Tag: hypocrisy

The Standard for ‘Vicious’ Speech Trump Laid Out After Kirk’s Murder Would Implicate Trump Himself

In a video released on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump said “radical left” rhetoric “is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today,” including this week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah, and “it must stop right now.” Trump vowed that “my administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump also expressed devotion to “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died,” including “free speech.” Yet that value seems inconsistent with Trump’s claim that hateful rhetoric “directly” causes violence and his promise to “find” anyone who “contribute[s]” to that problem, apparently including “radical left” people who make inflammatory statements about their political opponents. As Trump put it on Fox News this morning, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”

The solution that Trump is contemplating seems to go beyond urging self-restraint. The Trump administration is developing a “comprehensive plan on violence in America,” including “ways that you can address” what “can only be called hate groups,” which “may breed this kind of behavior,” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on Thursday. “It will not be easy. There’s layer upon layer upon layer, and some of this hate-filled rhetoric is multigenerational, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Like Trump, Wiles noted “the importance of free speech.” But it is impossible to reconcile that principle with any government plan that entails targeting “hate groups” because they are “vicious” and “horrible” or because they engage in “hate-filled rhetoric.”

What sort of rhetoric does Trump have in mind? “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” he said in the video. “Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible for years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.”

Such rhetoric is indeed “hateful” and “despicable,” but it is also constitutionally protected. It is hard to imagine how the government, consistent with the First Amendment, could try to suppress the speech that Wiles says “may breed” political violence.

This is not to say there is no connection between the sort of demonization that Trump describes and appalling crimes such as Kirk’s murder. Spencer Cox, Utah’s Republican governor, says Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man police have identified as Kirk’s killer, inscribed his rifle cartridges with messages such as “Hey fascists! Catch!” But while demonization may be a necessary condition for such violence, it is obviously not sufficient. If it were, we would see a lot more political murders.

First Amendment law recognizes that distinction between words and actions. Hyperbolic analogies like the ones that Trump cited clearly fall into the former category. And under the test established by the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, even advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect. Comparing your political opponents to Nazis, however “hateful” and “despicable” that may be, plainly does not meet that test.

Trump himself has relied on the Brandenburg test in arguing that he should not be held civilly liable for his role in provoking the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. He insisted that he did not intend to cause a riot, noting that he never explicitly advocated anything more extreme than peaceful protest. Yet his pre-riot speech, which was full of invective against the “radical-left Democrats” who supposedly had rigged an election and dark warnings about what would happen if an alleged usurper were allowed to take office, easily meets the standard that Trump applies when he says anti-conservative rhetoric is “directly responsible” for “terrorism.”

So does the demonizing rhetoric that Trump routinely deploys against people who irk him. As he tells it, his political opponents are not merely wrong. They are “sick, sinister, and evil people” who are “trying to destroy our country” because they “hate our country.” They are “communists,” “Marxists,” “fascists,” “radical left lunatics,” “sick people,” and “vermin.” They are “the enemy from within.”

Keep reading

Top university administrator calls Charlie Kirk assassination ‘fair’ due to stance on guns: ‘No prayers’

An assistant campus director at George Washington University took to social media shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and said it is “fair” that Kirk was gunned down due to his support of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. 

“If nothing else, it is fair, in a nation where children get massacred by gun violence on the regular, the people who advocate for continued gun ownership at the expense of those children are not immune from the consequences of their advocacy,” Anthony Pohorilak, Assistant Director of Academic Initiatives at George Washington University’s Mount Vernon Campus, posted on his personal Facebook after Kirk was killed.

“No thoughts no prayers,” the GWU employee added. 

The Facebook post, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, received 37 likes and love reactions from Pohorilak’s friend group.

The George Washington University website lists Pohorilak, who uses the pronouns “He/Him” in his bio, as working for the Campus Living & Residential Education department.

“The George Washington University unequivocally condemns all forms of violence,” a university spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement.

“As a university with one of the most politically engaged campus communities in the country, we believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and no one should ever be subject to violence for expressing their views. This individual employee is not authorized to speak on behalf of GW, and his opinions do not reflect those of the university.”

Keep reading

Sick Loon Elizabeth Warren Snaps at Calls to Tone Down Rhetoric After Charlie Kirk Assassination: ‘Oh Please! Why Don’t You Start With the President!’

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s shocking assassination on Wednesday afternoon at Utah Valley University, where he was fatally shot in the neck, Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren scoffed at and mocked calls for de-escalating heated political rhetoric from the left.

