Tag: hypocrisy

Germany’s War on Satire: AfD MP Fined €11,250 for Meme While Leftist Magazine Is Celebrated After It Depicts Trump Giving Hitler Salute

Germany is no longer a democracy — it’s a warning. A German court has just fined AfD lawmaker Petr Bystron €11,250 for sharing a satirical meme online, while the country’s liberal establishment laughs as one of its biggest magazines once showed President Donald Trump giving the Hitler salute on its cover with the headline “Sein Kampf” (“His Struggle”).

That cover made international headlines in 2017. No prosecutor, no police, no criminal charge. It was called “art.”

But when Bystron — a conservative member of parliament — posted a meme mocking Ukraine’s former ambassador Andrij Melnyk, who had publicly defended a Nazi collaborator, the German justice system came crashing down on him.

Mock a Nazi Apologist? Get Convicted in Germany.

The meme, published in July 2022, showed German politicians “waving goodbye” to Melnyk after his recall from Berlin. Prosecutors said the waves looked like “Hitler salutes.” You can’t make this up.

Bystron’s real “crime”? Daring to expose hypocrisy in a system that protects globalists and punishes dissent.

Melnyk, the Ukrainian diplomat at the center of it all, had told a German interviewer that Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for mass killings of Jews and Poles, was “no mass murderer.” That statement caused outrage in Poland and Israel — but in Germany’s woke establishment? Nothing. Melnyk stayed a hero. He was later promoted by Volodymyr Zelensky to Deputy Foreign Minister.

Bystron mocked that insanity — and Germany called him the extremist.

Keep reading

Patriot Act supporting senators are mad when they are the targets

When it was reported this week that former President Joe Biden’s FBI may have targeted the cellphones of eight Republican senators in the “Arctic Frost” investigation related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot, the Republicans that were supposedly surveilled were not happy about it.

One was Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who posted on X Wednesday, “We need to know why (ATT) and (Verizon) did not challenge the subpoena for the phone records of eight United States senators when the Biden FBI spied on us during an anti-Trump probe.”

“There needs to be a reckoning for this,” she declared.

On Thursday, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) explained to Blackburn why this might have happened, “It’s called the Patriot Act, FISA, and CISA.”

“Please vote no next time,” he insisted.

During her tenure in the House, Blackburn voted for the Patriot Act each time it came up for renewal since it was passed in 2001 and numerous other federal surveillance measures since that time too.

The Patriot Act was first hastily signed into law in the politically charged days and weeks after 9/11, significantly expanding the federal government’s spying and law enforcement powers. Section 215 allows the F.B.I. to obtain secret court orders and to collect any business records the agency deems vital to national security.

This Act supposedly designed to target potential terrorists has since been used to go after drug dealers, track website users, parents at school board meetings, and more.

Perhaps even spying on Republican senators.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has long been a vocal champion of the Patriot Act. He was also one of the Republicans reportedly surveilled — and he’s very mad about it.

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Graham roared to Attorney General Pam Bondi, “Can you tell me why my phone records were sought by the Jack Smith agents?” — Smith being the J6 investigation special counsel.

“Why did they ask to know who I called and what I was doing from January 4th to the 7th?” Graham wondered loudly and aggressively.

In May 2015, after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) attempted to block an extension of the Patriot Act with a ten-plus hour filibuster, Sen. Graham famously rolled his eyes over Paul’s efforts.

Paul warned that the Patriot Act undermined civil liberties. Then and now, Graham has always appeared to have full faith in the government handling power responsibly.

Keep reading

Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones has complicated history on blackface scandal that rocked Democrats

emocratic Virginia attorney general hopeful Jay Jones gave an impassioned speech on race in 2019 which criticized then-Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam over wearing blackface — and then Jones embraced and campaigned with the disgraced Democratic governor during his unsuccessful bid to be attorney general in 2021 and again during his current bid in 2025.

The yearbook photo depicting two people, one dressed up in Ku Klux Klan robes and the other in blackface, appeared on Northam’s 1984 yearbook page at Eastern Virginia Medical School and came to light in early February 2019. Northam quickly admitted he was in the photo and apologized, then backtracked saying he’d actually appeared in blackface a different time.

The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, of which Jones was a part, quickly called upon Northam to resign the governorship, and Jones soon gave a fiery speech on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates where he criticized the use of blackface and argued that the saga was proof that there was a “White Virginia” and a “Black Virginia.”

