Tag: hypocrisy

Tim Walz Doesn’t Seem to Object to Graham Platner’s Use of This Word That ‘Incites Violence’

What a (D)ifference a Senate seat makes. 

Back in December, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was hopping mad about President Trump calling him “seriously retarded” over the massive Somali fraud scandal in his state. Walz said the President’s taunts led to people in that notorious MAGA country known as deep blue Minneapolis to drive by his house calling him a “retard.” At the time, Walz said those taunts can lead to violence.

Gee, you mean like calling the President “Hitler,” a “pedophile,” and a “rapist” led to Cole Allen attempting to assassinate President Trump and his Cabinet members?

But now that Graham Platner is the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Maine, Walz is going to let bygones be bygones, it seems. Two weeks ago, Platner used “retarded” in remarks that earned him criticisms from disability rights groups.

Here’s more from the Bangor Daily News:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner’s use of the word “retarded” in a recent interview sparked condemnation from disability-rights advocates, giving critics more fodder to challenge his message that voters shouldn’t judge him over old social media posts.

Platner’s significant polling and fundraising lead over Gov. Janet Mills in the primary for the right to take on U.S. Sen. Susan Collins since the October disclosure of Reddit posts and a tattoo of a skull-and-crossbones symbol linked to Nazis. He has maintained a commanding position even after a recent Mills ad blitz focusing on past comments about sexual violence.

The candidate used the “R-word,” considered a slur by many advocates, several times on Reddit in 2021. He also used it during an interview with the The Maine Monitor for a story that ran this past weekend, saying when he was told last year that his tattoo had Nazi ties, his reaction was, “‘Well, that’s the f———- most retarded s—- I’ve ever heard in my life.’”

Keep reading

Barack Obama Weighs In On Supreme Court “Gutting” Voting Rights Act by Striking Down Louisiana’s Racially Gerrymandered Map and It Instantly Backfires

Former President Barack Obama lashed out at the United States Supreme Court for crippling the racial gerrymandering schemes practiced by his party, and Americans were quick to put him in his place.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, correctly declaring Louisiana’s newly-drawn Democrat-friendly Congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s cowardly lawmakers caving to activist left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district designed to elect a Democrat.

While the decision does not abolish the Voting Rights Act (VRA) or Section 2, ABC News notes that it raises the bar for challenges to election maps that liberal critics claim limit the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing, even if lawmakers did not intend to discriminate.

Leftist Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan whined in her dissent that the “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril.”

“If other states follow Louisiana’s lead,” Kagan added, “the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.”

Obama agreed with Kagan that the VRA was gutted and slammed the Court for not only “weakening” minority voting power but “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,” Obama wrote.

“And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach,” he added.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high-profile races, but in every election and every level.”

Keep reading

The Internet Noticed Something Very Interesting in This Photo Hasan Piker Posted of Himself Reading Lenin

Hasan Piker continues to spearhead what it means to be a champagne socialist, as in a recent photo posted to social media, the self-proclaimed communist is pictured reading, “What is to Be Done?” by Vladimir Lenin, although he forgot to take off what some people identified as a $4,000 Cartier ring he was wearing.

Social media quickly seized on the photo, noting that Piker has praised communist figures from Lenin to Mao and has called on his audience to commit crimes against capitalists simply because they have more wealth than others.

“Lenin wanted to overthrow the tsar and create a new communist man, while today’s democratic socialists want ‘high speed rail’ from Bakersfield to Sacramento and free cross-sex hormones for ‘trans kids,'” Christopher Ruffo a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote on social media. “It’s a fundamentally childish ideology, only capable of empty simulation.”

Keep reading

NOW THAT’S FUNNY: Democrat Party Mouthpiece Stephen Colbert Tells the NY Times He’s ‘Nonpartisan’

Stephen Colbert, host of the soon to be discontinued Late Show, was recently interviewed by the New York Times and had the audacity to claim that he’s nonpartisan. It’s the funniest thing he has said in years.

Colbert has completely ruined the legacy of the Late Show by turning it into his own personal political soapbox that basically functions as a super PAC for the Democrat party. Almost all of his guests are Democrat politicians and he spends every night telling the country how much he hates President Trump.

It’s why the show is losing millions of dollars a year and why it is being taken off the air forever next month.

