Tag: politics

Report: Democrats Set $20 Million Plan to Win Back Young Men

The Democrats reportedly plan to spend $20 million as part of an elaborate plan to win back all the young men President Donald Trump captured.

According to the New York Times, top Democrat donors have been huddling it up at luxury hotels since the 2024 election in an effort to turn the tide on young men.

“Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places,” national political correspondent Shane Goldmacher wrote.

The Democrats reportedly coded the plan SAM – Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan.

“The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online,” wrote Goldmacher. “It is code-named SAM — short for ‘Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan’ — and promises investment to ‘study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.’”

The plan even reportedly goes so far to recommend that Democrats start “buying advertisements in video games, among other things.”

The report follows the Democratic National Committee (DNC) moving to oust David Hogg as vice chair of the party even though he was appointed specifically to bring young men back into the fold.

“The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has taken steps towards removing gun control activist and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg as vice chairman,” Breitbart News reported earlier this month.

Keep reading

Forcing Lawyers To Join Leftist Bar Associations Violates Basic First Amendment Freedoms

In courtrooms across America, a battle is being waged between state bar associations and attorneys who don’t believe the right to practice law should depend on their willingness to be associated with leftist political candidates and causes.

It’s a classic case of “join or starve,” with many states requiring lawyers to maintain membership in state bar associations, despite — or perhaps because of — the organizations’ increasingly liberal tilt.

In response, the Freedom Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, challenging this forced membership arrangement as a flat-out violation of freedom of association.

The argument is straightforward: Lawyers in Oregon are being forced to be members of an organization that spouts political views they reject. The Oregon bar allows dissenting members to apply for a refund of money spent on political speech but maintains the requirement that all active lawyers be members of the association.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized there can be a violation of the freedom of expressive association when a group speaks and it’s assumed all members support the position taken. But ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon’s scheme, merely requiring the bar to add a weak disclaimer to indicate that not all members of the bar share its opinion when the bar speaks on a given topic.

But the Freedom Foundation lawsuit argues this misses the point entirely. Forced association itself is the problem.

To understand the gravity of the issue, consider a parallel scenario: Imagine a journalist required to be a member of a media association that consistently promotes views contrary to his or her own, or a teacher forced to support an educational organization that advocates for policies they find deeply problematic.

Can you even contemplate the outrage that would ensue if gun owners had to be members of an organization that actively supported, for example, banning all privately owned guns? Even if the organization made it clear that its position on banning guns is not the position of all its members, the very fact that gun owners must be members would itself violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Hyper woke ‘sanctuary city’ mayor’s re-election campaign derailed after sordid love triangle ends in ‘violence’

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s re-election campaign has been derailed after a sordid love triangle in her hyper-woke administration allegedly ended in violence.

Two City Hall employees Marwa Khudaynazar, 27, and Chulan Huang, 26, were fired after facing domestic violence charges from an alleged cheating scandal involving a third unnamed city official.

But critics are now demanding answers over whey another high-ranking official named in the dispute was allowed to keep their job.

Khudaynazar, former chief of staff at the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, and Huang, former neighborhood liaison for Downtown, Chinatown, and the Leather District, were arrested last Thursday.

They were both charged with assault and battery on a household member, while Khudaynazar was also charged with assault and battery on a police officer, according to court documents first reported by the Boston.

Both pleaded not guilty.

Khudaynazar allegedly told officers she suspected her boyfriend of a year was having an affair, so she went on a date with his own boss earlier that night. She then allegedly showed up at his apartment to gloat about her betrayal.

Huang, who lives at the apartment where the dispute took place, allegedly told officers, ‘She went on a date with my boss’, adding ‘they booked a hotel and she came here to rub it in my face’.

City Councilor Ed Flynn and mayoral candidate Josh Kraft have called for Segun Idowu, chief of economic opportunity and inclusion who oversees the department where Huang worked, to be terminated. 

Kraft is now demanding Wu release her internal investigation report that allegedly cleared other city workers of wrongdoing.

Keep reading

Unmasking The Real Threat To America’s Democracy

America isn’t a democracy but a constitutional republic designed to limit majority rule and protect individual rights. This distortion enables narratives that label dissent as dangerous, especially in portraying Trump as a “threat to democracy” — a claim pushed by institutions caught spreading falsehoods about him. What appears as consensus is actually assigned opinion enforced by media and political power, as “conspiracy theories” used to silence dissent are proving to be true.

