Tag: wrongthink

Will Poland Cancel Elections If The ‘Wrong’ Candidate Wins?

Is Poland also looking to cancel elections and persecute the opposition if a candidate unfavorable to the left-liberal establishment wins? 

After authoritarian forces in Romania banned presidential frontrunner Călin Georgescu from the election and subsequently arrested him, such a move could be repeated elsewhere, including in Poland.

“Poland’s Internal Security Agency (ABA) has reportedly been told to contact its Romanian counterpart what materials they used for the constitutional court in Romania to invalidate the election there,” said Stanisław Żaryn, advisor to the President Andrzej Duda, talked about this development ahead of Poland’s May presidential election on the “Otwarta Konserwa” channel.

The ABW is tasked with securing Poland against potential foreign influences during its election period, but this request seems to be doing the exact opposite. 

According to Żaryn, the ABW asked specifically about what documents had been presented to the constitutional court in Romania, which allowed the court to invalidate the elections, reports wPolityce.

“And this is a certain light bulb that goes on for me in this situation, because it looks as if the team at the ABW was preparing how to prepare arguments, documentation, to possibly challenge the election result, because that is how it is interpreted,” he said. 

Żaryn further stated that he has received information that the ABW is specifically looking to block an election result that certain groups would find unfavorable. 

“This information is surprising, because today we should be preparing ourselves first and foremost to realistically assess Russian actions against Poland and counter them, and not to think about how to document or create documentation that will allow for the invalidation of the elections,” Duda’s advisor added.

Keep reading

Irish Government Freezes Christian Teacher’s Bank Account After He Refused to Use Gender-Neutral Pronouns

The Irish government has frozen the bank account of an Irish teacher after his continued refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns for a student at Wilson’s Hospital School. Enoch Burke, who has spent more than 500 days in jail for refusing to comply with a court order, also had his salary payments halted.

Burke attempted to withdraw funds from his Bank of Ireland account last week but found that he was unable to access his money. The account reportedly holds over €40,000—his personal savings from years of work. The Irish government and courts have frozen these funds and are set to seize them next week.

Burke was previously jailed for contempt of court after refusing to comply with an injunction barring him from entering Wilson’s Hospital School, where he had been suspended following a dispute over the use of transgender pronouns.

The freezing of his bank account marks an unprecedented escalation in the legal battle. Burke maintains that he was upholding the Christian ethos of his school and acting according to his beliefs. The Irish courts have ruled against him at multiple stages, leading to fines, jail time, and now the freezing of his assets.

Keep reading

Bar That Threw Out MAGA Customer Proves Again That Leftists Are the Most Intolerant People on Earth

On March 16, I wrote here about Chatterbox Jazz, a club in Indianapolis where a bartender of the he/she/it variety petulantly grabbed a baseball bat and threatened a MAGA hat-wearing customer to get out of the bar, or else. The place was inundated both with patriots noting the “tolerant” left’s hypocrisy and intolerance, and with leftists cheering on the boneless bartender’s courageous stand against MAGA “fascism.” 

Now, the club itself has issued a statement about the incident, but it’s not what it should have been: an apology and an affirmation that the club welcomes anyone. Instead, Chatterbox doubled down, and also seems to be stretching the truth a good deal beyond the breaking point. “On Friday, March 14th,” it says, “a group of individuals” — yeah, Chatterbox, that’s what the word “group” means, you didn’t have to add “of individuals” at all — “visited Chatterbox and intentionally misgendered and harassed a Chatterbox employee, resulting in them being asked to leave by our staff. They then continued verbally assaulting our patrons and staff, threatened our establishment, and returned to record a video which has now been posted on multiple social media platforms.”

Is that so? It could be, as the video of the incident begins after there has clearly already been friction between the bartender and the woman who is videoing. However, in the video, the bartender tells the woman wearing the MAGA hat to get out of the bar, and after she repeatedly asks him why, he finally says: “Because you’re a Trump supporter.” Later, she asks again why she is being thrown out: “Because I’m wearing a Trump hat.” The bartender immediately replies with enthusiasm: “Yes!” The woman says: “That’s wild!,” to which the bartender replies: “I don’t care. Get out.” 

You’ll notice that even though he/she/xe had several opportunities to do so, the bartender doesn’t give the slightest hint of any intentional “misgendering” or harassment. Instead, he affirms twice that he is throwing the woman out, and threatening her with a baseball bat despite looking as if he had never touched one before in his entire miserable existence, solely because she is wearing a MAGA hat, not, as Chatterbox now claims, because she and her friends had been causing trouble in the bar before the video started.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Could Force IRS To Release Internal Records in Alleged Political ‘Weaponization’ Case

A federal judge could soon rule on whether the Internal Revenue Service falsified records to target companies for tax penalties, according to new court filings on Friday.

Three companies filed a motion on Friday asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the IRS fraudulently “backdated” documents while cracking down on “syndicated conservation easement” schemes, which allow individuals and corporations to offset their taxes by donating land to charitable groups.

