Month: June 2024

Connecticut Sun guard DiJonai Carrington unleashed a race-hustling tirade against rookie sensation Caitlin Clark, claiming the Indiana Fever guard’s name is being used to “justify” racism and homophobia against black lesbians in the WNBA.

“Dawg. How one can not be bothered by their name being used to justify racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia & the intersectionalities of them all is nuts,” Carrington whined Thursday on X.

“We all see the s***. We all have a platform. We all have a voice & they all hold weight. Silence is a luxury.”

Carrington’s meltdown occurred shortly after Clark diplomatically stated that her main focus is playing basketball — not being pulled into divisive culture wars.

As a reminder, Carrington was booed by fans in attendance at a Sun home game on Monday after bumping Clark, and then openly mocking her.

pic.twitter.com/VaXFTFEP2Z

— Dan Zaksheske (@RealDanZak) June 10, 2024

Despite that reality check on Monday, Carrington persisted in airing out perceived grievances on Thursday:

WARNING: The following post contains language that some viewers may find offensive.

Dawg. How one can not be bothered by their name being used to justify racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia & the intersectionalities of them all is nuts. We all see the sh*t. We all have a platform. We all have a voice & they all hold weight. Silence is a luxury.

— dιjonaι carrιngтon♛ (@DijonaiVictoria) June 13, 2024

The latest contrived drama further worsened Thursday, after two reporters for The Athletic — a sports website owned by the left-wing New York Times — tried to bait Clark with race-hustling traps.

Jim Trotter, a columnist with The Athletic, asked Clark how she feels about her name being invoked in the ongoing culture wars.

The 22-year-old former NCAA scoring champion said she ignores all the noise and instead focuses on her game.

“It’s not something I can control, so I don’t put too much thought and time into thinking about things like that,” she said. “To be honest, I don’t see a lot of it.”

“Like I said, like, basketball is my job. Everything on the outside, I can’t control that so I’m not going to spend time thinking about that,” Clark added.

She continued: “People can talk about what they want to talk about, create conversations about whatever it is. But for myself, I am just there to play basketball. I’m here to have fun. I am trying to help our team win, obviously.”

These low life race hustlers, like @JimTrotter_NFL will not stop until they can get her to say something they can use against her (probably call her a racist) – or say something they can twist for their own sick political ideology.
Parasites of society

pic.twitter.com/YIHK9PPibv

— piercheney (@LVpolitic) June 13, 2024

Also on Thursday, The Athletic’s James Boyd asked Clark how she feels when people “use your name for racism, misogyny, whatever.”

Clark once again responded deftly to the loaded question by making a blanket condemnation of anyone who uses her to push their own divisive agendas.

“I think it’s disappointing,” she said. “Everybody in our world deserves the same amount of respect. The women in our league deserve the same amount of respect. People should not be using my name to push those agendas. It’s disappointing. It’s not acceptable.”

She continued: “Just treating every single woman in this league with the same amount of respect is just a basic human thing that everyone should do. Just be a kind person and treat them how you would want to be treated.”

Woke sports media are so shook by Caitlin Clark that now they are arguing her name is being used to promote racism and homophobia and questioning her about it. Total upside down world. pic.twitter.com/gSxR2yObaP

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 14, 2024

Sports pundit and podcaster Jason Whitlock dismissed the manufactured left-wing attacks, claiming Clark’s name is being “weaponized” to promote racism and homophobia.

“Can someone direct me to the examples of people using Clark’s name to promote racism and homophobia? They just made it up,” Whitlock wrote Thursday on X.

“So now the race baiters can go on air and say: ‘Even Caitlin is bothered by bigots using her.’”

Can someone direct me to the examples of people using Clark’s name to promote racism and homophobia? They just made it up. So now the race baiters can go on air and say: “Even Caitlin is bothered by bigots using her.”

— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) June 14, 2024

Whitlock also said he believes the promotion of this talking point “feels orchestrated.”

“Caitlin – the target of racist attacks – has been positioned to speak against social media bots who use her name to promote ‘racism.’ This is how the left pivots conversations,” he wrote on X.

This feels orchestrated by handlers — Caitlin’s handlers. Caitlin – the target of racist attacks – has been positioned to speak against social media bots who use her name to promote “racism.” This is how the left pivots conversations. They’re arguing that Clark’s fans are the…

— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) June 14, 2024

Whitlock and other sports journalists have openly stated they believe Caitlin Clark is being targeted and bullied because she’s a white heterosexual in a league better known for being black and lesbian.

Women’s basketball decision-makers are not dumb. They’ve been bullied by the BLM-LGBTQIA+Silent P Alphabet Mafia bigots. Same cowardice that built George Floyd statues, turned Juneteenth into a federal holiday, codified same-sex marriage, allows “kid-friendly” drag shows, let…

— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) June 8, 2024

Similarly, Outkick writer Bobby Burback observed on X: “This is seriously mind virus stuff. Black women are openly bullying, belittling, and targeting Caitlin Clark — but the black women are the victims?”