What follows is not just a list of lies — it’s a pattern of systemic deception that reveals where the real threat lies.

The Concealment of President Biden’s Cognitive Decline: A Betrayal of Voters

For years, concerns about Joe Biden’s mental acuity were dismissed as partisan attacks or “conspiracy theories.” The White House physician declared him fit for office. Staffers claimed he “ran circles around them.” Meanwhile, public appearances were tightly controlled, questions were pre-approved, and scripted answers were passed off as spontaneous.

But in 2024, the dam broke. Biden’s debate performance made his decline undeniable. Millions had already cast primary ballots for a man clearly unfit to serve — yet instead of outrage over the scale of the deception, voters watched passively as Kamala Harris stepped in as the de facto candidate.

It was an unconstitutional transfer of candidacy that the media refused to acknowledge. This wasn’t spin — it was a deliberate, coordinated effort to deceive the American public about who was actually running the country.

All while, the same media complex screamed that Trump was the dictator.

If truth and transparency are foundational to democracy, then this widespread concealment — and the resulting erosion of informed consent — should outrage every American who values honest governance.

COVID-19: From “Conspiracy” to Consensus

When Trump suggested the virus originated in a lab, the idea was branded “xenophobic” and “debunked.” Today, both the CIA and FBI assess a lab leak as probable. This pattern repeated across masks, school closures, natural immunity, and vaccine efficacy.

The CDC quietly redefined “vaccine” to accommodate products that didn’t stop transmission, contradicting officials’ earlier claims. Education leaders denied coordinating with teachers unions on prolonged school closures despite evidence proving otherwise, devastating children’s mental health and education.

Keep reading

Liberals Suddenly Value Fiscal Responsibility After Budget Office Says More Births Will Increase Deficit

Liberals have a new argument for keeping federal money flowing to Planned Parenthood: defunding the organization would cost taxpayers more.

Democrats and abortion advocates are framing the defunding of one of the largest abortion providers in the country as a financial “cost” to taxpaying Americans. Citing estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), they are voicing concern that the GOP’s plan to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood through the GOP reconciliation bill would increase the national deficit by $300 million due to more babies being born.

“About three in four people say they oppose defunding Planned Parenthood health centers. But Republicans do not care — they need to appease their far-right, anti-choice fringe,” Democratic Washington Sen. Patty Murray said on May 14 about the CBO’s estimates. “Although the irony is, in this case, defunding Planned Parenthood would actually cost our country more money in the long term.”

Murray’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Planned Parenthood performed over 400,000 abortions in fiscal year 2023-24 and received more than $700 million in government reimbursements and grants, according to its latest annual report. In contrast, private contributions dropped 31% relative to the previous fiscal year, totaling $684.1 million.

The CBO declined to clarify how the deficit would increase due to the federal cuts in response to a DCNF inquiry.

However, the CBO stated in 2015 that a House bill to block federal funding to Planned Parenthood would increase spending by $130 million over the course of a decade. The reason, CBO explained, was that the bill would reduce “services that help women avert pregnancies” and that “additional births that would result from enacting such a bill would add to federal spending for Medicaid.”

Keep reading

Democrats Always Rally Around The Worst People

Is there a single Democrat you’d trust to water your plants if you went out of town for a week? Is there one you’d ask to watch your kid, even for a minute, in an emergency? The answer you’re looking for is no, you would not. You wouldn’t because you have a brain; you wouldn’t because you’re not an idiot. But mostly you wouldn’t because you see with your own eyes who these people are and what these people do.

If you left your kid with them you’d expect a Democrat to try to “transition” them. Why? Why not? It’s what they do, it’s who they are. It’s what one of their top priorities are, and you can tell everything you need to know about someone by what their priorities are.

If you were an illegal alien, you might be able to trust a Democrat to water your plants. They love illegal aliens like Eric Swalwell likes Fang Fang. But like Swalwell, Democrats are constantly elevating the wrong people.

Ever heard of “LaMonica McIver”? Probably not. She only assumed office after her predecessor, another Democrat, died last year. She won the special election to replace Donald Payne Jr, then the general election in November with 74.4 percent of the vote, so you know you’re dealing with someone elected because of their party, not their intellect. 

I would joke that “She’s single, fellas,” but she apparently not…poor bastard.

Here is where I would list her accomplishments, but she doesn’t have any. She hasn’t been in Congress long enough to have done anything, and she hasn’t. She’s not likely to, either. I mean, she’s a Democrat from Newark who served on the city council. Has anything good come out of Newark?

