Tag: politics

The leftist says he will resort to violence to remove and protest the Trump administration

In yet another episode of leftist radicalization, a progressive activist publicly declared that he would “resort to violence” to protest and remove President Donald Trump’s administration. These statements, full of hatred and irresponsibility, expose the true face of a political faction that proclaims itself as a defender of democracy, but at the same time threatens to destroy constitutional order when it cannot impose its agenda.

The individual claimed that the current government is “incompetent” and “slowly leading the country toward an authoritarian regime.” A speech full of contradictions, since it is precisely the left that has promoted authoritarian measures, censorship on social media, and political persecution against opponents. Meanwhile, they accuse Trump of doing what they themselves practice.

This is not the first time that figures on the left or their followers have called for violence as a political tool. In recent years, the United States has witnessed how riots, looting, and attacks on private property have been normalized in the name of progressive causes. From the riots of the summer of 2020 to the assaults on Trump supporters at rallies, the left has shown that violence is not only tolerated in their narrative but actively encouraged as a method of pressure.

The danger of these statements goes far beyond the activist in question. It reflects a political culture that has abandoned democratic debate in favor of radicalism. The progressive left, unable to accept the will of the people and the success of policies that benefit the American working class, resorts to intimidation and threats. This puts the nation’s social and political stability at risk.

While Democrats talk about “protecting democracy,” in practice what they seek is to consolidate power by marginalizing conservative opposition. Citizens see it clearly: a judicial system weaponized against Trump, media persecution to discredit Republicans, and now open threats of violence if they cannot remove the former president and his movement from power.

What is most alarming is that such expressions are rarely condemned by leftist leaders. This complicit silence fuels impunity and opens the door to more violent acts in the future. In contrast, any statement or peaceful demonstration by the right is immediately demonized, distorted, and presented as a “threat to democracy.” Yet another example of the double standard that dominates progressive media.

Keep reading

Woke Politicization of Medicine: The Logical Flaws in Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis and Care

The medical establishment now draws a distinction between gender identity disorder, which it classifies as a mental disorder, and being transgender, which it insists is not. Official diagnostic manuals such as the DSM-5 and ICD-11 separate the issue into two categories:

  1. Gender dysphoria – distress caused by the incongruence between one’s experienced gender and assigned sex.
  2. Gender incongruence – a mismatch between identity and sex that may not cause distress.

The reasoning is that distress often comes not from the incongruence itself but from social rejection, discrimination, or lack of access to transition-related care. Advocates argue that once people transition and receive support, they may no longer feel distress.

This distinction, however, raises serious questions about consistency in medical diagnosis. In nearly every other psychiatric condition, the diagnosis is based on symptoms within the patient, not society’s response.

PTSD, for example, is defined by intrusive thoughts and hypervigilance, not by whether trauma survivors are stigmatized. Depression is diagnosed by changes in mood, sleep, or appetite.

Autism is based on communication and behavior, schizophrenia on delusions and hallucinations. In all these cases, the diagnosis is rooted in the individual, not in external acceptance or rejection.

Research shows that most people who seek gender-related medical care report distress and therefore meet the criteria for dysphoria.

The supposed separation between dysphoria and incongruence often creates confusion, barriers to care, and inconsistent diagnoses across different contexts.

By shifting the focus from internal symptoms to external social variables, psychiatry has departed from the standard medical model.

Keep reading

Texas Bills To Ban Consumable Hemp Products With THC Stall Out During Special Session

After several months of fiery debate and tearful testimonies over the prospect of banning THC statewide, proposed measures to do so have stalled in the Texas House.

Senate Bill 6, which would have created a blanket ban on products containing any “detectable amount of any cannabinoid” other than cannabidiol and cannabigerol, better known as CBD and CBG, non-intoxicating components of cannabis, hasn’t been heard in a House committee after the Senate passed it August 19. The House’s version of the bill hasn’t been heard in its chamber’s committee either.

Ten days might not be long for a bill to sit dormant during a regular legislative session, but with state leadership suggesting that the current special legislative session could wind down in the coming days, lawmakers would have to move fast on THC upon reconvening after Monday’s holiday.

Without further regulations or a ban being discussed by lawmakers in the House, the most likely scenario is that hemp-derived THC remains legal in Texas, but with more enforcement of current laws restricting the drug.