This is seriously mind virus stuff.

Black women are openly bullying, belittling, and targeting Caitlin Clark — but the black women are the victims? https://t.co/SkDbAQawyr

— Bobby Burack (@burackbobby_) June 14, 2024

In an insightful Outkick column decrying the hypocritical race-baiting of jealous WNBA players, Burack wrote: “Very few people dare to say this, but it’s undeniable: the toxicity around Caitlin Clark emanates solely from black women and black media figures taking issue with a little white girl from Iowa ascending atop a historically black sport.”

He continued: “She’s either going to be seriously injured on the court by some vulture like Chennedy Carter, smeared as a racist by the rabble-rousers in the media, or cave and accept a role as a woke activist.”

Let’s hope Clark remains as level-headed as she has been so far and doesn’t bend the knee to venomous left-wing mobs.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post WNBA Player Loses It, Says Caitlin Clark’s Name Is Used for ‘Racism’ and ‘Bigotry’ in Deranged Rant appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The end of the Petro Dollar, courtesy of Antonio Graceffo

The internet is suddenly overwhelmed with stories about the end of the petrodollar, claiming that the US contract with Saudi Arabia to sell oil in USD expired on June 9th after fifty years.

However, no such petrodollar contract exists. Consequently, it cannot have an expiration date. The agreement was not to sell oil in dollars but to price oil in dollars and for the Saudi central bank to hold US government debt as reserves.

In return, the US provided security to Saudi Arabia and allowed it to purchase US debt at the issue price before it hit the market. This agreement has no expiration date. Articles claiming otherwise are disinformation.

The story about the end of the petrodollar is not being covered by any major media outlets but has flooded Twitter and appears on fringe websites, particularly those related to hacking, cryptocurrency, and gold.

These sources have frequently predicted the demise of the dollar for the past twenty years. The narrative is also being propagated and rebroadcast by social media accounts linked to China and various Arab and Islamic entities that support Hamas in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

This petrodollar article seems to be part of a larger campaign to discredit US achievements, including a recent spate of content challenging the Moon landings, all tied to US support for Israel against Hamas.

Many of the related articles and comments state that Saudi Arabia’s shift away from pricing and selling oil in dollars would signal the end of the US dollar as the global currency.

While this may or may not be true, such a significant shift, often described as the death of the dollar and a complete overhaul of the global economic system, should be major news.

However, the story is not appearing in any mainstream media outlets. One would expect that a looming catastrophe of this magnitude would have been reported before it happened, but most of these posts and articles have only surfaced since June 9th.

This discrepancy suggests that the narrative might be part of a broader disinformation campaign rather than a reflection of actual events.

The US and Saudi Arabia are finalizing an enhanced security deal that will elevate the US defense commitment to Saudi Arabia. Although not as extensive as the US-Japan security treaty, it includes formal guarantees to defend Saudi Arabia if attacked.

The deal provides Saudi Arabia with advanced access to US weaponry and cooperation in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Additionally, it grants the US access to Saudi airspace for protecting the interests of the US and its allies.

This agreement is part of a broader geopolitical strategy that includes potential normalization of Saudi-Israeli relations and addressing regional threats, particularly from Iran. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has agreed to halt Chinese arms purchases and restrict Beijing’s investments in the kingdom.

The conspiracy articles claim that Saudi Arabia is now free to sell oil in other currencies, but Saudi Arabia was always free to do so. They have chosen not to because other currencies are less stable and less convertible than the dollar, and this has not changed.

Over the past five years, there have been reports of Saudi Arabia discussing the possibility of trading oil in yuan, rubles, or cryptocurrencies with China, Russia, and other nations, but nothing has come of these discussions. The Saudi Riyal is pegged to the dollar, and much of its foreign currency reserves are held in US dollars and dollar equivalents.

Now that Saudi Arabia has officially joined BRICS, speculation has increased about them accepting rubles, yuan, or a synthetic BRICS currency or cryptocurrency for oil trades. However, this remains unlikely for the same reasons as before.

The ruble is a pariah currency, useless outside of Russia. The yuan is semi-convertible and semi-market, with its value largely pegged to the US dollar and controlled by China’s central bank, limiting the influence of market forces on its exchange rate.

The other BRICS partners, Brazil, India, South Africa, and now Ethiopia, have weak currencies that are largely useless outside their home countries. The UAE currency is arguably the best of the lot, mirroring the Riyal by being pegged to the dollar and backed by US dollar reserves. However, as an oil-producing nation, the UAE will not be buying oil from Saudi Arabia.

Brazil and China have discussed creating a cryptocurrency composed of BRICS currencies, but combining them would make the currency weaker than the yuan alone. Additionally, oil cannot be priced in these other currencies nor can they be used as units of account due to their fluctuations against the global currency, the dollar. Therefore, the rational choice for Saudi Arabia is to continue using the dollar.

