Tag: politics

Liberal Journos Already Trying to Play the Joe Biden Card on Graham Platner – We Were Lied To!

Far left journalist Molly Jong-Fast appeared on MSNOW last night and tried to claim that the Platner campaign and his supporters lied to her and other people in the press about his scandals.

This is the exact same thing they tried to do after Joe Biden was forced out of the 2024 election. They played victims and claimed that they were lied to and that they knew nothing.

Do they really think this is going to work? No one with a brain is going to believe this.

Townhall reports:

After President Joe Biden was unceremoniously dumped from the 2024 presidential campaign, a lot of Democrats and their allies in the media started playing dumb, claiming they had no idea just how bad Joe Biden’s cognitive condition actually was…

Now they’re doing the same thing with Graham Platner, with Molly Jong-Fast going on MS NOW to say the media was ‘sold a character arc’ by the Platner camp.

“A lot of us, I interviewed him for my podcast, I talked to his team, when the first New York Times article came out I said, ‘This reads sort of funny, what else is there? What else is coming out?’ and everyone told me up and down, absolutely not. And I think all of heard that same thing from him, from his team: nothing else coming out, this is clearly a misunderstanding, there is nothing more coming out,” Jong-Fast said.

“We were sold an arc, right? A character arc, of a person who had blacked out but no longer did that behavior,” she continued, “now, I should have asked him when I interviewed him if he was drinking still. Because there’s only one way you get those blackouts and that’s from drinking. And the idea we were sold this character arc, this person who gets better, who got better, but he wasn’t maybe better.”

Keep reading

Brazil’s Dictator-Judge Orders Raid on Jair Bolsonaro’s House, Finds Nothing

Officials from Brazil’s Federal Police (PF) searched the residence of conservative former President Jair Bolsonaro for weapons and ammunition on Wednesday — and found nothing.

The search was carried out on the order of Brazilian Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who demanded a wide search of all firearms registered under Jair Bolsonaro’s name this week even though all of the firearms have been accounted for by Bolsonaro’s legal team.

De Moraes reportedly justified the search on the grounds that there was an alleged “discrepancy” between the number of firearms registered under Bolsonaro’s name and the number relinquished by the former president during the legal proceedings against him. The STF justice is widely known for being at the forefront of a persecution campaign against Bolsonaro and for executing a litany of judicial actions against the conservative former president and his family,

Bolsonaro is presently serving a 27-year prison sentence for “crimes against democracy” under a strict house arrest at his home in Brasília. The former president, who suffers from multiple health conditions, was granted temporary humanitarian house arrest provisions this year after a severe case of bacterial pneumonia sent him to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Despite the justice’s assertions, Brazilian lawyer João Henrique Nascimento de Freitas, who is part of Bolsonaro’s legal team, announced on social media that no firearms were found by the police during the search at the residence.

“I have just left President Jair Bolsonaro’s residence after accompanying yet another Federal Police search-and-seizure operation ordered by Justice Alexandre de Moraes,” the Portuguese-language message read. “The warrant sought weapons, ammunition, accessories, and registration documents. The defense had already previously disclosed the whereabouts of all the weapons.

“Result: nothing was found. It is regrettable that a former President of the Republic is still subjected to this type of action,” he concluded.

Keep reading

Therapists Publish Article Claiming Woke Ideology in Psychology is Making Leftists Even Crazier

Two therapists have just published an academic article claiming that woke ideology in psychology is damaging the field and the minds of leftists.

In their writing, the two actually acknowledge that progressives have ‘poorer’ mental health than people on the right, something conservatives have known for years.

They suggest that the integration of wokeness with their field has worsened the problem.

The College Fix reports:

Therapists warn: ‘Woke’ ideology undermining cognitive-behavioral therapy

A new scholarly article describes the mechanisms of how leftist ideology has likely led to a worsening of mental health counseling and classroom curriculum on the subject.

Arnold Cantú and Nathan Gallo are the two social work professionals who authored the article in the latest special Issue of Current Opinion in Psychology.

In it, they attempt to provide “an alternative explanation for potential causes behind the rise in psychiatric diagnoses and poorer mental health outcomes for people who identify as liberal or left-leaning in the United States.”

“Research regularly suggests that left-leaning people have poorer mental health than conservatives,” the two said in an emailed statement to The College Fix, adding it’s a “notable finding that has become increasingly applicable to the younger generation.”

