Stories about
Kamala Harris


Kamala Devi Harris (/ˈkɑːmələ/, KAH-mə-lə; born October 20, 1964) is an American lawyer and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from California since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, she previously served as the 32nd Attorney General of California from 2011 to 2017.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Be under no illusions. The 77-year-old Senator from Vermont — the man who tried to bring Sandinista radio to Burlington, and the runner-up to Madame Smart Power for the Democratic nomination in 2016 — may very well be our next president. Bernie can win.

Some have said that Sanders overperformed in the 2016 Democratic primary because Hillary Clinton is a uniquely bad candidate. (Well, Rich Lowry has said that.) Sanders would fade under closer scrutiny. If it seems like he’s a real contender to grab the nomination, people will research the weird things he said in the 1970s and 1980s. Or they’ll get more accustomed to his personal quirks and affect. And then he’ll fade. A gap between the austerity of his democratic-socialist politics and his relatively comfortable personal lifestyle will overwhelm him.

My response: Where have you been the last four years? Polished candidates are out. Candid candidates are in. Voters can and will forgive their politicians almost any verbal lapses, so long as they believe the candidate doesn’t hate them. Sanders has the manners not to talk about huge swaths of the American public with disdain or contempt. We know he won’t repeat Mitt Romney’s “takers” moment. But, crucially, while Sanders will denounce racism and divisiveness, he won’t imply that Trump’s supporters are economically useless “deplorables.” Bernie is not “intersectional” — at least, not in the alienating way. His declared enemies are the millionaires and billionaires who buy up public policy. He will not be tempted, as some other candidates may be, to mimic or adopt the young-lefty-media views on intersectionality that remain avant-garde and alienating to key swing constituencies.

He’s not too far left for his party. The Democratic party is shifting left, according to Gallup polling, and the number of voters in it who call themselves liberal is rising over and above those who call themselves moderates and conservatives. Also, perhaps paradoxically, the flood of upper-middle-class educated voters into the Democratic party may be an advantage for Sanders, for these voters are the most attuned to their status inequality with the “billionaires” that are the target of Sanders’ campaign.

Sanders’ version of left-wing politics will ring out as almost nostalgic and comforting to voters lower on the socioeconomic scale. In fact, he may have more crossover appeal. The possibility of “Obama-Trump-Sanders” voters flipping Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is a real one. If the age of Clinton has officially ended in the Democratic party, Sanders offers the party a pre-Clintonite identity. His ambitions are to expand on the New Deal and the Fair Deal, to overcome the resistance that national health care met in the famous do-nothing Congress.

He’s more organized than he was last time. The Democratic primary is structurally more open to him. After his 2016 campaign, and in recognition of the energy, organization, and fundraising prowess he could bring to the party, he was brought in from the cold by leadership within the Senate Democrats. Unlike Trump, Sanders will come in with less friction from his own party, and a better chance of staffing the executive branch with people committed to his vision.

And he is well positioned to win the early states. Sanders raised $6 million on the day he announced. Even after a losing campaign, Sanders has had at least as large an effect on changing the orientation of his party, and the ideas that are discussable in it, as Donald Trump. Probably more so.

None of the “candidates of the future” has so far excited Democrat voters. Not Kamala Harris. Not Amy Klobuchar. The only serious polling challenge is Joe Biden, who is not currently in the race — perhaps because of his tendency to implode his own presidential candidacies, or other bad memories. The normal phalanx of high-powered Democratic consultants and policy entrepreneurs are not attaching themselves to Biden. Unlike Biden, Sanders never opposed student busing and doesn’t have a history of racially inflammatory comments.

Finally, and this is an important point: One of Sanders’ greatest advantages is his stubbornness. Sometime in the 1990s, Americans got used to the idea that politics is entirely phony. It’s all “spin.” All candidates “pivot.” Donald Trump has a very unfaithful relationship with the truth. At the same time, Trump’s character is transparent. People knew what kind of man Trump really was when they voted for him. Sanders’ lifelong adherence to social-democratic politics, his willingness to sit on the margins because of his fidelity to that vision, is his greatest asset. The whole world has grown soft and inconstant. Sanders is a rebuke to that. Republicans and conservatives need to take him very seriously.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Monday that President Donald Trump could lose the 2020 presidential election if his “personality” is the central focus of his campaign.

“The person who defines that race is going to win the race. If this is about Donald Trump and his personality, he isn’t going to win it,” Ryan said during a lecture in Vero Beach, Florida, according to TCPalm.com.

The former speaker said President Trump should focus on issues of substance, rather than not style, if he wants to beat his Democrat presidential rival next year. Potential Democrat presidential contenders include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Former Vice President Joe Biden and former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) are expected to launch campaigns in the coming weeks.

Ryan retired from the House in January after serving three years as the chamber’s speaker. Under his watch, Republicans lost a House majority in the 2018 midterm election.

President Trump and Ryan have had an uneasy relationship. In an interview with the Daily Caller, the president blamed Ryan for failing to help secure funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that, because I don’t like this bill,'” the president told the outlet.

“Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘Please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so, you know, we need the wall,” he added. “And then he went lame duck.”

Breitbart News published October 2016 audio of Ryan vowing to never defend President Trump following the release of the Access Hollywood tape. “His comments are not anywhere in keeping with our party’s principles and values,” Ryan said. “There are basically two things that I want to make really clear, as for myself as your Speaker. I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future. As you probably heard, I disinvited him from my first congressional district GOP event this weekend—a thing I do every year. And I’m not going to be campaigning with him over the next 30 days,” Ryan said during a conference call with Republican lawmakers.

Ryan was the vice presidential candidate for Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-UT) failed 2012 White House bid.

The Political Insider

Published  1 month ago

Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams may bypass a Senate run in 2020 and gun straight for the White House, announcing to supporters that she is seriously considering running for President. Abrams […]

NPR.org

Published  1 month ago

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign a sweeping order on Wednesday putting an executive moratorium on California's troubled death penalty, thus ordering a reprieve for the 737 people on death row.

The action suspends any further executions in California as long as Newsom is governor, his office said. But only California voters can repeal the death penalty, something they rejected narrowly three years ago.

The governor's office said Newsom's order will also immediately close the state's execution chamber at San Quentin Prison, but does not otherwise change any existing convictions or sentences — and will not lead to any death row inmates being released.

"Our death penalty system has been — by any measure — a failure," Newsom said in a written statement. "It has provided no public safety benefit or value as a deterrent. It has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. But most of all, the death penalty is absolute, irreversible and irreparable in the event of a human error."

The executive order will also argue that capital punishment is inherently unfair — applied more often to people of color and those with mental disability, according to an administration source.

A $853,000 upgrade of the execution chamber at San Quentin was completed in 2010, but it has never been used. The last execution in California occurred January 17, 2006, when Clarence Ray Allen, 76, was put to death. No executions have been carried out since.

A court-ordered moratorium on executions has been in place since February 2006, when a federal judge declared that California's lethal injection protocol was unconstitutional. A new execution protocol is under review, but Newsom's order will withdraw it.

Public opinion in California on capital punishment has shifted dramatically in the past few decades, with increasing numbers of people preferring the option of life without the possibility of parole to the death penalty in most cases.

However, in 2012 and again in 2016, Californian voters rejected ballot measures aimed at abolishing the death penalty. In 2016, as they narrowly rejected Proposition 62, voters narrowly passed a competing measure, Proposition 66, to expedite executions by shortening the appeals process. The California Supreme Court rejected part of that measure, while keeping most of it intact.

Newsom's action on the death penalty will no doubt place him in the national spotlight. What might have seemed avant-garde decades ago, isn't anymore: The governors of Colorado, Oregon and Washington state have issued moratoriums on executions in recent years.

Eighteen other states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty.

Nonetheless, Newsom's action is the latest indication of how California politics have changed around capital punishment.

In 1986, voters essentially recalled California Chief Justice Rose Bird and two other associate Supreme Court justices appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown over their opposition to the death penalty.

They were replaced by Brown's successor, Republican tough-on-crime Gov. George Deukmejian, a former attorney general who oversaw a vast expansion of California's prison system before he left the governor's office in 1991.

In 1990, Dianne Feinstein ran for governor as a pro-death penalty Democrat, views that were booed at the state Democratic Convention that year. She won her party's nomination nonetheless, losing to Republican Pete Wilson in the general election later that year.

In 1998, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gray Davis also ran as a supporter of capital punishment, easily crushing Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren in the general election.

But as the state's demographics have changed, so too have California's politics. In 2006, Jerry Brown was elected attorney general promising to uphold the state's death penalty even though he personally opposed it. Four years later San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, an ardent opponent of capital punishment, was narrowly elected as state attorney general.

Today, it's hard to find a mainstream Democrat in California who supports the death penalty. As for Newsom, highlighting the issue could elevate his national profile, but could also ignite a firestorm of protest by crime victim advocates, President Trump and others.

That seems to be a risk he's willing, if not happy, to take.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Every time Democrats tease another 'end of the presidency' bombshell, I laugh. I can’t keep track of the scandals meant to bring Trump's shameful end.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Every time Democrats tease another 'end of the presidency' bombshell, I laugh. I can’t keep track of the scandals meant to bring Trump's shameful end.

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.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris proposes to deal with global warming not by working on alleged problems but by changing “human behavior.” The California Democrat and 2020 presidential candidate offered an alarming prescription for climate change, suggesting a totalitarian fix to “save the future generations of our country and this world.” Harris seemed to reveal the progressive […]

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

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Monday that President Donald Trump could lose the 2020 presidential election if his “personality” is the central focus of his campaign.

“The person who defines that race is going to win the race. If this is about Donald Trump and his personality, he isn’t going to win it,” Ryan said during a lecture in Vero Beach, Florida, according to TCPalm.com.

The former speaker said President Trump should focus on issues of substance, rather than not style, if he wants to beat his Democrat presidential rival next year. Potential Democrat presidential contenders include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Former Vice President Joe Biden and former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) are expected to launch campaigns in the coming weeks.

Ryan retired from the House in January after serving three years as the chamber’s speaker.

President Trump and Ryan have had an uneasy relationship. In an interview with the Daily Caller, the president blamed Ryan for failing to help secure funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Well, I was going to veto the omnibus bill and Paul told me in the strongest of language, ‘Please don’t do that, we’ll get you the wall.’ And I said, ‘I hope you mean that, because I don’t like this bill,'” the president told the outlet.

“Paul told me in the strongest of terms that, ‘Please sign this and if you sign this we will get you that wall.’ Which is desperately needed by our country. Humanitarian crisis, trafficking, drugs, you know, everything — people, criminals, gangs, so, you know, we need the wall,” he added. “And then he went lame duck.”

Breitbart News published October 2016 audio of Ryan vowing to never defend President Trump following the release of the Access Hollywood tape. “His comments are not anywhere in keeping with our party’s principles and values,” Ryan said. “There are basically two things that I want to make really clear, as for myself as your Speaker. I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future. As you probably heard, I disinvited him from my first congressional district GOP event this weekend—a thing I do every year. And I’m not going to be campaigning with him over the next 30 days,” Ryan said during a conference call with Republican lawmakers.

Republican Whip

Published  1 month ago

Democrats promised results, restraint, and responsibility to the American electorate. What did we get instead? Liberal lunacy. Words have consequences. Speaker Pelosi and her party must be held accountable for the outrageous rhetoric of their members. Check below for a list of Democrats’ most careless quotes ↓   Sen. Bernie Sanders on climate change: “We […]

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.

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

twitchy.com

Published  1 month ago

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 month ago

Tucker Carlson is under fire for comments he made over 25 years ago. About women. On a radio show called “Bubba the Love Sponge…”  The KrASShats have initiated this attack (brothe…

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

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

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Several Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls -- including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and now Kirsten Gillibrand -- are defending their self-professed commitment to the ideals of the #MeToo movement against a series of accusations they recently mismanaged sexual-misconduct claims against their subordinates.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

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

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.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.

Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today.

Sipila's reforms "intended to remove power from the 295 municipalities that currently oversee health and social care, and place responsibility within a leaner, more efficient system of 18 elected regional authorities," according to the Journal. The prime minister also wanted patients to be able to choose from a range of public and private providers.

Sipila said "there's no other way for Finland to succeed" besides these reforms, which could have led to $3.4 billion in savings for the government.

Finland's aging population is increasing the financial strain on its health care system. From a BBC News report:

As an increasing number of people live longer in retirement, the cost of providing pension and healthcare benefits can rise. Those increased costs are paid for by taxes collected from of the working-age population – who make up a smaller percentage of the population than in decades past.

In 2018, those aged 65 or over made up 21.4% of Finland's population, the fourth highest after Germany, Portugal, Greece, and Italy, according to Eurostat.

Finland's welfare system is also generous in its provisions, making it relatively expensive. Attempts at reform have plagued Finnish governments for years.

Reuters reports that soaring treatment costs and longer life spans have particularly affected Nordic countries.

"Nordic countries, where comprehensive welfare is the cornerstone of the social model, have been among the most affected," according to Reuters. "But reform has been controversial and, in Finland, plans to cut costs and boost efficiency have stalled for years."

Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care. Finland's crisis in particular comes as calls for universal health care have grown louder among Democrats in the United States.

Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) "Medicare for all" proposal would cost the U.S. over $32 trillion over ten years, according to an analysis by the Mercatus Center. It would also require enormous tax increases as "a doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan."

Another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), has called for eliminating private health insurance, although a spokesperson suggested she is open to multiple paths to "Medicare for all."

Self-described democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) has also called for "Medicare for all."

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58 percent of Americans oppose "Medicare for all" if told it would eliminate private health insurance plans, and 60 percent oppose it if it requires higher taxes.

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

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.

Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today.

Sipila's reforms "intended to remove power from the 295 municipalities that currently oversee health and social care, and place responsibility within a leaner, more efficient system of 18 elected regional authorities," according to the Journal. The prime minister also wanted patients to be able to choose from a range of public and private providers.

Sipila said "there's no other way for Finland to succeed" besides these reforms, which could have led to $3.4 billion in savings for the government.

Finland's aging population is increasing the financial strain on its health care system. From a BBC News report:

As an increasing number of people live longer in retirement, the cost of providing pension and healthcare benefits can rise. Those increased costs are paid for by taxes collected from of the working-age population – who make up a smaller percentage of the population than in decades past.

In 2018, those aged 65 or over made up 21.4% of Finland's population, the fourth highest after Germany, Portugal, Greece, and Italy, according to Eurostat.

Finland's welfare system is also generous in its provisions, making it relatively expensive. Attempts at reform have plagued Finnish governments for years.

Reuters reports that soaring treatment costs and longer life spans have particularly affected Nordic countries.

"Nordic countries, where comprehensive welfare is the cornerstone of the social model, have been among the most affected," according to Reuters. "But reform has been controversial and, in Finland, plans to cut costs and boost efficiency have stalled for years."

Similar problems are bedeviling Sweden and Denmark, two other countries frequently held up as models to follow on health care. Finland's crisis in particular comes as calls for universal health care have grown louder among Democrats in the United States.

Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) "Medicare for all" proposal would cost the U.S. over $32 trillion over ten years, according to an analysis by the Mercatus Center. It would also require enormous tax increases as "a doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan."

Another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), has called for eliminating private health insurance, although a spokesperson suggested she is open to multiple paths to "Medicare for all."

Self-described democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) has also called for "Medicare for all."

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58 percent of Americans oppose "Medicare for all" if told it would eliminate private health insurance plans, and 60 percent oppose it if it requires higher taxes.

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

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris on Friday held up Paul Manafort's relatively lenient prison sentence as evidence that the criminal justice system is “broken in America.”

The California Democrat said during a presidential campaign stop in South Carolina that the former Trump campaign chairman’s four-year sentence for tax and bank fraud was emblematic of major discrepancies in the justice system between punishments for white-collar crimes versus other nonviolent crimes.

The former prosecutor ripped into Manafort, bemoaning that someone “who’s committed fraud, who’s clearly been involved in crimes that should rightly be thought of as against the very being of who we are and what is in our collective best interest gets off with 47 months” in prison, while others get harsher sentences for marijuana possession.

Manafort’s sentence, of which he has already served nine months, came as a surprise to some given that federal sentencing guidelines recommended anywhere from 20 to 24 years behind bars for the crimes Manafort has been convicted of, a punishment that would have amounted to a life sentence for the 69-year-old.

U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said Thursday he considered those guidelines “excessive” and “way out of whack” with what others faced with similar charges serve.

In Manafort’s case, Harris countered Friday, “one, the sentence does not match the crime. Two, we are looking at further evidence in America’s judicial system of absolute unfairness.”

She told the crowd at a Myrtle Beach restaurant that white-collar criminals should be held to the same standard as other criminals.

“People who commit white-collar crimes, they should be prepared to bring their toothbrush and spend as much time behind bars as anybody else,” she said to raucous applause.

Harris, who’s placed an emphasis on criminal justice reform as part of her campaign, acknowledged that there are too many who are “rightly distrustful” of government institutions, calling the loss of trust a “tragedy.”

“When we have a justice system that does not mete out justice equally that’s the beginning of a real downward slope,” she told the crowd. “And so it’s a statement about what we need to do to restore our concepts of justice in this country and it is a statement that we must be vigilant and speaking loudly whenever we see these injustices occur.”

When a member of the audience yelled out that “white people” and “rich people” should not be exempt from her call to action, Harris responded: “Everyone should be treated equally under the law, no question. That’s right."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

In a stunning blow to the unhinged race-obsessed political left, a grand jury has hammered hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett with sixteen felony counts that could put the actor behind bars for years. The star of

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.

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.

CNBC

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) speaks at his 'Conversation with Cory' campaign event at the Nevada Partners Event Center on February 24, 2019 in North Las Vegas, Nevada.

Senator Cory Booker introduced a sweeping criminal justice reform bill on Thursday, becoming the first 2020 presidential candidate to put forth a detailed plan to amend the country's prison system.

The bill, known as the Next Step Act, includes a collection of bold reforms that largely jump past the incremental progresses of previous bills like 2018's landmark First Step Act, which Booker co-sponsored.

"It's been 75 days since the First Step Act was signed into law, and already, it's changing lives," the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement. "But the First Step Act is just as its name suggests - it is one step on the long road toward fixing our broken criminal justice system."

The bill would slash mandatory minimum sentences in half for nonviolent drug offenders, making the longest mandatory sentence 10 years instead of 20 years. The First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders but not for first-time offenders.

The bill would also completely eliminate the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine sentences, which was first reduced in 2010 from 100:1 to 18:1 and applied retroactively in the First Step Act. Racial minorities are disproportionately sentenced for crack cocaine offenses: In fiscal year 2017, 94 percent of offenders were black or Hispanic, according to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Booker also places special attention on formerly incarcerated individuals, including measures in the bill that would make it easier for those with criminal records to find jobs and obtain professional licenses. The bill would also reinstate voting rights to former felons nationwide.

Several of the reforms in the Next Step Act overlap with the marijuana legalization bill Booker introduced just last week. Both bills call for legalizing the drug nationwide, expunging criminal records for those charged with marijuana possession and investing money into communities harmed by drugs.

Criminal justice reform is shaping up to be a major issue during the 2020 presidential campaign. Bipartisan support for the issue is at its highest level in recent years, as evidenced by the passing of the First Step Act with enthusiastic support from President Donald Trump.

"People thought that passing the First Step Act was impossible, but we proved them wrong. We can do that again," Booker said at a press conference announcing the bill.

None of Booker's fellow Democratic presidential contenders in the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill yet. Two of the declared candidates, senators Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, are former government prosecutors.

Neon Nettle

Published  1 month ago

Former VP 95% decided to run against president, but fears he will 'play too rough'

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

President Trump in his 2019 State of the Union address pointed to a near record low unemployment and robust hiring in sectors that were long depressed, such as manufacturing, are now part of his economic track record.

“African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all reached their lowest levels ever recorded. Unemployment for Americans with disabilities has also reached an all-time low” he said.

But for Democrats, like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), that’s not a good news. In a recent campaign rally, she tried to “explain” that lower unemployment numbers mean “folks are working 2-3 jobs to pay their bills.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) wrongly thinks that the unemployment rate is low because people work multiple jobs.

When @AOC made a similar statement, Politifact rated it “Pants On Fire.”

pic.twitter.com/1up4LuDsOd

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 9, 2019

Seems like Sen. Harris just borrowed a line from her fellow Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who last July said that: “We look at this figures and we say ‘oh unemployment is low’, ‘unemployment is fine’…but Unemployement is low because everyone has two jobs…Unemployment is low because people are working 60-70-80 hours per week and can barely feed their kids.”

Socialist Ocasio-Cortez confronted with booming economy & low unemployment numbers.

She says "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs” and "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.” pic.twitter.com/dxIqwqZn89

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) July 16, 2018

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  1 month ago

Who will win in the controversy over Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments?

Well, for now, looks like all Democrats are losing because they can’t put out a simple anti-Semitic resolution. If you can’t even do that, how can you ask anyone to invest any effort in you to run anything or vote for you for the presidency?

Candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) couldn’t even bring themselves to specifically condemn her remarks. Harris even came to her defense saying that condemning her might “put her at risk.”

Now it looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who started the whole idea of the resolution is backing down a bit, saying that she didn’t belief that Ilhan Omar’s comments were “intentionally” anti-Semitic.

She’s also saying that there wouldn’t be a vote on the resolution this week because the House Foreign Affairs Committee is going to work on it more.