The other parts of the agreement with the US are crucial incentives for Saudi Arabia to continue its partnership with the US. By being allowed to purchase new US government debt at the issue price, Saudi Arabia effectively receives a discount and can earn more from value increases than countries buying on the open market.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia relies on US military protection due to ongoing threats from Iran and the persistent Shiite-Sunni divide. The region’s instability, exacerbated by the Israel-Hamas conflict and Iran’s support of terrorist groups, underscores this need.

While Beijing might desire a US troop withdrawal, potentially replacing them with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), no country has agreed to such a presence. Even Djibouti, hosting the only official overseas PLA base, also accommodates US and other international bases.

Sorry, America haters, the petrodollar is here to stay and with it, US economic and military hegemony.

The post The End of the Petrodollar? No, the Petrodollar is Here to Stay appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Are various members of Congress, who paid some $17 million in taxpayer funds to silence people who brought sexual misconduct claims against them, now going to be investigated, tried, and convicted of felonies, like President Trump? After all, they didn’t report those payments as campaign contributions.

That’s the suggestion that has been raised in a congressional hearing.

Congressmen paid $17 million of TAXPAYER MONEY for undisclosed hush payments to cover up sexual harassment claims.

Meanwhile candidate Trump allegedly used HIS MONEY for a $130,000 hush payment and he’s convicted of 34 felonies for not disclosing.https://t.co/DZw3hYyuXH pic.twitter.com/s3odKj1CmW

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 31, 2024

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against President Donald Trump over business reporting issues, described as a “hush money” case because of testimony from ex-porn star Stormy Daniels, likely will be overturned, witnesses have told Congress.

And given the multiple constitutional errors allowed by Judge Juan Merchan, whose daughter is a Democrat activist and was fundraising off her father’s courtroom decisions during the trial, one member has defined what the entire exercise was about:

“This irony here is that this is going to be vacated and this trial was all about trying to influence an election using the process as the punishment,” charged U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

His comments came in a hearing on Bragg’s scheming against Trump held by the House Judiciary Committee.

Bragg charged Trump with 34 felonies based on a handful of alleged business reporting violations which were misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired. Bragg, however, filed them as felonies claiming they were in support of some other, unidentified, crime.

They essentially involved payments to a Trump lawyer who then paid Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair, which both individuals have denied happened.

Witnesses including Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor both told Congress the conviction almost certainly will be overturned because of Merchan’s apparently willful failures to follow the Constitution.

Massie took the entire case apart in a few minutes of comments during the hearing;

Is Congress’s $17 million sexual misconduct hush money fund campaign finance violations?

Rep. Thomas Massie highlights that Congress’s hush money payments would be considered campaign finance violations under Alvin Bragg’s novel theory used to target President Trump.

“Congress… pic.twitter.com/pFPPkeG3VG

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) June 13, 2024

A report at Twitchy cited Massie’s comments:

Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct inside of the offices in these buildings. And what’s more, is that it was taxpayer money. The allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own money.

But here in Congress, there might be some here on this dais — I mean, I’m for turning loose ALL of these records — who had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges, the hush money. I bet there’s some over there, there may be some over here. I don’t know, but I do know it’s taxpayer money. And I do know that not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign finance expense. Is the FEC going to investigate the $17 million dollars that Congress has paid behind closed doors for these sexual misconduct allegations?

The report explained, “We imagine many representatives suddenly got obsessed with staring at their shoes at that moment. And then Massie said he might file a complaint so the FEC WOULD investigate Congressional hush money. We wouldn’t bet against him doing that. ”

Massie noted that those hush money payments by members of Congress, to suppress various sexual misconduct claims inside their congressional offices, would be considered campaign finance violations under Bragg’s theory.

The committee hearing specifically was held to examine Bragg’s office actions, as multiple prosecutors earlier had rejected the idea that there was any evidence to pursue a case against Trump.

$17,000,000+ of TAXPAYER $$ paid out for sexual misconduct of the Congress.. No issues at all..

Trump pays $130,000 of his OWN $$ and he gets charged with felonies!

What a frigging disgrace!! No wonder most Americans have no faith in the US government! https://t.co/oXXYeHbjTx

— Thomas O’Connor ’62 baby, #GodBlessAmerica (@TheyCallMeTomO1) June 13, 2024

This article originally appeared on WND.com.

Copyright 2024 WND News Center

The post After Trump, Will U.S. Lawmakers be Charged for $17M in Hush Money? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In celebration of Women Veterans Day, June 12, 2020, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) paid tribute to female Soldiers, past and present who have supported the group’s mission. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Alexis Washburn-Jasinski)

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has proposed to include a provision in the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that mandates draft registration for women.

Under the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), not only will men aged 18 to 26 be automatically registered for selective service, but an amendment also proposes mandatory draft registration for women.

Please note that the version of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by the House of Representatives is distinct from the version advanced by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In May, the FY25 NDAA received strong bipartisan support as it was approved by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). The vote was overwhelmingly in favor, passing 57 to 1.

On Friday, the House of Representatives approved its version of the bill to automatically register men aged 18 to 26 for selective service.

This automatic draft registration system would replace the existing system from 1980, which allows young men the freedom to decide whether or not to sign up for the draft.

