Tag: politics

Argentina’s Milei Borrows Warren Buffett’s Idea To Punish Deficit-Spending Politicians

More than two years after campaigning to “blow up” Argentina’s central bank, President Javier Milei has announced his “Fiscal Shackle” bill – a permanent rule aimed at preventing Argentina from approving or maintaining budgets with fiscal deficits that could have consequences for politicians.

On Thursday, in a speech recorded at the Casa Rosada and broadcast nationwide, Milei proposed an overhaul that would restore the Central Bank of Argentina’s sole mandate of preserving the currency’s value, stop direct and indirect financing of the Treasury, provinces, and municipalities, and expose officials who violate the rules to criminal charges. “It will be considered fraud and illicit association,” he explained.

Milei said this is the “most important set of structural reforms in the last 91 years,” taking the year of the Central Bank’s founding, 1935, as the starting point for that period. He argued that the central bank has functioned as “a tool for theft” and indicated that his reform proposal seeks “to put an end to the scam of counterfeiting money to finance high-level politics, whose most evident manifestation is the inflation rate.”

The plan would also strengthen independence of central bank officials, making them more difficult for future administrations to remove. Milei said the reforms were an effort to end decades of deficit monetization, the primary source of Argentina’s recurring inflation and currency crises.

Keep reading

Powerful Democratic Donors Terrified About 2028 Due to ‘Floundering’ DNC: Report

The Democratic National Committee has had a no good, very bad year. That, of course, does not bode well for the 2028 presidential election cycle, and powerful Democrat donors have noticed.

According to Politico, the DNC’s embarrassing missteps under Chair Ken Martin have donors griping and looking for alternatives.

One donor, for instance, described the DNC as “sort of floundering right now.”

And that might have been the most generous assessment Politico received from more than half a dozen donors, donor advisors, and bundlers — those who collect many individual donations — nearly all of whom spoke anonymously.

“Nobody wants to give [Martin] or DNC money at this point, but worry is focused on the day after the midterms, because the DNC is more of a presidential player,” a Democratic bundler said. “It’s beyond embarrassing and it’s not going to get better until he is gone.”

Meanwhile, one donor advisor warned that the DNC’s failures under Martin mean that contributions will dry up after the 2026 midterms. That could change, however, if the DNC replaces Martin.

“We need an overhaul, and I think that’s what my folks will be in support of. And if that happens, there will be end-of-year giving, December will be a boom,” the donor adviser said. “But if it’s Ken, and it’s just the same — same old nonsense — I can’t make the case.”

Keep reading

Senate Committee Votes to Block Part of Trump Admin’s Effort to Dismantle Department of Education

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (A-AK) are working with Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) on a bill to block part of the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle the Department of Education (ED). 

On Thursday, the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee approved the bill, S. 5046, in a 13-9 vote to prohibit ED from moving special education and several other education offices to other federal agencies, Politico reported. 

The bill is in response to ED entering into at least a dozen interagency agreements (IAAs) to move certain functions to other departments as the Trump administration waits for Congress to follow through on the president’s campaign promise to eliminate the department. Officially ending the department would take an act of Congress, as it was Congress that created it 45 years ago under President Jimmy Carter.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has called the IAAs “proof of concept” and said she hopes Congress will be more willing to end ED if lawmakers see the successful transition of major functions to other federal agencies. A spokesperson for ED called the new bill “entirely premature.”

A statement from ED spokeswoman Savannah Newhouse says:

Secretary McMahon promised Congress a proof of concept that is currently underway and delivering results across our partner agencies, and it is entirely premature to sabotage this effort before it has the chance to eliminate bureaucratic barriers and fully deliver the results that our students, families, and educators deserve.

Collins called the bill “straightforward” and said it keeps the administration of certain education programs “where Congress specifically put them and where they belong.”

Murkowski claimed the programs Congress told ED to oversee are there “for a good reason.”

