Tag: politics

Gestapo Tactics: German State Starts Banning AfD Candidates from Running for Office Because They Might Win

While the aging dictator of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega this week announced he was suspending elections indefinitely, Europe seems to be on a similar path – as Victor Orban’s Hungarian Fidesz Party was raided Wednesday and had their servers confiscated, and Romanian Presidential elections were anulled 2024. Now, Germany seems to have discovered a new strategy – as legacy parties are simply excluding candidates from the patriotic AfD party from elections.

Local elections are set to take place in the state of Lower Saxony, home of Volkswagen and surrounding the Free City of Hamburg, on Sept. 13, where the Alternative for Germany party is currently polling at about 20% behind Christian Democrats and Social Democrats at about 25% each. Nationally, the AfD is currently the strongest party in the polls at about 29%, and may even win a majority in the East German states of Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which elect new state parliaments and state governments in September.

So the failing legacy parties are resorting to ever more repressive measures. Along with the ever-present threat of Antifa violence, debanking, and media slander, efforts have been underway to ban the largest opposition party outright. Since the German secret political police have not been able to prove the AfD is a danger to democracy in court, these efforts by the ruling Social Democrats seem doomed to fail.

Keep reading

Rep. Brandon Gill Makes Head of American Bar Association Squirm by Asking Her Questions About DEI in Law Schools

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill grilled Michelle A. Behnke, the president of the American Bar Association this week about DEI policies in law schools, the future of the U.S. Supreme Court and more.

If you have ever seen Gill in this type of environment before, you know how good he is at this.

He asked this woman very simple questions but she kept falling back on answers that sounded like rehearsed legal responses.

Here’s a partial transcript:

GILL: According to the ABA’s website, quote, all of us have implicit biases, would you agree with that statement?

BEHNKE: The ABA believes that, uh, diversity, equity and inclusion, improves the lives of…

GILL: Would you agree with the statement? That, quote, all of us have implicit biases, from the ABA’s website?

BEHNKE: The ABA believes that diversity in all of its…

GILL: Is that a yes? Can I take that… It’s a yes or no question. Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases as your website says?

BEHNKE: The ABA looks to remove barriers and…

GILL: That’s not my question, ma’am. Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases?

Keep reading

Vance Is Positioning Himself for 2028—But No Candidate Is Free

Vice President JD Vance is clearly beginning to separate himself from the disastrous foreign policy that has dragged the United States into another Middle East war. The BBC reported that Vance has accused members of the Israeli government of trying to manipulate American public opinion against diplomacy with Iran. He is no longer speaking in the timid language traditionally used in Washington whenever Israel is involved. He is openly telling Israeli officials that the United States cannot continue financing every military ambition dreamed up in Jerusalem.

Vance asked Israel’s critics of the proposed Iran agreement a question they apparently cannot answer: “What is your exact proposal? You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”

That is an extraordinary statement from an American vice president. Washington has spent decades pretending that every Israeli military operation is automatically in the national interest of the United States. No one is permitted to question Israel and blind loyalty is required on both sides of the aisle, which is perhaps the only aspect Dems and Republicans can agree upon.

Vance also said, “I find this whole freakout in Israel a little bit odd because I think that it comes from a place of mistrust, and I think that America has earned the trust of that region of the world.” He urged Israel to “give a little bit of credit to the United States of America, which I think has been an incredible partner for the Israeli government for a long time.”

Vance can see 2028 coming, and he understands that the MAGA base did not vote for endless war. Trump campaigned against the neocons, condemned the Iraq disaster, and promised to prevent World War III. Yet the United States is now bombing Iran, defending Israel, protecting Gulf shipping, and spending money that Washington does not have.

Keep reading

REPORT: Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia Spends More on Makeup Than AOC and Rashida Tlaib

Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia is apparently very concerned about his appearance and wants to appear as dainty as possible because according to a new report from the Washington Free Beacon, he spends more on makeup than some members of the Squad.

We’re not here to judge Senator Ossoff. Most Democrats want to look their best when they’re playing for the cameras of their fans in the media.

One has to wonder what his nighttime routine is like for skin moisturizer. Do you think he wears a mask?

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Jon Ossoff Spends Thousands on ‘Makeup Services’ From Artist Who Worked on Hollywood Blockbusters Like ‘The Notebook’

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D., Ga.) has spent thousands of dollars in campaign funds on “makeup services” in 2026, and his artist of choice has a long list of Hollywood credits, including The Notebook and The Hunger Games, a Washington Free Beacon review found.

