Tag: hypocrisy

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Claims Antifa ‘Isn’t an Organization’ on MSNBC, But He Once Posed Grinning with Their Handbook Written by Professor Who Just Fled the Country

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison appeared on MSNBC on Saturday to downplay Antifa as nothing more than an “amorphous” idea without any real institutional structure, despite his own previous posts of support for the militant extremists.

Ellison’s comments come amid growing scrutiny of his own past flirtations with the militant far-left group, including an infamous 2018 tweet where he proudly posed with a copy of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” a book authored by Rutgers professor Mark Bray, who has now fled the United States.

During his MSNBC appearance, Ellison argued, “Because if there really is no Antifa as an institutional organization, then anybody who’s associated with Antifa-like ideas, you know, can be persecuted… The fact that there is no—nobody even knows what it is.”

The Minnesota AG claimed the first time he heard the term “Antifa” was from Trump himself during the Charlottesville controversy, dismissing the group as a vague concept that could be weaponized to suppress speech, deploy military forces, or arrest dissenters.

Conservatives and other logical people, however, point out that Antifa operates with clear hallmarks of an organized entity: flags, uniforms, local chapters, meeting places, email sign-ups, and member directives, a far cry from the intangible “idea” Ellison describes.

Keep reading

As Mass Chat Surveillance Nears Approval, President von der Leyen is Accused of Transparency Violations Over Deleted Messages

As EU lawmakers push ahead with Chat Control 2.0, a proposal that would compel messaging platforms to scan private conversations, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is once again being called out for sidestepping the very transparency rules meant to keep officials accountable.

The contrast is hard to ignore: while European citizens face the prospect of mass surveillance, von der Leyen continues to ignore the laws and conduct her own communications away from public view.

The latest case involves a message sent by French President Emmanuel Macron in early 2024, during a politically sensitive phase of trade negotiations with Mercosur.

Macron’s message, sent via Signal, reportedly voiced serious reservations about the deal.

When a journalist requested access under EU transparency laws, the Commission first ignored the request for over a year. It then claimed the message could not be retrieved, citing Signal’s disappearing messages setting, which automatically deletes texts after a set time.

This justification has prompted the European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, to launch a formal inquiry. Her office has requested documentation outlining the Commission’s policies on mobile messaging and message retention, and plans to meet with officials to clarify how the request was handled.

This isn’t the first time von der Leyen’s messaging habits have raised concerns. In the case known as “Pfizergate,” she was criticized for failing to preserve texts exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during Covid vaccine negotiations.

The Commission refused to release the messages, and it later emerged they had been deleted. The New York Times took the matter to court and won, with the European General Court ruling that the Commission had wrongly withheld information of public interest.

Despite these past controversies, little appears to have changed. The Commission claims that messages like Macron’s had no administrative or legal impact and therefore didn’t need to be archived.

Officials have also pointed to concerns over phone storage and security as reasons for using auto-deleting features. These arguments seem increasingly weak in 2025, especially when applied to discussions between heads of state.

The journalist behind the Macron request argues that such deletion practices make it nearly impossible to monitor how decisions are made at the highest level.

Keep reading

Trump Threatens To Bomb Iran Again, Says He’s ‘Not Going To Wait So Long’

President Trump on Sunday said that he would bomb Iran again if the country restarts its nuclear program, warning the US was “not going to wait so long this time,” a threat that comes amid growing signs that another US-Israeli war against Iran may be coming.

“The B2s, what they did. Those beautiful flying wings, what they did, they hit every single target. And just in case, we shot 30 Tomahawks out of a submarine,” Trump said in a speech at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, during a celebration of the US Navy’s 250th birthday, referring to the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22.

Trump claimed in the speech that Iran was going to have a nuclear weapon “within a month,” but before Israel launched the war, US intelligence determined Tehran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, and even if it chose to, it would take years to actually develop a deliverable weapon.

“They were going to have a nuclear weapon within a month,” Trump told a crowd of US Navy sailors. “And now they can start the operation all over again, but I hope they don’t because we’ll have to take care of that too if they do, I let them know that. You want to do that, it’s fine, but we’re going to take care of that and we’re not going to wait so long.”

Trump went on to say that he had B-2 pilots visit him in the Oval Office, who said the US had been working on plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities for 22 years, but that no president before him wanted to do it.

The president has previously acknowledged that he bombed Iran on behalf of Israel. “Look, nobody has done more for Israel than I have, including the recent attacks with Iran, wiping that thing out,” he said in an interview with the Daily Caller published on September 1.