Rep. Eliot Engel, who is the head of the Committee, condemned some of Omar’s remarks last week.

This week, he too seems to be backing off a bit, saying he wasn’t looking to have her kicked off the Committee, “I’m looking to get rid of anti-semitism, not looking to punish anybody.” Instead he said, “I’m hoping that she’ll grow and she’ll change.”

Isn’t she already a grown woman? Why are you treating her like a child? And how many times is this now?

Democrats are digging their own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of themselves with the epic fail that is this resolution saga.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

Democrats have completely shot themselves in the foot over their “Anti-Semitic” resolution.

It’s taken them days just to try to construct what they want to say which shouldn’t take anytime at all.

Protip? “We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms including the remarks made by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).”

If they’d done that, it still wouldn’t have been a substantive action like kicking her off the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Except they couldn’t even do that, they had to try to water it down by adding a more general condemnation of hate and of Islamophobia, reportedly.

And there was no mention of Omar.

So essentially it’s a toothless general comment as it stands in draft now.

But even so, the attempt has now antagonized the far left and defenders of Omar, one of whom is now calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “white supremacist.”

What irony that the Democrats are now getting hoisted on their own petard.

First, Linda Sarsour attacked Pelosi saying she was a “white feminist” helping to support the patriarchy, basically demeaning white feminists, which basically is the majority of Sarsour’s Women’s March contingent. Way to rip your own folks.

Now, another far-left Democrat is going after Pelosi.

From Daily Wire:

Anger at Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for daring to allow a floor vote on a measure condemning anti-Semitism spread beyond progressive Democrats in Congress late Tuesday, when a former candidate for the “Justice Democrats” — the same arm that elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — called the Speaker a “white supremacist.”

Saira Rao, a “Justice Democrat” who ran for office in Colorado (and lost), has been active in supporting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) following an outcry over clearly anti-Semitic statements Omar made last week at an event for progressive activists. Tuesday night, she weighed in on the debate over whether House Democrats should adopt a measure condemning anti-Semitism by comparing Pelosi to infamous white supremacist David Duke.

“I am going to unfollow anyone who posts anything positive about Nancy Pelosi,” Rao tweeted. “Nancy Pelosi is a white feminist. White feminists are white supremacists. Nancy Pelosi is a white supremacist. And if you idolize Nancy Pelosi, you may as well declare allegiance to David Duke.”

Rao praised Sarsour’s statement earlier in the day, which said that white feminists are part of the “patriarchy.”

Way to toss most of your supporters and make them evil.

Now many other Democrats, like presidential candidates Kamala Harris, aren’t condemning Omar’s comments either. Harris said putting Omar “in the spotlight” might “put her at risk.”

This might be funny that they were tearing each other apart if it wasn’t so sad that they can’t make a simple resolution against anti-Semitism and deal with an anti-Semitic member.

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!

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The political party that’s long attracted the support of 75 percent of American Jews has shown this week that their leaders won’t stand up for the community when it matters.

There’s a revolution underway. American Jews, who have been an integral part of the Democratic coalition for more than a century, are currently being made uncomfortable in their political home. And the whole thing is being live-tweeted.

What’s shocking isn’t that there are anti-Semites (and those willing to tolerate them) on the political left. There are Democratic members of Congress with ties to Louis Farrakhan, after all. But leftist anti-Semitism, which has continuously bubbled just below the surface for many years — and too often been blithely ignored — has burst into full view this year.

First there was the Women’s March subsumed by anti-Semitism, then the whole brouhaha over Sen. Marco Rubio’s anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions bill, and now there’s Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who simply can’t stop slandering American Jews and Zionists, two overlapping but not identical groups.

The Democratic National Committee felt compelled to pull their partnership with the Women’s March because it had become so toxic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also managed to quickly formulate a leadership response condemning anti-Semitism when Omar created a stir with her hateful words just last month. But now something has clearly shifted.

Pelosi’s attempt to lead her caucus in a symbolic vote condemning anti-Semitism, which should have been a gimme, became a political football. Rather than rally to support long-time Jewish colleagues, who have expressed serious concerns about Omar’s anti-Semitism, members are mutinying in support of Omar.

Pelosi was recently lauded for her discipline and leadership. Yet she seems to have lost control of her own members. So she can’t enforce Rep. Eliot Engel’s demand for an apology after Omar’s latest “vile anti-Semitic slur,” accusing American Jews of dual loyalty, let alone strip Omar of her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. House Republicans would support Omar’s removal, but it’s increasingly clear that many Democrats do not. Just like Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Omar isn’t going anywhere.

From the outside, it appears we are watching a revolution in real-time. Pelosi and other long-time leaders are attempting to maintain power amidst a storm started by a freshman who’s been in office for two short months. (Doesn’t it feel longer?)

There have always been members of Congress who’ve taken a tough line on Israel. What Omar wants is different, though. She wants to make Congress a safe space for expressing Jew hatred, and based on the outpouring of support for her this week, there’s Democratic support for that. Omar has also had back-up from powerful progressive allies outside Congress like Linda Sarsour, who took to Facebook to blast Pelosi as “a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men.”

Those Democrats who want to uphold traditional norms, including the marginalization of anti-Semitism, are fighting an uphill battle. But is that battle still raging off-camera, or have Democratic leaders already surrendered?

It’s concerning that in less than one week, Pelosi has been reduced to pretending that Omar’s tweets were not “intentionally anti-Semitic,” while Majority Leader Steny Hoyer strained credulity, saying that Omar’s not an anti-Semite. That they lack the support of their members to speak truthfully on this issue, let alone take any decisive action, is a glaring problem.

And to be clear, the problem is not the use of “tropes.” Words are not violence, but hateful speech, especially from people in positions of authority, can lead to harmful real-world actions.

Democrats like to remind us of that link in other settings, but not here. Consider Sen. Kamala Harris’ statement: “I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.” Omar is a public figure, so fair game for criticism, as Harris should know. It is striking, though, that Harris expresses zero concern about American Jews’ safety, a mere four months after 11 American Jews were massacred while praying in Pittsburgh.

This fight has been a long time in the making, but things are changing quickly. It’s been only two years since Jewish women felt the need to publicly make the case that one could be both a Zionist and a feminist. Is it now time for a debate about whether one can be both a Jew (who believes in Israel’s right to exist) and a Democrat?

The political party that’s long attracted the support of 75 percent of American Jews has shown this week that their leaders won’t stand up for the community when it matters. It’s quite breathtaking, really. It’s not only bipartisan support for Israel that’s being debunked as much weaker than advertised, but also, quite troublingly, an acceptance of Jew hatred directed at fellow Americans. For the record, that hatred is not only being tolerated but embraced by congressional Democrats.

The “allyship” progressives always cheer is proving to be a one-way street. Jews, who have traditionally voted for Democrats, are feeling betrayed, abandoned, and even politically homeless.

This path leads toward disaster. For Jews to truly have a home in America, anti-Semitism must be marginalized by both major political parties. And if the Democrats succumb to Omar’s anti-Semitism, the only winners will be bigots.

Melissa Langsam Braunstein, a former U.S. Department of State speechwriter, is an independent writer in Washington DC and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, National Review Online, and RealClearPolitics, among others. She has appeared on EWTN and WMAL. Melissa shares all of her writing on her website and tweets as @slowhoneybee.

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

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.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is almost totally prepared to announce his bid for the White House, according to media reports. There’s just one big thing keeping him from pulling the trigger: concerns that President Donald Trump will play too rough during the general campaign.

Biden’s chief strategist, Steve Ricchetti, is signaling that the Delaware Democrat is about 95 percent committed to running, officials connected to the former vice president told The News York Times Thursday. There are several issues tossing a monkey wrench into Biden’s plans, however, chief among them is concern that Trump will exploit his personal life.

“I don’t think he’s likely to stop at anything, whomever he runs against,” Biden told TheNYT on Feb. 26, referring to the president’s street brawling style of campaigning. He is worried about putting his “family through what would be a very, very, very difficult campaign.” Biden believes Trump might try to exploit his tumultuous private life — his son’s checkered romantic history could be the chief reason.

Operatives worry Hunter Biden, the former VP’s 49-year-old son, would inevitably become an ongoing issue if Biden were to join an increasingly crowded presidential race. Hunter’s romantic relationship with his brother’s widow created headlines throughout the past several years, though most of the reports went under the radar during Biden’s tenure in the Obama administration.

Biden’s other son, Beau, died of brain cancer in May 2015. Hunter, who was married at the time, became involved shortly thereafter with his older brother’s widow, Hallie. Hunter’s wife later claimed in divorce papers that her husband wasted money on prostitutes, strip clubs, and drugs, among other vices. Biden also worries jumping into the race would be a fool’s errand.

“What I don’t want to do is take people’s time, effort and commitment without there being a clear shot that I could be the nominee,” he said at a Feb. 28 event in Delaware. Democrats are meanwhile getting impatient waiting for the 76-year-old politician to make his decision.

He extended an end-of-2018 timeline into January and then into March. Biden is enjoying wide support from the Democratic base, perhaps as a result of his connection with former President Barack Obama. “People underestimate the intensity of his support and how broad it is,” John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster, said in an interview with the NYT.

Biden still has the support of black people (70 percent), white people without a college education (71 percent), and white people with a college education (83 percent), according to an NPR poll in January. His numbers are sky-high compared to Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.

Results from the NPR poll come off the heels of a Morning Consult poll in December 2018 showing Biden leading the pack of prospective Democratic nominees in 2020. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders followed a close second in the poll, drawing 19 percent among Democrats.

GOP

Published  1 month ago

You probably haven’t heard about Kamala Harris’ massive lapse in judgement when she was San Francisco’s district attorney, but it was just one of the mismanagement crises that’s starting to do serious damage to her 2020 campaign.

Crime lab scandal rocked Kamala Harris’s term as San Francisco district attorney https://t.co/H5AKbjZaTG

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 7, 2019

Quick Recap: On Harris’ watch, a crime lab technician snorted evidence that was being used to convict drug offenders. Harris was required to notify defense attorneys, but she refused. It caused so much “turmoil” that she was forced to dismiss 1,000 cases, including many against criminals who were already behind bars. A judge placed blame directly on Harris, excoriating her for failing to develop a policy – after six years in office – to notify defendants of witness or evidentiary problems, which the law required.

Confronted by The Washington Post, Harris repeated a now-familiar line: “The buck stops with me.”

Another Crisis of Mismanagement: When Kamala Harris was California’s attorney general, her top aide of 14 years harassed a staffer, resulting in a $400,000 settlement. (She only fired the aide in December after a reporter found out.) In total, and her office paid more than $1 million for such settlements.

Wait… There’s More: Criticized during her campaign launch for her criminal justice record, Harris shot back: “The bottom line is the buck stops with me.”

Bottom Line: Kamala Harris has been crystal clear. She is responsible for a growing pattern of mismanagement throughout her career. But if she didn’t have good judgement as a district attorney or as attorney general, how can she think she’s qualified to run the federal government?

Elections Democrats

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.

Gatestone Institute

Published  1 month ago

The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those -- intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What "hate crimes" are not already covered by the

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.

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

Mediaite

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has issued a statement calling efforts to issue a veiled rebuke of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) “wrong” and warning that such a rebuke — as proposed by Democratic leadership — would ultimate “stifle” Middle East debate.

“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,” Sanders said in the statement published on Wednesday. “Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.

The statement continues on: “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.”

A scheduled vote on a House Resolution condemning anti-Semitism was postponed on Wednesday and is reportedly causing some heated debate behind closed doors among Democrats.

President Donald Trump has also criticized Omar.

It is shameful that House Democrats won’t take a stronger stand against Anti-Semitism in their conference. Anti-Semitism has fueled atrocities throughout history and it’s inconceivable they will not act to condemn it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 6, 2019

However, in light of the debate over Omar’s stance, other 2020 candidates have also come out in defense of Omar. On Wednesday, Sen. Kamala Harris issued a statement of her own, noting that putting the spotlight on Omar may put her “at risk” and calling for a “two-state” solution.

NEW: @KamalaHarris on Rep. Ilhan Omar and the proposed House resolution condemning anti-Semitism pic.twitter.com/oMufqbDjMZ

— Ryan Brooks (@ByRyanBrooks) March 6, 2019

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

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to confirm Allison Jones Rushing to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, handing the 36-year-old judge a lifetime seat on one of the nation’s top courts. While Rushing made headlines for becoming one of the youngest and least experienced members of the federal judiciary, she also garnered attention because of her decadelong association with one of the most well-known anti-gay groups.

“Throughout her brief legal career, Allison Rushing has supported and closely associated herself with one of the most extreme anti-LGBT organizations operating in this country today, the Alliance Defending Freedom,” Ian Wilhite, a spokesperson for LGBTQ legal group Lambda Legal, said in a statement shared with NBC News. “Rather than disqualifying her from consideration, this aspect of her record seems to have made up for all of the other deficiencies in her record.”

The 4th Circuit Court, which sits one level below the Supreme Court, covers West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Lambda Legal estimates there are roughly 1 million LGBTQ people who live in those states.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, has a long track record of opposing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Founded in 1994, the conservative Christian legal group was designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBTQ ideology, including its efforts to ban same-sex marriage and recriminalize homosexuality domestically and abroad.

“They’ve been on the opposing side of almost every issue area we have litigated over the past 10 years,” Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, said.

Over the past decade, the ADF helped lawmakers draft same-sex marriage bans passed in states such as Idaho and South Carolina, and, more recently, so-called bathroom bills targeting transgender people in states like North Carolina.

After much of the ADF’s legal work on gay marriage was wiped out by the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the United States, the group shifted its advocacy toward “religious liberty” cases. It argued successfully that the conservative craft company Hobby Lobby and corporations like it can refuse to insure contraceptives for their employees. The group also won a narrow Supreme Court victory for Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs.

In an almost 70-page, publicly available questionnaire, in which Rushing answered queries from senators as part of the confirmation process, the Alliance Defending Freedom” and ADF were mentioned 138 times. In response to several questions regarding her ties to the group and its anti-LGBTQ legal agenda, Rushing provided vague responses and distanced herself from the organization.

“As regards the alleged positions attributed to ADF, I am not aware of all of ADF’s policy or litigating positions, and for those positions of which I am aware, I do not recall when I learned of them,” Rushing said in response to four separate questions about the group’s stance on LGBTQ issues. “I do not work for ADF or have any official role with them.”

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., asked if Rushing had ever in any way lent assistance to the ADF’s advocacy against same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights, to which Rushing responded “no.”

While Rushing does not hold an official role with the ADF, she interned for the group as a law student in the summer of 2005, authored amicus briefs for clients in support of the ADF’s positions on at least three cases, co-authored a legal brief about religious liberties with an ADF attorney, and spoke at ADF events at least once a year from 2012 to 2017.

In response to several questions regarding the ADF’s “hate group” label, Rushing provided the same response.

“Hate is wrong, and it should have no place in our society,” she wrote. “In my experience with ADF, I have not witnessed anyone expressing or advocating hate. A number of leading Supreme Court practitioners at well-regarded national law firms work with ADF. Members of Congress, including members of this Committee, have filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court supporting ADF’s positions. I do not think members of this Committee or large reputable law firms would work with a hate group. I certainly would not.”

To a question about whether she would recuse herself from ADF-related cases, Rushing declined to commit: “I would determine the appropriate action with the input of the parties, consultation of these rules and ethical canons, and consultation with my colleagues.”

When asked what LGBTQ issues could appear before the 4th Circuit, Lambda Legal’s Wilhite and Buchert said the court could one day hear cases on President Donald Trump’s transgender military ban, the Pentagon’s new “deploy or get out” policy that advocates say forces people living with HIV out of the military, and the constitutionality of other “bathroom bills” that are routinely proposed in state legislatures.

In several answers, Rushing said Supreme Court precedents on LGBTQ issues like United States v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S., are all “settled law” for lower courts like the 4th Circuit.

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.

RedState

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris must be the most hands-off boss ever, if the statements her office issues after each potentially sticky issue comes to light are true.

After it was discovered that staff attorneys at the California Department of Justice argued in a prison overcrowding case that they needed to keep certain prisoners who were otherwise eligible for parole locked up because their cheap labor was needed in kitchens, gardens, and fighting fires, then-AG Harris claimed that she had no idea such an argument was made by her staff, vowed to find out who allowed it, and directed them to not do it again.

When Don Rosenberg and his wife badgered Harris to explain why her office had allowed Roberto Galo, an illegal alien who repeatedly drove without a license and was suspected of DWI when he plowed down and killed Rosenberg’s son, to plead to misdemeanor charges and serve only 45 days in jail, Harris’s assistant sent a generic sympathy response and claimed to not know what happened in the case.

Most recently, when in response to the Sacramento Bee’s Public Records Act request it was revealed that $400,000 was paid in 2017 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit involving Harris’ senior adviser (and decades-long confidante) Larry Wallace, Harris said she was not aware of the case.

Now, the Los Angeles Times has learned (in response to a Public Records Act request) that the California Department of Justice paid out more than $1.1 million to settle sexual harassment lawsuits while Harris was serving as the state’s Attorney General.

Shockingly (sarcasm alert), Harris claims she was unaware of the settlements, but:

“As the chief executive of a department of nearly 5,000 employees, the buck stopped with me. No one should face harassment or intimidation in the workplace, and victims of sexual misconduct should be listened to, believed and protected. In my Senate office, if a harassment complaint is made, it immediately comes to me,” Harris said Thursday. “No office is immune to misconduct, and there is much more work to do to ensure all are protected.”

Larry Wallace’s settlement wasn’t even the largest.

“The largest settlement from Harris’ time as state attorney general was a $649,500 payment in 2013 to James Rodriguez, who was then a special agent with the DOJ. He claimed that the agency harassed and retaliated against him and failed to take corrective action when he filed complaints about the alleged treatment.”

The most egregious part about Rodriguez’s suit is that the 2013 case was the second lawsuit he’d filed against the DOJ. In 2010 Rodriguez received over $500,000 “after a jury determined that the DOJ had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent retaliation or harassment against him.” In 2013 he filed another case because he had been subjected to continued harassment and retaliation.

After the Rodriguez case, the DOJ paid almost $100,000 to settle a case brought by Anaclato Alviar, who claimed a co-worker had forced him into an empty office, dropped his pants, and asked Alviar to perform sex acts on him. Alviar refused, and when he reported the incident to a supervisor he wasn’t protected; he was simply told to not work with the perpetrator at times when they wouldn’t be alone.

One “expert” told the Los Angeles Times that in the grand scheme of things the dollar amount paid in settlements and the number of cases involved wasn’t that big a deal. If we believe that the only incidents of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intimidation were the ones in which civil actions were brought against the DOJ and settled, that might be true. There are too many similarities, however, in the cases to believe that they don’t represent the CADOJ’s prevailing culture. When victims reported the cases and asked that they not be forced to work with the perpetrators, they were ignored. If victims went beyond the culture of silence power structure, they were retaliated against. If victims were successful in transferring to another division within the department, they were still retaliated against and denied opportunities to promote.

Kamala Harris was the head of that department for more than six years. It’s naivete in the extreme to believe that Harris didn’t understand the type of culture she was perpetuating. She’s either a great hands-off boss with terrible character judgment, or she’s not telling the exact truth.

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 month ago

Rep. John Burt, a Republican who sits on the New Hampshire House Committee on Public Safety, had dismissive words for the Moms Demand Action volunteers who were insulted Tuesday by his peers’ decision to don pearls during a hearing on a gun safety measure.

“The anti-gun out-of-state lady and the other anti-gun folks need to get over themselves,” Burt told TPM in an email, referring to Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts. “This had nothing to do with them. It is to support the Women’s Defense League and the good they do to train women to protect their children.”

The Women’s Defense League, according to its Twitter page, is a group that “provides women opportunities to learn practical self-defense skills and defends Second Amendment rights.”

“Who does not want to protect their children?” Burt continued. “O ya, some anti-gun folks do not.”

Burt said that he was not wearing the pearls Tuesday because he forgot his, but that he’s “worn them in the past” and “would have had them on” had he remembered.

“They are to support the WDL. That is it,” he added. “The anti-gunners need to get over themselves. Sorry they were not the reason we had them on.”

Watts, who was present at the hearing, was told that the pearls symbolized either “pearl-clutching” or a callback to an old story about a fight between a gun-control activist and a pearl-wearing NRA member.

“Many of our volunteers were disgusted,” Watts told TPM on Tuesday. “Some of them are gun violence survivors who were giving testimony.”

Identifiable in pictures as wearing the pearls are Republican Reps. Daryl Abbas, Scott Wallace and David Welch. None of the three responded to requests for comment.

The stunt drew the ire of state Rep. Debra Altschiller (D), the sponsor of the legislation that was being discussed at the meeting. The bill would establish a process for emergency risk protection orders, known as “red flag laws,” that suspend gun rights if a person is deemed to be a risk.

Disappointed in the pearl clutching by @NHGOP. There are families who have lost loved ones here & this mocking prop shows how little they empathize with suicide. @MomsDemand @Everytown @ProgressNH @GiffordsCourage #ERPO #NHPolitics https://t.co/opkixiS1N6

— Debra Altschiller (@DebrasATeam) March 5, 2019

The episode also garnered attention from some 2020 Democratic contenders.

