Stories about
Elizabeth Warren


Elizabeth Ann Warren (née Herring, born June 22, 1949) is an American politician and academic serving as the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, a seat she was elected to in 2012. Warren was formerly a professor of law and taught at the University of Texas School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and most recently at Harvard Law School. A prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law, Warren was among the most cited law professors in the field of commercial law before she began her political career.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

A manager for Dolly Parton called out Democratic 2020 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) saying she did not get approval to use Parton’s song “9 to 5” at her campaign events.

At a recent campaign launch event Warren played the Dolly Parton song “9 to 5,” which features lyrics that describe working class concerns.

Parton sings in part:

Workin’ 9 to 5, what a way to make a livin’

Barely gettin’ by, it’s all takin’ and no givin’

They just use your mind and they never give you credit

It’s enough to drive you crazy if you let it

9 to 5, for service and devotion

You would think that I would deserve a fat promotion

Want to move ahead but the boss won’t seem to let me

I swear sometimes that man is out to get me!

However, Parton’s manager, Danny Nozell, told the Associated Press, “We did not approve the request, and we do not approve requests like this of (a) political nature” – MORE

The Babylon Bee

Published  1 month ago

U.S.—Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren left a brutal 1-star review for Ancestry.com on a popular consumer review site, sources confirmed Tuesday.

Internet users noticed a particularly negative review of the site's DNA testing and family tree analysis services. They were then able to link the account, JefeWarren2020, to the presidential candidate's official email address.

"Site suggested I was only 1/1024th Native American, even though I have a lot of anecdotal family stories from my mama and my papa that suggest otherwise," she wrote in the bitter review. "Very bad services. I would not use them again."

"I even used my Native American heritage to get a leg up in life, and now some cheap website comes along and tells me it's all a lie? I don't think so, Buster!" the review continued. Warren then left a list of Native American words she knows as proof of her Indian heritage: teepee, maize, and buffalo.

"So as you can see, Ancestry.com is a huge scam!"

A Babylon Bee subscriber contributed to this report. If you want to get involved with the staff writers at The Babylon Bee, check out our membership options here!

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 month ago

'Charmed' star and Democrat activist also insisted she was a 'person of color' and 'disabled'

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

The Democratic Party announced today that it will hold its 2020 presidential convention in Milwaukee Wisconsin. There, Democrats are expected to nominate a radical abortion activist to take on President Donald Trump.

Democrats are heading to Wisconsin in an attempt to win back a state that supported Trump in 2016.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is set to announce Monday Milwaukee will host the July 13-16, 2020 convention.

Holding the convention in Wisconsin is significant for Democrats after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton declined to campaign in the state during the general election. Clinton narrowly lost the state to Trump, which along with small vote deficits in Pennsylvania and Michigan, decided the election in his favor.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said last month he was confident Milwaukee would be chosen, saying the choice was “advantageous to the Democratic Party.”

Other cities in the running included Houston and Miami.

Republicans will hold their 2020 convention to nominate Trump for re-election in Charlotte, North Carolina.

When it comes to the 2020 presidential election there is no bigger divide between President Donald Trump and the pro-abortion Democrats who want to replace him than the issue of infanticide and abortions up to birth.

While President Trump has taken a strongly pro-life position throughout his presidency and has compiled a strong pro-life record opposing abortion and defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Democrats have promoted killing babies in abortions even in the late term of pregnancy. And recently they supported infanticide.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions

Between now and the presidential primaries next year and the November 2020 general election, pro-life groups have vowed to hold these pro-abortion presidential candidates accountable for also supporting infanticide.

“Today’s vote exposes beyond all doubt the modern Democratic Party’s extreme agenda of abortion on demand through the moment of birth and even beyond – a deeply unpopular position even within their own rank and file,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “An overwhelming majority of voters are horrified by infanticide and want Congress to protect babies born alive during failed abortions. But when forced to take a position on the record, not a single one of the top Senate Democrats running for president in 2020 could muster the basic decency to outlaw infanticide.”

“President Trump’s pro-life leadership is obviously resonating with the public and could not present a clearer contrast to Democrats’ extremism. SBA List’s army of grassroots pro-life activists will go on offense to hold Democratic presidential contenders accountable for their betrayal of the most vulnerable and for trampling the will of the American people,” she told LifeNews.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said the Democrats running for president all claim to suport universal health care — except for babies who survive abortions.

The Democratic Party Platform says, “Democrats have been fighting to secure universal health care for the American people for generations, and we are proud to be the party that passed Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.”

“Yesterday, they walked away from that pledge, finding an exception to its universal coverage,” he said. “If a baby survives an abortion, he is not entitled to health care. The majority of Democrats voted to permit infanticide; only three voted for the bill that would protect the kids. President Trump denounced what the Democrats did.”

“Every Democrat who is either running for president, or planning to run, voted to legalize selective infanticide. The Democrats no longer support universal health care,” he concluded.

Not only do contenders such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have 100-percent pro-abortion voting records, they also sponsored a radical pro-abortion bill that would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders lead the pack in recent polling for potential 2020 Democratic nominees; setting the stage for another showdown between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party.

“It’s no surprise that the 76-year-old Biden and 77-year-old Sanders are ahead of the rest of the ever-expanding field of Democratic White House hopefuls, which right now stands at 14. It illustrates that polling in the 2020 race – at this very early point in the cycle – is being dominated by name recognition. Biden and Sanders have national profiles that overshadow the other contenders, including high-profile Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey,” reports Fox News.

The poll shows Biden taking the top spot with 28% of the vote and Sanders falling behind at 25%.

The former Vice President is widely expected to officially launch his 2020 presidential campaign by mid-April.

Read the full report at Fox News.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

In a new opinion column written in The Wall Street Journal, Senator Ben Sasse and Meghan McCain write about how the Democrat Party is now controlled by Planned Parenthood abortion extremists who support infanticide.

The Nebraska Senator and the daughter of former presidential candidate and Senator John McCain say the Democratic Party is now running by pro-abortion radicals who have moved far away from even the abortion supporters of yesteryear like Bill Clinton. At least those abortion advocates used to be able to say they wanted abortions to be rare. Today’s modern abortion advocates don’t even pay that lip service.

“The party of ‘safe, legal and rare’ has been captured by the loud voices and deep pockets of an extremist abortion industry that treats abortion as a moral good. Major Democratic politicians are even unwilling to protect the lives of babies who survive attempted abortions,” they write.

They excoriate all of the Democrat presidential candidates who recently voted for support infanticide, saying “infanticide isn’t complicated. The current debate is about whether or not it’s OK to deprive newborns of appropriate medical care.” The bill merely “would have required health-care providers to give babies who survive abortions the same care they would give to any other baby at the same gestational age.”

“It shouldn’t be controversial. It shouldn’t be partisan…. Yet under enormous pressure from an abortion industry that spends tens of millions in campaign contributions, Senate Democrats—including six seeking the presidency in 2020—filibustered the bill,” they wrote.

They also complained how the media has become a willing pro-abortion accomplice covering up the truth “with cheap euphemisms and a prefabricated narrative,” and describing “all pro-life policies, even ones backed by a majority of Americans, as ‘controversial.'”

And they highlighted how abortions up to birth and infanticide have received support from top Democrat politicians.

“Gov. Andrew Cuomo lit One World Trade Center pink to celebrate late-term abortion and the removal of protections for babies born alive during botched abortions,” they wrote. “Meanwhile in Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam endorsed infanticide outright, suggesting that a baby born during a botched abortion ought to be ‘made comfortable,’ but then possibly left to die on the table.”

“This debate is about infanticide. Planned Parenthood is defending that crime. Many in the national media are overlooking it. Democratic politicians are hiding from it. But the American people are repulsed by it. The recent vote was a missed opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us. But it will not be the last,” McCain and Sasse concluded.

When it comes to the 2020 presidential election there is no bigger divide between President Donald Trump and the pro-abortion Democrats who want to replace him than the issue of infanticide and abortions up to birth.

While President Trump has taken a strongly pro-life position throughout his presidency and has compiled a strong pro-life record opposing abortion and defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Democrats have promoted killing babies in abortions even in the late term of pregnancy. And recently they supported infanticide.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

Facebook has removed several ads placed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign that called for the breakup of Facebook and other tech giants.

The ads, which had identical images and text, touted Warren's recently announced plan to unwind "anti-competitive" tech mergers, including Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram.

“Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google," read the ads, which Warren's campaign had placed Friday. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.”

A message on the three ads reads: “This ad was taken down because it goes against Facebook's advertising policies.”

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed the ads had been taken down and said the company is reviewing the matter. The person said, according to an initial review, that the removal could be linked to the company's policies about using Facebook's brand in posts.

A representative for Warren's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment after POLITICO noticed that the ads had been removed.

More than a dozen other Facebook ads from Warren about her tech proposal were not affected.

The Massachusetts Democrat has staked out an aggressive stance toward Silicon Valley's biggest companies, going further than many of the other Democratic 2020 candidates.

The affected ads, which included a video, directed users to a petition on Warren’s campaign website urging them “to support our plan to break up these big tech companies.”

The ads were limited in size and reach, with each costing under $100, according to disclosure details listed online.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

On Tuesday afternoon, two weeks after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 18th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 16 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled it out of order. After Democrats denied Johnson’s request to vote on the bill he criticized them for failing to allow a vote. As Democrats have done on five occasions, the pro-life Congressman’s mic was ultimately cut off as he attempted to speak further on the legislation.

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a leading House member, discussed that in a recent interview with the Daily Signal.

“It’s just heartbreaking. I was disheartened by the vote, 44 senators that voted against legislation that would protect babies who were born alive, babies that had survived an abortion, were outside the womb, and yet they were not willing to bring in the insurer under law that they would bring in the doctor’s care,” she said. “In years past, this is passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. So it really exposed the extreme position that the left is taking right now, that Democrats are saying they reject legislation to protect babies born alive.”

“In the House, we are moving forward with a discharge petition. As you know, the Democrats have the majority in the House. One way that we can bring a bill to the floor is to demand a discharge petition,” she added. “You have to get 218 people to sign a discharge petition, and then you can bypass Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bring the bill directly to the floor. We’re working actively on that right now.”

Republicans would need all GOP members to sign the petition, along with 21 Democrats. Rodgers said she hoped polling data showing Americans strongly oppose infanticide would help change members’ minds.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

ACTION: Contact members of Congress and urge them to sign the Discharge Petition to bring the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor for a vote.

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Dolly Parton has long time not only been an incredible voice and talent in the music industry, but also a hard hitting and blunt voice in politics as well.

She recently just sent a fatal shot right at Democratic presidential nominee, Elizabeth Warren after she used her song. You’ve got to see this.

From Fox News: When Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., announced her presidential run, she did so underscored by Dolly Parton’s working-class anthem “9 to 5.” The song seemed to sum up the spirit of a candidacy built on giving workers a fairer shake.

The only problem is that the artist didn’t give her permission to use the hit.

Parton’s manager, Danny Nozell, revealed that not only did Warren use the song without permission, but that the singer doesn’t ever allow her songs to be involved with any political campaigns.

“We did not approve the request, and we do not approve requests like this of (a) political nature,” Nozell told The Associated Press.

Nozell, CEO of CTK Management, did not respond to a question about whether Parton’s team might register any formal complaint about Warren’s use of the song, which she played during a Friday town hall meeting in New York City.

Parton is notorious for keeping both her music and herself out of politics. Following an appearance at the 2017 Emmys alongside “9 to 5” co-stars Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda, the two bashed President Trump live on stage. Parton lightened the mood, saying: “Well, I know about support,” the country legend said pointing at her chest.

“I don’t voice my political opinions,” she told Fox News at the time. “I just get out there and entertain. To me, that’s what I do. I don’t condemn them.”

She elaborated in a recent interview with The Guardian saying:

“I’ve got as many Republican friends as I’ve got Democrat friends and I just don’t like voicing my opinion on things. I’ve seen things before, like the Dixie Chicks. You can ruin a career for speaking out,” she said. “I respect my audience too much for that, I respect myself too much for that. Of course I have my own opinions, but that don’t mean I got to throw them out there because you’re going to piss off half the people.

If Parton escalates the matter, there’s no shortage of precedent: The late Tom Petty reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., over the use of his song “American Girl” in her 2011 campaign, and former President George W. Bush got a similar letter from Petty over his choice of the singer’s “I Won’t Back Down” during the 2000 campaign.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

This article was first published on The Hill

“Medicare for all” sounds good and may make good electioneering slogan sense for presidential candidates like Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). It is a sales pitch to younger voters and will likely remain popular — at least until the public really understands what an expensive wrecking ball it is.

One of the most shocking pillars of the “Medicare for all” proposals being touted is the demolition of all private insurance. The resulting upheaval and displacement of health-care access across the board is the main reason that “Medicare for all” doesn’t have a chance of passing.

It is one thing to promote a basic government administered health insurance to reach the have nots; it is quite another to demolish all private insurance to paste up a prefabricated government one-size-fits-all product. The time and place to consider a massive socialized medicine program like “Medicare for all” is in a more primitive society without a well formed health-care system.

The destruction of the existing system and replacing it with a rigid government-run system with fewer choices might ultimately be cheaper in the long run but it would certainly be lower quality. Socialized health care across the board is not a good fit for America’s way of life. You may not be able to keep your doctor under ObamaCare, but at least you get to keep your health-care system. Not so with “Medicare for all.”

Of course, if “Medicare for all” ever passes, the senators and congressmen and congresswomen promoting it will quickly put together a plan to get their own high frills health coverage another way.

This article was published by Dr. Marc Siegel, an Opinion Contributor for The Hill.

Click here to read full article on The Hill

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 month ago

Dolly Parton is not messing around anymore with these political types and just sent a stern message to Elizabeth Warren. Dolly has a razor-sharp wit to go along with her musical talents and has always made a point of standing above politics and rarely ever chooses a side in public.

She is not happy with Liz Warren is using her hit song at campaign rallies. From Fox News:

When Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., announced her presidential run, she did so underscored by Dolly Parton’s working-class anthem “9 to 5.” The song seemed to sum up the spirit of a candidacy built on giving workers a fairer shake.

The only problem is that the artist didn’t give her permission to use the hit.

Parton’s manager, Danny Nozell, revealed that not only did Warren use the song without permission, but that the singer doesn’t ever allow her songs to be involved with any political campaigns.

“We did not approve the request, and we do not approve requests like this of (a) political nature,” Nozell told The Associated Press.

Nozell, CEO of CTK Management, did not respond to a question about whether Parton’s team might register any formal complaint about Warren’s use of the song, which she played during a Friday town hall meeting in New York City.

Parton is notorious for keeping both her music and herself out of politics. Following an appearance at the 2017 Emmys alongside “9 to 5” co-stars Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda, the two bashed President Trump live on stage. Parton lightened the mood, saying: “Well, I know about support,” the country legend said pointing at her chest.

“I don’t voice my political opinions,” she told Fox News at the time. “I just get out there and entertain. To me, that’s what I do. I don’t condemn them.”

She elaborated in a recent interview with The Guardian saying:

“I’ve got as many Republican friends as I’ve got Democrat friends and I just don’t like voicing my opinion on things. I’ve seen things before, like the Dixie Chicks. You can ruin a career for speaking out,” she said. “I respect my audience too much for that, I respect myself too much for that. Of course I have my own opinions, but that don’t mean I got to throw them out there because you’re going to piss off half the people.

If Parton escalates the matter, there’s no shortage of precedent: The late Tom Petty reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., over the use of his song “American Girl” in her 2011 campaign, and former President George W. Bush got a similar letter from Petty over his choice of the singer’s “I Won’t Back Down” during the 2000 campaign.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

The U.S. national debt is at a $22 trillion, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, that number will continue to rise with the federal deficit projected to exceed “$1 trillion each year beginning 2022.”

But for a large number of Democrats, who support socialism ideals and who believe that more government spending is the solution, is a problem that they fail to recognize it. Elizabeth Warren along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for more government spending and entitlement programs as the solution for our future.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), among many other extreme ideas, is now calling for breaking up the largest technology companies, including Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc., calling them anti-competitive behemoths that are crowding out competition.

“Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn’t exist,” Warren wrote in a post on Medium Friday. “Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world. It’s a great story — but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets.”

In an interview with Bloomberg, the Democrat senator is calling for legislation that would designate the companies as “platform utilities” and the appointment of regulators who would unwind technology mergers that undermine competition and harm innovation and small businesses.

If this is not Socialism, what is it? Share your thoughts and comment below.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

I believe it’s safe to say that it has been common knowledge for some time that the mainstream news media along with the Alphabet/Google conglomerate and the social media network giants are dominated by far-left ideologues who have one central focus, which is to control the entire world via globalist manipulation.

They’ve gotten to the place where they don’t even attempt to conceal their disdain for conservative ideals, as recent audio files have been leaked to sources who were able to disclose them publicly.

Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”

The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.

The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”

Google has not denied the authenticity of the leaked material.

In the clips, the transcripts of which are posted in full below, Kovacevich portrayed CPAC as a conference with a “dual identity,” one being a “premier gathering” that features a “whole swath of conservatives,” including “national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates.”

Yeah, it’s a great question Greg. I appreciate the question. I think one of the big themes – I think picking up on your question – that I saw in some internal listservs and one of the Dory questions focused on the question of the other speakers, right? What are we saying in terms of sponsoring a conference where you have sort of incendiary speakers, right, and I think it’s a very valid question, one we’ve talked a lot about here. I think, to be candid, one of the challenges we face with CPAC is that the conference itself has a kind of a dual identity. So on the one hand, it’s really the premier gathering of sort of big-tent conservatives. Especially in non-presidential years it sort of in some ways takes the place of the annual Republican National Convention. You have a whole swath of conservatives: national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates who attend the conference. The conference is attended by about 10,000 people. And so one of the other things is that the Republican Party and I think conservatism, in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what it should be, right, what should be sort of the position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably — the majority of Googlers would want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary comments, nativist comments and things like that. But it has been a very valuable place for us to reach a lot of the people and the big tent of conservatism.

On the other hand, and sort of to get to the point of the dual identity, in recent years with CPAC there has also been this kind of sideshow circus-like element, right, that I think the CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference. I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right? We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach. And I think that it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC. I think one of the things that — we also face this question in other areas, by the way. So in the realm of sort of politics, there’s always going to — there’s often going to be someone at some event we sponsor who will say something we don’t agree with. Last year, a group that we support, the New America Foundation, had your guys’s, one of your Senators, Elizabeth Warren. She spoke, and she called for the breakup of Google at that [laughter] conference, right? The conference of an organization we support. Obviously we don’t support that position.

One of the other things we’re dealing with is also growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government. We have sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and Fox News who have been focusing on some of the tensions that we Googlers feel internally around — many of which became public after the Damore memo. And I think some of those media outlets are actively pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives. And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone. So one of the things we say out on our team is, in order to count on an ally in the political realm you have to make an ally. If we want policymakers to help us when we have a bad bill or a regulation pending, we have to build relationships with them ahead of time. I think part of our work in the DC office and across all of our team is building relationships not just with the people in power but also with the people who influence them.

Questioner: Okay. Second question is– you mentioned Breitbart and The Daily Caller a couple of times before in the talk. Are we orienting our public image so that we will receive less negative and maybe more positive press from sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller?

Kovacevich: I think it’s a complicated question. I mean, I think at a certain point our values are our values, right? Google stands for inclusiveness, we stand for tolerance, we stand for building products for everyone, and if certain outlets don’t like that, we are probably going to be at odds with them perpetually, right? On the other hand, sometimes some outlets and others just state blatant kind of mistruths, right, or they’ll shade something in sort of the most– you know, that has a legitimate explanation, they’ll shade something in sort of the most negative light possible, and that’s something that we try to avoid, if we can, consistent with our values. I think– and I want to probably wrap up because we’re almost at the hour– look, I appreciate that this is hard and I know that our sponsorship of this has caused pain, disappointment to many of you and we understand that, and I think appreciate those of you who have spoken up about that. I value that Google is the kind of company where people can voice their disappointment and their hopes for how the company can stay true to its ideals going forward in the future. We certainly didn’t mean to cause pain or that kind of disappointment in people. And we really do value the feedback and the input.

The news media has devolved into a completely political spin machine favoring only socialistic and globalist ideals, and anything that favors conservative, or, Heaven forbid, favors President Trump, is totally taboo.

For researchers, the search engines are deliberately being skewed to steer their efforts to find liberal views and positions first on the list and to push conservative ideals so far down the list as to be undiscoverable by the average person.

I think the sentiments echoed in these transcripts are a clear indicator of the disdain the left has for conservative principles. Their intentions are now in plain sight, and they have stopped any pretense of tolerance.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed breaking up the big tech giants, including Amazon, Facebook and Google, a move she says will help the "next generation of great American tech companies ... flourish."

"I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules," Warren wrote in a blog post. "And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor."

This is breaking news...

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump accused companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google of colluding with Democrats to censor his supporters online to their political advantage.

“Actually it’s incredible that I won the election because you know it was so rigged against me,” he said. “It wasn’t Russians. Russia collusion was a delusion. But what there is, is there was collusion between the Democrats and these tech companies.”

The president spoke about political bias in top Silicon Valley companies in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Monday.

The president said that any Republican running in 2020 would face a “tremendous disadvantage” in social media after he surprised tech companies by beating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

“It’s totally steered, which has been proven now, totally steered toward the Democrats and yet I won,” he said.

Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow told the president he would be running against not only the Democrats and the media but also against the big tech companies during his presidential run in 2020.

The president responded by noting Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign proposal to break up the big tech companies.

“Isn’t it funny? Elizabeth Warren called for their total breakup,” he said. “I do smile though, they’re so protective of her.”

He sympathized with critics of the big tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter who wanted to regulate the companies.

“I understand a lot of people wanting to look into it. I mean normally I’d like to say let it be free, let it all be free, but it’s not free,” Trump said. “It’s really run by a small number of people.”

The president also referred to reports from Breitbart News exposing tech bias against conservatives in companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

“Now we’ve seen it, now we’ve caught them. We’ve seen the speeches, we’ve seen the in-house little videos that somehow got released, to me, that’s a very big scandal,” he said.

The Big Tech Masters of the Universe have made it clear that they are dedicating themselves to not allowing a repeat of Trump’s 2016 election win. During an all-hands company meeting after the election, Google VP Kent Walker said that nationalism must be just a “hiccup” in the march towards “progress.” Google accomplishes this goal by manipulating search autocomplete results, among other techniques. Meanwhile, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are constantly innovating new ways to stifle conservative media and prominent figures, including “deboosting” posts, shadowbanning and blacklisting conservatives to stop the spread of popular ideas, and tinkering with algorithms to dampen conservative media while propping up the mainstream media. All while they enjoy special legal protections under federal law, and their CEOs blithely claim to Congress that their companies have no political bias.

The president specifically criticized Twitter for blacklisting conservatives on their platform.

“Twitter’s horrible what they’re doing to people, they’re blanking them out … What’s going on with Twitter is terrible for conservatives,” he said.

Trump again pointed to a growing political movement around breaking up the big companies monopolizing tech and online speech.

“A lot of people are talking about breaking them up. They’re dishonest, there’s tremendous dishonesty,” he said. “And it’s really all steered toward the Republicans and the conservative movement. It’s a hundred percent steered against.”

When asked by Breitbart News reporter Charlie Spiering about how he planned to fight tech bias in the 2020 election, he replied, “You fight it by just being good. You got to be really good. It’s much harder for a conservative Republican to win than it is for a liberal Democrat.”

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

The power-drunk House Democrats will not know what hit them.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

We need to make hard decisions now about what will truly benefit current and future Americans.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

A manager for Dolly Parton called out Democratic 2020 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) saying she did not get approval to use Parton’s song “9 to 5” at her campaign events.

At a recent campaign launch event Warren played the Dolly Parton song “9 to 5,” which features lyrics that describe working class concerns.

Parton sings in part:

Workin’ 9 to 5, what a way to make a livin’

Barely gettin’ by, it’s all takin’ and no givin’

They just use your mind and they never give you credit

It’s enough to drive you crazy if you let it

9 to 5, for service and devotion

You would think that I would deserve a fat promotion

Want to move ahead but the boss won’t seem to let me

I swear sometimes that man is out to get me!

However, Parton’s manager, Danny Nozell, told the Associated Press, “We did not approve the request, and we do not approve requests like this of (a) political nature”

Nozell, CEO of CTK Management, did not respond to a question about whether Parton’s team might register any formal complaint about Warren’s use of the song, which she played during a Friday town hall meeting in New York City.

If Parton escalates the matter, there’s no shortage of precedent: The late Tom Petty reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., over the use of his song “American Girl” in her 2011 campaign, and former President George W. Bush got a similar letter from Petty over his choice of the singer’s “I Won’t Back Down” during the 2000 campaign.

Parton is notoriously quiet about politics. However, in 2017, she stood beside Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin at the Emmys while they attacked President Trump.

Fonda called the president a “sexist, egotistical, lying hypocritical bigot.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

presente

Published  1 month ago

Recent HUD Sales Have Sent 98% of Distressed Mortgages to Wall Street, Following Promises to Prioritize Selling to Nonprofit Community Organizations

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro criticized his fellow opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) during a Sunday interview on CNN's State of the Union.

Castro was asked by CNN anchor Jake Tapper to respond to Sanders, who called Castro and Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D., Mass.) support for reparations unclear and vague.

"What I said was that I've long believed that this country should address slavery, the original sin of slavery, including by looking at reparations. If I'm president, then I'm going to appoint a commission other task force to determine the best way to do that," Castro said.

Castro went on to blast Sanders for ruling out reparations in the form of a cash payment when what he describes as a majority of Sanders's agenda consists of "writing a big check." Sanders has led the way in supporting mammoth programs such as the Green New Deal, "Medicare for all," and tuition-free college.

Castro said:

There's a tremendous amount of disagreement on how we would do that, but let me say something about Senator Sanders's response there. He was also asked this question in 2016. What he said on The View the other day, I think, he didn't think the best way to address this was for the United States to write a check. To my mind that may or may not be the best way to address it. However, it's interesting to me that when it comes to ‘Medicare for all,' health care, you know the response has we need to write a big check, that when it comes to tuition-free or debt-free college, the answer has been we need to write a big check. So if the issue is compensation think the argue about writing a big check ought to be the argument you make if you're making the argument that a big check needs to be written for a whole bunch of other stuff.

Des Moines Register

Published  1 month ago

Bernie Sanders, who announced his 2020 campaign recently, is a close second in Iowa's preferences in poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers conducted March 3-6.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

For a woman who has no problem offering to raise taxes on the American people, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) can't get around to paying her own. Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical? Claim Your Free Trump

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed political moderates at the South by Southwest Conference & Festivals in Austin, Texas, calling their views “misplaced” as she defended her progressive politics in a room full of supporters.

“Moderate is not a stance. It's just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh,’” the New York Democrat said Saturday during an interview with Briahna Gray, senior politics editor for the Intercept. “We’ve become so cynical, that we view ‘meh,’ or ‘eh’ — we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete when ... the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of visions, and the ‘meh’ is just worshipped now, for what?”

The self-declared Democratic socialist also criticized the treatment of minorities throughout American history, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan's policies, which she said "pitted" white working class people against minorities in order "to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.

"So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was ... this like really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were 'sucks' on our country," she said.

"So you think about this image of welfare queens and what [Reagan] was really trying to talk about was ... this like really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were 'sucks' on our country."

— U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

"And it's this whole tragedy of the commons type of thinking where it's like because ... this one specific group of people, that you are already kind of subconsciously primed to resent, you give them a different reason that's not explicit racism but still rooted in a racist caricature," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "It gives people a logical reason, a 'logical' reason to say, 'Oh yeah, no, toss out the whole social safety net.'"

Other topics Ocasio-Cortez discussed included the Green New Deal and capitalism, which she said could not be redeemed because it puts profit “above everything else.”

“The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished,” she said.

"When we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished."

— U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

During a Q&A session with the audience, television host and author Bill Nye the Science Guy stepped up to the microphone.

“I’m a white guy,” Nye said. “I think the problem on both sides is fear. People of my ancestry are afraid to pay for everything as immigrants come into this country. People who work at the diner in Alabama are afraid to ask for what is reasonable. So do you have a plan to work with people in Congress that are afraid? That’s what’s going on with many conservatives especially when it comes to climate change. People are afraid of what happens when we try to make these big changes.”

“One of the keys to dismantling fear is dismantling a zero-sum mentality,” Ocasio-Cortez replied. “It means the rejection outright of the logic that says someone else’s gain necessitates my loss and that my gain must necessitate someone’s loss. We can give without a take. We’re viewing progress as a loss instead of as an investment. When we choose to invest in our system, we are choosing to create wealth. When we all invest in them, then the wealth is for all of us too.”

"When we choose to invest in our system, we are choosing to create wealth. When we all invest ... then the wealth is for all of us."

— U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The nine-day music and media festival has attracted many political figures this year. Several 2020 presidential candidates made appearances Saturday, including Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is also considering a presidential bid, also made the pilgrimage.

Ohio's former Republican Gov. John Kasich -- a potential GOP challenger to President Trump -- also spoke at the festival Saturday.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s attempt to shame a news outlet for misquoting her blistering attack on former President Barack Obama backfired after her released audio recording only confirmed her remarks.

Mediaite

Published  1 month ago

Former Obama cabinet official and current Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro crushed rival Bernie Sanders‘ argument against “writing a check” for reparations, noting that Sanders’ solution to a host of other issues is to do just that.

On Sunday morning’s edition of CNN’s State of the Union, host Jake Tapper asked Castro for his reaction to a clip of Sanders responding to a question about support for slavery reparations by asking what his rivals mean by reparations.

Castro noted that he has promised a “task force” to explore reparations, but zeroed in on a different Sanders remark on reparations. In a recent appearance on The View, Sanders said that “our job is to address the crises facing the American people and our communities, and I think there are better ways to do that than just writing out a check.”

“To my mind, that may or may not be the best way to address it,” Castro said. “However, it’s interesting to me that when it comes to Medicare for all, health care, you know, the response there has been we need to write a big check, that when it comes to tuition-free or debt-free college, the answer has been we need to write a big check.”

“So if the issue is compensating descendants of slaves, I don’t think the argument about writing a big check ought to be the argument you make if you’re making the argument that a big check needs to be written for a whole bunch of other stuff,” Castro continued. “If, under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property.”

Several other Democratic candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have expressed support for some form of reparations for slavery and Jim Crow.

Watch the clip above, via CNN.

[Featured image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Ilhan Omar has panned President Barack Obama's message of "hope and change", calling it a "mirage" in an explosive interview.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

After repeatedly condemning the nation of Israel and those who support it in a series of anti-Semitic comments, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar has picked up an endorsement from David Duke.

“David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and an open racist and antisemite, is publicly defending Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the wake of the freshman Democrat’s series of antisemitic statements that have rankled the Democrat Party nationally,” Breitbart reports.

In one tweet, Duke calls Omar “the most important member of the U.S. Congress.”

“Simply stated, she is important because the dared expose the gorilla in Congress that nobody dares speak,” Duke said in another tweet.

Here’s more from Breitbart:

Duke has been a lightning rod in American politics for years, and in recent years the media and left have gone after Republicans–particularly President Trump–for having been praised by him. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the media demanded repeatedly that Trump disavow Duke–which he did. But now Duke has endorsed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)–a Hawaiian Democrat–in the 2020 presidential election.

This is not the first time Duke has taken up Omar’s cause either. Back in early February, when she first came under the national spotlight for anti-Semitism at the beginning of the new Congress, Duke backed her up publicly as well.

Duke’s decision to back Omar now comes in the wake of several Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and presidential candidates like Sens Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as well as many other Democrats, refusing to demand that Omar apologize and attempting to explain away her comments as somehow not deliberately anti-Semitic.

As the Hill reports, Gabbard vehemently denounced the endorsement.

“I have strongly denounced David Duke’s hateful views and his so-called ‘support’ multiple times in the past, and reject his support,” Gabbard said.

An op-ed from the Washington Examiner adds:

Duke issued a series of tweets today saying that freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar’s string of obviously anti-Semitic statements and actions make her “the most important member of the U.S. Congress.” Duke, whose 50-year history as a Nazi sympathizer and former KKK leader is well-documented, meant it as high praise.

In January, Omar said the nation of Israel has hypnosis over the entire world. In February, the Minnesota Democrat said people who support Israel were bought off by Jews. And, most recently in March, she said if someone supports the American-Israeli relationship then they must have pledged allegiance to a foreign government.

According to the op-ed, mainstream media outlets will undoubtedly treat Duke’s endorsement of a Democrat differently than the way they pounced on Duke’s campaign endorsement of Trump. Trump immediately and repeatedly denounced the endorsement.

Check it out:

First, Omar herself should be repeatedly questioned about whether she accepts Duke’s endorsement and about why her views and his dovetail so nicely. Second, every Democrat should be asked, in light of Duke’s embrace of Omar, why the Democratic caucus shouldn’t be seen as Duke-friendly because it refused to adopt a resolution specifically denouncing Omar’s anti-Semitism.

This bears repeating: If the Duke-Omar embrace isn’t turned into a universal question for all Democratic House members, the media will have failed as an institution to act in a professional, even-handed manner.

If the media will not hold Democrats to the same standard, then it should forever ignore all of Duke’s efforts to thrust himself into the news merely by saying or tweeting something.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Several 2020 presidential candidates of all political stripes appeared at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, on Saturday. But it was U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- who at 29 years old is ineligible to seek the White House -- who drew the largest crowd.

The New York Democrat attracted more interest than a bill that included U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Starbucks CEO and potential candidate Howard Schultz, and former Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, event organizers told KRIS-TV of Corpus Christi.

Other Democratic candidates slated to speak Sunday included Julian Castro, the former Cabinet secretary in the Obama administration and former San Antonio mayor, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Ocasio-Cortez's audience packed a ballroom at the nine-day music and media festival, with some being turned away, according to the station.

During an interview with Briahna Gray, senior politics editor for the Intercept, the freshman congresswoman chastised political moderates, touched on racism, capitalism, class and the wealth gap and took a question from Bill Nye – known as Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Later Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez reacted to a tweet that said Starbucks boss Schultz was greeted with silence upon his criticism of the Green New Deal while at SXSW.

“Ah yes, because we‘ve all drawn upon the rich inspiration of American leaders who‘ve inspired a nation in crisis by saying, “No, You Can’t,” she tweeted.

Ocasio-Cortez has become one of the most recognizable political figures in Congress, in part because of her use of social media and her outspoken personality. They have also made her the subject of criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, one of her supporters, recently said in an interview that the Constitution's age requirement to become president – 35 years old – should be amended so Ocasio-Cortez can launch a White House bid.

Like Ocasio-Cortez, Moore also took issue with moderates, telling them to “Take a position.”

National Review

Published  1 month ago

I have a new hobby. It’s collecting the excuses Democrats make for Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democratic congresswoman who has an unhealthy fixation on Jewish influence, Jewish money, and Jewish loyalty. Omar has said that Israel “hypnotized the world,” ascribing to Jews the power of mind control in the service of manipulating public opinion. She’s said the only reason Congress supports Israel is Jewish campaign donations. Most recently, using the classic anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty, she criticized supporters of Israel for having “allegiance to a foreign power.” A real treasure, Omar is. A typical freshman congresswoman sees her mission as — forgive the expression — bringing home the bacon for her district. Not Ilhan. Her project is to mainstream anti-Semitic rhetoric within the Democratic party. Once upon a time, you’d have to visit the invaluable website of the Middle East Media Research Institute to hear such tripe. Now you just need to flip on C-SPAN.