The new legislation was introduced by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), a former Air Force officer, and was endorsed by HASC Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.).

The House version of the NDAA states:

Automatic Registration: The Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) is amended by striking section 3 (50 U.S.C. 3802) and inserting the following new section 3:

“SEC. 3. (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this title, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, shall be automatically registered under this Act by the Director of the Selective Service System.

“(2) This section shall not apply to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) for so long as he continues to maintain a lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States.

The bill was approved in the House with a vote of 217 to 199. Among those votes, 211 Republicans supported the measure, while Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), Thomas Massie (KY), and Matt Rosendale (MT) voted no. On the other hand, 196 Democrats voted against the bill, with six breaking ranks to vote in favor. The legislation now advances to the Senate for further deliberation.

On the Senate side, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) advanced the NDAA with a 22-3 vote. U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) issued statements highlighting the bipartisan nature of the bill, despite Reed’s own vote against it due to concerns over budget caps and potential harm to military funding.

According to the proposal, “Amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service.”

Screenshot: National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025

Read the following press release:

U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that the Committee voted 22-3 to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025. The bill now heads to the Senate floor for consideration.

Senator Reed commented: “I am glad that this year’s NDAA makes important progress in a number of areas, including a well-deserved pay raise for military servicemembers, powerful new security initiatives in the Indo-Pacific, and significant support for technologies like counter-drone defenses and AI. However, I regret that I needed to vote against passage of this bill because it includes a funding increase that cannot be appropriated without breaking lawful spending caps and causing unintended harm to our military. I appreciate the need for greater defense spending to ensure our national security, but I cannot support this approach.

“Passing the NDAA takes bipartisanship – that means you don’t win everything – and I’m grateful that my colleagues share a common agreement that getting this bill to the Senate floor and ultimately the President’s desk is our paramount responsibility. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to find practical ways to strengthen this year’s defense bill.”

Senator Wicker also commented: “This bill shows there is bipartisan support for doing more to maintain deterrence and protect American interests. I am encouraged that many of my colleagues have joined me in the conversation about the need to invest more in our national defense. I look forward to discussing the peace through strength vision I have laid out in the months to come. This year’s NDAA results are a testament to the tradition of bipartisanship, vigorous debate, and good working order on which this committee prides itself.”

Committee approval is the first step in a months-long process to establish defense funding levels and set policies for the Defense Department and the Energy Department’s national security programs. The bill must now be debated and voted on by the full U.S. Senate. A separate measure will make its way through the U.S. House of Representatives.

Once both the Senate and House pass their versions of the bill, they must then be reconciled in a bicameral conference committee, and then approved by each chamber before a final version may be sent to the President to be signed into law.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) vehemently criticized the new proposal, stating, “You can go straight to hell. Over my dead body. [House GOP]”

In a subsequent post, Rep. Roy declared, “This is for my daughter. Non-negotiable. And if Republicans want to engage in this – screw them too.”

Rep. Mike Davis (R-UT) also expressed his opposition, saying, “We will not draft women. I stand with [Chip Roy] — this will happen over my dead body.”

Below is the FY25 NDAA Executive Summary approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

The post BREAKING: Senate Armed Services Committee Proposes Mandatory Draft Registration for Women in FY25 Defense Policy Bill appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Credit: Fort Bend County Jail

Taral Patel, a 30-year-old Democratic candidate for Fort Bend County Precinct 3 Commissioner, was arrested and charged with felony online impersonation and misrepresentation of identity.

Patel, who had been vying for a significant political role, was caught in his own web of lies after meticulous investigations by local authorities unraveled his scheme.

The investigations revealed that Patel had created fake social media accounts to disseminate derogatory and racist remarks, falsely attributing them to his opponent’s supporters. This deceit was not only intended to discredit his Republican adversary but also to manipulate public opinion by playing the victim card.

Patel, who faces a potential sentence of two to 10 years in prison, was apprehended by the Texas Rangers during a roadside stop on Wednesday, June 12, Covering Katy reported.

According to the arrest warrant, Patel is charged with two counts of Felony Online Impersonation and one Class A misdemeanor charge of Misrepresentation of Identity, a violation of the Texas Election Code.

The warrant suggests that Patel’s deceptive actions targeted both his Democratic primary opponent, Abrahim Javed, and his general election opponent, Republican Andy Meyers.

Patel’s deceptive tactics began in October 2022 when he allegedly used the identity of a man from Needville named Patrick Ernst to create a Facebook page under the pseudonym Antonio Scalywag.

The Scalywag account claimed allegiance to Donald Trump and frequently posted positive comments about top elected Republican officials but consistently expressed dislike for one particular Republican, Andy Meyers.

As the election season intensified, Scalywag began posting support for Meyers coupled with derogatory and racist comments, creating a false impression that Meyers’ support base was primarily racist.

“I am against false gods and their worshippers (sic) winning office in a Christian nation. I am with Meyers ALL THE WAY because he serves Jesus, unlike Patel and his followers who worship Monkey and Elephant,” one Scalywag post said.