Too many guns are falling into the hands of dangerous people, threatening kids’ lives and making our communities less safe. These moms are fighting to confront gun violence and protect our children. They don’t deserve to be mocked. We stand with you, @momsdemand. https://t.co/qizaz7a8vi

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 5, 2019

Moms who want to keep their kids safe from gun violence don’t deserve this. https://t.co/oQnQatlx4x

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) March 5, 2019

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

The Democratic National Committee has scheduled 10 debates thus far for the 2020 presidential election campaign, which is already in full swing. Not surprisingly, CNN and MSNBC/NBC/Telemundo have been awarded two of those debates airing this summer, which could ultimately feature somewhere in the range of 20 candidates and therefore may be split up into two debates or more per location.

But when faced with the decision of whether to award a primary debate to Fox News, the top-rated channel on basic cable, the DNC decided to play to its base than expand the voter net in rejecting the network.

In a Wednesday afternoon statement, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said he had held conversations with Fox News about potentially allowing the network to host a primary debate. But he said a story published in The New Yorker about the network's alleged ties with the Trump administration prompted the committee to end the Fox consideration.

“Recent reporting in The New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and FOX News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, FOX News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates,” Perez said.

The decision by Perez comes after some Democratic candidates have appeared on the network. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) appeared on anchor Bret Baier's "Special Report," in February, for example.

"One of the reasons I came on this show is that I believe that candidates for office, whether Democrat or Republican, have to go not just where it’s comfortable but where it’s uncomfortable. And I love you," she told Baier on Feb. 12. "But you know, Fox may not always be comfortable for Democrats but I want to make that point.”

Other candidates have followed suit. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) joined Tucker Carlson last week, primarily to discuss her position on the Syrian conflict and the U.S. role in it. Afterward, Gabbard — an Iraq War veteran — touted the interview to her nearly 300,000 followers.

In February, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) was interviewed by Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy. Presumptive presidential candidate Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was interviewed by Fox host Chris Wallace. Former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) was interviewed by Fox anchor Martha MacCallum. Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, who has hinted at running as an independent candidate, sat down with former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, currently an afternoon host on Fox, a few weeks ago.

So why appear on Fox News for what invariably are more challenging, or as Klobuchar put it, less comfortable interviews?

The answer is two-fold. First, raw numbers: Klobuchar's interview with Baier delivered 2.5 million viewers, or easily more than twice the amount who tuned in to CNN's Town Hall with Klobuchar in February, which took in just 1.17 million total viewers. In Gabbard's case, her Feb. 28 appearance was watched by more than 3 million viewers. The Hawaii congresswoman has a Town Hall on CNN on Sunday night, which will likely generate an audience more in the 1 million range. Delaney, a relative unknown in a crowded field, was watched by 2 million people when interviewed on MacCallum's "The Story." He will also get a CNN Town Hall on Sunday night.

Bottom line: All exposure is a good thing. An hour on CNN's national stage despite the smaller audience is something any candidate would gladly take. But the electoral map changed in 2016. The "blue wall" that was supposed to protect and propel Hillary Clinton to the highest office in the land came crashing down after Donald Trump picked off Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the first time a Republican nominee won those three states in the same election since Ronald Reagan, who took 49 of 50 in blowing out Walter Mondale in '84.

So if you're a Democratic White House hopeful, the road goes ultimately through the Midwest, the Rust Belt, and states like Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada. Therefore, appearing on Fox News and doing interviews with other outlets outside what is perceived largely as comfort zones will be a necessity, if capturing the same independent and blue-dog voters Trump swayed in 2016 is the goal.

Debate moderators are also important. In Fox News's case, it was hard to argue that anchor Chris Wallace wasn't easily the best moderator of the dozens that were called upon in the primaries and the general election campaign in 2015 and 2016. And few would argue that Baier or MacCallum (the latter replacing Megyn Kelly this time around) are advocates for Trump or his administration. Even the network's harshest critics will tell you all are solid journalists who ask tough, relevant questions.

“We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democratic presidential debate," said Bill Sammon, senior vice president and managing editor of the Fox News Washington bureau. "They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters.”

The last time a sitting Democratic president was challenged in 2012, the Republican National Committee awarded MSNBC a debate.

Now with the shoe on the other foot with the blue team looking to oust a Republican president, the DNC would be wise to do the same with outlets its candidates normally don't run to.

Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) is a media reporter for The Hill and co-host of "WOR Tonight with Joe Concha and Lis Wiehl" weeknights on 710-WOR in New York.

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.

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.

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.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fired off a tweet suggesting that the media unfairly targets her family and love life in their reporting — and I can’t stop laughing.

Here’s the tweet:

You know, when I got to DC I was told that it’s considered “off-limits” to report on a member’s family, love life, etc.

Unsure why that consideration is suspended for me.

(Also for those who ask how I learned to handle pressure,try being the only daughter in a Latino household) https://t.co/M2lgHITz1B

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 5, 2019

First of all, the article she is referencing about her mom’s view of her relationship includes an interview with her mom. So, if she didn’t want the media reporting on her family life, maybe she should tell her family to stop talking to the media. Seems a little more simple than having to put all that effort into playing the victim, right?

Second of all, she’s wrong. She’s not the only one, far from it. In fact, the first thing I thought of when I saw this tweet was “Okay, then why do I know that the president loves Diet Coke more than he loves condoms?” I mean, seriously. The media doesn’t just also sometimes report on President Trump’s personal life, it is actually completely obsessed with President Trump’s personal life!

Don’t believe me? Here are some actual headlines from President Trump’s time in office: “Trump’s alleged failure to use condoms with Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal raises questions, concerns” (The Mercury News). “What Melania & Trump’s Hand-Holding Struggles Say About Their Marriage, According To Body Language Experts” (Bustle). “Every time Donald and Melania Trump have faked holding hands with each other” (The Independent.) “This absurdly uncomfortable video of Donald Trump trying to hold Melania’s hand is going viral — here’s what a body language expert has to say about it” (Insider). “Reporter asks Melania Trump: Do you love your husband?” (ABC.) “Trump doesn’t want Barron to play football” (CNN). “Inside Melania Trump and Barron Trump’s Relationship” (The Cheat Sheet). I could go on, but I unfortunately have dinner plans in about five hours, and finding all of the headlines about the Trumps’ personal lives would probably not allow me to eat until approximately 2037.

Now, I do realize that she referred specifically to “members,” but that doesn’t make her tweet any less stupid. Other members of Congress have to deal with speculation about their personal lives, too. In 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham felt the need to come out to the media and say that he’s not gay. Here’s a McClatchy article that gets into the legal troubles of Sen. Ted Cruz’s half-sister, who died in 2011. In 2016, The Daily Mail ran a piece titled “EXCLUSIVE: Bernie Sanders’ very 1960s love life revealed — his first wife, the woman who had his son, and the sugar shack home where he lived as a ‘revolutionary.’” Sen. Kamala Harris’s affair with Willie Brown dominated almost an entire news cycle.

In other words: If someone really did tell her that politicians’ personal lives are off-limits for the media, then they were, quite clearly, wrong. Politicians, particularly famous stars like Ocasio-Cortez, are always going to face that kind of scrutiny because, well, they’re famous. I’m not saying it’s good; I’m not saying it’s bad; I’m saying it’s life — and pretending to be some kind of unique victim in a situation where you’re not one doesn’t accomplish anything except making you look foolish.

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

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

GOP Senators are trying to reward 300,000 Indian visa workers for taking college jobs from at least 200,000 American graduates.

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.

Hill Reporter

Published  1 month ago

Former television superstar Roseanne Barr, whose bigoted comments got her booted from her eponymous series in the spring of last year, went after the #MeToo movement during a recent interview.

While speaking with conservative commentator Candace Owens, who herself at many times agreed with Barr’s statements belittling the movement. Barr accused women who didn’t speak up initially when a man assaulted them or otherwise treated them in an inappropriate way as opportunists.

“If you don’t run out the room…but you stayed around because you’re like, ‘I thought maybe he was going to give me a writing job,’ well, you ain’t nothing but a ho,” Barr said, per reporting from USA Today.

She also suggested she could spot someone behaving that way. “I know a ho when I see one,” Barr added. “They need to be called out.”

Barr leveled criticisms toward specific individuals as well, calling Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) “Kama Sutra Harris,” explaining that an affair she had previously in her career was done in order to “sleep her way to the bottom,” the TV star said.

She also levied heavy criticisms against Christine Blasey Ford, who testified last year against the appointment of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom she said had assaulted her in high school. Ford ought to “be in prison” for her testimony, Barr said.

“Women are encouraged to be conniving,” Barr said of the #MeToo movement overall.

Barr’s opinionated statements have landed her in trouble in the past. In May 2018, after tweeting out a racist viewpoint on former President Barack Obama’s White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, the uproar against her commentary resulted in her show being canceled and her being fired by ABC.

A spin-off series surrounding her TV family, “The Connors,” replaced her old show “Roseanne,” writing her character off as dead due to a prescription opioid overdose.

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.

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Roseanne Barr is no stranger to calling out BS when she sees it. Whic his probably one of the main reasons why she was blacklisted from TV. It’s sad.

She goes after all of the current rising stars in the liberal movement and freshman Democrat Congresswomen including Tliab, Omar, and AOC.

Barr brutally exposes Kathy Griffin for the fraud that she is, check it out.

From The Fox News: In a new off-the-rails interview, Roseanne Barr calls originators of the #MeToo movement “hos” and attacks Sen. Kamala Harris, Christine Blasey Ford and many other women.

“They’re pretending that they didn’t go to trade sexual favors for money,” Barr says, rhetorically asking why some women find themselves in men’s hotel rooms at 3 a.m.

Interviewer Candace Owens replies by pointing to the women who accused comedian Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct, prompting Barr to say, “That’s who I’m talking about, too.”

“I know a ho when I see one,” proclaims Barr.

Speaking in an episode of the “Candace Owens Show” that goes online Sunday, Barr holds nothing back talking about race, religion, politics and Hollywood.

She goes on a nasty tirade against Harris, the California Dem who’s running for president.

“Look at Kamala Harris, who I call Kama Sutra Harris,” Barr snipes, pointing to the pol’s prior relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

“We all know what she did… she slept her way to the bottom,” the comedian says, drawing agreement from Owens, who directs comms for the young conservative group Turning Point USA.

Moving on to freshman Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Barr declares, “It’s scary that we have Hamas in our Congress,” referencing the Palestinian terror group. Both pols are Muslim.

Barr, who played a strong supporter of President Trump in her short-lived reboot, also bashes some former friends in Hollywood.

“When I went to bat for Sandra [Bernhard], Kathy [Griffin] and Sara [Gilbert] to get them on TV — because I gave them all their TV jobs… you know what people at the networks told me? Those girls are too ugly to go on TV,” Barr recalls.

“And I said this is so incredibly sexist. Look at me, I’m no beauty. You can’t take talent, for a woman, and reduce it to their facial flaws. Are you sh—ing me?”

“Nowadays, I’m like, you’re right. They are too ugly to be on TV,” Barr concludes, saying her colleagues have “ugliness inside.”

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.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

The father of Sen. Kamala Harris has gone public with a shocking family secret that could end her 2020 presidential run.

Harris’ father, Stanford University economics professor emeritus Donald Harris, published an op-ed in Jamaica Global Online detailing how the Harris family used to own slaves.

Get Your FREE ‘Peace Talks’ Coin Before They’re Gone For Good

Here’s part of what Donald Harris wrote in the piece:

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).

Looking back now I can say, with certainty and all due credit to Miss Iris, that it was this early intimate exposure to operation of the sugar industry at the local level of small-scale production with family labour and free wage-labour, coupled with my growing curiosity about how these things came to be, that led me, once I started reading about the history of Jamaica, to a closer study of the sugar industry.

I came then to understand its origin as a system of global production and commerce, based on slave labour, with Jamaica as a key component of that system from its very start.

That’s certainly a chilling admission and would not sit well with many American voters if true.

POLL: Should Jim Acosta Be BANNED FOR LIFE From The Press Pool?

Soon after Donald Harris published the bombshell piece, PJ Media published a well-research, in-depth report providing more information on the slavery Harris’ family allegedly oversaw.

Hamilton Brown was born in 1776 in Ireland. He became a sugar plantation owner and founder of Brown’s Town in Jamaica, according to university papers, textbooks, and historical documents. Henry Whiteley wrote a pamphlet entitled “Three months in Jamaica in 1832, Comprising a Residence on a Sugar Plantation,” where he describes Brown’s views on his slaves:

The same day I dined at St. Ann’s Bay, on board the vessel I arrived in, in the company with several colonists, among whom was Mr. Hamilton Brown, representative for the parish of St. Ann in the Colonial Assembly… I was rather startled to hear that gentleman swear by his Maker that that Order should never be adopted in Jamaica; nor would the planters of Jamaica, he said, permit the interference of the Home Government with their slaves in any shape. A great deal was said by him and others present about the happiness and comfort enjoyed by the slaves, and the many advantages possessed by them of which the poor in England were destitute. Among other circumstances mentioned in proof of this, Mr. Robinson, a wharfinger, stated that a slave in that town had sent out printed cards to invite a part of his negro acquaintance to a supper party. One of these cards was handed to Mr. Hamilton Brown, who said he would present it to the Governor, as a proof of the comfortable condition of the slave population.

That is absolutely chilling to read and consider.

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

Here’s more from the PJ Media report:

But later that day, after he witnessed slaves being punished by Brown’s overseer, Whiteley wrote:

The first was a man of about thirty-five years of age. He was what is called a pen-keeper or cattle herd; and his offence was having suffered a mule to go astray. At the command of the overseer he proceeded to strip off part of his clothes, and laid himself flat on his belly, his back and buttocks being uncovered. One of the drivers then commenced flogging him with the cart whip. This whip is about ten feet long, with a short stout handle, and is an instrument of terrible power. It is whirled by the operator round his head, and then brought down with a rapid motion of the arm upon the recumbent victim, causing the blood to spring at every stroke. When I saw this spectacle now for the first time exhibited before my own eyes, with all its revolting accompaniments, and saw the degraded and mangled victim writhing and groaning under the infliction, I felt horror-struck. I trembled and turned sick; but being determined to see the whole to an end, I kept my station at the window. The sufferer, writhing like a wounded worm, every time the lash cut across his body, cried out, “Lord! Lord! Lord!” When he had received about twenty lashes, the driver stopped to pull up the poor man’s shirt (or rather smock frock), which had worked down upon his galled posteriors. The sufferer then cried, “Think me no man? Think me no man?” By that exclamation I understood him to say, “Think you I have not the feelings of a man?” The flogging was instantly recommenced and continued; the negro continuing to cry “Lord! Lord! Lord!” till thirty-nine lashes had been inflicted. When the man rose up from the ground, I perceived the blood oozing out from the lacerated and [illegible] parts where he had been flogged; and he appeared greatly exhausted. But he was instantly ordered off to his usual occupation.

Whiteley’s account goes on, describing one victim after the next, including women and young boys. It is truly sickening to read. Brown didn’t stop after the Jamaican slaves were freed. He attempted to make the Irish work on his plantation but failed when he was accused of trying to enslave more people. The historical accounts are so detailed that should Kamala Harris want to search out the families of the people her relative reportedly tortured, she would probably be able to find them.

If the reports are true that Harris’s family previously owned slaves, that could sink her 2020 presidential aspirations or greatly harm her campaign.

Trump Train

Published  1 month ago

The news of Roseanne Barr’s firing from her own ABC TV show last year was no doubt a downer for conservative-leaning viewers as they saw the ABC reboot of “Roseanne” as part of a push by networks to finally adhere to middle American voices on television. The success of the revival was seen as a new phase in television, one that would no doubt spin more shows promoting a Trumpian-America, or the “voices of the forgotten,” as they are called, alas, Disney put a grinding halt to it.

Barr has been on a bit of a tear lately though, refusing to adhere to any politically-correct demeanor, even after being axed by ABC for a “controversial” tweet. No, she has decided not to conform to any of the political activists that want her to just go away and shut up. If anything, Roseanne has doubled down on her free-flowingly outspoken thinking of Read More….

Barr’s off-the-rails interview on Candace Owen’s radio show will likely cause a stir. In it she calls the creators of the #MeToo movement “hos” and attacks Sen. Kamala Harris and Christine Blasey Ford.

“They’re pretending that they didn’t go to trade sexual favors for money,” Barr said.

When Owens mentioned the women who accused comedian Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct, Barr replied, “That’s who I’m talking about, too.”

“I know a ho when I see one,” proclaims Barr.

The Roseanne episode of the “Candace Owens Show” went online Sunday.

When the topic of Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris came up, Barr didn’t hold back Read More….

“Look at Kamala Harris, who I call Kama Sutra Harris,” which is Barr taking a shot at the relationship Harris had with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who took her under his wings and promoted her under his tenure.

“We all know what she did… she slept her way to the bottom,” the comedian said.

Barr also mentions that Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford “should be in prison.”

“White women privilege” is the only thing that kept the accuser out of jail, Barr said Read More….

As for Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Barr, a proud Jew, declares, “It’s scary that we have Hamas in our Congress,” referencing the Palestinian terror group. Both pols are Muslim. Also adding that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) openly “hate[s] Jews.”

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.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Candace Owens interviewed actress Roseanne this week on the Candace Owens Show on Prager U. During the interview the subject moved to presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris. Roseanne told Candace Owens Kamala Harris “slept her way to the bottom.” It is widely known that Kamala Harris got her start in politics in the arms of […]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

In a new off-the-rails interview, Roseanne Barr calls originators of the #MeToo movement “hos” and attacks Sen. Kamala Harris, Christine Blasey Ford and many other women.

NPR.org

Published  1 month ago

Clark, a 22-year-old black man, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by two police officers in his grandmother's backyard in 2018. His death sparked widespread protests in the California capital.

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.

New York Post

Published  1 month ago

LOS ANGELES — The California Department of Justice paid more than $1 million to employees who alleged they faced sexual harassment or workplace retaliation while presidential candidate Kamala Harris was state attorney general, it was reported Friday.

The settlements involved allegations of inappropriate touching or comments as well as other allegations made from 2011 to 2017. They were disclosed this week in response to a state Public Records Act request from the Los Angeles Times.

Harris didn’t know about the cases until the Times brought them to her attention. They were handled by administrators who were expected to follow strict policies against harassment, said Harris’ spokesman, Chris Harris.

However, the Democratic U.S. senator told the Times that she takes responsibility.

“As the chief executive of a department of nearly 5,000 employees, the buck stopped with me,” Harris said in a statement. “No one should face harassment or intimidation in the workplace, and victims of sexual misconduct should be listened to, believed and protected.”

Harris has been a prominent supporter of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment in the workplace. She was elected to the Senate in 2016 and said any complaints of harassment in her Senate office are forwarded to her immediately.

“No office is immune to misconduct, and there is much more work to do to ensure all are protected,” she told the Times.

In large government agencies, it wouldn’t be unusual for managers to handle harassment claims instead of the agency head except when high-level administrators are involved, said Mike Genest, who was finance director under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“If a director wasn’t told about it, I would not be suspicious that that was an issue,” said Genest, who spent 24 years as a manager in state agencies.

The largest of the reported settlements was $649,500, paid in 2013 to James Rodriguez, who was a justice department special agent, over allegations that he was denied sought-after jobs and faced other retaliation for reporting alleged harassment against him. In the settlement, the justice department denied all the allegations.

The cases also include a $400,000 payout in 2017 to a woman that alleged Larry Wallace, who was an administrator under Harris, harassed and demeaned her based on her gender. Among other things, the woman alleged that Wallace frequently asked her to crawl under his desk to change the paper in his printer.

The justice department denied the claims in the settlement, which has been previously disclosed.

In December, Wallace resigned his post as a senior adviser in Harris’s Sacramento office.

US Liberty Wire

Published  1 month ago

Another day, another nasty skeleton crawls out Of Kamala Harris’ closet. Look, it seems like when you turn over any rock these days, there is a Dem caught in a scandal.

The sad fact is the left has a purity test no one can pass, which makes them hypocrites, making any criticism of Trump seem like sour grapes.

Kamala Harris has just begun to feel the heat and the left would be wise to get tough with each other in the primary as Trump will be ruthless.

Look, our system usually rewards the one who wants it the most – the campaign is a grueling 2-year audition and the American people are not dumb.

The left, however, is intolerable and it is hard to see how the metoo movement can square with Kamala Harris after all this.

From The New York Post: The California Department of Justice paid more than $1 million to employees who alleged they faced sexual harassment or workplace retaliation while presidential candidate Kamala Harris was state attorney general, it was reported Friday.

The settlements involved allegations of inappropriate touching or comments as well as other allegations made from 2011 to 2017. They were disclosed this week in response to a state Public Records Act request from the Los Angeles Times.

Harris didn’t know about the cases until the Times brought them to her attention. They were handled by administrators who were expected to follow strict policies against harassment, said Harris’ spokesman, Chris Harris.

However, the Democratic U.S. senator told the Times that she takes responsibility.

“As the chief executive of a department of nearly 5,000 employees, the buck stopped with me,” Harris said in a statement. “No one should face harassment or intimidation in the workplace, and victims of sexual misconduct should be listened to, believed and protected.”

Harris has been a prominent supporter of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment in the workplace. She was elected to the Senate in 2016 and said any complaints of harassment in her Senate office are forwarded to her immediately.

“No office is immune to misconduct, and there is much more work to do to ensure all are protected,” she told the Times.