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, we’re talking about children, whether it’s children with special needs, whether it’s children in our elementary schools, whether it’s our Native students — making sure that we don’t lose that focus,” Murkowski said.

The bill would specifically stop the agency from moving the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, as well as the offices of Elementary and Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education, and Indian Education to other federal agencies. The bill is in addition to Congress approving non-binding language in the most recent spending bill telling ED it has no authority to move functions to other departments. 

The bill does not halt every interagency agreement, although Democrats want to stop those too, according to the report.

The future of the bill is “unclear,” per the report. However, Kaine told the outlet he hopes it is considered in appropriations discussions. The bill is directly at odds with a House bill the Education and Workforce Committee voted on last month to permanently move certain ED functions to other agencies. 

Keep reading

DNC and ActBlue Funnel Millions Through Sketchy Payroll Firm Sued by Workers for Withholding Pay and Punishing Parental Leave

The same Democrat Party that endlessly lectures American businesses about “workers’ rights” is funneling millions of dollars in payroll expenditures through a company accused by former employees of withholding wages and retaliating against workers who took family or medical leave.

Libs of TikTok brought renewed attention to the scandal Thursday, writing:

“The DNC and ActBlue are running all their payments through a sketchy payroll company who were SUED by multiple employees for allegedly withholding pay.”

The payroll vendor is Rippling, a San Francisco-based human-resources and payroll software company operated by People Center, Inc.

According to a Washington Free Beacon investigation citing Federal Election Commission records, the Democratic National Committee and ActBlue processed approximately $23.3 million in payroll expenditures through Rippling during the 2026 election cycle.

The records reportedly show that the DNC and ActBlue began using Rippling during the second quarter of 2025.

But behind the Democrat money machine is a growing stack of disturbing employee allegations.

Keep reading

Establishment Democrats Make Last Stand Against Socialist Takeover with Bizarre Rep. Haley Stevens Debate

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed presented Michigan Democrats with sharply different choices Monday during their final Senate debate before the August 4 primary, clashing over outside spending, corporate political contributions, Israel, immigration, health care, and which candidate was better positioned to defeat Republican Mike Rogers.

The Fox 2 Detroit debate highlighted the divide between Stevens, who is backed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), and El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and the United Auto Workers.

Outside spending and campaign finances dominated much of the debate. Stevens’ campaign and six super PACs backing her have spent more than $61 million on primary ads, according to AdImpact figures shared by CBS. El-Sayed’s campaign and outside groups supporting him have spent more than $15.3 million combined, according to FEC reports cited by CBS.

The New York Times reported that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, had spent $30.6 million on advertising backing Stevens, while six other super PACs that had not disclosed their donors spent a combined $29.4 million on her behalf. 

El-Sayed repeatedly argued that groups spending tens of millions of dollars to support Stevens would expect something in return.

“Sixty million dollars from outside organizations in this race didn’t just go nowhere,” El-Sayed said. “It’s because those exact same organizations expect something on the other side.” He added that they “expect to own your next U.S. senator.”

He also questioned Stevens’ electability without that financial advantage.

“If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can’t be elected on your own terms,” he said.

Stevens countered that El-Sayed also benefits from Fighting for Michigan PAC, which had spent about $2.4 million as of the debate. She said she did not believe there was “much difference” between super PACs supporting either candidate and pointed to her A grade from End Citizens United and endorsement from Defend the Vote.

The candidates also sparred over contributions connected to DTE Energy and Consumers Energy.

Moderator Roop Raj asked Stevens whether she was taking money from the two utilities for her Senate campaign. Stevens initially deflected, speaking about her transparency and criticism of her voice, before Raj pressed her for a direct answer. She then said no.

The Detroit News reported that Stevens’ House campaign received approximately $63,500 from the utilities’ main political action committees between 2019 and 2025. Her House committee later transferred two $2,500 contributions — one originating from DTE and one from Consumers Energy — to her Senate committee.