And Democrats are powerless to stop it. They’re tripping over themselves, making rationalizations, dodging reality, and trying to clean up this anti-Semitic mess. Omar is new to this, they say. She never intended to come across as anti-Semitic. She can’t help it. “She comes from a different culture.” She didn’t know what she was saying — she’s a moron! She’s just trying to “start a conversation” about the policies of Israel’s government. And why are you singling her out, anyway. “She is living through a lot of pain.” She’s black, she’s a woman, and she’s Muslim. You can’t condemn her without also condemning white men of privilege. What are you, racist? Islamophobic? Shame on you for picking on this poor lady, who just happens to say that American Jews serve a foreign power by buying off politicians and using the Force to blinker people’s minds.

Before such “arguments” — they are really assertions of victimhood to intimidate critics — Nancy Pelosi shudders. She’s supposed to be this Iron Lady, returned to power after exile, ruling her caucus with a vise-like grip. But her hands are covered in Palmolive. She’s spent the first weeks of Congress doing little more than responding to the various insanities of Omar and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Pelosi will condemn Omar one minute, before appearing with her on the cover of Rolling Stone the next. She’s lost a step. She can’t hold her caucus together when Republicans call for motions to recommit on the House floor. The policies her candidates ran on in swing districts vanished under the solar-powered glare of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. We’re not talking about covering preexisting conditions, we’re pledging to rid the world once and for all of the scourges of air travel and cow flatulence. Pelosi’s trigger-happy committee chairmen, firing their subpoena cannons into the air at random, look like goofballs desperate to impeach President Trump.

Whatever control Pelosi had over her majority vanished the second she delayed the resolution condemning Omar. It then became undeniable that AOC & co. is in charge. Identity politics has rendered the Democrats incapable of criticizing anti-Semitism so long as it dons the wardrobe of intersectionality. It’s nothing short of incredible that three women from three different cities — New York, Detroit, and Minneapolis — can run roughshod over 233 other House Democrats with a little help from social media, woke 24-year-olds in the digital press, and the Congressional Black Caucus. If you’re Ocasio-Cortez right now, you must love life from the comfort of the test kitchen in your luxury D.C. apartment building. What’s next for this trio — two of whom are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, two of whom support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement that seeks Israel’s destruction, and all three of whom combine radical anti-American politics with radical self-regard — finding a candidate to primary pro-Israel Democrat Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, on which Omar sits? Challenging Chuck Schumer in the Democratic primary when he’s up for reelection in 2022?

The most pressing order of business has got to be the 2020 presidential election. Omar, AOC, and Tlaib don’t strike me as Cory Booker supporters. Amy Klobuchar might be too much of a taskmaster for them. Most likely the radicals will line up behind the current frontrunner, Bernie Sanders, who has already surrounded himself with anti-Israel activists. Sanders has said criticism of Omar is just a means to “stifle debate” over Israel’s government. He’s too smart to believe that. As the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in history, he has a responsibility to draw lines. After all, he’s no stranger to the dual-loyalty charge — though of course in his case the other country was the Soviet Union.

Bernie Sanders has no interest in stopping Omar. He recognizes that she represents the impending transformation of the Democratic party into something more closely resembling the British Labour party. Labourites elected avowed socialist Jeremy Corbyn party leader in September 2015. The years since have been spent in one anti-Semitism scandal after another. Sanders wants desperately to be the American Corbyn. If anti-Semitism is the price of a socialist America, so be it. Remember what Stalin said about the omelette. I’m sure Bernie does. If Democrats can’t rebuke Omar swiftly and definitively, if they have trouble competing with Ocasio-Cortez’s Instagram cooking show, how will they be able to stop Sanders from carrying his devoted bloc of supporters to plurality victories in the early primaries, and using the divided field to gain momentum just as Trump did?

So far this year the Democrats have floundered in a pit of racism, sexual assault, and anti-Semitism. They’ve embraced policies akin to infanticide, and announced plans to expropriate wealth, pay reparations for slavery, eliminate private health insurance within two years, and rebuild or retrofit every building in the United States before the world ends from climate change twelve years from now. Throughout it all, they’ve received a pass from the know-nothing media. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Sanders have all made the claim that Omar has done nothing but criticize the policies of Bibi Netanyahu. That’s a bald-faced lie, a falsehood not one of the hundreds upon hundreds of reporters covering the Democratic field has scrutinized. These are the very people who have spent the past three years sermonizing on the importance of truth in politics, and they are doing Bernie’s work for him. Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution insists that the Democratic party continues to be center-left. But the election returns and publi- opinion data that support her thesis become much less important when the party’s biggest stars make a hard-left turn. The Democrats seem ripe for a takeover by Bernie and his pals, or at least for a blistering and incendiary battle for control similar to what the GOP experienced last time around.

Blame for Democratic radicalization is most often assigned to Trump — there’s little he isn’t blamed for — but it really ought to go to President Obama. It was Obama who established “daylight” between the United States and Israel, who blamed opposition to his Iran deal on “money” from “lobbyists,” who failed to veto a U.N. resolution singling out the Jewish State and declaring its settlements to have “no legal validity.” It was Obama’s disastrous second term — when he handed the reins of governance to an administrative state immune from popular sovereignty, when he flouted the Constitution in expanding his administrative amnesty, when he made overtures to hostile governments in Iran and Cuba — that set into motion the decline of the American center-left. Now the Obama bros defend Omar on their podcast and in their newsletter, and bolster the presidential candidacy of Robert Francis “Beto” “Take the Wall Down” O’Rourke. If Obama really wanted to arrest the Democrats’ slide into socialism and anti-Semitism, he’d speak out. Do you think Joe Biden will able to stop it? Fat chance. The odds of a Bernie Sanders nomination, a Howard Schultz candidacy, and a Donald Trump victory increase every time Ilhan Omar opens her mouth.

This piece originally appeared in the Washington Free Beacon. It is reprinted here with permission.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

If 'the line' isn’t at birth, where does one draw it? Who can’t be killed? The Democrats are hiding from their own tacit endorsement of infanticide.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Beat,” 2020 presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stated that Paul Manafort would have received a different sentence if he was poor and African-American, and “It’s two justice systems.”

Warren said, “It’s two justice systems. … People who’ve got buckets of money and are well connected get treated with kid gloves. Everybody else doesn’t.”

Host Ari Melber asked, “Do you think, when you look at that statistically, that a similar defendant who might have been poor and black would have gotten a different sentence?”

Warren answered, “Oh, we know the data on this. Of course the sentence would have been different. In fact, study after study after study shows that for the exact same crimes, African-Americans are more likely than whites to be arrested, to be prosecuted, to be wrongfully convicted, and to receive harsher sentences. Race matters in our criminal justice system, and it is not a system of equal justice under law.”

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Democrats are trying as hard as they can to re-package this whole issue in the way Warren is doing here, and they can’t be allowed to get away with it.

No, all criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. Not by a long shot, and more than criticism of America is treason. And no one is claiming it is.

But Democrats are claiming that Israel’s supporters are claiming it, and worse, they’re using this deflection to cover up what Omar really said and what’s really wrong with it.

Here’s Warren performing a classic hide-the-ball trick:

“We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world — and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a statement. “In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence — like those made against Rep. Omar — are never acceptable.”

TRENDING: 1 day later: Hillary is still thinking about 2020 – is ‘surprised’ you took her seriously yesterday

Hold it right there.

First of all, Omar’s criticism wasn’t even of Israel. It was of Americans who support Israel. First she falsely claimed that supporters of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee are in it “for the Benjamins.” Then when someone explained to her that AIPAC doesn’t give any money to political candidates, she went into the classic anti-Semitic trope that claims Jews in America have divided loyalty, and in fact have “sworn allegiance” to a foreign government.

What complete and utter rot. If Canada was under attack, we would defend it. If Britain was under attack, we would defend it. Same goes for France, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and many other nations with whom we have alliances.

But here’s the difference: Israel is under attack a lot more often than any of the nations I just mentioned. And the people who attack Israel are also the religious and ideological allies of Ilhan Omar. What she mischaracterizes as an untoward allegiance to a foreign government is merely the support of an ally. The problem she has with it is that she hates this particular ally.

Not convinced?

Her rant brought about some digging of her older statements, which brought about the revelation that in 2012 she claimed “Israel has hypnotized the world.”

That is not only nuts, if anything it’s the opposite of the truth. Just check in at the UN to see how the world feels about Israel. Most of the creatures who lurk there seem to feel the same way about Israel that Ilhan Omar does. Only a tiny number of countries, including the United States, sticks up for the Jewish state.

This is important because Omar’s statements go way beyond “criticism of Israel.” She’s engaging in well-worn anti-Semitic garbage that accuses Jews of disloyalty to America, claims Jewish money buys control over American leaders, and claims that the Jewish state is some sort of reservoir for global evil.

And yet here’s Elizabeth Warren, claiming disingenuously that Omar’s the real victim here, as if she’s done nothing more than offer a few critiques at the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu.

RELATED: Pelosi: Ilhan Omar isn’t anti-Semitic – she just doesn’t understand the ‘weight of her words’

Democrats don’t seem capable of getting enough of their members on board with a simple resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which should tell you everything you need to know about today’s Democratic Party. They’ve got a real lunatic in their midst in Ilhan Omar, and they won’t do anything about it because their left-wing base pretty much thinks the same way she does.

Fun fact: Jewish Americans are known to vote Democratic at a rate of about 75 percent. When they start to realize that anti-Semitism is both rampant and tolerated within the Democratic Party, how much of that 75 percent just might peel off and vote for Donald Trump – who has steadfastly supported Israel – in 2020?

I’m starting to think Ilhan Omar was God’s clever trick to ensure Trump’s re-election.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

news.trust.org

Published  1 month ago

USA-CONGRESS/ANTISEMITISM (PIX):Debate over anti-Semitism charges exposes divide in U.S. Democratic Party

The Old School Patriot

Published  1 month ago

If there is one theme that ideologically separates constitutional conservatives from progressive socialists it is — victor vs. victim. The left must have victims and they will go to no ends to create them in reality, or fiction. And what is even worse, they will enact policies that generate victims all for their ideological domination and electoral patronage. Obama’s theme of “Yes We Can” was not about the indomitable individual entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and determination. No, it was about yes, we — government — can rule over your lives, and redefine what is a right, based upon our ideological agenda, and force you into a perpetual state of dependency and economic enslavement instead of economic empowerment. After all, you didn’t build that!

And so, one of the most absurd, insidious, and dangerous policies of the tyrannical left in America has reared its head once again: reparations.

As reported by US News:

“Reparations for slave descendants is emerging as a prominent theme in the Democratic presidential primary as issues surrounding race move to the forefront of the 2020 election, though debate remains over how exactly compensation would be delivered and what even qualifies as a reparation.

The Democratic candidates who have said they support reparations in some form include Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro. Long-shot candidate Marianne Williamson has unveiled the most thorough plan, proposing $100 billion in financial compensation.

It’s an issue that has garnered opposition from both sides of the aisle, most notably former President Barack Obama, the first African-American to win the White House. And 2016 polling from Marist College found that a majority of Americans oppose direct payments to descendants of slaves, though 68 percent of African-Americans support reparations for all black citizens. But the growing support among 2020 Democrats indicates the changing attitudes on reparations as the candidates vie to win over black voters in a crowded primary field.

Still, implementing some type of reparations – and for whom – remains unsettled. While the dialogue about reparations has entered mainstream political discussion, candidates have at times appeared to muddle the issue, raising it in connection with different approaches that would address race-based income inequality.

“Reparations in some way is a proxy for a larger conversation about inequality and racism on the impact of mobility,” says Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, a national group working to mobilize black voters.

“Attempting to look at the real impact of centuries of discriminatory policy targeting black people is an important conversation for us to have.”

I have an idea: since slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, poll taxes, Literacy tests, lynchings, and the decimation of the nuclear, traditional black family are all tied to the policies of the Democrat Party . . . the party of the jackass should pick up the tab.

This is yet another of those divisive wealth redistribution schemes courtesy of the “Walking (Brain) Dead” of the Democrat party. As a black man born and raised in the South, I find this utterly condescending and offensive. It is yet another example of the progressive socialist mantra of the soft bigotry of low expectations. All I have, and anyone should ask for, is the equality of opportunity. Instead, these elitists of the left believe in the equality of outcomes and seek to give the real crumbs of their blessings to us po’ lil’ Negroes.

Let me be damn clear: any black person supporting such folly is one who still maintains a slave mentality. It is not a physical bondage, no, it is far worse, it is an economic bondage which demeans one and tells them that they are nothing but a victim.

Gotta ask: for all those who are in an interracial marriage, should the white spouse write them a check, and say, “Baby, I am so sorry for what my ancestors — centuries ago — did?” How stupid, and doggone, we are not even to Saturday but here we have a serious contender for our “Stuck on Stupid Saturday” recognition.

So, how much money should the US taxpayer give to Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey? What is the cut line to apply? Will these reparations be given as retribution to those who have since passed, or just to living descendants? If you have an earning power or income of what amount will you get your reparation, or is there a “means test?”

Heck, if you are a black Republican, and a descendant of a former slave do you get anything? Y’all know the answer to that question. Talk about buying votes, and the most disingenuous, disparaging, offer that could ever be made to free people. Heck, should the Egyptians pay the Jews? I mean how far back does this potentially go, why not include white indentured servants of the British crown?

This, of course, should not be any surprise, after all this is the political party that is devoid of any new, fresh, ideas. They just retread socialist blather. Think about it, this is also part of the Green New Deal, remember, give money to people unwilling to work. This time, we are giving money to people for labor — yes, forced — that they never did.

See, I think this is all a big ol’ Democrat guilt trip. Ya know, all those Confederate statues that they want to rip down? Well, they were the ones who erected them in the first place.

Lemme share a little history with y’all: the Texas GOP was birthed by blacks. As a matter of fact, one of the early Texas Republican party Chairmen was a black man, Norris Wright Cuney. He served as Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas for 14 years, 1884-1898. He was also a customs official and was deemed one of the most powerful black men of the 19th century. Men like Cuney and Booker T. Washington did not ask for reparations, they only sought out the equality of opportunity that could be afforded them. Heck, the first Oprah Winfrey was Madame CJ Walker. She earned her wealth, even in the times of Democrat segregation. She didn’t seek any doggone reparations.

I wholeheartedly condemned these progressive socialists who want to maintain their slavery mindset over my black community. I am disgusted with any black person who would embrace this abject disrespect . . . where is your pride?

Simply put, take this idea of reparations and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Yes, there is only a one-word response to this leftist victimology folly: FUBAR!

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Economist Thomas Sowell expressed great concern that enough Americans might be persuaded by the siren call of socialism to take the country down that route.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

The Democratic party spent the week working through an ugly internal drama arising from Representative Ilhan Omar’s depiction of supporters of the U.S. alliance with Israel as promoting “allegiance to a foreign country.” Pro-Israel Democrats wanted to get the party on record calling such claims a form of anti-Semitism. Omar’s allies rallied around her.

Democrats managed to smooth it over with an anti-hate resolution, first incorporating more fulsome disavowals of anti-Muslim bigotry, and then language denouncing bigotry against … basically everybody (“African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others”). The resolution declared Nazis are bad, Martin Luther King Jr. was good, and — the real heart of the matter — rejected “the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance.”

It was a very Democratic-party solution. Adding to the comedy, 23 House Republicans voted no on the resolution, joined by a judicious abstention from white nationalist Steve King. Amazingly, after spending days focusing relentlessly on Omar’s comments, Republicans voted against a resolution specifically deeming those comments to be anti-Semitic. And their stated reason is that the resolution also attacked other kinds of racism.

Louie Gohmert says he will vote against the resolution, because it now "defends just about everything" instead of just anti-Semitism.

— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) March 7, 2019

Possibly their actual gripe was that the resolution noted, “On August 11 and 12, 2017, self-identified neo-Confederates, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen held white supremacist events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where they marched on a synagogue under the Nazi swastika, engaged in racist and anti-Semitic demonstrations and committed brutal and deadly violence against peaceful Americans.”

The House resolution vote had good people on both sides. But all the bad people were on the Republican side.

Some conservative attacks on the resolution have revealed the hollow bad faith of their objections. Ben Shapiro calls it a “sham resolution constructed to shield an open anti-Semite.” Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel complains that it mentioned the Nazi rally in Charlottesville:

So just to be clear: A Somali-American Democrat engages in repeated anti-Semitism, and Democrats pass a resolution that condemns "white supremacists" (and gets in a reference to Charlottesville).

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) March 7, 2019

The resolution did not “shield” Omar. It specifically cited the form of anti-Semitism she employed, even repeating her exact terms and specifically defining them as a kind of anti-Semitism. This was a step several presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren refused to take. Both Warren and Sanders released statements portraying Omar as having been smeared as an anti-Semite for her innocent criticisms of Israel. The House resolution plainly contradicted that stance.

Now, what about the fact that the resolution also highlighted other kinds of bigotry? That does not undermine its renunciation of Omar’s anti-Semitic remark. It does reveal a lot about where her right-wing critics are coming from, though.

Omar’s allies kept deflecting the question of her anti-Semitism to the worse bigotry on the right. Bringing up the other side’s flaws is inadequate as a substitute for addressing your own. But it’s fine if you do it in addition to addressing your own.

And it is actually true that the Republican party is far more bigoted, in far more ways, and that Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes is hardly the gravest crisis of racism in the United States. It’s notable that the formal denunciation of anti-Islamic bigotry, a widespread and serious phenomenon that George W. Bush tried to halt but which has been stoked by Donald Trump, has never passed Congress before last night. Republicans blocked such an effort in 2016.

Republicans may be offended that the resolution mentions a Nazi rally. But the fact that Trump is the first president to inspire Nazis to rally to his side is hardly irrelevant to the issue of bigotry. And their objection to its inclusion highlights the bad faith of their whole effort. Their real goal is not to oppose dual loyalty smears. It’s to focus single-mindedly on this one form of bigotry as a way of excusing the bigotry on their own side.

This was not a fight over whether Democrats are as compromised by bigotry as the Republicans. It was a fight over how much higher its standards would remain. The answer is: much higher.

This post has been updated throughout.

Leave a Comment

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

The lawyer representing Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann told Fox News that they will likely sue CNN for more than $250 million over the false attacks the network launched against the teenager.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”

The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.

The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”

Google has not denied the authenticity of the leaked material.

In the clips, the transcripts of which are posted in full below, Kovacevich portrayed CPAC as a conference with a “dual identity,” one being a “premier gathering” that features a “whole swath of conservatives,” including “national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates.”

In the audio clip, the other side of CPAC was described in disparaging terms by Kovacevich as featuring a “sideshow circus-like element” which “CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference.”

“I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right?” continued Kovacevich. “We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach.”

“And I think it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC.”

In another audio clip of the same conversation provided to Breitbart News, Kovacevich appeared to describe the importance of reaching out to conservatives in order to counter conservative media, including Breitbart News. Kovacevich warned of “growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government.” He went on to accuse conservative media of “pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives.”

“And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone.”

The full transcript follows below:

Yeah, it’s a great question Greg. I appreciate the question. I think one of the big themes – I think picking up on your question – that I saw in some internal listservs and one of the Dory questions focused on the question of the other speakers, right? What are we saying in terms of sponsoring a conference where you have sort of incendiary speakers, right, and I think it’s a very valid question, one we’ve talked a lot about here. I think, to be candid, one of the challenges we face with CPAC is that the conference itself has a kind of a dual identity. So on the one hand, it’s really the premier gathering of sort of big-tent conservatives. Especially in non-presidential years it sort of in some ways takes the place of the annual Republican National Convention. You have a whole swath of conservatives: national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates who attend the conference. The conference is attended by about 10,000 people. And so one of the other things is that the Republican Party and I think conservatism, in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what it should be, right, what should be sort of the position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably — the majority of Googlers would want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary comments, nativist comments and things like that. But it has been a very valuable place for us to reach a lot of the people and the big tent of conservatism.

On the other hand, and sort of to get to the point of the dual identity, in recent years with CPAC there has also been this kind of sideshow circus-like element, right, that I think the CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference. I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right? We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach. And I think that it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC. I think one of the things that — we also face this question in other areas, by the way. So in the realm of sort of politics, there’s always going to — there’s often going to be someone at some event we sponsor who will say something we don’t agree with. Last year, a group that we support, the New America Foundation, had your guys’s, one of your Senators, Elizabeth Warren. She spoke, and she called for the breakup of Google at that [laughter] conference, right? The conference of an organization we support. Obviously we don’t support that position.

In another audio clip provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Kovacevich discusses “growing negative attention” from conservative media, including Breitbart News.

One of the other things we’re dealing with is also growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government. We have sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and Fox News who have been focusing on some of the tensions that we Googlers feel internally around — many of which became public after the Damore memo. And I think some of those media outlets are actively pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives. And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone. So one of the things we say out on our team is, in order to count on an ally in the political realm you have to make an ally. If we want policymakers to help us when we have a bad bill or a regulation pending, we have to build relationships with them ahead of time. I think part of our work in the DC office and across all of our team is building relationships not just with the people in power but also with the people who influence them.

In a followup question, Kovacevich also acknowledged the “pain” and “disappointment” of Google employees who were up in arms at the tech giant’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018. He went on to openly disparage sites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller as outlets that might be “perpetually” at odds with Google, and state “blatant mistruths.”

Questioner: Okay. Second question is– you mentioned Breitbart and The Daily Caller a couple of times before in the talk. Are we orienting our public image so that we will receive less negative and maybe more positive press from sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller?

Kovacevich: I think it’s a complicated question. I mean, I think at a certain point our values are our values, right? Google stands for inclusiveness, we stand for tolerance, we stand for building products for everyone, and if certain outlets don’t like that, we are probably going to be at odds with them perpetually, right? On the other hand, sometimes some outlets and others just state blatant kind of mistruths, right, or they’ll shade something in sort of the most– you know, that has a legitimate explanation, they’ll shade something in sort of the most negative light possible, and that’s something that we try to avoid, if we can, consistent with our values. I think– and I want to probably wrap up because we’re almost at the hour– look, I appreciate that this is hard and I know that our sponsorship of this has caused pain, disappointment to many of you and we understand that, and I think appreciate those of you who have spoken up about that. I value that Google is the kind of company where people can voice their disappointment and their hopes for how the company can stay true to its ideals going forward in the future. We certainly didn’t mean to cause pain or that kind of disappointment in people. And we really do value the feedback and the input.

Breitbart News has reached out to Google for comment.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

On Friday, over one week after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 16th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 14 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled her out of order. After Democrats denied Davis’ request to vote on the bill they cut her off ruled her out of order again as she attempted to criticize them for denying the request.

Miller responded to Democrats blocking a vote on the bill in comments to LifeNews afterwards.

“I’m a wife, a mother, and a grandmother, I’ve experienced the miracle of life and know that children are our most precious gift. We must ensure protection for the youngest and most innocent of our citizens, and it saddens me that my colleagues across the aisle are willing to play political games on a topic this important,” she said.

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a leading House member, discussed that in a recent interview with the Daily Signal.

“It’s just heartbreaking. I was disheartened by the vote, 44 senators that voted against legislation that would protect babies who were born alive, babies that had survived an abortion, were outside the womb, and yet they were not willing to bring in the insurer under law that they would bring in the doctor’s care,” she said. “In years past, this is passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. So it really exposed the extreme position that the left is taking right now, that Democrats are saying they reject legislation to protect babies born alive.”

“In the House, we are moving forward with a discharge petition. As you know, the Democrats have the majority in the House. One way that we can bring a bill to the floor is to demand a discharge petition,” she added. “You have to get 218 people to sign a discharge petition, and then you can bypass Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bring the bill directly to the floor. We’re working actively on that right now.”

Republicans would need all GOP members to sign the petition, along with 21 Democrats. Rodgers said she hoped polling data showing Americans strongly oppose infanticide would help change members’ minds.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

ACTION: Contact members of Congress and urge them to sign the Discharge Petition to bring the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor for a vote.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Senator and 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) defended Rep. Ilhad Omar (D-MN) Wednesday after the freshman congresswoman’s latest antisemitic outburst.

We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world — and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focus on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians.

Warren concluded by stating that “threats of violence” akin to those made against the Minnesota Democrat are unacceptable under any circumstance.

Earlier Wednesday, fellow Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said that while Congress has a responsibility to speak out against bigotry, she is concerned a House Democrat resolution condemning Omar could put her in harm’s way.

“We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry,” said Harris. “But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), another White House contender, defended Omar, accusing House Democrat leadership of attempting to stifle “legitimate criticism” of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu by equating it with antisemitism.

“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel,” said Sanders. “Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.”

“What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate,” the Vermont Independent continued. “That’s wrong.”

Meanwhile, House Democrats indefinitely postponed a vote on the resolution after a contentious meeting in which some new members confronted leaders over their push to rebuke Omar.

Omar last week suggested the Jewish state’s supporters are pushing lawmakers to pledge “allegiance” to a foreign country.

Last month, Omar deleted a 2012 tweet in which she said Israel had “hypnotized” America. She also apologized for suggesting that members of Congress support Israel because they are paid to do so. That remark earned her stern rebukes from Pelosi and House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY), among others. Last week, Engel declared that Omar’s suggestion about divided loyalties was a “vile anti-Semitic slur.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

After days of infighting and a near-rebellion by Democratic rank-and-file members, the House on Thursday passed a bipartisan resolution that indirectly condemned Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar's 'anti-Semitic' and 'pernicious' comments -- without mentioning her by name.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats failed Wednesday to introduce a resolution condemning antisemitism, which had been promised in response to the latest antisemitic remarks by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tried to contain the political damage, claiming that repeat-offender Omar was not “intentionally antisemitic.”

Other Democrats found another excuse: they claimed criticizing Omar would stifle “legitimate criticism” of Israel.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed Democrats who criticized Omar were arguing it was “unacceptable to even *question* US foreign policy.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), running for president as a Democrat, said, “What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That’s wrong.” Rivals Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made similar comments.

Rep. André Carson (D-IN), likewise, said that while Americans should “always strive to be inclusive and tolerant,” nevertheless “we cannot shut down legitimate policy debate.” And Omar, he said, “has raised valid points about Palestine and Israel that should be debated.”

Notably, Carson did not cite any examples of “valid points” that Omar had made. That is because she never did. Omar’s target was not Israel, but the American Jewish community.

Omar kicked off the controversy by tweeting last month, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.” She was re-tweeting a comment by journalist Glenn Greenwald — a vehement critic of Israel — who lamented the fact that Congress is so supportive of Israel. Omar’s clear meaning — made even clearer in subsequent tweets — was that pro-Israel members of Congress had been paid to support Israel. Her remarks had antisemitic implications; she later apologized.

But Omar could not help herself, and claimed last week in front of a friendly audience at a Washington, DC, bookstore that pro-Israel Americans had “allegiance to a foreign country.” Her remark evoked themes of “dual loyalty” that have been used as a pretext to persecute Jews since the days of the Bible. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — on which Omar site — called her words a “vile anti-Semitic slur.”

That was the context of Omar’s remarks. She was complaining about Americans who support Israel, not criticizing any Israeli policy.

The only tangential link to any actual policy issue, perhaps, was Omar’s support for the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel, which is the target of Republican criticism. Notably, Pelosi put Omar on the foreign affairs committee despite Omar’s support for BDS. She wasn’t silenced; she was promoted.

Omar’s remarks have embarrassed Democrats. They have also weakened the party’s attack on President Donald Trump, whom they have falsely portrayed as a bigot. Still, Democrats lack the political will to condemn antisemitism outright. They added a condemnation of anti-Muslim bigotry to their resolution, but even that could not convince the party’s “progressives” to support it. The result: a “full-scale brawl” over antisemitism in the party.

In an attempt to contain the damage, Democrats are claiming they are protecting “legitimate criticism” of Israel. But rather than saying, “We can criticize Israel, where appropriate, without resorting to vile anti-Semitic rhetoric,” they are effectively saying, “We cannot criticize vile anti-Semitic rhetoric if it might be construed as legitimate criticism of Israel.”

The party is giving a free pass to antisemitic bigotry — and criticism of Israel has nothing to do with it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Axios

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday condemned anti-Semitism along with House Democratic leadership who planned to vote on a resolution rebuking Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) over her recent comments about the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups.

The big picture: Omar's remarks, characterized as anti-Semitic, have triggered a clash between House Democratic leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers who believe the Minnesota freshman was unfairly singled out. The internal backlash forced leadership to postpone Wednesday's vote, as the language of the resolution — which does not specifically reference Omar — would likely be broadened to reject other forms of bigotry, including Islamophobia.

What they’re saying:

"Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for lasting peace."

"We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk. We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights, and democracy by all leaders in the region ― and a commitment by our country to help achieve that."

"We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our country and around the world — and that included both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence — like those made against Rep. Omar — are never acceptable."

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Late Wednesday, one week after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 14th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 12 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Rep. Steve Watkins (R-KS) offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled him out of order.

After the vote, Congressman Watkins told LifeNews: “This legislation is a matter of protecting human dignity and should not be a controversial issue. It amends Federal law so that in the case that a baby survives an abortion, the doctor must do everything in their power to give the baby medical care. I will continue to work with my colleagues to bring this legislation to the House Floor for a vote.”

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a leading House member, discussed that in a recent interview with the Daily Signal.

“It’s just heartbreaking. I was disheartened by the vote, 44 senators that voted against legislation that would protect babies who were born alive, babies that had survived an abortion, were outside the womb, and yet they were not willing to bring in the insurer under law that they would bring in the doctor’s care,” she said. “In years past, this is passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. So it really exposed the extreme position that the left is taking right now, that Democrats are saying they reject legislation to protect babies born alive.”

“In the House, we are moving forward with a discharge petition. As you know, the Democrats have the majority in the House. One way that we can bring a bill to the floor is to demand a discharge petition,” she added. “You have to get 218 people to sign a discharge petition, and then you can bypass Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bring the bill directly to the floor. We’re working actively on that right now.”

Republicans would need all GOP members to sign the petition, along with 21 Democrats. Rodgers said she hoped polling data showing Americans strongly oppose infanticide would help change members’ minds.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 month ago

The majority of American adults prefer not to live in a socialist country, according to a Harris poll released exclusively to Axios on March 10.

Almost 63 percent of adults and more than 50 percent of young Americans disagreed when asked if they “prefer living in a socialist country.”

The results of the poll are significant because the 2020 election is shaping up to be a referendum on socialism. The leading Democratic candidates have largely embraced the socialist policies long advocated by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Republicans are slamming socialism as a failed and destructive ideology.

“America will never be a socialist country,” Trump said at the State of the Union address last month.

Notably, while most Americans don’t want to live in a socialist country the majority still approve of socialist policies. Two out of three adults surveyed agreed that the government “should provide universal health care” and 56 percent said the government should provide “tuition-free college.” Sanders has embraces these two socialist policies for years. Several leading Democratic candidates have made them part of their 2020 platform.

“Those ideas that we talked about four years ago that seemed so very radical at that time, well, today, virtually all of those ideas are supported by a majority of the American people and have overwhelming support from Democrats and independents,” Sanders said at a rally in New Hampshire on March 10. “They’re ideas that Democratic candidates all across the board are supporting.”

Americans overwhelmingly support universal health care. Nearly 67 percent agreed that the government should provide universal health care, a socialist policy proposal embodied in the “Medicare for All” proposal embraced by Sanders and other candidates. “Medicare for All” would grant government near total control over the insurance and health care industries and virtually eliminate private health insurance.

Private Health Care

Curiously, the number of Americans agreeing that the government should allow private health insurance far exceeds the number of those backing universal health care. More than 86 percent of adults agreed that the government should allow private health insurance, suggesting that “Medicare for All” may be hard to sell to the public once Americans learn that the proposal will largely eliminate or prohibit private health insurance.

Young Americans showed stronger support for socialism, universal health care, and tuition-free college than the general population, the poll found. The trend is significant because millennials and generation Z will make up 37 percent of the electorate in 2020, according to Pew Research.

While backing socialist policies, a number of the Democratic 2020 candidates have attempted to distance themselves from the socialist label. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have said that they are not socialists.

The same candidates have nevertheless co-sponsored the Green New Deal, one of the most radical socialist proposals to come before Congress in years. The program could cost as much as $93 trillion over 10 years, according to the American Action Forum. The Green New Deal’s immense price tag would quadruple the tax burden on American citizens, costing $650,000 per household.

The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal (pdf) calls for a Soviet Union-like “10-year national mobilization,” which would replace or rebuild every house in America, take all gas-engine cars off the road in favor of electric vehicles, and shift the entire U.S. economy away from fossil fuels. The deal also promises jobs, food, and education to all Americans.

In addition to the staggering price tag, the Green New Deal would achieve socialism’s primary goal of government expansion into Americans’ private lives and property, since replacing every building and every car would have to be mandated and enforced.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive. Its further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag,” the American Action Forum wrote in its analysis.

The clamor for socialist policies and the enormous price tags that accompany them is happening as the growing national debt has become a national security issue. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said in February that the greatest threat to national security is the national debt.

“I’m concerned that our increasing fractious political process, particularly with respect to federal spending, is threatening our ability to properly defend our nation both in the short term and especially in the long term,” Coats said on Feb. 13.

“The failure to address our long-term fiscal situation has increased the national debt to over $20 trillion and growing. I would urge all of us to recognize the need to address this challenge and to take action as soon as possible before a fiscal crisis occurs that truly undermines our ability to ensure our national security.”

Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Yes, Rep. Ilhan Omar is a problem. But the fact that the Democratic Party refuses to condemn her anti-Semitic rhetoric is a disaster.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

David Duke is publicly defending Ilhan Omar in the wake of a series of antisemitic statements that have rankled the Democrat Party nationally.

AP News

Published  1 month ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Bernie Sanders was minutes away from walking onto a Brooklyn stage last weekend to launch a second presidential campaign that he insisted would be all about the future. The...

Military.com

Published  1 month ago

Two U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation to pay veterans bonuses for serving in America's longest war.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Henry Rodgers, DCNF

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said 10 Republican Senators will vote for the resolution to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency for border wall funding Monday afternoon.

Paul told a group of reporters on Capitol Hill that he thinks 10 Senators will vote for Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro’s resolution, which the Texas Democrat believes will would end Trump’s national emergency.

Rand Paul tells reporters he thinks there are 10 Republican senators who will vote against the emergency declaration. pic.twitter.com/jjunBtM6YE

— Emily Cochrane (@ESCochrane) March 4, 2019

This comes as Paul said he will join a group of three Republicans who have expressed concerns with Trump’s declaration for a national emergency, saying they do not believe the president should be allowed to override Congress to such a degree Saturday.

“I can’t vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President,” Paul said, to the Bowling Green Daily News Saturday. “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” he continued. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine are in the group of three.

Murkowski said Tuesday she would vote for the resolution, making it clear that the bill will pass the Senate due to support from these Republicans.

Collins said Wednesday she supports a lawsuit challenging Trump’s national emergency, adding that she plans to vote for the congressional resolution.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution Friday to block Trump’s national emergency that could allow him to build a wall on the southern border.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues Thursday, telling them they need to “move swiftly to pass this bill.”

This comes just days after Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 hopeful, listed of a number of issues for which she would declare a national emergency if elected president, including “climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top. That’s what we ought to be working on.”

Trump will still have the option to veto the resolution if passed by the Senate.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Three Senate Republicans are expected to vote “yes” for a resolution in an attempt to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency for border wall funding.

The group of three Republicans expressed their concerns with Trump’s declaration for a national emergency, saying they do not believe the president should be allowed to override Congress to such a degree. In the group are Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

“As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress,” Tillis wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. “As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms.”

Murkowski said Tuesday she would vote for the resolution, making it clear that the bill will pass the Senate due to support from these Republicans.

Collins said Wednesday she supports a lawsuit challenging Trump’s national emergency, adding that she plans to vote for the congressional resolution.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution Friday to block Trump’s national emergency that could allow him to build a wall on the southern border.

