democrats – Page 55 – Hellbound and Down

‘Slash the Pentagon Act’ Would Cap Trump’s Military Budget To Fund Healthcare, Education, and More

Democratic US Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts took aim Monday at President Donald Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran and request for a record $1.5 trillion in total military-related spending authorization by introducing legislation that would cap the Pentagon budget at half that amount.

Markey introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act at a Capitol Hill press conference that took place “as Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas, while Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran.”

“Instead of funding Medicaid and education or investing in veterans’ care, Republicans want to pad the pockets of gold-plated defense contractors with billions more dollars for weapons and wars we do not need,” Markey said at the press conference.

“Just before SpaceX’s IPO made Elon Musk a trillionaire, Trump gave SpaceX billions in contracts for his expensive and ineffective ‘Golden Dome’ system,” Markey continued. “Coincidence? No, corruption.”

“It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending,” the senator added. “We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now – not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”

Markey’s bill comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year’s enacted level.

The Trump administration’s broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs.

Keep reading

Failing Hollywood Wants a Bailout From Taxpayers and Adam Schiff is Trying to Give it to Them

Just yesterday, it was reported that Hollywood insiders fear the city is turning into the next Detroit. Movie and TV productions are talking their business to other, more attractive locations with fewer rules and better tax rates.

In response to this, Adam Schiff and other lawmakers want to give Hollywood a federal tax subsidy. In other words, they want taxpayers to bail out Hollywood.

Why should average Americans who have nothing to do with the entertainment industry have to help Hollywood fix a problem that they are causing for themselves?

Reason reports:

Adam Schiff Wants Federal Tax Credits for Movie and TV Production

Eager to cut costs, studios increasingly shoot films and TV shows overseas. Unsurprisingly, one lawmaker thinks the government should help.

“Los Angeles has been the world’s entertainment capital for 100 years and still has an unmatched concentration of talent and infrastructure,” Gene Maddaus writes at Variety. “But in an age of globalization, with easy international travel and communication, the city is losing its edge.”

While still synonymous with the entertainment industry, fewer and fewer projects are actually filmed in Hollywood.

The problem primarily comes down to cost. “Everything costs more in L.A., starting with labor, due to the high cost of living and elaborate union agreements,” Maddaus writes. “Other states and countries have developed crew bases of their own, are more solicitous of producers’ needs and offer more generous incentives.”…

“In order to save this industry in America, we need to be competitive with tax credits,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) told Variety. Schiff wants a federal film production tax credit; he said in March he had “largely drafted” a bill but that he needed bipartisan support.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom solicited $340M in ‘behested payments’ from special interests, filings reveal

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bid to seize control of the narrative around multiple federal investigations is backfiring, with critics using the governor’s accusations of Trump-led ‘lawfare’ to revive long-running questions about pay-to-play politics in California.

State records show Newsom has solicited more than $340 million in donations from wealthy donors and special interests — some of which have received preferential treatment and millions of dollars in state contracts — while also taking pains to prop up the political activities of his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

A review of state disclosure records shows Newsom has reported 1,325 behested payments totaling $347,240,506 since 2011, when he was serving as lieutenant governor.

The payments — legal under California law, but a controversial if not illegal practice in some other states — are reported once they hit $5,000 from a single source in a calendar year, and they must be for a charitable, governmental or legislative purpose.

Criticism and memes of Newsom’s habit of soliciting donations have been gaining steam since the governor announced on Monday he and wife are the focus of multiple federal probes.

Keep reading

How Deep Are the Newsoms in It? THIS Deep.

It seems impossible — or just too revolting — to keep up with the financial hanky-panky of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner (gag) Jennifer Siebel Newsom. But thanks to a couple of investigative reporters with stronger stomachs than I have, let’s see if I can’t put everything you need to know into one easily digestible column.

I love it when other people do my dirty work for me, so let’s get started.

“Today, my wife & I joined Donald Trump’s hit list,” Newsom practically boasted on Monday. “He has directed his Department of Justice to investigate us. They have not found a crime — they are simply trying to find one.”

Well, let’s see what Fox Business anchor Liz MacDonald and my old friend and Red State colleague Jen Van Laar have to say about that.

MacDonald said Tuesday that the DOJ probe “is about California Democrats’ modern-day machine politics,” which she described as a “feedback loop of Sacramento-corporate lobbyists-governor/wife nonprofit-behested nonprofit donations-lucrative state contracts-Sacramento.”

Don’t bother writing all this down — there won’t be a quiz at the end of today’s column. You’re welcome.

“The modern Sacramento machine trades corporate compliance and nonprofit funding/donations for policy access and state business,” MacDonald added, and then explained how that grift (allegedly!) worked for the Newsoms:

According to IRS Form 990 disclosures, her nonprofit frequently buys from Siebel Newsom’s for-profit film company—Girls Club Entertainment LLC—writer, producer and director services and the licensing and production rights for her documentaries. Then it sells the docs to the state and public schools.

