Tag: hypocrisy

Newsom urges a national ‘billionaires’ tax’ while fighting one in California

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is considering a run for president as he approaches the end of his term, called for a national “billionaires’ tax” on Friday even as he fights another proposal targeting the wealthy in his home state.

Newsom also said the U.S. government should own a stake in artificial intelligence companies. His proposals, outlined in a Substack post, aligns him with the Democratic Party’s populist left, and he argued that urgent changes are needed to prevent the elite concentration of wealth and power from undermining democracy.

“It’s time for an economic reset for America,” Newsom wrote.

The governor announced his agenda a day after an influential health care union in California pledged to go forward with a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Newsom opposes that measure, as do many of the liberal interest groups that typically favor higher taxes. They fear it would drive billionaires out of California, eroding the state’s tax base over the long term for a one-time influx of cash. A technology mecca, California has more billionaires than any other state — a few hundred, by some estimates.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom wrote. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

Keep reading

DSA Leader in NYC Explains How They Are Just Using the Democrat Party’s Infrastructure to Get Their People Elected

Gustavo Gordillo is the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America in New York City. During a recent interview with Spectrum News, he explained how the DSA is basically exploiting the Democrat Party’s infrastructure to get their people elected.

It just confirms that these people are not even Democrats. They are an anti-Israel, Marxist contingent that is merely using the Democrat party instead of building a party of their own.

Regular Democrats are so starved for wins, that they are allowing it to happen.

Transcript via Townhall:

“Our candidates run as Democrats. We’re on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries,” said Gustavo Gordillo. “And when they’re in the legislature, they’re part of the Democratic Party caucus.”

“But we don’t agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus, so we try to build independence by focusing on volunteer-led movement,” Gordillo continued, “we think that everyone should be able to be trained and to become someone who can participate in the political process and we don’t really think that the Democratic Party campaigns and the establishment are run that way. And we think, you know, you really see that difference in the races we are having tonight.”

“And I think in terms of the agenda, there’s a problem in the Democratic Party where they’re funded by billionaire donors and at the same time they’re trying to represent the working class. In our opinion, you have to choose between the billionaire class and the working class. It’s just impossible to satisfy all of them,” Gordillo said.

Keep reading

The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has every right to condition European relations with any other country or bloc on respect for human rights. That, of course, would hold true if she genuinely cared about such values herself.

In response to the June 19 signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran – intended to bring an end to a destructive war – von der Leyen declared that the European Union does not intend to lift its sanctions on Tehran.

Speaking on June 15, ahead of the G7 summit, she firmly conditioned any diplomatic thawing on domestic changes within the Islamic Republic.

“The principle of sanctions is that we need real change on the ground before we can think about lifting them,” she stated, adding: “As long as there is no behavioral change, you cannot lift the sanctions because of human rights violations.”

Viewed in isolation, the European position might appear principled, even commendable. In its broader geopolitical context, however, it exposes a staggering level of hypocrisy.

On that very same day, the European Union’s duplicity was laid bare. During a Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, Europe effectively refused to take a unified stand on imposing trade sanctions on Israel, despite its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip and unchecked colonial violence and expansionist policies in the occupied West Bank.

The discussion itself would not have taken place had it not been for the persistent efforts of Spain and Ireland, which have repeatedly urged the bloc to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement over Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. The initiative failed because the EU remains deeply divided, constrained by the requirement of unanimity on foreign policy and repeatedly blocked by pro-Israel governments.

While Europe continues to engage Israel – providing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist coalition with desperately needed political and economic lifelines – the European public has increasingly moved in the opposite direction.

Recent polling across numerous countries has revealed growing opposition to Israel’s war and genocide in Gaza and increasing support for Palestinian rights. Across Europe, mass demonstrations, consumer boycotts, campus mobilizations, and divestment campaigns have reflected a widening gap between public opinion and official policy.

This reality appears entirely irrelevant to von der Leyen, who remains preoccupied with the human rights records of states viewed as Western adversaries. Such concern is not motivated by solidarity with victims, but by the desire to maintain political leverage that can be invoked when convenient and ignored when necessary.