“This article argues that woke ideology—what we refer to as critical social justice ideology—has warped a well-established psychotherapy approach often used to treat various kinds of psychological distress, known as cognitive-behavioral therapy,” they added.

“This ideology’s main tenets are full of ‘cognitive distortions,’ which are faulty, automatic patterns of thinking that CBT attempts to treat. Instead, woke ideology intentionally promotes these patterns, resulting in poorer mental health for clients, families, and therapists who buy into it.”

Keep reading

Israel Debated: Why Palestine Is Rewriting the Rules of Domestic US Politics

A major showdown on the House floor seemed imminent. An amendment, advanced by the Rules Committee, was poised to force a rare and telling record vote on stripping Israel of $3.3 billion in annual US military aid.

Brought forward by Republican Representative Thomas Massie and drawing support from key progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greg Casar, the measure was set to put every lawmaker’s stance on unconditional foreign assistance under a public microscope.

However, the high-stakes vote never actually happened. On June 30, the entire legislative package collapsed under the weight of Washington’s internal political warfare. In a dramatic procedural twist, a coalition of Democrats and disgruntled conservative Republicans voted down the mandatory ‘rule’ required to even begin debating the underlying State Department spending bill.

But even if the vote on Massie’s amendment had occurred, the result would have been entirely predictable. It would have been defeated, as support for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle remains structurally entrenched – even as the American public shifts against Israeli policy in historic numbers.

According to a watershed Gallup poll published on February 27, a plurality of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, leading by a margin of 41 percent to 36 percent. This marked the first time since Gallup began tracking the metric over two decades ago that Israel did not hold the upper hand in public sympathy.

Yet the shift is part of a broader, undeniable trend. A nationwide survey published in late June 2026 by Quinnipiac University revealed that an unprecedented 48 percent of American voters now think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel – the highest percentage recorded since the pollster first began tracking the question in 2017.

This is precisely why Massie’s amendment carries such profound weight. It is significant not because US politicians have suddenly developed a collective moral conscience, but because recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.

For years, conventional political analysts dismissed pro-Palestinian mobilization, claiming Americans only vote based on immediate socioeconomic interests and rigid party loyalties. That assessment has since proven faulty.

The political cost of Washington’s complicity became undeniable following the fallout of the 2024 presidential race, a reality later confirmed by those within the inner sanctums of power. In the post-election debates, senior administration insiders admitted that the handling of the Gaza genocide alienated core voter blocks.

The political cost of Washington’s complicity became undeniable after the 2024 presidential race. According to Axios, top Democratic strategists conducting the party’s post-election audit explicitly admitted to advocacy groups that internal party data proved the administration’s Gaza policy was a “net-negative” on the ballot.

This finding – disclosed during internal briefings by DNC autopsy author Paul Rivera – confirmed that the party’s unconditional backing of Israel directly fractured its base, and ultimately contributed to its loss of the elections.

Keep reading

The Democrat Party’s History of Race-Based Policies: From Slavery to the KKK to DEI

On a daily basis, Democrats refer to Republicans as racists, Nazis, and fascists. Meanwhile, they push for DEI, affirmative action, and race-based admissions, hiring, and promotions, which are objectively racist policies.

Republicans are characterized as racists because they want all laws to apply equally to everyone, with no preference given to any race, while Democrats not only have a long history of race-based policies but were also the founders of the KKK. The Republican Party, meanwhile, was formed largely by abolitionists, specifically to stop the expansion of slavery.

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, elected in 1860 as the candidate of a party founded in 1854 primarily in opposition to the extension of slavery into new territories. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, presided over the Union victory in the Civil War, and was assassinated in April 1865, days after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Republican-controlled Congresses then passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in 1865, the 14th Amendment establishing citizenship and equal protection in 1868, and the 15th Amendment guaranteeing voting rights regardless of race in 1870.

The Democratic Party went in the opposite direction by restricting voting rights and attempting to disenfranchise Black people. That campaign ran from the 1890s through the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

After the Populist Party was defeated in the 1890s, Democrats amended state constitutions to include poll taxes and other disfranchising measures. Because payment of the tax was required to vote, impoverished Black people, and often poor whites who could not afford it, were denied the right to vote.

Democratic-controlled state legislatures across the South also imposed literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and whites-only primaries between 1895 and 1910 to exclude Black voters while exempting whites.