Source: Covering Katy

Here are some of Patel’s racist comments:

Source: Arrest Warrant

Patrick Ernst was brought in for questioning at the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office after suspicions arose regarding his involvement. Affiant, the investigating officer, met with Ernst on February 2, 2024, and confirmed his identity through official databases and documents.

During the interview, Ernst admitted to being the person depicted in a photo used on the Facebook account of Antonio Scalywag. He explained that the photo, featuring himself and his wife, was originally posted on his wife’s business website.

Ernst further disclosed that he had been alerted to the impersonation by a concerned individual named Bassam Syed. Affiant also presented Ernst with Facebook posts attributed to Antonio Scalywag, which Ernst denied writing.

The District Attorney’s office spent months working on this case, issuing subpoenas to Facebook and Google. The data obtained from these subpoenas matched Patel’s address, phone number, Texas driver’s license number, bank card number, and other personal information.

“Affiant has reason to believe and does believe that: beginning on or about October 20, 2022, and continuing through May 4, 2024, before the making and filing of this complaint, in the County of Fort Bend, in the State of Texas, TARAL VIPUL PATEL, an Asian/Pacific Islander/Non-Hispanic male… did then and there, commit the offense of Online Impersonation, a third degree felony, to wit: Taral Vipul Patel, without obtaining Patrick Ernst’s consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten any person, did then and there use the persona of Patrick Ernst to create a web page using the name “Antonio Scalywag” on a commercial social networking site, namely Facebook; and/or post or send one or more messages using the name “Antonio Scalywag” on or through a commercial social networking site, namely Facebook,” the arrest warrant reads.

Patel is currently held with a bond set at $20,000 for the felony charge and an additional $2,500 for the misdemeanor. Should he fail to post bond, he is scheduled to appear before a magistrate on Thursday morning, Fox News reported.

The post Democrat Commissioner Nominee Arrested in Texas for Staging Racist Attacks on Himself to Frame Republican Opponent appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Wrestling superstar Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, has said he is willing to run for president or vice president and “will rule with an iron fist.”

Hogan, 70, discussed a potential run during an interview on Fox News on Friday.

“We need somebody in there that’s got some common sense, you know what I’m saying? So if you need a president or a vice president, I’ll volunteer and take this country over, and I’ll rule with an iron fist,” Hogan told the hosts of “Fox & Friends.”

Hulk Hogan tells Fox & Friends whether he’d run for office.

“I’ll rule with an iron fist, a flat tax, nothing but common sense. I know right from wrong, brother!” https://t.co/LV4hszdhN3 pic.twitter.com/LrqtriBbzi

— Zachary Leeman (@WritingLeeman) June 14, 2024

Hogan said his policies would include “a flat tax and nothing but common sense.”

“I know right from wrong, brother!” Hogan said.

Total surrender and dedication to Jesus is the greatest day of my life. No worries, no hate, no judgment… only love! pic.twitter.com/gB43hTcLU6

— Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) December 20, 2023

Hogan had considered running for Florida Senate in 2018 but ultimately decided against it.

The WWE Hall of Famer has been doing a media tour to promote his new “Real American Beer.”

Hogan told Fox News earlier this week that he was inspired to start his own beer company after Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney fiasco.

REAL AMERICAN BEER, BROTHER: Wrestling legend @HulkHogan has entered the ring with a new American-made beer aimed at bringing the nation back together. pic.twitter.com/yq7gvylIC5

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 13, 2024

“I had this crazy idea because I saw how competitive the beer industry was, and I saw what happened with Bud Light and their whole promotion that crashed and burned. I saw this crazy open lane,” Hogan said.

The post WATCH: Hulk Hogan Says He is Willing to Run for Office — and ‘Will Rule With an Iron Fist’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Friday, the Financial Times reported that Boeing acknowledged some parts of their jets contain counterfeit titanium from China.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reported that Boeing had told officials they had received titanium parts containing counterfeit documentation.

Boeing bought the counterfeit components from Kansas-based aerostructure manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems.

In the past, Spirit AeroSystems has had problems with quality issues.

The Financial Times reported Spirit AeroSystems received the titanium from China, where its documentation was reportedly falsified.

The FAA said in a statement, “Once we realized the counterfeit titanium made its way into the supply chain, we immediately contained all suspected parts to determine the scope of the issues.”

Boeing and Airbus planes were constructed with ‘fake’ Chinese titanium that could cause their jets to break apart in mid-air, FAA fears https://t.co/3M2oK1tjda pic.twitter.com/6ndmFYsbI1

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 14, 2024

Per The Daily Mail:

Airliners manufactured by Boeing and Airbus have components made from titanium that was sold with fake documentation.

The Federal Aviation Administration revealed the problem after Boeing reported it to the agency when it was notified by parts supplier Spirit AeroSystems.

Spirit is the same company that made the door on the 737 Max plane that suffered a door blowout on January 5 and began Boeing’s recent spate of problems.