Lest we forget, von der Leyen was among the first Western leaders to visit Israel following the events of October 7, arriving in Tel Aviv on October 13, 2023. Standing alongside Israeli leaders, she offered unconditional backing, declaring that “Europe stands with Israel.” She did so as Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to a devastating military assault that would soon claim tens of thousands of lives.

Although her rhetoric became somewhat more cautious as international legal institutions began investigating Israel for genocide and pursuing war crimes cases against its leaders, her fundamental political alignment never truly changed.

Keep reading

Sherrod Brown Took Nearly $4.9M from Wall Street-Affiliated and Billionaire Donors While Railing Against Them

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is running for U.S. Senate in 2026 against Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), has spent decades casting himself as a blue-collar populist, but donor data reviewed by Breitbart News shows he has taken at least $4,887,980 from donors affiliated with Wall Street, big banking institutions, investment firms, and billionaires throughout his political career

Brown has accused his opponent of taking money from “Wall Street” and “billionaires,” declared “Workers > Wall Street,” said “Wall Street does not believe in the dignity of work,” and claimed, “We continue to see the power Wall Street has over the political system.” He has also said that “making all Ohioans’ lives easier” is what he is “fighting for,” while saying his opponent is “fighting for billionaires” and arguing that Ohioans deserve a senator who fights for them, “not billionaires and special interests.”

A campaign donor list reviewed by Breitbart News includes liberal billionaires such as JB Pritzker, Tom Steyer, George Soros, Alex Soros, Steven Spielberg, James and Kathryn Murdoch, and George Lucas. 

The list also includes wealthy donors from finance, investment, and broader business circles, including Henry Laufer, Marsha Laufer, Seth Klarman, Katharine Rayner, Stewart Resnick, Jonathan Tisch, Donald Sussman, and Penny Pritzker.

Keep reading

JPMorgan DEI Executive FIRED After Dumping Garbage on Street, Stealing Knicks Trashcan in Viral Video

The woman seen in a viral video dumping garbage on the street and then stealing the Knicks trashcan is a JPMorgan DEI executive.

The executive, Angie Baez, 40, was fired after the video went viral and the New York Post contacted JPMorgan about her actions.

Baez reportedly skipped work to attend the Knicks parade after the New York-based team won its first NBA Championship in more than five decades.

The New York Post reported:

A woman caught on video emptying a public trash can on the street, then stealing it during New York City’s Knicks championship parade, was a director at JPMorgan Chase — who was fired Tuesday over the incident, The Post has learned.

Angie Báez, 40, was promoted to executive director of community and industry engagement for card and connected commerce at JPMorgan Chase more than a year ago, according to her LinkedIn profile.

She previously served as executive director of diversity, equity, and inclusion at New York-based review website the Infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of its broader push into lifestyle and experiential content.

Sources say the bank looked into the incident after the video surfaced and a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson told The Post, “This employee is no longer with the company.”

Báez could not be reached by The Post for comment Tuesday. Sources noted she had attended the parade in her personal capacity.

The Knicks-themed trashcan was eventually returned to the Department of Sanitation.

“First, we would reiterate previous comments that dumping trash onto the street and stealing public property for your own personal use are both illegal, antisocial behaviors, and not what New Yorkers do,” the department said in a statement to NBC News.. “On top of all that, doing both on camera is incredibly stupid.”

Keep reading

Billionaire Hypocrites Preach ‘Communism for Landlords’ From Their $30M Hamptons Mansions

In what has become a tiresome ritual among the ultra-wealthy, a hedge fund titan and his socialite wife are bankrolling efforts to impose socialist housing policies on New Yorkers while enjoying the fruits of capitalism from multimillion-dollar properties. Bobby and Carola Jain have funneled tens of millions into initiatives that push “decommodification” of housing and universal schemes, all while residing in luxury that most New Yorkers can only dream of.

This is not mere inconsistency. It is the predictable outcome of a worldview that demands others sacrifice for the collective good while exempting the enlightened elite. The Jains’ patronage of think tanks and policy shops aligned with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani reveals a deeper truth about modern progressivism: it thrives on the rhetoric of equality even as its architects insulate themselves from the consequences.

Bobby Jain built his fortune through high-stakes finance, rising at Credit Suisse before serving as co-chief investment officer at Millennium Management. He launched his own hedge fund, Jain Global, with an impressive $5.3 billion in commitments. After modest results, the fund returned capital to outside investors and now manages money primarily for Millennium.