Jones walks back previous condemnation

In early 2021, Jones would express “remorse” for having called on Northam to step down, and Northam would endorse Jones’s bid to become the Democratic nominee for attorney general a month later. Jones would lead efforts to recruit Jones to run again in 2025 and Jones would again tout Northam’s endorsement this year.

During his first bid to become Virginia attorney general, Jones promoted legislative efforts to divest from the police, pull cops from schools, end qualified immunity for law enforcement, and abolish cash bail. As he centered his unsuccessful 2021 Democratic primary run on police reform and race, he repeatedly invoked Black Lives Matter icons George Floyd and Jacob Blake, claiming that those men could have been him.

Jones pushed for police reforms which echoed the “Defund the Police” mantra of BLM, and repeatedly claimed that he personally felt the knee on his neck and the bullets in his back when watching videos of Floyd and Blake. Jones frequently spoke of the “systemic racism” and the “remnants” of Jim Crow in Virginia, and pushed to get a Virginia cop fired for donating to the legal defense fund for Kyle Rittenhouse.

Jones endorsed the June 2020 criminal justice reform plan of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, of which he was a member, with the legislative strategy document of the black caucus including calls to “divest” from law enforcement just days after Floyd’s death and amidst the BLM rallying cry to “Defund the Police.”

Jones tweeted that month that “I’m a proud member” of the black caucus and that “we stand for justice.”

He lost to then-Virginia attorney general Mark Herring in the June 2021 Democratic primary, and Herring — who had also admitted to using blackface in the past — went on to lose to the Republican nominee, then-Delegate Jason Miyares, in the November 2021 election. Jones, who successfully won the Democratic nod this time around, is now seeking to defeat Miyares, who is running for reelection as the state’s highest law enforcement officer.

Jones did not respond to a request for comment sent to him through his campaign website.

Keep reading

‘No Kings’ protesters silent when Democrats rule as monarch

Aseries of “No Kings” protests are touted to take place again on Saturday, representing yet another wave of organized objection from left-wing activists using the government shutdown to fill streets across the country. The same people aren’t so quick — or capable — of explaining away why they sat silent while President Joe Biden engaged in activities that clearly exceeded his executive authority.

These protest gatherings, organized by groups like Indivisible and various labor unions, are working from a narrative of using patriotic rhetoric and symbolism to criticize President Donald Trump as a would-be monarch, ignoring how their history and demands for unchecked federal spending and censorship echo the very authoritarianism they decry. 

Executive Overreach on Student Loan Forgiveness

Joe Biden’s push for widespread student loan forgiveness by fiat through executive action was seen by many as a king-like act, bypassing Congress and ignoring Supreme Court precedents to unilaterally erase billions in debt. Critics argued the move treated the executive branch as an unchecked sovereign, with edicts that exacerbated economic burdens on everyday Americans without approval from Congress. 

Furthermore, Biden attempted to forgive student loans from multiple programs by bypassing Congress altogether. Biden attempted to forgive — on his signature alone — up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients and up to $10,000 for other borrowers earning less than $125,000 annually, using authority under the HEROES Act. 

The 2022 plan aimed to cancel roughly $400 billion in debt but was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2023 for exceeding executive authority. In what appeared to be further monarchical behavior in ignoring legal boundaries, Biden later pushed for alternative relief through the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which faced similar legal challenges.

Unilateral Immigration Enforcement Policies, Energy policies

Biden’s early executive orders, like the 100-day deportation moratorium, were received by the same people complaining about Trump’s actions as regal decrees that, again, bypassed Congress’s role in establishing immigration policy. 

By selectively enforcing laws and expanding protections for illegal migrants, it appeared to be acting like a sovereign, granting sanctuary based on personal whim rather than statutory fidelity. This approach sparked border surges in the millions, the fallout of which the Trump administration is now dealing. 

Keep reading

Virginia Democrat Jay Jones BLASTED in Debate After GOP AG Exposes 116 MPH Reckless Driving Conviction and Alleged Scheme to Dodge 1,000-Hour Community Service Requirement

In a fiery debate Thursday night at the University of Richmond, Democrat attorney general candidate Jay Jones was absolutely torched by incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, who exposed the Democrat’s reckless driving conviction and attempt to manipulate his 1,000-hour community service requirement.

The debate, held Thursday at the University of Richmond and moderated by Virginia State Bar President K. Brett Marston, quickly turned into a disaster for Jones.

During the debate, the disgraced candidate said, “I am ashamed, I am embarrassed, and I am sorry.”

If he were truly sorry, he’d drop out of the race.