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro introduced the resolution, which he said will pass the House, as 222 cosponsors have jumped on board. Castro sent out a tweet saying his resolution would terminate Trump’s national emergency. Democrats only need 218 supporters to pass the resolution.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues Thursday, telling them they need to “move swiftly to pass this bill.” (RELATED: House Introduces Resolution To Block Trump’s National Emergency)

This comes just days after Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 hopeful, listed of a number of issues for which she would declare a national emergency if elected president, including “climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top. That’s what we ought to be working on.”

Trump will still have the option to veto the resolution if passed by the Senate. The resolution is expected to be voted on in the House Tuesday.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats’ Dilemma

03/05 10:55 am

What Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips tell us about the future of the Democratic Party.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Late Tuesday, one week after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 13th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 10 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled him out of order. And, for the second time in a row, Democrats cut off a pro-life congressman’s microphone — preventing Rep. Smith from issuing a few seconds of comments criticizing Democrats from blocking the bill.

As shown in the video below, Smith’s mic is immediately muted after the chair denies the request for a vote to stop infanticide.

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a leading House member, discussed that in a recent interview with the Daily Signal.

“It’s just heartbreaking. I was disheartened by the vote, 44 senators that voted against legislation that would protect babies who were born alive, babies that had survived an abortion, were outside the womb, and yet they were not willing to bring in the insurer under law that they would bring in the doctor’s care,” she said. “In years past, this is passed with unanimous consent in the Senate. So it really exposed the extreme position that the left is taking right now, that Democrats are saying they reject legislation to protect babies born alive.”

“In the House, we are moving forward with a discharge petition. As you know, the Democrats have the majority in the House. One way that we can bring a bill to the floor is to demand a discharge petition,” she added. “You have to get 218 people to sign a discharge petition, and then you can bypass Speaker Nancy Pelosi and bring the bill directly to the floor. We’re working actively on that right now.”

Republicans would need all GOP members to sign the petition, along with 21 Democrats. Rodgers said she hoped polling data showing Americans strongly oppose infanticide would help change members’ minds.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 month ago

She and her buddies at Harvard say that the minority status does do anything for you but they were really proud of indicating she was a minority in her bio.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Democrats seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination are starting to come out in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar, and in the process, they are normalizing anti-Semitism.

Leading Democratic candidates Sens. Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have all come out defending Omar and pointing fingers at her critics, despite a series of statements she has made targeting Americans Jews.

Omar has been unrepentant over statements she made lamenting the influence of Jewish money in politics and questioning whether Jews were more loyal to Israel than America. The bigoted statements perpetuated classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, but that is now what's considered acceptable in the Democratic Party— as long as it gets subsequently laundered as mere criticism of Israel.

Sanders said "We must develop an evenhanded Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate."

Harris echoed this, saying, "There is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism" and also arguing, "I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk."

Warren also went a similar route, declaring, "Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians."

This, of course, is rubbish. Omar was not criticizing specific Israeli policies when she said, "it's all about the Benjamins." She wasn't talking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when she said, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” She was spewing out hatred for Jews.

And cowardly Democratic presidential candidates, worried about being out of step with the party's resurgent Left, are afraid to stand up in the face of attacks against the minority in the United States that has been by far the leading victim of religiously motivated hate crimes for decades, despite representing just about 2 percent of the population.

What's especially amazing about the Democratic Party's excuses for Omar is that she has actually improved her standing within the party by being more unabashedly anti-Semitic.

Last month, in the face of anti-Semitic tweets, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded that Omar apologize, and specifically condemned her remarks as anti-Semitic. "Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive,” she said in a joint statement with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.” A big song and dance followed about how Jewish members were educating Omar about anti-Semitism.

Yet, after she followed up with more anti-Semitic comments, instead of coming down harder on Omar, Democratic leadership is backing off. Pelosi is now pushing the idea that Omar's comments were not " intentionally anti-Semitic." Yes, I'm sure she just accidentally stumbled upon statements that happen to echo longstanding anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish money and influence, and Jewish dual loyalty.

Democrats tried to push a sham resolution generically condemning anti-Semitism that didn't include Omar. But that proved too controversial within a caucus that is increasingly comfortable with anti-Semitism. So it's now unclear if any resolution is going to come up for a vote at all, at least not without substantial changes condemning other forms of hate in a way that further waters down any statement it would be making about Omar.

All along, I've noted that this isn't primarily a story about Omar, who we know is an anti-Semite. It's about whether Democrats care about combating anti-Semitism.

The signal leading Democrats are sending is not only that anti-Semitism will be tolerated within their party, but the more unapologetic somebody is about their anti-Semitism, the more likely they are to be defended.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris came out strongly in favor of gun control with a statement that sounded like something that would have been uttered by a pro-life leader.

Harris condemned a society in which babies are being slaughtered. The irony of course is that Harris’s support abortions up to birth and recently voted to support infanticide.

Kamala Harris: “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.”

But you support abortions up to birth and voted for infanticide.https://t.co/dbayMLMIT3pic.twitter.com/rYVCJCSQ6x

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) March 5, 2019

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That included Harris.

And the California senator is fully on board with the abortions up to birth agenda.

Harris defended abortions up to birth saying she supports women making the decision whether or not to terminate the life of their unborn baby even if that abortion occurs just before birth. She would not say if abortion was ever immoral.

“I think it’s up to a woman to make that decision, and I will always stand by that,” she told TheDCNF. “I think she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her priest, with her spouse. I would leave that decision up to them.”

The comments are no surprise given that Harris voted for infanticide and has co-sponsored a radical pro-abortion bill that would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” was introduced in Congress in 2017, with dozens of Democrat sponsors, including Harris and presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Kristen Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders.

Nicknamed the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act” by pro-life groups, the bill would have invalidated nearly all state and federal abortion regulations, including waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on late-term abortions and sex-selection abortions and more.

Polls indicate that legislation like the bill, which was similar to New York’s radical new pro-abortion law, is strongly opposed by voters. A new Susan B. Anthony List poll found that 77 percent of likely voters support legislation to protect infants born alive after botched abortions. It also found that 62 percent oppose bills to expand late-term abortions. Polls by Gallup and Marist have found similar results.

Harris has a long track record promoting abortion and has recently come under fire for calling a pro-life Catholic nominee an “extremist” simply because he is a member of a Catholic group.

Harris is so extreme one abortion that she has received awards for her abortion advocacy.

Harris also came under fire for lying about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The false statements even earned her four Pinocchio awards from the pro-abortion Washington Post.

She also raided the home of David Daleiden, who exposed Pl;anned Parenthood selling body parts of aborted babies.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

Ilhan Communication

03/05 12:03 am

I have a new hobby. It's collecting the excuses Democrats make for Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democratic congresswoman who has an unhealthy fixation on Jewish influence, Jewish money, and Jewish loyalty. Omar has said that Israel "hypnotized the world," attributing Jews with the power of mind control in the service of manipulating public opinion. She's said the only reason Congress supports Israel is Jewish campaign donations. Most recently, using the classic anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty, she criticized supporters of Israel for having "allegiance to a foreign power." A real treasure, Omar is. A typical freshman congresswoman sees her mission as—forgive the expression—bringing home the bacon for her district. Not Ilhan. Her project is to mainstream anti-Semitic rhetoric within the Democratic Party. Once upon a time, you'd have to visit the invaluable website of the Middle East Media Research Institute to hear such tripe. Now you just need to flip on C-SPAN.

And Democrats are powerless to stop it. They're tripping over themselves, making rationalizations, dodging reality, and trying to clean up this anti-Semitic mess. Omar is new to this, they say. She never intended to come across as anti-Semitic. She can't help it. "She comes from a different culture." She didn't know what she was saying—she's a moron! She's just trying to "start a conversation" about the policies of Israel's government. And why are you singling her out, anyway. "She is living through a lot of pain." She's black, she's a woman, and she's Muslim. You can't condemn her without also condemning white men of privilege. What are you, racist? Islamophobic? Shame on you for picking on this poor lady, who just happens to say that American Jews serve a foreign power by buying off politicians and using the Force to blinker people's minds.

Before such "arguments"—they are really assertions of victimhood to intimidate critics—Nancy Pelosi shudders. She's supposed to be this Iron Lady, returned to power after exile, ruling her caucus with a vise-like grip. But her hands are covered in Palmolive. She's spent the first weeks of Congress doing little more than responding to the various insanities of Omar and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Pelosi will condemn Omar one minute, before appearing with her on the cover of Rolling Stone the next. She's lost a step. She can't hold her caucus together when Republicans call for motions to recommit on the House floor. The policies her candidates ran on in swing districts vanished under the solar-powered glare of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. We're not talking about covering preexisting conditions, we're pledging to rid the world once and for all of the scourges of air travel and cow flatulence. Pelosi's trigger-happy committee chairmen, firing their subpoena cannons into the air at random, look like goofballs desperate to impeach President Trump.

Whatever control Pelosi had over her majority vanished the second she delayed the resolution condemning Omar. It then became undeniable that AOC & co. is in charge. Identity politics has rendered the Democrats incapable of criticizing anti-Semitism so long as it dons the wardrobe of intersectionality. It's nothing short of incredible that three women from three different cities—New York, Detroit, and Minneapolis—can run roughshod over 233 other House Democrats with a little help from social media, woke 24-year-olds in the digital press, and the Congressional Black Caucus. If you're Ocasio-Cortez right now, you must love life from the comfort of the test kitchen in your luxury D.C. apartment building. What's next for this trio—two of whom are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, two of whom support the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement that seeks Israel's destruction, and all three of whom combine radical anti-American politics with radical self-regard—finding a candidate to primary pro-Israel Democrat Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee on which Omar sits? Challenging Chuck Schumer in the Democratic primary when he's up for reelection in 2022?

The most pressing order of business has got to be the 2020 presidential election. Omar, AOC, and Tlaib don't strike me as Cory Booker supporters. Amy Klobuchar might be too much of a taskmaster for them. Most likely the radicals will line up behind the current frontrunner, Bernie Sanders, who has already surrounded himself with anti-Israel activists. Sanders has said criticism of Omar is just a means to "stifle debate" over Israel's government. He's too smart to believe that. As the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in history, he has a responsibility to draw lines. After all, he's no stranger to the dual loyalty charge—though of course in his case the other country was the Soviet Union.

Bernie Sanders has no interest in stopping Omar. He recognizes that she represents the impending transformation of the Democratic Party into something more closely resembling the British Labour Party. Labourites elected avowed socialist Jeremy Corbyn party leader in September 2015. The years since have been spent in one anti-Semitism scandal after another. Sanders wants desperately to be the American Corbyn. If anti-Semitism is the price of a socialist America, so be it. Remember what Stalin said about the omelette. I'm sure Bernie does. If Democrats can't rebuke Omar swiftly and definitively, if they have trouble competing with Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram cooking show, how will they be able to stop Sanders from carrying his devoted bloc of supporters to plurality victories in the early primaries, and using the divided field to gain momentum just as Trump did?

So far this year the Democrats have floundered in a pit of racism, sexual assault, and anti-Semitism. They've embraced policies akin to infanticide, and announced plans to expropriate wealth, pay reparations for slavery, eliminate private health insurance within two years, and rebuild or retrofit every building in the United States before the world ends from climate change 12 years from now. Throughout it all, they've received a pass from the know-nothing media. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Sanders have all made the claim that Omar has done nothing but criticize the policies of Bibi Netanyahu. That's a bald-faced lie, a falsehood not one of the hundreds upon hundreds of reporters covering the Democratic field has scrutinized. These are the very people who have spent the past three years sermonizing on the importance of truth in politics, and they are doing Bernie's work for him. Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution insists that the Democratic Party continues to be center-left. But the election returns and public opinion data that support her thesis become much less important when the party's biggest stars make a hard-left turn. The Democrats seem ripe for a takeover by Bernie and his pals, or at least a blistering and incendiary battle for control similar to what the GOP experienced last time around.

Blame for Democratic radicalization is most often assigned to Trump—there's little he isn't blamed for—but it really ought to go to President Obama. It was Obama who established "daylight" between the United States and Israel, who blamed opposition to his Iran deal on "money" from "lobbyists," who failed to veto a U.N. resolution singling out the Jewish State and declaring its settlements to have "no legal validity." It was Obama's disastrous second term—when he handed the reins of governance to an administrative state immune from popular sovereignty, when he flouted the Constitution in expanding his administrative amnesty, when he made overtures to hostile governments in Iran and Cuba—that set into motion the decline of the American center-left. Now the Obama bros defend Omar on their podcast and in their newsletter, and bolster the presidential candidacy of Robert Francis "Beto" "Take the Wall Down" O'Rourke. If Obama really wanted to arrest the Democrats' slide into socialism and anti-Semitism, he'd speak out. Do you think Joe Biden will able to stop it? Fat chance. The odds of a Bernie Sanders nomination, a Howard Schultz candidacy, and a Donald Trump victory increase every time Ilhan Omar opens her mouth.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

In an article written in the FLA News, former presidential candidate Herman Cain released the "10 Questions Every Democrat Candidate Should Answer." This article, which was so impressive that President Trump even shared it on his

The Intercept

Published  1 month ago

The reporter Carol Rosenberg has been covering Guantanamo Bay since before it became a "war on terror" prison camp — and she's still at it.

Reportable - Modern Releases. Reporter Ready.

Published  1 month ago

Emerson Polling

03/04 7:00 pm

South Carolina 2020 Poll: Biden leads Primary Field by Wide Margin; President Trump Popular with Base

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Democrats are pulling out all the stops to prevent President Donald Trump from any success is stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, regardless of the negative impact, it has on the lives of U.S. citizens or the public treasury. Even threatening to encroach on the U.S. Constitution if the Supreme Court upholds […]

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reportedly told an Iowa journalist Saturday that she thinks Vice President Mike Pence is not a “decent” man.

FYI, the reporter followed up: "Do you think there’s anybody in the Trump Administration that you would see as decent?"

Elizabeth Warren's response: pic.twitter.com/h81Bfo8ub4

— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) March 2, 2019

“I’m sorry. I followed Pence’s history on LGBTQ Americans, and I don’t think that is a decent position,” Warren told a reporter with the Iowa Starting Line. “I disagree.” After the reporter asked her if she thought Pence was “decent,” Warren simply said “no.”

The reporter pressed Warren further, asking if there was anyone decent within the Trump administration before she replied that it is the “most corrupt administration in living memory.”

“It’s a tough question,” Warren said. “The Mueller investigation has already produced 34 indictments or guilty pleas out of people in the president’s inner circle. Ten Cabinet officials have left, four with huge scandals and others with threat of scandal at the door. This is the most corrupt administration in living memory. That’s why we gotta be in this fight.”

The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate voiced her opinion on Pence not too long after former Vice President Joe Biden received pushback for his comments about Pence being a “decent guy.”

Biden, who made the remarks about Pence at the University of Nebraska-Omaha on Thursday, quickly walked back his statement on Twitter and stated there was “nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.”

You’re right, Cynthia. I was making a point in a foreign policy context, that under normal circumstances a Vice President wouldn’t be given a silent reaction on the world stage.

But there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.

Pence, who was Indiana’s governor from 2013-2017 before he became vice president, has been criticized by many in the LGBTQ community for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law in 2015.

Pence said at the time that the law would limit government intervention infringing upon individuals’ religious liberty, but some LGBTQ activists viewed the bill as infringing upon the rights of LGBTQ individuals.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Former Attorney General Eric Holder announced in a Washington Post opinion-editorial Monday that he will not run for president in 2020.

“Though I will not run for president in 2020, I will continue to fight for the future of our country through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates,” Holder wrote. While the Obama-era official did not endorse any of the several Democrat presidential candidates, he did state there are many “good options.” He urged candidates to focus on addressing a litany of progressive issues, including climate change and immigration. Holder also called on Democrats to join together after the primary to ensure a Democrat beats President Trump in 2020.

“Inspired by our history as the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, we must restructure our economy in a way that promises economic security for the middle class, creates genuine opportunities for upward mobility and attacks the income inequality of this new Gilded Age. And we can’t have a better economy for working people without a health-care system that guarantees universal coverage,” Holder continued. “We are running out of time to deal with the existential threat of climate change. It is a moral imperative that we mitigate the damage that is already happening, take wide-ranging steps to reduce carbon emissions, and commit to being a net-zero carbon emitter within 10 years. This is our generation’s moonshot.”

The announcement comes after Holder told reporters earlier February that he would soon make a decision on a White House bid. “I’m going to decide if I’m going to try to find that space within the next month or so,” he said after addressing a voting rights event at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. “I’m going to sit down with my family very soon and decide whether or not this is something we’re going to seek.” Holder has teased a potential bid in the past, telling CBS’s The Late Show host Stephen Colbert in July 2018 that he would decide on running “sometime early next year.” Holder had met with former President Barack Obama to discuss a potential White House bid.

Had Holder entered the increasingly crowded Democrat presidential field, which now includes Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), the Obama-era official would have likely had to answer for several controversies which plagued his tenure as head of the Justice Department. Namely, in 2012, the House held Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress after failing to turn over subpoenaed documents to lawmakers as part of an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed illegal gun sales in order to track the sellers and purchasers believed to be connected with Mexican drug cartels.

Holder, who was the third longest-serving attorney general, serves as chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and has sued states over voting rights issues and legislative redistricting.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democrats are ramping up warnings that President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border opens the door for a future president to—among others things—pursue sweeping gun control measures without Congress.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said he will vote against a resolution in an attempt to terminate President Donald Trump’s national emergency for border wall funding.

Paul will join a group of three Republicans who have expressed their concerns with Trump’s declaration for a national emergency, saying they do not believe the president should be allowed to override Congress to such a degree.

“I can’t vote to give extraconstitutional powers to the President,” Paul said, to the Bowling Green Daily News Saturday. “I can’t vote to give the President the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” he continued. “We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” He was speaking to the Warren County Republican Party.

In the group are Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

“As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress,” Tillis wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. “As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms.”

Murkowski said Tuesday she would vote for the resolution, making it clear that the bill will pass the Senate due to support from these Republicans.

Collins said Wednesday she supports a lawsuit challenging Trump’s national emergency, adding that she plans to vote for the congressional resolution.

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution Friday to block Trump’s national emergency that could allow him to build a wall on the southern border.

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro introduced the resolution, which he said will pass the House, as 222 cosponsors have jumped on board. Castro sent out a tweet saying his resolution would terminate Trump’s national emergency. Democrats only need 218 supporters to pass the resolution.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to her colleagues Thursday, telling them they need to “move swiftly to pass this bill.”

This comes just days after Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 hopeful, listed of a number of issues for which she would declare a national emergency if elected president, including “climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top. That’s what we ought to be working on.”

Trump will still have the option to veto the resolution if passed by the Senate.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have served a combined 48 years in the Senate. They’ve served an additional 27 years in various mayoral offices and governor’s mansions across the country. Their total time in the House of Representatives adds another three decades of service. When you factor in likely candidates who have not yet declared or formed exploratory committees, those numbers rise to 108, 73, and 76 years, respectively. Yet who leads this historically broad and experienced presidential field? A 29-year-old bartender just wrapping up her first month in office.

To be sure, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too young to launch her own bid for the White House. Nevertheless, the freshman congresswoman controls an entire primary pack of candidates too craven and opportunistic to offer any ideas themselves.

What major piece of legislation has Cory Booker, D-N.J., ever sponsored? What precisely constitutes the political legacy of Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.? The presidential aspirants have played it safe their entire careers. This cautious strategy has served them well – so well that now they hope to follow a first-term radical all the way to the Oval Office.

Last November, Ocasio-Cortez cooked her dinner live on Instagram. Within weeks Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, followed suit and opened their kitchens to the masses. A couple of months ago, a video emerged of Ocasio-Cortez dancing on a rooftop in college. As soon as the mainstream media covered the clip, Harris tweeted her own video shimmying back and forth in a chair. “I’m for *more* dancing in politics,” she beamed. Harris may dance, but Ocasio-Cortez calls the tune.

The nearest to a leader among the presidential aspirants is the 77-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to whom progress means nothing more than rehashing the failed economic policies of the 1930s. Insomuch as he successfully pushed the Democratic Party toward the radical left in 2016, Sanders has accomplished more than his competitors. Still, three years later, even Bernie follows AOC’s lead on selling socialism to the people.

Ocasio-Cortez’s thrall over the 2020 race extends beyond style to specific matters of public policy. As she tells it, just a dozen years remain before air pollution extinguishes life on earth. To forestall Armageddon, we must pass the freshman congresswoman’s radical “Green New Deal.” This eco-socialist overhaul would outlaw planes, trains, automobiles, private health insurance, and 88 percent of the American energy industry before demolishing and rebuilding every edifice in the country, sticking the U.S. taxpayer with a $40 trillion tab. Nevertheless, as if in lockstep, Senators Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren, and Booker all signed up to co-sponsor the plan.

Advocates of Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal insist the plan enjoys wide support among all Americans, from liberal Democrats (92 percent) to conservative Republicans (57 percent). They fail to mention that virtually no one knows anything about it. According to the same Yale Center for Climate Change Communication study they cite, a full 82 percent of respondents knew “nothing at all” about the Green New Deal before answering the survey questions, all of which described the proposal in positive terms.

Presidential campaigns shed intense light on candidates and the policies they propose. One suspects support for the Green New Deal might crack once the American public learns the program will cost them their jobs, cars, doctors, flights, homes, heat, and electricity, among other pleasures.

Then the 2020 candidates will face an unpleasant choice: reverse course, thereby revealing themselves as the empty-suited opportunists that they are, or else persist in following an ignorant 20-something bartender down the path to electoral ruin. Leadership entails difficult decisions. The Democrats who would lead the free world will soon regret not making those decisions sooner.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

According to a report at The Huffington Post, published this morning, American taxpayers have lost $323 billion in tax deductions due to Donald Trump’s GOP tax scam. The new tax law was passed in December of 2017 and went into effect for the 2018 tax year.

The estimate of lost deductions is just for the first year, so the actual number over time is likely to be several trillion dollars unless Democrats can do something to rectify the situation. Many Democrats, including those running for president, have come up with programs to change the tax laws to impose higher taxes on the super-wealthy and also cut taxes for the middle class and lower income people.

Elizabeth Warren suggested a tax on ultra-millionaires that would be used to pay for a universal childcare benefit for working Americans. On January 3, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) reintroduced legislation to cut taxes for the middle class.

The Trump-GOP tax scam has also caused millions of American taxpayers to lose all or part of their tax refunds this year, causing a large, nationwide outcry.

The report states:

“The deduction wallop detailed in the government report centers on capped deductions for state and local taxes — including real estate taxes. Formerly all local taxes could be deducted for federal taxes; now it’s capped at $10,000, which particularly hurts homeowners in major metropolitan areas — especially in the Northeast and California — where housing tends to be more expensive.“

The Huffington Post report also makes clear that the deduction cap which hurt Americans was used to pay for massive tax cuts for corporations. Large corporations saw their tax rates cut 40 percent — from 35 percent to 21 percent — under the Trump-GOP tax scam.

Republicans also planned that the tax breaks for corporations and billionaires would be partially paid for by cuts to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

According to Huffington Post, their report is based upon:

“an audit conducted by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that examined Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s efforts to block local governments’ attempts to stop the federal government from taking an extra bite out of community residents.”

U.S. taxpayers have seen refunds plummet 17 percent based upon filings in the first weeks of the tax filing season.

Hopefully the lost tax deductions and lost refunds will cause American workers to wake up and see what is really going on with Republican rule in Washington. If the U.S. tax system is ever going to be made fair for average Americans then Democrats must be put back in charge of the federal government.

As much as anything else, this new tax report shows that in the 2020 elections our country greatly needs another Big Blue Wave that will sweep Democrats into power.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump treated CPAC crowds with a speech that lasted over two hours on Saturday, just outside of Washington, DC.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Presidential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was confronted over her infanticide position during an event in Dubuque, Iowa, on Wednesday.

On Monday, the prominent Democrat went on record as pro-infanticide by voting against Republican Senator Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would mandate that doctors perform medical care on infants born alive due to botched abortions. Only three Senate Democrats voted for the legislation.

After Warren waxed poetic to an Iowa crowd about the importance of healthcare for all, a man attending the event bluntly asked her why infants born alive from botched abortions were denied healthcare.

"What about the babies that survive abortion?" he asked. "How come they can’t have healthcare?"

Warren responded, "Infanticide is illegal everywhere in America."

"You voted against it," the man pushed back, referring to her no vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Warren, seeming looking to skirt the uncomfortable issue in public, stuck to her talking point: "Infanticide is illegal everywhere in America," she repeated.

This is not what Warren said on Monday when opposing the bill, however.

Taking to Twitter, the Democrat boasted about the bill being blocked and scolded the GOP for infringing on a woman’s right to choose, a common pro-abortion refrain.

"Republican politicians just tried (and failed) again to score political points at the expense of women. Enough," she wrote. "Women and their doctors should decide what’s best for their health — not the [Senate GOP]."

Republican politicians just tried (and failed) again to score political points at the expense of women. Enough.

Women and their doctors should decide what’s best for their health – not the @SenateGOP.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) February 26, 2019

Senator Sasse drafted the legislation soon after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, endorsed infanticide during a radio interview. He wanted to get his colleagues' infanticide positon on record.

"I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether we're okay with infanticide," said Sen. Sasse of the legislation. "This language is blunt. I recognize that and it's too blunt for many people in this body. But frankly, that is what we're talking about here today. Infanticide is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about."

Sasse continued: "Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?" he continued. "That is what this is about. Are we a country that says it’s okay to actively allow that baby to die — which is the current position of federal law? That’s the question before us, plain and simple."

"Deep down, each of us knows that every member of our human family ought to be protected, and deserves to be cherished and loved. The love we see every day in the eyes of moms and dads for their newborn babies is an inescapable reminder of that fundamental truth. Love is stronger than power,” the Senator added.

As noted by Live Action’s Lila Rose, abortionists have been recorded talking about abortion survivors. "Washington, D.C. abortionist Cesare Santangelo told our undercover investigators that he would make sure babies 'do not survive' if they were born alive at his facility,” said Rose in a statement. "A New York abortion worker told our Live Action investigator to 'flush' the baby down the toilet or 'put it in a bag' if she’s born alive. In Arizona, an abortion worker told us there 'may be movement' after the baby is outside of the mother and that they would refuse to provide help and instead let her die. Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director for Planned Parenthood, told a Center for Medical Progress investigator that identifying 'signs of life' after a baby survives an abortion is contingent upon 'who’s in the room.'"

"There is no difference between infanticide and abortion: both kill the same child," declared the pro-life advocate.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was asked during a rally in Dubuque, Iowa why she and other Democrats believe all people in America should have the right to free healthcare, but the unborn do not deserve even the right to life.

BizPac Review reports Warren was addressing the crowd on a universal, single-payer healthcare option when she said: “What we say to each other is if it’s your grandma or it’s you or it’s your niece’s baby, we’re all going to pitch in a few nickels, so we can be there for each other. That is the best of who we are.”

A heckler then asked: “What about the babies that survive abortion — how come they can’t have health care?”

Warren quickly injected, “Infanticide is illegal everywhere in America.”

The heckler hit back at Warren’s decision to vote against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: “But you voted against it.”

Check it out:

As the Daily Caller reports, the Senate failed to pass the bill earlier this week which “would have mandated that babies born alive after an abortion would receive the ‘same protection of law as any newborn.’”

“Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—who’s an independent but vying for the Democratic nomination—voted against the bill along with Warren,” the Daily Caller adds.

As Fox News reports, the legislation never saw an actual vote, but defeated by a 53 to 44 vote to end Democratic debate on the legislation. Democrats could have indefinitely debated the legislation so it was dismissed.

Here’s more from Fox News:

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to “ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.” It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could have applied.

And, BizPac Review adds:

“Infanticide is illegal everywhere in America,” Warren replied Wednesday to her heckler.

That was a lie.

“There is no existing federal law enacting an explicit requirement that newborns delivered in the context of abortion be afforded ‘the same degree’ of care that ‘any other child born alive at the same gestational age’ would receive, as this bill would,” National Review notes.

“Only 33 states currently offer some kind of protection for infants born after attempted abortions, and those laws can be repealed; New York’s Reproductive Health Act last month did just that.”

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

I was in the lobby of the Gaylord National Resort and Casino in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside of Washington, and Donald Trump was still upstairs in the ballroom talking. It’s the third day of the Conservative Political Action Conference and the president, as the marquee closer, seemed intent not to disappoint the crowd of activists and reporters here for his act. When he first walked out onstage, he bear-hugged a large pole dangling the American flag.

At this point, he’d been talking for over an hour and twenty minutes, a cyclone sucking up every popular topic of political debate — the Green New Deal, tariffs, socialism, the federal investigations which threatens his presidency—and gossip—the engagement of Candace Owens, a far-right activist and his fervent supporter — and spitting it out in his free associative style. In total, the speech would last for two hours and two minutes, which gives it the meaningless but nevertheless widely-noted distinction of being his longest since entering office.

The older women seated near me were gabbing about the Secret Service, how they wouldn’t allow them to carry their purses into the ballroom. They left the speech early and were waiting to exit the conference, their luggage piled around them. “What did he say?” one of them asked. Another replied, “Nothing much.” I’d failed to arrive early enough to get my press credential before the Secret Service sweep, and so I set up shop in a big leather chair and watched the speech as the women grew increasingly wary of my presence — and my laptop.

There are many women like them here, with warm smiles and quilted carryalls and a midwestern twang. And then there are the young white men in blazers and pressed white shirts and red or blue ties. And the young white women in their uniforms of heavy foundation and sheath dresses and tan patent leather heels or high leather boots. There are also the seedier looking types, like the man outside wearing a shirt that said, COMMIE KILLER. A reporter later identified him as one of the “Proud Boys,” which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group. CPAC claims that more than 9,000 people attended this year’s confab, resulting in “3,370 media articles and posts” and “3,500 mentions of CPAC 2019 on television.”

This is the third consecutive CPAC attended by Trump, though his history at this event dates back to 2011, when he publicly dangled the possibility of running for president during a media tour to promote birtherism, the racist conspiracy theory that Barack Obama wasn’t a legitimate president because he wasn’t actually born in the United States. It would be another five years before he would run for the Republican nomination, and now here we are, with the sitting president doing a mocking impersonation of the Southern accent belonging to the Attorney General that he fired and calling the Russia investigation “bullshit” in that same sprawling ballroom.

There’s almost no point in going over everything he said. He said a lot. And then he said some more.

He said many of the things he ordinarily says regarding his brief career in politics, starting with the Republican primary (he beat lots of candidates, didn’t you know) and the general election (the crowd is still chanting, “lock her up,” if you can believe it) and the media’s inability to grasp his sarcastic manner of speaking (he is a performance artist, and so he can’t be taken seriously when he does something like beg Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails in front of a large admiring crowd) and ending with the current day, where he is looking forward to another election. He regrets, he said, going so hard with the “Pocahontas” jab at Elizabeth Warren, because he should’ve really saved that for when he’s running against her next year.

My theory about these public spectacles, which mimic not at all the ways in which human beings typically communicate, is that they are an exercise Trump must perform when he needs to process the stresses and disappointment of a particularly bruising period, like this last week, when he left Hanoi empty handed after failing to come to an agreement with Kim Jong-un as, back home in America, his former lawyer and fixer delivered damning testimony against him before Congress. In that sense, today’s marathon monologue was like his press conference after the midterm elections, or his speech following the end of the government shutdown.

“You know, I’m totally off-script right now,” he said, at one point. “This is how I got elected: by being off-script. If we don’t go off-script, our country is in big trouble, folks.” At least in terms of his own behavior and its ability to create trouble for the rest of us, I think he might be right.

Leave a Comment

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

California's 2020 hopeful Kamala Harris (D-CA) proved once again how out of touch she is after making a comment about hard-working Americans and she got absolutely annihilated for it. When she's not lying about listening to

GOP

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris has only been a candidate for a month, but she’s already had an entire campaign’s worth of disasters.

The reasons why are simple: She’s a relatively untested candidate, she had barely been vetted, and she’s obviously faking it on a whole host of policy issues.

Here’s a quick recap:

“Eliminate all that!” Her call for eliminating all private insurance plans – which 177 million Americans have – shook the entire 2020 field. It’s a statement that will follow Democrats through the general election and beyond.

Giggling over Jussie Smollett. Harris rushed to judge the Jussie Smollett hoax, calling it a “modern day lynching.” But when pressed by reporters, Harris couldn’t defend her divisive rhetoric. (Instead, she giggled.)

Suggesting NH reporters were racist. New Hampshire reporters asked Harris why she has barely spent any time in the state, unlike Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders who have made countless stops there. Harris later complained to an audience in New York City that those questions racially-motivated.

Pot-smoking jokes gone wrong. Harris is cracking jokes left and right about her marijuana use. Her father didn’t appreciate it.

“It’s not about a cost.” Harris drew negative headlines for casually dismissing the cost of policies she supports like the “Green New Deal” ($93 TRILLION), and government-run health care ($32 TRILLION). Then she did it again.

Lying about her record. Harris was busted for lying about her record on immigration.

Wavering on issues. As the NYT’s Jonathan Martin, Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti, and Politico’s Christopher Cadelago have all detailed, Harris has stumbled on a whole host of issues from health care, immigration, and Venezuela, to slavery reparations, antitrust laws, and eliminating the filibuster. It’s left voters saying she’s “evasive” and “lack[s] specifics.”

If there are half as many items on this list next month, it’s going to be a long slog for Kamala Harris.

Elections Election 2020

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats' 2020 presidential hopefuls are latching on to an array of far-left ideas at a quickening pace months before the primaries even start -- stirring hope from Republicans that the eagerness to endorse proposals with limited appeal beyond the hardcore base could turn off voters in the general election and hand President Trump a second term.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) launched his presidential campaign in Brooklyn, New York Saturday, declaring his bid is the best shot at beating President Donald Trump in 2020.

The Democrats in the 2020 race have taken varied approaches to President Trump, with some avoiding saying his name entirely, while others make implicit critiques of his presidency. Sanders has never shied from jabbing the president in stark terms, and during his speech at Brooklyn College, calling Trump “the most dangerous president in modern American history” who wants to “divide us up.”

The Vermont senator positioned himself in opposition to Trump administration policies from immigration to climate change. Beyond the issues themselves, Sanders, who grew up in the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Flatbush in a middle-class family, drew a stark contrast between himself and the billionaire in the White House who hails from Queens.

“I did not have a father who gave me millions of dollars to build luxury skyscrapers, casinos, and country clubs,” Sanders said. “I did not come from a family that gave me a two-hundred-thousand-dollar allowance every year beginning at the age of three. As I recall, my allowance was twenty-five cents a week.”

Sanders also said he “did not come from a family of privilege that prepared me to entertain people on television by telling workers, ‘You’re fired.’”

“I came from a family who knew all too well the frightening power employers can have over everyday workers,” he added.

More than 200 miles away in suburban Washington, President Trump reveled in his 2016 victory and said Republicans “need to verify it in 2020 with an even bigger victory.”

While Trump didn’t mention Sanders explicitly in a two-hour speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he railed against the policies of “socialism” in a continued attempt to portray Democrats as out of touch with ordinary Americans. Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist.

“Socialism is not about the environment, it is not about justice, it is not about virtue. It is only about one thing – it is called power for the ruling class,” he told attendees. “We know the future does not belong to those who believe in socialism”

Sanders enters the race at a moment that bears little resemblance to when he waged his long-shot bid in 2016. Democrats have been mobilized by the election of Trump and are seeking a standard-bearer who can oust him from office. Many of Sanders’ populist ideas have been embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic party. The field of Democrats that he joins includes a number of liberal candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NY), and most notably Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who share similar sensibilities.

Earlier February, Sanders launched a second run for the White House, pledging to run a campaign focused on “transforming” the U.S. and “creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.”