Keep reading

Rep. Hunt: Racial Argument Against Voter ID Is ‘Insulting’

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) emphasized to Congress the importance of passing the election integrity SAVE America Act and rejected woke arguments against voter ID as racist and condescending.

Democrats’ idiotic arguments against requiring ID to vote include claiming that black Americans are somehow mysteriously unable to get IDs. Aside from the obvious elitism and racial prejudice of such a claim, it is practically impossible to live in America and not have identification. They are required at doctor’s offices, airports, bars, liquor stores, car rentals, welfare programs, and many more places. But somehow expecting IDs at polling places is unreasonable?

Hunt sarcastically said, “I’ve been black for my entire life. I had to bring up the most racist thing I’ve ever heard [which] is the insinuation by Democrats that black and brown Americans are too stupid to get an ID to vote, just like everybody else.”

The congressman continued, “I call this the soft bigotry of low expectations. Figuring out how to vote in this country is a very low bar, and we could all figure it out regard of your race, religion, color, or creed, and we should all want free and fair elections.” 

Except Democrats know they cannot win so many elections as they do without fraud, nor can they expand their control to new areas. They have no positive results to run on, no record of making any city or state more prosperous and more free. They need fraud to survive.

Hunt told Congress, “With me today — I’m not gonna pull mine out this time, but I have six forms of government-issued ID. How did I acquire that? Personal responsibility in this country. I’ve also heard a lot about Jim Crow here today. I’m here to tell you, Jim Crow is over, and I know it because my parents grew up in it.”

Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, ironically. But now they scream “racism” whenever anyone points out that they are pushing an awful policy.

Democrats cheapen and exploit the suffering their predecessors caused for political reasons.

As Hunt said, “And I think it’s actually insulting to those that actually experienced the ills of Jim Crow” to compare getting an ID to that era.

“Having an ID to vote in our national election should be a requirement, which is why I stand [here] today, urging my colleagues on the left to support this bill. If you want secure elections, if you want your vote to count, vote for the Save Act.”

Unfortunately, that’s precisely what Democrats don’t want.

This debate was never about IDs, or about black Americans’ access to IDs, or about constitutionality.

It was always about one political party believing in our Republic’s system of elections, and the other party hating our Republic’s system of government and believing they should decide who our leaders are instead of We the People.

Keep reading

Democratic Party’s Corollary to the Donroe Doctrine

Donald Trump’s second term has precipitated a tsunami of criticism from Democrats over his foreign policy. Yet when it comes to Washington’s efforts to dominate Latin America and the Caribbean, the substantive dispute – if there is any substance remaining, once stripped of partisan bickering – is less about ends than means.

Beneath the rhetoric of inter-party conflict lies a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of promoting US hemispheric hegemony and crushing governments that resist it – with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua at the forefront. While Democrats frequently portray Trump as reckless, they generally accept the underlying premises of economic coercion, political intervention, and regime-change pressure. Their objections mainly focus on the execution of policy rather than its legitimacy.

The central role of sanctions in projecting imperial coercive power

Under Democratic administrations, the US forged and institutionalized what may be its most effective instrument of hegemony. Coercive economic measures, commonly called “sanctions,” were first deployed by Franklin D. Roosevelt against Mexico in the 1930s. They were used by Dwight D. Eisenhower to pressure Guatemala in 1954 and then – most drastically – against Cuba by both Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1960. Today, one-third of the world’s nations are under US sanctions.

Sanctions – a form of collective punishment – are held by legal experts to be contrary to international law. Paradoxically, not only does Washington disregard international law in imposing sanctions, but the US then behaves as if they are applying the law when, for example, they pirate a ship delivering humanitarian supplies to a sanctioned country.

Use of sanctions has accelerated because successive administrations have seen their unique advantages. Compared with “forever wars,” they are more easily justified to US voters as cost-free and as not imperiling US lives. If sanctions are the precursor to military intervention – as in Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and, of course, Venezuela in 2026 – the interventions have usually been limited, with few US casualties.

Yet sanctions are very potent: between 2010 and 2021, they caused around 560,000 deaths globally each year – more than five times the number of people killed annually in direct armed combat.

