The week in whoppers: Ro Khanna insists Dems aren't ‘woke and weak,' Patti LuPone flames the Trump-led Kennedy Center and more
Diary of disturbing disinformation and dangerous delusions
This defense:
'Democrats are not woke and weak. We are a great party and should be proud of that.' — Rep. Ro Khanna, Wednesday
We say: The representative doth protest too much. Khanna is unconvincingly trying to defend his party from criticism by Rahm Emmanuel, who rightly slammed the Democrats' brand as 'toxic.'
Advertisement
Fact is, Democrats fully embraced the 'woke' label, ramming through DEI policies and framing themselves as the party of 'equity,' until about five minutes ago, when they realized it was costing them elections.
Now they're trying their best to convince voters they have something to offer besides noxious finger-wagging and divisive identity politics — and even shelling out millions to figure out how to win back men.
Sorry, Ro: The 'woke and weak' label was hard-earned, and you'll have to earn your way out of it.
Advertisement
This appeal:
'[The Kennedy Center] should get blown up.' — Patti LuPone, in an interview published Monday
We say: LuPone is no stranger to melodramatics, but her language slamming the cultural institution just because President Trump is the chair is more violent than she may realize.
Considering the recent arson attacks on Tesla dealerships, GOP offices and the home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the chance that some crazed lefty will take her up on the challenge is well above zero.
Advertisement
Millionaire Patti won't be affected by the violence she's egging on while she lounges in her Central Park West apartment, but everyday innocents will be. Talk about privilege.
This claim:
'Dems have fully embraced far right eugenics.' — Taylor Lorenz, Tuesday
We say: Seems 'far right eugenics' now means 'wanting kids to know how to read.'
Advertisement
Lorenz, who believes that 'we never had a single lock down in this country' because they weren't strict enough, is upset that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg admitted schools should've reopened sooner during the pandemic.
Buttigieg's too-late realization is backed by mountains of evidence that show school closures yielded sky-high absenteeism, record drops in reading and math scores, higher rates of mental illness and of stunted socialization.
It crippled an entire generation, yet Lorenz couldn't care less.
This statement:
'Far right extremists want to take your health care away.' — Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Tuesday
We say: Democrats can't honestly defend their resistance to the modest Medicaid reforms in the House Republican budget bill, so they've resorted to big, fat fibs.
The truth: The bill would require working-age, able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school for 80 hours per month.
Advertisement
That will not 'take health care away' from the truly needy; in fact, it will cut down on waste and fraud and ensure that public funds are going to those who need it most — children, the disabled, the elderly and pregnant women.
Opposing that is madness, so Democrats fall back on fearmongering lies.
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Bill Maher Finds Common Ground With Donald Trump: 'Kernel of a Good Idea'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Comedian Bill Maher touted some common ground with President Donald Trump during his Friday evening TV show, saying the White House's targeting of Harvard University is a "kernel of a good idea." Maher described the elite Ivy League institution as an "a**hole factory," and said he'd long been critical of the university. Newsweek has reached out to Harvard and the White House via email for comment on Saturday morning. Why It Matters Maher has been a consistent Trump critic, routinely mocking the president for years on his HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher. At the same time, while the comedian continues to identify as a Democrat, he often criticizes the "woke" views of many in his political party. He also regularly invites Republicans on his show, and in late March had dinner with Trump at the White House. After the meeting, Maher spoke favorably of the president's personal interactions with him, sparking criticism from many liberal critics. Trump's recent actions against Harvard have drawn backlash from Democrats and other critics. However, Maher has suggested some agreement with the president on the issue. What to Know During his Friday evening show, Maher hosted CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, on his panel. During the discussion, the comedian brought up the Trump administration's actions against Harvard. "The Harvard situation. Trump has declared full scale war on Harvard. And like so many things he does, there's a kernel of a good idea there. I mean, I've been s****ing on Harvard long before he was," Maher said. Tapper jumped in, quipping, "Well, you went to Cornell [University], so I mean...." "That's not why," Maher responded, with the exchange drawing laughter from the audience and the comedian. "No, it's because Harvard is an a**hole factory in a lot of ways, that produces smirking f*** faces." He then asked Moulton, "Are you from Harvard?" To which Tapper pointed out that the Democratic congressman has "three degrees from Harvard." "Present company accepted," Maher quickly added. Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in... Bill Maher attends the 2025 Vanity Fair Oscar Party at Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on March 2 in Beverly Hills, California. Inset: President Donald Trump is seen at the Memorial Amphitheatre in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26. More Dia Dipasupil/FilmMagic/Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images How Trump Is Going After Harvard The dispute between Trump and Harvard University began earlier this year when his administration accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitism on its campus, citing "pro-terrorist conduct" at protests. The administration responded by freezing more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard in April and has since attempted to terminate the university's ability to enroll international students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The State Department is now also investigating the B-1 (business visas) and B-2 (tourist visas) associated with Harvard University, according to Fox News. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made moves to eliminate Harvard's student visa program, saying the university had refused to comply with a request to provide behavioral records of student visa holders. Trump, meanwhile, has demanded the names and countries of origin of all international students, saying that federal support entitled the government to such information. He wrote on Truth Social last Sunday: "We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS." Harvard insists it has complied with government requests, "despite the unprecedented nature and scope of the demand." On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs stepped in and issued a preliminary injunction, which stopped the Trump administration from revoking the school's SEVP certification without first following the legally mandated procedures. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump to reporters on Wednesday: "Harvard's got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect. And all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper and got to behave themselves, you know. I'm for the for Harvard. I want Harvard to do well. I want Harvard to be great again, probably, because how could it be great? How could it great." Harvard President Alan M. Garber in a statement after a court win this week: "This is a critical step to protect the rights and opportunities of our international students and scholars, who are vital to the University's mission and community. Many among us are likely to have additional concerns and questions. Important updates and guidance will continue to be provided by the Harvard International Office as they become available." Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday: "Harvard's attitude is, 'We can do what we want, and we have a constitutional right to your money.' I think they're wrong, and I think they're going to find out how wrong they are." Fox News contributor Jessica Tarlov, a Democrat, wrote on X on Thursday in response to attacks on Harvard: "When you deport young people and cancel the visas of their friends, you become public enemy number one very quickly." Representative Seth Moulton wrote on X on Wednesday: "Trump's sad obsession with schools he doesn't like continues. These policies will mean that we are less competitive, less credible, and less innovative in the future. Nobody wins." What Happens Next? The Trump administration's actions targeting Harvard continue to be litigated in the courts.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker to consider Illinois bill mandating gun owners lock up firearms
A bill that would require gun owners to keep any firearms in a locked box whenever a minor is present will soon head to Gov. JB Pritzker. Senate Bill 8, also referred to as the Safe Gun Storage Act, is the latest gun safety measure pushed by Democrats in the General Assembly. It passed the House 69-40, with Republican lawmakers warning that it could be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. The bill mandates that gun owners store their firearms in a secure, locked box in any place where they know or 'reasonably should know' that a minor without permission to access a firearm, an at-risk person or someone who is prohibited from obtaining a firearm can access the weapon. Gun owners who violate the act would be subject to civil penalties. The law would apply to both handguns and long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Under the state's current criminal code, firearm owners are required to store their guns in a place that's inaccessible to a child under the age of 14 – SB8 raises the age requirement to a child under 18 and mandates that the gun must be locked away or equipped with a device making it temporarily inoperable. It also defines an at-risk person as someone who has shown behavior or made statements that a 'reasonable person' would consider indicative that the individual may physically harm themselves or others. 'An estimated 30 million children in our country live in a home with at least one firearm, with 4.6 million children living in homes with unlocked and loaded guns,' bill sponsor in the House, Rep. Maura Hirschauer, D-Batavia, said during floor debate. 