Speaking to CNN, Warren lashed out and deflected blame onto President Donald Trump and his “ugly” words, as the nation grappled with what was clearly a politically motivated murder.

Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was gunned down while speaking at a campus event, with his killer still at large as of Wednesday evening.

“Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren was asked about, you know, some of the Republicans out there who came out and said, ‘It’s Democrats. They need to lower the temperature. That is the problem here.’ She responded to that with this,” OutFront host Erin Burnett said before playing a clip of the far-left senator’s response.

“Oh, please. Right. Why don’t you start with the president of the United States? Right? And every ugly. Mean he has. posted and every ugly word,” Warren fired back.

Keep reading

The West’s Hypocritical Opposition to Ukraine’s Forced Territorial Concessions

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has consistently ruled out making any territorial concession as part of a peace accord to end his country’s war with Russia.  NATO’s European members (with the partial exceptions of Hungary and Turkey) continue to support Kyiv’s uncompromising stance.  Indeed, many European leaders seem even more insistent than Zelensky himself regarding the issue.  Persisting in such recalcitrance, though, guarantees that even more Ukrainians will perish in a hopeless cause.

Insisting on giving no territorial concessions to Moscow ignores current and prospective battlefield realities.  Like it or not, Russia is slowly but inexorably winning the grinding war of attrition.  Given its larger population and greater economic and military resources, those advantages will become even more significant the longer the war drags on.

Flatly rejecting territorial sacrifices also ignores the history of how most armed conflicts in Europe and elsewhere in the world have ended.  Countries that lose a war typically also have to accept the loss of territory.  One need only look at how national boundaries throughout Europe have shifted repeatedly just during the era that the United States has been independent (a mere 249 years) to confirm that point.  Countries that were once major powers (such as Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire) no longer exist. The process of disintegration frequently took place in multiple stages, and the entities that are around today sometimes barely resemble their original incarnations.  Still other countries, such as Poland, have gone through cycles of obscurity and prominence, and are on the upswing today.

A crucial point is that most of those territorial shifts did not take place peacefully, but reflected the outcomes of nasty bilateral or regional power struggles.  Indeed, for all of its self-serving rhetoric about promoting a “rules-based international order,” NATO members have not only endorsed but also initiated violent territorial changes when it served the interest of the major Western powers.  The United States and its allies presided over (if not orchestrated) the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.  They decided which ambitious successor states would receive the West’s authorization, and which ones would not.

Pro-NATO components of Yugoslavia such as Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Macedonia readily received blessings from the Western powers.  The self-proclaimed Republika Srpska (RS), widely viewed as pro-Russia, did not.  Instead, NATO planes proceeded to bomb Serbian proponents of an independent RS or a merger with Serbia.  Western leaders took that step even though their preferred alternative of an independent Bosnia automatically combined three antagonistic ethnic groups into an artificial, ungovernable country.  Serbia was later allowed to become independent, but only if it relinquished any ambitions to merge with the Republika Srpska.  If NATO’s attack on the RS did not demonstrate the West’s willingness to dictate boundaries by force, the Alliance’s subsequent military intervention to secure insurgent Kosovo’s independence from Serbia made the existence of double standards indisputable.  In light of such a track record, the current wailing and expressions of outrage coming from NATO’s leaders about Moscow’s demand for Ukraine territorial concession carry more than a small stench of hypocrisy.

Keep reading

“I’m So F**king Sick Of Watching Politicians Get Rich While They’re In Office…”

Ilhan Omar: Preaching Socialism, Practicing Capitalism 

I am so f**kng sick of watching politicians on both sides of the aisle get rich while they’re in office. But when politicians rail against millionaires and billionaires while quietly joining their ranks, it’s even worse, because it’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.

Few examples are as glaring as Rep. Ilhan Omar’s latest financial disclosure.

Just months ago, Omar dismissed rumors about her personal wealth as “ridiculous” and “categorically false,” insisting she was just a working mom with student loan debt.

Now, according to filings reported by the New York Post and Washington Free Beacon, Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, are sitting on a net worth of up to $30 million. That’s a 3,500% jump in a single year.

Either her financial situation changed at the speed of light, or her earlier denials weren’t worth much. And the hypocrisy runs even deeper when it comes to those who spend their careers railing against capitalism, wealth, and inequality. Which is to say nothing of Omar’s critiques of the U.S., calling it “one of the worst countries” in a recent interview.

