Tag: democrats

Democrats’ Bill Would Let Federal Workers Skip Paying Rent During Government Shutdowns

Since the federal government isn’t currently paying its bills during the shutdown, Senate Democrats think federal workers shouldn’t have to either.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii) and 17 of his Democratic Senate colleagues have introduced a bill that would relieve federal workers and contractors from their obligations to pay rent, mortgages, insurance premiums, and student loan payments during shutdowns.

The bill would also stay eviction and foreclosure proceedings for 30 days after a shutdown ends. Anyone who tries to carry out an eviction or foreclosure of a federal worker or contractor during that time would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines or even jail time.

“Right now, hundreds of thousands of federal workers, federal contractor employees, and their families don’t know whether they’ll be able to pay rent and make ends meet. Our bill will protect these workers and make sure they aren’t harmed during this shutdown,” said Schatz.

To be sure, this bill is mostly signaling.

Politically, Republicans are not going to advance legislation that would reduce pressure on Democrats to vote to reopen the government.

Practically, the protections it would offer federal workers are unnecessary, at least in the housing context.

It would be odd, and indeed irrational, for a landlord to evict an otherwise good tenant if they miss a full rent payment during a government shutdown that will, in all likelihood, end in a few weeks. That’s particularly true given that government workers are guaranteed back pay once a shutdown ends.

Pursuing an eviction in that context would require a landlord to kick out a tenant who’s going to start paying their bills again soon, and instead incur the costs of the eviction itself, turning over the unit, and finding a new tenant.

Clearly, the reasonable thing to do would be for landlords and their current tenants to work out a deal in such circumstances. We have plenty of evidence that that’s what happens even during even more severe economic shocks.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent shutdowns put a lot of people out of work. Contrary to the predictions of activists, this did not produce a mass wave of evictions—either before or after eviction moratoriums were put in place, and even when promised federal rental assistance was hard to access.

By and large, tenants paid their bills with what funds they had, and landlords worked out deals about how to cover any shortfall.

Keep reading

Senate Candidate Returns AIPAC Money As Pro-Israel Group Becomes Political Poison

In the latest indication that the war in Gaza is significantly threatening Israel’s dominance over American politics, a sitting US congressman and Senate hopeful has announced he’s returning donations received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and refusing to accept any more.   

“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton on Thursday, one day after announcing he was launching a primary challenge against incumbent Dem Senator Edward Markey.

“I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government…I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received and will not be accepting their support.” 

Moulton will refund $35,000 that he’s received from AIPAC. 

AIPAC quickly lashed out at its estranged beneficiary.

 “Moulton is abandoning his friends to grab a headline, capitulating to the extremes rather than standing on conviction,” the group wrote on X.

“His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”

AIPAC has long been regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in US politics. Historically, politicians from both parties have been eager to accept AIPAC money – and quick to accept AIPAC’s voting instructions.  Similarly, they’ve been fearful of incurring the group’s wrath, which could quickly turn into a potent primary challenge. In 2024, AIPAC and allied pro-Israel groups spent enormous sums in successful efforts to oust New York Dem. Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Dem. Rep. Cori Bush. AIPAC’s $15 million spent against Bowman helped make that race the most expensive House primary in US history.  

However, in a political earthquake emanating from Israel’s staggering destruction of Gaza with US-supplied weapons, AIPAC now finds its position in American politics wobbling like never before, as citizens across the political spectrum demonstrate growing unease with Israel’s influence over politicians and policy. Increasingly, both Republicans and Democrats find themselves under fire for accepting AIPAC money.

Keep reading

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

FDR’s “Four Policemen”: The Globalist Blueprint for Endless War and American Subjugation

It is time to expose the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called Four Policemen plan — a sinister scheme concocted by the globalist cabal surrounding the 32nd president to permanently shackle the United States to a role of international enforcer in a world government order. Far from being a noble vision for peace, FDR’s “Four Policemen” was the original blueprint for what would become the United Nations — an unelected, unaccountable body of internationalists dedicated not to liberty, but to global control.

In the midst of the Second World War, even before the guns fell silent, Roosevelt and his cadre of globalist advisors — including Soviet sympathizers such as Alger Hiss — were laying the foundation for a postwar “New World Order.” The heart of this plan was what FDR euphemistically called the “Four Policemen”: the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. These four powers, according to Roosevelt, would act as the guardians of peace, responsible for policing the globe and suppressing any acts of aggression through military might.

Let that sink in: Roosevelt — hailed by modern progressives as a champion of democracy — openly proposed that a small clique of global superpowers should wield exclusive authority to intervene in the affairs of nations, impose sanctions, deploy military force, and determine which conflicts were worthy of attention. Sovereignty? An outdated relic. Consent of the governed? Irrelevant. In FDR’s globalist gospel, only the self-anointed “policemen” mattered.

Keep reading

Letitia James’ criminal kin have been charged 11 times in 5 years — but keep getting off easy

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ troubled grandnieces have been charged with a combined eight felonies and three misdemeanors in the past five years — but had their charges downgraded or dropped every time.