After the debate, Stevens said she answered no because Raj had asked specifically about the Senate race. El-Sayed called her response a “frank lie,” arguing that money transferred into her Senate committee had still entered the Senate campaign.

Israel and AIPAC also emerged as central points of disagreement. El-Sayed criticized Stevens for voting against cutting off U.S. aid to Israel and linked the vote to spending by United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s principal super PAC.

“That is the pro quo that comes with the quid of $30 million spent by AIPAC,” El-Sayed said.

Stevens responded by pointing to the super PAC supporting El-Sayed. “I don’t think there’s much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me,” she said.

The candidates also disagreed over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Stevens pointed to her visit to an ICE detention facility and said the agency’s treatment of detainees had become unacceptable.

“I went up to an ICE detention facility to call out and see why people were losing their lives, why they were being held for long periods of time without due process,” Stevens said. “This has been an outrage.”

El-Sayed took a more sweeping position, calling for ICE to be abolished.

“The idea that somehow we can’t say ‘abolish ICE’ because we’re so afraid of what they’re going to say, when we’ve seen ICE terrorize people in our streets, to me, it is exactly the kind of cowardice that we don’t need from Democrats,” he said.

Asked about accusations that he is a socialist, El-Sayed rejected the label and argued that monopolies and oligopolies pose the greatest threat to capitalism.

“I’m not a socialist,” El-Sayed said. “I’m just a capitalist who understands how capitalism works. The biggest threat to capitalism was never the idea of government regulation. It was always monopoly.”

He continued: “I think government ought to be there to regulate on monopolies and oligopolies, so that everybody can actually participate in an economy without having to be forced to pay more or get paid less for the work that they do.”

Elsewhere in the debate, El-Sayed called for eliminating the Senate filibuster, passing the PRO Act, taxing billionaire wealth, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and establishing Medicare for All.

Stevens portrayed El-Sayed as a “celebrity candidate” who viewed the Senate as another step toward higher office, pointing to his podcasts, books, and what she said was a website for a presidential campaign.

Keep reading

One-Third of Democrats Identify as Democrat Socialists

Far-left CNN reports that “about a third of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identify as democratic socialists,” per the latest polling.

This is a big problem for an increasingly radicalized Democrat Party that continues to move further and further to the left and far out of mainstream thinking on issues like abolishing prisons, abolishing the U.S. Senate, sexualizing and queering little kids, defunding the police, open borders, socialized medicine, annihilating Israel, and outright property confiscation.

The polling shows that 59 percent of these socialists are under age 45 and — surprise, surprise — predominantly white (57 percent). They are also less likely to have a college degree or make over $100,000 per year.

What should truly trouble the Democrat Party is how motivated these loons are to vote — 66 percent are “extremely motivated to vote this year,” compared to just 57 percent of non-socialist Democrats.

When these extremists win primaries, especially in purple states, that gives Republicans a real chance to prevail. Socialist Abdul El-Sayed is less than a week away from winning the Democrat nomination for U.S. Senate. The problem for Democrats is that he is a total radical, but he’s a radical who is up over his closest primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, by double digits. However, polling also shows that he is losing to the Republican nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, by double digits, whereas Stevens is tied with Rogers.

In Wisconsin, another purple state, socialist Francesca Hong is running away with the race to choose the Democrat nominee for governor. Polls also show that Hong is behind the likely Republican nominee, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, whereas Hong’s closest primary opponent, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, is up by four points over Tiffany.

Between the war with Iran and the high gas prices, not to mention the usual-usual voter bias against any White House incumbent during off-year elections, Democrats should be romping all over the country. Instead, at least as of right now, Republicans look like they will hold on to control of the Senate and have a fighting chance to hold the House.

If forced to bet my life, I’d give the Senate to the GOP and the House to Democrats, but a normal Democrat Party would be coasting to victory in this political environment. Their problem, of course, is that they have a tiger by the tail with these radicals, a tiger they created over the last ten years, where they radicalized their base to oppose President Trump on absolutely everything, including commonsense policies like locking up criminals and deporting rapists.