But she hit and shoved an ICE agent, which makes her wildly popular among Democrats.

How does this idiot, who is on video assaulting a federal officer, become someone a political party elevates as a hero? In a fundraising emails, LaMonica wrote, “The Trump administration just charged me with crimes for engaging in congressional oversight. This is a first — and it’s a flashing red light for our democracy. I conducted oversight at an ICE facility in my district to do my job and my lawful right as a member of Congress. It’s clear: Trump and his administration are more concerned with punishing anyone who dares to speak up than transparency or oversight.”

Keep reading

What The Biden Health Coverup Reveals About The Political Class

Over the weekend, the Biden family announced that former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer. The statement said that the cancer was characterized by a Gleason score of 9 out of 10, indicating it is highly aggressive, and that it has already spread to the bone.

Well-wishes poured in from both the former president’s allies and political opponents as the Bidens reportedly reviewed treatment options. But it didn’t take long for people to note a few questionable details about the nature and timing of this announcement.

First, it happened to come a little over thirty hours before the release of a highly-anticipated book by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson that detailed Joe Biden’s mental decline while in office and the effort by people around him to cover it up and deny it was happening at all. While other books have already come out claiming to tell this story, none have come from journalists as highly respected by the political establishment as Tapper and Thompson.

Also, the day before the announcement, Axios released the full recording of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur, where the president’s difficulty answering straightforward questions was on full display at the same time his allies in the media were trying to claim he was “as sharp as a tack.”

That convenient timing and speed at which some Biden allies, like David Axelrod, came out and said that talk of the former president’s decline should now be set aside because of this diagnosis led to some skepticism about the claim that the cancer was discovered only a few days ago.

That skepticism only grew as doctors began reacting with disbelief that cancer at this late a stage could have either just developed in the past few months or gone undetected for years while Biden was president. That’s especially true considering that prostate cancer is typically easier to discover early than most other cancers due to antigens it releases in the blood that can be detected with a simple blood test—a blood test we know both presidents Obama and Trump had taken while they were in office.

It is certainly possible that no physical health problems were covered up during Biden’s presidency, that his cancer was only detected for the first time a few weeks ago, as his office has said. But many of those most aggressively denying that anything shady is happening with the timing of this announcement will have a much harder time getting the public to believe them because of the blatant and unsuccessful attempt to censor, hide, and deny Biden’s deteriorating mental state in the lead up to the 2024 election.

Keep reading

A Judge Of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned A Judge Previously Rebuked For Political Comments

Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.

His name is Lynn Adelman.

I was wrong in 2020. Irony is very much alive.

This week, a judge was randomly selected to preside at the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. A critic of Trump’s immigration policies, Dugan is accused of obstructing federal law enforcement and facilitating the escape of an unlawful immigrant.

The judge assigned to the Dugan case? You guessed it. Lynn Adelman, 85.

A judge is expected to come to a case like this one without the burden of his own baggage.

Judge Adelman is carrying more baggage than Amtrak in Wisconsin.

The selection of Adelman shows how political commentary by judges undermines the legitimacy of the court system. Now, in a case that has divided the nation, the public will have to rely on a judge who discarded his own obligations as a judge to lash out at conservatives, Trump, and conservative jurists.

Adelman was a long-standing Democratic politician who tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to run for Congress during his 20-year tenure in the Wisconsin Senate. For critics, Adelman never set aside his political agenda after President Bill Clinton nominated him for the federal bench.

Adelman was sharply rebuked for ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent to rule in favor of a Democratic challenge over voting identification rules just before a critical election.  Adelman blocked the law before the election despite a Supreme Court case issued years earlier in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), rejecting a similar challenge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a stinging reversal, explaining to Adelman that in “our hierarchical judicial system, a district court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional just because he thinks (with or without the support of a political scientist) that the dissent was right and the majority wrong.”

Adelman, however, was apparently undeterred. In 2020, he wrote a law review article for Harvard Law & Policy Review, titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Adelman attacked what he described as a “hard-right majority” that is “actively participating in undermining American democracy.” He also struck out at Trump as “an autocrat… disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

Keep reading

Senate Republicans Won’t Work 5 Days A Week To Confirm Trump’s Key Nominees

The first American-born pope, Leo XIV, celebrated his inaugural Mass on Sunday in St. Peter’s Square before a large crowd that included Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, two prominent Catholics in the Trump administration. Missing, however, was our country’s official envoy. When the new pope met with the Vatican’s diplomatic corps on Friday, America’s ambassador wasn’t there. We don’t have one right now. 