FOX News reports:

Colbert calls Trump ‘authoritarian’ but rejects ‘partisan’ label in exit interview with NY Times

As talk show host Stephen Colbert prepares to depart from his show, he condemned President Donald Trump during a Tuesday interview with The New York Times.

CBS announced in July that it had canceled “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and that it would officially go off the air in May 2026. Liberal critics have accused CBS and Paramount of ending the show to appease Trump and receive approval for a long-planned merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media.

Colbert spoke out about the saga in a New York Times interview headlined, “Stephen Colbert Gets Ready to Hang It Up.” When asked by the Times why the FCC and Trump administration are “focused” on him, Colbert argued this is simply authoritarians being authoritarians.

“Authoritarians don’t like anybody who doesn’t give them undue dignity. Comedians are anti-authoritarian by nature. And authoritarians are never going to like anybody to laugh at them,” he said. “The number of newspeople who have said to me or Jon Stewart or any of the guys who do this, ‘God, I wish I could say what you say on air.’ And we can.”

“I think that upsets them,” he added further. “I think it might be upsetting that we really do not live in their world of principalities and powers.”

It’s possible that Colbert is just trolling the public with these claims, as he is so obviously partisan, to a fault.

Few people will be sad to see him leave the airwaves. He is a smug, preachy, unfunny, bore. He took a show that used to be for the enjoyment of the whole country and turned it into something that mocked and belittled the half of the country that doesn’t vote the way he wants them to.

Maybe he can get a new ‘nonpartisan’ show on MSNOW. That’s where he really belongs, anyway.

Keep reading

‘The View’ Relish Trump and His Cabinet ‘Felt the Fear’ for Their Lives During WHCD, in Push for Gun Control

During Monday’s airing of ABC’s The View, host Ana Navarro led her co-hosts in relishing that President Donald Trump and his Cabinet “felt the fear” of death during Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, and might now be more open to gun control.

Newsbusters managing editor Curtis Houck posted an excerpt from the Disney-owned talk show, in which Navarro expressed bewilderment that Congress did not pass gun control after the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. She then added, “But maybe now, that they have felt the fear themselves, they will do something.”

Navarro talked about the “important political leaders” who were at the White House Correspondents dinner and said, “Now they know, they’ve lived it in their own flesh, the fear that our school children go through.”

As Navarro talked, viewers could hear other hosts saying “yes” in agreement.

Breitbart News noted that Pennsylvania state Rep. and former Democratic Party Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta pushed a ban on “military-grade weapons” on Sunday, which was the day after the WHCD attack.

Kenyatta did not mention that the alleged WHCD attacker used a shotgun and pistol, neither of which were “military-grade weapons.” Therefore, the ban he proposed would not have prevented or even hindered the attack.

Keep reading

Tim Walz Gets Nuked by Scott Jennings and Others for Claiming to be Against Political Violence After WHCD Shooting

After the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this weekend, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz published a tweet claiming that he is against political violence.

He could have fooled us.

Just last week, Walz attended a far left conference in Barcelona, Spain and bashed President Trump as a fascist. Greg Gutfeld later accused Walz of treason for doing this.

Keep reading

Wisconsin School District Cancels All Classes on May 1 So Teachers Can Join Anti-ICE ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protests

The Madison Metropolitan School District in Wisconsin has officially canceled school for all students on Friday, May 1, due to a large number of teachers planning to participate in anti-ICE protests.

In a message sent to parents and posted on the district’s website, officials announced the closure due to expected low staff turnout for the “A Day without Immigrants” event, which is part of the far-left “May Day Strong” National Day of Action.

A whopping 70 percent of the district’s staff signed on to support canceling school for the protest.

The full announcement from the Madison Metropolitan School District website read as follows:

No school Friday, May 1

Our Madison Teachers Inc. (MTI) partners recently shared that they received 70% of staff signatures supporting participation in “A Day without Immigrants” as part of the May Day Strong national day of action.

After a conversation with MTI, we understand that we may experience low staff turnout and believe this will directly affect the safety of our community due to insufficient supervision and educational support for our students.

Once we were made aware of the anticipated staff absences, we reviewed options and scenarios to best support students and families. After thoughtful discussion and collaboration, it has been determined that:

  • School will be cancelled for all students on Friday, May 1.
  • There will be no after-school care.

However, all other activities, including events and athletics, will continue as scheduled.

