Woke journalist makes sick remark about JD Vance's young CHILDREN after previously scolding flight attendant
Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffrey made the declaration on woke X alternative BlueSky after the second family were heckled during a weekend trip.
'People who feel bad for JD Vance's kids as family gets booed at Disneyland. I get it, but better those kids know now what their father is about,' Jeffrey wrote.
'Other kids are watching their parents get shipped off to gulags,' she added.
She went on to claim Vance wanted his children to be heckled for political optics.
'Also, JD Vance knows he's going to be booed at Disneyland or the Kennedy Center or wherever.
'He doesn't have to go with his kids, but…he probably wants the optics of his family being booed. So…yeah.'
Jeffrey, who previously hit the headlines after scolding a flight attendant who used the word 'blessed' during an announcement, was quickly condemned.
'WTF is wrong with these people!???' Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X.
Critics called her a 'soulless ghoul' for seemingly encouraging the harassment toward children aged 3, 5, and 8.
'Imagine the type of soulless ghoul you have to be to say this… Imagine being the Editor in Chief of Mother Jones Magazine,' Republican strategist Andrew Surabian chimed in.
Previously, the progressive journalist has been mocked online after making a public post criticizing a flight attendant who wished her and other passengers a 'blessed night'.
Last year, Jeffery posted to X that she found the Alaska Air flight attendant's language akin to 'creeping Christian nationalism' after landing in San Francisco.
Jeffrey wrote that replacement words such as 'great' or 'fantastic' would have worked just as well, adding that someone sat in her row said:' This ain't Montgomery, sweetie.' That was an apparent reference to the Alabama city frequently associated with anti-black racism.
But her post triggered many to hit back and stand up for what they described as 'kindness'.
The post drew attention from all users, liberal or Republican, who called her complaint 'petty' and 'miserable', while some took the opportunity dig up old posts where she herself had used the word 'blessed.'
Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen wrote: 'How sad and impoverished is your life that you're offended by someone blessing you? Get a grip.'
One user, J Valentine, responded saying: 'Editor of Mother Jones providing another great example of why normies hate progressives.
'Being 'progressive' is often just an excuse for being an insufferable jerk.'
'Respectfully, I'm a pretty left leaning guy and I wish folks a blessed day fairly often. It's just a nice thing to say,' wrote Armand Domalewski.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Total infiltration': How plastics industry swamped vital global treaty talks
Being surrounded and yelled at about 'misrepresenting reality' is not how serious United Nations-hosted negotiations are meant to proceed. But that is what happened to Prof Bethanie Carney Almroth during talks about a global treaty to slash plastic pollution in Ottawa, Canada. The employees of a large US chemicals company 'formed a ring' around her, she says. At another event in Ottawa, Carney Almroth was 'harassed and intimidated' by a plastic packaging representative, who barged into the room and shouted that she was fearmongering and pushing misinformation. That meeting was an official event organised by the UN. 'So I filed the harassment reports with the UN,' said Carney Almroth. 'The guy had to apologise, and then he left the meeting. He was at the next meeting.' 'That was one example when I filed an official report,' said Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 'But I've been harassed and intimidated lots of other times, in lots of other contexts, at off-site meetings, at side events, also at scientific conferences, via email and so on.' She has also had to take measures to avoid surveillance at the meetings. 'I have a privacy screen protector on my phone, because they will walk behind us and try to film what's on our screens and see what notes we're taking, or who we're chatting with. I would never open my computer in the middle of a room without knowing who is behind me. It's a high-vigilance, high-stress environment.' These are examples of what numerous sources say is a 'total infiltration' of the plastics treaty negotiations by vested industrial interests and corporate lobbyists. The core concern of six insiders who spoke to the Guardian was that the polluters are exerting too much power, not just within the negotiations but also within the UN Environment Programme (Unep), which oversees the negotiations. One source said they were 'horrified' by the industry's influence on policy and the sidelining of real solutions to plastic pollution, calling it 'corporate capture'. The plastics treaty negotiations resume in August in Geneva, Switzerland, having failed to reach agreement at the fifth round of talks in December. At stake is whether the torrent of toxic plastic pollution pouring into the environment can be stemmed. Doing so is not only vital to protect people and the planet but also to curb the climate crisis and the massive global losses of wildlife. But a flood of industry lobbyists and organisations have joined the talks, far outnumbering national delegations and scientists. They assist a group of petrostates, led by Saudi Arabia, in blocking the progress that many nations want, and are part of a wider 'petrochemical bloc' that a recent study says 'is driving up plastics production, externalising the costs of pollution, distorting scientific knowledge, and lobbying to derail negotiations'. The scale of the plastic problem is staggering. About 450m tonnes of new