Tag: politics

RFK Jr. Had No Idea What This Dem Rep Was Saying…and He’s Not Alone

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing a tough challenge on Capitol Hill. He hasn’t testified before Congress in months, so defending his positions, the MAHA agenda, and some of the HHS cuts turned into a fierce confrontation. While the media and Democrats hoped he would stray from his message, they even admitted he’s remained consistent (via WaPo):

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended his controversial record leading the nation’s health department, as Democrats argued his changes on vaccines threatened public health in America and pushed back against his proposed budget cuts.

On Thursday, Kennedy kicked off a marathon of seven congressional hearings where lawmakers grilled him for the first time in more than seven months. The hearings will continue through next week.

Kennedy’s health department has recently undergone a major leadership shake-up, and he’s leaned into his messaging around food and nutrition as GOP pollsters warn of the political risks of vaccine skepticism ahead of the midterms. But for hours on Thursday, lawmakers quizzed him on vaccines, fraud in federal government programs and the budget request for his department.

That doesn’t mean some fireworks went off, like when Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) asked this question, which left the HHS secretary aghast—he didn’t know what she was talking about:

REP. SEWELL: You’re NOT a doctor, you have no medical degree!

RFK: 24 of the 26 HHS Secretaries have not had medical degrees.

SEWELL: Have you ever re-parented a black child?

RFK: I don’t even know what that phrase MEANS. I’m not gonna answer something I didn’t say.

SEWELL: You said it.

RFK: I’d like to hear the recording! I don’t even know what it means!

The man is calm and collected; most Trump officials know how to play this game, even the ones who have been fired for other things. 

Keep reading

Former Congressman Blows The Whistle On Blackmail And Honeypots In Congress

In a candid interview with Human Events editor Jack Posobiec, former Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) alleged that blackmail and sexual honeypot operations are far more prevalent than the American public is aware of.

Cawthorn, who was elected to represent North Carolina’s 11th congressional district at just 25 years old in 2020, described the typical path these lurrid situations take. It often begins at donor dinners or late-night votes, when members unwind with drinks or head back toward Capitol Hill. While many lawmakers prefer socializing with fellow congressmen to avoid complications with staffers or outside interests, invitations can quickly turn strangely personal.

“Normally, the way I found that these things start getting off the ground is that it starts out—you’re maybe at a donor dinner or getting dinner after a late night of votes,” Cawthorn said. “Then, you know, everyone has friends inside of Congress, so you start hanging out with friends. Maybe you’re grabbing drinks, or on the way back to Capitol Hill, heading back to your homes.”

“Then you start building these relationships, and most congressmen like to hang out with other congressmen, just because there are so many problems when you hang out with staffers or people with different angles in other parts of the Beltway, the former lawmaker continued. “I will tell you, normally, the way I came across this is that people start inviting me and saying, “Hey, why don’t you come back? My wife would love to hang out with you, and we can see what could be going on here. I think we’d have a really good time if we all got together in this way.”

“Then you start piecing it together and say, “Wait a minute, what kind of invitation is this? This sounds really weird. What do you mean leave my phone at the house?” That doesn’t make any sense—these random things they’re saying. It becomes very clear what they’re looking for. That’s the big one—“check your phone at the door,” that kind of thing,” he added.

Keep reading

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy SLAPS New York with $73 MILLION Federal Funding Cut for REFUSING to Revoke Illegally Issued Commercial Driver’s Licenses to Illegals

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Thursday that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is withholding a staggering $73,502,543 in federal highway funds from the state of New York.

Because far-left New York Democrats under Governor Kathy Hochul have flat-out refused to revoke thousands of illegally issued nondomiciled commercial learner’s permits (CLPs) and commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) handed out in violation of federal law.

Back in December 2025, The Gateway Pundit reported on the FMCSA audit that flagged New York as one of the worst offenders in the nation for rubber-stamping CDLs to non-domiciled drivers, many of them illegal aliens or migrants whose temporary work authorizations had lapsed.