According to Sanders, part of his strategy to transform the country is to forward the policies laid out in the Green New Deal, which was unveiled by self-described Democratic-socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in recent weeks. Appearing on ABC’s The View Friday, Sanders swatted away criticism surrounding the proposal, denying that it goes “too far” to take on climate change.

“We have, according to the best scientists in the world, we have 12 years to begin substantially cutting carbon emissions before there will be irreparable damage to the planet,” he added. I talked to some folks who were in Paradise, CA, remember the terrible, terrible fire that wiped out the whole community?”

Following his announcement to seek the presidency, Sanders popped six percentage points in a Morning Consult poll gauging support for 2020 Democrat presidential contenders. The polling company said Sanders’s jump in support was the “largest single-week shift for a candidate so far in Morning Consult’s tracking.”

Sanders, who now trails Biden in second place, spiked from 21 percent of the possible primary vote share to 27 percent.

Despite enjoying a jump in the polls, the Sanders campaign suffered early losses at key personnel, who are said to have exited over “creative differences.”

Strategists Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who run the media consulting outfit Devine Mulvey Longabaugh notified Sanders they would be leaving his 2020 campaign after working on his 2016 bid against Democrat presidential rival Hillary Clinton.

“There were differences in a creative vision,” Longabaugh said in an interview with CNBC. “We want to leave on a very positive note, and we are proud of the work we’ve done on the campaign. It was just clear, however, that we weren’t in sync.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

I don’t think Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., read my column earlier this week in which I cautioned against the potential long-term side effects of chronic marijuana use, which include behavioral problems, problems with memory and judgment, anxiety and depression, paranoia, and yes, even an uncontrollable vomiting disorder known as Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.

One reader with this condition wrote that it took him over six months to start “mentally feeling normal” after stopping smoking.

If Booker was aware of these and other problems, he and Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna of California might have hesitated before introducing the ironically titled “Marijuana Justice Act,” which seeks to remove pot from the list of controlled substances, thereby legalizing it for recreational use.

DR. MARC SIEGEL: HEAVY POT SMOKING HAS NOW BEEN LINKED TO THIS STRANGE SYNDROME

Presidential hopefuls Senators Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have co-sponsored the bill, which also would expunge the criminal records of those who have been charged with marijuana possession.

I believe this last part is a good thing, but as a practicing physician, I must point out that decriminalization is not the same thing as opening the door wide for recreational use. Critics of my position are quick to point out that alcohol and cigarettes are far more deadly than weed, and that they are both legal and heavily marketed and available regardless of potential health problems.

The problem with this straw man argument is that one harmful chemical being legal is not automatic justification for another one becoming legal.

Widespread recreational use of marijuana leads to two major problems. First, there is an associated loss of awareness that may be harmful. This trend was shown in a disturbing study about the perceptions of pot among eighth- and 10th-graders following the legalization of recreational use in Washington state in 2012.

Keep in mind that it took decades for physicians to convince patients that cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you, because they are legal and readily available. We hardly need to perpetuate the same misconception about marijuana – that if its legal it must be OK to use unchecked.

Second, legalization may lead to widened use of marijuana in an increasing number of products. Ten states have already legalized weed for recreational use, and it is currently under serious legislative consideration in New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey.

The problem in the states where it’s legal is that THC – the active substance in pot – is appearing in everything from cigarettes to food to cosmetics. This means you may end up taking in more THC than you are aware of, which increases your risks for long-term side effects.

Especially problematic is the increasing use of marijuana by pregnant women (roughly 5 percent) for the purpose of treating morning sickness. It has been shown to lead to childhood attention and behavioral problems, low birth weight and premature birth. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against its use.

At the same time, the proper medical use of marijuana is important, and it can be controlled by physicians prescribing it appropriately. There are 33 states (and Washington, D.C.) where medical marijuana is legal, which is very helpful for patients in pain or nauseas from chemotherapy.

CBD (Cannabidiol), found in the flower of the cannabis plant, also has therapeutic effects that are currently being studied, including for treatment of epilepsy, anxiety, PTSD and insomnia. It is currently illegal federally, but legal in 34 states and with a prescription in the remaining 16 states for certain medical conditions such as intractable epilepsy.

CBD does not cause the same intoxicating effects as the THC found in marijuana, nor does it have the same long-term side effects. And it is not combustible. For these reasons I am all for its federal legalization. This would subject CBD to more quality control by the FDA, which is a good thing since there are so many versions around.

The bottom line is this: Thumbs up for medical marijuana and CBD in all 50 states. Thumbs up for decriminalization of marijuana. But thumbs down for widespread unregulated recreational use.

endoftheamericandream

Published  1 month ago

What I am about to share with you is absolutely sickening.  But if we do not shine a light on these practices, they will never stop.  And once you learn what is really going on behind the scenes, you have a responsibility to help do something about it.  Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, more th

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said a lot of things about "climate change" while promoting her "Green New Deal." Claim Your Free Trump 2020 Hat - Just Cover Shipping For example, via Federalist Papers: “We’re like, ‘The

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) reportedly said Saturday that she does not believe Vice President Pence is a decent man.

“I’m sorry. I followed Pence’s history on LGBTQ Americans, and I don’t think that is a decent position,” Warren said, according to Iowa Starting Line. “I disagree.”

Asked if she thinks Pence is a “decent” man, Warren said “no.”

The Massachusetts senator, who launched her 2020 presidential campaign earlier this year, made her opinions known just days after former Vice President Joe Biden faced scrutiny for calling Pence a “decent guy.”

Biden made the comments in reference to Pence at a Forum in Global Leadership at the University of Nebraska-Omaha on Thursday. The remark quickly led to backlash, with actress and former New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon (D) asking Biden to “consider how this falls on the ears of our community.”

Biden, who is considering a 2020 run for president, later clarified that there was “nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.”- READ MORE

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

It's not over until it's over, especially for Hillary Clinton

According to a new report in The New York Times, the failed 2016 presidential candidate hasn't completely given up hope that there's an opening in the 2020 field that would allow her to take over and rectify the mistakes she made in 2016.

The report says Clinton "looms large" over the 2020 field, but cites mostly negative examples of Clinton's influence, including an incident involving Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who recently declared her intention to seek the Dems' 2020 nomination.

Klobuchar assured her supporters that she would, in fact, travel to Wisconsin — a state Clinton deliberately avoided during the 2016 campaign. The oversight likely cost Clinton a handful of electoral college votes. Klobuchar, upon realizing what she'd done, didn't even wait a day to quantify the fallout over her remarks, and phoned Clinton "soon" afterward, apologizing profusely.

Other Democratic contenders — even including, reportedly, Joe Biden — have sought Clinton's advice, but it's clear from The New York Times' piece that Clinton isn't going to be satisfied being a campaign guru for other potential nominees, especially if those nominees get to take on her now-arch nemesis, President Donald Trump.

"But even as she offers supportive words, Mrs. Clinton has given the impression that she harbors a faint hope she could still become president one day. In private conversations, she occasionally muses about an opening, according to some who have spoken with her, sounding more wistful than realistic," the NYT claims.

Some Democratic strategists, surveying the field, aren't being as negative about the prospect as they once were.

“This party is part of her DNA and she deserves the respect,” one former Clinton adviser told the paper. “How many candidates have lost their campaign? Some twice, and they’re still running again, potentially. She has a stature in this party that she has earned.”

But as time wears on, the prospect of a 2016 rematch has waned significantly. Clinton, if she entered now, would face a field of at least 14 other candidates, some of whom, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) represent a similar political position as Clinton, and are struggling to stay relevant against younger, more dynamic, and more diverse candidates.

And there are already two powerhouses in the game: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and former Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn't declared officially but is rumored to be picking up campaign staff in early states.

Clinton's only hope is a massive, field-wide failure that results in no desirable nominee, at which point, she'd simply be the most logical default character. That's not to say that won't happen, though. Few of the 2020 Democratic candidates are battle tested, and the elderly white male frontrunners may seem rather undesirable to a party whose last three nominees have been either minority or female.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Ben Carson, in an interview with Fox News on the sidelines of the Conservative Political Action Conference, warned Thursday that the "morality of our society" is at stake in the abortion debate that has surged back onto the floors of state legislatures and Congress.

Speaking to Fox News moments after addressing the conservative gathering, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development said the issue should be at the forefront as the 2020 presidential race starts to take shape.

“I think it’s a critical issue because we are talking about the morality of our society,” Dr. Carson told Fox News.

FOR THE BEST CPAC MOMENTS, GO TO FOX NATION

“Are we going off the deep-end here or are we still loving and compassionate people?”

Asked what he would tell Democrats who voted to block a Republican bill that threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, Carson said: “I would say please stop and spend a little time educating yourself about what life is all about, and about when babies can feel and when they can respond to external stimulation.”

BEN SASSE: CUOMO 'PERVERTED' COLOR PINK BY LINKING IT TO ABORTION, NOT BREAST CANCER

'We are talking about the morality of our society.'

— Ben Carson, HUD secretary

Carson’s comments come after the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act stalled amid Democratic opposition in Congress. It would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which would exempt the mother from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital." It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could have applied.

ABORTION SURVIVOR: SENATE DEMS ARE 'WILLING TO SACRIFICE LIVES LIKE MINE TO KEEP ABORTION-ON-DEMAND'

All Democratic 2020 presidential candidates in the Senate opposed the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Opponents called the bill unnecessary, considering it's already a crime to kill a newborn, and described it as an "attack" on women's health.

In response, President Trump tweeted: "This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress."

The vote came in the wake of New York easing restrictions on late-term abortions, as several other states including Illinois consider similar measures.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker introduced legislation to end the federal prohibition of marijuana on Thursday, joined by a series of other announced and potential Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls including Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris.

Harris' support seemingly cemented her full-scale reversal on the issue. In 2010, Harris was among a handful of lawmakers — including then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — to oppose Proposition 19, a measure to legalize recreational marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed. Then San Francisco's district attorney, Harris called Proposition 19 a “flawed public policy.”

The move comes as polling increasingly shows widespread national support for legalizing the drug. A Fox News poll last year showed that 59 percent of voters support legalizing marijuana -- up from 51 percent in 2015, and 46 percent in 2013. Only 26 percent favored making “smoking marijuana” legal in 2001.

CALIFORNIA DOCTOR PRESCRIBES WEED COOKIES TO 4-YEAR-OLD FOR TEMPER TANTRUMS, LOSES LICENSES

"The War on Drugs has not been a war on drugs, it’s been a war on people, and disproportionately people of color and low-income individuals,” Booker said in a statement. “The Marijuana Justice Act seeks to reverse decades of this unfair, unjust, and failed policy by removing marijuana from the list of controlled substances and making it legal at the federal level.”

Booker added: “But it’s not enough to simply decriminalize marijuana. We must also repair the damage caused by reinvesting in those communities that have been most harmed by the War on Drugs. And we must expunge the records of those who have served their time. The end we seek is not just legalization, it’s justice.”

Booker's bill was co-sponsored not only by Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, and Warren, but also by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Or., Jeff Merkley, D-Or., and Michael Benne, D-Co.

“Millions of Americans’ lives have been devastated because of our broken marijuana policies, especially in communities of color and low-income communities,” Gillibrand said. “I’m proud to work with Senator Booker on this legislation to help fix decades of injustice caused by our nation’s failed drug policies.”

Added Sanders: “As I said during my 2016 campaign, hundreds of thousands of people are arrested for possession of marijuana every single year. Many of those people, disproportionately people of color, have seen their lives negatively impacted because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That has got to change. We must end the absurd situation of marijuana being listed as a Schedule 1 drug alongside heroin. It is time to decriminalize marijuana, expunge past marijuana convictions and end the failed war on drugs.”

For her part, Harris echoed Booker's sentiments and seemingly embraced her changed views on marijuana. Despite her past opposition to legalizing the drug, the former California attorney general recently boasted about smoking weed as a college student on the popular New York City-based radio program "The Breakfast Club," telling hosts DJ Envy, Angela Yee and Charlamagne tha God that she's "inhaled" from a joint "a long time ago."

“I think it gives a lot of people joy. And we need more joy in the world," Harris added, claiming she used to listen to Snoop Dogg and Tupac Shakur — though they didn't release their albums during Harris' college years — while she reportedly got high.

WHOOPS: HARRIS SAYS SHE GOT HIGH LISTENING TO SNOOP DOGG AND TUPAC ... BEFORE THEY MADE MUSIC

In co-sponsoring Booker's bill on Thursday, Harris, like Booker, suggested that prohibitions on the drug disproportionately affect black men.

“Marijuana laws in this country have not been applied equally, and as a result we have criminalized marijuana use in a way that has led to the disproportionate incarceration of young men of color. It’s time to change that,” Harris said. “Legalizing marijuana is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do in order to advance justice and equality for every American.”

Warran, meanwhile, added: “Marijuana should be legalized, and we should wipe clean the records of those unjustly jailed for minor marijuana crimes. By outlawing marijuana, the federal government puts communities of color, small businesses, public health and safety at risk."

Last year, California became the largest legal U.S. marijuana marketplace, Massachusetts opened the first recreational shops on the East Coast, Canada legalized it in most provinces, and Mexico's Supreme Court recognized the rights of individuals to use marijuana, moving the country closer to broad legalization.

New Hampshire lawmakers on Wednesday gave preliminary approval to legalizing recreational marijuana, dismissing public safety and health concerns on a path to join scores of other states that have passed similar cannabis measures.

Ten states have legalized recreational marijuana — including the three bordering New Hampshire — while New York, New Jersey and others are considering it this year.

Fox News' Jennifer Earl and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

On Thursday, three days after Senate Democrats voted to block a bill to stop infanticide, House Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a similar bill to require medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions.

This is the 12th time Congressional Democrats thwarted an attempt by Republicans to vote on a bill that would provide medical care and treatment for babies who provide survived failed abortions — 10 times in the House and twice in the Senate.

Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI) offered the unanimous consent request to allow a vote on the anti-infanticide bill but Democrats, as shown below, ruled him out of order.

Unlike other requests to vote on the bill, Democrats cut off Rep. Mitchell’s microphone right away so he could not be heard responding to their refusal to all a vote on the bill.

After Democrats blocked the vote, Congressman Mitchell tweeted about the denial.

“Today on the House floor, I asked for unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 962, the #BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires medical care be given to babies born alive during failed abortion procedures. For the 11th time now, @HouseDemocrats blocked the vote,” he said.

In a statement, the congressman added: “As many of you know, I believe in the fundamental right to life from conception to a natural death. That’s why yesterday I joined a group of my colleagues in a trip across the Capitol to attend the Senate’s vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical care be given to babies born alive during failed abortion procedures. While this bill failed to pass on the Senate floor, it is important that we continue trying to pass this important bill and protect life.”

If the Democrats continue to block consideration of H.R. 962, after 30 legislative days, Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Wagner plan to file a motion to discharge the resolution from the Rules Committee.

The blocking of a vote on a bill to stop infanticide come even as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden has yet to enter the 2020 race for president. Some recent media reports have suggested that his son’s checkered private life could be part of the reason for the Democrat’s hesitation.

Hunter Biden, the former VP’s 49-year-old son, would inevitably become campaign fodder if Biden were to join an increasingly crowded presidential race, Vanity Fair reported in January, citing Democratic strategists. Hunter’s romantic relationship with his brother’s widow created major headaches for his father.

Biden’s son claims his dad has never leaned on him to pipe down. “Even though my life has been played out in the media, because I am a Biden, my father never once suggested that the family’s public profile should be my priority,” Hunter told reporters. Some of his former colleagues believe Hunter is a good man who somehow manages to fall backward into drama.

“You know how some people are both fuck-ups and earnest at the same time? That’s how Hunter is. He’s not a bad guy at all,” one former colleagues told Vanity Fair. “Even as Hunter was a pain in the ass, Joe was supportive of him—he was a real dad. I don’t think he’s embarrassed by Hunter. But whether the family is willing to have all that revisited is tricky.”

Biden’s other son, Beau, died of brain cancer in May 2015. Hunter—who was married at the time with three children—became involved shortly thereafter with his older brother’s widow, Hallie. Hunter’s wife later claimed in divorce paper that her husband wasted money on prostitutes, strip clubs, and drugs, among other vices.

The former vice president is considering all angles before running against President Donald Trump, a former real estate tycoon and notorious Twitter troll who frequently uses his political opponents’ private foibles against them. The president often foists nicknames on Democrats like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who he called “Crooked Hillary” during the 2016 presidential election.

Biden has not yet responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about whether Hunter’s personal life is holding up a potential announcement. Meanwhile, big names like Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California have already announced runs. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont joined the group on Feb. 19 — polls show the self-avowed socialist leading the pack.

The hesitation on Biden’s part is holding up process for other potential Democratic candidates. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for one, is considering a run at the White House but not if he has to challenge Biden in a stacked primary. Bloomberg, who is committed to spending $500 million this election year, worries the former vice president might horn in on his image as a centrist inside an increasingly partisan Democratic Party.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi may not be totally on board with the socialist Green New Deal that is being pushed by the "future" of the Democratic party Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but it looks like

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

When it comes to the 2020 presidential election there is no bigger divide between President Donald Trump and the pro-abortion Democrats who want to replace him than the issue of infanticide and abortions up to birth.

While President Trump has taken a strongly pro-life position throughout his presidency and has compiled a strong pro-life record opposing abortion and defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Democrats have promoted killing babies in abortions even in the late term of pregnancy. And yesterday they supported infanticide.

Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

While they all voted to support infanticide, President Trump spoke out against infanticide in two tweets saying that it’s nothing short of “executing” babies to let them die after failed abortions

Between now and the presidential primaries next year and the November 2020 general election, pro-life groups have vowed to hold these pro-abortion presidential candidates accountable for also supporting infanticide.

“Today’s vote exposes beyond all doubt the modern Democratic Party’s extreme agenda of abortion on demand through the moment of birth and even beyond – a deeply unpopular position even within their own rank and file,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “An overwhelming majority of voters are horrified by infanticide and want Congress to protect babies born alive during failed abortions. But when forced to take a position on the record, not a single one of the top Senate Democrats running for president in 2020 could muster the basic decency to outlaw infanticide.”

“President Trump’s pro-life leadership is obviously resonating with the public and could not present a clearer contrast to Democrats’ extremism. SBA List’s army of grassroots pro-life activists will go on offense to hold Democratic presidential contenders accountable for their betrayal of the most vulnerable and for trampling the will of the American people,” she told LifeNews.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said the Democrats running for president all claim to suport universal health care — except for babies who survive abortions.

The Democratic Party Platform says, “Democrats have been fighting to secure universal health care for the American people for generations, and we are proud to be the party that passed Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.”

“Yesterday, they walked away from that pledge, finding an exception to its universal coverage,” he said. “If a baby survives an abortion, he is not entitled to health care. The majority of Democrats voted to permit infanticide; only three voted for the bill that would protect the kids. President Trump denounced what the Democrats did.”

“Every Democrat who is either running for president, or planning to run, voted to legalize selective infanticide. The Democrats no longer support universal health care,” he concluded.

Not only do contenders such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have 100-percent pro-abortion voting records, they also sponsored a radical pro-abortion bill that would have legalized abortions for basically any reason up to birth.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

On Monday, Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act fell short of the 60 votes needed to move the legislation to a floor vote. All 44 of the “nay” votes came from Democrats or supposed independents, including presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

While the party of Planned Parenthood needed to kill the bill, voting to withhold medical care from an infant lucky enough to escape the womb alive isn’t the best look for a party hoping to win back the Senate and White House in 2020. So yesterday saw the liberal media’s launch of a rehabilitation effort for their party.

But how do you prop up a politician who votes to allow newborn babies to die? Easy: With misdirection and prevarication.

Misleading, Evasive Media Coverage

The New York Times led the charge, publishing Dr. Jen Gunter’s op-ed, “I Didn’t Kill My Baby.” Gunter is an obstetrician and gynecologist who has performed late-term abortions. She lost her son Aidan—one of the triplets she was carrying—when he was born extremely premature at 22 weeks gestation.

Gunter’s loss is tragic. But it has nothing to do with abortion. Gunter didn’t have an abortion; her water broke at 22 weeks and three days gestation. Doctors were unable to delay Aidan’s birth, and he died shortly after Gunter delivered him. Physicians apparently succeeded, however, in delaying Gunter’s delivery of her other two babies, because she notes in passing that Aidan’s two siblings survived.

Gunter does not provide any details, though, because that would not serve her purpose. Her op-ed seeks to attack the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by portraying her tragic loss as equivalent to an abortion: “If you are going to accuse me of executing my child, then you need to know exactly what happened. It’s not a pleasant story and the ending is terrible. I wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to read it. But you need to know the truth, because stories like mine are being perverted for political gain.”

No one is talking about stories like Gunter’s. No one is accusing Gunter of executing her son. And try as she might to equate her situation to the focus of the legislation, which concerns abortion survivors, Gunter did not have an abortion. The only one perverting anything for political gain is Gunter!

To be clear: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act speaks only of babies born alive following “an abortion or attempted abortion.” The bill also does not mandate “heroic measures,” or “invasive procedures,” as Gunter implies. It simply requires that health practitioners provide the abortion survivor with the same health care “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive. (The abortion doctor must also immediately transport the baby to a hospital.)

Making Sense of Gunter’s Argument

In fact, Gunter’s entire op-ed perfectly illustrates the need for, and functioning of, the proposed Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The medical team caring for Gunter and Aidan concluded, in their reasonable and conscientious judgment, that Aidan could not survive and that no further health care was medically necessary. Conversely, the medical team caring for Gunter’s other two premature babies concluded that further medical care was appropriate. The bill merely requires a medical team to treat a survivor of abortion the same as Gunter’s doctors treated her three premature babies.

Gunter also makes the incomprehensible claim that the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is “nothing more than a way to warp the reality of perinatal mortality (stillbirth or death within the first week of life) to create confusion about abortion.” Perinatal mortality is a tragic reality, but it has nothing to do with Sasse’s bill. Any confusion between the two stems solely from Gunter’s attempt to manipulate the sympathy the public feels for her loss.

In her op-ed, Gunter adds another dubious but oft-repeated claim, stating that abortions “at or after 24 weeks of gestation, the time largely accepted as viability, are typically performed because of severe fetal anomalies or fetal anomalies combined with maternal health problems.” But a Congressional Research Service report from April 2018 looked at that question and cited an expert in the field (and an abortion apologist) Dr. Diana Greene Foster, who “believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion.’”

Anecdotally, we also have Beth Vial’s op-ed for Teen Vogue from earlier this month. In “What It Was Like To Get A Later Abortion,” Vial recounted her trip to New Mexico to abort her healthy, viable unborn baby at 28 weeks of gestation. Not quite the typical scenario Gunter would have readers believe, which just goes to show that Vial is too young, too naïve, or too indoctrinated by the “shout your abortion” crowd to realize her story horrifies ordinary Americans.

Gunter knows better, which is why she set herself up as the strawman: the suffering, still-mourning mom. But the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act isn’t about Gunter or her son Aidan, or about any of the other moms who bear children only to bury them. The bill is about the Vials of the world, and the vile doctors who attempt to abort viable fetuses—and when they fail, leave the infants to die.

All the distortion that is fit to print will not change that reality.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

There’s no crying in baseball. Tom Hanks told us that in “In a League of Their Own.” There’s also no cheating in sports. Allowing natural-born men to participate in women’s sports on the basis of gender identification is, in essence, cheating.

On February 16, two biological males who identify as transgender girls took first and second place in the Connecticut state open indoor track championships. The high school juniors, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, have captured both state and national accolades. Miller is the third-fastest runner in the country in the girls’ 55-meter dash. Yearwood trails, tied for 7th.

Here lies the problem: While those two students identify as women, their genetics reflect otherwise. In the purest form, sports should celebrate physicality: the natural female and male forms as they exist, not as they are altered through steroids or hormonal replacement. We don’t allow steroids in professional sports, so why should we allow genetic enhancement or alteration drugs in amateur sports?

In the past, the two students have told “Good Morning America” that women should simply work harder to beat them. This sentiment is ludicrous, particularly in a sport like track and field where there is no trainable skill other than form and God-given physicality. It is possible to strengthen fast-twitch muscles (responsible for short-distance speed intrinsic in these sprinters’ performances), but only to a certain point of maximization. Translation: You’re either born with it or you’re not. And the average man is born with more speed and strength capacity than the average female athlete.

For example, I played competitive soccer throughout high school and into college at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida. I trained for hours every day to perfect my dribbling and ball-handling skills, in addition to spending time on strength training and sprinting. I wasn’t slow by any means, but I wasn’t particularly fast. When you reach the highest competitive levels, the smallest degrees of speed difference matter. It’s, in part, what separates future Olympian soccer players from standout collegiate stars. You cannot simply “work harder” to achieve genetics inherent to your competitors who are also working just as hard.

Kudos to Connecticut student-athlete Selina Soule, who finished eighth in the Connecticut competition, for calling this imbalance out. Had the two transgender runners not participated, Soule would have earned a berth into the New England Regionals (only the top six finalists make it).

She told the Washington Times, “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing. I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Political Battles Over Transgender Athletes

Liberals, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), insist on the value of science. The 2020 presidential hopeful recently tweeted, “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to a report that the White House climate panel will include a climate alarmism skeptic.

Alright, Warren. If you believe in science, then don’t selectively feign interest in it. Don’t now choose to ignore science as it pertains to basic genetics because it might alienate the kumbaya identity politics espoused by the far-left reaches of your party.

Here’s just one glaring physical difference between men and women, scientifically examined by the National Institute of Health: “At birth, females have smaller lungs than males with fewer respiratory bronchioles. The sex-related differences in lung growth persist from childhood to adulthood. They are present also during the brief period of adolescence (from 11 to 13 years) when females are taller than males because of the onset of the pubertal growth spurt…Because boys have bigger lungs per unit of stature, they have a larger total number of alveoli and a larger alveolar surface area for a given age and stature.”

South Dakota is being proactive about transgender people participating in female sports. The state’s lawmakers are considering a bill, House Bill 1225, that would make a student’s birth certificate the determinant of “sexual identity” for participating in high school athletics. It’s being sponsored by five Republican members of the House of Representatives and three Republican state senators.

South Dakota lawmakers reportedly said they were inspired to take action after hearing about the Connecticut state track results this month. Connecticut is one of 17 states that allows full participation from transgender athletes in female sports, according to Transathlete.com. Seven other states make it more difficult, looking for proof of sex or mandatory hormone therapy before participating—measures South Dakota’s House Bill 1225 seeks to include.

What’s Next for This Issue

Trans athletes can compete in The International Olympic Committee’s affiliated sports, but with the same guidelines states like South Dakota are looking to secure. In 2016, the committee mandated transgender female athletes demonstrate their testosterone level has been below a certain point for at least a year before competing. Male counterparts have no restrictions.

But what happens to any American who has a difference of thought, not sex? Tennis legend Maria Navratilova was recently ostracized and dropped from LGBT groups for daring to speak up about the physical inequity for natural-born females against transgender women.

In fall 2018, Twitter announced a new policy prohibiting “misgendering” or “dead naming” transgender people. It includes repeated or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, and anything that deliberately refers to a transgender person with pronouns they dislike. But as we’ve consistently seen in the past, Twitter is inconsistent at best with its enforcement. The question remains will social media platforms now ban or lock accounts simply for disagreeing on trans athlete participation levels.

Our society shifts more and more to an all-inclusive membership even when legitimate reasons for boundaries exist. There is no reason transgender athletes cannot compete against other transgender athletes. But blindly supporting women competing against men who identify as women makes no biological sense.

Life is not perfect or fair, despite strong, misguided efforts to manufacture utopia. In the process to equalize opportunities, many advocates—specifically in female trans athlete inclusion—are making the social strata even more unbalanced.

Money

Published  1 month ago

Bernie Sanders’ fundraising is blowing the rest of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate field away.

Granted, it’s super early — the 2020 presidential election is more than a year and a half away, and several candidates have been in the running for less than one month — but Bernie Sanders, the independent “Democratic socialist” Senator from Vermont, has a huge lead on the competition.

Less than one week after Sanders officially announced his 2020 candidacy, his campaign has raised $10 million, according to his campaign. Perhaps even more impressive, the New York Times reported on Monday, Bernie Sanders’ fundraising total comes from roughly 360,000 different donors — suggesting true grassroots support, with an average contribution of less than $30 from each person.

Presidential campaigns release fundraising figures at different times, and the information can be selectively announced in order to make a candidate look more compelling — or more urgently in need of donations from supporters. So until all of the 2020 campaigns report their fundraising totals at the end of the first quarter as required by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it’s difficult to compare fundraising totals in an absolute apples-to-apples manner, in real time.

We’ve reached out to all the campaigns listed below for updates on their fundraising totals. Here’s what we know about some of the 2020 Democratic candidate fundraising efforts so far, to give an idea of how far behind they are compared to the $10 million raised by Bernie Sanders’ campaign:

The 2020 campaign for Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, has not released any fundraising totals to the public. According to CNN, however, there are indications that Warren’s campaign took in roughly $300,000 in online donations during the first 24 hours after she announced her candidacy on New Year’s Eve. Warren also has $11 million in cash raised from previous election cycles that she has not spent, according to OpenSecrets.org, and that money can be transferred to her presidential campaign.

All of the major Democratic candidates officially in the 2020 race, including Warren, have said that they will not be accepting money from corporate PACs (political action committees). This week, Elizabeth Warren took things a step further by telling supporters in an email that she would be skipping private fundraisers and phone calls seeking money from wealthy donors. Instead, she will focus on campaign events open to the general public and utilize grassroots fundraising from anyone willing to give.

Kamala Harris, the junior U.S. Senator from California, raised $1.5 million from 38,000 individuals within the first 24 hours of announcing her 2020 campaign in January. Her campaign has not released any other fundraising totals since then.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar’s campaign said it raised $1 million in the 48 hours after she announced her run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination on February 10.

The U.S. Senator from New Jersey has raised roughly $26 million between 2013 to 2018, according to OpenSecrets.org. But Cory Booker’s 2020 presidential campaign has not released any specific fundraising totals since his candidacy was officially launched on Feb. 1.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has not released any fundraising totals since she entered the 2020 race as of mid-January. Gillibrand did, however, say that her campaign had received donations from all 50 states within a day of throwing her hat into the ring.

Andrew Yang, the entrepreneur and extreme-long shot presidential candidate running on a promise to pay every American adult a universal basic income of $1,000 per month, raised $180,000 in 2018 for his 2020 campaign, according to the FEC. Yang also recently Tweeted that his campaign raised $400,000 over the past two weeks, with donations coming from 20,000 individuals.

How important is fundraising for the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates? It’s been estimated that a candidate will need $150 million or more in order to remain viable in the race through Super Tuesday on March 3, 2020.

Fundraising will become an even bigger issue if and when more than one billionaire enters the 2020 presidential campaign. People associated with Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City who has a net worth of $58 billion, say he could very well spend $500 million of his own money if he winds up running for president.

Then there’s our billionaire president. Donald Trump’s disclosures from the 2016 election season indicated that he used $66 million of his own money for his campaign against Hillary Clinton. It’s not clear how much of President Donald Trump’s own money (if any) he might spend on a reelection run in 2020.

What we do know is that Donald Trump has never really stopped fundraising, even after he won the 2016 election and took over as president. Between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, according to FEC reports, Trump’s presidential campaign took in nearly $28 million in contributions and received $35 million in transfers from other committees, for a total over $65 million.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Skip All Ads

Experience A Peaceful Internet! Ad Remover

Ad closed by Report this adWhy this ad? Seen this ad multiple timesNot interested in this adAlready bought thisAd covered contentWe'll try not to show that ad againAd closed by

Last night, Senate Democrats blocked a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act. The media tells us that this was an “anti-abortion” bill. The blood-drenched scumbags of NARAL call it an “extremist” and “anti-choice” bill. Elizabeth Warren calls it an attack on women. It was none of those things.

The legislation would not restrict abortion at all. It had nothing to do with “reproductive rights” or “choice” or “fetuses” or any handy euphemism. The point was simply to protect those children who are born after a failed abortion. Let me emphasize: the bill in question would have given legal protection to born, living, infant humans. Under the law, had it passed, hospitals would have been required to deliver basic medical care to these children:

“If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws. Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care."

Criminal penalties were also prescribed for anyone who kills a born infant. It is quite a sad statement that such a law would even need to be proposed in the first place, but that’s the state of things. With Democrats in Virginia proposing infanticide and Democratic legislatures across the country pushing the boundaries of abortion legalization further and further toward the point of birth, it became necessary to build a legislative wall protecting, at the very least, any child who manages to escape the gauntlet of the modern womb. Yet Democrats, who are famously opposed to walls, would not support this one, either. With one vote last night, the Democratic Party finally and officially endorsed infanticide.

We have come — plummeted is probably the better word — a long way since 2002, when the Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed unanimously through the Senate. That bill recognized all born children as human persons, which is a position that has since fallen out of favor in the Democratic Party. In just over a decade and a half, Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare abortions" to "kill 'em all and don't stop when they're born." Many of us warned that the first slogan would lead eventually to the second. We take no pleasure in our vindication.

But the question of how we arrived at this point is academic. The most immediate and practical point is that we are here now in a place where every Democrat in the Senate, save three holdouts, supports fourth-trimester abortion. The Democrat Party has been for a long while, and is now inescapably, an evil institution. A decent person cannot in good conscience remain affiliated with it. That isn't to say that every decent person must be a Republican. The Republican Party, after all, is hardly a bastion of moral courage. But a person with any sort of moral foundation, a person with any ethical sense whatsoever, cannot and will not align himself with a political institution that passionately defends abortion through every stage of pregnancy and beyond.

This is not about ideology or opinions or politics. This is just about basic humanity. The Democrat Party could be right about everything else it espouses (it isn't), and its performance on this issue would still be enough to repel all men and women of virtue. There are some lines that simply cannot be crossed. A political party may have a lot of good ideas but it will still be a hideous blight on the Earth if it advocates slavery. Infanticide (and abortion, which is morally and physically indistinguishable from infanticide) belongs in that same category. It is probably not a coincidence that the Democrat Party, through its long and sordid history, has supported both of those peculiar institutions. What a force for evil it has been. But what amazing consistency — to always fall on the wrong side of every human rights issue.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Jason Hopkins, DCNF

Democrats may simply vote “present” if the Green New Deal resolution is put up for vote on the Senate floor, protecting members of their caucus from taking a public stance on the contentious resolution.

“I’m still pondering it. A lot of Democrats may vote — we’ll see, but a lot of us may vote ‘present’ on the cloture motion,” stated Delaware Democratic Sen. Tom Carper, who serves as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, according to E&E News on Monday.

The possible strategy comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looks to put the Green New Deal up for a vote sometime this week. GOP leadership, which has lampooned the resolution, want to use the vote to force Democrats into taking a public stance on the dramatic call for 100 percent renewable energy and other far-left proposals.

Democrats, however, have criticized McConnell’s efforts, framing it as an attempt to torpedo progress.

“We’re trying to make sure we have as consolidated a Democratic caucus as we can because this is not serious legislation,” Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told reporters Monday. “This is just Leader McConnell trying to be mischievous and cause trouble, and there’s no reason to encourage him or reward him.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer showed even more contempt for McConnell’s plan, calling it a “cheap, cynical ploy” in comments made on Feb. 14.

The Green New Deal, spearheaded by self-identified Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calls for a number of seemingly-impossible measures, such as transitioning the country to 100 percent renewable energy in just 10 years, upgrading all the buildings in the country, and even addressing carbon emissions from cow flatulence.

The “present” vote would also protect a number of Democratic presidential contenders, many of them currently serving in the Senate. While some high-profile Democrats have expressed support for the Green New Deal, others, like Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have given more generic support for the plan.

Other Democrats have been more direct in their displeasure with the resolution. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, for example, said after he read and re-read the text of the Green New Deal, he approached a co-sponsor and asked, “What in the heck is this?”

Follow Jason on Twitter.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden blasted Senate Democrats for voting down a bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don't attempt to save the life of infants born alive after a failed abortion: "I'm living proof this is necessary."