plastic is produced every year and production is set to triple by 2060 under current growth rates, damaging every aspect of a safe environment. Almost all plastic is made from fossil oil and gas, and emissions from its production drive the climate crisis. Plastic and the toxic chemicals it contains also damage soils, ecosystems and human health, having pervaded the entire world from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest part of the ocean, from human brains to human breast milk. The plastics treaty is being negotiated between the world's nations, under the auspices of Unep. The negotiations began in 2022, and the talks in Geneva next month will be its sixth major meeting. But since the beginning, the talks have been dogged by a fundamental disagreement. More than 100 nations, backed by more than 1,100 scientists, say a cap on the soaring production of plastic is essential to reduce all the harms they cause. Petrostates and plastic manufacturers reject this and say the focus should be on better managing and recycling of waste. Global climate action to cut carbon emissions is also putting fossil fuel states under pressure to increase other uses for their oil and gas. 'The amount of plastic that we're already producing today is entirely unmanageable,' said David Azoulay, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), who has attended the negotiations. 'There's no way, technically or policy wise, that we can manage it. But the companies' objective is to produce more and miraculously somehow reduce the overall impact.' The expensive recycling technologies proposed by producers are 'magical thinking', he said. Only 9% of plastic is recycled, according to a 2022 OECD report. Azoulay said fossil fuel states and industry do have to be part of the negotiations, but that the process fails to take account of their vested interests. 'The fact that there is a major group of business and industry is not problematic, as they are stakeholders. But the fact they're given, at a minimum, equal standing and equal access to the processes as those of victims of the problem that they're creating, that is a problem.' He added: 'There is a problematic underlying approach in how Unep operates, which is to consider that the people who created the problems, benefited from the problem, have lied about the problem and their responsibility about it for years and decades, are trustworthy partners to solve those problems.' While the negotiating countries will decide the outcome of the treaty talks, Unep is the host and its executive director, Inger Andersen, has a critical and influential guiding role. She has not been spared from criticism. Andersen was accused of an 'inappropriate absence of ambition' by more than 100 environmental organisations in April 2023. They also expressed concern about a 'lack of transparency regarding who is advising [her] work and the [treaty] secretariat', which is the group of Unep officials who manage the talks. She was criticised in particular for a statement perceived to undermine the importance of a cap on plastic production, made in September 2024: 'We have to have a more refined conversation than just cap [or] no cap, because it's not an intelligent conversation.' A reduction in production should focus on raw polymer for single use, short-lived products, not 'car parts and plane wings', she said. Critics said her statement contradicted scientific evidence that the environmental impact of plastics begins with extraction and production, not just their use. The environmental organisations complained to Andersen's boss, the UN's secretary general, António Guterres, in October 2024, saying they had 'deep concerns' that her public statements would 'narrow the scope' of the treaty and that she had exceeded her role as convener of the negotiations. They did not receive a reply. It was also alleged at the most recent negotiating round, in Busan, South Korea, in December, that Andersen had put pressure on high-ambition countries to give way on their demands for a strong treaty with a cap on plastic production. Andersen responded at the time, saying: 'I will meet with everyone at every stage of the way and I will obviously meet the member states and hear them out, from [across] the entire spectrum of the 193 [countries].' In her convening role, Andersen can do only so much to encourage nations to reach a deal. All the countries have to reach a consensus, but one nation in particular stands out as a block to an effective plastics treaty: Saudi Arabia, the world's second biggest oil producer. Via its oil company Saudi Aramco, it owns Sabic, one of the world's biggest producers of plastic. The country has played an increasing role in the plastics treaty negotiations and was described by Politico as the 'ringleader' of a small group of oil-rich countries, including Russia and Iran, that blocked proposals for production caps in December. It has also developed a close relationship with Unep in recent years. Andersen made an official visit to Saudi Arabia in January 2024, met Saudi ministers at the UN summit on desertification which was hosted in Riyadh in December 2024 and sought a further ministerial meeting at Davos in 2025 to discuss 'strengthening of cooperation'. She was in Riyadh again on 29 June, signing a cooperation agreement on emissions reductions. The country paid Unep $1m to host World Environment Day in 2024, a similar sum paid by previous host nations, and gave the UN agency donations of more than $20m between 2020 and 2024. Some of that was contributions to Unep's environment fund and covered arrears dating back to 2021. Many countries give money to Unep, which relies on these voluntary contributions for 95% of its income. Most of the rest was instalments from a $25m deal struck in 2019 for