to serve with these people. I don’t think that they should be in positions of power, and I definitely don’t like what I’ve seen in regards to how they’ve treated women specifically. It’s actually really gross when you hear about it.”

Keep reading

Justice Clarence Thomas: Progressivism, Declaration of Independence Cannot ‘Coexist Forever’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a speech at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law on Thursday to contend that progressivism has increasingly conflicted with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, telling students that the movement cannot permanently coexist with the founding ideals of natural rights and limited government.

Thomas, 77, was speaking at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The justice, who was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991, is the longest-serving current member of the Supreme Court and the second-longest-serving justice in the Court’s history.

During the address, Thomas traced the rise of progressivism in the American mainstream to the beginning of the 20th century and identified President Woodrow Wilson as its most prominent advocate.

Thomas said progressivism had “made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life” since Wilson’s presidency and asserted that it stood in opposition to the Declaration.

“It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration because it is opposed to those principles,” Thomas stated. “It is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”

Thomas maintained that Wilson and other progressive thinkers believed that “America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power, nearly perfect, perfected.”

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” Thomas explained. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government.”

Quoting Coolidge, Thomas said: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with unalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

Thomas argued that Wilson’s distrust of popular government reflected his preference for European-style systems of centralized state power. According to Thomas, Wilson described Americans as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn and foolish,” complained that they did “too much by vote and too little by expert rule,” and praised Germany because its people were “docile and acquiescent.”

Thomas contended that those ideas produced disastrous consequences in the 20th century. “The century of progressivism did not go well,” Thomas said. “The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen.” Thomas pointed to the regimes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Mao Zedong, saying they were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and opposed to natural rights.

Thomas linked progressivism to Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell. He argued that Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress helped justify segregation in Plessy. Thomas also observed that progressives embraced eugenics and believed Darwinian science had shown the superiority and inferiority of different races, leading Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce and later contributing to sterilization programs upheld by the Court in Buck v. Bell.

Near the end of the speech, Thomas remarked, “In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.”

Keep reading

Here’s Who Donated to Eric Swalwell’s Now-Dead CA Gubernatorial Campaign

Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) had a long list of top donors for his unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, which was derailed by multiple women’s allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. In less than three days, his career was essentially over. The allegations intensified last weekend, when on Sunday, he announced his withdrawal from the gubernatorial race, in which he was the frontrunner. By Tuesday, he officially resigned, just hours after another woman came forward claiming that the former congressman had raped her in 2018.

The New York Post compiled a list of donors to this man, whose known creepiness was widely recognized in Democratic and journalistic circles. He was an attack dog against the Trump administration and served a purpose that earned him protection. But once he ran for office and faced scrutiny, that protection evaporated, especially when rape is involved.

From Hollywood heavyweights to corporate titans and everyday Californians, Eric Swalwell’s donor list spans the elite to average joes.

The California Post reviewed public records and identified more than 1,700 contributors to the disgraced politician’s campaign, with donations ranging from $100 to more than $78,000.

[…]

The Post’s review of Swalwell’s campaign records shows that the ex-congressman was able to raise more than $7.3 million from about 1,700 different contributors.

Swalwell courted big money from Hollywood A-listers and special interests to bankroll his campaign, but his fake squeaky clean image also managed to fool hundreds of working-class people who forked over their hard-earned money.

[…]

Swalwell’s most prominent backers included Hollywood A-listers like Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm — both of whom gave $10,000 — while Sean Penn gave $15,000. Others who plunked down thousands of dollars believing the hype included the late actor and director Rob Reiner ($10K), actors Jon Cryer ($10K) and Ed Helms ($5K), and Bryan Lourd, CEO of Creative Artists Agency ($12,500).

[…]

Money also poured in from businessmen such as venture capitalist Bradley Tusk ($39,200) and Jon Henes ($5K), CEO of C Street Advisory Group, while Elizabeth Naftali ($39K) — a Los Angeles philanthropist and major Democratic donor — funded Swalwell’s campaign along with longtime San Francisco attorney and AI advisor Karen Silverman ($10K).

Keep reading

Disgraced Former Democrat Mayor and Pride Leader ARRESTED AGAIN in Texas on New Child Sex Crime Charges – Three More Victims Step Forward After Initial Grooming Scandal

Former Gettysburg Borough Mayor Chad-Alan Carr, a Democrat who proudly led the local LGBTQ Pride organization, has been arrested AGAIN in Texas on horrifying new child sex crime charges.

As The Gateway Pundit reported back in March, this radical left-wing activist abruptly resigned as mayor after less than three months in office, citing some vague “personal legal matter.”

Days later, Pennsylvania authorities arrested him on initial felony charges for allegedly grooming and sexually exploiting a minor he met through his community theater work.

Carr, who also served as president of Gettysburg Pride, was the face of pushing LGBTQ events in the historic Pennsylvania town.

According to court documents, Carr allegedly groomed a 16-year-old boy he met through high school musical productions in Gettysburg around 2011-2013.

The victim, now an adult, reported that Carr solicited explicit photos, engaged in video sex acts via Skype, and shared his own nude images while pressuring the teen for more.

Carr reportedly described the interactions as “late-night talks.”

Keep reading

California’s ‘GTFO’ Act Disqualifies ICE Agents from Local Public Employment

California’s proposed “GTFO Act” is exactly what it sounds like: “Get the Feds Out.” Well, that’s what they claim it means.

Assembly Bill 1896 by Assemblyman Mark González (D-Los Angeles), would bar ICE agents or Department of Homeland Security employees who participated in immigration enforcement during the second Trump administration from holding any public employment in California. Gonzalez claims ICE agents ignored “unlawful orders.”

AB 1896 “Disqualifies individuals who engaged in immigration enforcement activity between January 20, 2025, and January 20, 2029 from holding state, county, or local public employment in California, with exceptions for allowed conduct already permissible under SB 54, California’s law protecting community trust.”

Assemblyman González calls ICE agents “killers, terror instigators, and kidnappers.”

In March, the Globe reported that California Democrats were already seeking to disqualify federal immigration and DHS agents from future employment as California state or local police, or sheriffs, and prevent them from applying for tax breaks, because they oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

In short, this is a retroactive and prospective bar on hiring people who participated in federal immigration enforcement work during the Trump administration for any California public job.

This is the rock-bottom state of politics in California. Democrats have nothing to offer California citizens – they already gave away all of the free stuff. So they are appealing to illegal immigrants instead, prioritizing those here illegally over legal citizens and residents of the State of California.

Federal immigration law is supreme under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, meaning states cannot enact their own immigration codes, create conflicting criminal penalties for immigration violations, or directly regulate who may enter or remain in the country, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 in Arizona v. United States. The federal government holds primary authority over immigration and naturalization.

Apparently, Democrats have chosen take out their Trump Derangement Syndrome on federal law enforcement officers… because securing U.S. borders, protecting the American people against invasion, and guaranteeing the country protection against invasion displaces future Democrat voters and welfare recipients.

California is violating federal law with this bill, and many others.

Keep reading