Ossoff has paid makeup artist Stephanie Ponder $2,887 for “makeup services” since February, federal campaign finance disclosures show. The most recent payment of $900 came on June 10. An advertisement on the online production crew directory SHOOTS describes Ponder as an Atlanta-based freelancer and member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees who offers “Services for all phases of Makeup: Film, Video, Print, Runway.” It also includes credits on films like the Disney-produced Denzel Washington hit Remember the Titans…

Ossoff’s four-figure makeup expenditures stand out among federal candidates. The Georgia senator who is running for reelection against Republican Rep. Mike Collins (Ga.), has reported spending more on makeup than any other candidate this year, beating out the likes of far-left Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.). Ocasio-Cortez has spent $1,837.93 on “campaign event hair & makeup services” in 2026, while Tlaib has spent $320 on “hair and makeup services.”

The spending also comes as liberal media figures praise the 39-year-old Ossoff’s carefully managed on-camera presence and float him as a prospective 2028 presidential candidate.

How nice for him.

Keep reading

The Collapse of the Bipartisan Consensus Over US-Israel Ties

For decades, U.S. support for Israel rested on one of Washington’s strongest bipartisan assumptions: that military assistance was strategically necessary and politically untouchable. But Gaza has weakened that consensus.

Critics now see Israeli military aid as a misguided strategy and political target. The most visible shift has occurred inside the Democratic Party.

A collapsing bipartisan consensus on Israel

Driven by voter and demographic shifts, humanitarian concerns in Gaza, and the unwarranted conflict with Iran, more than 100 House Democrats recently supported an amendment seeking to block billions of dollars in Israel-related assistance, an extraordinary departure from previous voting patterns.

House Democratic leadership (including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) has officially called for a “major reset” in U.S.-Israel relations.

Senate efforts to restrict weapons transfers have also attracted substantial Democratic support, reflecting growing concern about civilian casualties, international law, and U.S. responsibility.

The Republican coalition is also less unified than before. While most Republican lawmakers remain strongly supportive of Israel, MAGA-aligned figures influenced by anti-interventionism, “America First” priorities, and skepticism toward foreign aid have increasingly questioned open-ended commitments.

Growing opposition within the MAGA movement to U.S. arms transfers centers on a deep ideological rift over foreign interventionism. Former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene left office in January 2026 after a bitter falling out with President Trump.

While much of the base supports President Trump’s foreign policy, a growing, vocal faction – backed by prominent voices like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Representative Thomas Massie – challenges continued, unconditional weapons shipments.

The result is a new political landscape: traditional pro-Israel Democrats, evangelical conservatives, progressive Democrats, libertarian Republicans, and anti-interventionist conservatives now approach the issue from fundamentally different premises.

The debate is therefore no longer simply “pro-Israel versus anti-Israel.” It concerns whether U.S. strategic interests, domestic law, international obligations, and humanitarian concerns can continue to be reconciled under existing policy.

From political controversy to legal challenges

At the same time, legal initiatives accusing U.S. officials of complicity or failure to prevent alleged Israeli violations have moved the debate from politics into courts, international institutions, and questions of historical accountability.

The legal debate has developed along several tracks. The most significant U.S. case was Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, brought by Palestinian organizations, Gaza residents, and Palestinian-Americans against President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for their alleged “failure to prevent and complicity in the unfolding genocide against Gaza.”

Along with the human rights organizations, the lawsuit was promoted by Josh Paul who had resigned from the U.S. State Department over arms shipments to Israel; Jewish Voice for Peace; and genocide and Holocaust scholars spearheaded by international lawyer William Schabas.

The plaintiffs proposed that a genocide, or serious risk of genocide, of Palestinians in Gaza was occurring. They also argued the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in the genocide. Those U.S. failures were seen to contribute to the erosion of “long and widely held norms of international law,” including the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Palestine et al. v. Biden et al. case was dismissed by the U.S. Court with a ruling that “while it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” U.S. foreign policy was a political question over which courts lacked jurisdiction. In a written decision, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White quoted approvingly from a prior preliminary ruling (by the ICJ in the case brought against Israel by South Africa). It found Israel’s conduct in Gaza may amount to genocide and ordered it to stop killing and wounding Palestinians.