In large government agencies, it wouldn’t be unusual for managers to handle harassment claims instead of the agency head except when high-level administrators are involved, said Mike Genest, who was finance director under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“If a director wasn’t told about it, I would not be suspicious that that was an issue,” said Genest, who spent 24 years as a manager in state agencies.

The largest of the reported settlements was $649,500, paid in 2013 to James Rodriguez, who was a justice department special agent, over allegations that he was denied sought-after jobs and faced other retaliation for reporting alleged harassment against him. In the settlement, the justice department denied all the allegations.

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.”

Reason.com

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris has long positioned herself as a feminist crusader. But both as attorney general of California and now as a member of the U.S. Senate, she has actively championed policies that deny women's agency, ratchet up female incarceration, and endanger those most vulnerable to sexual abuse. Along the way, she has shown an utter disregard for civil liberties and constitutional law—a tendency she will now get to take to the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Harris' most prominent crusade in recent years has been against the classified advertising platform Backpage, which inherited much of the digital sex-ad market after the federal government forced MyRedbook.com to close and bullied Craigslist into shuttering its adult-ad section. Sex workers credit online advertising platforms with allowing them greater independence, reducing the need to rely on "pimps," and significantly curtailing risks to their safety by allowing for better screening of clients. But these platforms have become a big bulls-eye for grandstanding politicians, who have used the new visibility of prostitution ads to peddle sex-trafficking hysteria and make a name for themselves in the process.

In October of 2016, just before she faced voters in her Senate bid, Harris spearheaded the arrest of current and former Backpage executives on charges of pimping and conspiracy, under the (ultimately unsuccessful) theory that providing an open online platform for user-generated content made them responsible for any illegal activity committed by users who connected through the site. Federal law explicitly says otherwise—something Harris certainly knew, as she had petitioned Congress a few years earlier to change the law so that she and other prosecutors could target Backpage (and its deep assets) through state criminal justice systems. What's more, myriad federal courts have affirmed that prosecutions like the one Harris attempted are illegal.

A Sacramento County Superior Court rejected Harris' case against Backpage, ruling that "Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and it is for Congress, not this court, to revisit." Undeterred, Harris—as one of her final acts as California's top prosecutor—filed nearly identical charges against Backpage in another California court, a move the First Amendment Lawyers' Association called "a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion" and part of Harris' pattern of disrespecting due process and constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, an actual underage sex-trafficking scandal implicated dozens of police officers and other local authorities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland went through two police chiefs trying to address it*, with a third doing only questionably better. People were pleading for the state to step in and oversee an independent investigation, since local governments seemed more motivated to quash a PR nightmare than punish public officials. Harris and her office refused to intervene.

Now, on Capitol Hill, Harris has joined such colleagues as Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) in attempts both to shut down Backpage and to amend federal communications law so that state prosecutors can punish websites for user-posted content or illegal actions arising from that content.

The whole episode fits with two oft-exhibited Harris habits: a willingness to skirt constitutional protections when it suits her agenda, and a public orientation toward high-profile "social justice" causes that masks behind-the-scenes moves that betray them. (From the beginning of her career, she's portrayed herself as a tough-on-crime progressive.) These habits are easiest to see when the issue involves sex work, but they extend far outside that realm.

Take the time Harris fought back against a California court ruling saying the state couldn't keep prisoners in overcrowded conditions and deny them medical care. Her reasoning? The state needed the slave labor provided by mass incarceration.

How about the time she sponsored legislation to ban sex offenders from using all social media? Or when she went to bat to keep Lonny Leon Rivera on the sex offender registry? Rivera's crime: In 1989, when he was 19, he had sex with the 17-year-old who is now his wife.

For all her big talk now on criminal justice reform, Harris fought to keep marijuana criminalized in California and resisted efforts to deprioritize the arrest of nonviolent drug offenders. She also pushed to send parents of high school students to jail for having more than three unexcused absences in a year, intervened myriad times on behalf of dirty prosecutors, and lobbied to keep using an execution method that the courts had deemed unconstitutional.

Still, much of Harris' worst work has come from her fake-feminist agenda to "help" women and girls by throwing them in jail for having sex. For at least a decade, she has fought against campaigns to decriminalize consensual adult prostitution in California, ignoring the ardent lobbying of sex workers, criminal justice reformers, and human rights advocates.

Meanwhile, under the guise of keeping marginalized women safe, she has spearheaded raids on immigrant-owned massage parlors in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, an effort that failed to uncover the imagined "modern slavery" rings but did bring many undocumented workers into contact with people who can deport them. She also instituted a statewide program to get truckers to report suspected sex workers to police.

Harris' career exemplifies the worst of carceral feminism, and it demonstrates an enduring commitment to solve social problems like an old white dude in the 1980s would. Anyone who truly cares about protecting women's well-being and safeguarding civil rights should fear her ascension to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

*Correction: This article originally said mayors here when it should have been Oakland police chiefs.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is now going after the prostitution vote. She says that she thinks prostitution should be decriminalized. Okay, but she didn’t say anything about the male who solicits a prostitute. Was that an oversight or will the man be charged with a crime and the woman just pay a fine? I don’t think it was accidental or an oversight. This is another case, where she has to do contortions to overcome her past. As a prosecutor, she was all for going after prostitutes but now they are organized, she doesn’t want to anger them. Would legal prostitution expand sex trafficking into the country?

Harris, a U.S. Senator and former Attorney General of California, sat down recently for an interview with The Root released Tuesday. At one point, interviewer Terrell Starr pressed Harris on her past support for the 2017 Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), Harris claimed that dating to her time as San Francisco district attorney she has believed “we have to stop arresting these prostitutes.”

When Starr asked Harris if she believes “sex work should be decriminalized,” the candidate responded, “I think so. I do. I think that we have to understand though that it is not as simple as that.

“There is an ecosystem around that that includes crimes that harm people, and for those issues I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off their exploitation should be free of criminal prosecution,” she continued. “But when you’re talking about consenting adults, yes. We shouldn’t consider that you can criminalize consensual behavior, as long as no one is being harmed.”

Harris appears to be attempting to defuse criticisms from pro-prostitution activists, who have criticized her support for the aforementioned bills (which they claim actually endanger sex workers by pushing prostitution even more deeply underground), for her 2016 prosecution of the sex client screening website Backpage, and for writing in 2009 that “Smart always starts with enforcing the law ― we must arrest the prostitutes as well as the pimps and the johns.”

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

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is asking Twitter executives and other tech titans about how to appeal to young people as the Democrat prepares for a possible presidential run, CNBC reported Wednesday.

Biden is talking to various social media companies about what appeals to young people, the report notes, citing an anonymous source who did not provide a name of the executives. Twitter refused to confirm the report, telling reporters instead that the company provides advice to anyone who asks.

“We work with elected officials, candidates and former politicians regularly when it comes to them getting the most out of Twitter,” a Twitter spokesman said. Biden is 76 years old and has been a mainstay in American politics for more than four decades. He is also attempting to court a digital presence.

Athan Stephanopoulos, the president of NowThis News, a liberal online news outlet, confirmed that Biden had indeed contacted his company.

“We are trying to reinforce that outlets like NowThis are an important place to spend time and reach these audiences,” he told reporters, describing key issues that bring young voters to the ballot box. “Candidates will have to take a stand on these issues as it relates to talking to this whole new generation of voters.”

Biden holds a high favorability rating among a slew of demographics, according to an NPR poll in January. He has the support of black people (70 percent), white people without a college education (71 percent), and white people with a college education (83 percent). His numbers are sky-high compared to Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.

Results from the NPR poll come off the heels of a Morning Consult poll in December 2018 showing Biden leading the pack of prospective Democratic nominees in 2020. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders followed a close second in the poll, drawing 19 percent among Democrats.

Some Republicans worry that Biden poses the biggest threat to President Donald Trump. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, told reporters in December that the former vice president might be what the Democratic Party needs to win in 2020 despite being a flawed candidate.

Reason.com

Published  1 month ago

It's way too early to be thinking this, much less saying it, but what the hell: If Donald Trump is able to deliver the sort of performance he gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual meeting of right-wingers held near Washington, D.C., his reelection is a foregone conclusion.

There is simply no potential candidate in the Democratic Party who wouldn't be absolutely blown off the stage by him. I say this as someone who is neither a Trump fanboy nor a Never Trumper. But he was not simply good, he was Prince-at-the-Super-Bowl great, deftly flinging juvenile taunts at everyone who has ever crossed him, tossing red meat to the Republican faithful, and going sotto voce serious to talk about justice being done for working-class Americans screwed over by global corporations.

In a heavily improvised speech that lasted over two hours, the 72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star hit every greatest hit in his repertoire ("Crooked Hillary," "build the wall," "America is winning again," and more all made appearances) while riffing on everything from the Green New Deal to his own advanced age and weird hair to the wisdom of soldiers over generals. At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams' genie in the Disney movie Aladdin, Howard Stern in his peak years as a radio shock jock, or Don Rickles as an insult comic. When he started making asides, Trump observed, "This is how I got elected, by going off script." Two years into his presidency and he's just getting warmed up.

First and foremost, Trump was frequently funny and outre in the casually mean way that New Yorkers exude like nobody else in America. "You put the wrong people in a couple of positions," he said, lamenting the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor, "and all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bullshit." He voiced Jeff Sessions in a mock-Southern accent, recusing "muhself" and asked the adoring crowd why the former attorney generally hadn't told him he was going to do that before he was appointed.

Democrats backing the Green New Deal (GND) "are talking about trains to Hawaii," he said. "They haven't figured out how to get to Europe yet." He begged the Democrats not to abandon the GND because he recognizes that the more its details and costs are discussed, the more absurd it will become. "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your energy," he said at one point. "Did the wind stop blowing, I'd like to watch television today, guys?" "We'll go back to boats," he said, drawing huge laughs when he added, "I don't want to talk [the Democrats] out of [the GND], I just want to be the Republican who runs against it."

He railed against Never-Trump Republicans: "They're on mouth-to-mouth resuscitation," he said, adding "they're basically dishonest people" that no one cares about. He joked about being in the White House all alone on New Year's because of the government shutdown. "I was in the White House and I was lonely, so I went to Iraq," he said, recounting that when his plane was approaching the U.S. airstrip in Iraq, all lights had to be extinguished for landing. "We spend trillions of dollars in the Middle East and we can't land planes [in Iraq] with the lights on," he said, shaking his head in disbelief. "We gotta get out." He then riffed on the generals he met there who, contrary to the Pentagon brass he dealt with, said they could vanquish ISIS in a week. He claimed to have talked with a general named "Raising Cane," which might be Brigadier Gen. J. Daniel Caine, but Trump is the farthest thing from a details guy, right? "Sometimes I learn more from soldiers than I do generals," he said, deftly moving from jokes to more-substantive discussions of policies or issues.

In all seriousness, this is quite a performance from Trump: he is just about two hours into this speech and shows no signs of flagging. And far as I can tell, the CPAC crowd is still with him.

— Alexander Nazaryan (@alexnazaryan) March 2, 2019

You can cover a huge amount of material in two-hours-plus, and Trump certainly did that. After speaking sympathetically of immigrants who want to come to the United States and saying that we need more people because the economy (well, his economy, as he takes credit for it) is doing so well, he immediately dismissed the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans traveling north in caravans across Mexico. In a bizarre display of simultaneous empathy and contempt, he talked at length about how female migrants are being systematically "raped" but also how the caravans were filled with criminals and drug dealers. It was "sad to see how stupid we've become" to think that the caravans are filled with good people. As he has been doing since his State of the Union address, he has been laying out a partial, inchoate case for a skills-based immigration program. He explained walking away from the table with North Korea even as he noted yet again that he has a great relationship with the dictator Kim Jong Un. In a long riff on trade policy, he invoked the "Great Tariff Debate of 1888" and how China "and everyone else" had been taking advantage of us until he started pushing back. He took time to talk about how no, really, the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence.

All in all, it was, in the words of Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, "one of the least-hinged speeches Trump has given in a long time." It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today's speech, Trump has mostly ditched the "American Carnage" rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. "We have people in Congress right now who hate our country," he said. "We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad."

At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. "We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare," he averred at one point. "Now you have a president who finally standing up for America." The future, he said "does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I've said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country." That's a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.

None of this is to suggest that this speech wasn't as fact-challenged as almost every utterance Trump has given since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination (go to Daniel Dale's Twitter thread for a running count of misstatements of fact). He hammered trade deficits in a way that will remind anyone with an undergrad economics course under their belt that he fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about. He misrepresented both NAFTA and the new trade bill he crafted with Mexico and Canada, and at the exact moment that hundreds of wearied listeners started leaving the ballroom at The Gaylord Resort and Convention Center, he claimed that not a single person had left their seat.

But the 2020 presidential race is not going to be decided based on which candidate is more tightly moored to reality. It's going to be decided, like these things always are, by the relative health of the economy and the large vision of the future the different candidates put forward. As the economy continues to expand (however anemically compared to historical averages) and he continues to avoid credible charges of impeachable offenses, Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions.

Trump isn't the creator of post-factual politics in America, he is merely currently its most-gifted practitioner (oddly, his ideological and demographic counterpart and fellow New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may become a challenger to him on precisely this score). Trump may have next to no credibility in profoundly disturbing ways, but American politics has been drifting away from reality for the entire 21st century, when the 2000 election was essentially decided by a coin flip, the United States entered the Iraq War under false premises, and Barack Obama took home Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award and dissembled unconvincingly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations.

That Trump didn't invent the current situation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it, but if he can continue to perform the way he did today at CPAC, it remains to be seen what Democratic rival can rise to that challenge.

New York Post

Published  1 month ago

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Progressives aren’t the only ones enamored with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — speakers Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Convention made her their No. 1 liberal punching bag.

Sebastian Gorka, a former aide to President Trump, name-dropped the Democratic congresswoman and then cued the boos, which quickly followed. He mocked her Green New Deal. “Remember this one, use it,” he said. “It’s a watermelon: green on the outside, deep deep communist red on the inside.”

“They want to take your pickup truck, they want to rebuild your home, they want to take away your hamburgers, this is what Stalin dreamed about, but never achieved,” he added.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) also ridiculed AOC’s Green New Deal as he came onstage.

“You know, with this Green New Deal, they’re trying to get rid of all the cows. But I’ve got good news — Chick-fil-A stock will go way up because we’re gonna be eating more chicken!” Meadows said, referencing the fast food chain that has earned conservative support for the COO’s opposition to gay marriage.

Video screens at the three-and-a-half-day conference sporadically displayed Ocasio-Cortez’s face throughout Thursday morning.

She was shown multiple times in the official CPAC video that slaps a number of left-leaning Democrats, including 2020 hopefuls Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

Another video, this one sponsored by the NRA, showed footage of the congresswoman dancing outside her congressional office, but darkened it, making it look more sinister. The video claimed that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to “disarm hard-working Americans, while giving those ‘unwilling to work’ our money.”

Striking a less hysterical tone, Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham implored the audience to take Ocasio-Cortez seriously.

“I take people like AOC seriously because she is the thought leader of the Democratic Party right now,” Ingraham told the crowd, pointing out how every 2020 Democratic candidate “jumps” every time Ocasio-Cortez says something.

Hearing of all the attention she was receiving, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “GOP defensively say, ‘we’re not scared of dancing women! Yet proceed to use footage of me dancing ‘with the color drained to make it look more ominous,’” she wrote, quoting observations tweeted by Washington Post journalist Dave Weigel.

“Spoiler: The GOP *is” scared of dancing women, because they fear the liberation of all identities taught to feel shame,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Tax refunds have increased by 1.3 percent from last year following the fourth week of the 2019 filing season, according to new Internal Revenue Service data.

To be more specific, the average tax refund has increased to $3,143 from $3,103 last February, according to cumulative statistics comparing the 2018 and 2019 filing seasons.

Oddly enough, certain newsrooms have responded to this development with total silence. I say “odd” because it was just a few weeks ago that these same newsrooms covered the initial filing data, which showed the average tax refund this year has been smaller than in 2018. These news organizations also suggested (both implicitly and explicitly) that the decrease is tied to the Republican Party’s tax reform bill.

“Millions of Americans could be stunned as their tax refunds shrink,” read a headline published on Feb. 10 by the Washington Post. The story reported, "Many Americans may confuse their meager refunds as a sign that they paid more in taxes as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Generally, that is not true." On Feb. 14, the Post ran a story titled, “IRS says average tax refund is down nearly 9 percent so far this year.”

That story included a line that reads, "Many early filers are still upset about getting a smaller refund or unexpectedly owing money, even if they did pay lower taxes overall as a result of the Republican tax bill that passed in December 2017."

As of March 2, the Post has published nothing showing the average refund is now greater than it was at this point in 2018.

Then, there’s the New York Times, which reported on Feb. 12, “Smaller Tax Refunds Surprise Those Expecting More Relief.” (The clear but false implication, contrasting "Smaller Tax Refunds" to tax "Relief," is that the law didn't really cut taxes.) That story reported: "The tax overhaul that took effect last year promised relief, but now that returns are being filed, some people are baffled. They’re getting smaller refunds — or sometimes having to write a check — even though nothing in their situation seems to have changed."

On Feb. 14, the Times also published a story titled, “As Refunds Shrink, Treasury Dept. Reminds Workers of Bigger Paychecks.” On Feb. 22, the paper published a report titled, “Why a Tax Cut Might Not Mean a Bigger Refund.”

As of March 2, the Times has published nothing detailing the new IRS data.

“Anger, Confusion Over Dwindling Refunds. Is Trump's Tax Plan To Blame?” National Public Radio asked on Feb. 14. The Associated Press reported on Feb. 19, “I owe how much? Americans shocked by impact of new tax law.”

As of March 2, you guessed it, neither NPR nor the AP has published anything about the new refunds statistics.

To be fair, there are a couple of important points that need be made.

First, not all newsrooms have ignored the latest information from the IRS. USA Today, Yahoo News, CBS News, and CNN have been diligent. Good on them. Also, though the Post has yet to report on the new data, its fact-checking team did a good job last month dismantling Sen. Kamala Harris’, D-Calif., nonsense claim that the smaller refunds were the fault of the GOP tax cuts.

Secondly, tax returns are still incoming, and it has been slower going this year than it was in 2018. We’ve still a way to go, and it’d be premature to suggest now that the latest IRS data prove newsrooms and pundits were wrong to highlight the initial numbers. It’d be premature to suggest that the new data prove anything.

But that’s kind of the entire point here: If the first round of refund numbers was enough to spark a feeding frenzy of media coverage suggesting tax-cut were to blame, why aren't these same newsrooms jumping all over these new IRS figures with similarly premature analysis? And why did newsrooms even bother to cover the average figures (as opposed to the median) in the first place?

I think we can guess why. I just want to hear them say it.

conservative-headlines

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is a true Democrat. 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.

Former MTV VJ Adam Curry, read quotes directly from Harris’ father’s book, “Reflections of a Jamaican Father.”

Reflections of a Jamaican Father

By Donald J. Harris

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).

Both of my grandmothers had the strongest influence on my early upbringing(“not to exclude, of course, the influence of my dear mother”Miss Beryl” and loving father “Maas Oscar”).…

Kamala Harris is a direct descendant of Jamaican slave owners, that makes her a true Democrat.

— Rob Dew (@DewsNewz) February 22, 2019

Will Harris be held to the same standard as others with racial controversies in their family tree?

For example, NASCAR river Conor Daly lost sponsors after being attacked by liberals over a racial slur used by his father in an interview during the early 1980s.

This hypocrisy is reminiscent of the contrast between the media’s reaction to actor Jussie Smollett’s recent hate hoax and the uproar caused by Roseanne Barr’s tweet comparing Valerie Jarrett to the Planet of the Apes.

Roseanne had her entire show canceled, while Smollett continues working on Fox’s Empire.

Mark Dice highlighted the contradiction in the following tweet…

Just hours after @TheRealRoseanne made a joke on Twitter that hurt some people's feelings, she was fired from the very show she created. Weeks after Jussie Smollette tried to pull off the biggest hate crime hoax in decades, he still has a job.

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) February 22, 2019

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

christianheadlines

Published  1 month ago

Senator Kamala Harris recently shared that she is in favor of decriminalizing prostitution and sex work.

According to Life Site News, the 2020 presidential hopeful said that despite her previous crack down on sex work when she was California’s Attorney General, she would like to see prostitution – between two consenting adults – decriminalized.

In an interview with The Roots, Harris noted that when she was a District Attorney in California some fifteen years ago, she was advocating for the prostitute and against the “johns” and “pimps.” Harris said, “I was advocating then that we had to stop arresting these prostitutes and instead go after the johns and the pimps.”

According to Life Site News, Harris supported two laws – 2017 Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) – which tightened restrictions on those who willingly facilitate, support or assist in sex trafficking and on online sex trafficking.

In the recent interview, however, when asked if she believed sex work should be “decriminalized” Harris responded, “I think so. I do.”

Harris clarified why she supported the above-mentioned laws noting that, to her, there are distinct differences between which types of sex work should be legal and which types of sex work should not. Harris noted that in the case of consenting adults she believes prostitution should be legal. In situations where prostitutes are being exploited by others, however, Harris believes that should be punishable.

Harris said, “I think that we need to understand though that it is not as simple as that… there is an ecosystem around that that includes crimes that harm people, and for those issues, I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be admonished or should be free of criminal prosecution.”

“When you are talking about consenting adults, I think that, you know... yes. We should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed.”