The women live in James’ Norfolk, Va., homes, which have been the subject of intense federal scrutiny in recent months over mortgage documents James signed — including a federal criminal indictment that has New York’s top law enforcer facing 60 years in federal prison.

Cayla Thompson-Hairston, 21, an OnlyFans model with an X-rated social media presence, was hit with felony charges in April 2024 for allegedly lying about having a felony criminal record when she tried to buy a gun in Suffolk, Va., according to court documents.

Cops said she was barred from owning a handgun due to a juvenile felony charge of malicious wounding in August 2020.

However, the weapons charges were later dropped entirely.

Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Ramin Fatehi, a Democrat, said prosecutors later learned the juvenile charges were pleaded down to a misdemeanor.

Suffolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Narendra Pleas, also a Democrat, did not respond to The Post’s request for clarification on why she dropped the charges.

One legal observer said it was concerning that the charges were dropped entirely — particularly in light of Thompson-Hairston’s violent criminal history.

Keep reading

Two Deep State Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia FIRED and Escorted From Building For Leaking Following Letitia James Indictment

The Justice Department is cleaning house as Deep State prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia ‘resist’ Trump and leak to the stenographers in the mainstream media.

Two more Deep State prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) have been fired.

Politico reported on Friday that two federal prosecutors in the EDVA – Elizabeth Yusi and Kristin Bird – were fired.

MSNBC confirmed the firing of the two prosecutors after New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to Julie Kelly, the fired prosecutors were escorted from the building and stripped of security clearances for leaking sensitive information to the media.

Keep reading

Democrat Fund Raising Machine in High Gear Ahead ‘No Kings Day’ Protests

Americans are being bombarded by unsolicited texts and emails, hoping to increase funding to cover expenses related to nationwide protests taking place in more than 100 major cities across the United States on Saturday. Emails and text messages offer links that direct recipients to left-wing fundraising websites such as ActBlue, Inequality Media, ActionNetwork.Org, and ProtectVoting.Org.

One unsolicited text message sent to random numbers nationwide purportedly comes directly from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich under the Clinton Administration. That message reads “Robert Reich here. Are you going to attend a No Kings Day event on October 18? Let me know.” The message sends users to ActionNetwork.Org.

In fine print below an area where recipients can choose to confirm their attendance, a lengthy legal release of liability paragraph is placed that shields several leftwing organizations from liability for injury or death while in attendance of the “peaceful protests”.

The release of liability agreement reads in part;

PAID FOR AND AUTHORIZED BY INEQUALITY MEDIA CIVIC ACTION

By participating in this event, you agree to the following statements: I agree to release Inequality Media Civic Action, Inequality Media, Blue Future, Social Security Works, HollywoodDemocrats.com, other partners, and any of their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, or consultants (the “Releasees”) from responsibility for any injury to my person or property occurring during or in connection to this event.

I hereby and forever release and discharge the Releasees from and against any and all costs, damages, and liability for death, injury to person, injury of damage to property, or other damages, costs, losses, or expenses of whatsoever nature, caused during or by reason of my participation in this event.

One widely distributed unsolicited email directs recipients to an ActBlue website that asks for monetary contributions to bus “college students and young people” to the protests. By donating $25, ActBlue will provide bagels and coffee to one bus load of protesters. Donations of $35 will cover signs and materials, $50 will fund pizza for another bus load, and $100 will cover the transportation of 60 “students” to a No Kings Day protest.

Breitbart Texas attended a No Kings Day protest in Austin, Texas, in June held at the Texas State Capitol building. During the observation, no college students were seen attending pizza parties or receiving bagels and coffee. Some in attendance brought their own helmets, gas masks, and shields that would later be useful when the protest spilled onto the streets of Austin.

Keep reading

Group Founded By Stacey Abrams Finally Shuts Its Doors After Historic Campaign Finance Violations

The dubious voter rights group founded by political grifter Stacey Abrams is closing its doors after a run of corruption like no other in Georgia history. 

The New Georgia Project, according to its active website, claimed the group is “building long-term power in Georgia every year.” But a statement from the far-left organization released on Thursday announced the power has been turned off for Abrams’ old campaign ATM. 

“After more than a decade of advancing civic engagement, equity, and justice across Georgia, The New Georgia Project (NGP) and The New Georgia Project Action Fund  (NGPAF) will officially dissolve as organizations,” the board of directors wrote in the statement. 

The New Georgia Project and its political action arm certainly advanced the riches of Democrat Abrams, who benefitted immensely from New Georgia’s generous contributions to her failed campaigns for governor. 

‘Illegally Influencing Our Elections’

Earlier this year, the Georgia State Ethics Commission unanimously voted to fine New Georgia a whopping $300,000 after the liberal get-out-the-vote groups admitted raising millions for Abrams’ failed gubernatorial campaign — without registering as an independent political committee. That’s illegal under Georgia campaign finance law. And so is failing to disclose contributions and expenditures. 