IRS records show that her nonprofit has paid her Girls Club Entertainment LLC roughly $1.64 million for these production and licensing rights since 2012, which includes a steady annual contracting fee of $150,000 since 2018.

TL;DR: Siebel Newsom produced unwatchable propaganda videos for children, for which Democrat-dominated schools then paid her handsomely. Or as MacDonald summed it up, “Over the past decade, Siebel Newsom has collected over $3.7 million in combined personal salary and LLC payouts funded by the nonprofit.”

Then there are behested payments, which MacDonald explained are “a unique mechanism in California politics where an elected official asks a corporation, labor union, or wealthy individual to donate money to a specific charity, nonprofit, or government program.” Unlike campaign donations, there are no caps.

As governor, Newsom requested a record $226 million in behested payments in one year. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars went to the California Partners Project,” MacDonald wrote, “a nonprofit founded by his wife.”

Keep reading

“Ready for Any Bulsh*t Maneuver” – Election Denier Democrats Claim Trump “Plans on Rigging” 2026 Elections, Announce New “Election Security Task Force”

The Democrats are preparing their own stop-the-steal efforts for this November’s midterm elections, announcing a new “Election Security Task Force” to stop Trump from “rigging” the midterms.

In a clip reminiscent of last year’s stunt by the “Seditious Six” Democratic lawmakers, who advised US Service Members to defy President Trump’s orders, a different six-pack of Democrats is vowing to stand up to efforts by “Trump and his MAGA friends” to rig the midterms.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Democratic Senators Raphael Warnock (GA), Mark Warner (VA), Alex Padilla (CA), Dick Durbin (IL), and Adam Schiff (CA) starred in the video to announce “the most expansive protective effort for voting and elections that our caucus has ever undertaken.”

“Donald Trump says he doesn’t care about the midterms,” Warnock says before the video cuts to Schumer, adding, “because he plans on rigging them.”

“They know voters are going to hold him accountable this November,” Warner says. Warnock adds, “And they know their only way to win is to cheat.”

“We’re standing up for our democracy, and we will defend our free and fair elections,” Padilla says. “This is why we’ve launched the most expansive protective effort for voting and elections that our caucus has ever undertaken,” Durbin continues.

“Over the next five months, our Election Security Task Force will be meeting with top experts, planning for every possible threat and taking nothing for granted,” Schumer says.

“We will be ready for any attempt for voter suppression, any other bullshit maneuver that Trump and his MAGA friends will use to try to rig our elections,” says Warner.

Shifty Schiff concludes the message, saying, “Elections belong to American voters, not to Donald Trump.”

Keep reading

Democrat Candidate George Conway Vows to Put Donald Trump ‘Away for Good’ with Third Impeachment

Democrat George Conway is threatening to put President Donald Trump “away for good” if he wins his bid for the U.S. House of Representatives in New York’s 12th Congressional District.

The Never Trumper lawyer in a video Monday said his fight against the president has only begun, Fox News reported.

Hi Donald, it’s me. George Conway. I cost you $88 fucking million dollars and I’ve only just gotten started. I know you like putting your name on everything from your plane, to the Kennedy Center… sorry about that,” he said.

“But the only thing your name is going to be left on when I’m done with you is the orange jumpsuit you’re gonna have to wear in prison and you see that building that back there?” Conway continued, pointing to the Capitol building. “That’s where we’re gonna hold your third and final impeachment trial. The one that’s gonna put you away for good, and I’m gonna enjoy every minute of that.”

“We’ve got a lot of serious problems in this country, including and especially the price of gas which is hitting $6 a gallon in some places, and that’s all because of you, Donald Trump. We can’t fix those problems until we impeach you and convict you. That’s why I’m running for congress and you are going to regret that,” he concluded.

Keep reading

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Admits One-Party Rule by Democrats Has Been a Disaster for California

During a recent broadcast, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria did a monologue about California and how the state has been failed by the one-party rule of Democrats.

He points to the state’s failure in education, the inability to build housing, and the massive homeless problem, among other things.

Zakaria uses all of this to explain the anger of voters and the rise of Republican candidates like Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt.

Partial transcript via Real Clear Politics:

FAREED ZAKARIA: At a time when President Trump and Republicans are faring poorly in most polls, the story has been different in California. Republican Steve Hilton finished ahead of many high spending Democrats in the governor’s race to advance to the November election, facing Democrat Xavier Becerra. In Los Angeles, an overwhelmingly Democratic city, Spencer Pratt, a Republican, former reality television personality, looked as if he might make the mayoral general election before finishing third.

California Democrats will be tempted to dismiss all this as a sideshow, but the frustration is real and justified. California is one of the most dynamic places on the planet. It has Silicon Valley, Hollywood, world class universities, extraordinary agriculture, ports, talent and natural beauty. But it is a case study in how a rich society can spend more and more while producing less and less of what its ordinary citizens need.