Since the ceasefire that ended the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran, Trump has threatened to bomb Iran again several times. At the same time, the Trump administration is demanding that Iran enter negotiations to give up its nuclear enrichment program and place limits on its ballistic missiles, demands that Iranian officials have made clear are a non-starter.

Keep reading

SNP minister accused of ‘rank hypocrisy’ after boasting about his woodburning stove just days after voting against protecting them for others

An SNP minister has been accused of ‘rank hypocrisy’ after boasting about his woodburning stove just days after voting against protecting them for others.

Jim Fairlie posted a picture of the heater on Facebook at the weekend after Storm Amy knocked out the power to his all- electric house for several days.

‘Thankfully we’ve the wee stove keeping us warm,’ the agriculture minister wrote.

But only last week Perthshire-based Mr Fairlie, as part of the Scottish Government’s rural team, voted with SNP colleagues to defeat a Tory proposal to safeguard woodburners.

Highlands & Islands MSP Jamie Halcro Johnston, who forced the Government to U-turn last year on a proposed woodburner ban in new homes, wanted to protect them long-term.

Mr Halcro Johnston said: ‘It beggars belief to see a Scottish Government minister voting against protections for woodburners in rural and island homes during the week, then message their constituents about the benefits of having one the very weekend when the power goes down.

‘Thousands of homes lost their power over the last few days and were left reliant on the kind of heating that Mr Fairlie enjoys but doesn’t think others should have.

‘Last year, when the SNP/Green coalition attempted to ban stoves in newbuilds, I championed them for these very reasons.

‘I was pleased that we forced them to U-turn then, but was disappointed when Jim Fairlie joined his SNP colleagues last week in voting against my proposed protections that would ensure cack-handed attempts to outlaw woodburners couldn’t happen again without the full scrutiny from the Scottish parliament.

‘To vote against something on Tuesday and sing its praises by Saturday is rank hypocrisy. I know how angry it has made many of my constituents across the Highlands and Islands.’

Mr Halcro Johnson’s amendments to the Housing Bill would have meant woodburners and other ‘direct-emission heating systems’ avoided future bans by creating a ‘presumption in favour’ of such back-ups in island, rural and remote homes.

He told MSPs it would ensure people still had the means to heat, cook and have hot water when ‘essential connections’ were lost.

He said he knew ‘all too well’ how important a backup could be, as he had once been snowed into his Orkney home for five days and his woodburning stove saved the day.

‘It is important that remote, rural and island homes have access to viable and reliable secondary heating options,’ he told Holyrood.

‘They are not luxury items in our homes or just something that looks nice in the corner of the room. They help to keep people safe, warm and alive in the worst of conditions.’

But Housing Secretary Mairi McAllan objected, saying the change would ‘restrict policy making in any future attempt to regulate heating systems’.

She said the Government already protected backup heating systems in rural homes ‘for exactly the circumstances that have been referred to.’

She added: ‘Voting against this amendment is not a vote against wood-burning stoves or other secondary heating systems, because the amendment is not needed to protect their use – it is simply unnecessary.’

Mr Halcro Johnson said the existing regulations on the issue were flawed.

But MSPs, including Mr Fairlie, rejected his proposals by 70 votes to 38.

The ban on woodburning stoves in new-build homes was scrapped last November after a backlash from industry, rural communities, opposition parties and some SNP politicians.

Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes was among those to raise concerns about the ban, citing the impact it could have on older people in her Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘There are no restrictions on the use of wood-burning stoves in Scotland, in either new or existing homes.’

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdani flashes beaming smile in pic with Uganda bigwig who pushed law to jail gay people for life

Mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani flashed a beaming smile in a cringeworthy photo with a top Ugandan official who pushed harsh anti-LGBT policies — that included life imprisonment for gay people.

Mamdani met with Rebecca Kadaga in July during a break from the campaign trail — after winning the Democratic primary — that included a lavish celebration of his recent nuptials at a secluded Ugandan compound owned by his family.

“Delighted to meet with Zohran Mamdhani (sic), incoming Mayor of New York City. Good luck in the next phase of elections,” Kadaga said in a caption of a photo of her with a grinning Mamdani.

“Here with Zohran Mamdhani and Prof Mamdhani as Zohran returns to New York after his traditional wedding in Kampala,” she gushed in another photo of her, Mamdani and his father, Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani.

The Mamdani campaign was left scrambling Sunday as photos of the meeting re-emerged, as a spokesperson claimed the democratic socialist candidate was “unaware” of Kadaga’s widely reported status as an anti-gay crusader.

In 2012, then-Speaker Kadaga infamously said she was passing a draconian law imposing severe penalties against practicing homosexuals as a “Christmas gift” for supporters of the measure.

“Ugandans want that law as a Christmas gift. They have asked for it and we’ll give them that gift,” Kadaga said then.