“It seems like a lot of people don’t want anything to do with it,” said Lukas Gilkey, chief executive of Hometown Hero, an Austin-based manufacturer of hemp-derived THC products. “It’s a hot potato.”

Keep reading

Democratic Lawmakers File Bill To Federally Legalize Marijuana As Trump Weighs Rescheduling

As the Trump administration considers rescheduling marijuana, Congressional Democrats have filed a bill to federally legalize cannabis by descheduling it altogether.

In addition to removing the drug from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the new legislation also contains a variety of provisions meant to promote equity and address the collateral consequences of prohibition.

On Friday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), reintroduced the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, alongside three dozen cosponsors.

This is the fourth session in a row that Nadler has put forward the proposal. It passed the House twice under Democratic control while the sponsor served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but it did not advance last session with Republicans in the majority.

“As more states continue to legalize marijuana and public support increases, federal laws must catch up and reverse failed policies criminalizing marijuana,” Nadler said in a press release. “It is long past time to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, expunge marijuana convictions, and facilitate resentencing, while reinvesting in the communities most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.”

Despite uncertainty about its prospects of advancing this Congress—especially at a time when President Donald Trump is actively considering a more modest proposal to simply reschedule cannabis—advocates are again touting the MORE Act as an example of the type of wide-ranging cannabis reform legislation would take necessary steps to right the wrongs of prohibition and promote social equity.

The latest version of the legislation is largely consistent with past iterations, with certain technical changes including updated data in its findings section, for example.

Keep reading

526 Members of Congress Decline to Join Anti-Marijuana Rescheduling Letter to AG Bondi, Just 9 Sign On, Down From 25 in 2024

The signatories include Representatives Pete Sessions (TX), Andy Harris (MD), Robert Aderholt (AL), Paul Gosar (AZ), Chip Roy (TX), Blake Moore (UT), Gary Palmer (AL), David Rouzer (NC), and Mary Miller (IL). No senators signed the letter.

The contrast with last year is stark. In 2024, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) circulated a similar letter opposing rescheduling that drew the support of 25 lawmakers, including several U.S. senators. This year’s version secured less than half as many backers, with support confined entirely to a small bloc of House Republicans.

The letter, led by Congressman Pete Sessions, warns that rescheduling would provide tax benefits to marijuana businesses and drug cartels, while citing concerns about addiction, mental health impacts, and links to foreign crime organizations. Despite these claims, the limited number of signatures—despite the letter being heavily circulated among lawmakers—underscores the declining influence of marijuana reform opponents in Congress.

With public opinion polls consistently showing majority support for legalization and more states moving to regulate marijuana, the shrinking list of congressional voices against reform highlights how rapidly the political landscape is shifting. Opposition to rescheduling, once much broader, is now increasingly isolated to a small group of lawmakers.

Keep reading

Billionaire Donates $500,000 to Campaign of Virginia Republican Winsome Sears After Liberal Holds Up Racist Sign at Her Event

Last week, a liberal woman held up a racist sign to protest Winsome Sears, the current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia who is running for governor there this fall.

Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat running for governor, offered a tepid response to the sign through her campaign.

The incident brought some great news for Sears, however. Robert Johnson, the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), just donated $500,000 to the Sears campaign. Not bad. Not bad, at all.

The Washington Times reports:

Racist sign prompts BET co-founder Robert Johnson to give Winsome Earle-Sears’ campaign $500K

Robert L. Johnson, the billionaire co-founder of Black Entertainment Television, has donated $500,000 to Virginia Lt. Governor Winsome-Sears’ gubernatorial campaign after she was targeted by a racist sign at a school board meeting.

Ms. Winsome-Sears’ campaign said Mr. Johnson made the donation and condemned the “useful idiot” who displayed the sign at an Arlington County school board meeting.

“Madam Lt. Governor, I was so appalled by the racist diatribe displayed by a useful idiot at a recent press event that I choose to show all the voters of Virginia how Black Brothers stand up to defend and support Black Sisters when confronted with unadulterated racism. I have always been a good investor and that’s why I’m investing in you,” Mr. Johnson told Ms. Earle-Sears, according to her campaign.

A spokesperson for Mr. Johnson and his business, RLJ Companies, did not respond to a request for comment.