Ohden, the founder of the Abortion Survivors Network, has said she was "accidentally born alive" after a saline-infused abortion. She met with Senators prior to the Monday night vote and was outside the chamber doors when the votes were cast against the bill, The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

DEMS BLOCK 'BORN ALIVE' BILL TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO INFANTS WHO SURVIVE FAILED ABORTIONS

"I was disappointed," Ohden told "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, "but I'm certainly not surprised. The Democrats who voted last night against this bill really showed us that they're willing to sacrifice lives like mine to keep abortion-on-demand right there."

She added that it's unfortunate to see pro-abortion legislation sweep across the nation as Democrats blocked the bill.

"No child should have their lives left in the hands of the abortionist or a medical professional to somehow decide to provide them medical care," Ohden said. "We need this bill, not only to ensure we're provided medical care, but that there's penalty for when there's failure to do so."

ABORTION SURVIVORS ON NEW LATE-TERM ABORTION BILLS: 'WHERE WERE MY RIGHTS IN THE WOMB?'

Ohden remains hopeful despite the bill dying.

"We're going to continue to see bills like this introduced, and I have great hope because we have great Republican legislators who are committed to life, the president is so committed to life, and really our nation is full of people who identify as being pro-life and are wanting to do something about it."

President Trump agreed said Monday "will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress."

"Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children," Trump wrote. "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth."

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic-delaying tactics -- seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays -- including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., the bill's sponsor, told "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday night that each opponent "constantly" lied with "blatant nonsense" claiming the bill "would end abortion," when in reality "this shouldn't be about politics...this should be about having heart."

The legislation was introduced after Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, appeared to endorse post-birth abortions while discussing The Repeal Act, a state bill which sought to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions:

"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen," he said. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Satan’s party.

On Monday evening Senate Democrats once again blocked a cloture measure that would prohibit infanticide.

Senators voted 53-44 on a bill from Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) that would penalize doctors who fail to “exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

The bill did not pass its cloture vote.

2020 Democrat presidential candidates Senators Kamala Harris (CA), Bernie Sanders (VT), Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Elizabeth Warren (MA) all voted “NO” on this bill that would have required doctors to provide proper degree of care to babies born alive after attempted abortion.

President Trump lashed out at Democrats after they failed vote to protect newborn babies from murder.

On Monday night Planned Parenthood director Leana Wen, M.D., attacked President Trump for defending babies.

The President of the United States is lying to the American people about the Sasse bill. What @RealDonaldTrump is saying has no basis in medicine—or reality.

— Leana Wen, M.D. (@DrLeanaWen) February 26, 2019

We should all speak up and fight back when @RealDonaldTrump is spreading lies & deliberate misinformation. The Sasse bill is about criminalizing doctors and taking away the right to safe, legal abortion. #ProtectProviders

— Leana Wen, M.D. (@DrLeanaWen) February 26, 2019

Dr. Wen and Planned Parenthood have no shame in supporting the slaughter of babies before birth and after birth.

And Democrats support this.

Pure evil.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Every single Democrat running for president in 2020 voted against a major piece of legislation this week that would save newborn babies.

On Monday, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would prevent newborn babies from being killed if they were born alive after surviving an abortion.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

All but three Democrats voted against a procedural motion on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, tanking the bill because it needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass.

The final vote count was 53 in favor and 44 opposed.

Only three Democrats voted for the bill: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama.

Here are the six Democratic senators who are running for president who voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (Vermont).

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act essentially sought to make it a law that doctors attempt to save born-alive infants rather than allowing them to die.

VOTE NOW: Should Pelosi Be REMOVED From Office?

The bill amends the criminal code to “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

“If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws,” the legislation states.

“Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care,” it adds.

Trump took to Twitter on Monday night and fired off two powerful tweets that quickly went viral with over 200,000 combined likes and retweets.

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth,” Trump wrote.

“This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress,” Trump continued. “If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

Like Trump, many Americans are furious that Democrats refused to support a measure that literally sought to protect innocent babies.

Almost every single Democrat voted against the measure, and that could come back to haunt all of them, especially those running for president in the upcoming election.

With the 2020 presidential election just around the corner, voters will remember this when they go to the voting booths.

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

We have now seen the end results of the self-esteem movement and the indoctrination camps of higher learning: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal. Equipped with deep ignorance, bolstered by overwhelming confidence, and layered over by a distinct lack of self-awareness, the freshman representative from the Bronx has produced for the world a plan that is a rare combination mind-blowing ignorance and insanity.

But in it we do catch a glimpse of the everyday stupidity being preached aggressively on campuses across the country: it’s hard to deny that in our capitalistic country, college campuses are the last bastions of failed ideologies like socialism that are taught by failed ideologues with tenure. When those ideas are brought forth from the campus cocoon into the real world, the detachment from reality is on full display.

If the Green New Deal were ever implemented in a real way, it would incinerate the U.S. economy. Ascendant competitors such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia would laugh in triumph over the smoldering ruins of what used to be the world’s greatest economic and political power.

It’s rare to see such poison proposed by an elected official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, but this is the world in which we live: economic arsonists in Congress actually proposing ideas that would annihilate American freedom and prosperity all in the name of a globalist, quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming.

One of the great lies in the rollout of the Green New Deal was that the proposal really did not advocate paying people who were “unwilling to work.” While the final document didn’t include those words specifically, the Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution states the GND would “provide all the people of the United States with economic security.” Of course, by all people it’s assumed to include those unwilling to work.

Despite the gaslighting, what is really being proposed here is a universal basic income (UBI), a policy that as of last year some 48 percent of Americans thought would be a good idea. Some have wrongly argued that UBI could be the answer to the coming automation of the economy. It’s not the answer, but it has been discussed and even proposed by some on the Right, including Charles Murray, who has been arguing for several years now that a UBI is a solution to replacing our welfare state and revitalizing America’s ailing civic life.

All of this, however, is besides the point. The willingness to provide economic support for those unwilling to work, or the acceptance of such ideas, is not the biggest lie surrounding the Green New Deal. A short time ago, Ocasio-Cortez insisted she didn’t want Venezuelan socialism for the United States. She was seeking the smiling, Swedish sort of socialism for this country. Never mind the fact that Sweden really isn’t socialist, either, as the government doesn’t control the means of production.

Regardless of Ocasio-Cortez’s cavalier ignorance of facts, she stated very clearly that she didn’t want the ugly, brutish socialism we’ve seen destroy Venezuela. Yet the Green New Deal exposed her lies on that front. The underlying theme to the entire plan is coercion. It has to be. This Green New Deal cannot be achieved without embracing full-blown, coercive socialism.

How precisely would the United States get to “100 percent of the power demand . . . through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” in 10 years? Coercion. How do you pay for all of these ideas? Well you coerce people—and not just the despised “1 percent”—to hand over most of their income in taxes. How do you dictate all of the madness in regards to production and pollution are adhered to? Through coercion, naturally.

There is another name for this kind of coercive socialism. It’s called Communism.

And that is precisely the underlying theme of the Green New Deal. Since the adults and sane people have apparently left the asylum known as the Democratic Party, the inmates are now running the place. As there seemingly are no sane people left inside the Party of Infanticide, many of the Democratic hopefuls for 2020, from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) to Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have endorsed the coercive Green New Deal. Add to the mix the schemes for Medicare for All and free college, these plans would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $52 trillion over the next 10 years. (Though the tab may be substantially higher—who knows?) All of this would be funded by draconian taxes that would turn those anyone who remains willing to work into employees of the state while everyone else would be wards of the state.

That’s the siren song of socialism, the devil’s deal: we’ll give you everything for free. You just have to give us your freedom in exchange. Let’s hope enough of the American people understand the madness being proposed. Because if they don’t, and these ideas get implemented, that’s the end of the American republic and of the American dream.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

This week on “Pod Save America,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said her “ultra millionaires tax” will be “a big down payment on a Green New Deal.”

Warren said, “Workers get to elect 40 percent of the seats—this is a bill I’ve already put forward—40 percent of the seats on corporate boards, ways to get more power back into the hands of workers. That’s how we start to rewrite this economy. And I just keep working through that and every part of it, taxes, progressive taxation. I put an ultra millionaires tax out, a proposal on this.”

She added, “Think about this. If we taxed people, families, that have more than $50 million in assets if we charged them two percent a year and they put that back in the to help build opportunity for everybody else. We could pay for universal childcare. We could bring down student loan debt. We could make a big down payment on a Green New Deal. We could make the investments that make this country work, and that’s for me what this is all about.”

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump criticized Senate Democrats for opposing a bill to protect babies born alive during abortions.

“The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

The Republican-led Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act failed to meet the 60 vote threshold to advance with a vote of 53-44.

All 2020 Democratic presidential candidates voted against the bill including Senators Corey Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders.

“This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress,” Trump wrote. “If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Three Senate Democrats joined Republicans in support of the bill — Bob Casey, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin.

Planned Parenthood opposed the bill, describing it as “a direct attack on women’s health and rights.”

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

According to an attorney for Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann, 16, who was mocked and derided after he was approached by Native American Nathan Phillips at the March for Life in January, the next target whom Sandmann might sue could be comedian Bill Maher.

There had been rumors about suing Maher; last week the entertainment news site Bounding into Comics reported that likely targets of Sandmann’s attorneys included "CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Jim Carrey, Alyssa Milano, Bill Maher, and even Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.”

Sandmann is already suing The Washington Post, which wrote stories about the Sandman-Phillips incident that portrayed Sandmann harshly. His attorney, Todd McMurtry, told Fox News, “Certainly CNN and Bill Maher did things that we consider to have crossed the line. We think that the statements they made are defamatory, they’re not humorous and so certainly Bill Maher is somebody we are looking at very carefully and HBO for allowing him to make those defamatory statements.”

Maher had said of Sandmann on his HBO show, “Real Time With Bill Maher:

I don’t blame the kid, the smirking kid. I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f***ing kid. What a little pr***. Smirk-face. Smirk-faces. Please. Like that’s not a d*** move at any age? Stick your face in this elderly man’s? And this smirking kid says he was just trying to “defuse the situation, by”— really?

You know what, next time you get into a fight, with your wife, or your husband, or your boyfriend, or your girlfriend, try that. Try getting two inches from their face with a sh**-eating grin and see if it “defuses the situation.” You ask me and this kid should have done what everyone does during a drum solo: leave. But, I mean, I don’t spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children; but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.

Last week, attorneys for Nick Sandmann stated they would begin filing defamation lawsuits against celebrities, social media figures, and news organizations, after the local Diocese hired a law firm to conduct an investigation and found no wrongdoing on the part of Sandmann or the other students.

Bishop Roger Joseph Foys of the Covington Diocese said in a statement posted to the Diocese website, "Our inquiry, conducted by a third party firm that has no connection with Covington Catholic High School or the Diocese of Covington, has demonstrated that our students did not instigate the incident that occurred at the Lincoln Memorial. Our students were placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening. Their reaction to the situation was, given the circumstances, expected and one might even say laudatory."

After the announcement was made that Sandmann would sue The Washington Post, President Trump wrote on Twitter: “’The Washington Post ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump.’ Covington student suing WAPO. Go get them Nick. Fake News!”

Video of Maher below:

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Hannah Bleau

As I mentioned earlier, Senate Democrats failed to support the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which is pretty self-explanatory. It would’ve forced doctors to save babies who survived their attempted abortions.

Only three Democrats sided with Republicans– Bob Casey Jr., Joe Manchin and Doug Jones. All of the Democratic senators running for president– Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar– voted against it.

They can’t even support saving a living, breathing baby. It’s disgusting.

Cue President Trump:

Amen to that.

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) said on Monday that he will support a resolution to block President Trump's national emergency declaration on the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I would vote in favor of the resolution disapproving of the president’s national-emergency declaration, if and when it comes before the Senate," Tillis wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

Tillis's decision comes a day before the House is expected to take up the resolution to block Trump's national emergency declaration. Because Democrats control that chamber, it's expected to pass and kick the fight to the Senate.

Tillis's decision puts Democrats on the brink of being able to block Trump's emergency declaration in the Senate. If the resolution of disapproval passes the Senate it will go to the president's desk, where he has said he will use his first veto.

If all 47 Democrats for the resolution they would need to flip four Republican senators in order for the resolution to pass the Senate. The vote needs a simple majority.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are both viewed as likely yes votes, which would make Tillis the third Republican defector. Both Tillis and Collins are up for reelection in 2020 and viewed as targets as Democrats look for ways to pick up seats.

Collins told reporters in Maine last week that she would vote for a "clean" resolution to block Trump's emergency declaration.

Murkowski told an Alaska TV station on Friday that she would "probably" vote for it, adding that "if it's what I have seen right now, I will support the resolution to disapprove."

Trump declared the national emergency earlier this month that he said allows him to pull from funds that were not appropriated by Congress for the border wall.

He has threatened to veto the resolution if it makes it to his desk.

Trump's decision came in face of pushback from top Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have fretted about the precedent a national emergency declaration for this purpose could set for a future Democratic president.

Tillis, in his op-ed, wrote that there was "no intellectual honesty" for Republicans if they previously criticized President Obama's executive actions but don't oppose Trump's on the border wall.

He also noted that several of his Democratic colleagues are running for president and floated that they could use Trump's precedent to try to ram through proposals Republicans are opposed to.

Conservatives "should be thinking about whether they would accept the prospect of a President Bernie Sanders declaring a national emergency to implement parts of the radical Green New Deal; a President Elizabeth Warren declaring a national emergency to shut down banks and take over the nation’s financial institutions; or a President Cory Booker declaring a national emergency to restrict Second Amendment rights," Tillis wrote.

He added that while he supports Trump on border security the emergency declaration decision was about the separation of powers between the executive branch and Congress.

"As a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms," Tillis wrote.

-Updated 7:34 p.m.

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats on Tuesday are poised to pass legislation blocking President Trump’s emergency declaration on the southern border, sending a clear rebuke to the president and his go-it-alone approach to border security.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Progressive groups are reaching out to 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to support their push to expand the number of Supreme Court justices in order to diminish the current conservative majority.

So far, the drive by the group named ‘Pack the Courts’ is getting two maybes from Democratic presidential contenders and a no from a likely White House hopeful.

IT COULD BE AN HISTORIC YEAR FOR THE SUPREME COURT

“I don’t think we should be laughing at it,” South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, said last week at an event in Philadelphia.

“Because in some ways it’s no more a shattering of norms than what’s already been done to get the judiciary to where it is today,” added Buttigieg, an Afghanistan War veteran who last month launched a presidential exploratory committee.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who’s also launched a presidential exploratory committee, said last month on ‘Pod Save America’ that expanding the court or imposing term limits were “interesting ideas.”

But the move to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court isn't flying with likely White House contender Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“I wouldn’t. I think nine is good number. It’s worked for our country,” the four-term Democratic congressman from California told Fox News on Monday after he headlined ‘Politics and Eggs,” a must stop for White House hopefuls in New Hampshire.

“I don’t want to let these extraordinary times that President Trump has put us in lead us to too many extraordinary remedies,” the former prosecutor explained. “I’d rather see us go back to a country of following the law, having qualified justices, and depending on the systems of government that we already have in place, just making those systems more accountable and work better.”

‘Pack the Courts’ told Fox News it is meeting with Buttigieg on Monday evening. The group highlighted that it’s in the process of reaching out to Gillibrand, as well as the campaigns of presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California.

“We’re in the process of reaching to every declared Democratic contender and hope to both enlighten them to the importance of this strategy for taking back the Court and enlist their support for their strategy,” ‘Pack the Court’ campaign manager Kate Kendell said.

Kendell said her group has received a $500,000 grant from the Palm Center, a progressive-leaning but independent non-partisan think tank in California to fund research on controversial and provocative policy proposals. She added they’re now beginning to raise small-dollar donations from individuals to further fuel their effort to expand the number of high court justices.

The organization is partnering with ‘Demand Justice,’ another progressive group founded last year to try and counter GOP efforts to put more conservatives into federal courts.

‘Demand Justice’ director Brian Fallon – who served as press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign - highlighted that “we strongly believe that reforming the Court — especially by expanding it — is the cornerstone for re-building American democracy."

But Republicans say advocating to expand the number of Supreme Court justices will make 2020 Democratic contenders appear more extreme to voters come the general election.

"Democrats are setting themselves up for failure in the general election by agreeing to every single progressive policy touted by the activist left including the Green New Deal, taxes on the wealthy, Medicare for All, and now packing the Supreme Court,” argued Sarah Dolan, executive director of the pro-GOP opposition research group ‘America Rising.’

The Judiciary Act of 1869 established the current number of nine justices for the Supreme Court. A push by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 to increase the number of justices failed.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris wants to force every American to give up his private health insurance, but she can’t get herself to support legislation that compels doctors to give an infant who survives an abortion attempt the same care they would provide any other human being. She’s merely one of 44 Democrats who voted to keep negligent homicide legal against babies marked for termination. Presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all voted against Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, as well.

Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time.

Sen. Patty Murray claimed the bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, regardless of a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As bills in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts.

This was the practice Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia hamfistedly explained to us on video, accidentally neglecting the standard euphemisms used to hide the horrific specifics of the procedure. In New York, abortion—and post-birth termination—of a viable, once-healthy infant is legal through the entire pregnancy, and after, for virtually any reason. The rite of abortion is so intrinsic to progressive ideology (and coffers) that not one major player on the left had the moral spine to condemn either.

Leana Wen, the president of the state-funded abortion mill Planned Parenthood, argued that the Sasse legislation was “based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.” Why would Wen oppose criminalizing a procedure that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality? And if it did exist, would Wen support banning the practice? Has anyone in truth-seeking media asked her?

The reality is that Sasse’s bill exempted mothers from prosecution, and would have merely required medical professionals to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Nothing in the bill would have inhibited the doctors from making choices about critically ill infants. Of course, conflating the experience of couples who lose a sick child to those who terminate a healthy one is fraudulent and immoral. Then again, a bill that asks doctors to fulfill their oath of keeping babies alive is in direct competition with Wen’s professional mission.

As National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis points out, the media did its customary job of running interference for Democrats. Take this Politico piece, for example, which is teeming with the usual deceptive language, referring to Sasse’s bill as “anti-abortion”—as did many other outlets, including the Associated Press—though the bill would not stop anyone from performing a single abortion in this country.

Most of the media portrayed the debate as a cynical election ploy, an “effort to squeeze Democrats ahead of the 2020 campaign.” The bill was filibustered, with three Democrats voting for it. Every Republican would surely want to see it passed. President Trump would surely sign it.

Is it cynical to put politicians on the record for their beliefs? Is it cynical it point out that the majority of elected Democrats are, judging from polling numbers, embracing an extremist position? Although polls have consistently shown that large majorities of Americans oppose all third-trimester abortions, I can’t find one that asks if they support the practice of aborting infants who had the temerity to survive a third-trimester abortion. I wonder what the numbers would look like on that question.

One of most durable talking points for abortion has to do with the notion that if a thing is in a woman’s body then it is a woman’s choice what do with that thing, even if that thing happens to be a unique and viable human being. Now Democrats have expanded their position to argue that even if a baby escapes death, then the mother (and, often, the father)—in consultation with a doctor, as if this made it any more morally palatable—can still terminate the baby’s life for any reason they fit.

These babies are the only human beings in the United States who have no person or law representing their interests. And so it remains.

CREDO Action

Published  1 month ago

Donald Trump spent most of the State of the Union lying about his record. That's no surprise. He's been lying about his plans for years. In fact, that's how he stayed in business: making grandiose promises to get people to believe in him before they realize it's a scam or outright fraud.1

One of the textbook examples is Trump University, his sham educational center that a judge forced to pay students $25 million in damages for making fraudulent promises.2 In Washington, just look at the Trump Tax Scam – Trump claimed to drain the swamp, but he then drained working people's pocket books and gave massive handouts to the rich.

Nowhere in the State of the Union did this fraud populist admit to the American people that he just handed a massive giveaway to predatory lenders that trap people in debt.3 Now, it is up to us to resist his gift to payday lenders and expose Trump's false populism.

Stop scam artist Donald Trump from rewarding predatory lenders.

The dirty secret of the payday lending industry is that there is no money in people repaying their loans on time. The key to the whole profit-making engine, the one that makes lenders’ Wall Street backers rich, is tricking people into taking out a loan and then locking them into months or years of debt. Charging hidden fees and demanding sky-high interest rates, payday lenders are little more than legal loan sharks.

Now Trump wants to make it easier for payday lenders to exploit people. His handpicked leaders of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – first now-acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and then Kathy Kraninger – have set out to destroy the watchdog Sen. Elizabeth Warren initially proposed.4

Kraninger just announced the CFPB would rescind the most important part of an Obama-era rule on payday lenders: the part that would force lenders to confirm if someone has the ability to repay a loan, instead of deliberately trapping them deeper in debt to make money off the interest.5

Once again, Trump is siding with powerful Wall Street financial interests and pushing a change that will disproportionately hurt low-income Americans and people of color. We have fewer than 90 days to flood the CFPB with comments opposing the giveaway to predatory lenders and exposing the latest Trump scam, so we need your help.

Stop scam artist Donald Trump from rewarding predatory lenders.

Thank you for speaking out.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

By a vote of 53-44, the Senate has failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion procedure. The bill — sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) and cosponsored by 49 of his fellow Republican senators — needed 60 votes to overcome the legislative filibuster.

Just three Democratic senators crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in favor of the legislation: Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Doug Jones (Ala.).

All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Three Republican senators did not vote on the bill: Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Tim Scott (S.C.). According to their communications directors, both Cramer and Scott missed the vote due to flight delays.

During the floor debate over the bill this afternoon, several Democratic senators said they planned to oppose the legislation because they believe it limits women’s health-care options. “That is the actual intent of this bill, reducing access to safe abortion care would threaten the health of women in Hawaii,” said Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii).

“This bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health,” said Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.).

Tina Smith, Democrat of Minnesota, said the born-alive bill “would override physicians’ professional judgment about what is best for their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal penalties if their judgment about what is best for their patient is contrary to what is described in this bill.”

But nothing in the legislation forces doctors to provide any particular treatment to infants; it merely requires that they provide medical treatment. It mandates that doctors “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

In other words, the born-alive bill would’ve done nothing more than insist that health-care providers treat children born alive after attempted abortions the same way that they’d treat any other infant.

Several Republican senators pushed back against the Democrats’ efforts to portray the bill as an attack on women’s health care. “I know a lot of opponents of this bill sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs,” Sasse said. We’ve heard speech after speech after speech that have nothing to do with what’s actually in this bill.”

“My colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that’s not in front of us. They are talking about health care for women, which is abortion,” said Joni Ernst (R., Iowa). “This bill does not address abortion. . . . What this bill does is address the health care of a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion. We’re not talking about abortion, folks. We’re talking about the life of a child that is born.”

“I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air,” Sasse added. “That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”

Editor’s note: This post will be updated with details from the vote and from today’s floor debate as they become available.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

The situation in Venezuela is a complex one that is seemingly dividing the Democratic Party, especially among their White House hopefuls.

On one end, California Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris claims the situation in Venezuela is a “crisis” that America should do more to address.

Harris suggests the United States should “show moral leadership in this hemisphere” by accepting more Venezuelan migrants.

As the Washington Examiner reports, she also said the U.S. should condemn Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“The U.S. must immediately condemn Maduro’s violence against his own people,” she said in a pair of tweets. “There is no excuse for this. The Venezuelan military and security forces must demonstrate restraint. Venezuelans deserve a free and fair election and a peaceful transition of power.”

“What’s happening in Venezuela is a crisis. The people who have fled Maduro’s dictatorial regime deserve safety and protection. As President, I would immediately extend TPS status to Venezuelans. It’s the right thing to do. America must show moral leadership in this hemisphere.”

While Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders is also calling the situation a crisis, he stopped short of calling for Maduro to relinquish power or for the United States to accept more immigrants.

“The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the country, and refrain from violence against protesters,” he said in a tweet on Saturday.

Sanders’ criticisms of the Maduro regime has not gone far enough according to Florida Democrats, Politico reports.

Check it out:

Florida Democrats are denouncing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for refusing to call Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro a dictator — a politically explosive issue in the nation’s biggest swing state.

Sanders also would not say whether he considered Venezuela’s assembly leader, Juan Guaidó, as the nation’s interim president, which is the position of the United States and a majority of Latin American countries European countries.

Both of Sanders’ positions play into the hands of President Trump and the GOP, say Democrats. The president just held a rally in Miami on Monday to denounce Maduro and socialism, an appeal to the state’s growing block of Venezuelan-American voters. Many Venezuelans have flocked to the state as the country’s economy crashed and repression increased.

Speaking of Sanders, Democrat Congresswoman Donna Shalala contended: “He is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. He has demonstrated again that he does not understand this situation.”

Politico also adds: “Other Democrats to have weighed in before Saturday’s unrest include Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and former Vice President Joe Biden, who have said they consider Maduro a dictator and recognized Guaidó as the legitimate leader. Sen. Elizabeth Warren also has said she believed Maduro was a dictator.”

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

One of the attorneys suing The Washington Post for more than $250 million over its coverage of a Covington Catholic high school student tells Fox News he believes the damages being sought are “appropriate in this circumstance” – and alluded that Bill Maher could be one of the next to be hit with a lawsuit.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump took to Twitter late Monday to criticize Senate Democrats for blocking a bill to stop infanticide.

As LifeNews reported, Senate Democrats blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. The vote to stop the Democrat filibuster needed 60 votes but Democrats stopped the chamber from getting enough.

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth,” he tweeted. “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019

The language is similar to the comments President Trump made during a rally earlier this month condemning the Virginia Governor Ralph Nortam for promoting infanticide.

Trump castigated Northam, saying, “the governor stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world, and wrap the baby and make the baby comfortable, and then talk to the mother and talk to the father, and then execute the baby. Execute the baby!”

The remarks drew massive boos from the large audience.

“Millions of innocent, beautiful babies are counting on us to protect them, and we will,” Trump said.

The Senate voted 53-44 against ending the filibuster and allowing a debate and vote on the bill itself. Every Republican present voted to end the filibuster, along with Democrats Joe Manchin, Bob Casey and Doug Jones, while all other Democrats voted agaisnt the bill. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who supports abortion, did not vote — hurting the effort to collect the 60 votes necessary. Pro-life Republican Senators Tim Scott and Kevin Cramer were unable to attend the vote due to flight delays but would have voted to support the bill.

Some of President Trump’s opponents voted against stopping infanticide.

Every Democrat senator running for president — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders — voted to block the anti-infanticide bill.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

The Senate on Monday rejected a bill making it a felony for a doctor to harm or neglect an infant who survives an “attempted abortion,” part of a Republican effort to squeeze Democrats ahead of the 2020 campaign.

The vote split mainly along party lines, 53-44. Democratic Sens. Bob Casey, Doug Jones and Joe Manchin crossed the aisle to vote for it and no Republicans broke ranks. Sixty votes were required for the bill to advance.

“Evidently the far left is no longer convinced that all babies are created equal,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Ahead of the vote, the bill’s Republican sponsors and outside anti-abortion groups lobbying for its passage made it clear that the intent of Monday’s vote was to undermine the growing pool of Senate Democrats running for president.

In a speech just before the vote, bill author Sen. Ben Sasse quoted campaign stump speeches by Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders vowing to look out for society’s “voiceless and vulnerable” and accused them of hypocrisy for opposing his bill’s regulations for the care of newborns.

"Was that all just clap track for the campaign trail and for soundbites? Or do people mean the stuff that they say around here?" he said of his colleagues with White House aspirations.

Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group closely allied with Hill Republicans and the Trump administration, said Monday that they were “watching this vote closely to see whether leading Democratic candidates for president in 2020 will go on the record for or against infanticide.”

"This bill is important in itself but it‘s also important as a set up for the coming election, where there will be a stark contrast between the president of the United States and any one of the Democratic nominees," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in an interview. She stood just outside the Senate chamber lobbying senators as they entered to cast their votes.

Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker and Gillibrand all voted against the measure. Sen. Sherrod Brown, another Democratic senator exploring a White House bid, complained to POLITICO that the vote was held in bad faith.

"This is pure Mitch McConnell. It's all aimed at keeping his base in line while the president grows increasingly unpopular," the Ohio Democrat said. "We're not doing infrastructure, we're not doing health care. We're not doing anything that matters to help our country. It's just votes on abortion and other kinds of divisive votes he's going to bring."

Democrats and reproductive rights advocates blasted the bill, saying it's already a felony to harm or neglect an infant and that the “medically irresponsible” bill would restricts doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.

"This bill is not about protecting infants, as Republicans have claimed—because that is not up for debate and it is already the law," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). "This bill is government interference in women’s health care, in families’ lives, and in medicine on steroids."

The bill was previously introduced in the House by now-Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Sasse first tried to force a vote on it earlier this month, capitalizing on a wave of outrage among conservatives after New York loosened its restrictions on third-trimester abortions and embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave an interview defending similar efforts in his state.

Democrats led by Murray objected to that fast-track procedure and blocked a floor vote, prompting Republicans to vow to try again.

Susan B. Anthony list said earlier this month that even though the Senate lacks the votes to pass abortion restrictions, they should continue to hold votes to put pressure on Democrats and divide the caucus. The move is part of a larger strategy designed to maintain current abortion restrictions while revving up the GOP’s conservative base ahead of 2020 and courting independents who may be turned off by Democrats' position on abortion rights.

"We're seeing a gradual movement to hammer a wedge right into the middle of the Democratic Party, and at some point soon here, they're just going to have to cry mercy," Dannenfelser said.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Hannah Bleau

You know it’s bad if Democrats can’t even vote in favor of something called “The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.”

Yep. Dems killed it. It failed 53-44. It would have forced doctors to save babies who survive abortions. It needed 60 votes. Only three Democrats voted with Republicans: Bob Casey Jr., Joe Manchin and Doug Jones.

It wouldn’t have passed with their votes anyway.

It should be noted that every single one of the Democratic senators running for president voted against it.

All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Pathetic, isn’t it? They can’t even vote to save a baby who survives a botched abortion. They don’t care. They want to let a living, breathing baby die, because it’s a “woman’s choice.”

That’s not a choice. That’s MURDER.

You can’t. This is the left.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris wants to force every American to give up their private health care insurance, but she can’t get herself to support legislation that compels doctors to give an infant who survives an abortion attempt the same care they would provide any other human being. She’s merely one of 44 Democrats who voted to keep negligent homicide legal against babies marked for termination. Presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all voted against Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, as well.

Senate Democrats, unsurprisingly, struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits the practice of euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed that the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time.

Sen. Patty Murray claimed that bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, despite a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As the bill in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts. This was the practice Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia hamfistedly explained to us on video, accidentally neglecting the standard euphemisms used to hide the horrific specifics of the procedure. In New York, abortion—and post-birth termination—of a viable, once-healthy infant is legal through the entire pregnancy, and after, for virtually any reason. The rite of abortion is so intrinsic to progressive ideology (and coffers) that not one major player on the left had the moral spine to condemn either.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton is calling for public hearings on Robert Mueller’s Russia report while slamming Congress for not taking stronger action based on already-known information.

The defeated 2016 presidential candidate gave a wide-ranging interview on Wondery’s "TBD with Tina Brown" in which she discussed Mueller’s Russia investigation, President Trump’s North Korea talks, and the unique challenges facing women running in 2020.

Speaking about the Russia investigation, Clinton said: “There hasn't really been that kind of solemn, somber laying of facts and information before the public and the press that should happen in our democracy.

FBI SCRAMBLED TO RESPOND TO HILLARY CLINTON LAWYER AMID WEINER LAPTOP REVIEW, NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW

“There is enough grounds in what has already been made public for the government for Congress, in particular, to be doing more with [the Mueller report]. I'm pleased that under Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to connect some of these dots.”

The former secretary of state also offered up some insight into her campaign, describing it as “kind of Obama 2.0,” and pointed the finger at Trump and the Russians for that campaign ultimately coming up short.

“I mean I obviously had hired a lot of Obama's people. They were incredibly able, they did a great job, but Trump, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, all of his assorted allies, were running a campaign in an entirely different arena,” Clinton told Tina Brown.

“I don't think I or my people understood that, you know, we would see a little pop-up story that some idiot says that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump. Who is going to believe that, how ridiculous.”

The interview also turned to the topic of other women trying to go one step further than Hillary and make history as the first female president – including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Clinton said all women will face the challenge of having to come off as “likable,” saying it is not as much of a concern for their male opponents.

“This is still a problem for women on the public stage,” she said.

MCCABE SLAMS LORETTA LYNCH IN NEW BOOK, SAYS CLINTON PROBE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECIAL COUNSEL

“How does a woman stand up for herself on the biggest stage in the world without No. 1 looking aggressive, maybe a little bit angry, that somebody is behaving like that, being willing to go toe to toe when there are so few memories embedded in our collective DNA where women do that?

“So yes I'm willing to stand up for what I believe in but that is still kind of scary for some people. So how do you get on this kind of Goldilocks path where you're not too strong and you're not too weak, you're not too aggressive and you're not too passive?”

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

On Monday evening, Senate Democrats blocked their Republican counterparts from protecting infants born alive after botched abortion procedures. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), failed to pass the Senate with a vote of 53-44, seven votes shy of the required 60.

The bill would mandate doctors attempt to save born-alive infants instead of allowing them to die.

"This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital," reads the legislation.

"The term 'born alive,'" the bill explains, "means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut."

Only three Democrats voted for the bill: Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), reported National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis.

DeSanctis noted: "All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, representing Alaska, declined to vote on the bill. According to DeSanctis, Republican senators Tim Scott (SC) and Kevin Cramer (ND) did not vote on the bill due to flight delays, per their communications directors.

The bill also states that anyone "who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder" and allows the mother in question to "file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill."

The past few months have highlight the Democrats' abortion radicalism. As previously reported by The Daily Wire, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic Democrat, recently signed and celebrated the passing of the euphemistically-named Reproductive Health Act, which legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth, loosens restrictions on who can perform abortions, and strips the murder of the unborn (including the murder of wanted babies) from the state's criminal code.

After the bill failed, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was an original sponsor of the bill, blasted Democrats, saying it was “unconscionable” that “protecting innocent, newborn abortion survivors is now a partisan issue. Every infant that is born alive despite a botched abortion deserves the same proper medical care and treatment that doctors are required to give to other newborns.” He added that the vote “made it crystal clear” that Democrats “support the legalization of infanticide” and “openly embraced the growing extremism” in the Democratic Party.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Satan’s party. Monday evening Senate Democrats once again blocked a measure that would prohibit infanticide. Senators voted 53-44 on a bill from Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) that would penalize doctors who fail to “exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion. A few weeks […]

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders demanded on Monday night that President Donald Trump release his tax returns. But when asked about releasing his own tax returns, the Vermont socialist embarrassingly dodged several times. During a town hall event with

Live Action News

Published  1 month ago

Today, the United States Senate voted on an anti-infanticide bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The legislation needed 60 votes to pass, and it failed by a vote of 53 in favor and 44 against. The bill stated that “if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

Every Democratic presidential hopeful — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, along with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont — voted against this common-sense bill. Democrats Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey Jr. voted in favor of the bill. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) did not vote on the bill.

The 2002 Born Alive Infants Protection Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, established that any child born alive — even as the result of an abortion — is to be legally considered a “person”, “human being,” “child”, and “individual” in federal law. However, that law contained no penalties for those who choose not to follow it. Senator Sasse’s bill included penalties for abortionists who break the law, including a fine and/or imprisonment for up to five years.

READ: Poll: 77 percent of Americans want Congress to protect abortion survivors

The bill would also have allowed a woman to take legal action against an abortionist who breaks this law. The bill states that any child who accidentally survives an abortion must be treated with “the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age” and would make certain that “the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.” In addition, the bill requires the mandatory reporting of violations.