'We are all familiar with the chilling statistics that guns are the No. 1 cause of death for our children in the United States.' The bill exempts firearms carried on a person who has a concealed carry license. The gun owner also would not be liable if a minor, at-risk or prohibited person uses the firearm in self-defense or uses it after accessing it illegally – for instance, in circumstances like breaking and entering. The Safe Gun Storage Act also makes changes to a variety of existing Illinois gun laws, including a mandate that firearm owners report a lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours of the owner finding the firearm missing, instead of the current 72-hour timeframe. Illinois State Police would also be given the ability to revoke a firearm owner's identification, or FOID, card if a gun owner fails to report a stolen or lost firearm twice or more under the bill. If a minor, at-risk or prohibited person gains access to an unlocked firearm, the bill provides the gun owner could face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 if the gun to hurt or kill another person in a crime. A separate section of the bill allows for a $1,000 fine and a Class C misdemeanor charge against a gun owner if a minor under the age of 18 causes death or bodily harm while accessing a firearm without permission. That language previously only applied to minors under the age of 14. 'Safe firearms storage and responsible gun ownership are practices on which all of us in this room, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, can agree,' Hirschauer said. 'Safe gun storage can reduce unintentional injuries, suicides and intentional harm, like school shootings, by stopping unauthorized access.' Under SB8, if a firearm owner fails to store their firearm in a secure, locked box and a minor, at-risk or prohibited person illegally obtains the firearm and uses it to hurt themselves or others – the owner could be charged with negligence. The Safe Gun Storage Act also requires Illinois State Police to expand an online database that was required under a previous law to house all information on the make, model and serial number of reported lost or stolen firearms. By Jan. 1, 2027, ISP would have to make the portal accessible to licensed firearm dealers, who would be required to cross-reference the database to ensure any firearms they are selling or transferring are not a firearm listed in the database. Another aspect of the bill classifies anyone traveling through the state with a firearm that's prohibited under state law as gun trafficking – a felony charge that can result in up to a 15-year prison sentence. During debate about the bill on the Senate floor in April, Sen. Neil Anderson, R-Andalusia, took issue with the bill giving Illinois State Police the ability to revoke a person's FOID card. He said that aspect of the bill would not pass the Rahimi test – referencing the 2023 United States v. Rahimi Supreme Court case, which ruled a court can temporarily revoke a perron's firearm rights if the court determines the firearm owner is a threat to public safety when in possession of a firearm. SB8 would allow Illinois State Police to revoke a person's FOID card, which Anderson said is in direct conflict with the Rahimi decision – which said only courts had the power to revoke a person's firearm rights. Bill sponsor Sen. Laura Ellman, D-Naperville, disagreed with Anderson, saying the Rahimi case did not exclude law enforcement from being able to revoke a person's FOID card. The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 33-19. A similar debate happened on the House floor Wednesday before the bill's eventual passage. Rep. Patrick Windhorst, R-Metropolis, took issue with the bill's creation of a potential negligence charge for gun owners who do not safely secure a gun that's used by a minor, at-risk or prohibited person to harm someone. He said he believed such a burden shift to be unconstitutional. Hirschauer responded that the burden shift only applies when the reasonable standard is met – when it's reasonably found that the gun owner should have known to safely store their firearm – or, if 'some terrible negligence' occurs. Windhorst also raised concerns about the fact that cable locks, which are locked cables inserted through a firearm's chamber and out of the magazine well, are not considered 'safe storage' under the bill. Under existing law about storing guns away from minors, a cable lock is considered safe storage of a firearm. Windhorst said that conflicts with the new language pertaining to gun storage, which does not mention devices that render a gun temporarily inoperable. 'Under the criminal code of this bill where we are changing our current child access protection law, a cable lock would suffice,' Hirschauer said. 'Under the new Safe Storage Act, it would not.' He also argued that the bill impeded the rights of concealed carry license holders who carry a gun in a vehicle, as some firearms owners currently store their gun in the center console or glove box. Under the Safe Gun Storage Act, the center console or glove box would have to be lockable in order to render the firearm safely stored. Windhorst also voiced concerns that the gun trafficking charges in the bill could be brought against a person passing through Illinois with firearms in their vehicle that are legal in their home state – a point which Hirschauer responded to by reading language in the bill that expressly excluded non-residents from the charges. 'If someone is a non-resident of Illinois and is passing through and they are a legal gun owner in the state in which they reside, if that state doesn't have a FOID card system and if they are authorized under federal law to own a gun, then they would not be subject to this,' she said. Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Murrayville, raised concerns about the bill's definition of 'lawful permission' and its limitations on minors who hunt. The bill requires firearm owners to safely secure their firearm in a locked box when around a minor who does not have 'lawful permission' from a parent or guardian to access a firearm. On the House floor, Davidsmeyer asked what constitutes 'lawful permission,' to which Hirschauer answered it, 'could be several things.' When asked whether permission must be written down or notarized for parental permission of a minor using a firearm to hunt to be considered lawful, Hirschauer answered that 'hypothetical points are fact dependent.' Davidsmeyer said the question was not a hypothetical, and that it is an issue that will crop up in 'daily life' for minors who hunt. 'This bill, I believe, violates recent Supreme Court decisions under the Second Amendment and will likely be found unconstitutional,' Windhorst said at the end of debate. Hirschauer disagreed. 'Firearm theft compromises the effectiveness of our commonsense gun laws and often results in these weapons being acquired by people who are legally prohibited from possessing them,' she said. 'The reporting measures strengthened in this bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on lost and stolen guns.' Opponents to SB8 include the ACLU of Illinois, Illinois State Rifle Association and the Illinois State Crime Commissions; the Illinois State Police did not officially oppose or support the bill. SB8 passed the Senate 33-19 last month and awaits approval from the governor before it can become law. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Medicaid expansion would be a lifeline for Floridians; that's why we're suing
Let's not sugarcoat it: Florida's healthcare policies are failing us. They're failing the single mother in Ocala who earns $15,000 a year working part-time and was recently diagnosed with cancer — but can't afford the treatment she needs to survive. They're failing rural hospitals on the brink of collapse. And they're failing the hundreds of thousands of Floridians stuck in the 'coverage gap'— earning too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance. And now, to make matters worse, our state's lawmakers have passed a law that aims to take away one of the last tools Floridians have to fix it: the power of citizen-led constitutional amendments. That's why Florida Decides Healthcare filed a federal lawsuit challenging the dangerous new law known as House Bill 1205. This isn't just about getting Medicaid expansion on the ballot. This is about defending the very foundation of our democracy: the people's right to be heard and to shape their own future. This law, signed by the governor, isn't reform. It's repression. HB 1205 is a cynical effort to make it harder for everyday Floridians — teachers, nurses, veterans, parents — to participate in their own government. It buries citizens in red tape, threatens them with criminal penalties, and intimidates them for simply trying to collect signatures. It's designed to silence us, to shut down grassroots movements, and to keep power locked in Tallahassee's political elite. But we're not backing down. Because we know what's at stake. Medicaid expansion could transform lives in every corner of Florida—from the Panhandle to the Keys. It would bring billions of our own federal tax dollars back to our state — money we're already sending to Washington, only to fund healthcare in other states. It would help stabilize struggling hospitals, especially in rural areas where 135 hospitals have closed since 2010. It would let people see a doctor without risking bankruptcy. This isn't welfare — it's common sense. More than 60% of the people who would benefit from expansion are part of working families. Medicaid helps people stay healthy enough to work, care for loved ones, and contribute to their communities. And study after study has shown that expansion wouldn't raise taxes — it would grow Florida's economy. Floridians get it. Nearly 8 in 10 — Republicans, Democrats and independents — support Medicaid expansion. It's not a partisan issue. It's a people issue. And when our elected officials refuse to act, the people have not just the right, but the responsibility, to do it themselves. That's what Florida's citizen-led amendment process is for. It's how we raised the minimum wage, legalized medical marijuana, and protected our land and water. It's a tool for communities to drive change when politicians won't. HB 1205 is not about accountability or transparency. It's about fear of the people and the power they hold. This law hacks away at a process that may need refining, but not destruction. It puts up traps and hurdles to ensure only the wealthy and politically connected can get an idea on the ballot. It is a direct assault on the will of the people. And if it's allowed to stand here, you can bet it will spread across the country. This is how democracy erodes — not in one sweeping moment, but in a thousand paper cuts to participation, voice, and power. But we're not letting that happen. We filed this lawsuit because we believe in the power of the people. We believe the single mother in Miami, the bus driver in Fort Myers, and the veteran in Jacksonville deserve a voice in the laws that shape their lives. Floridians — not politicians afraid of accountability — should have the final say. This lawsuit is our declaration: We will not let them rig the rules. We will not be silenced. We're collecting signatures. We're building coalitions. We're taking this fight from the courtroom to the streets to the ballot box. Because Medicaid expansion isn't just smart policy — it's a moral imperative. And the citizen initiative process isn't just a political tool—it's a right we will defend. Mitch Emerson is executive director of Florida Decides Healthcare.