The FAA said it was ‘investigating the scope and impact of the issue’ and how it could affect the safety of the unknown number of planes using the parts.

In recent months, Boeing has struggled with dozens of quality issues.

As recently as last week, flames were seen sparking from an Air Canada Boeing jet shortly after takeoff.

READ:

Mid-Air Horror: Flames Erupt from Air Canada Boeing Jet During Takeoff (VIDEO)

The post Counterfeit Chinese Titanium Discovered In Some Boeing Jets, Per FAA appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In the summer of 1862, Katherine (Kate) Chase, 22, was the toast of Washington. “The Belle of the North,” she hosted parties that brought together the leading Republican politicians and the Union’s military brass. General Carl Schurz declared that there was “something imperial in the pose of the head, and all her movements possessed an exquisite natural charm. No wonder that she came to be admired as a great beauty and broke many hearts. After the usual commonplaces, the conversation at the breakfast table, in which Miss Kate took a lively and remarkably intelligent part, soon turned itself upon politics.”

More than a year had passed since the South had launched its attack on Fort Sumter, and in the summer of 1862, the war was not going well for Lincoln. The First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 taught the North that the war would not be a stroll to victory. The Peninsular Campaign in spring and summer 1862, in which the Grand Army of the Potomac led by General George McClellan attempted to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, had collapsed into ignominious retreat. At the end of August, the Union lost another major battle at Second Bull Run. Lincoln realized that, short of a major battlefield victory, he had little chance of reelection in 1864. 

Kate was no idle spectator to this. She knew Lincoln and McClellan. Massachusetts’s Senator Charles Sumner admired her. She was the daughter of Salmon Chase, Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury, who had vied with Lincoln for the Republican nomination in 1860 and was eager to run again. And she was a good friend of Lincoln’s private secretary, John Hay—at least in Tom Klingenstein’s startling new play, Our American Queen. Klingenstein’s drama centers on Kate’s sacrificial decision to marry the wealthy governor of Rhode Island, William Sprague, to acquire the resources to finance her father’s second run for the White House. In Klingenstein’s telling, Kate must turn away the man she really loves, John Hay.

I don’t know whether this is biographical detail or dramatic license. For the purpose of the play, however, it is a way of underscoring the personal costs of political ambition. Kate is not forced into an opportunistic marriage. She chooses it with eyes wide open as to the character of Sprague, who regards her as an ornament to display, much like the diamond- and pearl-studded tiara he gives her as an engagement present. Sprague is a boor, a philanderer, a heavy drinker, and someone who is indifferent to the literature and poetry that delight Kate. 

Why does she choose this path? She is not bought; she isn’t enamored of Sprague’s wealth. She isn’t sold; her father insists she should marry him only if she loves him. Klingenstein rightly leaves us to ponder. One clue to her character is Kate’s unanswered longing for her father’s affection. At age 9, after her mother’s death and Salmon’s remarriage, Kate was shipped off to a boarding school and left to languish there during the Christmas holidays and on her birthday. The play opens with the adult Kate brooding over a cake that stands for all those missed occasions. 

Salmon Chase is not a monster, but he is blinded by his vanity. He regards Lincoln as a rude and undeserving upstart. Think of Chase as the upright Never Trumper who can’t get over the success of a bumptious vulgarian. He is as incapable of recognizing Lincoln’s merits as he is of seeing his own lack of warmth and compassion. Kate desperately wants his fatherly love, but all that is available is his high-minded approval. 

Meanwhile, the already married General McClellan is attempting to entangle Kate in an affair, and the hesitant John Hay is sharing his intoxication with the poetry of Walt Whitman and his fascination with Dickens’s tale of unrequited love, Great Expectations.

This is more than enough to fill a five-character domestic drama, but Klingenstein is using the tale of thwarted romance to illuminate broader themes of ambition, political intrigue, patriotism, and statesmanship. Chase, an ardent abolitionist, sees Lincoln as an unprincipled compromiser. If Chase were president, he would instantly recruit black soldiers into the Union Army, but Lincoln holds back. Hay explains that Lincoln holds the higher principle of “prudence,” knowing that to admit black soldiers into the army while the army is losing will demoralize the North. But what is the difference between prudence and mere opportunism? In Hay’s view—which no doubt is Klingenstein’s as well—prudence is deeply rooted in principled moral, rather than merely practical, judgment.

We get a glimpse of a false version of prudence in General McClellan, who takes pride in his spit-and-polish army but shuns any battlefield tactics that would put his men at risk. Of course, war always entails risk, and McClellan’s risk-aversion is not prudence but timidity. He cares more about the safety of his troops than the purpose of the war.

In the play, the thrice-widowed Chase is courting the widow down the block, Mrs. Eastman. Again, I don’t know whether Mrs. Eastman is a historical figure or someone conjured by Klingenstein to give a foil to Kate. In any case, she comes to represent the peaceful life that Salmon could have if he put his political ambitions and ideology aside. She also advises Kate not to marry Sprague and to recognize Hay as her true mate—advice that costs Mrs. Eastman her own impending marriage. At one level these are the age-old complications of the human heart, but they are also battlefield adjacent. 