Currently, there are 19 states which afford no protections to abortion survivors. According to the Centers for Disease Control, infants are still born alive every year. Between 2003 and 2014 alone, at least 143 babies died after being born alive during abortions. And according to a press release from Live Action News, “In 2018, 16 infants in Florida alone were born alive after surviving abortion attempts.”

Adult survivors of abortion have formed The Abortion Survivors Network. On the group’s website, it states, “a government report in Canada from 2012 reported that 491 children survived abortions there over the nine-year period of 2000-2009. There’s also this report that identifies 766 children survived abortions in the five-year period from 2013-2018. Additionally, there are similar government reports from the U.K. and states inAustralia.”

READ: 10 babies born alive after abortions in 2015 – in only 3 states

Abortion survivors Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jessen, Claire Culwell, and others have spoken out publicly regarding what it’s like to have survived abortions. A group of these survivors appeared on FOX News recently to tell their stories:

Recent polling indicates that just since radical pro-abortion legislation was signed into law in New York in January, more Americans are identifying as pro-life, including Democrats. Other polling indicates that the vast majority of Americans oppose the killing of children who survive abortions. However, the pro-abortion legislators in Congress have largely been deaf to public opinion on this issue.

Live Action president Lila Rose responded to the news of the vote in a press release, stating:

Live Action has documented on camera how abortionists in our country’s notorious late-term abortion facilities talk about survivors of abortion. Washington, D.C. abortionist Cesare Santangelo told our undercover investigators that he would make sure babies “do not survive” if they were born alive at his facility. A New York abortion worker told our Live Action investigator to “flush” the baby down the toilet or “put it in a bag” if she’s born alive. In Arizona, an abortion worker told us there “may be movement” after the baby is outside of the mother and that they would refuse to provide help and instead let her die. Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director for Planned Parenthood, told a Center for Medical Progress investigator that identifying “signs of life” after a baby survives an abortion is contingent upon “who’s in the room.”

There is no difference between infanticide and abortion: both kill the same child….

Today should have been a time of unity in protecting life, but instead, Democrats continue to push for the brutality of abortion and infanticide. With Congress failing to do its job, every state should take this issue up for themselves, ensuring care for these innocent children that are often left to die, and work to eradicate abortion altogether.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

Philly.com

Published  1 month ago

He could have gone anywhere, but Robert Kraft — one of the 100 richest men in America, owner of the Super Bowl champion (sigh) New England Patriots — went to the Orchids of Asia Day Spa, in a less-than-nondescript strip mall in Jupiter, Fla. He was takin’ care of business, according to police, behind dark-tinted windows promising “Massage Therapy” and beige circa-1970s stucco, right there between the game shop and the nail salon and the newly renovated Thai restaurant.

Police said Kraft’s chauffeur would take the 77-year-old billionaire for the roughly 30-minute drive from Palm Beach, home to his newish $29.5 million Spanish-style mansion on Ocean Boulevard, as well as to Mar-a-Lago, where he’s known to socialize with President Trump.

Bob Kraft is reportedly worth $6.6 billion. The price for a half hour at Orchids of Asia — where authorities on Friday said Kraft solicited prostitution, the charges brought after cops filmed him allegedly having sex with workers on two separate occasions — is $59.

It’s easy to make the pathos of a pompous billionaire caught up in a sex sting into the butt of jokes — especially when every red-blooded American west of Hartford absolutely hates Kraft’s football team — and on social media thousands of people have been doing exactly that. Totally understandable. But it’s important to take a deep breath and remember — this isn’t really “a sex scandal.” The real scandal here is the gross imbalance of power involving women who were held in a form of human bondage to serve as objects of gratification for powerful men intoxicated by their belief they can get away with anything.

That’s because for decades, men — and that’s who we’re talking about here, men — with thick wads of bills and friends on the golf fairways of power have gotten away with everything. There’s a reason that a billionaire like Donald Trump could fantasize about shooting somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and getting away with it, because everything short of that has already been gotten away with. But Kraft’s embarrassing arrest comes at one of those rarest of moments — when everyday people are suddenly realizing who doesn’t have power in America, who does, and that something can be done about this.

The women who serviced Bob Kraft were lured to America, typically from China, and promised a better life through legitimate massage-therapy work. According to local law-enforcement authorities who last week shut down not just the Orchids of Asia but five other spas and massage parlors along Florida’s Gold Coast, these women were brought to an alien land halfway across the world from home and then pressured into prostitution with no days off and “minimal" hygiene. They lived in spartan quarters right there on the premises, so they can work until all hours of the night, having sex with 1,500 men a year.

These modern-day sex slaves worked for a clientele that were the supposed pillars of the affluent zip codes in and around Palm Beach — members of the clergy and respectable business people, including, according to police, at least one other billionaire, Massachusetts equity fund owner John Childs. Childs has also donated a whopping $4.3 million to Republican causes, presumably to elect “family values” candidates. Did Childs, Kraft and these other paragons of civic virtue realize that they were subsidizing slavery? That doesn’t matter — what’s so galling is that they didn’t care, that the word wasn’t even in their vocabulary.

Will Kraft get away with this? If his case goes down anything like that of his Palm Beach neighbor Epstein, he just might. Epstein, a former Bear Stearns partner and billionaire financier, was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage teen girls at his Palm Beach mansion between 2001 and 2006. The investigation began in 2005 with a tip to Palm Beach police about a 14-year-old girl who’d been brought there and paid $300 to strip and massage Epstein. A lengthy FBI investigation led to molestation allegations against Epstein from 36 different girls, many of whom were lured from troubled homes in what the Miami Herald later described as “a cultlike scheme.”

But the billionaire’s young victims were eventually abused not once but twice — first by Jeffrey Epstein, and then by the U.S. Justice Department. Its prosecutors — presented with a mound of evidence on the scale of a Jerry Sandusky or a Bill Cosby — agreed to a stunning slap on the wrist. Epstein was allowed to plead to just one state felony charge of soliciting prostitution and granted immunity from federal charges. Coconspirators — known and unknown, potentially including the rich and powerful of Palm Beach — also got immunity.

Incredibly, Epstein slept just 13 months in a county jail and was allowed to leave for work every day. Even worse, as the Herald’s Julie K. Brown (a former Daily News colleague and friend) reported in her Polk Award-winning series, Epstein’s victims were never informed of his sweetheart deal or allowed to weigh in. On Friday, a judge ruled that Justice Department lawyers broke the law in their handling of the deal. The man who oversaw all of this — the then-U.S. Attorney for Miami, Alex Acosta — has moved on. He is still the U.S. Secretary of Labor, appointed by Epstein’s friend President Trump.

Indeed, Epstein’s teen-sex-abuse equivalent of shooting a man on Fifth Avenue and getting away with it was clearly made possible by his many powerful friends — including not just Trump but also former president Bill Clinton, a frequent flier on Epstein’s plane that was dubbed (no, you can’t make these things up) “the Lolita Express.” His lawyers who negotiated his cushy deal included Alan Dershowitz (now also accused of Epstein-related sexual shenanigans) and Kenneth Starr. Their work only proved that there are two systems of justice in America — one for the 1 Percent and another for the rest of us.

Ironically, the escapades of Palm Beach’s Billionaires Gone Wild have played a key role in making more and more Americans woke to our three-ring circus of power imbalance — income inequality, the patriarchy, and white privilege — and how closely locked those circles have become. It’s not just sex crimes. Remember the failure to hold any rich folks accountable for crashing the world economy in 2008?

Or reflect, for just one moment, on Robert Kraft’s National Football League. Players linked to violence and abuse toward women are welcomed back into the NFL after Epstein-caliber wrist slaps, while the one player who dared question police brutality toward African Americans was blackballed for two years.

Yet the absolute peak for the tyranny of America’s billionaire patriarchy could also mean the beginning of its end. That would be the election of Trump in 2016. Like his friend Epstein, Trump got away with stunning sexual misconduct on the road to the White House — caught on tape bragging about groping women’s private parts and also accused of various sexual misconduct by 22 women. Only later did we learn that Trump’s fixer and now convicted felon Michael Cohen had engineered large payoffs to two women to keep their stories of extramarital affairs with Trump out of the media right before Election Day.

But the fact that such a man could be elected president woke up a slumbering giant. Millions of women took to the streets to protest on the morning after Trump’s inauguration. That show of solidarity helped encourage others who’d been abused by powerful men and shamed into silence to instead tell their stories in the #MeToo movement, bringing down men like Harvey Weinstein so accustomed to getting away with it. In November 2018, a surge of female voters elected a new Congress with a powerful core determined to do what once had seemed unthinkable: Hold America’s billionaires to account.

I don’t think it’s crazy to draw a straight line between the patriarchal abuses of men like Epstein and Trump to growing public support for not-so-radical ideas like Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax, a levy on those with a net worth of more than $50 million, or Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion of a 70 percent marginal tax rate similar to what was assessed in America in the booming 1950s and ’60s. It’s one side of an equation that seeks a fairer, just America where some folks aren’t forced into bankruptcy by a hospital bill or held back by massive college debts while a privileged class gets away with high crimes and misdemeanors.

But in addition to economic justice, America needs more justice, period. It’s not just revenge to say that Robert Kraft, Jeffrey Epstein. and — yes, Donald Trump — need to pay a price for what they’ve done. In the end, we won’t have the America we need until we listen to the women they abused and enslaved, restore their humanity, and help set them free.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

According to the New York Post Senators Harris and Elizabeth Warren support reparations for African-Americans affected by slavery.

Asked about the matter last week on the 105.1 FM show “Breakfast Club,” Harris agreed with the host that reparations are necessary to address problems of “inequities.”

“America has a history of 200 years of slavery. We had Jim Crow. We had legal segregation in America for a very long time,” she said on the radio show. “We have got to recognize, back to that earlier point, people aren’t starting out on the same base in terms of their ability to succeed and so we have got to recognize that and give people a lift up.”

The former attorney general doubled down on her remarks on Thursday.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” she said in a statement to the New York Times. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

The problem with Senator Harris’s comments are that her father says that her ancestors were Jamaican plantation owners. According to his book,

As a child growing up in Jamaica, I often heard it said, by my parents and family friends: “memba whe yu cum fram”. To this day, I continue to retain the deep social awareness and strong sense of identity which that grassroots Jamaican philosophy fed in me. As a father, I naturally sought to develop the same sensibility in my two daughters. Born and bred in America, Kamala was the first in line to have it planted. Maya came two years later and had the advantage of an older sibling as mentor. It is for them to say truthfully now, not me, what if anything of value they carried from that early experience into adulthood. My one big regret is that they did not come to know very well the two most influential women in my life: “Miss Chrishy” and “Miss Iris” (as everybody called them). This is, in many ways, a story about these women and the heritage they gave us.

My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner (and founder of Brown’s Town) and to my maternal grandmother Miss Iris (née Iris Finegan, farmer and educator, from Aenon Town and Inverness, ancestry unknown to me). The Harris name comes from my paternal grandfather Joseph Alexander Harris, land-owner and agricultural ‘produce’ exporter (mostly pimento or all-spice), who died in 1939 one year after I was born and is buried in the church yard of the magnificent Anglican Church which Hamilton Brown built in Brown’s Town (and where, as a child, I learned the catechism, was baptized and confirmed, and served as an acolyte).

Kamala Harris is a direct descendant of Jamaican slave owners, that makes her a true Democrat.

If this is true, will Senator Harris then pay for the reparations to black Americans?

Ocasio-Cortez, Bill De Blasio, Kamala Harris and now Elizabeth Warren all support reparations for "blacks," even though new DNA research shows the average self-identified black in America is 24% European. Good luck sorting that out.

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 22, 2019

Hat tip D. Manny

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris repeatedly declined in an interview broadcast Sunday to put a price tag on the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, proposals she has endorsed wholeheartedly even as Republicans cite cost estimates of trillions of dollars for each unprecedented proposal.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Kamala Harris held a rally Sunday in Bettendorf, Iowa. Kamala stood in front of the Iowa State Flag which states, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” Then she called for cracking down on gun rights. That line got the biggest applause of the day. During question and answers Kamala told […]

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

The Democrat Party’s recent push for reparations should not be believed, conservative commentator and radio show host David Webb argued Saturday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “This is pure pandering. Think about some of the states, like the Carolinas and others where the black vote matters. It did for Obama, especially in the primaries. […]

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

In spirit, in aim, and in execution, the Democratic Party's arguments have far more in common with Karl Marx than with Adam Smith.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) lectured school children and their teachers in a meeting Friday when asked to support the Green New Deal.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

President Trump's name may not appear on the presidential ballot in all 50 states next November as at least one state is threatening to withhold his name. As the Daily Caller reports, the New Jersey state Senate

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

Anti-conservative censorship online has gone from bad to worse. As major social media platforms start to target me for censorship, I shudder to think what it that means for millions of other Americans, especially as we approach the 2020 presidential campaign.

As Jussie Smollett’s preposterous story about being beaten in a racist, homophobic attack was falling apart, I posted about it on Facebook-owned Instagram, pointing out how unbelievable his allegation was in the first place.

After I let my followers know my thoughts on the Smollett hoax, I received a notification that Instagram deleted my post. When I complained about this blatant censorship, Instagram claimed it was a mistake. My post had just been removed “in error,” the company said. Rather than get better, though, the situation just got worse. Conservatives soon let me know by direct message that Instagram was preventing them from following my account, or even sharing or liking any of my posts.

I’m sure Instagram will claim that this, too, was all just a terrible mistake. It’s funny how these “mistakes” never seem to happen to liberals at the critical moment of a news cycle. More to the point, if this is really a “mistake,” then why does it keep happening?

Just as the Smollett hoax is merely the latest of dozens of nonexistent hate crimes blamed on Trump supporters, my experience isn’t nearly the first time that conservatives have been censored by social media platforms.

Instagram also deleted a post from former Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany when she tried to highlight Elizabeth Warren’s lies about her ancestry. As soon as censorship of McEnany became a headline, Instagram once again claimed it was all a “mistake.” If not for conservative media, the social media giant may never be held accountable.

Facebook offered the same lame excuse after banning several videos posted by conservative nonprofit PragerU for alleged “hate speech.” It was an “employee error,” the tech giant proclaimed after PragerU publicly complained about the censorship. Likewise, when Facebook encountered pushback for banning an ad for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in the middle of last year’s midterm election campaign, it quickly restored the video and offered a weak apology for its “mistake.”

Even worse than the censorship itself is the fact that it takes public outrage just to get Big Tech to treat conservative voices fairly. When social media censorship comes after someone like me, a prominent businessman and the son the president of the United States, it’s a story. The same is not true for the millions of conservative Americans who have no recourse whatsoever when Twitter or Facebook bans their accounts, limits their reach, and otherwise silences their voices because of their political opinions. It is they who are hurt the most by Big Tech’s manipulative partisan agenda.

Worryingly, there seems to be no limit to that manipulation. The tech giants are now tinkering with their terms of service to mandate that users adhere to liberal orthodoxy in their posts. It is now, for example, a banishment offense to “misgender” or “deadname” transgender people on Twitter, as even a radical feminist discovered when she tweeted that “men are not women.”

The stakes in all this could not be higher. The social media revolution upended people’s relationship with the overwhelmingly liberal media. As the Smollett hoax illustrates, the political left and establishment journalists want nothing more than to return to a world in which their narrative is the only one that matters -- and the truth is whatever they decree it to be.

Unfortunately, Silicon Valley is showing us that tech companies, too, can manipulate information for partisan ends. Their censorship is increasing at an alarming rate, just in time for them to try to spoil my father’s re-election bid, but we won’t let them get away with it.

Those of us with a big enough public profile to hold the tech giants accountable for their partisan speech-policing have a duty to do so. Ordinary conservatives can’t force multibillion-dollar companies to guarantee their right to free speech, which is exactly what the liberals are counting on.

They’ve gone too far, though. They’ve poked the hornet’s nest of conservative activists, and we will continue to vigilantly shame them for their censorship, because so much is at stake.

Donald Trump Jr. is the Executive Vice President at The Trump Organization.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

While promoting her "Green New Deal" on Showtime's Desus & Mero, freshman Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Americans need to start watching their hamburger intake. You can't make this up. Get Your FREE 'Build The Wall' Coin

Joe For America

Published  1 month ago

The letters have been sent, and the game is on, to 54 organizations and celebrities that Covington Student Nick Sandmann is suing!

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

The chances that President Trump will be easily reelected next November continue to improve thanks to the opposition party's decision to engage in political suicide. According to the results of a new poll, liberals are rapidly

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton has been meeting with many of the Democrats running – or gearing up to run – for the White House in 2020, a Clinton aide confirmed to Fox News on Friday.

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, met with former Vice President Joe Biden to discuss 2020 in early February at Biden’s request. Biden has been considering a run, but has not yet made an announcement about his plans.

.BIDEN ALMOST CERTAIN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020, SOURCE SAYS

Meanwhile, Clinton huddled separately with several other Democrats who have announced presidential campaigns, including California Sen. Kamala Harris, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, the aide said. She also spoke by phone with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, though they didn’t meet.

Other Democrats Clinton has met with about the 2020 race include former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the aide said. Hickenlooper is believed to be considering a run, though Garcetti has since said he will not run.

VINTAGE BERNIE FOOTAGE SHOWS NOW-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PRAISING BREADLINES, COMMUNIST NATIONS

Clinton herself has not ruled out a run again for the White House, though she has not signaled she is gearing up for another campaign. During an October speaking event, Clinton was asked if she wanted to run again. Clinton responded “no” but then added, "I’d like to be president."

David Harris Jr

Published  2 months ago

Never before have we had someone who is as anti-American as Ilhan Omar, with the exceptions of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and almost any Democrat you can name. Omar traveled with the Witness for Peace delegation in 2017. Witness for Peace was formed during the cold war to espouse the Soviet Union. They also support the dictators in Cuba and Maduro in Venezuela. The group is communist in nature and opposes everything the United States stands for. If Omar, Tlaib, and AOC become the face of the Democrat party in 2020, the Democrats will be in a heap of big trouble, as Elizabeth Warren would say.

It is just the latest in a series of political gaffes and foreign policy revelations from the Muslim congresswoman. She recently accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of buying support for Israel from members of Congress.

She is also scheduled to fundraise for the pro-Hamas group Council for American-Islamic Relations in March and suggested that opposition to Venezuelan despot Nicolas Maduro amounted to an attempted “coup” by the United States.

Additionally, Ilhan criticized President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address for his remarks opposing late-term abortion policy. (RELATED: Rep. Omar Warns Trump About ‘Policing Women’s Bodies’ After President Commits To Banning Late-Term Abortion)

“After traveling to Honduras as part of the Witness for Peace delegation, I’ve returned homewith a heavy heart and deep concern for the electoral process and human rights crisis the people of Honduras are enduring,” Omar tweeted in 2017.

As Fox News noted Thursday, the latest revelation might affect Omar’s membership on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., expanded on an already-radical proposal on Friday, telling reporters that Native Americans should be “part of the conversation” on reparations for African-Americans -- a move that threatens to bring back her own history with Native Americans.

Taking questions from reporters ahead of a Democratic Party fundraiser in Manchester, N.H., Warren, she said that America has an “ugly history of racism” and outlined her ways to tackle it -- including the possibility of reparations.

WARREN TALKS REPARATIONS, CHILD CARE, EARLY EDUCATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE CAMPAIGN STOP

“We need to confront it head-on and we need to talk about the right away to address it and make change,” she said.

Warren had said in a statement to The New York Times this week that “we must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.”

“We need systemic, structural changes to address that,” she said.

On Friday, asked whether she would include Native Americans in her support for reparations, Warren answered: “I think it’s a part of the conversation. It’s an important part of the conversation.”

Her fellow 2020 hopefuls Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro have come out in favor of reparations for African Americans but have so far not gone as far as Warren in opening the door to reparations for Native Americans.

"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," Harris said in the statement to the Times. "I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."

Since reparations are in response to African-Americans impacted by slavery, presumably reparations for Native Americans would be to make amends for crimes and abuses committed on the Native population by the U.S. government over America’s history.

It is far from clear how much such a policy would cost, and whether it would command support from the public at large. The Times estimated that a reparations policy could cost several trillion dollars. The policy is so radical that President Barack Obama, and 2016 Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders declined to endorse it.

Warren’s apparent willingness to entertain an even broader tent when it comes to reparations not only marks the Democratic 2020 field’s race to the left, and will likely raise a question over what other groups, if any, could be included in monetary compensation for America's past sins.

It is also a sign of a risky move for Warren in particularly as it threatens to again bring up her own history of controversy when it comes to Native Americans, for which she has herself tried to make reparations.

“It’s no surprise Elizabeth Warren would attempt to pander to the Native American community after getting caught falsely claiming Native American status in order to advance her career," Republican National Committee spokesman Steve Guest told Fox News on Saturday.

Warren claimed for years to have Native American ancestry, and this year apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking a DNA test that she said initially proved she had Native American heritage.

This month it emerged she had listed her race as “American Indian” in a Texas State Bar registration form in the 1980s. The years-long controversy over her heritage has dogged her 2020 bid and led to her being nicknamed “Pocahontas” in right-wing circles -- including from President Trump.

Last month Trump mocked her Instagram livestream by suggesting she should have streamed it from “Bighorn or Wounded Knee.”

“If Elizabeth Warren, often referred to by me as Pocahontas, did this commercial from Bighorn or Wounded Knee instead of her kitchen, with her husband dressed in full Indian garb, it would have been a smash!” he tweeted.

Fox News' Paul Steinhauser and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Two leading Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- have reportedly said they support reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, reflecting a shift in the importance of race and identity issues within the party.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Harris doubled down on her support for reparations after agreeing with a host on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” that the race-conscious policy was necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination in the United States.

"We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities," Harris said in the statement to the Times. "I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities."

Warren also supports reparations.

DEM MOCKED FOR IGNORING SLAVERY, CLAIMING 'NEVER IN HISTORY' HAVE PEOPLE WORKED WITHOUT PAY IN US

“We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations,” she told the Times. “We need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

"We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences."

— U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Julian Castro, another Democrat running for president, has indicated that he would support reparations.

Fox News reached out to all three campaigns but did not immediately hear back late Thursday.

Reparations would involve the federal government’s acknowledgment of the ongoing legacy of slavery and discrimination and providing payment to those affected. Policy experts say it could cost several trillion dollars.

Scholars estimate that black families earn just over $57 for every $100 earned by white families, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is also running for president, has proposed helping poor children by giving them government-funded savings accounts that could hold up to $50,000 for the lowest income brackets, the Times reported. U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., supports a plan to allow Americans without checking accounts bank at their local post office.

Other prominent Democrats have stopped short of backing reparations, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who dismissed the idea in 2016. Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama have also expressed reservations.

Supporting reparations could come with much political risk. Republicans have long attempted to paint Democrats who support policies aimed at correcting racial inequalities as anti-white, according to the Times, and polling shows reparations for black Americans remains unpopular.

Jamaica Global Online

Published  2 months ago

As the presidential buzz continues to grow around the possible candidacy of California Senator Kamala Harris, interest is also growing around her little-known Jamaican heritage.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

2020 presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has called for “some sort” of reparations for slavery.

Get Your FREE ‘Build The Wall’ Coin While Supplies Last

From New York Post:

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren said they both support reparations for African-Americans affected by slavery.

Asked about the matter last week on the 105.1 FM show “Breakfast Club,” Harris agreed with the host that reparations are necessary to address problems of “inequities.”

“America has a history of 200 years of slavery. We had Jim Crow. We had legal segregation in America for a very long time,” she said on the radio show. “We have got to recognize, back to that earlier point, people aren’t starting out on the same base in terms of their ability to succeed and so we have got to recognize that and give people a lift up.”

POLL: Should Jim Acosta Be BANNED FOR LIFE From The Press Pool?

The thing is, Kamala’s ancestors used to own slaves – according to her own father!

Did she not know about this?

VOTE: Should Jussie Smollett Get PRISON TIME For Orchestrating The “MAGA Hoax”?

Kind of a big deal, isn’t it?

From News Punch:

According to Kamala Harris’ father, the Democratic presidential hopeful’s great-grandmother was a Jamaican slave plantation owner who founded the city of Brown’s Town, Jamaica.

Kamala Harris is a direct descendant of Jamaican slave owners, that makes her a true Democrat.

— Rob Dew (@DewsNewz) February 22, 2019

Kamala’s father wrote the following:

As a child growing up in Jamaica, I often heard it said, by my parents and family friends: “memba whe yu cum fram”. To this day, I continue to retain the deep social awareness and strong sense of identity which that grassroots Jamaican philosophy fed in me. As a father, I naturally sought to develop the same sensibility in my two daughters. Born and bred in America, Kamala was the first in line to have it planted. Maya came two years later and had the advantage of an older sibling as mentor. It is for them to say truthfully now, not me, what if anything of value they carried from that early experience into adulthood. My one big regret is that they did not come to know very well the two most influential women in my life: “Miss Chrishy” and “Miss Iris” (as everybody called them). This is, in many ways, a story about these women and the heritage they gave us.

My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner (and founder of Brown’s Town) and to my maternal grandmother Miss Iris (née Iris Finegan, farmer and educator, from Aenon Town and Inverness, ancestry unknown to me). The Harris name comes from my paternal grandfather Joseph Alexander Harris, land-owner and agricultural ‘produce’ exporter (mostly pimento or all-spice), who died in 1939 one year after I was born and is buried in the church yard of the magnificent Anglican Church which Hamilton Brown built in Brown’s Town (and where, as a child, I learned the catechism, was baptized and confirmed, and served as an acolyte).

Washington Examiner

Published  2 months ago

Democrats running for president in 2020 say the rapid job growth and low unemployment under President Trump is not enough and insist America needs to strive for a "moral" economy.

Their calls reflect a growing consensus among Democrats over how to deal with a healthy economy that is creating jobs and the rising influence of socialist candidates and lawmakers in the Democratic Party.

The U.S. economy added 304,000 new jobs in January, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.0 percent, according to the Department of Labor. The country's gross domestic product increased last quarter by 3.4 percent.

Less than a year before the first primaries, Democrats seem to have settled on an argument that says the economic gains seen over the last two years aren't being "shared" with others.

"What happened to a moral responsibility, to a moral capitalism?" former Vice President Joe Biden asked an audience of students Tuesday during an event at the University of Pennsylvania.

The possible 2020 contender recalled his work with General Motors as part of the automobile industry bailout and criticized the corporation for not investing in worker training and modernizing when its fortunes improved.

"I'm not looking for charity. Business is not in business to be in charity, it's to make money. But the last dime does not dictate what corporate responsibility should be," the former 36-year longtime senator from Delaware said.

"And look, I don't begrudge anybody making a million or hundreds of millions of dollars, I really don't. But I do think there's some shared responsibility, and it's not being shared fairly for hard-working, middle-class, working-class people."

Sen. Kamala Harris of California, also running for president, made a similar pitch in New Hampshire. The former California attorney told the business-oriented attendees their success shouldn't be "vilified" because it was created in the "pursuit of the American Dream."

But she also accused those praising the Trump economy of valuing job quantity over the quality of those jobs.

"Yeah, people are working. They are working two or three jobs," Harris said. "We have to address these truths and do it in a way that recognizes that there is some course correction that needs to happen."

Pressed on Trump's economic record last weekend, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a declared 2020 candidate, said: "Well, working Americans would tell you that the dignity of work is being stripped from them.

"Working Americans would tell you they're working harder than their parents and falling further behind. Working Americans will tell you that while their salaries may moderately have gone up, what's gone up more is the cost of prescription drugs, cost of child care, the cost of college."

Booker's answer was similar to that of another Democrat likely to run in 2020: Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who is currently on a "Dignity of Work" bus tour as a way of reaching people in early-voting states.

The message from the candidates reflect that of the Democratic Party hierarchy. "What Democrats are fighting for is prosperity that is shared. What Democrats are fighting for is a moral capitalism, a capitalism that understands that, when we all succeed, we all succeed," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez told NBC News last weekend.

In the 2016 race, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont targeted very wealthy Americans in his rhetoric and is set to ramp up criticism of billionaires during his 2020 run.

"You got three people who own more wealth than the bottom half of America. That is wrong. That's morally wrong, in my view. That is bad economics," he told CBS News this week.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has led attacks on wealthy potential 2020 rivals like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, arguing that using their own money to fund their campaigns undermines democracy.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story indicated that there were 200,000 new jobs in January, and the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent. It has since been corrected to note that there were 304,000 new jobs alongside a 4.0 percent unemployment rate. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

This week on “Pod Save America,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said her “ultra millionaires tax” will be “a big down payment on a Green New Deal.”

Warren said, “Workers get to elect 40 percent of the seats—this is a bill I’ve already put forward—40 percent of the seats on corporate boards, ways to get more power back into the hands of workers. That’s how we start to rewrite this economy. And I just keep working through that and every part of it, taxes, progressive taxation. I put an ultra millionaires tax out, a proposal on this.”

She added, “Think about this. If we taxed people, families, that have more than $50 million in assets if we charged them two percent a year and they put that back in the to help build opportunity for everybody else. We could pay for universal childcare. We could bring down student loan debt. We could make a big down payment on a Green New Deal. We could make the investments that make this country work, and that’s for me what this is all about.”

NBC4 Washington

Published  2 months ago

Coast Guard Lt. Accused of Plotting Attack

A lieutenant at U.S. Coast Guard headquarters in Washington, D.C., is under arrest for weapons violations but also stands accused of plotting a major attack and creating an apparent hit list of Democrats and media personalities.

In charging documents first posted by George Washington University’s Seamus Hughes and the News4 I-Team, federal prosecutors say 49-year-old Christopher Paul Hasson, of Silver Spring, Maryland, had illegal weapons and was collecting a list of names when he was arrested Friday.

Prosecutors wrote Hasson is a domestic terrorist who “intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country” and must be detained.

The feds shared images of a firearms stockpile in Hasson’s basement apartment.

(Published Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019)

They say internet searches show he was targeting top Democrats and created an Excel spreadsheet list of names, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sens. Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke. The list also included top names in media, like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Joe Scarborough and CNN’s Don Lemon.

Law enforcement sources told NBC News the feds caught on to Hasson because of searches made on his work computer.

He is accused of searching the following phrases on Google the morning of Jan. 17: “what if trump illegally impeached,” “best place in dc to see congress people,” “where in dc to congress people live,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “social democrats usa.”

His search history also included searches for pro-Russian and neo-fascist literature.

Hasson routinely read portions of a manifesto written by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik that prosecutors said instructs would-be assailants to collect firearms, food, disguises and survival tools, court papers said. Breivik, a right-wing extremist, is serving a 21-year sentence for killing 77 people in a 2011 bomb-and-shooting rampage.

Prosecutors allege that Hasson visited thousands of websites that sold guns and researched military tactical manuals on improvised munitions.

In a deleted email subfolder, authorities found a draft by Hasson saying, “I am dreaming of killing almost every last person on the earth. I think a plague would be most successful … Start with biological attacks followed by attack on food supply.”

In a draft of a letter apparently intended for a known white supremacist leader, Hasson identified himself as a white nationalist for more than 30 years who advocated “focused violence” to create a “white homeland,” according to charging documents.

The chief at the federal defender's office in Maryland, which is representing Hasson, declined to comment on the allegations. The Coast Guard did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hasson's arrest. No one answered the door Wednesday at the home address for Hasson listed in public records.

Hasson also is charged with possession of a controlled substance. He appeared to be a chronic user of the opioid painkiller Tramadol and had purchased a flask filled with four ounces of "synthetic urine" online, prosecutors said. Authorities suspect Hasson had purchased fake urine to use in case he was randomly selected for a drug test.

He is scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt Thursday afternoon.

Copyright Associated Press / NBC4 Washington

The Daily Signal

Published  2 months ago

NPR reporters looked into the 235 shootings reported by the U.S. Department of Education and were only able to confirm 11 of them.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., entered the 2020 presidential race this week promising to transform America with a left-wing vision of economic and environmental justice. But the self-described democratic socialist’s high-end income, multiple houses and fondness for air travel have already opened him up to criticism that his lifestyle doesn't always match the rhetoric.

POLITICO

Published  2 months ago

A U.S. Coast Guard officer has been arrested after federal investigators discovered a stockpile of illegal drugs and weapons in his home that they allege were part of a plot to commit acts of mass terrorism.

Prosecutors say Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson, who was arrested Friday, was intent on committing white-supremacist terror attacks. Though he was initially arrested on charges of illegal weapons and drug possession, a court filing says that those charges are “the proverbial tip of the iceberg.”

“The defendant is a domestic terrorist, bent on committing acts dangerous to human life that are intended to affect government conduct,” the filing alleges.

While searching Hasson’s suburban Maryland home, investigators found a number of files on his computer suggesting that Hasson planned to target members of Congress and media figures in the hopes of creating a “white homeland.”

“Liberalist/globalist ideology is destroying traditional peoples esp white,” Hasson wrote in a draft email, according to court documents. “No way to counteract without violence. It should push for more crack down bringing more people to our side. Much blood will have to be spilled to get whitey off the couch.”

Hasson referred to his targets as “traitors,” and appears to have named figures such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman John Podesta. He appeared to find inspiration in Russia for its antipathy toward American liberalism, and his browser history revealed searches including “what if trump illegally impeached” and “civil war if trump impeached,” according to the court filing.

“Looking to Russia with hopeful eyes or any land that despises the west’s liberalism. Excluding of course the muslim scum. Who rightfully despise the west’s liberal degeneracy,” Hasson wrote in a draft email according to the filings.

Hasson was also apparently inspired by Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian far-right terrorist who carried out two attacks in 2011 in Oslo and at a political youth camp. Breivik took a cocktail of steroids and other drugs, believing they would help him carry out the attacks. Similarly, investigators found steroids and the pain reliever Tramadol — a highly addictive controlled substance — in Hasson’s home.

Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, first reported Hasson’s arrest Wednesday afternoon.

Military.com

Published  2 months ago

A photo of weapons reportedly seized from Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson. Twitter photo 20 Feb 2019 Military.com | By A Coast Guard lieutenant assigned to the service's headquarters in Washington, D.C., has been arrested on drug and gun possession charges, a nd is accused of plans to "murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country," according to documents filed in Maryland District Court. Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson, an acquisitions officer for the National Security Cutter

The Horn News

Published  2 months ago

The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is officially underway.

With 11 top Democrats already in the fray, party leadership like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are eagerly watching the polls to get a sense of the early favorites.

But they didn’t see this coming.

The top two favorites to take on President Donald Trump in the upcoming election aren’t even in the race — and one has never held political office.

And it’s not even close.

That’s according to a Hill-Harris X poll released on Tuesday, which announced that the two most popular candidate for registered Democratic voters are former First Lady Michelle Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sponsored: Hillary’s Darkest Secrets Up For Auction?

The two are tied as the favorite potential candidates among Democrats at 25 percent. That dwarfs the other top Democrats that are already spending millions on their campaign.

California Sen. Kamala Harris was third with 12 percent of support, while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee runner-up — is fourth with 11 percent.

“Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke polled at six percent, with other candidates—including Senators Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren —all polling at five percent,” Newsweek reported.

Don’t expect to see another Obama in the White House anytime soon, however.

Michelle told The London Times in July that she had no desire to run for political office.

“I will not be running for office,” she said. “It’s a gruelling thing for any family to go through. Barack made it look easy. It’s not.”

Biden is almost certainly set to enter the race soon, and has privately told associates and political allies that he has the best chance to defeat Trump in 2020.

— The Horn editorial team

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months ago

Elizabeth Warren is the first Democratic presidential candidate to push for reparations for black Americans.

Warren made headlines last year for lying about her own heritage for decades.

Warren told employers she was Native American to lift her career.

DNA testing revealed she was only 1/1024th Indian, less than the average white American.

Now Liawatha wants reparations for black Americans.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she supports reparations for black Americans affected by slavery, The New York Times reports.