“When more than half of the licenses reviewed were issued illegally, it isn’t just a mistake—it is a dereliction of duty by state leadership. Gov. Hochul must immediately revoke these illegally issued licenses. If they refuse to follow the law, we will withhold federal highway funding,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy at the time. “This administration will never stop fighting to keep you and your family safe on our roads.”

On Thursday, the Trump administration stripped the state of New York of more than $73 million in federal highway funding after it failed to revoke thousands of improperly issued commercial learner’s permits and CDLs.

Keep reading

Blue Double Standards: California’s Swalwell Case

Media outlets across the country lit up in mid-April with the same jaw-dropping headline: California’s top Democratic contender for governor had just been forced out of the race over explosive sexual misconduct accusations.

In a matter of hours, Rep. Eric Swalwell lost every major endorsement, watched his campaign collapse, and was effectively tossed into the political dumpster.

On the surface it looked like another MeToo reckoning in a party that loves to lecture the rest of us about women’s rights. But scratch the surface, and the real story is far uglier – a textbook case of Blue double standards.

California’s 2026 gubernatorial race was already shaping up as a nightmare for Democrats.

Golden State voters are fed up with years of progressive experiments that delivered sky-high taxes, rampant homelessness, and a cost-of-living crisis that’s driving families out.

For the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011, Republicans have a genuine shot at flipping the state red.

Recent polls told the tale. Conservative TV host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco were trading the top spots with support in the 14-17 percent range.

Democrats were scattered behind them, with Swalwell – until the scandal hit – polling as the strongest in the fragmented Blue field.

Don’t forget California’s peculiar “jungle” primary system. All candidates run on one ballot in June. The top two vote-getters – regardless of party – advance to November.

That means the general election could feature two Republicans, two Democrats, or one of each. With the Democratic vote split among a half-dozen hopefuls, the math was already terrifying for the party of Gavin Newsom. A strong Republican showing could lock them out entirely.

Then came the bombshell. In the first week of April, detailed allegations of sexual assault and misconduct poured out – including claims from a former staffer who said Swalwell assaulted her in a New York hotel room.

More women came forward with stories of inappropriate messages, unwanted advances, and worse. Within days Swalwell suspended his gubernatorial bid and later resigned from Congress.

Democratic leaders raced to distance themselves. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for him to drop out. Nancy Pelosi said the allegations should be handled “outside of a gubernatorial campaign.”

Keep reading

Here’s Who Donated to Eric Swalwell’s Now-Dead CA Gubernatorial Campaign

Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) had a long list of top donors for his unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign, which was derailed by multiple women’s allegations of rape and sexual misconduct. In less than three days, his career was essentially over. The allegations intensified last weekend, when on Sunday, he announced his withdrawal from the gubernatorial race, in which he was the frontrunner. By Tuesday, he officially resigned, just hours after another woman came forward claiming that the former congressman had raped her in 2018.

The New York Post compiled a list of donors to this man, whose known creepiness was widely recognized in Democratic and journalistic circles. He was an attack dog against the Trump administration and served a purpose that earned him protection. But once he ran for office and faced scrutiny, that protection evaporated, especially when rape is involved.

From Hollywood heavyweights to corporate titans and everyday Californians, Eric Swalwell’s donor list spans the elite to average joes.

The California Post reviewed public records and identified more than 1,700 contributors to the disgraced politician’s campaign, with donations ranging from $100 to more than $78,000.

[…]

The Post’s review of Swalwell’s campaign records shows that the ex-congressman was able to raise more than $7.3 million from about 1,700 different contributors.

Swalwell courted big money from Hollywood A-listers and special interests to bankroll his campaign, but his fake squeaky clean image also managed to fool hundreds of working-class people who forked over their hard-earned money.

[…]

Swalwell’s most prominent backers included Hollywood A-listers like Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm — both of whom gave $10,000 — while Sean Penn gave $15,000. Others who plunked down thousands of dollars believing the hype included the late actor and director Rob Reiner ($10K), actors Jon Cryer ($10K) and Ed Helms ($5K), and Bryan Lourd, CEO of Creative Artists Agency ($12,500).