Late in the play comes the news of the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam, which allows Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The tide of the Civil War has turned, and Chase also gets the news that Lincoln will now recruit black troops. Is he happy at the turn of events? Hardly. He recognizes that Lincoln will now run for a second term and that Chase’s own ambitions are permanently thwarted. Who, in the end, was principled and who was opportunistic?

Klingenstein’s play is necessarily limited to a few months in the lives of these characters, but members of the audience who have access to the crystal ball of actual history will feel even deeper pathos in the production. Kate, the “American Queen” of the title, ended up divorced from Sprague, who had gone on to become a U.S. senator. After the divorce in 1882, Kate had an affair with a former U.S. senator (and Lincoln supporter), Roscoe Conkling. Kate’s life spiraled down from there and she died at age 58, after living for some years selling vegetables door to door.

Lincoln elevated her father to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served until the end of his life in 1873. John Hay went to a brilliant diplomatic career; married in 1874 the daughter of a railroad and banking mogul; and published among his many works a 10-volume biography of Lincoln (co-authored with John Nicolay).

Absent foreknowledge of these matters, the play stands as a moving portrait of an elegant and charming young woman about to be devoured by her aspiration to propel her father to high office. There is a whisper of Greek tragedy here. Salmon Chase is no Agamemnon, but this is the American version of the towering leader who sacrifices his daughter for victory and in the end gains nothing. Somewhere in the background, Walt Whitman is chanting, to America, “Ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing, grappling with direst fate and recoiling not.” 

We cannot recoil from Kate’s fate. She made a hard choice. That’s what happens in war, for better or worse.

Our American Queen is running June 11–29 at the Flea Theatre on 20 Thomas Street, New York City. Kate Chase is played by Brooke Camilleri Agius, who captures the buried sadness in the exquisite girl. Salmon Chase is played by Paul Niebanck, who epitomizes the flinty self-satisfaction of the would-be president. John Hay is played by Christopher Wareham, who has the tortured role of the lover who is more confident in reading poems than in speaking his heart. Carlotte Eastman is played by Roya Shanks, who captures a woman unafraid to speak plain truths to those not eager to hear them. And General McClellan is played by Dana Watkins, who has fun with the role of the dashing officer who is hollow from his mustachio to his silver spurs.

The playwright, Klingenstein, has had several plays produced in New York and Chicago. His work circles around the decades before and after the Civil War, and foregrounds racial conflict and reconciliation. The director, Christopher McElroen, is well known for his treatments of classic and contemporary works that focus on the American experience. He has directed several of Klingenstein’s plays and plainly has a feeling for these thematically challenging dramas. 

The Flea Theater is laid out in a manner that unfortunately puts the players from time to time with their backs to half the audience, which proves a handicap for the soft-spoken Agius. Our American Queen needs to raise her voice a bit. And Klingenstein sometimes has his characters repeat key phrases they have used before as if he fears we may have missed their significance. Better to trust his audience: such a play is aimed at those who have a good ear for well-crafted classic drama. And for that audience, Our American Queen is this season’s theatrical royalty.

The post New Play Plumbs the Personal and Political Civil War appeared first on The American Conservative.

In recent months, the Republican Party has faced widespread criticism for its alleged indifference to animal welfare. 

Two recent decisions by high-profile Republican governors, in particular, have prompted attacks against the GOP on this front.

The first is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s push to prohibit the sale of lab-grown meat. At a press conference earlier this year, DeSantis lambasted “fake meat” as being part of a “whole ideological agenda that’s coming after…important parts of our society.”

Critics seized on the press conference as evidence that the Republican Party is antagonistic to animal welfare, and intent on fomenting a culture war over the issue. As right-leaning writer Richard Hanania put it, Desantis’s argument embodies the Republican Party’s “cruelty to animals” and an attitude that reflects the party’s “anti-technological” disposition.

Even more inflammatory was South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s newly-published memoir. In the book, Noem relays a story of how she shot both her young hunting dog and a billy goat on her ranch in a gravel pit. Noem’s actions were condemned by a wide array of Republicans, including Trump insiders Steve Bannon and Donald Trump Jr. Nevertheless, critics used it to illustrate a callousness specific to the Republican Party. As the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough put it, the episode speaks to the “grotesqueness of the conservative movement’s violent wing” in “Donald Trump’s Republican Party.” 

Recent polling, however, suggests that these perceptions of Republican voters are both simplistic and misleading, minimizing Republican interest in animal well-being.

Surveys run by the public opinion research firm Positive Sum Strategies provide the most comprehensive data available to date on how Republican voters perceive animal welfare in the context of modern agricultural practices.

It is true that Republicans, relative to Democrats and independents, are more likely to reject the framing that the government, consumers, and private companies are “responsible” for ensuring animal welfare standards. Polling confirms that Republicans generally oppose government regulations that increase costs for businesses and consumers for the sake of improving animal well-being.