Unep to provide expertise in strengthening Saudi Arabia's environmental protections. After the deal, the head of Unep's Saudi Arabia office wrote a report which the Guardian has been told expressed concerns about the governance of the money. Unep refused to share the report with the Guardian, saying it was a standard handover report by an official leaving his post and was confidential. In response to the criticisms of Andersen and the plastic treaty talks, a Unep spokesperson told the Guardian: 'Unep's sole focus is on supporting all countries to deliver an impactful treaty that will finally end plastic pollution. Unep continues to facilitate the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the process so we can end plastic pollution for everyone, everywhere.' Inside the plastics treaty negotiations, an official from Saudi Arabia's ministry of energy was elected in November 2024 to the 10-person bureau of national representatives that run the treaty talks. Azoulay said Saudi Arabia and its allies were undermining the plastics treaty talks. 'We're seeing complete bad faith negotiation. The obstruction [by Saudi Arabia] takes many forms, using their 35 years of experience in derailing climate negotiations, using every procedural tool to prevent progress, and using their vast financial resources to strong-arm and try to influence other countries,' he said. The Saudi government did not respond to a request for comment. While the petrostate delegations are power players in the meeting rooms and corridors of the treaty negotiations, one group outnumbers every nation: plastic industry lobbyists. At the December talks in Busan there were a record 220 corporate lobbyists in attendance. That was far more than even the host nation's delegation of 140 and was three times the number of independent scientists. Dow and ExxonMobil sent nine lobbyists between them, according to an analysis by the environmental law group Ciel. Some lobbyists were included in country delegations, rather than with observer organisations, giving them access to sensitive member-state-only sessions, Ciel said. 'The overwhelming presence of industry lobbyists skews the treaty's direction,' a document being circulated among concerned treaty observers and sent to the Guardian says. 'This imbalance sidelines scientific evidence in favour of corporate agendas, undermining the treaty's potential effectiveness.' This warning is not new. Another letter from environmental organisations to Andersen in April 2024 said the lack of a conflict of interest policy enabled industry access to decision-makers. 'The participation of businesses from the oil, gas and petrochemical sectors poses a severe threat to the objectives of the treaty,' the letter said. A Unep spokesperson said it was for the negotiating countries themselves to establish a conflict of interest policy, but they had chosen not to do so. In reference to the harassment of Prof Carney Almroth in Ottawa, the spokesperson said a UN code of conduct to prevent such behaviour strictly applied to all plastics treaty meetings. Another lever of influence being pulled by corporate interests is via the system through which Unep gives full access to the negotiations to civil society sectors including women, farmers, Indigenous peoples, children and scientists. The membership of one group has soared recently: business and industry. More than 30 plastic and chemical industry lobby organisations have joined the negotiations since the start of 2023, almost doubling the total number. These include the US Plastics Industry Association, Plastics Europe and national plastic industry groups from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Brazil, Colombia, Malaysia and Korea. The group is co-chaired by a Saudi official. The problem, say critics, is that industry players have deep pockets and clear financial interests. 'Lobbying should be called lobbying. It shouldn't be called 'society observers',' said one source close to the negotiations. A report by InfluenceMap in November 2024 found that plastic and fossil fuel industry groups, including ExxonMobil, Sabic, PlasticsEurope and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, 'strongly advocated to weaken the ambition of the plastics treaty'. In contrast, the report said: 'The consumer goods and retail sectors have strongly supported an ambitious, science-aligned treaty, but [the plastic and fossil fuel sector] at present seems to have the upper hand.' Hotel and flight costs make the treaty negotiations expensive to attend, which is why rich industrial interests can flood the talks with lobbyists while smaller countries, scientists and NGOs struggle to find the funds, said Carney Almroth. 'The lobbyists have much more power and much more access,' she said. 'They have the economic power to get into rooms I can't get into. They can speak directly to ministers in ways that I cannot.' Carney Almroth says she is fortunate to be in position to speak out, with a permanent post at a supportive university in Sweden, a safe country where intimidatory lawsuits that have targeted some scientists are difficult for companies to pursue. Many other plastics researchers are afraid to let their voices be heard, she said, fearing legal challenges, loss of funding or career damage. 'It's the tobacco playbook: challenge the science, challenge the messenger, try to silence people, try to undermine people's credibility.' One business group is particularly influential: the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, whose members include significant plastic, chemical and fossil fuel companies such as Sabic, BASF, BP, Chevron, DuPont, Dow, LyondellBasell and Shell. WBCSD has provided successive co-chairs to the business and industry group. In a statement, the WBCSD said it followed UN rules of procedure, saying: 'We support the global ambition to reduce plastic production and use [and] we believe stakeholder participation – including businesses, civil society, academia, and others – is critical to achieving a durable and effective agreement. 