Keep reading

Democrat Rep. Raskin Uses WHCD Shooting Platform to Defend SPLC as ‘Fighting Right-Wing Extremism,’ Slams DOJ Prosecution

Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin is once again under scrutiny—this time for remarks made during a Face the Nation interview following the shocking shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Instead of focusing on the immediate facts of the attack, the suspect, or the broader security implications, Raskin quickly pivoted to a familiar political narrative: gun control and systemic “political violence.” 

The response follows a pattern that has become increasingly common in Washington, where major incidents are rapidly folded into broader policy arguments before the full details are even established.

During the interview, Raskin described the chaos inside the ballroom, recounting the moment guests were forced to the ground after hearing multiple loud bangs. 

The scene, by all accounts, was serious and alarming. But rather than staying focused on the event itself, Raskin used the moment to draw comparisons to school shootings and broader gun violence statistics, citing daily shooting figures across the country.

That framing immediately raises questions.

School shootings, while tragic, are statistically extremely rare compared to other forms of violence, particularly gang-related crime and illegal firearm use in major cities. Yet, they are often emphasized in political messaging because of their emotional impact. 

By invoking school violence in response to an incident involving a politically motivated suspect targeting Trump Administration officials, Raskin blurred the distinction between fundamentally different types of crime.

The pivot did not stop there.

In one of the more controversial moments of the interview, Raskin turned his attention to the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, the organization is currently facing a federal indictment alleging serious financial misconduct, including fraud and the alleged diversion of donor funds.

Rather than addressing the substance of those allegations, Raskin suggested that prosecuting the SPLC could actually contribute to political extremism. That argument is difficult to reconcile with the nature of the charges. 

Federal prosecutors have outlined claims that involve years of alleged financial deception and misuse of funds—issues that would typically demand accountability regardless of political affiliation.

Keep reading

Barack Obama Gets ROASTED for Claiming ‘We don’t Have Details’ About Motives of WHCD Shooter After Manifesto Reveals Hatred For Trump

Barack Obama on Sunday evening released a statement on yet another assassination attempt against President Trump and his officials.

31-year-old Cole Allen stormed the lobby of the Washington Hilton on Saturday evening and opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

President Trump, First Lady Melania and other Cabinet officials were rushed out of the ballroom by Secret Service Agents.

Footage shows Cole Allen sprinting past a Secret Service checkpoint as federal agents opened fire on him.

On Sunday it was revealed that Cole Allen wrote a manifesto and expressed his hatred for “pedophile, rapist” Trump.

Cole Allen said he was specifically targeting Trump and his officials.

“Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial,” Allen wrote in the manifesto.

“I’m not a schoolkid blown up, or a child starved, or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Allen wrote.

Barack Obama absurdly claimed we just don’t know the motives of the shooter after his manifesto specifically detailed his hatred for Trump.

“Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama said.

It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them – and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay,” Obama said.

Keep reading

NYC Neighborhood Where 70% of People Voted for Zohran Mamdani Now Suing His Administration for Locating a Homeless Shelter There

The people of the East Village neighborhood in New York City are getting exactly what they voted for and they are not happy about it.

In fact, the people of this neighborhood, who voted for Mamdani by a margin of 70 percent, are now suing his administration because they don’t like his plan to locate a new homeless shelter there.

Have they not heard about the warmth of collectivism? Isn’t this precisely what they voted for?

From the New York Post:

East Villagers sue Mamdani to stop relocation of notorious Bellevue men’s homeless shelter into their neighborhood

Enraged East Villagers sued Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a last-gasp effort to stop the relocation of hundreds of homeless men to a new shelter in their neighborhood.

The lawsuit filed Monday seeks an emergency restraining order that would prevent the “rushed” May 1 opening of the intake shelter along Third Street.

The site was selected by City Hall as one of two intake shelters in Manhattan that would effectively replace the notorious Bellevue homeless shelter — a haven for often-dangerous vagrants that Mamdani plans to close by the end of the month.

But Mamdani and city officials not only underhandedly declared an “emergency” to close the Midtown shelter, their decision to plunk its clientele into the East Village was dangerously slapdash, the lawsuit contends.

“This case is not about the City’s decision to close the Bellevue Intake Shelter,” the Manhattan Supreme Court filing states.

“It challenges only the City’s hastily made and legally invalid decision to [locate] a new citywide homeless adult male intake center at 8 East 3rd Street without following any of the legal requirements that must precede such a significant and consequential decision.”

Keep reading