Her net worth didn’t come from thriftiness on a congressional salary. It came from her husband’s businesses: a California winery and a Washington, D.C.–based venture capital firm, Rose Lake Capital.

The winery was valued at a measly $15,000 to $50,000 last year but is now worth up to $5 million. Normal.

Rose Lake Capital went from essentially worthless to being valued between $5 million and $25 million, while the company boasts of managing a staggering $60 billion in assets.

Not bad for a family that supposedly embodies the struggles of everyday Americans.

And lets just say Omar’s net worth surge was legitimate for a second. She married into wealth — or her husband is just a resounding success — that’s not what bothers me.

What bothers me the most is that Omar has built her career thundering against the wealthy and declaring capitalism a system rigged against the little guy. She lectures about inequality, demonizes people who accumulate fortunes, and paints millionaires as morally compromised. Yet here she is, supposedly reaping the rewards of venture capital and luxury wine—two industries not exactly known for their devotion to socialist ideals.

Keep reading

Indiana U. professor supports transparency unless it applies to people like him

A new Indiana law requiring public university professors to post their syllabi online “threatens academic freedom,” according to an Indiana University Bloomington professor who is involved in government transparency efforts.

The law, included in a budget passed in May, “almost certainly will have a chilling effect on professors,” according to Professor Gerry Lanosga.

Beginning this school year, professors must post their syllabi online for not just students to see, but the entire public, which includes the taxpayers who actually fund the operations of the university. 

Yet for Professor Lanosga (pictured), this amounts to “surveillance,” according to comments he gave the student newspaper. He also joked “Maybe the impact on posting them to the public is that students may read it more.”

The media studies professor said he has nothing to hide, even though he opposes the law.

“It isn’t inherently bad — faculty don’t have anything to hide in their syllabi and people will comply with the law,” Lanosga said. “But what is the rationale? What are the motives? It hasn’t been made clear,” he told the Indiana Daily Student.

The rationale is that public university professors are supposed to serve, well, the public. They are paid by taxpayers to teach classes and conduct research. The secondary principle is that the work of public employees should be generally available to the public. 

Lanosga should know this since he specifically lists “freedom of information” as an interest on his faculty bio, he won the “Investigative Reporters and Editors’ Freedom of Information Medal,” and serves on the board of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. 

Instructors have some flexibility to reveal certain information just to enrolled students, according to the student newspaper. A good law leaves some room for exceptions.

But in general, the work of public professors should be free and open to the taxpayers. There are other benefits as well – perhaps prospective high school students want to know what they will learn in a political science, chemistry, or economics class if they attend IU.

Keep reading

MSNBC Host Does Absolutely DEMENTED Monologue About How Democrats Need to ‘Start’ Fighting Dirty

For anyone who doesn’t remember, Ali Velshi of MSNBC is the guy who stood in front of a burning building during the 2020 riots and declared that the situation was mostly a protest.

Now he has just done a monologue on the air that must be witnessed to be believed.

Velshi thinks Democrats need to ‘start’ fighting dirty. Apparently, the non-stop investigations, frivolous lawsuits, meaningless impeachments and assassination attempts just weren’t dirty enough.

At one point in his insane rambling, Velshi declares that the Republican party is no longer functioning. That will be news to them, considering that they currently control all three branches of government and the Supreme Court.

Velshi also claims here that he is not a Democrat, and not here to do PR for Democrats, then goes on to do exactly that for almost eight minutes.

There are so many things wrong with this monologue that it’s amazing it made it to air, but it’s a window into the deluded mind of the left.

Partial transcript via Real Clear Politics:

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Today we speak with some reverence about the U.S. Constitution. The document, remarkable for its time, that established our democracy and still guides and informs our rights and freedoms to this day. But when the U.S. Constitution was presented to the Founding Fathers for ratification, they weren’t universally enthusiastic about it.

In 1787, ever the optimist, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin delivered his final speech to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He had to convince several delegates to sign on to the Constitution. Many of them harbored hesitations.

In fact, Franklin had a few himself. He acknowledged that the Constitution was indeed flawed and left space for the possibility that over time, as society and opinions changed, so would this document. But despite its faults, Franklin believed this Constitution was better than the alternative, living under a monarchy without representative democracy.

It was the no-kings movement of the time. Franklin was able to persuade the holdouts. The Constitution was signed, and the United States of America was born.

It is said that on the way out of the convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government the delegates had just created. He responded, quote, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Our Constitution, and more broadly, our democracy, has been resilient, more of a cactus than a rose. But it does require some attention. Even in easy times, this democracy needs care.