Life Site News speculates that Harris made these comments to appease pro-prostitution activists who felt that by supporting SESTA and FOSTA, Harris was actually endangering sex workers more by pushing prostitution underground even further.

Photo courtesy: Getty Images/Mason Trinca/Stringer

Video courtesy: The Roots

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  1 month ago

Hardly a day goes by without the new face of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), unconsciously giving the Right more ammunition to ridicule her so-called “policies.”

The latest was an SNL-like video she made in her kitchen cooking chili during which she berated America for the impending environmental apocalypse.

The inanity of her comments is stupefying enough. For example, she actually pauses to look at the camera and says: “If we do not act there is no hope. The only time we can hope is when we act.” But her Miss World contestant soundbites, are outdone by the shear irony of the whole film. Rush Limbaugh commented, as only he can:

And in this cooking video, everything she’s using is powered by fossil fuels! From her stove to her refrigerator. The food that she is making arrived in her kitchen after having been delivered for part of the route by fossil fuels.

Those would be the same fossils fuels Ocasio-Cortez wants to ban in America under her Green New Deal.

While theses gaffes and the memes to which they give rise are truly amusing, the humor of it all shouldn’t give the Right a sense of security. The New Green Deal is a socialist plan for the largest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen, and it will cost you $93 trillion.

The GND is “watermelon policy”—green on the outside and deep red on the inside. It’s socialism under the cloak of environmentalism. What’s more, the proposal isn’t merely the collected ravings of a fringe freshman congresswoman. The Green New Deal has been endorsed by a slew of Democrat representatives and senators, including some who think they have a shot at being the next president, such as Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

As a result, now more than ever, we must tell the truth about socialism—the socialism of today and the socialism of the past. We must remind people how in Venezuela, the otherwise ardent left-wing reporter, Jorge Ramos, caused the dictator Maduro to storm out of an interview and was arrested when he showed footage of Venezuelans eating discarded food out of a dumpster truck. And we must talk about what socialism actually wrought throughout the 20th century.

I have lived a blessed life, born into freedom in the United Kingdom and now a proud American living in the freest and greatest nation in the world. But for me, socialism is not some theory. It’s not a policy paper written under the name of a former bartender from the Bronx. Socialism, and its final evolution, Communism, were realities that my family experienced. The consequences of that reality changed my life forever one sunny day at the beach when I was a child.

We lived in England when I was a child but our family would vacation in France. One summer, I must have been 8 or 9, we were at the seaside in southern France. I was playing on the shore and my father was swimming in the sea. When he came out, I recognized something I hadn’t seen before. On both of his wrists, there were deep white lines yet he wasn’t old enough to be wrinkled there. Innocently, I asked him: “Dad what’s that?” Without any hesitation or emotion, he answered: “That’s where the secret police bound my wrists together with wire behind my back and hanged me from the ceiling of the torture chamber.” That moment my life changed. That moment history became real for me and the struggle for freedom took physical form.

My father’s story of persecution under a left-wing regime is not unique. But how many Americans know these stories? How many could tell you that the ideas of Karl Marx killed more than 100 million people in just a little more than a century? From Russia to Cambodia, from Poland to North Korea, the story is the same.

When almost half of Millennials polled say they prefer socialism to free-market democracy, we understand where the 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comes from and we know the threat her ideas pose to freedom in America.

The 2020 presidential election will not be about GOP versus DNC. It won’t even be about Donald Trump versus the Establishment. Our next election, and all elections for at least a generation, will have to undo the brainwashing of a generation. These elections are going to be about one thing: freedom versus oppression.

If you’re looking for more great, independent, conservative content check out American Greatness!

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.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Elizabeth Warren Defends Infanticide: “Women Should Decide What’s Best for Their Health”

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.

WND

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris, a prosecutor in California before her election to the U.S. Senate, lied about a policy she supported that required reporting to ICE any juvenile illegal aliens in custody in San Francisco, according to CNN.

The network said the Democratic lawmaker “mischaracterized” the 2008 policy “that led to undocumented minors who were arrested for suspected felonies being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement before they had been convicted.”

A 2020 presidential candidate, her claims came in an interview before an audience in Iowa on Sunday.

She was asked about her public support for the city policy enacted by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

“In her answer,” CNN said, “Harris called the reporting of arrested juvenile undocumented immigrants before they were convicted of a felony an ‘unintended consequence’ of the policy that she did not support. However, this was in fact the intent of the policy.”

The question to Harris was: “Could you kind of give us some insight on how, from that time, when for whatever reason you were supporting this policy that was essentially handing over undocumented people to ICE before they had been convicted to now – kind of what’s changed on that and how you came to those changes?”

Harris’ responded: “That ended up being an unintended consequence of the policy and I did not support that consequence of that policy. And that policy I believe has since changed because it was not the intended purpose of that policy. I’ll say this, and I feel very strongly about it, and I always have, which is this, my background is as a prosecutor and I want to know that a person, a victim of a rape or a child molestation, or a vicious violent crime, I want to know that that victim will be able to run in the middle of the street and wave down a police officer and receive protection and security without having to worry about if they do that they will be deported.”

However, CNN reported, San Francisco had been a sanctuary city since 1989. And it originally protected all illegal aliens from ICE, deciding in 1992 to remove protections for criminal adult suspects.

But the protection remained for arrested juveniles until the policy change supported by Harris.

At that point, the city began “reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE who were suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually found guilty of a crime,” CNN reported.

“Reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE was not an ‘unintended consequence’ of the policy, it was the policy,” CNN said. “Newsom and Harris have both since said that they supported the policy as a measure to protect San Francisco’s overall status as a sanctuary city, but the policy itself was enacted as ordered by the mayor.”

The network reported, “A Harris spokesman did not address the senator’s mischaracterizations when contacted by CNN’s KFile, but reiterated that the policy should have been handled differently.

“Harris’ claim that the policy has since been changed ‘because it was not the intended purpose of that policy’ is also inaccurate,” CNN said. “While Harris was correct that the policy has since been changed, it was the result of a change in administration. When Newsom left his position as mayor in 2011, his successor changed the city’s policy so that police would only report unaccompanied juvenile undocumented immigrants who were arrested to ICE; and again in 2013 when San Francisco passed another ordinance which prohibited reporting any arrested person to ICE except in limited circumstances.”

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a candidate for 2020’s presidential election, called for “reparations” to be paid to blacks to “help folks heal” from what she described as “undiagnosed and untreated trauma” caused by America’s “dark history.” She offered her remarks in an interview published Tuesday with The Root.

Partial transcript below:

THE ROOT: Should black people get reparations?

KAMALA HARRIS: I think there has to be some form of reparations. We can discuss what that is, but look, we’re looking at more than 200 years of slavery. We’re looking at almost a hundred years of Jim Crow. We’re looking at legalized segregation and, in fact, segregation on so many levels that exists today, based on race. And there has not been any kind of intervention done understanding the harm and the damage that occurred to correct course, and so we are seeing the effects of all of those years play out still today.

THE ROOT: And as president, you would be willing to lead a conversation about what reparations for black people would look like?

KAMALA HARRIS: Yeah, including things like what we should be doing to take very seriously undiagnosed and untreated trauma. Take that very seriously, and what kind of resources are we going to put in that? What kind of resources are we going to put in communities to help folks heal and be on an equal footing?

If we are pretending to be and say that we are a society that values equality under the law — look, right across the street is the United States Supreme Court. In that marble is inscribed, “Equal Under Law,” well if everyone is equal, that is a concept that we value, which we say we do, part of the foundational values and ideals of our country, equality, then we have to understand, we’re not all being born, and we’re not all living on equal ground in terms of opportunity for success. And certain things are a result of the dark history — the history of crime — that has occurred in this country, and we’re not going to be able to correct course without serious intervention.

Harris also said, “On the issue of race in America, let’s be very clear that we had years where people were talking about, ‘Are we a post-racial society?’ Which I have rejected since the moment that discussion began. No, we are not. Race is still a big issue in America.”

According to Harris, the Russian government somehow affected 2016’s presidential election with racial propaganda. She said:

[Russia] tested out different issues, different subjects, to see what would cause tension, what would draw heat to make the American public fight with each other, and the issue that attracted the most heat was race. So what does that tell us? Not only is the subject of race and how we acknowledge it and deal with it a function of America’s identity, it is also a matter of national security, because an adversarial country — Russia — figured out that the subject of race is America’s Achilles’ heel.

Asked if President Donald Trump is a “racist,” Harris responded, “I don’t think you can reach any other conclusion.”

Earlier in February, Harris expressed support for “reparations.”

Harris reiterated her rejection of the term “identity politics,” framing it as a linguistic tool used to “silence” and “shut up” those who speak “truth” about “racism.”

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

Like many of her contemporaries, 2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-CA) has an issue with the truth.

Truth and Kamala go together like peanut butter and tuna fish. No bueno.

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

Now, even left-leaning CNN is calling out Harris for a big-time blatant lie.

NEW 2020 story with @natemcdermott: Speaking in Iowa on Saturday, Kamala Harris falsely claimed she didn't support a policy that turned undocumented youth over ICE during her tenure as San Francisco DA. https://t.co/5cunUuJRtW

— andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) February 27, 2019

If you’re carrying anything breakable, put it down before you read this and drop it: CNN issued a report detailing Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) lying to an Iowa audience on Sunday about a policy she supported in 2008 that called for illegal immigrants who were minors to be claimed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they were only suspected but not convicted of having committed a felony.

Harris had joined Political Party Live, an Iowa podcast, where she was queried by host Misty Rebik about her support of the 2008 policy, enacted by then-San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. Rebik mentioned a CNN KFile report that detailed Harris’ support; it read:

As district attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris supported a city policy that required law enforcement to turn over undocumented juvenile immigrants to federal immigration authorities if they were arrested and suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually convicted of a crime.

CNN noted that in San Francisco, a sanctuary city since 1989, police were not forced to offer information to federal immigration authorities about their dealings with illegal immigrants. In 1992, the city changed the policy so that adult illegal immigrants would no longer be immune from the information-trading process, but minors were still off-limits. But after a 21-year-old illegal immigrant was arrested for triple murder, and he had a prior conviction as a 17-year-old for attempted robbery and assault but hadn’t been reported to the federal authorities, Newsom changed the policy to include minors.

Be better, Kamala.

Harris’s own father noted that her ancesttors owned slaves, via Jamaica Global Online:

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).

VOTE: Should Jussie Smollett Get PRISON TIME For Orchestrating The “MAGA Hoax”?

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

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is asking Twitter executives and other tech titans about how to appeal to young people as the Democrat prepares for a possible presidential run, CNBC reported Wednesday.

Biden is talking to various social media companies about what appeals to young people, the report notes, citing an anonymous source who did not provide a name of the executives. Twitter refused to confirm the report, telling reporters instead that the company provides advice to anyone who asks.

“We work with elected officials, candidates and former politicians regularly when it comes to them getting the most out of Twitter,” a Twitter spokesman said. Biden is 76 years old and has been a mainstay in American politics for more than four decades. He is also attempting to court a digital presence.

Athan Stephanopoulos, the president of NowThis News, a liberal online news outlet, confirmed that Biden had indeed contacted his company. (RELATED: New Poll Shows Joe Biden With Big Lead Among Potential POTUS Candidates)

“We are trying to reinforce that outlets like NowThis are an important place to spend time and reach these audiences,” he told reporters, describing key issues that bring young voters to the ballot box. “Candidates will have to take a stand on these issues as it relates to talking to this whole new generation of voters.”

Biden holds a high favorability rating among a slew of demographics, according to an NPR poll in January. He has the support of black people (70 percent), white people without a college education (71 percent), and white people with a college education (83 percent). His numbers are sky-high compared to Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California.

Results from the NPR poll come off the heels of a Morning Consult poll in December 2018 showing Biden leading the pack of prospective Democratic nominees in 2020, drawing 26 percent of party support in a mid-November Morning Consult poll. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders followed a close second in the poll, drawing 19 percent among Democrats.

Some Republicans worry that Biden poses the biggest threat to President Donald Trump. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, told reporters in December that the former vice president might be what the Democratic Party needs to win in 2020 despite being a flawed candidate.

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.

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is having one heck of a bad week. First her father comes out and slams her for a bad weed joke,

“My dear departed grandmother … as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,” Kamala’s own father said before saying his daughter’s words were a travesty.

“Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.”

But that is not all. Rush Limbaugh did some digging and found a new and very embarrassing skeleton in Kamala’s closet, again courtesy of her father.

Rush said: Now, this is kind of a funny story. There’s a column here at PJ Media by Megan Fox. And the headline of this: “Reparations Time? Kamala Harris’ Father Says Family Descended from a Jamaican Slave Owner.” Now, this is perfect because this points out the sheer hypocrisy and I think the genuine mental deficiencies of people we’re told are brilliant on the left.

Kamala Harris made some joke — the subject of whether she’s black enough came up, as it always does in Democrat presidential politics. Is she black enough? And then some black civil rights leader — and I wish I could remember who — I don’t remember who it was. But said of Kamala Harris, she got a white husband. This ain’t flying. She can’t get away, she can’t run as an African-Amer, she can’t run as a black. She’s married to a white guy. That doesn’t work for us.

It’s like they had debates over whether Obama was black enough ’cause he’s half white and did Obama have slave blood? He didn’t have slave blood. Does Kamala Harris have slave blood? She’s from Jamaica. Well, in her defense of all this, she told some funny stories about how, yeah, I’m from Jamaica where they smoke a lot of weed. Well, her father got livid at her. Her father blew up at her for creating this negative stereotype of people from Jamaica and let her have it in public.

And he’s done it again! Because Kamala Harris is on record as backing some form of reparations for slavery. In a recent interview — and I — sorry. I guess I keep mispronouncing her name. Snerdley, have you heard her name is pronounced? Is it Kamala? Kamala Harris? Yeah, that’s what I thought. But last week people were correcting me. “No, no, no, it’s not Kamala. It’s Kamala.” But whatever. I just thought you might have the definitive answer on this.

“In a recent interview, Harris agreed with the host’s suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address past discrimination.”

She later affirmed that support in a statement to the New York Times. “We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities.”

Her father, Donald J. Harris, wrote an extensive essay about the family’s heritage in Jamaica at Jamaican Global Online in January, claiming to be the descendant of a famed slave owner.

Her family! Her family is descendants of slave owners, not slaves! Kamala Harris’s family, her father writes an essay in January claiming, stating that his family’s heritage is the descendant of a famed slave owner in Jamaica! They have no history with slaves. Their descendancy is from slave owners.

He wrote: “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.”

And he goes on to describe how his family, he and therefore his children, are descendants of slave owners, not of slaves. In other words, Kamala Harris’s ancestors presided over a real plantation. Her family, her ancestors owned people. Her father’s out getting this on the record ’cause he’s not crazy about some of things she’s out there saying. And now she wants to preside over the Democrat plantation.

The first time her father upbraided her, she made some flippant comment about a stereotype of Jamaicans is they like to sit around and puff on weed all the time. And that really irritated him. I think he’s a professor at Stanford, if I’m not mistaken. It really irritated him, and he wrote a piece castigating her. This was just in the past two or three weeks. I think she’s got a whole bunch of publicity about her that is not actually warranted. I don’t think she’s that sharp on her feet.

But, anyway, all this stuff is coming out now as the Democrat campaign unfolds. And it’s gonna continue to come out because there are so many of them seeking the nomination. And they’re gonna be in a race to the extreme left. Do you know how many hypocrites are running around in that party? I know hypocrisy never attaches to them. But, man, if we ever get a flood of reporting about their hypocrisy, then some of it by sheer volume is gonna put out.

twitchy.com

Published  1 month ago

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled their latest “Medicare-for-all” bill -- a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system that would largely outlaw private insurance as part of what critics call a one-size-fits-all government takeover. 

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Published  1 month ago

RUSH: Now, this is kind of a funny story. There’s a column here at PJ Media by Megan Fox. And the headline of this: “Reparations Time? Kamala Harris’ Father Says Family Descended from a Jamaican Slave Owner.” Now, this is perfect because this points out the sheer hypocrisy and I think the genuine mental deficiencies of people we’re told are brilliant on the left.

Kamala Harris made some joke — the subject of whether she’s black enough came up, as it always does in Democrat presidential politics. Is she black enough? And then some black civil rights leader — and I wish I could remember who — I don’t remember who it was. But said of Kamala Harris, she got a white husband. This ain’t flying. She can’t get away, she can’t run as an African-American, she can’t run as a black. She’s married to a white guy. That doesn’t work for us.

It’s like they had debates over whether Obama was black enough ’cause he’s half white and did Obama have slave blood? He didn’t have slave blood. Does Kamala Harris have slave blood? She’s from Jamaica. Well, in her defense of all this, she told some funny stories about how, yeah, I’m from Jamaica where they smoke a lot of weed. Well, her father got livid at her. Her father blew up at her for creating this negative stereotype of people from Jamaica and let her have it in public.

And he’s done it again! Because Kamala Harris is on record as backing some form of reparations for slavery. In a recent interview — and I — sorry. I guess I keep mispronouncing her name. Snerdley, have you heard her name is pronounced? Is it Kamala? Kamala Harris? Yeah, that’s what I thought. But last week people were correcting me. “No, no, no, it’s not Kamala. It’s Kamala.” But, whatever. I just thought you might have the definitive answer on this.

“In a recent interview, Harris agreed with the host’s suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address past discrimination.” She later affirmed that support in a statement to the New York Times. “We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities.”

Right. And Bill Maher doesn’t want you to have — (laughing) — the left doesn’t want you to have these opportunities! The whole thing, they want to hoard all of this specialness for themselves. They don’t want anybody sharing this. At any rate, she continued in an interview on some podcast called The Breakfast Club.

“I think that we have got to address that again, it’s back to the 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. The Voting Rights Act was only strong for 50 years and then they wiped it out with this United States Supreme Court in the Shelby decision, to the point that 22 states immediately thereafter put in place laws that one court found were crafted with surgical precision to have black people not be able to vote.

“So we’ve got to recognize … 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. And, there are a number of ways to do it. Part of my initiative again around the LIFT Act is that same point — you lifting people up who are making less than a hundred thousand dollars a year. What I want to do about rent is the same thing. What we need to do around education and understanding disparities, what we need to do around HBCUs. But we have a history of racism in America.”

Her father, Donald J. Harris, wrote an extensive essay about the family’s heritage in Jamaica at Jamaican Global Online in January, claiming to be the descendant of a famed slave owner.

Her family! Her family is descendants of slave owners, not slaves! Kamala Harris’s family, her father writes an essay in January claiming, stating that his family’s heritage is the descendant of a famed slave owner in Jamaica! They have no history with slaves. Their descendancy is from slave owners.

He wrote: “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.”

And he goes on to describe how his family, he and therefore his children, are descendants of slave owners, not of slaves. In other words, Kamala Harris’s ancestors presided over a real plantation. Her family, her ancestors owned people. Her father’s out getting this on the record ’cause he’s not crazy about some of things she’s out there saying. And now she wants to preside over the Democrat plantation.

The first time her father upbraided her, she made some flippant comment about a stereotype of Jamaicans is they like to sit around and puff on weed all the time. And that really irritated him. I think he’s a professor at Stanford, if I’m not mistaken. It really irritated him, and he wrote a piece castigating her. This was just in the past two or three weeks. I think she’s got a whole bunch of publicity about her that is not actually warranted. I don’t think she’s that sharp on her feet.

But, anyway, all this stuff is coming out now as the Democrat campaign unfolds. And it’s gonna continue to come out because there are so many of them seeking the nomination. And they’re gonna be in a race to the extreme left. Do you know how many hypocrites are running around in that party? I know hypocrisy never attaches to them. But, man, if we ever get a flood of reporting about their hypocrisy!

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.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The Senate on Tuesday confirmed President Trump's nominee to be a judge on the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a party-line vote -- and, in a historic snub, the White House ignored the input of the judge's two Democratic home-state senators in the process.

The aggressive and unprecedented move to give the so-called "blue slip" consultation process the slip comes as the Trump administration seeks to erode left-wing dominance on the key appellate court, which Trump has called "disgraceful" and politically biased.

With a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, the appellate court has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against his travel ban policy and limits on funding to "sanctuary cities."

The Seattle attorney, Eric Miller, was confirmed 53-46. Miller was one the 51 federal judicial nominees left over from the previous Congress whom the White House re-nominated last month.

TRUMP: NINTH CIRCUIT WOULD OVERTURN MY THANKSGIVING TURKEY PARDON IF IT COULD

Miller, currently the appellate chairman of the high-powered law firm Perkins Coie, will replace Judge Richard Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee who assumed senior status March 2018. Miller is the fifth former clerk to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas to be nominated by Trump to a federal appellate court, including embattled D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Neomi Rao.

Among those objecting were Washington State's two Democratic senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Aides say Miller's confirmation marks the first time the Senate has strayed from tradition and confirmed a judicial nominee over the dissent of both home-state senators.

“This is wrong. It is a dangerous road for the Senate to go down,” Murray said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Confirming this Ninth Circuit court nominee without the consent or true input of both home-state senators, and after a sham hearing, would be a dangerous first for this Senate.”

Miller was nominated last year but faced opposition from Democrats, in part over his views on issues of tribal sovereignty.

The Sacramento Bee reported last year that White House officials had been negotiating with California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris about Ninth Circuit appointments, but the dialogue collapsed, and the White House proceeded to announce three nominees over their objections.

Those nominees -- Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) -- have yet to be confirmed.