Keep reading

Greens vote to ABOLISH landlords in bizarre assault on millions of Brits at party’s conference… even though one of their own MPs rents out a home

Green Party members have voted to ‘abolish’ landlords at their autumn conference as they took aim at the nearly three million people in Britain who rent out a home.

A motion passed at the Greens’ gathering in Bournemouth on Sunday committed the left-wing party to ‘seek the effective abolition of private landlordism’.

This would be achieved through punitive regulation and taxes on landlords, including the introduction of rent controls and scrapping of Right to Buy.

Those who let out Airbnbs would have to pay business rates under the Greens’ plans, while there would be double taxation for empty properties.

Party members also backed proposals for a ‘land value tax’ levied on owners not tenants, as well as the imposition of National Insurance on private rents.

In addition, the motion demanded the ending of buy to let mortgages as a means of removing finance for landlords.

It comes as the Greens look to build on their growing strength in major cities, with new leader Zack Polanski claiming they are ‘on track’ to supplant Labour in London.

But the motion could prove awkward for Adrian Ramsay, one of the Greens’ four MPs, who is landlord of a property on Norfolk.

According to his parliamentary register of interests, Mr Ramsay rents out a home he co-owns, which provides rental income of more than £10,000 a year.

The MP for Waveney Valley has previously defended being a landlord, posting on social media in August: ‘I co-own a property with my ex-wife, which we used to live in. 

‘I don’t make a profit from it as I have kept the rent below market rate. I don’t intend to be a landlord long-term.’

The motion passed by Green members on Sunday stated: ‘The private rental sector has failed, it is a vehicle for wealth extraction, funnelling money from renters to the landlord class.

‘This motion makes it clear Green Party policy is to seek the effective abolition of private landlordism and our support for building council housing.’

It added: ‘The Green Party believes the existence of private landlords adds no positive value to the economy or society, that the relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently and intrinsically extractive and exploitative.’

Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, said: ‘While the motion to confidence had an eye-catching name, it does not actually ‘abolish’ landlords.

‘It does however address the housing crisis, empowers tenants and improves their wellbeing.

‘It contains a range of policies which, over time, would reduce the proportion of the housing market that is privately rented, and increase the proportion of socially rented homes.’

Mr Polanski, who was elected Green leader last month, has been dubbed an ‘eco-populist’ and is aiming to replace Labour on the Left of British politics.

He told The Guardian this weekend:  ‘I think it’s already happening. It’s happening at defection level.

‘Just last month in Barking and Dagenham, we welcome three new councillors to the party. It’s also happening right across England and Wales.

‘At local council elections, there was a stunning victory recently in Brighton, where the Labour vote completely collapsed and the Green vote rocketed.

‘Reform are still a worry, yes, and the fact that they’re polling even reasonably in London is a real threat, I think, to anyone who’s a progressive voice.

‘But absolutely, the plan has always been to replace Labour at the electoral level, starting at the local level, and I think we’re on track to do that.’

Keep reading

Dems Want Medicaid For Millions Of Biden-Era Migrants But Use Sneaky Wordplay To Pretend They Don’t

The federal government shut down on Wednesday after Democrats refused to vote on a clean continuing resolution to keep the government funded for the next seven weeks. When Republicans pointed out that Democrats were unwilling to vote to fund the government without restoring health care eligibility for illegal aliens, the media and other Democrats jumped into action, “fact-checking” Republicans and claiming that wasn’t true.

These “fact checks” rely on the ludicrous claim that foreign citizens who were dumped into the United States by the millions by the Biden administration via blanket parole grants are not really “illegal” aliens.

Democrats refused to fund the government without a funding proposal that would, in part, rescind Subtitle B in Title VII of the One Big Beautiful Bill. That section had narrowed the eligibility requirements for government health care benefits (like Medicaid), restricting eligibility for certain foreign nationals, such as the 2.8 million otherwise inadmissible aliens who received blanket parole into the United States from the Biden administration.

But rather than acknowledge that Democrats’ proposal would extend federal health care to parolees, leftist mouthpieces insist that those millions of parolees don’t count as “illegal aliens” and therefore that no illegal aliens are getting Medicaid benefits.

That’s what Neera Tanden is doing when she insists the Affordable Care Act “bans care for illegal aliens.”

Or Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who claimed: “Undocumented immigrants aren’t even *allowed* to access Medicare, Medicaid or ACA credits.”

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in an X post: “‘Health care for illegal aliens’ is the new ‘immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield.’ The Republican playbook is simple: make up a baseless lie, repeat it every chance you get, hope and pray that everyone blames Democrats for the crises you created.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said: “To be clear, undocumented immigrants aren’t even allowed to enroll in federally funded health coverage.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told CNBC it is an “outright lie” and that “federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to provide medical coverage to undocumented individuals.”