The filing is part of a two-year-long Freedom of Information Act case against the IRS. The plaintiffs, Arden Row Assets, Basswood Aggregates, and Delwood Resources, claim IRS agents hit their companies with millions of dollars in tax penalties without proper authorization, and later fraudulently backdated documents to cover up the misconduct.

If the court decides there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the IRS, it could force the agency to release internal records related to the case.

Critics of the tax bureau say the case is a prime example of politicized “weaponization” by the IRS, an agency that has faced extensive budget cuts and layoffs by the Trump administration.

“In the emails between the IRS agents, it’s clear that they know they didn’t properly date the documents, and they seem to have no concern about backdating the forms,” Rod Rosenstein, the former deputy attorney general who is representing the companies suing the IRS, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Rosenstein said it appears that agents were “encouraged to pursue penalties in easement cases” which “may have created pressure to pursue penalties even when they failed to get the required approval.”

Over the past decade, the IRS has launched a crackdown against “syndicated conservation easements,” a tax loophole that allows companies to donate undeveloped land to nonprofit groups for a tax writeoff. The easements have been criticized by some lawmakers who say they’re being abused by companies that buy up low-worth land, obtain inflated land value assessments, and then sell off portions to investors looking for tax breaks.

The lawsuit cited internal IRS emails that appeared to show agents discussing backdating forms that authorized millions of dollars of penalties against the plaintiff companies.

Keep reading

SICK: Pizza Addressed to Murdered Infowars Staffer ‘Jamie White’ Sent to Multiple Conservatives

Unpaid pizza deliveries are reportedly being ordered to numerous conservatives in the name of slain Infowars journalist “Jamie White,” part of a bizarre leftist terror campaign that also includes deadly swatting raids.

Townhall columnist Dustin Grage reported recently receiving a pizza order addressed to White, who was brutally murdered outside his apartment in Austin last week, adding that other conservatives are also receiving similar orders.

“We received a second pizza delivery for ‘Jamie White.’ This is the name of the employee for Info Wars who was murdered,” Grage wrote on X.

“I’m not the only conservative influencer who has received this identical pizza order,” he added.

Grage tagged FBI Director Kash Patel, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and US Attorney General Pam Bondi in the post.

The perverse harassment campaign comes as multiple conservatives have been the victims of swatting raids since Jamie’s murder, with police recently training rifles on Infowars host Owen Shroyer during a swat raid at his home Tuesday night after someone phoned in a false police report.

Keep reading

FBI Investigating “Alarming Rise In ‘Swatting’ Incidents” Targeting Conservative Influencers

FBI Director Kash Patel on Friday responded to a string of ‘swatting’ incidents targeting conservative media figures in recent days, which came on the heels of the Monday morning murder of InfoWars reporter Jamie White.

Multiple conservative content creators, including InfoWars host Chase Geiser, Nick Sotor, Gunther Eagleman, ‘Catturd,’ and Trump impersonator Shawn Farash, have been targeted in swatting incidents, which typically entail fake or prank phone calls to emergency services that trigger an armed response from police officers to a particular address.

“I want to address the alarming rise in ‘swatting’ incidents targeting media figures. The FBI is aware of this dangerous trend, and my team and I are already taking action to investigate and hold those responsible accountable,” Patel wrote on X Friday morning.

On Wednesday, Geiser posted on X that he was “was just swatted again moments ago, just before 2AM,” and that police officers “used a PA system to call me by name and order me to walk out of my house.”

Geiser was swatted twice within a twelve hour period, the first time Tuesday afternoon and again early Wednesday morning just before 2AM. He described the first incident on the Alex Jones Show, noting that he and his family weren’t at home when the police showed up at his house. Geiser said when he met the police in his driveway, they were still receiving  311 messages about his property. “So there was a campaign of swatting my property,” he told Jones.

After the second incident, the Info Wars reporter posted on X that “6 to 8 police officers used a PA system to call me by name and order me to walk out of my house.”

I was handcuffed in the middle of the street, presumably at gunpoint though I couldn’t tell because of the light being shined on my face.

I was then led into the house where my wife was woken up and we were informed that they received a call from someone pretending to be me and threatening to kill my family. –American Greatness

“I was handcuffed in the middle of the street, presumably at gunpoint though I couldn’t tell because of the light being shined on my face. I was then led into the house where my wife was woken up and we were informed that they received a call from someone pretending to be me and threatening to kill my family.” 

Keep reading

MAGA Florida Homeowner Fined $60K for Massive Trump Banners Beats County in Lawsuit

A MAGA-loving Florida homeowner won a lawsuit against Walton County this month after racking up more than $60,000 in unpaid fines for hanging massive pro-Trump banners for several years on the side of his house on County Road 30A.

Walton County code compliance officials told homeowner Marvin Peavy that his various Trump banners violate the scenic corridor code after someone filed a complaint, WJHG reported. Peavy refused to take his banners down, and the county began fining him $50 daily for his displays. Peavy argued the county code violated his First Amendment rights. 