[…]

Money also poured in from businessmen such as venture capitalist Bradley Tusk ($39,200) and Jon Henes ($5K), CEO of C Street Advisory Group, while Elizabeth Naftali ($39K) — a Los Angeles philanthropist and major Democratic donor — funded Swalwell’s campaign along with longtime San Francisco attorney and AI advisor Karen Silverman ($10K).

Keep reading

When Did America Quit Electing Adults?

Politicians are not known for being model citizens. Left or right, if you go into a room full of them, after shaking a few hands, you’re likely to really want to find a restroom to wash yours. Even a casual history buff knows that going back 250 years to the nation’s founding, the stereotype of the sleazy elected official is older than the Constitution itself. 

So, this isn’t an issue of good vs. bad. It’s an issue of maturity. Twenty years ago, if you caught a politician with his pants down, literally, he was shamed out of Congress.

In 1987, Democrat presidential contender Gary Hart, a U.S. senator from Colorado, saw his political aspirations go up in smoke when the Miami Herald broke the news that Hart had a “womanizing” problem. The scandal became known as the “Donna Rice affair,” which effectively ended his candidacy and his Senate career.

When all of this became known, Hart did what you’d expect at the time. He quietly took steps to exit the public stage and maintain a lower profile for the rest of his life until today. He’s still with us at 89 years old, by the way.

History is not without its colorful characters. Wilbur Mills was a congressman from Arkansas in 1974 when the U.S. Park Police pulled his car over because it was 2 a.m., and he didn’t have his headlights on. The officer found that Mills was drunk with injuries to his face from a little brawl he had with a Washington, D.C., stripper whose stage name was Fanne Fox. 

She was in Mills’ car at the time of the traffic stop. And so, when police approached the car, she did what any self-respecting stripper would do when sitting in a car driven by a drunken congressman who had just been pulled over. She jumped out of the car and into the nearby reservoir that sits in front of the Jefferson Memorial, better known as the Tidal Basin.

The press had a field day with this, and Fox now had a new name – “The Tidal Basin Bombshell.” As polarizing as politics can be, Democrats and Republicans alike saw the story for what it was. An embarrassing scandal that eventually took Mills down and ended his career. 

Had this happened today, the Democrats would have painted Mills as almost saintly in his efforts to provide support to a “sex worker.” They would dox the cop who pulled him over, and somewhere along the way, they would have found a way to blame President Donald Trump.

Believe it or not, Mills survived this incident and was re-elected after it, but he lost his clout. His errant ways soon caught up with him, and he faded away in disgrace.

The point is, for better or worse, for Hart and Mills, and other politicians of the era, bad behaviors had consequences, and they paid them like adults. Keep in mind, these were the more extreme cases of political controversy. 

Your everyday congressional rep or senator had to actually do something to earn news, not just spontaneously do a selfie video and vomit what was on their minds at the time.

Keep reading

Wait, Did This Former Trump Official Just Reveal the Voting Rights Act Decision?

Where is the decision on the Supreme Court case involving the Voting Rights Act? Where is Louisiana v. Callais, the case that could weaken the Voting Rights Act, and potentially cause Democrats to tremble? The national consequences of this decision are critical, as a ruling striking down the VRA could lead to total Republican control across the South. Perhaps that’s why the Court is slow-walking in releasing the opinion.

Sean Spicer said on The Huddle that the opinion is finished, but some justices are holding out as long as possible to prevent redistricting. Does that mean VRA is going to be struck down?

“I have been told by reliable sources that the decision is done and the minority is slow walking the dissent so that states do not have time to redistrict,” said Spicer.

So, does this mean we won?

The Callais case revolves around whether the creation of a majority-minority congressional district in Louisiana violates the 14th and 15th amendments. 

Keep reading

Nancy Pelosi Had the Dirt on Eric Swalwell and Used It Like a Pro: Josh Hawley

Sen. Josh Hawley discussed concerns about congressional leadership and accountability during a conversation with Fox News host Jesse Watters, focusing on past intelligence briefings, internal party dynamics, and a new legislative proposal targeting pensions for convicted lawmakers.

Hawley said he believes former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was aware of concerns involving Rep. Eric Swalwell prior to recent developments, referencing a prior FBI briefing.