New York Rep. Jerry Nadler said on X that “undocumented immigrants are not eligible for the ACA. Period.”

Keep reading

Strategic Treason: The Empire Fetes Man Who Killed US Troops

On Monday, Sept. 22, the current president of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, joined the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), David Petraeus, on stage for a discussion at the Concordia Annual Summit in New York City. The summit is one of the most prestigious global affairs forums in the world and by its own account “convenes the world’s most prominent business, government, and nonprofit leaders to foster dialogue and enable effective partnerships for positive social impact.”

It was a surreal moment because 20 years ago, during Iraq War II, these men were enemies. Once upon a time, al-Sharaa was known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, a foot soldier in Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and Petraeus was known as US Army General David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. In fact, it was a moment that revealed the extent to which the US Empire has become an inherently treasonous project.

It was Al Qaeda that knocked down the World Trade Center towers and hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. And it was Al Qaeda that formed the radical edge of the Sunni-based insurgency during Iraq War II that killed approximately 4,000 of the 4,500 US troops who died in that war. Al-Jolani fought in Iraq from 2003 until he was captured and imprisoned by US forces in 2006. He was released from prison in 2011 for reasons still classified. Then, in 2012, he went to Syria to form and lead al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the country, the al-Nusra Front.

Meanwhile, Petraeus was promoted to a Four-Star General, directed the 2007 “Surge” in Iraq, served as commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan from 2010–2011, and then became director of the CIA in 2011. The CIA runs the Counterterrorism Mission Center, which officially exists to prevent groups like Al Qaeda from knocking down our towers. Of course, the CIA also runs the Special Activities Division, which does special things like Operation “Timber Sycamore,” which funneled billions of dollars in weapons and support to the insurgency waged against the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad. The al-Nusra Front was on the front in that fight.

So, Americans watching al-Sharaa and Petraeus share the stage might feel like the downtrodden animals in the final moment of George Orwell’s Animal Farm:

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

In similar fashion, an American beholding the Concordia sit down might ponder, who’s the terrorist and who’s the counterterrorist?

Keep reading

Child killer aristocrat Constance Marten and her lover are to get £1million legal aid… despite her £2.4million trust

Jailed aristocrat Constance Marten and her lover Mark Gordon are set to cost taxpayers more than £1million in legal aid bills, figures reveal.

The wealthy heiress, 38, who was jailed for 14 years for killing her baby, has been granted legal aid for her trial and family court battle for her older children – despite having a £2.4million trust fund.

In a case which raises questions about the legal aid system, Marten has boasted behind bars that she will soon be able to access her trust fund, spending cash on whatever she wants.

She will also benefit from another fund which will mature when she turns 40.

Yet taxpayers have had to foot the bill for the couple’s Old Bailey trial, retrial, family court proceedings and a forthcoming appeal.

Marten and Gordon, 51, went on the run with their newborn daughter Victoria in 2023 to prevent her from being taken into care, sparking a £1.2million manhunt across the country.

The couple’s four older children had already been removed by social services to protect them from harm before they fled with Victoria. They camped in freezing cold weather, causing their baby to die from hypothermia.

Earlier this month, a judge jailed the pair for 14 years as he blasted their arrogance and ‘lack of thought for anyone’. 

Keep reading

Bill Gates Named in Epstein Files—Democrats Stay Silent

The latest release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files has renewed public scrutiny of high-profile figures who maintained relationships with the disgraced financier. 

Among them is billionaire Bill Gates, whose name has appeared in the documents. For years, Democrats and their media allies downplayed or outright ignored Gates’ connections to Epstein. 

Now, the facts reveal not only his ties to Epstein but also his deep involvement in Democrat Party politics.

While Gates has long cultivated the image of a neutral philanthropist, records reveal a different story. In the 2024 election cycle, Gates quietly funneled $50 million to groups supporting Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. 

This massive donation positioned him as one of the most prominent individual financial backers of the Democrat ticket. 

Despite the significance, the mainstream press rarely reported on it, preferring to highlight donations from conservative donors while dismissing Gates as merely a “tech philanthropist.”

Gates has become an essential figure for Democrats, both as a financial resource and as a cultural influencer. He controls foundations that spend billions on progressive causes, from climate activism to education reforms that align with Democrat priorities. 

His presence in the Epstein files, however, complicates this carefully managed narrative. 

If Gates were a Republican donor, the connection would likely dominate headlines and become a political issue for months. 

Instead, the media and Democrat strategists have chosen to obscure the details.

Keep reading