While sanctions are made more palatable by being described as “targeted” at governments or individuals seen as undesirable by Washington, in practice the “targeting” is deliberately far wider. Sanctions do most damage to the poorest sectors of societies – the sectors most likely to support progressive governments. The barely veiled message is that only by withdrawing this support will such communities be able to prosper and avoid the threat of even greater US intervention.

The frequent description of sanctions as “targeted” carries another implication – that they are intended to have a precise and conclusive effect. However, while sanctions cause severe economic damage, there is little evidence that they achieve intended regime change. Even so, sanctions on countries which refuse to change are maintained and – very frequently – intensified. Democrats are as guilty of this folly as Republicans.

Indeed, US sanctions have imperial utility through their “demonstration effect”: attempting to cripple progressive alternatives to the neoliberal world order. Recently subjected to draconian sanctions, Cuban President Díaz-Canel proclaimed: “Cuba is not a failed state; Cuba is a besieged state.” Still, infant mortality in Cuba is lower than among African Americans.

Keep reading

North Carolina Student Wins Massive Legal Settlement After School Accused Her of Vandalism Over Pro-Charlie Kirk Message Painted on Rock

A North Carolina high school student was accused of vandalism and investigated after she painted a pro-Charlie Kirk message on a rock on the school’s campus that has historically been used by students in this way.

Now the student is sitting on top of gigantic pile of money, having won a legal settlement over the way she was targeted for this.

There was absolutely nothing offensive in the messages she painted on the rock. The school only acted because the message was about Charlie Kirk. The student’s First Amendment rights were violated.

FOX News reports:

North Carolina student wins $95K after school accused her of vandalizing spirit rock with Charlie Kirk tribute

A North Carolina high school student has reached a $95,000 settlement with her school district after she was publicly accused of vandalism and told she was under police investigation. The controversy revolved around painting a campus “spirit rock” with a Bible verse and patriotic message in tribute to the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

Fox News Digital has learned that a settlement was reached this week between the family of Ardrey Kell High School student Gabby Stout and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. Under the terms of the agreement, the school board will adopt a new free speech policy, issue a public statement expressing regret, and pay $95,000 to Stout’s legal team at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

The settlement comes six months after the Stouts filed a federal lawsuit alleging rampant violations of the student’s First Amendment rights.

Stout told Fox News Digital the settlement ultimately clears her name.

“This settlement finally reinforces that I did nothing wrong, and the school system has to admit that publicly,” she said. “After I got permission to paint a message sharing my faith in God, school officials accused me of vandalism in front of my whole school and my entire community. Then they put me through an unfair investigation. They never should have treated me this way, and by saying they regret that I had this experience, they are finally acknowledging that publicly.”

This was an expensive lesson for the school.

Keep reading

Hillary Clinton Fears “Revolution” Preventing The US From Becoming A “Rainbow Nation”

The word “Democracy” is thrown around frequently within progressive circles as a call to arms; a rallying cry based on a fraudulent narrative of patriotic duty.  Throughout the entirety of Joe Biden’s first and last term, the political left painted conservatives as a threat to democracy.  Anyone who opposed pandemic mandates, compelled vaccination, open borders, mass immigration, gender ideology in public schools etc., was labeled a danger to society.  

The inherent fallacy being that leftists (and by extension Democrats) represent the majority of the nation.  However, this notion has been consistently debunked by multiple elections, polls and the fact that the vast majority of liberal movements have been exposed as astroturf funded by NGOs.

If Democrats actually cared about democracy, they would listen to the actual American majority, instead of waging a propaganda war on the majority in order to manufacture a false consensus.  And, the majority of Americans do not support multicultural or “intersectional” ideology.  The liberal vision is on the decline and that’s a good thing.

Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton disagrees. 

At the first Rainbow PUSH Coalition conference since the death of Reverend Jesse Jackson in February.  Pete Buttigieg and Hillary Clinton took to the stage in front of a small audience in Chicago this week to sell their Utopian future, but mostly they slandered the Trump Administration.  Their rhetoric continues to echo the message of the Biden era, that conservatives want the end of civil rights and voting rights in the US. 

Buttigieg asserted that the Trump Administration was “corrupt” and “corruption is bad”.

Keep reading