Keep reading

See The Hilarious AI Ads That Furious California Democrats Want Banned

Two California Democrats are moving to outlaw AI-generated campaign ads at the federal level, just days after a Republican rival for the governor’s mansion used the technology to hammer their party.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on Monday reintroduced the AI Ads Act, which would make it a federal violation to use artificial intelligence to impersonate candidates or committees in federal races.

The push comes on the heels of two AI-generated spots from GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who went after Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrat gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra.

Of course, Hilton isn’t the only one having fun with the technology. The campaign of Spencer Pratt, the reality television star turned Los Angeles mayoral candidate, made waves with his creative and side-splitting ads from Los Angeles-based director Charles Curran.

Unsurprisingly, Schiff claims his bill isn’t about politics, but about protecting against a so-called “serious threat to our democracy.”

“AI-generated fraudulent advertising which uses the likeness or voices of candidates to misrepresent their positions, campaigns, or causes, or otherwise misrepresents a candidate’s point of view is not only wrong – it poses a serious threat to our democracy that should concern all Americans regardless of their party,” said Schiff. “Fraudulent AI advertising has already proliferated in races across the country, and if Congress does not act, this runaway challenge will only get worse as AI becomes increasingly capable of blurring the lines between fact and fiction. With November elections around the corner, time is of the essence to reign in false political advertising.”

Groups that support the bill include Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Campaign Legal Center, Protect Democracy and Public Citizen, according to the New York Post.

“AI will transform our lives and our society in many ways, but it can’t be used to mislead voters or undermine our democracy. I’m proud to lead the AI Ads Act with Senator Schiff to ban AI-generated content that deceives the public about candidates or elections,” Khanna said in a statement.

Keep reading

OF COURSE! Katie Hobbs to Skip Arizona Gubernatorial Debate Against Trump-Endorsed Andy Biggs – Biggs Campaign Responds!

Arizona Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs said on Thursday that for a second consecutive election, she will not participate in a debate. 

Hobbs previously refused to participate in her primary and general election debates in 2022 before she stole the election from Trump-endorsed Kari Lake.

In a statement, Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont told 12 News, “We respectfully decline debate invitations in this campaign because face-to-face engagement with Arizonans is more effective than a stage designed for short soundbites and political theater.”

DeMont went on to say that Hobbs has done “more than 100 open-press events”; therefore, she’s exempt from the tradition of defending her candidacy on the debate stage.

Hobbs’ team issued a similar statement amid the controversy during the last election cycle, blaming the circumstances surrounding the debate, when she refused to square off against Kari Lake.

“Debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” the Hobbs campaign said last year.

Keep reading

Section 219: More Than a Defense Provision – The Battle Over the Future of US-Israel Relations

Somewhere in the thousand-plus pages of America’s annual National Defense Authorization Act sits a provision that started out as Section 224 and later became Section 219 in the House version. On paper it looks straightforward: expand technological and defense cooperation between the United States and Israel. In practice it has turned into one of the more revealing fights in current U.S. politics. The reactions on both sides make clear that this is not really about joint research projects or sharing a few more technical papers. It has become a proxy for bigger arguments about how far American security commitments should go, what role Israel should play in Washington’s strategy, and where the Republican Party is headed on foreign policy.

The House kept the language when it passed its version of the bill. Representative Thomas Massie, a consistent America First voice, tried to strip it out. His effort never even made it to a full floor vote. That alone told you something: for now, the coalition that wants deeper strategic ties with Israel still has the numbers in the House.

What the section actually does is instruct the Defense Department to expand work with Israel in areas like artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, quantum technology, cybersecurity, electronic warfare, drones, and joint research programs. Supporters say this is common sense. Facing serious competition from China and Russia, they argue, the United States cannot afford to go it alone on the technologies that will shape the next generation of military power. Israel has real strengths in these fields. Formalizing and deepening cooperation, they insist, does not create new combat commitments. It simply builds on relationships that have existed for years.