Warren said in an interview with the Times that “we must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.” She also said that “we need systemic, structural changes to address that.”

Warren did not provide any specifics about what her plan would be, but the Times notes that this is significant given that it’s a policy previous Democratic presidential candidates chose not to support. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who recently announced his 2020 bid, was not in favor of reparations in 2016, saying at the time that it would not pass Congress and would be “very divisive.” For that matter, neither was former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Conservative Review

Published  2 months ago

Thursday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin took aim at recent calls for slavery reparations from Democrats on the campaign trail.

It’s reported that 2020 presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., both support the idea of reparations.

Levin explained that giving out reparations to people who have never been enslaved, in addition to being yet another Democratic proposal with a price tag in the trillions, is contrary to the ideals of the American experiment.

“This is not about racial equality,” Levin said. “This is about a massive takeover of the private sector, of the individual, of our institutions.”

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up now!

Democrats Acting Like 1960s Radicals

Nobody says it quite like Mark: https://t.co/jzsHUhRhyF pic.twitter.com/Iwv9hGbF7c

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) January 17, 2019

Daily Wire

Published  2 months ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Loonbag - VT) is best labeled as not merely a "democratic socialist," as is voguish for the mini-Robespierres du jour. He is not even merely best described as a run-of-the-mill "socialist" — you know, your typical pothead college sophomore who hasn't even taken an introductory macroeconomics course but just knows that true justice requires state seizure of the means of production.

Instead, as Paul Sperry argued at the New York Post in 2016, Sanders is actually best described as a "diehard communist."

In the early ’70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

After failed runs for Congress, Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts...

In 1985, he traveled to [Nicaragua] to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a "heroic revolution."...

Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. He put up a Soviet flag in his office, shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.

Then, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to "the triumph of Soviet power in the US."

The Daily Wire has also covered Sanders' 1980s-era pro-communist, pro-Sandinista radicalism.

Let us state this as explicitly as possible. In the 1980s, in the midst of a Reagan-Gorbachev détente that ultimately led to the dissolution of America's existentially threatening superpower foe, the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union, Bernie Sanders stood not with America — but with the Soviets.

That is not an exaggeration.

Toward the end of the hellish Cold War, facing a hegemonic Soviet arch-nemesis whose only reason for not annihilating us via nuclear holocaust was a game theory-backed faith in "mutually assured destruction," Bernie Sanders honeymooned with his second wife in the Soviet Union. Toward the end of the hellish Cold War, facing a hegemonic Soviet arch-nemesis whose only reason for not annihilating us via nuclear holocaust was a game theory-backed faith in "mutually assured destruction," Bernie Sanders flew a hammer-and-sickle Soviet flag in his Vermont mayoral office. At the end of the hellish Cold War, facing a hegemonic Soviet arch-nemesis whose only reason for not annihilating us via nuclear holocaust was a game theory-backed faith in "mutually assured destruction," Bernie Sanders willfully addressed a known front group for a political party whose members swear an oath of allegiance to that very hegemonic arch-nemesis.

As The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh wrote yesterday, this can only be described as "morally deranged" behavior.

[Sanders] is not some stupid college student who champions communism because he has no idea what happened in the world prior to 2005. He lived through much of the 1900s and very well knows that it was a century bathed in the blood shed by communist governments. He knows that communism very recently killed 100 million people, and that it continues to add to the body count even today. Yet he advocates for communist policies and wishes to see the great evil of the 20th century reborn in the 21st. What else can we call this but morally deranged?

Even holding aside rudimentary economic literacy and the uncontested macroeconomic wonders of free-market capitalism in lifting generations of people out of real, inflation-adjusted poverty, socialism is itself a stridently immoral ideology.

At its core, socialism is about not altruism, but about pure, self-aggrandizing selfishness. The economic class warfare that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the professional grievance peddlers push is, ultimately, rooted in nothing other than good ol'-fashioned envy. None of the great Western religions teach that envy of one's fellow man is anything other than sinful. In the Abrahamic tradition, envy violates at least one (and, arguably, more than one) of the Ten Commandments; in Catholicism, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Indeed, America's entire founding political philosophy is based on a powerful rejection of envy as an overarching principle of governance: Our social contract, as established by the Declaration of Independence, is one of natural rights-based negative liberty. Free enterprise, then, is inherently moral insofar as it merely connects freedom of labor, freedom of contract, and private property protection to the natural right to liberty of which our Declaration speaks.

But Bernie Sanders' dystopian death cult ideology is even worse than merely being economically misguided or morally perverse. And the reason for that is simple: The loonbag openly, proudly, and defiantly stood with the genocidal, mass-murdering Soviet regime when that regime stood at existential loggerheads with the United States of America. The same Soviet regime that willfully committed the Holodomor mass famine in the Ukraine. The same Soviet regime that quite possibly — indeed, quite likely — ended up killing more innocents over the course of its bloody reign than did the Third Reich. The same Soviet regime that sent up to 18 million to the gulags. The same Soviet regime that brutally and persistently repressed Sanders' very own religious/ethnic brethren. The same Soviet regime that consistently meddled in domestic American political elections. The same Soviet regime that, for decades, constantly threatened to launch nuclear missiles into the heart of the American homeland.

Bernie Sanders' ideology is grotesquely immoral. But what he has publicly stood for throughout his career is not merely grotesquely immoral. It is also affirmatively evil.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) confirmed in a Thursday interview with the New York Times that she supports slavery reparations for American blacks.

The New York Times reported that Warren expressed her support for a policy that would pay money to black Americans who have been affected by slavery.

Warren’s campaign staff declined to elaborate on how she would support reparations, but the calls for reparations came after she said the federal government should provide financial assistance to residents in poor communities affected by “redlining,” a practice where lenders refuse mortgages to people in financially risky areas.

Warren is not the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for reparations. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced in a Monday radio interview with New York City’s Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club” that “some type of” reparations should be provided to black Americans impacted by slavery.

Harris confirmed her comments calling for reparation in the radio interview with the Times on Thursday.

“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris said in the statement. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Other Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, have not expressed support for this policy.

Warren has received a lot of pushback on the campaign trail for her exaggerated claims of Native American ancestry. One heckler at Warren’s campaign rally in Georgia on Saturday yelled, “Why did you lie?” and held up a “1/2020th” sign before being escorted out of the campaign event.

The Massachusetts Democrat released results of a 2018 DNA test which revealed that she had between 1/64th and 1/1,1024th Native American ancestry after President Donald Trump and other Republicans criticized her for falsely claiming Native American ancestry.

Trump has frequently called Warren “Pocahontas,” most recently using the term to refer to Warren after she launched her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination this month.

The Massachusetts Democrat issued an apology in January to the Cherokee Nation for taking the DNA test shortly after the results of the DNA test went public because Cherokee leaders thought modern DNA tests undermined centuries-old laws and traditions defining tribal heritage.

The Lutchman Review

Published  2 months ago

Kamala Harris & Al Sharpton in the same story… Yikes, can’t get much more scary than that.

But seriously, these two were one of the first to comment on the Jussie Smollett “hate crime” that turned out to be a hoax.

Their initial reaction was to run to the defense of Jussie and condemn Trump and his supporters. Now that everything has been discovered to be staged, reporters caught them outside and started asking questions. They’re response says it all.

From The Hill:

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) was peppered with questions about the actor Jussie Smollett on Thursday when leaving a meeting with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Harlem, N.Y.

Video captured after the event showed Harris briskly walking to a car while ignoring shouted questions regarding the Smollett case about which she had previously commented.

Smollett was arrested early Thursday and charged with one count of disorderly conduct in connection with filing a false police report over his claim that he was attacked in a Chicago neighborhood by two men yelling racist and homophobic slurs.

Harris was among the first 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to weigh in on Smollett’s case last month after he claimed to be the victim of a hate crime. Harris called the alleged attack a “modern-day lynching” in late January. President Trump also condemned the incident at the time, saying “it doesn’t get worse.”

On Monday, as questions regarding the credibility of Smollett’s story began to surface in media reports, Harris told reporters that the case needed further investigation.

“I will say this about that case,” she said Monday. “I think that the facts are still unfolding, and I’m very concerned about the initial allegation that he made about what might have happened.”

“And it’s something we should all take seriously whenever anyone alleges that kind of behavior, but there should be an investigation,” Harris added. “And I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation.”

Thursday’s meeting with Sharpton at the Harlem soul food legend Sylvia’s Restaurant was meant to focus on “criminal justice reform and other critical issues,” Sharpton’s National Action Network told the New York Post.

Harris is vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination amid a crowded field of competitors including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), among others.

POLITICO

Published  2 months ago

A coordinated barrage of social media attacks suggests the involvement of foreign state actors.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  2 months ago

Priorities USA, the largest Democratic super PAC, announced on Thursday it will spend $100 million in four of the top swing states as part of an initial investment to try and defeat President Donald Trump.

Guy Cecil, the super PAC's chairman, held a briefing with reporters earlier in the morning, where he argued polling shows Democrats have "opportunity to expand the electorate to the largest, if not certainly the largest in a generation." In order to do that, the Democratic party shouldn't waste time and must start building an apparatus, he said. The group's initial investment will be in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, according to NBC News.

Liberal billionaire George Soros donated at least $9.5 million during the 2016 election cycle and $5 million to the group during the 2018 election cycle, making him one of its biggest donors. They also received millions of dollars from the House Majority PAC, which accepts money from corporations and PACs.

"We are going to have a long, year-and-a-half long, sustained conversation with these 2, 2.5 million voters in these four states," Cecil said.

The four states represent 75 Electoral College votes and were critical in helping Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. A large majority of the $100 million investment will be spent on digital ads and infrastructure in the states, NBC News reported.

Cecil walked reporters through a detailed theory of the case—including how Priorities views the universe of potential Democratic persuasion and turnout targets, as well as the messages it believes is best suited to win over those voters.

He specifically called out the 16 percent of registered voters who did not vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 that say they are open to supporting a Democrat in 2020. Of those, 51 percent did not vote in 2016, 20 percent voted for Trump because they opposed Clinton, 17 percent voted for a third party candidate and 12 percent voted for Trump because they supported him.

Like other Democratic groups that have done postmortems after the 2016 race, Priorities wants to prioritize issues like health care and wages over the more general concerns Democrats have about Trump's tweets and temperament. The group's polling has found that Democrats have the biggest advantages when message on those issues, and less of an advantage when trying to message directly on Trump's tone or rhetoric.

"Our job is to refocus as much of the conversation on economic issues—not on tweets or temperament or personality, but on how this administration affects them," Cecil said. "While people are talking about Mueller, we will be talking about high health care prices…When people are talking about Trump’s temperament, well be talking about how Trump's temperament relates to the rising cost of pharmaceuticals."

Looking ahead to the general election, the group has "developed a more permanent infrastructure for the left that isn't focused on one election," Cecil said. They will attack Trump "all the way through November" regardless of the eventual Democratic nominee's position on super PACs, he added.

Several of the Democratic candidates have already formally announced plans to reject donations from corporate PACs, including Julian Castro and several senators: Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).

True Pundit

Published  2 months ago

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) has released a plan to provide universal free child care to every American, paid for by a steep tax on those Americans she calls “ultra-millionaires.”

According to a news release on her Senate website, the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act would provide federal funding for “a locally-run network of Child Care and Early Learning Centers and Family Child Care Homes so that every family, regardless of their income or employment, has high-quality, affordable child care options for their children from birth to school entry.”

These centers would be available for free to people below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Families with higher incomes would have to pay for these options, but not “more than seven percent of their income.”

Warren said that she expected this plan to nearly double the number of children with access to formal child care, from 6.8 million to 12 million. The senator argued that the current “lack of access to high-quality, affordable care prevents parents from fully participating in the workforce, holding them back from career and educational opportunities and placing a drag on our entire economy.”

Critics, however, argue that it’s not clear what exactly the “high-quality” national standards Warren refers to in her plan are.- READ MORE

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Tuesday on CBS’s “The Late Late Show,” 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listed some of the reasons she would declare a national emergency if elected.

Host James Corden asked the senator what would constitute as a national emergency if she were in office, which Warren replied with climate change, gun violence and student loan debt “right off the top.”

“Oh, let’s do a list: climate change, gun violence, student loan debt — right off the top,” Warren told Corden. “That’s what we ought to be working on. And we ought to be working on it together. Congress, the president, as a country, those are things we should be working on.”

GOP

Published  2 months ago

Having moved the Democrat Party to the far-left, Bernie Sanders is back with fresh new plans to spend the country into oblivion and scandals to defend.

Medium

Published  2 months ago

Bernie Sanders has announced his 2020 Democratic primary run for president of the United States, to predictable sighs of relief from his…

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

Washington Examiner

Published  2 months ago

The entry of Sen. Bernie Sanders and 11 other White House challengers has not changed the gambling odds on the expectation that President Trump will win re-election.

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 months ago

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is jumping into 2020’s presidential race according to a video announcement Tuesday. Sanders joins other 2020 Democratic hopefuls including Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar. This not Sanders’ first rodeo, in fact, he ran a 2016 presidential campaign.

Taking Down Trump

In his campaign announcement video, Sanders called President Trump “The most dangerous president in modern American history.” Sanders also called Trump a ‘pathological liar, a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, and an authoritarian.’

According to the newly launched campaign site, “No one candidate, not even the greatest candidate you could imagine, is capable of taking on Donald Trump and the billionaire class alone. There is only one way we win — and that is together.”

Trump told members of the press Tuesday that he likes “Bernie.”

“Personally, I think he missed his time. I wish Bernie well. It will be interesting to see how he does. He was not treated with respect by Clinton,” said Trump.

Trump: "I like Bernie." https://t.co/aJwJCumhJD

"Personally, I think he missed his time. I wish Bernie well. It will be interesting to see how he does. He was not treated with respect by Clinton." pic.twitter.com/YqX3p7pqYb

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) February 19, 2019

The Socialist Revolution

Sanders’ campaign will focus on social, economic, and environmental justice. Sanders is a longtime opponent of the “top 1%”, referring to the American rich. The campaign is a grassroots movement with volunteers in all 50 states. His site explicitly says “Paid for by Bernie 2020 (not the billionaires)”

“They may have the money and power, we have the people,” said Sanders. The campaign has already raised $1 million in its first day.

Powerful special interests may have the money, but we have the people. Supporters from all 50 states have donated to our unprecedented grassroots campaign. Say you're in: https://t.co/4YhCuNlKEk pic.twitter.com/d32UxxRi9q

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 19, 2019

Following Sexual Assault Allegations

The campaign announcement comes on the heels of sexual assault allegations from the 2016 campaign.

A Politico report highlighted that over two dozen 2016 campaign staffers requested a meeting to “discuss the issue of sexual violence and harassment on the 2016 campaign, for the purpose of planning to mitigate the issue in the upcoming presidential cycle,” according to a letter obtained by Politico.

.@BernieSanders on reports of sexism & sexual harassment in 2016 campaign: "I learned that that was true and it breaks my heart… In this campaign for president, we are going to have the strongest protocols to protect women and anybody else against any form of harassment." pic.twitter.com/xBf2FjDogT

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) February 19, 2019

Sanders told CBS This Morning, “I learned that that was true and it breaks my heart… In this campaign for president, we are going to have the strongest protocols to protect women and anybody else against any form of harassment.”

Daily Intelligencer

Published  2 months ago

The official entrance of Bernie Sanders into the presidential race was greeted gleefully by the entire Republican Establishment. The White House has ramped up its message that the 2020 campaign is a choice between the whole of American history (as represented by Trump) and socialism — which it defines as Venezuelan-style government control combined with repression of dissent. Trump’s bizarre State of the Union declaration, “America will never be a socialist country,” has become his unofficial campaign motto.

This messaging strategy has been enabled by a wildly exaggerated sense of the Democratic Party’s leftward shift. The Democratic Party is still not “socialist” in any meaningful sense of the term, and to the extent socialism has exerted any influence upon it, it is not of the Venezuelan variety.

At the root of this fairy tale lie some tiny nuggets of truth. Bernie Sanders is an idiosyncratic bridge between Old Left fellow traveler and the mainstream liberalism of the Democratic Party. As a younger — or, I suppose, less old — politician, Sanders routinely praised communist leaders in places like Cuba and Nicaragua. Conservatives are gleefully dredging up old clips of Sanders praising the Soviet Union and even defending bread lines.

This 2020 Democrat primary is going to be BANANAS! The latest candidate LOVES bread lines!! pic.twitter.com/wrf73R8UyS

— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) February 19, 2019

Sanders never completely abandoned the Marxist habit of describing American politics as a simple class struggle pitting the people against the “billionaire class.” The denouement of his presidential campaign has convinced a cadre of socialist activists to work within the Democratic Party, and they have established a foothold within it as foot soldiers and policy demanders. Some of these newly influential groups blur the line between liberal democracy and illiberal left-wing authoritarianism. The socialist magazine Jacobin, for instance, energetically defended the Chavez-Maduro regime. Left-wing activist Sean McElwee calls for the next Democratic administration to “dismantle Fox News” — which, as awful as Fox News might be, would be incompatible with small-d democratic government.

But, distressing though it may be, illiberalism remains a marginal tendency within the Democratic Party. Even Sanders, who is himself an outlier, has left behind his fellow-traveling habits. He is a political liberal who denounces authoritarian regimes like Venezuela (to the consternation of his most radical supporters) and openly defends the political rights of his opponents against left-wing efforts to shut them down.

Meanwhile Trump himself repurposes Stalinist lingo like “enemy of the people.” He routinely heaps praise on the most brutal dictators on the planet — not despite their brutality but precisely because of it. Republicans have selected Venezuela as their campaign theme in large part because it is one of the few dictatorships Trump does not admire. It is strange that Republicans are excitedly sharing 30-year-old clips of Bernie Sanders lauding aspects of the Soviet economy when Donald Trump is praising the North Korean economic model right now:

North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

There is a bit more truth to the idea that the Democratic Party is moving left on economics. Still, the scale of the shift has been overplayed. Democrats may be moving left, but they remain to the right of most mainstream left parties in the world. News accounts have emphasized the trend rather than the level. The growing share of self-identified liberals within the party ranks has attracted far more attention than the fact that moderate and conservative Democrats still (slightly) outnumber liberals. Twitter battles pit leftists against liberals, but compared both to the Democratic Party’s elected officials and its voting basis, even the liberals occupy the left-of-center space.

The exaggeration of the party’s leftward shift is made apparent when the attempts to describe it try to summon specifics. Former president Bill Clinton’s “social and economic policies,” National Review’s David French asserts, “would make him right-leaning even within the modern Republican party.” Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich, increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, raised the minimum wage, and attempted to pass universal health care, all of which are heretical positions within the GOP and were hysterically labeled as socialism by the GOP at the time Clinton did all these things.

Meanwhile, a New York Times account of Sanders’s influence begins, “Do you remember the old days of the Democratic Party? Universal health care was controversial. Boasting about taxing the rich was political suicide. And socialism was a dirty word.” In fact, the last two Democratic presidents openly tried to achieve universal health insurance, and both successfully raised taxes on the rich and boasted about it.

Socialism may not be a “dirty word,” exactly. But very few Democrats want to be associated with it — in part because it remains highly unpopular among the public at large.

Possible Democratic presidential nominees Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Beto O’Rourke have all explicitly disavowed the socialist label. Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bluntly told one questioner that the Democratic Party is capitalist.

I am old enough to remember when Pelosi was the prototype of the far-left ideology that would make Democrats radioactive in swing districts. (That was less than three months ago.) It is actually a form of progress that the liberal bogeyman has been replaced by the socialist bogeyman. For one thing, it’s much easier for Democrats to triangulate against socialism than it was for them to triangulate against liberalism. Trump’s campaign has given Democrats an easy way to position themselves in the center. All they need to do is say they believe in a role for free markets and reject socialism.

Parties move slowly and tend to change their character over long periods of time. The entrance of far-left policy demanders in the Democratic Party is a very notable development that might lead to important changes over the long run. In the short run, the party is mostly the same. And Trump’s notion that his reelection is all that stands between the United States and socialism is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy.

Leave a Comment

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  2 months ago

Hannah Bleau

She Really Just Went There, WATCH:

Attention everyone: There’s a new “fundamental human right” that exists, according to Elizabeth Warren.

Child care. We have a “fundamental human right” to child care. I repeat, you have the RIGHT to a babysitter, FREE OF CHARGE FOR YOU.

She has an actual plan to roll this concept out.

“We must do better for our kids — and our parents. In the wealthiest country on the planet, access to affordable and high-quality child care and early education should be a right, not a privilege reserved for the rich,” she writes.

“That’s why I’m proposing a bold new Universal Child Care and Early Learning plan. My plan will guarantee high-quality child care and early education for every child in America from birth to school age,” she continued. “It will be free for millions of American families, and affordable for everyone. This is the kind of big, structural change we need to produce an economy that works for everyone.”

According to her plan:

Federal government will partner with local providers — states, cities, school districts, nonprofits, tribes, faith-based organizations — to create a network of child care options that would be available to every family.

These options would include locally-licensed child care centers, preschool centers, and in-home child care options.

Local communities would be in charge, but providers would be held to high national standards to make sure that no matter where you live, your child will have access to quality care and early learning.

Child care and preschool workers will be doing the educational work that teachers do, so they will be paid like comparable public school teachers.

Neat. So how are we going to pay for it?

And here’s the best part. The federal government will pick up a huge chunk of the cost of operating these new high-quality options. That allows local providers to provide access for free to any family that makes less than 200% of the federal poverty line. That means free coverage for millions of children.

No. That means taxpayers are picking up the tab YET AGAIN. This plan might as well be called, “How To Screw Over The American Taxpayer, Volume 932.”

You don’t have the “right” to have other people take care of your kids. I can’t believe that even needs to be said out loud.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination heats up, the candidates have engaged in an escalating competition to claim the most radical policy agenda.

The Babylon Bee

Published  2 months ago

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a statement to D.C. police given Tuesday, senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren claimed that two men in colonial outfits accosted her on the street and assaulted her with smallpox-infected blankets.

Warren claimed she was simply on her evening walk with her favorite peyote blend when the two men leaped out of the bushes, fired a round, spent several minutes reloading their muzzle-loading rifles, fired again, and then hollered "battle cries" as they hurled smallpox-infested blankets at her.

"The men fired muskets at me, threw several blankets infested with smallpox in my general direction, and told me this was colonial country," she said, holding back tears. "They told me to go back to my reservation and that I wasn't welcome here."

According to Warren, the men stuck a feather in her hair and then called her "macaroni" before dancing around her in a mock Native American rain dance.

"It is just despicable to me that in 2019 a woman can still be targeted for lynching because of her .0001% Indian heritage," she said in a press conference. "This is Trump's America, people."

Police quickly poked holes in Warren's story, such as the fact that she never dropped her peace pipe throughout the ordeal and that she left the smallpox blankets and mock Indian headdress on herself as she walked to the police department to make her statement.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 months ago

WaPo targeted Sandmann, the suit alleges, "because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C..."

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

A U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant arrested last week on gun and drug charges is a white nationalist who apparently had a hit list of Democratic lawmakers and activists as well as prominent media personalities, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

In a motion for pretrial detention filed in federal court in Baltimore, authorities said Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson was arrested Friday and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and an opioid called Tramadol.

However, the filing described the charges as "the proverbial tip of the iceberg," and referred to Hasson as "a domestic terrorist" who meant to "murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country."

The filing was first noted by researchers from George Washington University's Program on Extremism.

Prosecutors say Hasson regularly read a manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian far-right extremist who killed 77 people in a pair of 2011 terror attacks, and stockpiled weapons and ammunition. According to the documents, federal agents recovered 15 firearms and "conservatively" more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition from Hasson's "cramped basement apartment" in Silver Spring, Maryland.

According to the document, Hasson organized a spreadsheet of so-called "traitors" that he subdivided into three categories: A,B, and C. So-called "Category A" traitors included Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (referred to as "Sen blumen jew" in the spreadsheet), Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (referred to as "poca warren") Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California.

Also listed in "Category A" were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., MSNBC personalities Joe Scarborough, Chris Hayes, and Ari Melber as well as CNN host Don Lemon. Names in the "Category B" list included Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., CNN personalities Chris Cuomo and Van Jones, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Prosecutors say Hasson Googled topics including "what if trump illegally impeached," "best place in dc to see congress people," and "civil war if trump impeached" roughly a month before his arrest.

The filing said Hasson had "espoused extremist views for years" and quoted a letter he drafted to "a known American neo-Nazi leader" in September 2017, nearly two months after the deadly violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. In the letter, Hasson described himself as "a long time White Nationalist, having been a skinhead 30 plus years ago before my time in the military." Hasson added that "I fully support the idea of a white homeland ... We need a white homeland as Europe seems lost. How long we can hold out there and prevent n-----ization of the Northwest until whites wake up on their own or are forcibly made to make a decision whether to roll over and die and to stand up remains to be seen."

Three months earlier, prosecutors say Hasson drafted an email to "friends" in which he said he was "dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the earth. I think a plague would be most successful but how to I acquire the needed/ Spanish flu, botulism, anthrax not sure yet but will find something."

In the same email, Hasson mused: "Start with biological attacks followed by attack [sic] on food supply ... Two pronged [sic] attack seems it might before successful. Institute a bombing/sniper campaign."

Prosecutors said Hasson was an acquisitions officer for the National Security Cutter Acquisition Program who had been assigned to the Coast Guard's headquarters in Washington since June 2016. He previously served in the Marine Corps and the Army National Guard.

A detention hearing for Hasson is scheduled for 1 p.m. Thursday.

Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

mcall

Published  2 months ago

Anyone listening to President Donald Trump and to Democratic presidential hopefuls hears an almost Dickensian tale of two very different Americas.

The president takes "the best of times" view and spoke during his State of the Union address about "an unprecedented economic boom" in which "our economy is thriving like never before."

No compatible source was found for this media.

Democratic presidential hopefuls take the "the worst of times" view and speak of an America that works only for the rich, while working-class paychecks fail even to keep up with the cost of living and people are struggling to get by.

Is either side right?

The American public appears to increasingly share Trump's sunny view. A Gallup poll released on Monday, under the headline "Americans' Confidence in Their Finances Keeps Growing," found that more than two-thirds — 69 percent — of Americans expect to be better off in the coming year. That's "only two percentage points below the all-time high of 71%" recorded 20 years ago. The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,017 adults conducted between Jan. 2 and Jan. 10.

Of those surveyed, 50 percent said they were "better off today than they were a year ago." That response is "a post-recession milestone — the first time since 2007 that at least half of the public has said they are financially better off than a year ago." There have only been 11 times in 109 Gallup polls since 1976 where "at least half of those polled said they were in better financial shape than they had been a year prior."

Those saying they are worse off than a year ago, those for whom the economy presumably is "just not working," fell to 26 percent, "the lowest level since October 2000."

The public's rising confidence isn't misplaced. The U.S. economy might not be in unprecedented good shape, but it is certainly thriving.

Economic growth during the first full six quarters of the Trump administration has averaged 3 percent, double the nearly 1.5 percent average for President Barack Obama's last six full quarters, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. For 2018, the first full calendar year following the Republican tax cuts and the president's regulatory reductions, it looks like gross domestic product will grow at a 3 percent or better pace for the first time since 2005.

The benefits of that growth appear widespread.

More Americans are working than ever before, and the unemployment rate has been at or below 4 percent for 11 straight months, the longest such streak in nearly 50 years. During that stretch, the unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, people with only a high school education, women, teenagers (ages 16-19), veterans and disabled Americans have all either hit or approached historic lows.

With employers competing for the best employees, wages rose last year at the fastest pace in a decade. It appears that this competition for employees will intensify. At the end of December, a record 7.3 million job openings were available, with only 6.3 million people unemployed (meaning they had looked for but not as yet found a job in the past 30 days). It was the 10th month in a row with more job openings than people unemployed.

The largest gains for December were in the construction sector (+88,000), as you would expect in a growing economy. For the first time in decades, blue-collar workers are more difficult to find than white-collar workers.

Yet contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination see a different America. When announcing her candidacy this month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described a country where "tens of millions of people are struggling just to get by." She berated "a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." In her view, the economy works for the rich and is "just not working for anyone else."

Sen. Kamala Harris of California kicked off her candidacy on Jan. 28 by bemoaning a United States in which the "economy today is not working for working people." Similar laments can be heard from other candidates.

Some of the contrast is political. Following the 2016 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats significantly altered their perceptions of how they were doing financially. Nonetheless, Gallup found that "among some of the key groups that generally vote Democratic, a plurality or majority say they are better off," including people under 30, women and liberals. Notably, this group also includes people with annual household incomes under $40,000, an impressive 45 percent of whom say they are better off, vs. 35 percent who say they are worse off.

It's a heavy lift to convince people they are worse off when more of them are working, earning higher wages and taking home more of what they earn because of tax cuts. Democrats seem to be asking: "Who are you going to believe, us or your wallets?"

Is it the best or the worst of times? It's still early, but these economic times are certainly the best that Americans have experienced in many years. And, not surprisingly, they know it.

Puzder is the former chief executive of CKE Restaurants and the author of "The Capitalist Comeback."

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Attorneys representing the Kentucky high school student involved in a confrontation that went viral on social media last month announced Tuesday that they were suing The Washington Post for $250 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Kentucky, accused The Post of practicing "a modern-day form of McCarthyism" by targeting Nicholas Sandmann and "using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles ... to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president."

Washington Post spokesperson Kris Coratti told Fox News in an email that the paper was "reviewing a copy of the lawsuit, and we plan to mount a vigorous defense."

COLORADO TEACHER FACES TERMINATION AFTER MISIDENTIFYING COVINGTON STUDENT, CALLING HIM 'HITLER YOUTH'

Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, became a target for outrage after a video of him standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, surfaced in January. Sandmann was one of a group of students from Covington attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples' March on the same day.

Sandmann and the Covington students were initially accused of initiating the confrontation, but other videos and the students' own statements showed that they were verbally accosted by a group of black street preachers who were shouting insults both at them and a group of Native Americans. Sandmann and Phillips have both said they were trying to defuse the situation.

The lawsuit claims The Post "ignored the truth" about the incident and says the paper "falsely accused Nicholas of ... 'accost[ing]' Phillips by 'suddenly swarm[ing]' him in a 'threaten[ing]' and 'physically intimidat[ing]' manner ... 'block[ing]' Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips 'to retreat,' 'taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,' [and] chanting, 'Build that wall,' 'Trump2020,' or 'Go back to Africa,' and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct. ..."Sandmann's attorneys accuse The Post of publishing seven "false and defamatory" articles about the incident between Jan. 19 and 21 and claim the paper "knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media."

Earlier this month, Sandmann's attorneys sent preservation letters to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities and politicians -- including The Post, The New York Times, CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and actors Alyssa Milano and Jim Carrey -- the first step in possible libel and defamation lawsuits.

Last week, investigators hired by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington concluded that the students did not instigate the confrontation with Phillips. Bishop Roger Foys, who initially condemned the students' behavior, wrote in a letter to parents that they had been "placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening."

Fox News' Lucia I. Suarez Sang and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Daily Wire

Published  2 months ago

Lawyers representing Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann filed a massive $250 million lawsuit against The Washington Post on Tuesday and warned "this is only the beginning."

Daily Wire

Published  2 months ago

Attorneys for Covington Catholic High School junior Nick Sandmann, who was at the center of a social media firestorm last month, say they will begin filing defamation lawsuits against celebrities, social media figures, and news organizations, now that Sandmann has been "cleared of wrongdoing" in a confrontation between students and an elderly Native American protester by the Catholic Diocese of Covington.

The Diocese released their independent investigation into the confrontation yesterday, according to the Detroit Free Press, several weeks after a video went viral showing Sandmann coming face to face with Nathan Phillips as he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial waiting for a bus.

Social media users initially claimed that Sandmann, who was wearing a newly-purchased "Make America Great Again" hat, was "intimidating" Phillips, and that Covington Catholic students had mocked the protesters with racist slogans and gestures. Phillips also claimed that the students surrounded him, harassed him, and blocked his exit.

More complete video of the incident eventually emerged, showing that Phillips, not the students, instigated the confrontation, that he was never blocked from leaving, and that the students had themselves been the subject of racially-charged harassment from a different group of protesters shortly before Phillips and others appeared on the scene.

The Diocese hired Cincinnati, Ohio law firm Dressman Benzinger Lavell to conduct the investigation, which found no wrongdoing on the part of Sandmann or the other students. "Investigators interviewed 43 students and 13 chaperones, while examining 50 hours of internet activity including videos and news media reports. Nick supplied his publicized written statement, which investigators determined was accurate," according to The Washington Times.

"Our inquiry, conducted by a third party firm that has no connection with Covington Catholic High School or the Diocese of Covington, has demonstrated that our students did not instigate the incident that occurred at the Lincoln Memorial," Bishop Roger Joseph Foys of the Covington Diocese said in a statement posted to the Diocese website. "Our students were placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening. Their reaction to the situation was, given the circumstances, expected and one might even say laudatory."

Attorney L. Lin Wood, who is representing Sandmann, announced that the student's legal team would begin filing defamation lawsuits against roughly fifty potential defendants this week. Wood's firm previously sent "cease and desist" letters to dozens of celebrities, social media personalities, and news organizations who "reported" on the Covington Catholic incident. Those same letters demanded each potential defendant preserve any tweets or comments they had made on the confrontation, particularly those concerning Sandman.

“Nick Sandmann is 16 years old & has 2½+ years to identify accusers & sue them,” Wood said on Twitter, per The Washington Times. “No member of mainstream & social media mob who attacked him should take comfort from not being sued in initial round of lawsuits which will commence next week. Time is Nick’s friend, not his enemy.”

Likely recipients include, "CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Jim Carrey, Alyssa Milano, Bill Maher, and even Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren," according to entertainment news site, Bounding into Comics.

Sean Hannity

Published  2 months ago

2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren pulled-back the curtains on her long-promised “Universal Child Care” proposal Tuesday; with analysts confirming the plan would likely cost $70 billion per year.

“Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren proposed a universal child care plan that would limit American families’ expenses to 7 percent of income regardless of how many children they have in care — paid for by a tax on the ultra-wealthy,” writes Bloomberg.

Our kids are our future – but right now, we’re shortchanging them. Add your name to the petition: Every kid aged 0 to 5 in America should have access to high-quality, affordable child care and early learning. #UniversalChildCare https://t.co/zRPQmKAvYo

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 19, 2019

“Warren’s plan would cost taxpayers $70 billion per year, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics economists Mark Zandi and Sophia Koropeckyj,” adds the report.

Read the full report here.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

At a news conference after a rally in Las Vegas, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told KLAS’s 8 News NOW that Trump administration officials “have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th Amendment,” if they think it is needed.

Warren was asked about the CBS’s “60 Minutes” interview with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who claimed Justice Department officials discussed invoking the 25th Amendment.

Warren said, “I’m not the one who hangs out in his office and who sees him everyday and sees how well or how poorly he able to manage from day to day with the decisions he faces. But what I do know is there were a whole lot of people who do see him everyday who evidentially were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment.”

She continued, “My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

She added, “Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. Their loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”

discoverthenetworks

Published  2 months ago

Discover the Networks

02/18 4:19 pm

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio suggested on Sunday that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) shouldn’t be celebrating a failed deal for an Amazon headquarters in Queens.

De Blasio and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo had argued that the $2.8 billion in tax breaks offered to Amazon would bring in $27 billion in tax revenue.

De Blasio told Chuck Todd of NBC News’ Meet the Press the “$3 billion that would go back in tax incentives was only after we were getting the jobs and getting the revenue.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden told a German audience Saturday that America under the Trump administration is “an embarrassment.”

