Tag: politics

Dems Now Try to Dox Epstein Victims, Release Child P*rn.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) explained Tuesday that there remain significant issues with the Democrat-led discharge petition that would force the release of the Epstein Files held by the federal government. While the Republican House leader acknowledged that he lacks the votes to block the measure, he also made clear that Republican efforts to amend the discharge petition to ensure the privacy rights of victims and those with no criminal ties to Epstein were rejected by Democrats. Additionally, Johnson raised concerns that the petition lacks language preventing the release of Child Sex Abuse Material (CSAM) and sealed grand jury testimony—the latter of which has had no adversarial challenge.

“Our side has been insistent that this matter must be handled very carefully,” the Republican Speaker explained before detailing that the language used in the Democrat-led discharge petition is so vague that it provides no protections for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims or even provisions to bar the release of CSAM materials collected from Epstein’s properties. Speaker Johnson continued: “We want maximum transparency,” though he warned that as currently written, the discharge petition is likely to muddy the waters further.

“So what am I to do as a leader in a situation like this?” Johnson posed during his morning press conference on Tuesday, ahead of the vote. He continued: “I called my counterpart in the Senate, Leader Thune, and I talked through this with him and I shared our deep concerns. And of course they share those concerns as well.”

“So I am very confident that when this moves forward in the process, if and when it is processed in the Senate—which it is no certainty that it will be—that they will take the time, methodically, to do what we have not been allowed to do in the House, to amend this discharge petition and to make sure these protections are there,” Johnson stated.

Overall, House Republicans presented five key objections to the Democrat-led discharge petition as it is written. Namely, that it fails to protect the right to privacy of Epstein’s victims. While a number of the women preyed upon by the deceased pedophile financier have come forward, there are still many who have chosen not to go public with their allegations or horrific experiences. In addition, Speaker Johnson and House Republicans note that the release of sealed grand jury materials—which have not undergone adversarial challenges—risks implicating potentially innocent individuals in Epstein’s crimes, effectively creating a new class of victim.

Thirdly, they note that the petition fails to create adequate guardrails preventing the release of CSAM or child pornography that may be contained within the files, especially from materials seized from Epstein’s properties. Their fourth objection pertains to the impact the petition could have on future investigations, as it provides no protections for the identities of whistleblowers, informants, or undercover law enforcement involved in gathering evidence against Epstein, and who may be involved in current and ongoing investigations.

Keep reading

Mamdani claims NYC is a ‘city of international law’ when asked about arresting world leaders targeted by ICC

New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has said that the Big Apple is a city of “international law,” and that he would uphold international warrants for figures such as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

The reporter asked, “you said you would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu based on the 2024 international court arrest warrant. Next UN General Assembly, as mayor, would you do that?”

Mamdani replied, “so I’ve said time and time again that I believe this is a city of international law. And being a city of international law means looking to uphold international law. And that means upholding the warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC), whether they’re for Benjamin Netanyahu or Vladimir Putin. I think that that’s critically important to showcase our values.”

“And, unlike Donald Trump, I’m someone who looks to exist within the confines of the laws that we have. So I will look to exhaust every legal possibility, not to create my own laws.”

The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Netanyahu in November of 2024, alleging that the Israeli Prime Minister is “esponsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024.”

The warrant came amid the Israel-Hamas war, which began when terrorists with the Palestinian terror group Hamas launched an invasion into Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 and taking hundreds more hostage. A ceasefire was reached in the conflict in the fall of 2025. 

An arrest warrant was also issued for Putin, accusing the Russian leader of being “responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

Keep reading

The Imperial Judiciary Strikes Back

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations and individuals.

While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration, and moving at breakneck speed to stop it. According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democrat presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.

Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially, cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominately activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.

Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while many liberals see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservatives on appeals courts are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.

To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP (food stamp) payments.

Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.

Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”

Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics, and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.

There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, that is unrealistic.

Keep reading

IT BEGINS: Senator Cory Booker Calls for Schumer’s Removal — Says It Is ‘Time For New Leadership’ in Senate

Senator Chuck Schumer is increasingly looking like a dead man walking.

Less than a week after Schumer brokered a deal to end the government shutdown, Democrats are still seething mad at this supposed betrayal.