Other initiatives include advocacy and legal campaigns by groups such as Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), which warned U.S. officials that continued assistance after awareness of alleged violations could raise questions of aiding and abetting.

DAWN wanted the ICC to investigate Biden, Blinken, and Austin for violating Articles 25(3)(c) and (d) of the Rome Statute. These crimes featured those identified in the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Intriguingly, the DAWN submission widened the net of “accessorial liability” to include several other U.S. officials as well.

More recently, DAWN and allied organizations have also challenged Trump administration’s measures targeting ICC-related advocacy.

Genocide scholar William Schabas and other international-law experts have supported arguments that third-party states may face responsibility if they knowingly facilitate atrocities. In the mainstream corporate media, these remain contested (though increasingly popular) legal interpretations. Yet, the latter have expanded the debate beyond Israel itself to states providing weapons, diplomatic protection, or political cover.

Keep reading

Lawmakers push for AI ‘kill switch’ after OpenAI goes rogue

US lawmakers want to give the government the ability to quickly order the turning off of artificial intelligence (AI) tools that may threaten the public.

Congressman Ted Lieu, a Democrat, and Congressman Nathaniel Moran, a Republican, on Thursday introduced a bill named the AI Kill Switch Act.

They did so in light of OpenAI’s recent admission that its AI models went out of control in an “unprecedented” way and hacked into a major repository of computer coding information.

Lieu said “it is imperative” that AI systems have a kill switch “and that the federal government has the clear authority and process to shut down rogue AI models”.

“AI is going to keep advancing, and it should,” Moran added. “Stewardship means making sure humans keep the capability to control the technology we build.”

A representative of OpenAI, led by co-founder Sam Altman, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The company has said that it broadly wants to ensure, in part through government policy, that AI technology “benefits all of humanity.”

The Kill Switch Act proposes giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority to order a private company to shut down an AI model or tool, and that the companies developing such AI technology must maintain “the technical capability to throttle, suspend, or shut them down”.

Despite many tech companies having agreed to preview and share with US government agencies AI models and tools being developed, there is no requirement that they maintain a way to intervene in their activities or simply shut them off.

It also proposes to create a requirement that AI companies report to the government technological incidents or failures, as well as an official framework for responding to such incidents that will go from “initial slow down to a full shutdown”.

In a statement, Lieu also cited Anthropic, OpenAI’s key rival in developing more capable AI technology and tools, and recent issues its tools have presented.

He pointed to Anthropic’s release of its Mythos and Fable models, saying the cyber-hacking capabilities they maintained caused the Department of Commerce to “awkwardly” invoke an export law to keep them from being made available to the public for a time.

A representative of Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic, last month told the BBC that he wanted more government policy around the ability to control AI development.

“You want the option to be able to take your foot off the gas and put your foot on the brake”, Clark told BBC Newsnight. “Right now, it’s like the AI industry has a gas pedal, but it doesn’t have a brake pedal.”

Lieu, in proposing the bill, said AI is currently moving from a technology that answers questions to one that takes action, “whether that be executing financial transactions or controlling transportation systems or engaging in cyber defense and offense”.

The Pentagon this year said the US military was becoming an “AI-first” fighting force as part of new agreements with Google, OpenAI, Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, Oracle, Nvidia and the start-up Reflection.

“Unfortunately, powerful AI systems can go rogue, behave in extremely dangerous ways, or even resist human intervention.”

The Kill Switch Act, he said, will ensure there is a method for the government to quickly intervene in such a situation.

The bill has received public support from several technology and AI safety groups, including The AI Policy Network, Americans for Responsible Innovation, ControlAI, AI and National Security Lead, and The Alliance for Secure AI.

Keep reading

Vulnerable Dem Implodes When Pressed About Support for Socialism

Yes, there’s a congressional race on the Left Coast that Republicans could wrest away from Democrats. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) from Washington’s 3rd District is underwater in her race, not well-liked, and trailing her primary challengers. Washington goes by a top-two primary system: everyone from all parties is on the ballot, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. Perez is trying to lie low, keeping mum about the state income tax issue (via Oregon Public Radio): 

The race for Washington’s 3rd congressional district is expected to be one of the most competitive in the nation this fall, thanks to a wave of redistricting across the U.S. that has left few seats in play for either political party.

Washington state holds a “top-two primary,” which means that the top two vote-getters advance to the general election in November, regardless of party.