“I don’t have any doubt about it, Jesse, because he had become a liability,” Hawley said.

He said Pelosi had been informed about potential risks tied to Swalwell as early as 2020.

“And you pointed out she knew all about this,” Hawley said. “She was briefed by the FBI back in 2020 that the guy was a target of a Chinese spy, Fang Fang.”

Hawley also referenced the broader situation involving the alleged spy.

“And by the way, Fang Fang probably got a medal of commendation,” he said. “That’s like the worst espionage assignment in the history of the world.”

He said the situation created political risks for party leadership.

Keep reading

‘Happy Tax Day’: NYC Communist Mayor Zohran Mamdani Posts Menacing Message to New Yorkers

No one loves April 15th more than Democrats as they dream and plan how to spend your money.

On tax day, radical communist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted a menacing message to New Yorkers, reminding them that he is coming for them.

The video starts out with Mamdani telling viewers, “When I ran for mayor, I said I was gonna tax the rich.”

Then, with a grin and an attempt at a bit of Hollywood flair (which translated into creepiness), he leaned menacingly into the camera, tapped the lens and declared, “Well, today we’re taxing the rich.”

“I’m thrilled to announce we’ve secured a pied-à-terre tax, the first in New York’s history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million.”

“This pied-à-terre tax is specifically designed for the richest of the rich, those who store their wealth in New York City real estate but who don’t actually live here.”

“But even so, they’re able to reap the huge financial rewards of owning property in, dare I say, the greatest city in the world. And most of the time, these units are sitting empty since, again, they don’t actually live here. This is a fundamentally unfair system that hurts working New Yorkers.”

Keep reading

Letitia James’ Crusade Against Abortion Pill Reversal Is Also Killing Free Speech

State attorneys general are duty-bound to seek justice for the weak and powerless, not to use their immense power to harass them. But New York Attorney General Letitia James’ policing of private conversations about the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol amounts to a cynical abuse of state power.

Two years ago, James launched a legal assault on Heartbeat International and 11 affiliated pregnancy centers in New York. She claimed the centers and Heartbeat — the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the world — had engaged in false advertising, supposedly deceiving women by sharing scientific findings supporting the safety and effectiveness of APR.

APR is a safe and effective way for a woman to improve her odds of continuing her pregnancy to term after she has ingested mifepristone — the first pill in an abortion drug regimen designed to block progesterone from the growing baby. A worldwide network of more than 1,500 health care professionals is available to prescribe bioidentical progesterone to counteract the mifepristone in order to reverse its effects. Most notably, statistics suggest that more than 8,000 babies have been saved through the abortion pill reversal protocol.

Thousands of smiling — living — babies and emotional testimonies of grateful moms illustrate the success of a chosen medical treatment. And James “has no business butting into the intimate medical decision of [a] … mother.” It’s why Heartbeat and its New York affiliates filed their own lawsuit, arguing that defendant James has provided “no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, material omission, or harm to anyone” in providing free services or speaking about the safety and efficacy of APR.

This week, Heartbeat and its affiliates have their day in court. On Wednesday, April 15, their attorneys argued that James’ hostile lawsuit should be dismissed because it targets free speech and participation in public debate. James’ lawsuit is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Or, more bluntly, James’ efforts amount to a bully’s legal slap in the face to keep small pro-life nonprofits from sharing a life-saving message she doesn’t like.

Her friends have called her a “voice for the voiceless.” She claims to “speak truth to power, and challenge the status quo.” And she frequently talks of “using [her] position to address the needs of those who are locked out of the sunshine of opportunity.”

But the attorney general ought not ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent defense of free speech rights, even when offering medical services. At the end of March, the court delivered an 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, noting that counseling conversations are speech and Colorado cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room. The majority warned that “[t]oday, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease.”

Sensitive to the danger of stifling innovation in medicine, they continued, “Medical consensus, too, is not static; it evolves and always has. A prevailing standard of care may reflect what most practitioners believe today, but it cannot mark the outer boundary of what they may say tomorrow.”

Keep reading