These divisions, however, nearly disappear when voters are asked about common agricultural practices. Around 90 percent of Republicans, like most Democrats, consider it “unacceptable” to keep pigs in tight cages, kill newborn male chicks with meat grinders because they cannot lay eggs, or break the legs of chickens by fattening them with aggressive breeding practices.

More significant are the disagreements between the parties on how to address harms to animals from modern farming.

Democratic views on the issue are more closely aligned with the outlook of traditional animal liberation movements, which began to coalesce on the left in the 1970s. These movements tend to draw parallels between the cause of animal rights and leftist agendas related to the environment, social justice, and women’s rights. They are inclined to push for government mandates and consumer sacrifices to reduce the consumption of animal products.

Part of the reason why Republican leaders resist these approaches is the tendency of animal welfare issues to become vessels for leftist agendas. These fears have been amplified in recent years by the fact that companies promoting animal wellbeing are sometimes at the forefront of spearheading “woke capitalism.”

But there is more to the story. Republicans are inclined to see markets and technology, rather than government mandates or consumer sacrifices, as more viable solutions to improve animal well-being. A majority of Republican respondents support private innovation to improve animal welfare. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe it is “important for food companies to find new ways to guarantee the human treatment” of farm animals. Fifty-eight percent believe companies should use technology to ensure humane treatment of animals even if it increases prices.

Republican support is even higher in this vein when provided with specific examples. More than two-thirds of Republicans believe it is a good use of technology to provide chickens with fresh grazing pastures, prevent live chicks from being transported long distances, and use AI to detect disease in farm animals.

These findings suggest that market-oriented approaches to animal welfare are relatively likely to sustain broad political support. Traditional demands from the animal rights lobby tend not only to be costly, but also to be accompanied by the most polarizing and unpopular types of activism, from vegan lifestyle brands to protests against farming animals.

Animal rights activists have tended to be skeptical of technology-based solutions. Like climate-change activists calling for de-growth, they argue that markets create, in the first place, the incentives that drive the industrialization of animal agriculture. Optimizing for economic efficiency, they remind, often comes at the expense of animals. 

While there is merit to this critique, the economics of farmed animals are changing. As consumer interest in animal welfare grows, companies are increasingly drawn to evolving commercial technologies that can preserve the efficiency of modern agriculture while mitigating the most objectionable harms to animals. 

For example, ethics-based arguments from animal welfare activists have historically seen limited success in persuading companies to avoid the culling of day-old male chicks via live maceration. But the cost-benefit calculus for companies is changing with the introduction of in-ovo sexing, an emerging technology that can identify the sex of a chicken egg during development. Now that in-ovo sexing has become more commercially viable, two prominent U.S.-based egg producers have pledged to use the technology as early as this year.

As innovation increasingly breaks in favor of animal welfare, recent polling provides a call for restraint from activists in the space. Animal wellbeing can retain bipartisan support as long as the issue does not become enmeshed with other left-coded agendas such as lab-grown meat, ESG, and vegan evangelism.

Animal welfare activists would serve their cause by avoiding partisan broad-brushes and making patient bets on technological progress. 

The post appeared first on The American Conservative.

Oakland, California is falling apart at the seams. Crime in the city is through the roof and there are parts of town that look like something out of a Mad Max movie, yet they are putting together a slavery reparations committee.

California never had slavery, but that isn’t even the most absurd aspect of this story. The craziest part is that the committee wants $5 million dollars in taxpayer funds just to come up with a plan for reparations.

Where do they suppose this money is going to come from? The city is losing profitable businesses left and right due to the utter lawlessness that has become the new normal.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Oakland Reparations Committee Wants $5 Million From Taxpayers—Just To Come Up With a Plan

A California Bay Area committee appointed to design racism reparations for black residents wants two years and $5 million just to write a plan.

The reparations panel for Alameda County, whose largest city is Oakland, made this demand late last month, San Francisco’s NPR affiliate reported, ahead of its looming July deadline to outline how local taxpayers should make their amends. The committee, created in March 2023 with a $51,000 budget, did not meet until last November.

The committee’s chair is Debra Gore-Mann, the president of a left-wing Oakland-based group called the Greenlining Institute that lobbies the California legislature to subsidize utilities and low-carbon energy, and pushes for “race-aware” and “race-based” tech and banking policies.

The funding request comes months after California’s most ambitious reparations plans have crashed and burned amid state and local budget woes.

Here’s the reality. There is no money for this.

Oakland Reparations Committee Wants $5 Million From Taxpayers—Just To Come Up With a Plan: A California Bay Area committee appointed to design racism reparations for black residents wants two years and $5 million just to write a plan.

The reparations… https://t.co/Fhhuix1tTD pic.twitter.com/Kd9HUfEuy2

— Binturong (@NWMNBint) June 14, 2024

You can’t hand out millions to residents when you can’t even stop businesses from fleeing the city.

(Image:Source)

The post Reparations Committee in Oakland, California Wants $5 Million in Tax Dollars – Just to Come Up With a Plan appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.