Brian Burch has been nominated by President Trump to be the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, but his is one of nearly 80 nominations now languishing on the Senate’s Executive Calendar. Last week, Senate Republicans tried to fast-track Burch’s nomination in time for Pope Leo’s inauguration. Democrats objected. So Republicans, despite having the power to overcome that objection simply by scheduling the vote on a Friday, shrugged and skipped town.

This is becoming a habit. After confirming Trump’s Cabinet in record time, the Republican-led Senate has returned to its traditional two-and-a-half-day work week and lackadaisical work ethic.

The Trump administration is waiting on all manner of assistant secretaries, under secretaries, deputy secretaries, general counsels, and financial officers. As of this writing, the comptroller of the currency and assistant secretary of the Treasury are both awaiting confirmation, as is the director of the Office of Personnel Management, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, and the general counsels for the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development — among more than 50 others. The nominee to be the deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has been sitting on the calendar since mid-March.

Cabinet secretaries are certainly important and often famous. But everyone in Washington knows agencies’ sub-Cabinet-level officers and below are just as critical to executing the president’s agenda. 

The entire country watched the permanent bureaucracy subvert President Trump’s first term. And most Republican voters now understand how critical these appointees are — everyone, it seems, except the people whose job it is to confirm them.

Keep reading

The Covid-19 Crisis: How Political Meddling Threatens Your Health and Medical Freedom.

Doctors who successfully used early COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin faced severe backlash and censorship from medical and government authorities

Hospitals repeatedly blocked effective interventions, putting patients at unnecessary risk by ignoring treatments that could have prevented severe illness

Over 38,000 deaths linked to COVID shots were reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), yet health authorities downplayed these numbers

Health care professionals experienced threats to their medical licenses simply for advocating patient-centered treatments and sharing honest clinical results

Taking control of your medical freedom means knowing your rights, documenting your decisions, and actively choosing doctors who prioritize your health over politics

Trust in hospitals and health institutions is sharply declining because of how the health care industry has handled the COVID-19 pandemic. From forced treatments to draconic lockdown mandates, people all over the world suffered greatly. Even doctors who figured out effective treatments that helped save lives were vilified for spreading “misinformation.”

One such case is Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Texas-based physician who has treated COVID-19 patients during the height of the pandemic. During her time working in a hospital setting, she observed firsthand how patients recovered quickly using treatments such as ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies. All of this, and more, was discussed in her interview with Tucker Carlson featured above.

Why Vaccine Safety Suddenly Became a Political Battlefield

Getting vaccinated was once viewed as a straightforward part of health care. You’d go your doctor, get your shot, and move on with life, confident you’d done the right thing for your health. While many have criticized vaccinations and their adverse effects on human health, the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 virus put the entire field under the watchful eyes of the public.

Now, getting the shot isn’t just a health care choice — it’s deeply entwined with politics. Doctors who tried treating their patients with methods outside the official rules faced intense backlash. Bowden shares her side of the story:

• Early treatment is crucial — Using drugs like ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, she successfully helped thousands of patients recover quickly and fully. Recounting her experience in 2021:

“[M]onoclonal antibodies came about, and those worked great. I mean, I could get as many doses I wanted. I’d get them the next day. I’d just contact the manufacturer, say, I need 200 doses to be at my doorstep. Great. They worked wonderfully. People turned around very quickly.”

• Authorities pushed back against treatments that worked — One reason is that these early treatments undermined the vaccine-focused public health strategy. Powerful organizations insisted vaccines were the only real solution, dismissing alternatives. If patients could recover fully without the vaccine, fewer people would rush to get vaccinated, and Big Pharma wouldn’t like that.

“So this is following the rollout of the COVID shots. The government is upset because people are not buying it. People are not getting them. There’s very low uptake, very low interest. There’s suspicion of these shots,” Bowden says.

“So in March, they started their PR campaign. The government, they went after ivermectin. The FDA put something on their website about, you can’t use ivermectin for COVID. Biden doled out $11.5 billion to groups around the country. Initially, it started with 275.

It went up to 17,000 influencers, church groups, sports leagues, all sorts of people just funneling out taxpayer money to go after doctors like myself that were spreading ‘misinformation’ and to push people to get these COVID shots.”

Keep reading