'Representing companies across industries and throughout the plastics value chain – from raw material producers through to consumer brands and waste management – we engaged as an organization well positioned to share a wealth of private sector knowledge, and expertise and support the process into practical action.' Scientific experts, also keen to share their wealth of knowledge, say they have struggled to keep up with correcting wrong or misleading statements made by industry groups during the talks. There is no official scientific advisory panel for the treaty. Instead, the self-organised Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (Scept) has attempted to fill the gap. It has 450 members, none funded by industry, and advises the smaller nations plagued by plastic who cannot afford to send scores of delegates to the negotiations. However, in February 2025, Scept wrote to the bureau running the talks and Unep's Andersen to complain about a lack of access to meetings during the December negotiating round. 'Consequently, our ability to follow the negotiations was severely limited,' the scientists said. 'We were unable to identify the knowledge gaps, misunderstandings or misinformation that require clarification, often spread by actors with conflicts of interest.' Scientists also said their criticisms of a significant 2023 Unep report on 'how the world can end plastic pollution' were ignored. The scientists said the report failed to reflect the whole range of health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution and was over-optimistic about technical solutions to deal with waste plastic. Scept experts had been invited to participate before the report's publication and provided more than 300 comments. Unep said a 'technical issue' meant an email containing Scept's comments was not received in time for publication. It said it had taken feedback from other experts and denied the report underplayed the impacts of plastic. Some countries are gearing up for a fight at the next round of negotiations in Geneva in August. Ninety-five nations issued a 'wakeup call for an ambitious plastics treaty' on 10 June at the UN Ocean Conference. 'Mountains of plastic [are] suffocating our ecosystem, poisoning food chains and threatening our children's future,' said France's environment minister. 'This is a pivotal moment. We will not give up.' But Carney Almroth is uncertain about success. 'Who knows? We're planning and strategising for our scientists now and how we're going to communicate our messages. But I think we can expect chaos and fireworks.' She recalled another incident of harassment at one of the plastics negotiations. A man from the plastics industry, who was not on the guest list, started harassing and shouting at students who were checking people in. 'He was leaning over them, angry – it was bad, bad behaviour.' 'Everyone I've ever been yelled at by is a white man from the global north – every single time. It's a power dynamic,' she said. 'But I don't cower. I don't shrink away. And I don't raise my voice. I respond with references and facts and numbers. I'm also quite tall and when I go to the meetings, I wear heels and I'm taller than most of them. It's petty, but it's a game. 'I like to think that we are impacting in a positive way, to bring more evidence-based decision making in ways that can help us find solutions that are truly more protective of people and the environment.' You can contact Damian Carrington via email, Signal (dpcarrington.35) or securely via this link.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MAGA strikes back after Trump ally Alina Habba ousted as top prosecutor job by 'rogue judges'
The MAGA movement erupted in fury on Tuesday after Alina Habba was abruptly ousted from her role as New Jersey 's top federal prosecutor by what Trump allies are calling a group of 'rogue judges.' Habba, the former personal attorney to President Trump, had been serving as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey until her 120-day appointment expired this week without Senate confirmation. A panel of mostly Democrat-appointed judges bypassed Habba and installed her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, as the district's top prosecutor. Within hours, the Trump administration fired back, terminating Grace and sparking a dramatic power struggle between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused the court of overstepping its authority and threatening Trump's constitutional powers. 'This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges - especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers,' Bondi declared on X, launching what appears to be a full-scale legal and political offensive to reclaim the post for Habba. The sudden unraveling of Habba's tenure after a whirlwind rise from Trump's personal attorney to one of the most politically potent prosecutors in the country sent shockwaves through MAGA world. Only months earlier, Habba was sworn in by Trump himself in the Oval Office, taking over the New Jersey post in March. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace, a nine-year veteran prosecutor, accusing the court of overstepping its authority and threatening Trump's constitutional powers Her appointment was always temporary and subject to Senate confirmation but she quickly made headlines by pursuing politically explosive cases, including charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, both Democrats. She also challenged New Jersey State Police over sanctuary city policies, generating praise from Trump and fierce criticism from Democrats who accused her of pursuing 'frivolous and politically motivated' prosecutions. Under federal law, if the Senate does not confirm a president's nominee within 120 days, the district court judges can install a replacement and this is exactly what happened - much to Trump's fury. The panel of judges, mostly appointed by Democrats, declined to extend Habba's tenure and instead chose Grace, her deputy, in what insiders describe as a calculated snub of the White House. 'Alina is President Trump's choice to lead,' said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, another Trump loyalist and former defense attorney, in a fiery post on social media. 'No partisan bench can override that.' Behind the scenes, Habba is said to have seen the writing on the wall. Days before the decision, she gathered her staff for an emotional all-hands meeting, according to a source familiar with the conversation. 'Hopefully this isn't goodbye,' she told them, expressing gratitude and signaling that she was still banking on full Senate confirmation, although the odds were stacked against her. Her nomination, submitted formally on July 1, stalled in the Senate due to opposition from New Jersey Democrats Cory Booker and Andy Kim, who accused her of inexperience and partisanship. While Trump has pressed for the Senate to stay in session through August to fast-track his nominees, Habba's path remains uncertain. 'She would never back down from the job Trump chose for her', a person close to her told With Habba's nomination still pending and Grace ousted by DOJ leadership, the ball is now back in the Senate's court.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US Olympics officials quietly bar trans women from competing in women's sports
The US Olympic and Paralympic committee has in effect barred transgender women from competing in women's sports, telling the federations overseeing swimming, athletics and other sports it has an 'obligation to comply' with an executive order issued by Donald Trump. The new policy, announced on Monday with a quiet change on the USOPC's website and confirmed in a letter sent to national sport governing bodies, follows a similar step taken by the NCAA earlier this year. The USOPC change is noted obliquely as a detail under 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' and references the US president's executive order, Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports, signed in February. That order, among other things, threatens to 'rescind all funds' from organizations that allow trans athlete participation in women's sports. US Olympic officials told the national governing bodies they will need to follow suit, adding: 'The USOPC has engaged in a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials' since Trump signed the order. 'As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,' the USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland and president Gene Sykes wrote in a letter. 'Our revised policy emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair and safe competition environments for women. All National Governing Bodies are required to update their applicable policies in alignment.' The National Women's Law Center put out a statement condemning the move. 'By giving into the political demands, the USOPC is sacrificing the needs and safety of its own athletes,' said that organization's president and CEO, Fatima Goss Graves. The USOPC oversees about 50 national governing bodies, most of which play a role in everything from the grassroots to elite levels of their sports. That raises the possibility that rules might need to be changed at local sports clubs to retain their memberships in the NGBs. Some of those organizations – for instance, USA Track and Field – have long followed guidelines set by their own world federation. World Athletics is considering changes to its policies that would mostly fall in line with Trump's order. A USA Swimming spokesperson said the federation had been made aware of the USOPC's change and was consulting with the committee to figure out what changes it needs to make. USA Fencing changed its policy effective 1 August to allow only 'athletes who are of the female sex' in women's competition and opening men's events to 'all athletes not eligible for the women's category, including transgender women, transgender men, non-binary and intersex athletes and cisgender male athletes'. The nationwide battle over trans girls on girls' and women's sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans portray the issue as a fight for athletic fairness. More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court by those who say the policies are discriminatory, cruel and unnecessarily target a tiny niche of athletes. The NCAA changed its participation policy for trans athletes to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth. That change came a day after Trump signed the executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports. Female eligibility is a key issue for the International Olympic Committee under its new president, Kirsty Coventry, who has signaled an effort to 'protect the female category'. The IOC has allowed individual sports federations to set their own rules at the Olympics – and some have already taken steps on the topic. Stricter rules on transgender athletes – barring from women's events anyone who went through male puberty – have been passed by swimming, cycling and track and field. Soccer is reviewing its eligibility rules for women and could set limits on testosterone. Trump has said he wants the IOC to change everything 'having to do with this absolutely ridiculous subject'. Los Angeles will host the Summer Games in 2028.