One tactic that has entered the historical memory of this era, and was later mentioned by Barack Obama at Congressman John Lewis’s funeral, was the so-called jelly bean test. Registrars asked Black applicants to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. Alabama voter Theresa Burroughs recounted being asked exactly this by the Hale County Board of Registrars in the late 1940s. According to NPR’s account, it was one of the tactics used to delay her voter registration by two years.

Keep reading

The Death of Reading

Picture it. You’re lucky enough to live in the late 19th century. Van Gogh is wandering around the Netherlands painting haystacks and stars. Spiritualism is everywhere: séances, mediums, table-turning, and seers who communicate with the dead. Some dude named PT Barnum is criss-crossing America with this crazy melange of traveling circus and sly hoaxes. There are side shows and peep shows, theatrical extravaganzas in every town. Ragtime is just taking hold.

And for the first time in the history of man, books are available to the everyone with a few ha’penneys to rub together. The print industry has exploded, becoming more systematized, and better at shipping. Suddenly, even ordinary people can read – in their parlors, at saloons and libraries, and after dinner, once the harpsichord recital is done. Novels are everywhere: Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, the Brontë sisters, George Eliot. In France, Victor Hugo. The Russians? They’re producing metric tons of pages. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. People are inhaling these stories, 900 pages at a time.

Academics refer to this period as the “reading revolution.” Reading was as much an indulgence as carnivals and music halls. People didn’t HAVE to read, they GOT to read. They did it ostentatiously and with zeal. And this habit lasted, in one form or another, until recently when reading for enjoyment started to tank. Blame the Internet and social media and our fractured attention span. Blame Oprah, who in her quest to ‘get people reading’ promoted one title and focused every English-speaking woman’s attention on it, to the exclusion of every other book on the planet. 

But the real culprit, if you ask me, is politics. When identity and partisanship become your defining feature, when you adhere to rigid ideas and philosophies – and fear anything that challenges your beliefs – reading becomes dangerous. All those random ideas floating around? Problems that have no easy answers? Bah! Who needs that?

So here’s where we are: reading for enjoyment has fallen by 40% in the past 20 years. And despite bullshit feel-good essays about how we’re not really reading less, it just seems that way – and online influencers who hawk the classics without a single specific detail about plot, theme, or character – literacy in every single cohort is falling off a cliff. Publishing is becoming narrower, more ideological, and preachy. The books that face out in shop windows reinforce pat answers instead of asking hard questions. And the world seems smaller, because it is.

Keep reading

“JUSTICE IS COMING” – Spencer Pratt GOES OFF On California Election Fraud, Says He Has Evidence and Suggests Criminal Investigation Underway in Epic New Video

Former Los Angeles Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt released a new video on Wednesday, bringing the receipts and evidence that the election was stolen from him. 

Pratt went over it all: homeless people being paid to vote Democrat, NGOs “hoarding ballots,” hundreds of thousands of dead and out-of-state voters on the voter rolls, fraudulent signature verification on mail-in ballots, and ballot harvesters filling out mail-in ballots for voters.

It can be recalled that Pratt emerged as an early leader in the mayoral primary, trouncing City Councilwoman Nithya Raman by about 40,000 votes on election night, but she staged a miraculous comeback with fraudulent mail-in ballots.

In an impossible upset, Raman surged, netting roughly 70,000 votes over Pratt and finishing roughly 30,000 votes ahead in the final results. Los Angeles took nearly two weeks to count all of the ballots.

The “late-arriving” fraudulent mail-in ballots knocked Pratt out of the race, and he explains exactly how they did it with evidence.

Keep reading

Top Official in Marxist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Administration Secretly Scheduled Meeting with Iran’s UN Ambassador – Trump State Department Forced to Shut It Down

A senior official in Communist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration tried to hold an official meeting with the Iranian regime’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Commissioner Ana María Archila, head of the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, had scheduled the meeting for July 7 at 11 a.m. at 2 United Nations Plaza with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s permanent representative to the UN.

Two other senior officials from the office were also set to attend, according to calendar invitation screenshots reviewed by City Journal and confirmed by multiple sources, including a State Department official.

The meeting was called off only after the U.S. State Department, which had not been informed in advance, stepped in and met with the Mamdani administration to “clarify acceptable conduct,” according to City Journal.

Archila reportedly did not even tell Mayor Mamdani she had arranged the sit-down. She was later reprimanded and ordered to cancel it.

A spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs issued the predictable damage-control statement: “This meeting did not and will not take place.”

Keep reading

Dissent Is Not Disloyalty: The Right and Duty to Criticize the Government

“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Colten v. Kentucky (1972)

President Trump has no problem criticizing, condemning, insulting, demonizing and threatening those who refuse to fall in line.

He has branded political opponents “communists,” denounced critics as anti-American, lashed out at NATO allies, threatened to cut off trade with Spain, and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum” amid the ongoing war.

In Trump’s America, the president is free to call other nations bad actors, label his opponents dangerous, and treat disagreement as betrayal.

But dare to criticize Trump, his administration, ICE, the police state, the war machine, the surveillance state, or the government’s steady assault on the Constitution, and you may find yourself treated as the threat.

This is the hypocrisy of the moment: those in power claim an unlimited right to criticize everyone else, while increasingly denying the people the right to criticize them.

Criticize the government, question the police state, object to ICE raids, oppose war, challenge corruption, reject propaganda, refuse to salute the party line, or insist that public officials obey the Constitution, and you may find yourself accused of being anti-American, extremist, subversive, ungrateful, communist, terrorist-adjacent or worse.

This is how free speech dies: not all at once, but by redefining dissent as disloyalty.

Yet the First Amendment was not written to mandate flattery and applause for those in power. It was written to safeguard the right of the people to criticize, condemn, expose, challenge and resist government abuses without fear of being investigated, surveilled, threatened, prosecuted or treated like enemies of the state.

The American Revolution itself began as an act of criticism.

The Declaration of Independence was a bill of complaints against a government that had abused its power, violated the rights of the people, used the military to intimidate civilians, obstructed justice, imposed unjust burdens, and treated resistance as rebellion.

By today’s standards, the Founders would likely be labeled extremists, agitators, radicals, anti-government dissidents and threats to national security.

What was once rebellion against tyranny is now being recast as a warning sign of extremism.

Keep reading

Jack Smith’s Team Exposed Classified Materials, Senator Finds

Prosecutors with the office of former special counsel Jack Smith left classified materials unsecured and provided materials to at least one person without confirming that person needed to see them, a senator said on July 8.

A set of messages from Smith’s team showed that in 2024, the team left a facility designated for the review of sensitive information open overnight, and potentially longer.

“Who opened the [facility] yesterday?” one member of the team asked in a message.

“No one opened it yesterday because no one closed it the day before,” another member replied.

A second set of messages from 2024 outlined how the team provided classified materials to an unidentified person despite not having confirmation that the person needed to see the materials.

The incidents took place as Smith’s team, which was part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), was prosecuting then-presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified materials during his first term as president.

“Talk about the pot calling the kettle black,” Grassley said in a statement.

“According to these messages, Biden DOJ personnel may have committed the very offense for which Jack Smith was prosecuting President Trump. These records expose yet another double standard of justice.”

Grassley also wrote in a post on X that the messages “indicate hypocritical [and] careless behavior” and “merit further investigation.”

He pointed to how some former officials, such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, mishandled classified information but were not charged.

Grassley asked Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, for more records, including whether the facility that was left unlocked contained any material that was part of Smith’s prosecution of Trump, and whether the DOJ investigated Smith’s team for giving classified information without the need-to-know confirmation.

“The Department is aware of the concerns raised in Senator Grassley’s letter and takes the safeguarding of classified information very seriously. Every official entrusted with sensitive materials must follow strict security protocols without exception — a standard Jack Smith’s team apparently failed to meet as they pursued a politically weaponized prosecution of President Trump,” a DOJ spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

“As with any alleged security lapse, the Department reviews such matters through established internal processes to determine whether protocols were followed, whether classified information was compromised, and whether any corrective steps are warranted. The Department will continue to apply those procedures rigorously, consistent with our longstanding commitment to protecting national security and maintaining the integrity of our operations.”

Smith, who has said his investigation was proper, was appointed in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to manage investigations into Trump, who at the time was out of office.

Federal prosecutors later charged Trump with violations of federal law governing the handling of classified information, as well as other charges such as illegally interfering in the 2020 presidential election.

Prosecutors dropped the cases after Trump won the 2024 election, noting that he would soon be president.

Part of Smith’s final report was released to the public prior to the start of Trump’s second term, outlining how Smith believed the evidence against Trump would have resulted in a conviction. A federal judge later ruled that the other part shall never be made public.

Keep reading