Speaking in New Hampshire over the weekend, Booker was asked about Schumer’s continued position as Senate Minority leader.

Chuck Schumer’s generation, Nancy Pelosi’s generation, John Lewis’s generation, they have so much to be proud of,” he said.

“It is time, though, for new leadership. The other generations, X, Millennials, Z, it’s time for us to step up. The stage is waiting for us to lead.”

Booker joins a growing chorus of Democrats calling for Schumer to step aside, becoming the first senator to do so.

Several House Democrats have already expressed the same view, among them Reps. Ro Khanna of California, Ayanna Pressley and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Delia Ramirez of Illinois, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

”Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Khanna wrote last week.

“If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?|

Keep reading

House Votes Against Censuring Democrat Stacey Plaskett Over Epstein Collusion – Here are the Republicans Who Joined the Dems

The House of Representatives on Tuesday evening voted against censuring Democrat Stacey Plaskett over her collusion with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing.

Earlier Tuesday, the House voted to advance the measure to censure Plaskett and remove her from the House Intelligence Committee.

Later that evening, the House voted 214 -209 against censuring Plaskett.

Every Democrat voted against the censure.

Three Republicans voted present, and three other GOP lawmakers joined the Democrats.

Here are the three GOP lawmakers who joined the Democrats via Fox News’ Bill Melugin:

Don Bacon (NE)
Lance Gooden (TX)
Dave Joyce (OH)

GOP Present Votes:

Andrew Garbarino (NY)
Jay Obernolte (CA)
Dan Meuser (PA)

Stacey Plaskett was texting Jeffrey Epstein and taking advice from him during a 2019 Congressional hearing with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

Rep Ralph Norman (R-SC) on Tuesday introduced a resolution to censure Democrat Stacey Plaskett and strip her from the House Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve introduced a resolution to censure Stacey Plaskett and remove her from the House Intelligence Committee,” Norman said.

“Her coordination with Jeffrey Epstein during official congressional business is disgraceful, unethical, and an affront to this institution,” he said.

“That’s corruption of judgment at the highest level,” he added.

The effort to censure Plaskett passed the first hurdle but failed later Tuesday evening after six Republicans joined the Democrats.

Keep reading

Same Game, Different Name: ‘Radioactive’ Arabella Advisors Announces Rebrand to ‘Sunflower Services’ as Prominent Donors Flee

Arabella Advisors, the shadowy for-profit consulting firm that managed a multibillion-dollar network of liberal dark money groups, is now Sunflower Services. The company announced Monday it has rebranded and sold off its fiscal sponsorship business to a new firm amid a series of high-profile investigations into its finances and billionaire Bill Gates’s decision to end a longstanding partnership with the organization.

Now, a public benefit corporation called Sunflower Services will manage fiscal sponsorships for the dark money network. It’s a new name, but the same players are involved. Allan Williams, who served as senior vice president for partner solutions at Arabella, will serve as CEO of the new entity. New Venture Fund, Windward Fund, and Hopewell Fund are the “founding owners” of Sunflower Services, the new firm said in a press release.

It’s unclear if the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the primary political arm of the Arabella network that raised $275 million in 2024, will work with Sunflower Services. The Sixteen Thirty Fund did not return a request for comment.

Arabella CEO Himesh Bhise posted on LinkedIn that the firm sold only its fiscal sponsorship business to Sunflower Services. Arabella also provided more traditional and uncontroversial nonprofit HR and accounting services, and will continue to do so under its new name, Vital Impact. Bhise will serve as Vital Impact’s CEO.

The move from Arabella indicates the firm felt the need to quarantine its fiscal sponsorship business amid the threats of investigations from President Donald Trump, who issued a memorandum in September directing several federal agencies to investigate nonprofit organizations allegedly involved in political violence and the “organized structures, networks, entities, organizations” and funding sources behind them.

Trump’s memo had a “chilling effect” on major liberal foundations across the country, the Free Press reported.

Arabella also received scrutiny from the left. In 2023, D.C. attorney general Brian Schwalb (D.) launched an investigation and issued subpoenas to Arabella Advisors following a series of Washington Free Beacon reports on the firm’s practices. Schwalb closed his investigation in 2024, saying it found no evidence of a legal violation.