As The Federalist reported, the New Georgia Project and its super PAC partner admitted to 16 violations of the law, spending “unregulated and unknown monies” during the 2018 election cycle and on a 2019 failed public transportation referendum campaign. The groups, according to Ethics officials, failed to disclose north of $4.2 million, spending all but about $1 million of that to benefit the far-left candidate’s unsuccessful run for governor and the campaigns of fellow Democrats. 

The New Georgia Project failed to report $646,000 in contributions and $173,000 in expenditures tied to a referendum campaign, according to David Emadi, executive secretary of the Georgia State Ethics Commission. 

It was an unprecedented fine, the largest campaign finance penalty in the history of the Ethics Commission and, apparently nationally. 

“This clearly represents the largest, most significant instance of an organization illegally influencing our elections in Georgia at a statewide level that we’ve ever uncovered,” Emadi said during the commission’s two-hour meeting in January. 

Keep reading

‘No Kings’ protesters silent when Democrats rule as monarch

Aseries of “No Kings” protests are touted to take place again on Saturday, representing yet another wave of organized objection from left-wing activists using the government shutdown to fill streets across the country. The same people aren’t so quick — or capable — of explaining away why they sat silent while President Joe Biden engaged in activities that clearly exceeded his executive authority.

These protest gatherings, organized by groups like Indivisible and various labor unions, are working from a narrative of using patriotic rhetoric and symbolism to criticize President Donald Trump as a would-be monarch, ignoring how their history and demands for unchecked federal spending and censorship echo the very authoritarianism they decry. 

Executive Overreach on Student Loan Forgiveness

Joe Biden’s push for widespread student loan forgiveness by fiat through executive action was seen by many as a king-like act, bypassing Congress and ignoring Supreme Court precedents to unilaterally erase billions in debt. Critics argued the move treated the executive branch as an unchecked sovereign, with edicts that exacerbated economic burdens on everyday Americans without approval from Congress. 

Furthermore, Biden attempted to forgive student loans from multiple programs by bypassing Congress altogether. Biden attempted to forgive — on his signature alone — up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients and up to $10,000 for other borrowers earning less than $125,000 annually, using authority under the HEROES Act. 

The 2022 plan aimed to cancel roughly $400 billion in debt but was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2023 for exceeding executive authority. In what appeared to be further monarchical behavior in ignoring legal boundaries, Biden later pushed for alternative relief through the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which faced similar legal challenges.

Unilateral Immigration Enforcement Policies, Energy policies

Biden’s early executive orders, like the 100-day deportation moratorium, were received by the same people complaining about Trump’s actions as regal decrees that, again, bypassed Congress’s role in establishing immigration policy. 

By selectively enforcing laws and expanding protections for illegal migrants, it appeared to be acting like a sovereign, granting sanctuary based on personal whim rather than statutory fidelity. This approach sparked border surges in the millions, the fallout of which the Trump administration is now dealing. 

Keep reading

Democrats Fear the Loss of Their Municipal Monopolies

President Trump’s deployment of federal forces threatens Democrats’ municipal monopolies on political power. This is why they so strenuously object to federal assistance in cities’ law enforcement. Without overwhelming city vote totals, Democrats’ political control in states across America would collapse.

President Trump has repeatedly injected federal resources into city law enforcement – Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and now Portland and Chicago – where he has deemed crime to be out of local authorities’ ability or will to control it. At each intervention, national Democrat leaders have loudly protested – even in Washington, where Mayor Bowser acknowledged crime was down.

Apart from playing to their national base, Democrats’ protests rest on the reality that their power depends on maintaining their monopoly grip on cities’ huge vote totals. Of America’stop 20 cities, Democrats control 18; of the top 40, Democrats control 32; of the top 100, Democrats control 66. Notably, America’s 33rd largest city, Fresno, California, is the largest to have a Republican mayor in a Blue state.

For Democrats, control of cities’ huge populations means control of the states in which these are located. As examples: New York City makes up 44.3% of New York state’s population; Chicago is 21.6% of Illinois’ population; Albuquerque is 26.5% of New Mexico’s; Portland is 15.3% of Oregon’s. And these are just single-city examples; in some states, control of several big cities (e.g., Minneapolis and St. Paul are 12.8% of Minnesota’s population; Denver and Colorado Springs are 20% of Colorado’s population) make for similarly overwhelming percentages.

Why this is so important for Democrats nationally can be seen from 2024’s presidential election results. Between the coasts, Democrats were barely competitive, losing over 70% of the electoral votes cast outside California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts.

Even winning the less than 30% the electoral votes Democrats won between America’s coasts required them to win states like Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Mexico – states where Democrat-controlled city populations were significantly larger percentages of their populations than the popular vote percentage that separated Kamala Harris from Donald Trump in them. Even New York, a Democrat bastion (the last Republican presidential victory there was Ronald Reagan’s in 1984) is a dramatic example: While New York City is 44.3% of New York state’s population, Harris beat Trump by only 12.6 percentage points there: She did so by winning 67.7% of New York City votes – almost 1 million more than Trump and almost her entire margin of victory in New York state.

Keep reading