Opponents see a different trajectory. They worry the language is less about discrete projects and more about gradually knitting the two countries’ defense industries and military structures closer together. Once those ties become denser, they argue, American decision-makers may find their options more constrained when the next Middle East crisis arrives. Massie’s objection sits squarely in this camp. He believes the United States should stop creating new mechanisms that pull it deeper into security obligations connected to Israel

The fight is not really about one paragraph in a defense bill. It reflects deeper shifts already underway. The war in Gaza, the scale of civilian deaths, and the protests that spread across American campuses have made traditional support for Israel less automatic, especially among younger people. Inside the Republican Party a visible split has opened. Traditional conservatives still treat a wide network of allies as essential to American leadership. The America First wing wants fewer overseas commitments, fewer expensive wars, and more focus on problems at home.

So Section 219 is not just about Israel. It is about how America defines its own interests. Should Washington keep deepening alliances as the price of remaining the dominant global power, or should it start redirecting more energy and money toward rebuilding at home and competing economically with China?

The fact that opponents could not remove the section shows the old consensus still has real weight in Congress. But the intensity of the pushback shows that consensus is no longer automatic. What used to be a quiet assumption has become one of the sharper dividing lines in American foreign-policy debates.

Nothing is final yet. The bill still has to move through the Senate. If the two chambers produce different texts, a conference committee will have to work out the differences. House passage was a clear win for the provision’s backers, but the ultimate language depends on what happens next.

What is already obvious is that Section 219 has stopped being just another clause in a giant spending bill. It has become a rough test of the direction American foreign policy is likely to take. Will the United States continue leaning on ever-closer strategic partnerships, or will it gradually pull back toward a more limited, domestically focused approach?

For decades the relationship rested on a familiar mix of shared values, intelligence cooperation, technological overlap, and common adversaries. That foundation has not vanished. Israel remains a capable partner in missile defense, cyber operations, and advanced research. Supporters of the section keep returning to these practical advantages and argue that tighter cooperation is a logical response to a more competitive world.

Keep reading

Report: Maine Democrat Troy Jackson, Longtime Partner Are Second Cousins with 2 Children

Maine Democrat U.S. Senate nominee Troy Jackson and his longtime partner are second cousins who share two children, according to reports published Thursday.

The Maine Wire reported that Jackson, the former Maine Senate president tapped last week to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins, and his longtime partner are related by blood. The outlet said the two are second cousins and have two children together.

Robinson identified the partner as Lana Pelletier. He reported that she and Jackson share a set of great-grandparents, citing genealogical records. Both are from Allagash, a small town in Aroostook County. The two have never legally married, and Maine does not recognize common-law marriage.

The relationship could carry consequences for how Jackson reports his finances. Under Senate rules, candidates and members must file detailed disclosures covering their own income, assets, and liabilities, along with those of a spouse. Because Jackson and Pelletier never wed, it is not clear whether his disclosures would have to account for her finances the way Collins’ filings account for her husband.

Townhall’s Matt Vespa, aggregating the reporting, noted that Jackson had not filed a Senate financial disclosure or requested an extension as of this week.

The Bangor Daily News reported that he paid roughly $4,600 in late state income taxes last year after a tax lien over debt dating back to 2020. A Republican lawmaker filed an ethics complaint in 2023 alleging Jackson misrepresented his residency after buying a home in Augusta while continuing to list Allagash as his residence on legislative filings.

Older official bios have referred to Pelletier as Jackson’s wife. His current campaign materials describe her as his partner.

Jackson won the Democrat nomination Saturday, securing 566 delegates at the party’s convention in Bangor. He replaced Graham Platner, who exited the race this month after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault, an allegation Platner denied. Jackson also faced scrutiny earlier this month over a report that he berated women lawmakers during his time leading the Maine Senate.

Jackson has not publicly addressed the reported relationship.

Keep reading