Still, the scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle appears to have damaged its relationships with some of its major donors. In June, the Gates Foundation, the influential philanthropy of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said it would cease using Arabella Advisors as a middleman to handle many of its grants. The foundation called it a “business decision that reflects our regular strategic assessments of partnerships and operating models.”

The Gates move, which the New York Times called a “significant blow” to Arabella’s operations, spooked other nonprofits that work with Arabella over concerns of friction with the Gates Foundation, which had donated $450 million to Arabella’s dark money network. Other Arabella clients have pulled back from a partnership with the organization out of fear that the Trump administration will go after them for working closely with the progressive group, the Times reported.

Keep reading

US Debt Rose By $620 Billion During The Government Shutdown

“This package demonstrates that we can govern without surrendering to big spending or letting Democrats dictate priorities,” wrote the House Freedom Caucus in some talking points released to the media.

“We successfully stiff-armed a massive omnibus spending bill; locked in disciplined, flat spending levels; preserved President Trump’s policy priorities… and kept our leverage for the next round in January.”

People can say whatever they want, but I’m pretty sure our politicians closed the US government for a record 42 days and changed absolutely nothing. That’s quite an accomplishment. Sublime ineptitude. Congressional approval ratings supposedly declined 11pts to 15% during the period. Remarkable.

If a trader knew that 85% of his decisions were losers, he’d become the richest man on earth by simply doing the exact opposite of his instinct. I’m guessing Pelosi made good money trading the chop, but the broad equity market ended the shutdown period roughly a percent higher than where it started.

Extrapolating the recent pace of deficit spending, the Federal government accumulated another $600bln of debt during the shutdown, adding more leverage to the system, sustaining the economy, supporting asset values.

Keep reading

Staten Island Renews Push to Secede From New York City Due to Zohran Mamdani Mayoral Win

Staten Island is renewing its push to secede from the city of New York and be its own city following the mayoral victory of Democratic Socialist (communist) Zohran Mamdani.

Unlike Manhattan and to a lesser extent Brooklyn, Staten Island is home to a much more traditional, slightly more conservative, blue-collar, working community. Most of the people who live there have no interest in the fantasy of free stuff that Mamdani is promising.

Of course, this is unlikely to happen. New York City won’t want to let go of Staten Island because they want all of the tax revenue they can squeeze out of the people who live there.

The Post Millennial reported:

Staten Island sees renewed NYC secession push after Mamdani victory

Following the election of socialist Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s next mayor, Staten Island lawmakers are reviving efforts to secede and form an independent city.

State Senator Andrew Lanza told the New York Post he plans to “put the foot to the pedal” on the initiative in January, arguing that Mamdani “could not be further out of sync with the values of communities on Staten Island, and I’d argue that this time around Democrats won’t want to stop [the borough’s secession] because it would make it even less likely [NYC] ever elects a Republican mayor again.”

Lanza has repeatedly pushed for secession legislation since 2008 with little progress, but he said the city’s increasingly far-left politics could motivate new support, even among some Democrats. He said he believes the “timing is right” and that independence for Richmond County next year would align symbolically with the United States marking its 250th anniversary.

On Friday, State Assemblyman Sam Pirozzolo held a rally in Richmond where he read an independence declaration for Staten Island. He delivered the remarks at the location where British soldiers were first read the Declaration of Independence on Staten Island.

Who can blame these people for wanting independence from NYC?

Keep reading

JFK’s Screwball Grandson and Democrat Candidate for Congress in New York, Jack Schlossberg, Performs Nazi Salute in Now-Deleted Video

Jack Schlossberg, the only grandson of former President John F. ​​Kennedy and a Democrat candidate for Congress in New York’s 12th Congressional District, has become the subject of controversy following the emergence of a now-deleted video in which he performs a Nazi salute.

The footage, originally posted to Schlossberg’s Instagram in January and hastily deleted after going viral, shows the 32-year-old Kennedy scion gleefully mimicking Adolf Hitler’s infamous gesture while mugging for the camera.

“Yo, yo, check this out,” Schlossberg said repeatedly into the camera as he raised his arm in the salute several times.

This incident has surfaced as the unhinged Trump-hating Democrat officially announced his candidacy for the seat being vacated by Representative Jerrold Nadler.

The New York 12th District includes the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, and Midtown Manhattan. The district’s per capita income is the highest among all districts in the US.