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty Ninth,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Fox News' Bill Mears and Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris made some bold statements in an interview on Tuesday, calling for the decriminalization of sex work and labeling President Trump a racist.

“When you're talking about consenting adults, I think that yes, we should really consider that we can't criminalize consensual behavior, as long as no one is being harmed," Senator Harris, D-Calif., told The Root. "But at the point that anyone is being harmed or exploited, then we have to understand that's a different matter."

When asked if she thought sex work should be decriminalized, Harris said: “I think so. I do.”

She added, however, that the issue “is not as simple as that.”

“There is an ecosystem around that, that includes crimes that harm people,” Harris said. “I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be ... free of criminal prosecution."

Interviewer Terrell Jermaine Starr also asked Harris, “Is President Trump a racist?”

“Well look, when you talk about his statement [responding to the violence protests in Charlottesville, Virginia], when you talk about him calling African countries ‘s---hole’ countries, when you talk about him referring to immigrants as racists and murderers, I don’t think you can reach any other conclusions,” Harris responded

Starr asked Harris again if she “definitely” agreed that the president was a racist.

“I do, yes. Yes.” Harris said.

For his part, in discussing his comments about undocumented immigrants being “murderers” and “rapists,” Trump has insisted he was talking specifically about MS-13 gang members and criminals.

But the issue that has garnered Trump the lion's share of criticism may be his reaction to the Charlottesville protests, during which neo-Nazis and white nationalists in Charlottesville marched and a counterprotester was fatally hit by a car.

OPINION: THIS IS TRUMP'S BEST MESSAGE GOING INTO 2020 (AND HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE IT)

“I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said in August 2017.

“To equate the ‘both sides’ gave me an incredible amount of pain and concern,” Harris told The Root about the president’s reaction.

Harris is not the first presidential candidate to call Trump a racist. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did so last month.

Starr also asked Harris if it was worthwhile to pursue the votes of Americans who voted for Trump “despite all the racist things he has said.”

“I’m going to compete for every vote; not everybody will vote for me, but I’m going to compete for every vote,” Harris said.

Harris said she has rejected the idea America was a “postracial" society for years.

“Race is still a big issue in America,” Harris said.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a candidate for 2020’s presidential election, called for “reparations” to be paid to blacks to “help folks heal” from what she described as “undiagnosed and untreated trauma” caused by America’s “dark history.” She offered her remarks in an interview published Tuesday with The Root.

Partial transcript below:

THE ROOT: Should black people get reparations?

KAMALA HARRIS: I think there has to be some form of reparations. We can discuss what that is, but look, we’re looking at more than 200 years of slavery. We’re looking at almost a hundred years of Jim Crow. We’re looking at legalized segregation and, in fact, segregation on so many levels that exists today, based on race. And there has not been any kind of intervention done understanding the harm and the damage that occurred to correct course, and so we are seeing the effects of all of those years play out still today.

THE ROOT: And as president, you would be willing to lead a conversation about what reparations for black people would look like?

KAMALA HARRIS: Yeah, including things like what we should be doing to take very seriously undiagnosed and untreated trauma. Take that very seriously, and what kind of resources are we going to put in that? What kind of resources are we going to put in communities to help folks heal and be on an equal footing?

If we are pretending to be and say that we are a society that values equality under the law — look, right across the street is the United States Supreme Court. In that marble is inscribed, “Equal Under Law,” well if everyone is equal, that is a concept that we value, which we say we do, part of the foundational values and ideals of our country, equality, then we have to understand, we’re not all being born, and we’re not all living on equal ground in terms of opportunity for success. And certain things are a result of the dark history — the history of crime — that has occurred in this country, and we’re not going to be able to correct course without serious intervention.

Harris also said, “On the issue of race in America, let’s be very clear that we had years where people were talking about, ‘Are we a post-racial society?’ Which I have rejected since the moment that discussion began. No, we are not. Race is still a big issue in America.”

According to Harris, the Russian government somehow affected 2016’s presidential election with racial propaganda. She said:

[Russia] tested out different issues, different subjects, to see what would cause tension, what would draw heat to make the American public fight with each other, and the issue that attracted the most heat was race. So what does that tell us? Not only is the subject of race and how we acknowledge it and deal with it a function of America’s identity, it is also a matter of national security, because an adversarial country — Russia — figured out that the subject of race is America’s Achilles’ heel.

Asked if President Donald Trump is a “racist,” Harris responded, “I don’t think you can reach any other conclusion.”

Earlier in February, Harris expressed support for “reparations.”

Harris reiterated her rejection of the term “identity politics,” framing it as a linguistic tool used to “silence” and “shut up” those who speak “truth” about “racism.”

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) says that she supports the decriminalization of sex work nationwide, noting that “we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed.”

In an interview with The Root, Harris was asked whether sex work “ought to be decriminalized,” though the interviewer did not specify at which level.

“I do,” Harris responded. “I think that we have to understand, though, that it is not as simple as that. … There’s an ecosystem around that, that involves crimes that harm people. And for those issues, I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be … free of criminal prosecution.

“But when you’re talking about consenting adults? Yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed,” she added.

Harris also explained her support for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) in the interview, which sex workers and advocates argued shut down online platforms such as Backpage.com and others which workers used to screen clients and establish safer working procedures.- READ MORE

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.

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.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Conservative political commentator Michelle Malkin, received an interesting email from Twitter Legal telling her to lawyer up for violating Pakistani law in regards to a tweet that she made in 2015.

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

Check out what she said.

“I’ve been #SiliconValleySharia -ed. Here’s the notice Twitter’s legal dept sent me last week, warning me to get legal counsel because anti-blasphemy Muslim zealots complained that my Mohammed Cartoons tweet violates Pakistan’s laws.”

I've been #SiliconValleySharia -ed. Here's the notice Twitter's legal dept sent me last week, warning me to get legal counsel because anti-blasphemy Muslim zealots complained that my Mohammed Cartoons tweet violates Pakistan's laws.https://t.co/dn4cHniMYN@miss9afi @Imamofpeace pic.twitter.com/tO6WItRghJ

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) February 27, 2019

Twitter was contacting Malkin in response to a 2015 tweet where she provided drawings of the false profit Mohammed and told her that the tweet is “in violation of Pakistan law.”

Who cares?? This is America, the land of the free. Pakistani law has no place in America.

Check out the drawings from her tweet below.

Here: The Mohammed Cartoons & other riot-inducing images #cartoonjihad #CharlieHebdo ==> http://t.co/iwWEPiFt4h pic.twitter.com/Qh88wc8rd6

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) January 9, 2015

Seriously? Out of everything that happens on Twitter, why is Twitter most concerned about a tweet from four years ago? Twitter is the forefront of conservative censorship and they have been taking a lot of action in recent months against conservatives. Now, they are going after conservatives for providing drawings of the false Islamic profit Mohammed.

Malkin went into more detail in a post on her website.

“My innocuous tweet featured a compilation image of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. It also linked to my Jan. 8, 2015, syndicated column on the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre in Paris. There’s no hate, violence, profanity or pornography, just harmless drawings and peacefully expressed opinions about the Western media’s futile attempts to appease the unappeasable enforcers of sharia law, which bans all insults of Islam.”

Twitter allows pornography, profanity, violent videos and hate from the Left, but apparently cartoon drawings of a false Islamic profit is off limits. Images and pictures of Mohammed are forbidden according to Islamic law which is the law of the land in Pakistan.

Malkin isn’t the only one who has been threatened by Twitter. Check out what else she had to say.

“Over the past few months, several other prominent critics of Islamic extremism have received similar warning letters from Twitter’s legal department, including Saudi-Canadian activist Ensaf Haidar, the wife of imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi; Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, an Iranian-born Muslim scholar and reform advocate from Australia; Jamie Glazov, a Russian-born Canadian columnist who just released a new book called “Jihadist Psychopath”; and Pamela Geller, an anti-jihad blogger and activist.”

Everyday, conservatives are getting censored and called out by Twitter for things that Democrats do daily and get away with. Jacob Wohl, a well known conservative, recently got permanently banned from the platform for having multiple accounts to provide promotion for his main account. Guess who else uses this tactic to gain fame? Kamala Harris! Did she get banned? Of course not!

The double standard from the Left only seems to be getting worse. Conservatives are held to an extremely high standard, while liberals seem to be able to get away with anything. Instead of eliminating porn, violence and profanity from their platform, Twitter is most concerned about deleting drawings of Mohammed.

What are your thoughts? Comment below…

The Washington Times

Published  1 month ago

Democrats have this annoying habit of seeing race in places where race isn't even an issue. It's called identity politics, it's one of the left's favorite means of politicking, and it's damaging to Am

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that President Trump is a racist.

In a sit-down interview with The Root, the California Democrat said there’s no other conclusion one could draw from the president’s past statements, including his 2016 campaign announcement denouncing illegal immigration, his “both sides” remark regarding the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his alleged comments calling developing nations in Africa and Central America “s–thole countries.”

“For the leader of the nation to equate the ‘both sides’ gave me an incredible amount of pain and concern,” Mrs. Harris said of Charlottesville.

“If you actually are a leader, then you don’t condone and support and counsel hate,” she said. “You call bigotry what it is, you call racism what it is, you call violence what it is.”

“Is President Trump a racist?” The Root’s Terrell Jermaine Starr asked the senator.

“Well, look, when you talk about him calling African countries s-hole countries, when you talk about him referring to immigrants as rapists and murderers, I don’t think you can reach any other conclusion,” Mrs. Harris said.

“So you definitely would agree that he’s a racist?” Mr. Starr pressed.

“I do, yes,” Mrs. Harris responded emphatically. “Yes. Yes.” – READ MORE

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

When Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) came out on Tuesday in favor of decriminalizing prostitution, she failed to mention that she had opposed it her entire career.

Harris most publicly opposed the idea of decriminalizing the oldest profession in 2008, when she called a proposal to do so in San Francisco "completely ridiculous" and argued it "would put a welcome mat out for pimps and prostitutes." She rejected the notion that prostitution was a "victimless crime," the New York Times reported, and said it "compromises the quality of life in a community."

But in her Tuesday interview with The Root, she said she supports decriminalizing prostitution and explicitly said it was because it is often victimless.

"When you’re talking about consensual adults, I think that, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed," Harris said.

The reversal from Harris, like her complete reversal on marijuana legalization, came after criticism from activists.

A month ago, just after she announced her campaign, it was reported that sex workers were rejecting Harris. She lost their trust last year when she backed legislation designed to fight online sex trafficking, but that sex workers said would "literally kill them." They said they used the outlawed websites to find customers, allowing them to move off the streets and away from pimps. The bill passed, was praised by Harris, and signed by President Trump.

"It should be a big concern to the American public that Kamala is voting with President Trump," said Maxine Doogan, a Bay Area activist who also fought Harris on the failed 2008 proposition. "It should be a big concern to American women that you have politicians like Kamala who want to champion women's right to choose when it comes to abortion, but they don't want to uphold women's sovereignty to access their own commercial commerce."

Another sex workers' rights activist, Kate D'Adamo, said she thought Harris's support for the bill was a political decision.

"I think it was a very calculated decision, and I think it was a very political decision that did not weigh the cost it would have to communities," D'Adamo said.

D'Adamo's group, the Erotic Service Provider Legal, Educational and Research Project, challenged California's solicitation law with a lawsuit in 2015 and was fought by none other than Harris, the state's then-attorney general.

Harris has worked during her presidential run to escape the reputation she earned as a California prosecutor, attempting to rebrand herself as a "progressive prosecutor."

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

That’s fair.

Without the world’s oldest profession, Senator Kamala Harris might not be where she is in the world’s second oldest profession. (Or did I mix the two up?)

The two positions Brown appointed Harris to—on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission—paid handsomely. SF Weekly reported back in 2003 that the two positions earned her more than $400,000 over five years.

Harris defended her decision to take the posts Brown got for her in her 2003 interview with SF Weekly despite her lack of experience.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work,” she said. “I brought a level of life knowledge and common sense to the jobs.”

Brown also reportedly gifted Harris with a BMW in 1994. He is 31 years older than Harris.

Kamala might honestly point out that there’s not that much of a difference between getting a BMW from San Fran’s top boss and a crumpled hundred dollar bill from Bill Clinton in an Arkansas motel room. Only one of those puts you on the path to the White House.

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.

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.

twitchy.com

Published  1 month ago

"Shame on you for being so ambitious as to ignore life."

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

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

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

Democratic front-runner Sen. Kamala Harris -once again- refused to acknowledge the high-cost and serious questions surrounding her ‘Medicare for All’ system this week; saying “it’s not about cost” but about providing “affordable healthcare” as a right for all Americans.

“How do we get to a point where we change the conversation? How do we have that cultural change so that people understand that this can be done? They want to know how you’re going to pay for it,’” asked one panel member.

“I would say to them that we have to reframe the perspective… Access to affordable healthcare should not be a privilege, it should be a right. When people start saying ‘cost, cost, cost.’ My response is, ‘No. It’s not about cost,’” fired-back Harris.

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.

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is running for president in 2020 and it’ll probably be the funniest thing to watch in the world.

She recently just made a total fool out of herself when asked what kind of president this country needs. It’s hilarious.

From Daily Caller: Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris said the U.S. needs a president who knows how to prosecute President Donald Trump, citing her former job as state attorney general Sunday.

Harris, a 2020 presidential candidate, was in Bettendorf, Iowa, speaking to a group of supporters, when she said, “we’re gonna need a fighter, and we’re going to need somebody who knows how to prosecute the case against this president,” pitching herself as the ideal candidate to defeat Trump in 2020 to the audience of around 500.

Harris was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017 before being elected to the Senate. Now, she hopes to take on Trump in the 2020 election, but will have to get through a crowded Democratic primary first.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Trump and Russian Collusion, about which Harris was speaking, will not be delivered to the Department of Justice as soon as previously reported by CNN.

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.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

CNN has been accused of failing to disclose Democratic Party ties of several attendees who were able to ask 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders questions during the network’s town hall on Monday.

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.

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.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

Potential 2020 Democratic nominee Sen. Kamala Harris deflected fierce criticism of her expensive government expansion programs over the weekend; saying the “cost” isn’t as important as the “investment.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) repeatedly failed to give CNN’s John King a clear answer on how she would pay for her proposals, saying, “it’s not about a cost.” pic.twitter.com/w8UHy10heg

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 24, 2019

“There’s no question we have to be practical. But being practical also recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to us as human beings. Being practical recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening our air,” said Harris.

“Can we afford it?” asked CNN’s John King.

“Of course we can afford it… It’s not about a cost, it’s about an investment. The question should be: ‘Is it worth the cost?’” Harris responded.

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.”

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.

Washington Free Beacon

Published  1 month ago

The "Green New Deal" would cost up to $94.4 trillion, or over $600,000 per household in the United States, according to a new study.

The American Action Forum study offers a conservative estimate of the costs of providing every resident in the country a federal job with benefits, "adequate" housing, "healthy food," and health care.

Though Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D., N.Y.) plan is vague on specifics, it calls for the "economic transformation" of the United States, a complete overhaul of transportation systems, and retrofitting every single building. A supplemental document explaining the plan, since deleted from her website after it was widely mocked on social media, called for economic security for everyone, even those "unwilling to work," the elimination of air travel, and "farting cows."

However, the American Action Forum was able to calculate estimates for several items the plan does propose, including guaranteed green housing, universal health care, and food security. Estimates of specific goals identified in the Green New Deal would cost each household in America between $36,100 and $65,300 every year.

"The American Action Forum's analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation," said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill," he said. "The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That's no deal."

Barrasso said the focus should be on innovation, rather than costly federal programs.

"Instead, we should promote innovation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization hold the key to significant emissions reductions," he said. "We can lower our emissions without crashing our economy."

The United States is already leading the world in carbon emissions reduction. The first year of the Trump administration emissions were reduced by 2.7 percent.

The American Action Forum calculated guaranteed green housing would cost between $1.6 trillion and $4.2 trillion; a federal jobs guarantee between $6.8 trillion and $44.6 trillion; a net zero emissions transportation system between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion; a low-carbon electricity grid for $5.4 trillion; and "food security" for $1.5 billion.

Enough high-speed rail "to make air travel unnecessary," would cost roughly $1.1 to $2.5 trillion. Universal Health Care, or a Medicare-for-all type plan, would cost $36 trillion over 10 years, totaling $260,000 per household in the United States.

Many of the figures are conservative estimates. For instance, researchers assumed obtaining a low-carbon electricity grid would require no new construction of transmission assets, when in actuality, such a grid would require new infrastructure.

"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive," the American Action Forum said. "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."

In all, the plan would cost between $52.6 trillion and $94.4 trillion, over 10 years. The burden to the taxpayer would amount to between $361,010 and $653,010 for each household over 10 years.

Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under such a plan. Barrasso's office previously calculated the Green New Deal would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

Taking the lead of Ocasio-Cortez, who recently suggested people should stop reproducing because climate change will end the world in 12 years, Democratic 2020 hopefuls have lined up to endorse the Green New Deal.

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) has said the planet "simply can't sustain" people eating meat, and compared the Green New Deal to landing on the moon and fighting World War II.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called the Green New Deal "practical," during an interview Sunday, adding "of course we can afford" the plan because climate change is "an existential threat to us."

"It's not about a cost," Harris said. "It's about an investment."

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

Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign spokesman unloaded on Hillary Clinton and her team on Monday, calling them the "biggest a--holes in American politics," after former members of Clinton's campaign leaked details this week about Sanders' use of private jets to attend campaign rallies on her behalf.

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.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The sweeping "Green New Deal" proposed by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could cost as much as $93 trillion, or approximately $600,000 per household, according to a new study produced by a think tank run by the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

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 […]

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ father recently rebuked her for using the stereotype that Jamaicans like those in her family smoke marijuana.

It turns out that Harris’ father Donald Harris made a startling admission in an essay he wrote entitled “Reflections of a Jamaican Father” which was published at Jamaica Global Online:

“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).”

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.

GOP

Published  1 month ago

According to a brand new study, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” will cost a whopping $93 TRILLION over 10 years. To put that eye-popping figure into perspective:

If every household earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100% rate for 10 years, Democrats would still fall more than $58 trillion short. (IRS, Accessed 2/25/19)

If every household earning more than $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate for 10 years, Democrats would still fall more than $32 trillion short. (IRS, Accessed 2/25/19)

To generate $93 trillion in income tax revenue, Democrats would have to tax every household earning more than $30,000 at a 100% rate for 10 years. (IRS, Accessed 2/25/19)

Reminder: Every major 2020 Democrat supports this socialist plan. And to think, Kamala Harris just said, “it’s not about a cost.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says

Ari Natter

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_content=politics&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious plan to fight climate change won’t be cheap, according to a think tank led by a former Congressional Budget Office director.

The so-called Green New Deal may tally between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, concludes the center-right policy American Action Forum, which is run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the non-partisan CBO from from 2003 to 2005.

That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” the group said in its analysis. “It’s 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.”

Representatives of Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, and Markey didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click here to read more.

Energy and Environment Energy Independence

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Hardly a day goes by without the new face of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), unconsciously giving the Right more ammunition to ridicule her so-called “policies.”

The latest was an SNL-like video she made in her kitchen cooking chili during which she berated America for the impending environmental apocalypse.

The inanity of her comments is stupefying enough. For example, she actually pauses to look at the camera and says: “If we do not act there is no hope. The only time we can hope is when we act.” But her Miss World contestant soundbites, are outdone by the shear irony of the whole film. Rush Limbaugh commented, as only he can:

And in this cooking video, everything she’s using is powered by fossil fuels! From her stove to her refrigerator. The food that she is making arrived in her kitchen after having been delivered for part of the route by fossil fuels.

Those would be the same fossils fuels Ocasio-Cortez wants to ban in America under her Green New Deal.

While theses gaffes and the memes to which they give rise are truly amusing, the humor of it all shouldn’t give the Right a sense of security. The New Green Deal is a socialist plan for the largest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen, and it will cost you $93 trillion.

The GND is “watermelon policy”—green on the outside and deep red on the inside. It’s socialism under the cloak of environmentalism. What’s more, the proposal isn’t merely the collected ravings of a fringe freshman congresswoman. The Green New Deal has been endorsed by a slew of Democrat representatives and senators, including some who think they have a shot at being the next president, such as Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

As a result, now more than ever, we must tell the truth about socialism—the socialism of today and the socialism of the past. We must remind people how in Venezuela, the otherwise ardent left-wing reporter, Jorge Ramos, caused the dictator Maduro to storm out of an interview and was arrested when he showed footage of Venezuelans eating discarded food out of a dumpster truck. And we must talk about what socialism actually wrought throughout the 20th century.

I have lived a blessed life, born into freedom in the United Kingdom and now a proud American living in the freest and greatest nation in the world. But for me, socialism is not some theory. It’s not a policy paper written under the name of a former bartender from the Bronx. Socialism, and its final evolution, Communism, were realities that my family experienced. The consequences of that reality changed my life forever one sunny day at the beach when I was a child.

We lived in England when I was a child but our family would vacation in France. One summer, I must have been 8 or 9, we were at the seaside in southern France. I was playing on the shore and my father was swimming in the sea. When he came out, I recognized something I hadn’t seen before. On both of his wrists, there were deep white lines yet he wasn’t old enough to be wrinkled there. Innocently, I asked him: “Dad what’s that?” Without any hesitation or emotion, he answered: “That’s where the secret police bound my wrists together with wire behind my back and hanged me from the ceiling of the torture chamber.” That moment my life changed. That moment history became real for me and the struggle for freedom took physical form.