The sizeable donation comes one week after Ms. Earle-Sears was confronted by a protester hoisting a sign that said: “Hey Winsome, if trans can’t share your bathroom, then Blacks can’t share my water fountain.”

Abigail Spanberger has been leading in the polls on this race for weeks, but Winsome Sears has closed the gap just in the last ten days. The race is now almost a tie.

Keep reading

The Decline of American Diplomacy

A few years ago at a panel discussion at Washington DC’s venerable Tabard Inn, I spotted a face I hadn’t expected to see. But Thomas R. Pickering, even at 90 years of age, stood out. A legend in the annals of American diplomacy, Pickering had served as US Ambassador to the UN, Russia, Israel, and India, among a number of other countries. He retired as the third-ranking member of the State Department at the end of the Clinton administration. So formidable a diplomat was Pickering that, according to longtime New York Times diplomatic correspondent Leslie Gelb, Pickering was seen as “arguably the best-ever senior U.S. representative” to the UN. And that list included the likes of Adlai Stevenson, George Ball, and George H.W. Bush. Gelb’s report was occasioned by Pickering’s sudden transfer from Turtle Bay to New Delhi. Why was he being moved? Well, as Gelb told it, “It is widely believed by Washington cognoscenti that Ambassador Pickering is being posted to India for the worst of reasons: Secretary of State James Baker feels that the career diplomat is casting too big a shadow on the Baker parade.”

Nevertheless, Pickering’s appointment to India was in keeping with a tradition that US presidents had of sending among the most capable men available to New Delhi. During the Cold War, it was a particularly sensitive post given India’s role as a leader of the non-aligned bloc-in other words, those countries that refused either Washington or Moscow’s tutelage. In 1961, John F. Kennedy sent his friend, the famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith to New Delhi. In addition to running point on the war that broke out between India and China in 1962, Galbraith offered sagacious advice to Kennedy before, during, and after the Bay of Pigs and October Crisis. He was also among the few to see the problems ahead in Vietnam.

Following Galbraith some years later in New Delhi was another habitué of Harvard Yard, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan would also serve as UN Ambassador and then later, for a quarter century, as the senior Democratic Senator from New York. Moynihan, a Democrat who had in the 1950s worked for New York Governor Averell Harriman, was sent by President Richard Nixon to help reset relations with India in the aftermath of Nixon’s “tilt” toward Pakistan. While in India, Moynihan proposed, and then carried out, a creative debt write-off program that helped to improve relations with the world’s most populous democracy.

Recent US administrations (Bush, Obama, Trump) have often decided to send career foreign service officers to New Delhi—which is all to the good, after all, Pickering was a career foreign service officer. Such men and women often bring a deft touch in confronting nettlesome problems.

President Joe Biden’s (or the person who was actually making the decisions for Biden) choice for Ambassador to India was, for reasons that remain obscure, the nepo-mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti. The downward trend in quality seems set to continue. Last week, President Trump announced that a former errand boy for Sen. Rand Paul’s office (an office that seems to attract self-important types who think that plagiarizing Wikipedia is a substitute for speechwriting) who somehow parlayed that role into a publishing partnership with the Trump sons (the partnership produced the imaginatively titled Letters to Trump—available for a cool $100 at trumpstore.com) will be his nominee to head the diplomatic mission in New Delhi. Sergio Gor, a 38 year old native of Malta with zero diplomatic or foreign affairs experience (but, as it happens, ample experience as an amateur wedding DJ) will take the reins in New Delhi pending Senate confirmation (or, more likely, a recess appointment). It is said that for the last 7 months Gor has been the Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, but there is little evidence of his time there, as scores of political appointments remain unfilled.

Keep reading

South Korea’s Church Raids: A Political Assault by the New Administration Disguised as Law Enforcement

In the span of just a few months in 2025, the South Korean government under President Lee Jae-myung has launched a series of unprecedented raids against major churches and senior Christian leaders. What makes this wave of crackdowns so alarming is not only its scale, but also its unmistakable political targeting.

The churches under attack—Yeouido Full Gospel Church, SaRang Jeil Church, Segyero Church, and Unjeong Chamjon Church—have something in common: they are at the forefront of defending freedom, practicing biblical convictions, and voicing opposition to the impeachment and imprisonment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol and former First Lady Kim Keon-hee.