He wrote on Instagram:

“250 years after America was founded, and our country is at a turning point.

It’s a crisis at every level.

A cost of living crisis sponsored by the Big Beautiful Bill. Historic cuts to social programs working families rely on. Health care, education, child care.

It’s a corruption crisis. The President has made almost a billion dollars this year. He’s picking winners and losers from inside the Oval Office. It’s cronyism, not capitalism.

It’s a constitutional crisis with one dangerous man in control of all three branches of government. He’s stripping citizens of their civil rights and silencing his critics.

The worst part is: it doesn’t have to be this way. And it wasn’t, always.

We deserve better, and we can do better, and it starts with the Democratic Party winning back control of the House of Representatives.

With control of Congress, there’s nothing we can’t do. Without it, we’re helpless to a third term.

My name is Jack Schlossberg, and I’m running for Congress to represent my home, New York’s 12th congressional district, where I was born and raised, where I took the bus to school every single day from one side of the district to the other.

This is the best part of the greatest city on Earth. We have the best hospitals and schools, restaurants and museums. This is the financial and media capital of the world.

This district should have a representative who can harness the creativity, energy and drive of this district and translate that into political power in Washington.

I’m not running because I have all the answers to our problems. I’m running because the people of New York 12 do. I want to listen to your struggles, hear your stories, amplify your voice, go to Washington and execute on your behalf.

There is nowhere I’d rather be than in the arena fighting for my hometown. Over the next eight months, during the course of this campaign, I hope to meet as many of you as I can. If you see me on the street, please say hello. If I knock on your door, I hope we can have a conversation. Because politics should be personal.

Thanks more to come soon, and I’ll see you on the trail New York 12.”

JFK’s only grandson was also in another controversy for being critical of his cousin, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. ​Kennedy Jr., calling him a “dangerous person” and a “rabid dog.”

Keep reading

Newsom Again Avoids Accountability amid Palisades Fire Fallout: ‘We’re on the Tip of the Spear of Climate Change’

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is continuing a familiar pattern of shifting attention away from the Pacific Palisades fire, this time focusing on climate change and insurance access instead of addressing his administration’s role in the disaster.

At an event this week, Newsom described California as both “blessed and cursed” in terms of climate risk, claiming the state is “on the tip of the spear of climate change.” He cited “simultaneous droughts and simultaneous floods,” and emphasized that “the hots are getting a lot hotter” and “the dry is drier.” 

In referencing the Palisades fire, Newsom stated: “You saw one of the most devastating wildfires in American history in the middle of winter in Los Angeles in January, 100-mile-an-hour winds attached to fire, and as we rebuild, the number one concern people have: how do I get my home insured?”

Newsom’s remarks arrive as victims and lawmakers continue to question his leadership and accountability in the wake of a fire that destroyed nearly 7,000 structures and killed 12 people in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas alone. Newsom has faced scrutiny from federal officials, legal challenges from displaced residents, and intense criticism from those who accuse his administration of negligence, obstruction, and policy exploitation in the aftermath of the blaze.

In the days immediately following the fire, Gov. Newsom deflected responsibility during a visit to the evacuation zone, placing blame on residents who had not yet fled. “The fact that people were still not evacuated, still did not heed the warning, were just coming down the canyon,” he remarked, “is a reminder of how serious this moment is, and how important it is you listen to these evacuation orders.”

Yet reports later revealed that residents had been trapped by gridlock and poor planning. Roads were choked with traffic, and police presence was limited because many officers had been reassigned to protect President Joe Biden during his visit to Los Angeles. Some residents were forced to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot. Fire crews eventually had to clear abandoned cars with bulldozers before engines could reach the flames. Officials also confirmed that fire engines had not been pre-deployed, citing budget restrictions and local leadership decisions.

The governor’s office responded to a lawsuit filed by dozens of residents, arguing that the state was not obligated to monitor the burn scar left by the January 1 Lachman Fire. Although that fire was believed to have been extinguished, it reignited on January 7 under high winds, triggering what became known as the Palisades Fire. 

Through a spokesperson, Newsom dismissed the plaintiffs as “opportunistic” and maintained that “The state didn’t start this fire.” The administration instead pointed to alleged arsonist Jonathan Rinderknecht, whose arrest, according to Newsom, would bring “closure.”

Keep reading