And we’re not in easy times. Right now, it’s in dire need of defense, and it needs defenders who are willing to do whatever it takes.

True democracy also requires the competition of ideas. When that does not exist, political parties stop functioning properly. And when even one of our two major parties stops functioning, democracy itself is put at risk.

We all know by now that the Republican Party is no longer a functioning political party in America. It is a fully captured vessel of authoritarianism, which makes it even more vital that the Democratic Party rise to this moment in defense of our democracy. But whether national democratic leadership is unwilling or simply unable to do so, they are largely not rising to this moment.

Keep reading

The Left Doesn’t Care About Gun Violence — Only Exploiting It

On Wednesday, two young children were murdered and more than a dozen others injured when a mentally ill man cosplaying as a woman opened fire during morning Mass at a Catholic elementary school. The tragedy has sparked national conversation — but really, two different conversations.

On the right, the focus is on why the shooter committed such a heinous act. The shooter, Robert Westman (later legally known as Robin) was deeply disturbed, believed he was a female, and had those delusions affirmed by those closest to him. Notably, his mother signed off on his legal name change in 2020 because he was still a minor, as reported by the New York Post. A manifesto purportedly from Westman reveals anti-Trump and anti-Catholic animus, intertwined with other extremist ideologies.

The right recognizes the true root cause of this tragedy. This wasn’t about “gun violence.” It was about a mentally ill leftist, propped up by an ideology that tells men they can become women, acting out his hatred toward Trump and Christians.

The left, predictably, has taken the opposite approach. For them, it doesn’t matter that the shooter was delusional about his gender, or that his anti-Catholic and anti-Trump bigotry were central to his motive. None of the why matters — only that a gun was involved. And because a gun was involved, they insist, the gun must be the problem. This reflexive blame-shifting reveals the left’s true motive in covering the story: exploitation. They’re not interested in stopping violence at its roots, only in exploiting a tragedy to advance their political goals.

And how do we know this to be true?

Keep reading

Tim Walz Speaks at Press Conference Following Church Shooting by Transgender, Refuses to Mention Hate Crime Against Catholics or Shooter’s Trans Identity – Leftist Mayor Blames Guns and Hate Towards Transgenders!

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey spoke during a press conference on Wednesday, hours after the shooting at a Catholic church and K-8 school in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, a transgender gunman opened fire, shooting through the windows of the church at Annunciation Catholic School as students attended mass during the first week of the school year. His manifesto was posted to YouTube before the shooting, and it was revealed that he wrote “kill Donald Trump” on one of his guns.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed that the shooter, a male in his early 20s, opened fire on children as they attended mass at the school, killing at least two children and injuring 14 children and three adults. Police say he was armed with three guns: a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun.

O’Hara later confirmed that 14 children between the ages of six and 15 and three adult parishioners in their 80s were among the 17 injuries.

In one manifesto video uploaded to YouTube before the shooting, the now-deceased shooter shows guns with scribbled words, including “kill Donald Trump,” and a body target on his wall with an image of Jesus Christ on the head of the target.

The FBI has confirmed that it is investigating the shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime against Catholics.

In Tim Walz’s speech, he rightfully thanked President Trump for his attention to the matter, but it was not a particularly strong speech as the chief executive of the state. Notably, he failed to condemn the targeted violence against Catholics by one of his insane transgender constituents or mention the mental illness that the shooter suffered. He likely hopes that part of the story will go away.

Keep reading

Rising GOP Star Winsome Earle-Sears Responds to Vile Racist Sign Held by Liberal White Woman

Winsome Earle-Sears is the current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia and the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia in the upcoming election.

Sears has vocally opposed the idea of boys in girls’ locker rooms and the other gender related nonsense that has been embraced by the left in recent years.

The Gateway Pundit reported that during a political event this week, a liberal white woman held up a vile sign in protest of Sears.

The sign read:

Hey Winsome
If Trans Can’t Share
Your Bathroom
Then Blacks Can’t Share
My Water Fountain

Sears shared her disgust following the incident and called out her Democrat opponent, Abigail Spanberger.

“I’m disgusted, but not surprised.”

“This is the ‘tolerant’ left Abigail Spanberger defends.”

“I’m the sitting Lieutenant Governor, second in command in the former Capitol of the confederate states. I’m an immigrant, a Marine, and above all, a human being. There is no place for this disgusting hatred in our Commonwealth. Anyone who doesn’t condemn this sign is complicit in approving it.”

Keep reading