Since the National Assembly forced through the impeachment bill in December 2024, these churches have been the backbone of nationwide protests demanding Yoon’s reinstatement and release.

Public opposition to impeachment surged above 50%, largely driven by church-led movements. Today, the overwhelming majority of citizens who still reject Lee Jae-myung’s presidency and call for Yoon’s release are Christians.

The government knows this. And by striking at churches, it is attempting to dismantle the very infrastructure of resistance.

Keep reading

Fulton County Board of Commissioners Defy Court Order – Refuse to Appoint Republican Election Board Nominees – Contempt Hearing Today

Last week, a judge ordered the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to seat two Republican Party nominees: Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.  The two were nominated in May but have yet to be seated.

Two of the Democrat members, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, were able to thwart Commissioner Bridget Thorne’s motion to confirm the two Republican appointees.  Because of the absence of three other members on the seven-member board, the motion was blocked in a 2-2 vote.

On August 4th, Judge David Emerson ordered the two nominees be confirmed as per Georgia law, which states that the the board’s members “shall be appointed” by the “chairperson of the county executive committee of the political party” of whichever party has the “largest number of votes in this state for members of the General Assembly”.

In that order, Judge Emerson stated, “The respondent Board of Commissioners (BOC) contends the “shall” is not mandatory, but rather “directory”, and that the county commissioners can exercise discretion to reject any nominee for any reason.”

The commissioners filed a request to reconsider, which was denied.  So they filed an emergency motion with the Georgia Supreme Court, who moved the docket to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  The appeals court denied the motion as well.

Today, at 9am, a hearing will take place regarding the two members who voted against the appointments, and a third who was not present but is also refusing to appoint the two despite the Court’s orders.

Commissioners Dana Barrett, Mo Ivory, and Marvin Harrington still refuse to vote for the appointments.

Barrett, who has served on the board since November 2022, took to Instagram to post a video calling Frazier and Adams, the Republican nominees, “election deniers” and acknowledging that the Court has ruled against her and her colleagues.  “Our elections are under attack,” she said, before invoking Texas and President Trump’s movement to eliminate universal mail-in balloting and untrustworthy black-box voting machines.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Latest ‘Mediscare’ Gambit Is An Empty Threat

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Democrats are claiming Republicans have put the Medicare program in jeopardy. As usual, the allegation amounts to a combination of speculation and an empty threat.

The latest version claims that, because the “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill will increase the deficit, automatic spending reductions will hit Medicare. But in recent years, lawmakers of both parties have moved to cancel the automatic reductions with regularity — and you can bet dollars to donuts they will do so again.

Implications of Reconciliation

The most recent claim came via a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), requested by several senior congressional Democrats. CBO noted that, because the new law will increase the deficit by roughly $3.4 trillion in the coming decade, the measure could trigger an automatic sequester under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) law enacted in 2010.

PAYGO requires Congress to offset tax cuts or spending increases with commensurate spending reductions or revenue increases, to avoid further increases in federal deficits and debt. If, by the end of the year, lawmakers do not enact offsetting tax increases or spending reductions to “pay for” the estimated $3.4 trillion deficit increase caused by the reconciliation measure, then automatic spending reductions (i.e., the sequester) will kick in under Statutory PAYGO. (The sequester exempts Social Security and certain other programs; Medicare spending is subject to a maximum 4 percent reduction under this sequester.) 

Arcane Congressional Rules

Lawmakers can always waive or otherwise change the sequester requirement under Statutory PAYGO. However, they cannot do so under budget reconciliation, for reasons related to congressional procedure. The reconciliation process occurs when the House and Senate Budget Committees instruct other congressional committees (e.g., House Ways and Means, Senate Finance, etc.) to make changes to programs within their jurisdiction to accomplish budgetary goals (e.g., raise or lower revenue, raise the debt limit, etc.). 

But Statutory PAYGO lies under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Budget Committees. And the House and Senate Budget Committees cannot give reconciliation instructions to themselves, meaning that any waiver of, or change to, Statutory PAYGO cannot occur via the reconciliation process.

In other words, while Republicans passed their agenda bill on a party-line via reconciliation, which is not subject to a filibuster, they will need 60 votes, and therefore Democrat support, to modify or waive PAYGO. That gives Democrats leverage in theory, but it hasn’t worked out that way in practice.

Keep reading