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, the 2020 presidential hopeful said, “The America I see values basic human decency, not snatching children from their parents or turning our back on refugees at our border. Americans know that’s not right. The American people understand plainly that this makes us an embarrassment. The American people know, overwhelmingly that it is not right. That it is not who we are.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) delivered an “inaugural address” in her Congressional District on Saturday afternoon, declaring that issues like the “right to migrate” will not be negotiable.

Addressing hundreds of supporters in the Bronx, the freshman lawmaker even had a swearing-in ceremony before uttering mostly platitudes.

Defending the Green New Deal after she and her office botched the rollout to much ridicule this week, the Democratic Socialist claimed that the “Green New Deal is the legislation of indigenous communities in the United states” and many others.

Saturday Night Live actor Alec Baldwin complained that President Trump is threatening his family on Twitter.

“Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC!” Trump had tweeted about the show ridiculing him. “THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!” he added.

“I wonder if a sitting President exhorting his followers that my role in a TV comedy qualifies me as an enemy of the people constitutes a threat to my safety and that of my family?” Baldwin responded on Twitter.

Disgraced former Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has been released from prison and sent to a re-entry program in New York.

Weiner was transferred to a residential re-entry center in Brooklyn to serve the remainder of his 21-month sentence for sending sexually explicit texts to a 15-year-old girl. Also known as halfway houses, they are intended to allow inmates to “gradually rebuild their ties to the community and facilitate supervising ex-offenders’ activities during this readjustment phase.”

He is set to be released from prison in May, about three months early, because of good behavior.

A heckler at a rally in Georgia Saturday for 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) repeatedly yelled, “Why did you lie?” while holding up a “1/2020th” sign in reference to Warren’s false claim of Native American ancestry.

The man heckled Warren as she told her backstory to a crowd of more than 1,000 supporters gathered at Central Gwinnett High School in Lawrenceville.

“Be easy, be easy,” Warren replied, while her supporters booed the heckler being led out of the campaign event.

weaselzippers

Published  2 months ago

Via The Hill:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, on Sunday said that Trump administration officials have a constitutional duty to invoke the 25th Amendment if they believe the president cannot fulfill his job, saying their loyalty should be to “the Constitution” and not to the president.

“My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th Amendment,” Warren said during a news conference after a rally in Las Vegas, according to The Nevada Independent.

“Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”

The comments from Warren came days after CBS aired a segment of an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which he said top Justice Department officials discussed launching an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment to force Trump out of office following former FBI Director James Comey’s firing in May 2017.

He also said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.

A spokesperson for McCabe walked back the remarks last week, saying that the former FBI official did not “participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions.”

bostonherald

Published  2 months ago

Taking a page from Barack Obama’s playbook, Joe Biden — ahead of his presidential announcement — goes to Europe and apologizes for America. Biden calls our country an “embarrassment” for separating families at the border crossing. Never mind that the Obama administration, in which Biden served as vice president, also ramped up deportations — sending millions of illegal immigrants back where they came from. Biden is actively trying to rewrite his legacy on immigration.

“The America I see values basic human decency, not snatching children from their parents or turning our back on refugees at our border. Americans know that’s not right,” the former vice president told the Munich Security Conference. “The American people understand plainly that this makes us an embarrassment. The American people know, overwhelmingly, that it is not right. That it is not who we are.”

Leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once favored funding for building a wall along the southern border. Now these liberals call it “immoral.” Some who are running for president even want to dissolve ICE.

Biden should not get away with slamming the kinds of policies the Obama administration also practiced.

When the issue of kids getting taken from their parents at the border first started being reported last summer one image of two kids in a cage circulated on the internet. Turned out to be a photo taken in 2014 when Obama and Biden were in office.

Currently Biden’s polling is quite strong over his potential opponents. So maybe the Democratic candidates who are farther left of Biden — Elizabeth Warren, for example — might want to remind voters what happened when Biden was Obama’s sidekick.

The 76-year-old certainly sounded like he was running during his speech.

“I have spent the better part of the last two years traveling throughout the United States of America, from Minnesota to Texas; from Boston to Birmingham,” Biden said. “I can assure you, that the American people, the ultimate wellspring of power in the United States of America, remain committed to engaging the world with decency and respect.”

If other Democratic candidates want Biden out of the way, it’s in their power to sideline him. Of course, that will also involve showing their own hypocrisy in relentlessly attacking Donald Trump for things they were silent about when Obama and Biden did them.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  2 months ago

It’s 2019 and we need some sort of law against public officials plotting coups.

After revelations that the FBI’s McCabe, a Clinton loyalist, and other DOJ officials had plotted a coup against the White House, Senator Elizabeth Warren endorsed a coup.

“My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th amendment,” Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, said after a rally in Las Vegas. “Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”

The law is very clear.

The 25th Amendment is not a means for officials, elected or unelected, to remove the President of the United States from office because you don’t like his policies.

That’s what impeachment is for.

Only Congress is meant to have that power.

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

True Pundit

Published  2 months ago

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was once again reminded that she exaggerated her Native American ancestry and was heckled during a campaign stop in Georgia.

While introducing herself to a crowd of about 1,000 supporters in a Lawrenceville high school, a man shouted “Why did you lie?” Warren replied back “Be easy, be easy,” while the crowd chanted her name and clapped.

The man was holding up a campaign sign that read “1/2020” as he was quickly escorted out of the building. Warren released DNA results examining her possible Native American ancestry last year in response to criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

The test revealed she could be anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,204th Native American. In early February, she apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking the test, which angered some tribal leaders who felt that being apart of the nation was rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests.

The incident came just days after Warren suggested President Trump “may not even be a free person” in 2020.- READ MORE

dailycaller

Published  2 months ago

Donald Trump, Jr. slammed Instagram on Monday after he said the social media platform forced him to delete a post he made about reports that Jussie Smollett’s alleged attack might have been staged.

“Are you kidding me @Instagram? You took down this post??? I mean I got a message you took one down but you wouldn’t even let me see it or give me a real reason so I assume it’s this one or one like it,” Trump Jr. captioned his post, along with a screenshot of a tweet he made referencing CBS News’ post alleging Smollett had paid two men to fake a hate crime against him. (RELATED: Chicago Police Say ‘Empire’ Actor Refuses To Turn Over Phone Records)

A spokesperson for Trump Jr. told The Daily Caller that Instagram forced the president’s son to delete his post about Smollett, otherwise he would be unable to access his account.

Trump Jr.’s deleted post sarcastically joked that the alleged attack against Smollett “seemed so real.” (RELATED: Authorities Seeking ‘Persons Of Interest’ In ‘Empire’ Star Jussie Smollett’s Alleged Attack)

“Shocked, I really thought MAGA folks (who are all over downtown Chicago) were waiting with a rope/bottle of bleach to ambush a [rich] guy at 2am in minus 4 degrees because those are conditions where all people go out for Subway rather than order Seamless,” he wrote, adding three eye-roll emojis at the end.

A short time later, Trump Jr. made another post about Hollywood actors reportedly deleting their posts calling for justice for the “Empire” actor following his alleged assault, in light of news reports that Smollett might have staged the attack.

“Speaks for itself. I hope @Instagram wont arbitrarily choose to censor this one,” Trump Jr. wrote.

A spokesperson for Instagram apologized for removing the post Monday and told The Daily Caller that it was removed “in error.”

“This image was removed in error and has now been restored, we apologize for the mistake,” the spokesperson said, declining to indicate why the post was flagged in the first place.

The post was restored to Trump Jr.’s account as of approximately 5:30 p.m. EST.

GOP spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany faced similar censorship issues with Instagram recently, as she was asked to delete a post about Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claims to Native American heritage.

McEnany’s post contained a copy of Warren’s Texas Bar registration in which she identified herself as an American Indian. The registration form also listed Warren’s old office address, which Instagram claimed to have incorrectly flagged as a home address.

“We incorrectly removed this image for including personal information, in this case the home address of someone else, which is not allowed on Instagram,” an Instagram spokesperson told the Caller. “On secondary review, we confirmed that the image included an office address and not a personal home address. The content has now been restored and we apologize for the mistake.”

vpr

Published  2 months ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders has confirmed to VPR that he is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

A heckler at Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) Saturday rally in Georgia repeatedly yelled, “Why did you lie?” while holding up a “1/2020th” sign.

The man, who was mocking Warren’s exaggerated claims of Native American ancestry, heckled the Massachusetts Democrat as she told her backstory to a crowd of more than 1,000 supporters gathered at Central Gwinnett High School in Lawrenceville, the Daily Mail reported.

“Be easy, be easy,” Warren replied, while her supporters booed the heckler being led out of the campaign event.

“It’s ok, we’re good,” the 69-year-old Democrat told her supporters, who repeatedly chanted her name.

Warren released results of a 2018 DNA test which revealed that she had between 1/64th and 1/1,1024th Native American ancestry after President Donald Trump and other Republicans criticized her for falsely claiming Native American ancestry.

Trump has frequently called Warren “Pocahontas,” most recently using the term to refer to Warren after she launched her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination this month.

The Massachusetts Democrat issued an apology in January to the Cherokee Nation for taking the DNA test shortly after the results of the DNA test went public.

Tribal leaders were angry with Warren for using a DNA test to back up her claims of Native American heritage because they felt being part of the tribe stemmed from traditions and laws dating back centuries instead of modern DNA tests.

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a statement. “Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America.”

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven,” he continued. “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

thenevadaindependent

Published  2 months ago

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday in Las Vegas that Trump administration officials have an obligation to invoke the 25th Amendment if they believe the president cannot fulfill his duties.

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 months ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders praised communism and “breadlines” from the start of his political activism career. Despite the hardships suffered in socialist nations, the 2020 presidential hopeful said in the video that bread lines are “a good thing.

Ironically, Sanders says he’s always supports American workers but opposes the “top 1%” of Americans, primarily wealthy business owners, who hire those workers.

I’m running for president because we need leadership that will fight for the interests of workers, not just the 1 percent. We must:

-Raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15

-Provide pay equity for women

-Guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2019

In a video from 1985, Sanders reveals he advised the government of Nicaragua.

Submit Your Survey ResponseDo you support the President's wall on the

border with Mexico?Donald J. Trump Action

“As a socialist, the word socialism does not frighten me and I think it’s probably fair to see the government of Nicaragua is primarily a socialist government,” he said.

Sanders also looked at the then USSR as a model for American governance.

He announced his 2020 run on Tuesday. So far, Sanders is up against Sens. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren in the pool of Democrats, many who espouse socialist ideologies.

Click here to read the full story.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

Former President Barack Obama has been working behind the scenes and met with four top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

While he has not commented publicly on the field of candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination, a new report from The New York Times states that Obama has been privately speaking with some of the leading contenders on how to defeat President Donald Trump.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

The Times reports that Obama-era advisers have been holding “auditions” with presidential hopefuls like “Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Sherrod Brown” about how they are planning to run their 2020 campaigns.

The former president is apparently using his advisers to serve as third-party interviewers, meaning they meet with a candidate and then report back to Obama.

Obama reportedly plans to sit back and “let the primary unfold as a contest of ideas” before making any official endorsements.

As noted by The Daily Wire, that doesn’t mean Obama will stay on the sidelines during the Democratic primaries, which will kick off in a few months.

Like failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, Obama has been taking audiences with prospective nominees and giving them advice on how to handle a national campaign. So far, he’s believed to have spoken to Harris, Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and some more unfamiliar potential candidates, like his former Attorney General, Eric Holder, who says he’s waiting until later in the process to decide whether to toss his hat into the ring.

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke admitted to Oprah, in his landmark interview with the daytime talk queen, that he’d pursued Obama’s advice in a sit down last year.

“During these informal conversations, usually at his office in Washington, Mr. Obama has offered a combination of supportive advice and sober warnings, cautioning candidates that running for president is a more punishing process than they could ever imagine, according to seven people who have spoken with him directly or were briefed in detail on the meetings,” the Times reports.

He’s mostly concerned, some sources told the Times, that candidates be ready and willing to “push back” on Donald Trump’s economic rhetoric, which Obama’s friends refer to as “bleak.” He’s still surprised, they say, that Trump won with a message of turning back the clock on Obama’s agenda, and doesn’t really understand how such an anti-Obama message resonated with Americans.

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

Obama’s current close aides admitted to the Times that the former president will speak to any 2020 Democratic contender who comes seeking his advice.

Wow, how arrogant!

While Obama certainly could help a candidate draw bigger crowds and get more attention on their campaigns, the former president is likely still reeling from his defeats in the 2019 midterm elections.

Obama campaigned with and fought hard for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum — both of which suffered bitter defeats.

The Horn News

Published  2 months ago

Want to ruin a liberal’s day? Break the news that President Donald Trump is OFFICIALLY on pace to win reelection next year! Sponsored: Is this Ronald Reagan’s secret cancer cure? When they stammer...

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 months ago

Donald Trump's re-election hopes are in big trouble as every declared or potential Democratic contender is winning over 50 percent of the vote.

Mail Online

Published  2 months ago

Chicago police want to speak to Jussie Smollett as investigators believe he paid two men - Olabinjo Osundairo (top inset) and Abimbola Osundairo (bottom inset) - to stage an assault against him.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

The Democratic presidential candidates are, with only a few exceptions, shunning the 'moderate' label as they court the party base.

Salon

Published  2 months ago

The Trump Organization scrapped plans for two new hotel chains targeting regions where President Trump is politically popular, citing the current political climate, the Washington Post reported.

The company, which the president still owns but is currently being run by his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, announced plans to build as many as 30 hotels under the lower-cost brands Scion and American Idea at a reception at Trump Tower soon after the president's inauguration.

Despite claims that the company was working on dozens of deals, not a single hotel has opened under the would-be new brands. Now Trump's children have announced that plans to move forward have been scrapped for the time being.

“We live in a climate where everything will be used against us, whether by the fake news or by Democrats who are only interested in Presidential harassment and wasting everyone’s time, barraging us with nonsense letters,” Eric Trump said in a statement Thursday. “We already have the greatest properties in the world and if we have to slow down our growth for the time being, we are happy to do it.”

Only one hotel was actually in the works, a 17-acre, 100-room hotel and conference center in Cleveland, Mississippi, through a partnership with local developers Dinesh and Suresh Chawla. That project was expected to cost the Trump Organization $20 million before they pulled out this week.

The New York Times reports that the company also faced local opposition for possible hotel deals in cities like Dallas and St. Louis, where potential partners were “scared away by the prospect of intense media coverage and legal and financial vetting.”

But more than future developments or tentative deals are at risk: The Trump Organization has repeatedly lost branding and management contracts with hotels in New York and overseas. The company was paid to have its name removed from two hotels in New York and Toronto. The majority owner of a Trump hotel in Panama ordered the the Trump name to be pulled off the entrance sign with a crowbar.

Trump is also facing multiple lawsuits accusing him of illegally profiting from the presidency. Two lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia allege that Trump is in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits gifts or payments from foreign governments. Lobbyists for countries like Saudi Arabia have bought up hundreds of rooms at Trump’s Washington hotel while doing business with the administration, The Post reported.

Earlier this month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., demanded answers from the Trump Organization on why T-Mobile executives booked more than 50 rooms at the hotel while asking the Trump administration to approve a merger with Sprint.

The Trump Organization has also begun to purge undocumented workers from at least five of its golf properties after it was reported that federal and local investigators are probing the company’s hiring of such workers.

Trump’s longtime former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who also served as an executive at the Trump Organization, is expected to testify before three different congressional committees about a wide range of topics before he heads to prison on numerous federal charges.

The Trump Organization has also taken a hit from a self-imposed ban on foreign developments. During the campaign, Trump bragged to the New York Times that his company was working on 120 deals in countries like Saudi Arabia, China and Israel but any such deals were scrapped after he won.

Even Trump has admitted that becoming president has cost him a lot of money, an ironic twist for a candidate who was accused of trying to profit from his presidential run and was reportedly considering using his campaign to launch his own television network.

“I lost massive amounts of money doing this job,” Trump told the Times two weeks ago. “This is one of the great losers of all time.”

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  2 months ago

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has announced that she will be officially running to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2020. To say that the Democratic field has become oversaturated with candidates is an understatement. At present, there are 11 Democrats who have officially announced their intentions to run for the White House. But, behind those confirmed candidates is an eclectic host of Democrats–and one independent, former Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz–who are all vying to be the kind (or queen) of an increasingly radical political hill.

As time progresses, the winnowing out process will begin. Unfortunately, with presidential campaigns starting earlier and earlier, the American people will be inundated with an increasing array of radical and, frankly, fantastical ideas posited by the Democrats, all in an effort to appeal to the most fringe elements of the increasingly-radical Democratic Party. Each one of these candidates have proven themselves to be hypocritical–in many cases backpedaling on previously reasonable policy positions, such as support for a border wall. To prove that the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential primary will be nothing more than the theater of the absurd, several confirmed candidates have had to march before the TV cameras, to engage in a litany of apologies for their previous, somewhat-reasonable, stances on issues ranging from gay marriage to immigration.

In order to be in the good graces of both the party leadership and most of the Democratic Party’s Leftist base, like the Communists of old, the candidates seeking high office must pass an ideological purity test. If they are found wanting–such as Howard Schultz, who was so frightened by the radicalism of the Left that he chose to forego the primary process entirely and contemplate running as an independent–they will be castigated as ideological deviants threatening the hive-like integrity of the all-important party, and cast aside before even being allowed to reach out to voters.

For example, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), has had to beg for forgiveness for her previous support of the Clintons. She had positioned herself as the rising star of the “Me Too” movement but now cannot have former President Bill Clinton’s past history of philandering interrupt her rise. Additionally, she accepted sizable campaign donations from the noted, serial sexual predator, Hollywood mogul, Harvey Weinstein for years. And, she previously supported sensible border controls! Now, however, she is attempting to airbrush her history in order to sanitize her past associations with the Clintons, and is calling to abolish the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau, so as to look “extra” hard-Left.

Another prime example is Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). After having benefited for years by claiming Native American heritage in order to gain a prestigious teaching position at Harvard University, it was recently revealed that she also lied on her Texas Bar application in the 1980s by–yet again–claiming Native American ancestry. She has none. And, Warren has gone to great effort to hide the fact that she was a staunch Republican for most of her adult life. Now, instead, she parrots the correct political line about respecting LGBTQ issues, abortion (infanticide), and unfettered taxation upon “the rich.”

Then, there is Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ), a.k.a. “Spartacus.” Here is a man possessed seemingly of modest intellect and infinite means. The scion of a wealthy family, Senator Booker also has a tenuous relationship with the truth. Before he ran for the United States Senate, in 2013, it was Booked who claimed that he had a “good friend” who went by the name of “T-Bone” from 2002-08. According to Booker’s long-time mentor, Clement Price, a professor of history at Rutgers University, Booked confided to him in 2008 that T-Bone, the drug-addled junkie who, at one point had threatened Booker with physical harm, and at another point, hugged him, was a “composite of multiple people” who Booker knew in Newark. Offended, Professor Price warned Booker against using that reference publicly again, and so after 2008, “T-Bone” was scrubbed from Booker’s speeches. The biggest complain that Clement Price had about Booker’s depiction of a poor, African-American drug user from the inner city was that it had a “southern-infected name,” thereby compounding negative stereotypes against black people.

During the outrageous Supreme Court nomination hearings of Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Booker was one of Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics. Booker was so filled with hatred for Kavanaugh, that he helped promote vicious fabrications about the renowned district judge turned-Supreme-Court-nominee, such as claims that a young Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist who used his “white privilege” and power as a man to coerce young women into forced sexual encounters. Senator Booker promulgated these vicious lies, along with his partner-in-slime, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), in a bid to be made captain of the raging “Me Too” movement.

Then, there is the aforementioned Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). A woman who was also born to upper-middle-class minority parents. Senator Harris also aspired to be the commanding of the new “Feminist” movement that had been pushing for the destruction of heteronormative masculinity and traditional American values. Harris viciously attacked Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in order to qualify her bona fides to the increasingly uber-radical Left. But, like her senate colleague, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris’ sincere support for the nostrum underpinning the Feminist cause–that women are exactly equal to men and do not need special treatment from them–is questionable at best.

You see, in order to catapult her career to the stratospheric heights Senator Harris has achieved, she slept with a married man 30 years her senior, who was also the mayor of San Francisco when Harris was just starting out as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco. Whatever merits Senator Harris may possess, they were colored by the fact that her year-long tryst with the former San Francisco mayor, Willie Brown, in 2002 led to her making critical personal contacts with wealthy Liberal political donors, and resulted in Harris’ nomination to a highly lucrative position on the city commission.

These are just a few of the Democratic Party’s frontrunners who’ve announced their intentions to run for the presidency in 2020. They are proven liars, chameleons, and panderers. More disturbingly, though, these individuals are “democratic socialists.” In other words, they’re both your classic archetypal politicians (in terms of their disposition) while acting as the most destructive radicals this country has ever seen in Congress. Meanwhile, President Donald J. Trump has offered an alternative vision that has already yielded historic gains for all Americans; he has resoundingly defeated ISIS and continues to rely upon American strength to rollback strategic rivals, like China and Russia, while holding the line in the ongoing Culture War against the radical Left.

The President has also helped to usher in an economic renaissance, that has seen the return of almost five percent GDP growth, has the lowest unemployment rates in recent history–especially for minorities–and in which the stock market continues to soar to historic highs (benefiting everyone).

The divide going into 2020 is clear: do you want a clear track record of reason, strong leadership, and continued success of the sort that President Trump has given us? Or, do you want to support the Democratic Party which espouses the most radical positions on everything from race to infanticide to sexual politics–whilst insisting that the United States isn’t great?

Townhall

Published  2 months ago

Can we blame U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), really?

Being ambitious and bold are not usually considered bad things. And her most ambitious, boldest proposal is not exactly without precedent. A decade of quantitative easing, along with trillion-dollar annual deficits run up recently by congressional Republicans, have laid the debt-ridden tracks upon which she hopes her massive Green New Deal will glide.

Oh, sure, we can derisively point to the now-withdrawn FAQ, which the congresswoman’s staff “accidentally” posted onto the Web and sent out to reporters. Keep your balance near those computer keyboards, folks.

Remember, those answers to a ton of questions about this complete re-making of the economy and society as a whole were “unfinished,” and “erroneously” said things, such as that the Green New Deal (GND) would be “guaranteeing . . . Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

Cut the green congresswoman some slack?

Slack or no, a reading of the actual totalitarian-esque not-yet-withdrawn House Resolution — calling for “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era” and labeling it “a historic opportunity” — makes it all clear. You cannot tell me that silly FAQ wasn’t spot on.

View Cartoon

Timing wasn’t helpful to Ocasio-Cortez’s rollout of the GND, either. Who knew that, days after the GND offered to Americans the notion that high-speed train travel could be a human (almost religious) right, deepest blue-state Governor Gavin Newsom stopped California’s high-speed train projects in their tracks, looking at costs and declaring, “Let’s be real.”

Nonetheless, the Green New Deal enthusiastically promises to “create millions of good, high-wage jobs . . . provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people . . . and . . . counteract systemic injustices.”

But what about afterlunch?

The GND must produce a plethora of new positions in its trumpeted new Green economy, of course, after wiping out millions of jobsin private health insurance (500,000) and the fossil fuel industry (10 million) and who knows where else.

Meanwhile, more than 100 Democrats in Congress, including four declared presidential candidates — Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — have rushed in to endorse the Green New Deal resolution for Uber-unlimited government.

The Republican reaction provides a different kind of comedy. Kindly old Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will generously bring the GND to a vote in the U.S. Senate, helping Ocasio-Cortez in the upper house — and putting Senate sponsor Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, and all other senators squarely on the record. Just as it should be.

Has Sen. McConnell turned over a new green leaf? Or is the Senate’s “Napping Turtle” merely maniacally morphing the GND from a harmless progressive virtue-signaling prop into a weaponized boomerang to bop Dems in their too-Bolshevikian behinds? The comeuppance would come, according to this rationale, when the public realizes just how humongously big Big Government would be if only Democrats were voting.

So let’s vote.

“I’m going to stand up for Ocasio-Cortez,” announced Sean Hannity on his Fox News program, responding to charges the GND wasn’t serious. “I think she’s probably the most honest extreme radical democratic socialist in the country, in that she’s saying what they have wanted to do, incrementally, for years.”

Give AOC her due. Just when Big Brother most needed a facelift, she has brought fresh young energy to tired, old-fashioned socialism.

And leading Democrats out of the shadows.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was once again reminded that she exaggerated her Native American ancestry and was heckled during a campaign stop in Georgia.

While introducing herself to a crowd of about 1,000 supporters in a Lawrenceville high school, a man shouted “Why did you lie?" Warren replied back “Be easy, be easy,” while the crowd chanted her name and clapped.

The man was holding up a campaign sign that read “1/2020” as he was quickly escorted out of the building. Warren released DNA results examining her possible Native American ancestry last year in response to criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

The test revealed she could be anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,204th Native American. In early February, she apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking the test, which angered some tribal leaders who felt that being apart of the nation was rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests.

The incident came just days after Warren suggested President Trump "may not even be a free person" in 2020.

Warren made the remark at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids in front of a crowd of several hundred. The Massachusetts senator argued that Democrats should resist the urge to respond to "a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly" when choosing whether or not to spar with Trump.

TRUMP NEEDLES NEW PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WARREN ON NATIVE AMERICAN CLAIMS

“Are we going to let him use those to divide us?” Warren said, according to a report from the New York Times.

“By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president,” she continued. “In fact, he may not even be a free person.”

When asked to clarify her statements, Warren pointed to the multiple open investigations into the president, which includes the Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two additional investigations led by federal prosecutors in New York and Democrats who won back the majority in the House of Representatives this past November.

Warren's comments came after President Trump took a jab at her on Twitter shortly after she announced her presidential campaign.

"Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President," he tweeted. "Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?"

POLITICO

Published  2 months ago

Bernie Sanders, inching closer to a second bid for the White House, has recorded a campaign video in which he says he is running for president in 2020, according to two people familiar with the spot.

It’s the latest sign the independent senator, the runner-up in the 2016 contest for the Democratic nomination, is nearing a presidential announcement.

Another hint that Sanders is getting closer to a launch: As POLITICO reported this week, the Sanders team has been interviewing people for top staff positions. Chuck Rocha, a political consultant who advised Sanders’ 2016 campaign, is expected to join him again if a second bid materializes.

It is unclear when, or even whether, the Sanders video will be released. It’s possible that Sanders could launch a 2020 campaign with an exploratory committee and then formally declare his candidacy later, a route other presidential candidates, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have taken.

Sarah Ford, a spokeswoman for Sanders, did not respond to a request for comment about the video.

Tim Tagaris and Robin Curran, two 2016 alumni who helped power Sanders’ successful small-dollar fundraising program, have agreed to join any second presidential campaign.

The Sanders team has also been in talks with Means of Production, the filmmaking company that created Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s viral campaign video during the midterm election, about a major 2020 role.

Meanwhile, the group founded by Sanders has been readying its members in case he runs. Our Revolutionrevealed its plans this weekend for the second phase of its campaign to draft Sanders into the presidential race. In a fundraising email sent to supporters, Our Revolution political director David Duhalde asked for donations to help fund phone-banking, door-knocking, volunteer trainings, and other outreach strategies.

“We’re organizing every day so that if and when Bernie announces,” he said, “our members and our groups can hit the ground running.”

Washington Examiner

Published  2 months ago

A man who abruptly walked out of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential announcement speech on live TV said he left because he “couldn’t relate or identify with the things that she was saying” and thinks Warren is focused too much on raising taxes and not enough on increasing opportunities for minorities.

Johnhaynes Honeycutt, 23, a small business owner from western Massachusetts, told the Washington Examiner that he went to Warren’s launch speech on Saturday expecting to agree with the senator, but instead, he was frustrated over her comments about taxes and equality for minorities.

“I was an Elizabeth Warren supporter,” said Honeycutt. “But I found at the event there wasn’t any way for me to identify with the things she was saying. That was why I walked out.”

Honeycutt, who is African-American, said he was a volunteer at the event and was placed directly behind the senator during her announcement speech. About 40 minutes into the event, Honeycutt, who was wearing a lime-green shirt and waving an American flag, can be seen whispering to a female friend standing next to him. The two then abruptly turn and walk out of the speech.

Honeycutt said he believed Warren focused too much on tax hikes for the wealthy and injustices in the prison system but not enough on expanding opportunities for minorities and for people who are struggling financially.

“She’s a small-town girl, and her family were blue-collar, and now she’s in this position [as a presidential candidate]. Rather than taxing and fighting the rich and using that as her only focus, she should be focusing on opening up opportunities for the people that are in the same position she was once in,” said Honeycutt.

“There are so many minorities that are doing well in this country, and I feel like Elizabeth Warren should be using her platform to illustrate that end of it,” he added.

Warren was nearly an hour late to her scheduled outdoor rally, which took place outside a former textile mill in Lawrence, Mass. Her supporters waited for her to appear as temperatures hovered around 32 degrees.

The speech focused on her theory that Washington politics are "rigged" by millionaires and lobbyists and designed to take advantage of low-income people and on the notion that wealthy people aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

"We need to take power in Washington away from the wealthy and well-connected and put it back in the hands of the people where it belongs," said Warren.

She said the federal government needed to "start asking the people who gained the most from our country to pay their fair share" and called for "an ultra-millionaires tax to make sure millionaires start doing their part for the country that made them rich."

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

The House of Representatives on Thursday night approved the border security package to avert another government shutdown that was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate earlier in the day -- even as another legal showdown looms over the White House's plan to declare a national emergency to secure more wall funding.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  2 months ago

Socialism Just Killed 25,000 Jobs In New York City, WATCH:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other lawmakers just proved what a harmful philosophy socialism, radical progressivism and hating the rich can do to a community.

Ocasio-Cortez and others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had spoken out against a planned Amazon headquarters in New York, in Long Island City.

And ultimately Amazon decided to pull out, figuring it wasn’t worth the hassle.

“While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.”

The company added that it is “disappointed to have reached this conclusion.”

The deal had been lauded as a major economic boost by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and others.

Ocasio-Cortez and Warren celebrated.

“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world,” she tweeted.

Democratic 2020 hopeful Elizabeth Warren also celebrated the decision, tweeting: “.@Amazon – one of the wealthiest companies on the planet – just walked away from billions in taxpayer bribes, all because some elected officials in New York aren’t sucking up to them enough. How long will we allow giant corporations to hold our democracy hostage?”

So what does that mean?

It means that Ocasio-Cortez just killed create 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers including many for her constituents and over $27.5 billion in tax revenue in 25 years for New York because she doesn’t like corporations.

Here’s her response:

She actually doesn’t seem to understand that a tax break is not the same as fungible money that can then be applied elsewhere. There isn’t money to apply elsewhere.

Sean Hannity

Published  2 months ago

Prominent Democrats -including Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez- hailed Amazon’s decision to abandon its New York City headquarters Thursday; bizarrely calling the move to cancel 25,000 new jobs a win for “everyday New Yorkers.”

“Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world,” tweeted Cortez.

Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world. https://t.co/nyvm5vtH9k

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 14, 2019

“One of the wealthiest companies on the planet – just walked away from billions in taxpayer bribes, all because some elected officials in New York aren’t sucking up to them enough. How long will we allow giant corporations to hold our democracy hostage?” added Warren.

.@Amazon – one of the wealthiest companies on the planet – just walked away from billions in taxpayer bribes, all because some elected officials in New York aren't sucking up to them enough. How long will we allow giant corporations to hold our democracy hostage? https://t.co/O9pz7en43B

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 14, 2019

Read the full story at Fox News.

TheHill

Published  2 months ago

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, on Sunday said that Trump administration officials have a constitutional duty to invoke the 25th amendment if they believe the president cannot fulfill his job, saying their loyalty should be to "the Constitution" and not to the president.

“My point here is that if they believe that Donald Trump cannot fulfill the obligations of his office, then they have a constitutional responsibility to invoke the 25th amendment,” Warren said during a news conference after a rally in Las Vegas, according to The Nevada Independent.

“Their loyalty under law is not to him personally. It is to the Constitution of the United States and to the people of United States.”

The comments from Warren came days after CBS aired a segment of an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which he said top Justice Department officials discussed launching an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment to force Trump out of office following former FBI Director James Comey's firing in May 2017.

A spokesperson for McCabe walked back the remarks last week, saying that the former FBI official did not "participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."

The Justice Department also issued a statement reiterating Rosenstein's denial of his offer to wear a wire, which Rosenstein called "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday vowed to "get to the bottom" of the alleged DOJ discussions about the 25th amendment.

"It's stunning to me that one of the chief law enforcement officers of the land, the acting head of the FBI, would go on national television and say 'Oh by the way, I remember a conversation with the deputy attorney general about trying to find if we could replace the president under the 25th amendment,' " Graham said on CBS's "Face The Nation."

"We're a democracy. People enforce the law. They can't take it into their own hands. And was this an attempted bureaucratic coup?"

Warren, a frequent Trump critic, said in a speech in Iowa last week that "by the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president."

Trump has repeatedly derided Warren during his time in office, often referring to her as "Pocahontas" while taking aim at her claims of Native American heritage.

Conservative Tribune

Published  2 months ago

Imagine you’re Joe Biden. You’re sitting there at night, eating a Swanson’s frozen dinner and drinking a Tab, aimlessly circling episodes of “Family Feud” in the TV guide. You casually reach for “the clicker,” start flipping through the channels, and you land on CNN. You’re saddened to learn that Larry King isn’t on anymore, and you’re about to switch over to reruns of “Maude,” but then you hear something you can’t quite believe.

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are all running for President.

“Man, that job was supposed to be mine,” you mutter. “But they told me it was Hillary’s turn. Now these crackpot hacks are going after it? Well…. NOT ON JOE BIDEN’S WATCH!”

You have name recognition, old allies, a magnificent toothy grin, internal party popularity, and you’re absolutely crushing all these far-left loons in the early polling. There’s only one thing you can do. It’ time to run for President…. almost.

As the Hill reports, Biden’s all but in.

TRENDING: Awesome: McConnell schedules Senate floor vote on AOC’s bonkers ‘Green New Deal’

“It’s pretty clear he’s jumping in,” said one source with direct knowledge of the would-be campaign’s moves, adding that Biden is “95 percent there.”

In recent days, Biden has sought to build support from grass-roots activists and is specifically asking donors for their help in the lead-up to an announcement, according to sources. In phone conversations, Biden has been making the case for why he’d be the best candidate in what is already a crowded field.

“Here are the facts: He’s coming off a great midterm,” said Robert Wolf, the Democratic mega-donor who confirmed he spoke to Biden on a 25-minute call on Wednesday.

“He has been the most popular surrogate during the midterms and one of the only surrogates that can play in all 50 states, and that has given him a lot of confidence that he can do well in a national election,” Wolf said.

“He can campaign everywhere and that’s certainly what many people would say is an incredible strength for him.”

As I’ve argued in the past, Joe Biden is currently the only Democrat who poses any sort of legitimate 2020 threat to the President. He’s easy to dismiss, but he’s someone that the GOP should be worried about. I’m not saying he’ll win, but he’s the one guy who can mount anything approaching dangerous campaign.

Conservatives may laugh at “Crazy Uncle Joe,” but the broader voting public views him favorably. He knows how to talk to the very same blue-collar voters who broke for Trump, and he has the air (if not the reality) of being a centrist at a time when people are sick of extremes. He can also, probably, find Wisconsin and Pennsylvania on a map, which is a bonus.

Yes, he has exploitable negatives, but so did Trump. Any limited baggage that Biden brings to the table pales in comparison to the steamer trunks our current President was hauling around. If Trump could overcome his less-dignified side, so can Biden.

Should the former VP pick a hard-left running mate, he could unite his fractured party and emerge as a genuine contender.

Don’t underestimate him.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

So, is Kamala doing well in her fundraising, or NOT? If you believe the leftist news media, then you would probably think she's the best fundraising machine since Beto O'Rourke. As reported by Politico: Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign

Dan Bongino

Published  2 months ago