Jones, already under fire for past politically violent rhetoric in which he expressed a desire to kill his GOP rival, faced devastating scrutiny when Miyares opened the debate by reminding Virginians of Jones’ 116-mph joyride down Interstate 64.

Earlier this month, Miyares wrote on X, “Jay Jones was caught recklessly driving 116 miles per hour on I-64. Then, he tried to claim campaign work for his own PAC counted as community service to avoid jail. Jay Jones is too soft-on-crime — including his own.”

Keep reading

Elizabeth Warren: Leftism For Thee But Not Me

When Sen. Elizabeth A. Warren recently traveled to the Big Apple to endorse New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, she was asked if overt socialism is really the best model for Democrats to adopt. “You bet,” she replied in her signature folksy style.

The Boston lawmaker wasn’t just jumping on the sudden trendiness of socialism three-and-a-half decades after its near-extinction. With fellow Senate traveler Bernie Sanders, Warren has been a catalyst for moving her party to the left since her first campaign in 2012. 

She and Sanders are, in many ways, the godparents of the self-avowed Democratic Socialists such as Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are providing the youthful energy for the Democrats in the Trump era.

As Warren’s attacks on Wall Street and the wealthy are gaining even wider traction among liberals – a recent Gallup poll found 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism – the apparent contradictions between her public economic positions and private financial decisions are receiving new scrutiny, particularly as the one-time presidential candidate appears to be testing those waters again. 

Charity Doesn’t Begin at Home

Financial records examined by RealClearInvestigations show that Warren has hardly followed the path of socialism in her personal finances. Start with the redistribution of wealth. Warren tirelessly bashes the “selfish” and “greedy” rich for not paying their “fair share,” and demands the government step in and redistribute their income to the poor. But charity does not always begin in the Warren home.

While Warren hauls in nearly $1 million a year, she donated less than 3% of her household income to charity in 2024, according to her tax returns. This is much less than the charity of the Obamas, for instance, who typically donate more than 20% of their earnings to the needy and philanthropic causes, and low for the average American in her income bracket, studies show. The average millionaire donates more than twice her share.

It also appears that Warren opens her pocketbook wider when she’s running for national office and under a bigger media microscope. 

The $26,669 in charitable deductions Warren reported on her tax returns last year pales in comparison to the $81,858, or 9% of income, she reported as she launched her campaign for the White House in 2020.

And the outspoken Democratic leader keeps her own tax burden down while calling for higher taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.”

Records show Warren is not averse to taking maximum advantage of provisions in a tax code she denounces as unfair. She has, for example, written off used articles of clothing on her taxes and has had to correct past returns for inflating the value of those items. She’s also written off thousands of dollars in used books – and even in-flight WiFi to expense down business income. And she would exempt herself from her proposed “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” which levies a surtax on those with a net worth above $50 million.

With a net worth of at least $8 million (with estimates as high as $12 million), Warren has benefited handsomely from free market capitalism – even as she has spent most of her career in the public and educational sectors.

Keep reading

Wait, an NAACP Lawyer Did Not Just Say That About the Voting Rights Act

Jeff will have more on the oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which concerns race-based legislative districts and could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. It’s a case that if liberals lose, could see massive implications for the 2026 midterms. 

And yes, some of the arguments made by lawyers fighting to keep this provision in place are downright embarrassing. An NAACP lawyer said that race-based congressional districts are essential, since white Democrats don’t support black candidates regardless of party affiliation. You cannot make this up.  

That’s not true. In fact, one could argue that liberal white women are the reason the Democrats haven’t fallen into total irrelevancy. Second, white liberals are the most hyper-aggressive about these issues and have voted in droves for black candidates. Party affiliation be damned, frankly. These white Democrats now vote based on race alone. The only thing that stops them is seeing an “R” next to the name. There is nothing more insufferable than the white, college-educated progressive who even repels nonwhite voters, which we’ve seen since 2020.  

Keep reading

Obama Does Ad for Gavin Newsom on Redistricting – Accuses Republicans of Trying to ‘Rig’ the Next Election 

Former President Obama just will not go away. It seems like every other day, he is on a podcast, doing an interview, or making news by commenting on the issues of the day.

At the same time, he seems like the incredible shrinking man, because his legacy is being gutted by Trump’s second term.

Now he is doing ads for Prop 50 in California, in which he accuses Republicans of trying to rig the next election.