My father’s story of persecution under a left-wing regime is not unique. But how many Americans know these stories? How many could tell you that the ideas of Karl Marx killed more than 100 million people in just a little more than a century? From Russia to Cambodia, from Poland to North Korea, the story is the same.

When almost half of Millennials polled say they prefer socialism to free-market democracy, we understand where the 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comes from and we know the threat her ideas pose to freedom in America.

The 2020 presidential election will not be about GOP versus DNC. It won’t even be about Donald Trump versus the Establishment. Our next election, and all elections for at least a generation, will have to undo the brainwashing of a generation. These elections are going to be about one thing: freedom versus oppression.

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: Anne Luty

Big League Politics

Published  1 month ago

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ father recently rebuked her for using the stereotype that Jamaicans like those in her family smoke marijuana.

It turns out that Harris’ father Donald Harris made a startling admission in an essay he wrote entitled “Reflections of a Jamaican Father” which was published at Jamaica Global Online:

“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).”

Harris’ father’s passage ends

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ team is trying to distance itself from a growing scandal: Harris oversaw the California Department of Justice’s push to block parole for prisoners so that they could continue to serve their prison labor.

Jackie Kucinich reported for the Daily Beast: “According to court filings, lawyers for the state said California met benchmarks, and argued that if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively affect the prison’s labor programs, including one that allowed certain inmates to fight California’s wildfires for about $2 a day.

“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite.”…

Harris, for her part, told BuzzFeed News two months after the arguments were made on her behalf, that she was “shocked” by the argument, telling the publication she was looking into it.

Medium

Published  1 month ago

Influential US Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio has tweeted a blatant death threat and incitement of violence against…

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris said the U.S. needs a president who knows how to prosecute President Donald Trump, citing her former job as state attorney general Sunday.

Harris, a 2020 presidential candidate, was in Bettendorf, Iowa, speaking to a group of supporters, when she said, “we’re gonna need a fighter, and we’re going to need somebody who knows how to prosecute the case against this president,” pitching herself as the ideal candidate to defeat Trump in 2020 to the audience of around 500.

Standing ovation when @KamalaHarris, asked in Bettendorf, Iowa, how she can beat @realDonaldTrump, says: “We’re gonna need a fighter… and we’re going to need somebody that knows how to prosecute the case against this president.” #IACaucus pic.twitter.com/ksiGcabp6D

— Todd J. Gillman (@toddgillman) February 24, 2019

Harris was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017 before being elected to the Senate. Now, she hopes to take on Trump in the 2020 election, but will have to get through a crowded Democratic primary first. (RELATED: Liz Cheney Calls Out Kamala Harris For The ‘Fundamental Fraud’ She Espouses: ‘You Can’t Be For The People’)

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Trump and Russian Collusion, about which Harris was speaking, will not be delivered to the Department of Justice as soon as previously reported by CNN.

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.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

The top two runners in the girls 55-meter dash at Connecticut’s high school track championships have something in common. Winner Terry Miller and second-place finished Andraya Yearwood are both transgender runners.

Winning is nothing new for them, the Washington Times reported. They took the top two places in the girls 100-meter Connecticut high school championships last year. Miller also won the girls 300-meter race this year.

Competitor Selina Soule said that while the two students have the right to express who they are, rules such as the one in Connecticut that puts no restrictions on transgender athletes are not fair to everyone else.

“We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” she said.

“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,” she said.

TRENDING: Kamala Harris’ Father Turns on Her: ‘We Wish To Categorically Dissociate Ourselves from This Travesty’ – Report

“I think it’s unfair to the girls who work really hard to do well,” she said last year when the matter was debated, according to the Hartford Courant. “These girls, they’re just coming in and beating everyone.”

The Connecticut Association of Schools-Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference insists that the goal is to avoid discrimination. The issue is growing in importance now that more and more student identify as transgender, as The Western Journal has reported.

“This is about someone’s right to compete,” executive director Glenn Lungarini said.

“I don’t think this is that different from other classes of people, who, in the not too distant past, were not allowed to compete. I think it’s going to take education and understanding to get to that point on this issue,” he said.

However, Jon Forrest, whose daughter attends Glastonbury high school, said Connecticut needs to either develop a separate category for transgender athletes or adopt a hormone standard to decide who runs as a boy and who runs as a girl.

“The facts show Glastonbury would be the state champion based on cisgender girls competing against cisgender girls,” he said, using the word for girls who identify with their birth gender. “You don’t realize it until you see it in person, the disparity in the ability to perform.”

One official said the issue only arises when transgender girls win events.

“The elephant in the room is when winning and losing comes into play,” CIAC executive director Karissa Niehoff said. “Folks will say it’s not about winning and losing. But when a situation rises to the forefront, it’s generally when there’s a situation involving winning and losing and it doesn’t feel good.”

Erin Buzuvis, director of the Center of Gender and Sexuality Studies at Western New England College, said the issue is simple.

RELATED: Dem Rep. Ilhan Omar Urges Investigation After USA Powerlifting Bans Transgender from Female Events

“A transgender girl is a girl and ought to be treated like a girl,” Buzuvis said. “If you start to put limitations or exclusions on their participation, not only do you run the risk of violating state anti-discrimination law, but also you are disregarding and disrespecting a population of students based on a core aspect of their identity, which is something that schools should not be in the practice of doing.”

Buzuvis said claims that the current setup lacks fairness are uninformed.

“I understand that it appears to many people as an inequitable playing field, but they don’t have any context or knowledge about how that athlete’s life would be if she weren’t transgender. And it would be possible she’d be beating their daughters if she was cisgender,” he said.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Townhall

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told CNN Sunday that the U.S. can afford the left's expensive proposals such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for all. She added that such proposals are “not about a cost.”

“You’ll hear things like the Green New Deal. You’ll hear things like Medicare for all, you’ll hear things like, whether it’s taxes, you’ll hear things — at what point do you say, that’s our north star but we have to be realists?” CNN’s John King asked.

“There’s no question we have to be practical,” Harris replied. “But being practical also recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to us as human beings. Being practical recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening our air and threatening the planet and that it is well within our capacity as human beings to change our behaviors in a way that we can reduce its effects.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) repeatedly failed to give CNN’s John King a clear answer on how she would pay for her proposals, saying, “it’s not about a cost.” pic.twitter.com/w8UHy10heg

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 24, 2019

The Green New Deal would cost into the trillions per year for just some of its goals, economists are warning.

As for Medicare for all, one study from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center found that it would increase government spending on health care by $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The study’s findings are “similar to those of several independent studies of Sanders' 2016 plan. Those studies found increases in federal spending over 10 years that ranged from $24.7 trillion to $34.7 trillion.”

“Can we afford it?” King asked of these ideas.

“Of course we can afford it,” Harris replied.

“Two and a half, three trillion dollars a year for Medicare for all, by some studies,” King pointed out. “Depending on which portions of the green new deal you choose to do first–That’s money. You know what the Republicans are going to say, tax and spend liberals, pie in the sky…”

"One of the things that I admire and respect is the measurement that is captured in three letters: ROI," Harris replied. "What's the return on investment? People in the private sector understand this really well. It's not about a cost. It's about an investment. And then the question should be, is it worth the cost in terms of the investment potential? Are we going to get back more than we put in?"

Harris did not offer a more specific answer about how both proposals would be funded.

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!

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 month ago

President dealt a blow to Planned Parenthood and other clinics with a new pro-life Title X rule on Friday

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

HarrisSunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said people use the term “identity politics,” to “try to silence you or shut you up.”

Harris said, “This term identity politics, people will use that term— it’s like people used to talk about the race card. They bring this term up when you talk about issues that are about race, about sexual orientation, religion. They bring it up when we are talking about civil rights issues as a way to marginalize the issue, as a way frankly to try to silence you or shut you up.”

She added, “We need to call it what it is, which is to try and divert away from a conversation that needs to happen in America. Why? One, because we must speak truth. racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism are all real in this country. We need to have that conversation and address that. Two, and this is equally important, how America deals with the issues and the disparities and also the hate that causes these issues to become lethal in proportion. How America deals with these issues is a matter of american identity. This is not about identity politics. If it is, it’s about the identity of the United States of America. How we handle the issues will be about our collective identity.”

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

The urgency to have a wall built at the border may not seem like a crisis for some, but for those living close to the border, the crisis is all too real.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

It's only been a few days since actor Jussie Smollett was arrested for perpetrating a fake hate crime on himself but his defense strategy is already beginning to come into focus and it will seem

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Molly Prince, DCNF

Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney criticized Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris and the members of her party for claiming to work in the interest of the American people despite promulgating policies that strip Americans of their freedoms.

“Let’s never forget the fundamental fraud that’s at the heart of socialism,” Cheney said while speaking at the California GOP convention Saturday. “Every time you see Kamala Harris’s campaign slogan ‘For the people,’ I want you to remember what her real agenda is — taking power from the people to give it to the government.”

Cheney reminded the crowd of Harris’s call to eliminate the private health insurance market and instead create a government-run system, which would overhaul the entire American health care market.

“[Harris] fully embraced the socialist wing of their party” the Wyoming congresswoman continued. “She wants Medicare for all to create an all-government health care plan. That would cost $32 trillion in just the first decade.”

Harris revealed on MLK Jr. Day that she’s running for president because “the future of our country depends on you and millions of others lifting our voices to fight for our American values.” Accordingly, she chose the slogan “For the People” to represent her campaign.

Cheney, who is the third-ranking Republican in the House, also sounded the alarm for Americans to fight against “the lies that Democrats are selling”:

You can’t be for the people if you are trying to take more of their hard-earned money in taxes to give to the government.

You can’t be for the people if you are trying to take away their power to make their own health care decisions and give that power to the government.

You can’t be for the people if you believe the government knows best.

You can’t be for the people if every one of your policies strips the people’s freedom and independence.

It is for you and me, in this party, to stand up against the lies the Democrats are selling, to make sure the American people know that when they say “For The People” what they really mean is “For The Government”

It is for us to stand up for the ideas of private enterprise, personal freedom, and individual responsibility — those ideas that bring out the best in our country, and hold back the worst in our government.

It is for you and me to fight for the fundamental miracle and principle at the heart of our founding — that our rights come from God, not from the federal government. That the job of our government is to protect and defend our rights as they are enshrined in our Constitution. That our government works for us, not the other way around.

Cheney also singled out the Green New Deal as an example of how Democrats could turn the country into a socialist nation, and noted that “no public program can deliver the kind of prosperity and progress that free markets and free people have built” in the United States.

“Right here today, let’s issue a challenge to all our Democratic socialist colleagues,” she added. “Let’s call on them to walk the walk and not just talk the talk of socialism.”

Cheney’s speech received a standing ovation.

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.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito gravely predicted that “those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

He was right. In Wisconsin, this campaign of religious intolerance has claimed a new casualty in Gordon Giampietro, President Trump’s former nominee to a vacant seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He was revealed to be removed from the list of renominations Trump issued on January 22. Democrats have all but ensured that, for the crime of publicly voicing the teachings of his faith, Giampietro will never sit on the federal bench.

A number of Senate Democrats have famously come to the conclusion that Catholics faithful to the teachings of their church are unfit for public service. In September 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) bizarrely complained that “the dogma lives loudly within” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, suggesting that her faith precludes her service on the bench.

In December 2018, presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-CA) shamefully attempted to make membership in the Knights of Columbus, a renowned Catholic charitable organization, a disqualifying offense. One can apparently be a Catholic, but ought not to be too serious about it.

That this nonsense has now claimed Giampietro is a shame. His qualifications are beyond question. An assistant general counsel at a Fortune 500 company, he has more than a decade’s experience as a federal prosecutor after becoming a partner at one of Wisconsin’s most successful law firms. He received the approval of the bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission (on which one of us sat), of Wisconsin Sens. Ron Johnson (R) and Tammy Baldwin (D), and of the American Bar Association, which awarded him an official rating of “qualified.” – READ MORE

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke is often mentioned as a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, but it seems he has his eyes on a different job — and he may already have been offered his dream position.

On Tuesday, O'Rourke told journalists, at a gathering El Paso, Texas, that he's still open to considering a presidential campaign or a Senate challenge, even though he's well behind other candidates who have already formed up exploratory committees and hired staff, and who are regularly visiting early primary states. But he also mentioned in passing that he may be interested in the vice president slot, if the right opportunity came along.

"I'm going to consider every way to serve this country. And, yes, that will include anything," O'Rourke told the gathered crowd, according to NBC News. It "may involve running for the presidency," he said when asked, or "it may involve something else."

The "something else" seems to be a job as running mate.

It may be Beto's best hope; after losing his Texas Senate race to incumbent Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), O'Rourke took an extended absence from the public eye, citing the "exhaustion" of running a statewide campaign. He posted a handful of Instagram videos, including one of himself at the dentist, but failed to follow up on his nearly successful bid by fundraising for his future endeavors.

O'Rourke was expected to announce his intention to run for president during an interview with Oprah Winfrey in a special taped late last month, but, reportedly, O'Rourke had the same cagey response: that he has yet to decide what the rest of his political career looks like.

The United States Olympic Hockey team completes their Miracle on Ice by defeating Finland 4-2 to win the gold medal.

A special commission of the U.S. Congress releases a report that condemns the practice of Japanese internment during World War II.

The lack of fortitude has, no doubt, made some Democrats question whether Beto would be up for a national campaign. Candidates with presidential aspirations need to make their intentions known early in off-year elections, particularly when they're in the challenging party. The field is already crowded, and only expected to grow.

Beto says he hopes to have reached a decision in "the next ten days."

If he's looking to be vice president, his dream job is likely open to him. According to Marketwatch, Joe Biden — who has yet to enter the race himself, but who is leading the pack in nearly every poll in every early primary state — had his aides reach out to O'Rourke late last year with the possibility of a Biden-Beto ticket.

"Advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering a White House run of his own, said in December that they’d approached O’Rourke’s camp about his being a vice presidential candidate. O’Rourke said then that he’d not spoken to Biden, and his camp hasn’t dismissed the idea since," the outlet reported.

The mashup makes sense: O'Rourke would provide a more progressive facet to an otherwise mostly moderate Joe Biden campaign. Although Biden was a key part of the Obama White House, his legislative history goes back decades, and is often at odds with the level of "wokeness" the Democratic Party now expects from its candidates.

Beto also offers a home-grown perspective on what promises to be one of 2020's key issues: illegal immigration. Although he is not Hispanic ("Beto" is apparently a common contraction of "Roberto" in Texas, regardless of background), he is fluent in Spanish, from a border town, and further left than most candidates when it comes to interdiction (he actually told his El Paso audience Tuesday that he'd tear down the existing border wall rather than simply prevent new construction).

There's a key drawback to a Biden-Beto ticket, though: they'd be a white male-only ticket facing off with an increasingly diverse group of Democrats. An all-male ticket would, of course, be a backslide, given that a woman topped the Democratic ticket in 2016, and it would be no match for identity politics experts, like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), likely Biden's top competitor.

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.

Mediaite

Published  1 month ago

California Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris went out of her way to slam those who complain about “identity politics” as attempting to “silence” people on issues of civil rights. The critique of “identity politics” has long been a consistent theme of the political right, and of Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

On Sunday morning’s edition of MSNBC’s AM Joy, host Joy Reid asked Harris about her level of comfort pursuing race-based policies, as opposed to a general approach that is more race-neutral.

“You’re talking about specifically issues that face African-Americans,” Reid noted. “We are seeing videos of people barbecuing while black people are confronted by civilians, having the police called on them. These are race-based issues.”

“When African-Americans talk to me about this race, and about the Obama era, they say when a black person achieves power the disincentives toward doing race-based policy are so strong,” Reid continued. “The larger world wants rising tide lifts all boats, not race-conscious or race-based policy, because then, you appear biased.”

She then asked Harris if, as the first black woman and first Indian-American president, “would it be difficult for you to advocate race-based policy, or would you feel that you have to do just rising tide?”

Harris then took on the “identity politics” critique head-on.

“I want to talk about the issue of identity politics, Joy,” Harris said. “This term identity politics, people will use that term — it’s like people used to talk about the race card.”

“Right,” Reid said.

“They bring this term up when you talk about issues that are about race, about sexual orientation, about religion. They’ll bring it up when we are talking about civil rights issues as a way to marginalize the issue, as a way to frankly try to silence you or shut you up,” Harris said.

“We need to call it what it is, which is to try and divert away from a conversation that needs to happen in America,” she continued. “Why? One, because we must speak truth. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism are all real in this country, so we need to have that conversation and address it.”

“Two, and this is equally important,” Harris added, “how America deals with the issues and the disparities, and also the hate that can be — that causes these issues to become lethal in proportion — how America deals with these issues is a matter of American identity. This is not about identity politics, and if it is, it’s about the identity of the United States of America. How we handle the issues will be about our collective identity.”

While the political right has long deployed the phrase “identity politics” pejoratively, the complaint has also been central to Bernie Sanders’ political philosophy for many years, and Harris’ remarks show that it could become important subtext to the Democratic presidential race.

Watch the clip above, via MSNBC.

[Image via screengrab]

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

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

She may be the current frontrunner for the 2020 nomination but Democrat Kamala Harris continues to demonstrate that she is just an empty pantsuit armed with a plethora of DNC talking points that she dispenses to

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The media’s apoplectic reaction to 2018 tax refunds displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. tax code and the very notion of what a refund actually is.

The fact is hard-working Americans now have more money in their paychecks thanks to the Trump tax cuts, though you would be hard-pressed to know this watching media coverage as we enter tax season.

News reports about people receiving “smaller tax refunds” fallaciously filled the airwaves last week. The clear insinuation in many of these articles is that the historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed by Republicans and signed by President Trump in 2017, is increasing the tax burden on ordinary Americans.

The entire premise is absurd, actually, because the focus on refunds is fundamentally misleading.

The reason many Americans are seeing a smaller refund this year is that they are paying less in taxes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act significantly cut tax rates for middle class families, 80 percent of whom had a lower tax burden in 2018 than they did before the president’s tax cuts took effect.

The law also simplified the tax code and made changes to withholding rules that together served to reduce overpayment to the government by taxpayers, which is the only reason the IRS gives tax refunds.

Would you rather receive a bigger refund, or just keep more of your money in the first place?

Think about it this way: these reports about smaller refunds are every bit as disingenuous as headlines about Americans getting the biggest tax refunds of their lives would be in the wake of a massive tax increase. Higher tax burdens mean bigger refunds. Lower tax burdens mean smaller refunds, because the government got less of your money during the tax year.

Not only do smaller refund checks indicate that people have had access to more of their money throughout the year, they are also a sign that we’ve created a more efficient income tax system. In a perfectly efficient system, no one would get any refund, because they would have paid the exact amount that they owe.

It is clear that the radical left has taken over the Democratic Party, leaving behind the party of John F. Kennedy.

In fact, that’s the basic motivation behind using an income tax in the first place — it taxes people when they have it, not later on when they don’t.

That type of efficiency has been part of the basic philosophy of Republican tax policy since President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 and ‘86 tax cuts, which did away with the sky-high marginal rates like some Democrats are now advocating we bring back.

In the pre-Reagan days, it was all about the refunds, taking advantage of the thousands of complicated exemptions, deductions, and loopholes.

Maybe that’s what the Democrats who are pushing for 70-90 percent top tax rates really want: massive income tax bills throughout the year and plenty of deductions and loopholes so we can spend even more time pouring over our tax returns just to make sure we don’t pay more taxes than we owe. We’d get bigger refunds, but we’d be worse off because of it.

That certainly seems like their plan, with known mainstream figures like presidential hopeful Kamala Harris tweeting about how awful it is that fewer people are getting refunds.

In the 1980s, Democrats enthusiastically helped President Reagan pass his tax reforms, which made the tax system fairer and more efficient in addition to reducing rates.

Three decades later, not a single Democrat helped President Trump provide the same much-needed tax relief to middle class families, and politicians such as Kamala Harris are trying to pretend that people are worse off because their tax burden is now lower.

It is clear that the radical left has taken over the Democratic Party, leaving behind the party of John F. Kennedy.

Smaller tax refunds are not a bad thing — they’re a sign that people are keeping more of their money as they earn it, rather than letting Uncle Sam keep it under his mattress for them.

Kayleigh McEnany is the national press secretary for President Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. She was the former national spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and BSFS from Georgetown School of Foreign Service and is the author of "New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement."

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is one of the many Democrats who plan to attempt to take on President Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

The Democrats are coming in full force this election with their best panderers yet!

She was recently asked if she is a Democratic socialist like AOC and Bernie, her response made her look like a fool. Take a look.

From ilovemyfreedom:

While the leaderless Democrats continue their journey to the far left with the embrace of socialist redistribution schemes like government jobs for all, free college tuition, free healthcare, and a borderless society, there is still a certain amount of stigma attached to the dreaded “S” word with many of the machine politicians like Harris.

Even though she called for the complete elimination of private insurance during a CNN town hall last month and then had to walk it back, California’s junior senator is pushing the same crackpot schemes that have been pitched to gullible millennials and the unproductive underclass by snake oil salespeople like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Just don’t call it socialism.

In an interview with CNN’s John King that is making the rounds this morning, Harris denied being a “socialist” while emphatically stating that she is a progressive Democrat although one would be hard-pressed to find much difference between the two anymore.