“Their laws cannot supersede my First Amendment right, so they came after my constitutional rights which they cannot do. It woke me up as a patriot,” Peavy told NewsChannel 7 in November. “I’m very happy that they came after me and I woke up, I’ve got great lawyers. We feel very good about what’s going on. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that you can have signs on your home. They cannot do anything about it.”

Keep reading

No Other Land Won an Oscar. Miami Beach’s Mayor Is Trying To Evict a Movie Theater for Screening It

The mayor of Miami Beach, Florida, is trying to terminate the lease of a movie theater for screening No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Miami Herald reported that Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner introduced a resolution to terminate the lease of O Cinema, an independent film theater that rents space from the city, and discontinue more than $60,000 in promised grant funding. The legislation comes after Meiner tried to pressure the theater to cancel the screening.

Florida civil rights groups and First Amendment experts say such government retaliation against the theater for the content of the films it chooses to screen would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

“Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate based on viewpoint or to retaliate against anyone for their speech,” says Daniel Tilley, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida. “Pulling funding from an independent, community-based cinema under these circumstances is patently unconstitutional. The government does not get to pick and choose which viewpoints the public is allowed to hear, however controversial some might find them.”

The Miami Beach mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

However, in a newsletter to Miami Beach residents earlier this week, Meiner wrote: “I am a staunch believer in free speech. But normalizing hate and then disseminating antisemitism in a facility owned by the taxpayers of Miami Beach, after O Cinema conceded the ‘concerns of antisemitic rhetoric,’ is unjust to the values of our city and residents and should not be tolerated.”

On March 5, Meiner sent O Cinema a letter on official city letterhead expressing outrage at the cinema’s decision to screen the film, which documents the destruction of Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

“Here in Miami Beach, our City has adopted a strong policy of support for the State of Israel in its struggle to defend itself and its residents against attacks by the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah,” the letter read. “Airing performances of the one-sided, inaccurate film ‘No Other Land’ at a movie theater facility owned by the City and operated by O Cinema is disappointing.”

This is flagrant government jawboning—an attempt to use the mayor’s bully pulpit and the implicit threat of government action to cow the theater into self-censorship.

O Cinema initially complied.

“Due to the concerns of antisemitic rhetoric, we have decided to withdraw the film from our programming,” Vivian Marthell, CEO of O Cinema, wrote to Meiner the following day. “This film has exposed a rift which makes us unable to do the thing we’ve always sought out to do which is to foster thoughtful conversations about cinematic works.”

However, the theater then reversed course and told the Miami Herald it would continue the screenings after all.

Keep reading

Trump Sues Capital One: Banking Giant Accused of Political Bias

President Donald Trump’s business trust has taken legal action against Capital One, accusing the bank of shutting down its accounts in 2021 due to political bias, allegedly inflicting significant financial damage.

Filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on Friday, the lawsuit, brought by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Eric Trump, alleges that the Virginia-based lender violated consumer protection laws in Florida and other states. The plaintiffs seek financial compensation for what they describe as an unjustified move that disrupted their business operations.

According to the lawsuit, Capital One informed Trump’s business in March 2021 that it would be closing hundreds of accounts holding millions of dollars within two months. The legal complaint broadens its argument by asserting that individuals and businesses across the country are being denied access to financial services due to their political views.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

“Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Capital One’s unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations and Capital One’s unsubstantiated, ‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views,” the lawsuit states.

The filing further alleges that Capital One’s decision reflects an industry-wide trend aimed at pressuring individuals and businesses to conform to certain political ideologies. “Capital One’s conduct is but one example of a systemic, subversive industry practice that aims to coerce the public to shift and re-align their political views,” it claims.

However, Capital One has denied these allegations, asserting that its actions were not politically motivated. “Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons,” a spokesperson for the bank said in a statement.

Keep reading

The Push to End Debanking

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who chairs the US Senate Banking Committee, is spearheading an effort to eliminate regulatory oversight of customer reputational risks in banking.

Scott has introduced a bill designed to put an end to debanking, a controversial practice that has been used to deny financial services to certain businesses and individuals based on subjective risk assessments.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Debanking allows banks to cut off clients deemed to pose “reputational risks.” The Federal Reserve defines this term as “the potential that negative publicity regarding an institution’s business practices, whether true or not, will cause a decline in the customer base, costly litigation, or revenue reductions.”

The broad and vague nature of this definition has led to concerns that financial institutions wield too much discretionary power over who can access essential banking services.

Scott’s legislative push has garnered significant Republican backing, with at least 11 GOP lawmakers co-sponsoring the measure. Major banking industry groups are also lining up in support, including the Bank Policy Institute, which represents many of the country’s largest financial institutions.

“As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I have made addressing debanking a top priority.

“This discriminatory and un-American practice should concern everyone, which is why I’ve led my colleagues in working to find tangible solutions. It’s clear that federal regulators have abused reputational risk by carrying out a political agenda against federally legal businesses. This legislation, which eliminates all references to reputational risk in regulatory supervision, is the first step in ending debanking once and for all,” said Senator Scott.

Keep reading