The paradox of California today is a successful economy attached to a failing model of governance.

Consider the fiscal record. Since 2000, California’s population has grown by roughly 15 percent. But the state’s general expenditures have grown more than 200 percent, from $78 billion to about $248 billion. General spending per person has risen from about $2,300 to about $6,300. The number of state employees has grown by more than 50 percent by one count.

Does anyone think that California government and its benefits have gotten 200 percent better in the last 25 years?

Housing is the central failure. California has long spoken the language of compassion while building a system of exclusion. Alicia Finley writes in the “Wall Street Journal” that from 2021 to 2024, the L.A. metro area, with nearly 13 million people, issued only 118,000 building permits for new homes. Atlanta with about half that population issued 163,000.

California has made it too hard, slow and expensive to build. The result is predictable. Home prices soar, rents rise, workers commute farther, homelessness grows, young people leave. And people are leaving. Over the past seven years, the state has lost a net 1.9 million people through domestic migration.

Keep reading

Jeffries Just Told America What Democrats Will Do if They Win the House

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) had one clean chance to calm the country. He was asked whether Democrats would move to impeach President Donald Trump if they win control of the House in the midterms.

Jeffries could’ve said no, but he didn’t. His answer was careful, polished, and revealing: Democrats haven’t “ruled anything in and ruled anything out” when it comes to accountability.

Then came the softer wrapping. Jeffries talked about affordability, good jobs, housing, healthcare, education, and retirement.

Fine words, needed words, great hand gestures.

Yet the hard word in the answer was impeachment, because he chose not to take it off the table.

The preview lines up with the record. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said after Trump’s Iran operation that Congress authorizes war and the president doesn’t. Her statement didn’t use the “I” word, but her argument fed the same Democratic claim that Trump had crossed constitutional lines. From AOC’s press release:

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead. President Trump flippantly acknowledged the possibility of American casualties, stating “that often happens in war.”

“Mr. President: this was not an inevitability. This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people.

“Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region and this will be no different.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not. I will do my part to uphold our Constitution by voting YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution. Every member of Congress must join us in rejecting this aimless war.”

Other Democrats went straight to the article-writing stage. Short-timer Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) filed H. Res. 939 on Dec. 10, 2025, seeking to impeach President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. The House voted to table it the next day, 237-140, with 47 members voting present. The party breakdown showed 140 Democrats voting against tabling the resolution and 47 voting present. Only 23 Democrats joined Republicans to stop it.

By April, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) submitted H. Res. 1155, another impeachment resolution against Trump, and it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) had already introduced H. Res. 353 in April 2025, with articles accusing Trump of high crimes and, you guessed it, misdemeanors.

So Jeffries’ answer wasn’t some accidental stumble on a Sunday show. He knows an outright yes would scare swing voters, and an outright no would anger the party’s loudest anti-Trump voices.

Instead, he chose the middle path, which keeps the option alive while sounding like a man focused on groceries.

Keep reading

A New Study Just Confirmed the Left’s Worst-Kept Secret

If you’ve spent any time arguing with liberals online, you already know this. Now there’s a study to prove it.

Decades of research have shown that political conservatives report better mental health and greater happiness than their counterparts on the left. A new study published in the journal Political Behavior takes that finding a step further, finding that “mental illness is emerging as its own political identity and is most heavily aligned with leftist political ideology and causes,” and that it clusters heavily among younger, far-left Americans.

Shocking, I know.

Columbia University’s magazine noted back in 2023 that “American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives.” However, researchers spent years scratching their heads over why. Scholars from the Universities of Florida and Toronto eventually took a crack at it, drawing on four separate studies. Their conclusion? Conservatives tend to have greater personal agency, religiosity, moral clarity, a positive outlook, and stronger self-worth… which are traits consistently linked to resilience and mental health. In other words, having a sense of purpose and taking responsibility for your life is good for you. Who knew?

Professor Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University has conducted research that connects the mental health gap directly to political identity formation. Her findings were drawn from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, a large, nationally representative survey administered by YouGov.

“I further find that there is an emerging mental health political identity that is most pronounced among younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans,” Van De Hey said.

Roughly half of the study participants who identified as having a mental illness said that identity was very important or somewhat important to them personally. Yeah, that’s a voting bloc in the making.

Van De Hey also found that mental health identity operates differently in politics than physical disability or serious physical illness. “I find that the political predictors and political consequences for the emerging mental health identity differ from those for physical disability and serious physical illness categorization and identification,” she said. The implication is clear: mental health struggles, increasingly worn as badges of identity, carry huge political weight.

Keep reading

	freemattpodcast on Trump Admin Weighs Emergency P…
	freemattpodcast on Muslim-Majority Turkey Detains…
	Bigus Macus on DOJ Seizes Over $560,000 in Cr…
	Study: Homeschool Ki… on Study: Homeschool Kids Outperf…
	HP McLovincraft on New design!