Breitbart News reports:

Barack Obama Claims Republicans Want to ‘Steal’ Seats, ‘Rig’ Election in Ad for Newsom’s Gerrymandering Proposal

Former President Barack Obama and California Governor Gavin Newsom are urging Californians to vote in favor of Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would replace the state’s independent redistricting system with a legislature-approved map projected to eliminate several Republican-held congressional districts.

On Tuesday, California Governor Gavin Newsom posted on X, “Listen to @barackobama,” sharing a new video featuring former President Barack Obama encouraging voters to support Proposition 50 in the state’s November 4 special election.

In the video, Obama says:

“California, the whole nation is counting on you. Democracy is on the ballot November 4. Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. With Prop 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, which preserves Independent Redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today. Vote yes on 50.”

Keep reading

Rules for Thee, Fraud for Me: Letitia James Prosecuted Mortgage Fraud Case Mirroring the Charges Against Her

Attorney General Letitia James, the architect of New York state’s mortgage-fraud crackdowns, now finds herself in the position of her former defendants, accused of exploiting the very system she once claimed to defend. The hypocrisy is undeniable.

Any attempt by Letitia James to claim ignorance of the law as a defense in her mortgage fraud indictment is all but gone.

In June 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James stood before the cameras to hail a conviction she called a triumph against mortgage fraud.

The case involved a $1.3 million scheme by Brooklyn couple John F. Iacono and Shpresa Gjekovic, whom James accused of “a deliberate scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of hardworking New Yorkers.”

At the time, she declared the prosecution was proof that “no one is above the law”.

But today, now under indictment for mortgage fraud herself, that speech reads less like a moment of triumph and more like an act of projection.

The accompanying quote from Attorney General James remains striking for its tone of moral absolutism.

“Iacono and Gjekovic falsified document after document in order to pad their own pockets,” James said. “Let this serve as a warning to all of those who try to carry out such deliberate schemes: There is no place in this state for individuals who try to cash in at the expense of hardworking New Yorkers.”

Those words, “no place in this state,” once echoed across newsrooms as the declaration of a moral crusader.

Her CUFFS Initiative (Combatting Upstate Financial Frauds and Schemes) was marketed as a model for restoring faith in financial integrity, pairing state police with prosecutors to “expose deceitful plots” and reinforce public trust.

Keep reading

Public Health Destroyed Its Own Credibility Long Before RFK Jr. Arrived

“The actions of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are endangering the health of the nation,” declared six former U.S. surgeons general appointed by every Republican and Democratic president since George H.W. Bush in a Oct. 7 op-ed at The Washington Post. “The profound, immediate and unprecedented threat that Kennedy’s policies and positions pose to the nation’s health cannot be ignored,” the surgeons general declared. Whatever the merits of such criticisms of RFK, its alarmism is undermined by decades of the medical establishment wantonly kowtowing to harmful policies promoted by leftist ideologues.

It would be easier to countenance such admonitions if this isn’t precisely what the American medicine and scientific establishment has done when it comes to abortion, transgenderism, or the Covid pandemic.

The Conceit of Abortion as ‘Good Medical Practice‘

Though the American medical establishment was historically opposed to abortion, in 1970, the American Medical Association formally reversed its earlier position on abortion and voted in favor of legal abortion. Was this because of overwhelming evidence overturning scientific consensus regarding life in the womb being uniquely human, or analysis that abortions would not result in negative consequences for the women who underwent the procedures? Of course not.

Both simple logic and developments in scientific research are sufficient to know that life in the womb is human — with heartbeats beginning at the end of the fourth week of gestation — and thus deserving of legal protection. Arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed by week ten. And can we really believe that the medical establishment would think that a violent, invasive procedure that destroys a living organism inside a woman’s body, that her body is intimately united to and shares her DNA, would not in some sense harm that mother?

No, the medical establishment changed its position on abortion because of rising public pressure and social norms stemming from the sexual revolution. The feminist movement for female equality and empowerment demanded that women have more control over their bodies, enabling them to assume (and maintain) a competitive place in the workplace and attain more power in sexual relationships. Babies were (and remain) an obstacle to professional and personal development. Thus, suddenly, the AMA decided that “reproductive care is health care.”

This, despite the fact that a bevy of peer-reviewed quantitative analysis demonstrates that post-abortive women had an 81 percent higher risk of mental-health problems when compared with women who had not had an abortion, as authors Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis have noted. Studies show that after an abortion, women suffer higher rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse and suicidal behaviors, and marijuana abuse. And, obviously, abortions are catastrophic for the health and well-being of life in the womb. Nevertheless, the AMA to this day decrees that abortion is “good medical practice.”

Keep reading