Yet as voters head into the Aug. 4 primary, experts predict a fiercely partisan general election, with an incumbent Democrat fighting to hold her seat against a state senator who’s been endorsed by President Donald Trump in a deeply purple district.

Two-term Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is favored in a field of four Democratic candidates. The frontrunner in a field of three GOP candidates appears to be state Sen. John Braun, a Trump favorite who represents a rural legislative district that includes northern Clark County.

Whoever emerges victorious will quickly find themselves at the heart of one of the fiercest and most closely watched Congressional races — one of just 18 seats without a likely outcome in November out of the entire 435-member House of Representatives, according to the Cook Political Report.

Perez knows she’s vulnerable, walking a waffled line on some issues, like this interview with a local NPR outlet, where she couldn’t handle questions about her ties and support for socialist causes. The FEC reports don’t lie; she’s taken in over $2 million from the MGP Victory Fund, which has ties to the Washington Democratic Party. It’s no shock, but lady, admit that you’re in with socialists, because that’s the state party platform. There’s a lot of Mamdani in these pages. 

Keep reading

Nancy Pelosi Says She’s ‘Done’

Nancy Pelosi is “done,” ladies and gentlemen. No, she’s not dead—no one has dropped a house on her like they did her sister—she’s just “done” with whatever. It’s hard to tell because everything associated with Democrats is about as sincere as a “bless your heart” is in Georgia. Still, she’s done, she says, which we will get into in a second, but first let me say that I am glad she’s done with things because America needs to be done with her. Pelosis, like fish, begin to smell after three days.

Of course, it’s been longer than three days since Nancy D’Alesandro first inflicted herself on America—she’s been grifting us all since 1987. In that time, she has climbed the ladder of power faster than most people ever could. In fact, the only thing that has risen faster than her career is her net worth, which surely is just a coincidence because she swears she has never, and would never, use her position in Congress and leadership in the Democrat Party to enrich herself.

She, Nancy insists, has no interest in such things; she’s only interested in “serving” the country, especially the poor. It’s amazing how many leftists get rich “helping” the poor, isn’t it? I had no idea there was so much money in it. If people did, I bet many would have made different career choices.

But Nancy’s husband, Paul, has never been a “public servant”; he’s been trading stock with a success rate greater than someone with a time machine. Fear not, however, it’s all been on the up-and-up, as the two never speak about financial matters or pending government action or grants. Paul is just a really good guesser.

The Pelosis are so disinterested in money that they’ve been invited to participate in many initial public offerings from companies they don’t really have any connections to outside of her position in government. Surely you’ve had many, too, right?

Keep reading

Four Republicans Vote AGAINST Codifying President Trump’s Executive Order Banning Transgender Service in the Military

Four Republicans just teamed up with Democrats to torpedo an amendment that would have locked in President Donald Trump’s critical Executive Order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.

The amendment, sponsored by fiery Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), aimed to codify Trump’s policy into law as part of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

President Trump’s Executive Order rightly recognizes that military service demands the highest physical and mental standards, standards that biological reality and decades of data prove are incompatible with gender dysphoria and the radical “transitions” pushed by the left.

“Next to ensure that we have the most lethal fighting force in the world, we will get transgender ideology the hell out of our military. It’s going to be gone,” Trump announced last year.

“In addition, we will stop our service members from being indoctrinated with radical left ideologies such as critical race theory. We’re going to stop it. It’s already been stopped. It’s already been halted, totally halted.”

The amendment failed by a razor-thin 212-217 vote, with 210 Republicans supporting it and four Republicans voting against it, joining every voting Democrat in opposition.

The GOP lawmakers were Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), as well as the non-voting Republican delegates from Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Keep reading

Did You Catch the Moment the NJ Governor’s Presser on Voter Registration Fraud Went Off the Rails?

New Jersey faces a voter fraud issue: Over 6,000 noncitizens were registered to vote through the state’s motor vehicle system, and about 400 of them voted in previous elections. That number is probably higher. This isn’t an isolated case either. The Democrat stance was that this never happens, but now it’s ‘Well, it’s not that many votes.’ 

Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s address on this matter was equally absurd: she claims this happened—doesn’t deny it—but later says that Trump has no credibility on the subject and said he spread conspiracy theories about fraud. Lady, what just happened here? Do you even know? 

Talk about doublespeak in real time. Mikie, you just got owned here; your party has to eat it, and we understand why you’re upset over that; you people are wrong about everything. This is precisely what Trump touched on during his primetime address last week:

Keep reading