But in the same breath, Harris announced that not only did she firmly support the socialist Trojan horse known as the Green New Deal but also insisted that America can afford what would be an astronomically expensive project to completely remake the nation in a mere ten years at the cost of untold trillions of dollars.

According to Senator Harris, money is trivial compared to the radical transformation of the United States that will surely please all of those big environmentalist donors the likes of Tom Steyer who are set to profit exponentially from a government crusade to end global warming.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) said in an interview airing Sunday that the United States could afford trillion dollars of spending in the Green New Deal.

CNN host John King spoke to Harris and asked about the realism behind the proposals dominating the nascent Democratic primary, which appears to be a race to the left among Harris and the other leading candidates.

“If you talk to Democratic voters, they’re hungry and they want ideas. So you’ll hear things like the Green New Deal. You’ll hear things like Medicare for all, you hear things whether it’s taxes … at what point do you say that’s our north star but we have to be realists?” King asked.

“There’s no question we have to be practical. but being practical also recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to us,” Harris responded. “Being practical recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening our air and threatening the planet and that it is well within our capacity as human beings to change our behaviors in a way that we can reduce its effects. That’s practical.”

“Can we afford it?” King asked.

“Of course we can afford it,” Harris said.

The Green New Deal is already akin to religious dogma with Democratic party hopefuls as they kowtow to their extremist base but there is still no answer – especially from a woman who strives to be the nation’s first female POTUS – on how it will be paid for.

But that just doesn’t matter because its somebody else’s money.

And that IS socialism.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

On Feb. 21, I had the incredible opportunity to attend The Black History Month Reception at the White House. It was an experience that I will never forget.

As a proud American, and a proud member of the black community, I was extremely grateful to be honoring Black History Month with our president. And the best part was, I was not alone. Every single person in the room was celebrating our pride as Americans, as well as the accomplishments made by the Trump administration. Together, we shared our love for our communities and our country.

While at the White House, I met people from all walks of life. I met people who served in the military and people who served in the penitentiary. I met people who were college athletes, Rhodes scholars, pastors, single mothers, activists and politicians. I met folks who are actively fighting for civil rights and for the opportunities of black Americans, whether it be on the streets, in elected office or through social media.

Although the left will often try to dismiss events centered around the black conservative movement as only being a photo opportunity, this event was so much more than that. It encouraged attendees with a sense of community and fellowship.

In this movement, it is so important to know that you are not alone, that you are not the only one that is tired of being shamed for your beliefs, and that you have brothers and sisters across the country ready to stand up and fight alongside you.

TRENDING: Kamala Harris’ Father Turns on Her: ‘We Wish To Categorically Dissociate Ourselves from This Travesty’ – Report

It was an extraordinary experience to be surrounded by these people as President Trump addressed us all with a tremendous speech. He spoke about black history in a way that was empathetic and encouraging.

Instead of wasting time talking about the dreadfulness of the past, he instead focused on the optimistic realities of our future. While doing so, he recognized a few very important people who were on the stage with him. The one person who stood out to me the most was Catherine Toney.

Catherine Toney’s story made me tear up. She was the first female released as a result of First Step Act, which was signed into law by President Trump. The First Step Act gives non-violent offenders the opportunity to reenter society as law-abiding citizens and productive members of society.

It does this by reducing mandated sentences and allowing inmates the opportunity to reduce their personal sentences by obtaining credits for good behavior and participation in vocational and rehabilitation programs. While many people never get a second chance at a free life, Catherine Toney did. It was clear from her speech, and her gratefulness towards the president, that she will not be taking it for granted.

These achievements are not just owed to President Trump himself, but are also a reflection of the great people he has surrounded himself with. Senior Advisor to the President, Jared Kushner, was a true leader when it came to getting the First Step Act passed. Jared’s dedication, as well as his willingness to reach across the aisle, is what made this bill possible.

These efforts brought in influential people like Kim Kardashian, Van Jones and bipartisan members of Congress to have productive conversations regarding prison reform. The black community should not ignore the vital role that Jared Kushner played.

This event was only a part of Trump’s overall effort to keep black conservatives active in his administration, and to listen to our concerns about the issues facing our communities. The Urban Revitalization Coalition, which is aimed at restoring impoverished areas, and the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities have also been tremendous steps in the right direction.

Trump has been a genuine supporter and consistent contributor to black success, and that is why we support him. Coming home after this event, I am fully confident that this is only the beginning.

Brandon Tatum is the director of Urban Engagement with Turning Point USA.

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.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

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.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The last House race of 2018 will finally be resolved.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Back, during a darker period of our nation’s history, it wasn’t unheard of for a white woman to falsely accuse a black man of raping her. Sometimes the lie was to cover up an affair. Sometimes it was a cry for attention. In either case, it’s pretty clear who the victim was in those circumstances, […]

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

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

Frontpage Mag

Published  1 month ago

Daniel Greenfield

So far the path to the White House for most 2020 Dems appears to lie through shameless racial, radical and economic pandering.

Reviving slavery reparations, once an insane radical idea and more insane than ever in a country with a black population that is increasingly, like Obama or Kamala Harris, not even from this country during the slavery era, is now more popular than ever.

But for 2020 Dems it unites the two r's and the one e.

Take all that wealth redistribution and funnel it through race, a major chunk of the Dem base anyway, and match it to some bashing of the United States.

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris of California agreed with a radio host’s recent suggestion that government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination. Ms. Harris later affirmed that support in a statement to The Times.

“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. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”

Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported.

The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing,

As Kamala Harris proved, to her black father's shame and regret, she's willing to say absolutely anything on a radio show.

Neither of them appears to have thought it out much, and appear to be painting the usual sort of affirmative action and racial wealth redistribution that we've been pursuing for generations, with few results other than for folks at the top. Like Senator Kamala Harris.

Her mother was an internationally famous cancer researcher and the daughter of P.V. Gopalan, a high-ranking Indian diplomat from the Brahmin caste. Her father was a professor of economics at Stanford who served as an adviser to multiple Jamaican prime ministers.

As a Los Angeles Times article described her, she was the “privileged child of foreign grad students”.

Kamala’s mother taught at universities in France, Italy and Canada. She smugly told Modern Luxury magazine “When Kamala was in first grade one of her teachers said to me, ‘You know, your child has a great imagination. Every time we talk about someplace in the world she says, “Oh, I’ve been there.”’ So I told her, ‘Well, she has been there!’ India, England, the Caribbean, Africa—she had been there.”

Modern Luxury also quoted “one of Harris’s Nob Hill friends” as saying that “her Brahmin background accounts for her ease around wealthy, powerful people.”

We really need reparations to give half-Jamaican privileged politicians descended from slave owners a leg up.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), one of the many Democratic candidates for president in 2020, has had a tough time with her statements on the Jussie Smollett case.

When the incident first occurred, she immediately tweeted about it without even knowing what the facts were, in on the same day, calling it an attempted modern day lynching.

Then she was left speechless the other day before he was indicted, but after the reports that he had staged the attack.

Suddenly, she wanted to wait until the facts came out.

“OK, so, I will say this about that case,” she said Monday. “I think that the facts are still unfolding, and, um, I’m very, um, concerned about obviously, the initial, um, allegation that he made about what might have happened.

Now more facts have indeed come out, with Smollett being indicted for filing a false report and arrested.

Police say they have a pretty impressive trail of evidence including a check he wrote to pay off the brothers for the attack as well as the texts he wrote to them to arrange it.

And now Harris is weighing in with an official statement.

See if you can notice what is missing in it.

She expressed her “sadness, frustration, and disappointment.”

From Fox News:

“When anyone makes false claims to police, it not only diverts resources away from serious investigations but it makes it more difficult for other victims of crime to come forward,” Harris wrote. [….]

Continuing her statement Thursday, the lawmaker cited FBI statistics while claiming that more and more hate crimes were occurring in the U.S.

“Part of the tragedy of this situation is that it distracts from the truth, and has been seized by some who would like to dismiss and downplay the very real problems that we must address. We should not allow that,” she wrote, vowing to stand up against racism and homophobia.

“We must always confront hate directly, and we must always seek justice,” she continued. “That is what I will keep fighting for.”

Where is her direct condemnation of Smollett and his hate crime against Trump supporters?

Nowhere does she point to that.

Needless to say, she’s getting badly ratioed.

NBC Bay Area

Published  1 month ago

In this Jan. 17, 2019 file photo, Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at the California Legislative Black Caucus Martin Luther King Jr., Breakfast, in Sacramento, Calif. Newsom is withdrawing several hundred National Guard troops from the nation's southern border and changing their mission. Rich Pedroncelli/AP Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to announce taking executive action to eliminate the use of the death penalty in California. Two sources fam iliar with the governor's plans tell NBC4's I-Team that Newsom

LifeZette

Published  1 month ago

'It has an agenda, and that includes inserting emotion and using some of our laws against us when necessary,' says this opinion author

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."

USA TODAY

Published  2 months ago

Jacob Wohl, 21, who left a career in finance amid allegations of fraud, specializes in deceitful schemes and spreading false claims in support of President Trump.

TheBlaze

Published  2 months ago

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) released a new statement on Thursday about the charges from Chicago police that Jussie Smollett orchestrated the racial and homophobic attack he reported.

The 2020 presidential candidate had previously called the attack a "modern day lynching," but appeared confused and speechless when she was later confronted about the tweet in light of developments indicating a hoax.

"Like most of you, I've seen the reports about Jussie Smollett, and I'm sad, frustrated, and disappointed," she said in the new statement posted to her Twitter account.

"When anyone makes false claims to police," she continued, "it not only diverts resources away from serious investigations but it makes it more difficult for other victims of crime to come forward. At the same time, we must speak the truth: hate crimes are on the rise in America.

"Just last year, the FBI released statistics that revealed a 17 percent increase in the number of hate crimes in America," she added. "Part of the tragedy of this situation is that it distracts from the truth, and has been seized by some who would like to dismiss and downplay the very real problems that we must address.

"We should not allow that," she said.

"I will always condemn racism and homophobia," Harris concluded. 'We must always confront hate directly, and we must always seek justice. That is what I will keep fighting for."

Although she is using the occasion to attack those who use the example to point to improvement in race relations in recent decades, Harris did not refer to her first reaction.

.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This… https://t.co/fAIQ2C1WRW

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) 1548797413.0

"This was an attempted modern day lynching," she tweeted in January. "No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

Smollett was charged with filing a false police report on Wednesday after weeks of fending off critics of his claims that two masked men yelled racist and homophobic slurs while beating him and yelling, "this is MAGA country!" at 2 a.m. in Chicago.

Here's a Fox News report about Harris' statement:

Blunt Force Truth

Published  2 months ago

In politics timing is everything, as the saying goes. And the timing of this meeting was perfect. 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) met with 2004 Democratic Party presidential candidate and Tawana Brawley race attack hoax promoter the Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s Restaurant in Harlem Thursday morning–just hours after accused race attack hoaxer Jussie Smollett, whom Harris had supported, was arrested in Chicago.

The other view:

Chicken and waffles on one side; toast and bananas on the other pic.twitter.com/uPetV7thcW

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) February 21, 2019

Harris posted a statement with unquestioned support for Smollett when news of his alleged attack broke in late January, promoting it as a “modern day lynching.”

“.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. […]

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.

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

Dissenting in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito gravely predicted that “those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

He was right. In Wisconsin, this campaign of religious intolerance has claimed a new casualty in Gordon Giampietro, President Trump’s former nominee to a vacant seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He was revealed to be removed from the list of renominations Trump issued on January 22. Democrats have all but ensured that, for the crime of publicly voicing the teachings of his faith, Giampietro will never sit on the federal bench.

‘The Dogma Lives Loudly Within’ People of Faith

A number of Senate Democrats have famously come to the conclusion that Catholics faithful to the teachings of their church are unfit for public service. In September 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) bizarrely complained that “the dogma lives loudly within” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, suggesting that her faith precludes her service on the bench.

In December 2018, presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-CA) shamefully attempted to make membership in the Knights of Columbus, a renowned Catholic charitable organization, a disqualifying offense. One can apparently be a Catholic, but ought not to be too serious about it.

That this nonsense has now claimed Giampietro is a shame. His qualifications are beyond question. An assistant general counsel at a Fortune 500 company, he has more than a decade’s experience as a federal prosecutor after becoming a partner at one of Wisconsin’s most successful law firms. He received the approval of the bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission (on which one of us sat), of Wisconsin Sens. Ron Johnson (R) and Tammy Baldwin (D), and of the American Bar Association, which awarded him an official rating of “qualified.”

But that was before BuzzFeed reported that Giampietro was an unapologetically orthodox Catholic, quoting remarks he had made on Catholic radio criticizing same-sex marriage and birth control and a comment he had posted in response to an article on a Catholic website lamenting that the “original sin” of slavery had spawned a modern legacy of race-based decision-making.

Although his views on same-sex marriage and birth control reflect the official teaching of a church with more than 1 billion members worldwide (and his views on affirmative action are well within the mainstream of conservative legal thought), Giampietro had made the mistake of sharing his thoughts outside the recesses of his home. That gave the left the hook it needed.

“Oh Look, Another One of Trump’s Court Picks Is Really Anti-Gay,” sneered a HuffPost headline. A prominent Madison newspaper branded Giampietro “entirely unacceptable.” The Human Rights Campaign quickly pushed out a glossy attack ad urging viewers to contact their senators and tell them “to block a lifetime appointment for Gordon Giampietro.”

Critics settled on two narratives. The first was that Giampietro had failed to make necessary disclosures to the nominating commission. That is patently false. He provided everything he was asked for and no one on the commission could have been surprised by his religious views.

The Most Pernicious Narrative

Far more pernicious was the claim that his views meant he could not be an impartial judge, the corollary being that no faithful Catholic is qualified to serve in the federal judiciary. Wisconsin’s five bishops penned an open letter to Baldwin, who held the power to effectively sink Giampietro’s nomination by withholding her “blue slip” (essentially a senatorial letter of approval). The bishops insisted—and how sad that it even needed saying—that “Catholics are capable of offering fair and impartial decisions when applying the law.” They pleaded with Baldwin to give Giampietro a chance.

It would have been quite a symbol of magnanimity, open-mindedness, and statesmanship had Baldwin, the first openly gay individual elected to the U.S. Senate, at least granted Giampietro a hearing before her colleagues and the rest of the country. Instead, in an open letter addressed to President Trump, Baldwin reneged on her previous recommendation, stating that she was no longer supporting Giampietro. With Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, honoring the blue-slip tradition for district court nominees—essentially permitting home-state senators to block a nominee from receiving a vote—Baldwin ended Giampietro’s nomination.

At no time has Giampietro said anything to suggest that he would not honor the legal rights of gay and lesbian people (or anyone else), or refuse to apply the law. While fancying herself a champion of tolerance, Baldwin is, instead, engaged in religious bigotry and exclusion, blocking a nominee because of his religious beliefs and not his professional qualifications and commitment to the rule of law.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this shameful affair is the lack of noise that accompanied it. It is one thing when religious bigotry finds a home in the U.S. government. It’s something else entirely when we come to accept it as business as usual.

While senatorial prerogatives are well and good, they ought not to shield religious exclusion. All Americans—Catholic and otherwise—need to demand more from the nation’s representatives, lest the religious test that was applied to Giampietro become a normal part of the vetting for every job in public service, and the country’s promise of religious liberty fade into nothing.

New York Post

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scolded media outlets for reporting that she lives in a luxury high-rise building in Washington, DC, around the time she and other high-profile Democrats appeared on a hit list compiled by a Maryland man arrested for allegedly planning a mass terror attack.

“Journalists are sharing stories about where I live the same day it’s shared that myself + others were targeted by a mass shooter,” the New York Democrat tweeted late Wednesday. “All this paired w/ amplifying unvetted conspiracy theories. It’s reckless, irresponsible & puts people directly in danger. This isn’t a game.”

Court documents show Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Hasson, who was arrested last Friday, drafted a list of politicians and media members whom he was targeting.

The list included Ocasio-Cortez, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, among others.

Hasson, who had an arsenal of 15 firearms in his Silver Spring, Md., home, searched on the internet for “Where in DC do Congress live?” and “Best place in D.C. to see Congress people,” according to police officials.

A number of outlets reported in the past week that the freshman lawmaker, whose congressional salary is $174,000, lives in a tony section of the capital in a building where rents range from $2,000 for a studio apartment to more than $5,000 for a three-bedroom.

While most of them did not give an address, they did provide identifying information and photographs about which stores were in the neighborhood and the amenities offered by her complex, which is under construction.

The articles pointed out Ocasio-Cortez’s platform as a champion of the poor and took her to task for living in an upscale building that they claimed didn’t offer affordable housing.

The building developer told The Post that they participate in the District of Columbia’s housing voucher program and have low-income people living there.

Asked to provide a specific number, the developer said: “We cannot disclose any more specific details about our residents.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s office pushed back against the notion that it was hypocritical for the congresswoman to live in upscale digs.

A spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon that her office also uses a car with an “internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels,” even though she thinks their use should be eliminated.

americanthinker

Published  2 months ago

After garnering a host of press attention for a supposed anti-black, anti-gay attack from supposed random supporters of President Trump, involving a noose, Hollywood actor Jussie Smollett looks pretty washed up now that a couple of Nigerians have been implicated by the Chicago cops in the perpetration of a hoax, supposedly to garner sympathy.

But another Hollywood guy, a film producer named Tariq Nasheed, who also goes by hip-hop rapper-like names of 'K-Flex' and 'King Flex,' thinks this isn't the end of the story. He smells a political rat.

His series of tweets raises suspicions that the political response to the matter, led by Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris (and Cory Booker), is suspicious, real suspicious, and there might have been a staged set-up in order to get a law passed and rack up voter points.

Here are his tweets making the argument:

1. Let me do a quick thread about this Jussie Smollett hoax. Because we need to ask questions about who else was involved in this hoax. I have always been critical of the deceptive tactics of the white LGBT community.

Now as we know, Jussie has campaigned with Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/Ji5IN2DrXA

— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) February 17, 2019

2. Kamala Harris was one of the people who authored the Anti Lynching Bill. Remember, these people below are funded by certain groups with certain agendas that has nothing to do with helping ADOS. That’s why whenever we bring up a Black agenda, Kamala & Cory changes the subject pic.twitter.com/5qzx45R62K

— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) February 17, 2019

3. That anti Lynching Bill Kamala introduced snuck in some LGBT language at the last minute. The white LGBT community has always tried to attached themselves to the plight of Black Americans to give the false impression that they have had a comparative historic struggle pic.twitter.com/6oYW52jx36

— Tariq Nasheed 🇺🇸 (@tariqnasheed) February 17, 2019

Go here if you can't see all seven of the tweets, you won't be wasting your time. And the comments that follow from people in Nasheed's Hollywood entertainment industry circles are also pretty impressive.

Up until now, it appeared that politicians such as Harris (and Booker) couldn't have known much about the phony plot and probably just glommed onto the controversy for political advantage the way a lot of politicians do. But Nasheed has pictures of them campaigning together, and even more important, notes that Harris and Booker brought out an anti-lynching bill just coincidentally timed ahead of the attack, as if to ensure passage as the momentum built from public outrage (until the attack was exposed as phony). With Smollett a black and gay supposed victim and everyone slathing sympathy on him, who could refuse to vote for the anti-lynching bill, which just happens to have had some gay language inserted at the last minute? Trump lynchers were simply everywhere, according to the narrative, even in zero degree Chicago cold weather, lurking and looking for someone black and gay to assault and of course it was a national problem just waiting for Harris to pass a law as the person who "fixes problems" which is how she is repeatedly identified herself to voters. (Here's another coincidence: she made that claim in the Chicago press.)

Nasheed isn't buying that and thinks the involvement of others goes a lot further than the mere imported Nigerians. Plotwise, it is pretty interesting, given that an actor was chosen for the role of the victim, the Nigerian bit players were whisked in and out, the red caps were purchased (they couldn't actually find real ones but they needed to make sure they seemed like Trump hats), and there were these anti-lynching laws with both black and gay victims being inserted in, written by Harris and others all set to be passed a month earlier. The end game was to pass the measures to set a political narrative of raging racism among Trump supporters as whole staged attack occurred.

It is political all right. And quite the political theatre. Oh, and what a coincidence, it happened in Chicago, home of the famous Chicago/Obama political machine that supports Booker and Harris with a vengeance.

Meanwhile, back in Hollywood, it's pretty obvious that Nasheed knows the ways of Hollywood and its leftist establishment very very well, so this is what leaped out at him. Actor, staged attack, Chicago political machine, presidential campaign, new anti-lynching law and pin it all on Trump. Nasheed's suspicions are well worth a closer look, because they seem to fit together very well.

If he's right about them, then this whole farce is a doozy and one can only hope will politically finish Harris and Booker off, taking them down with Stollett.

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.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Democratic presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) says that the fact that Hollywood actor Jussie Smollet’s “hate crime” story turned out to be a hoax should not distract from the larger truth of rising hate crimes.

When Smollett first reported January 29 that he had been attacked by two white men who had shouted racist and homophobic slurs, and who had added, “This is MAGA country,” as they put a noose around his neck, Harris called the alleged hate crime “an attempted modern day lynching.”

.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery.

This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 29, 2019

On Thursday, after Smollett was arrested for filing a false police report, Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson — who is black — blasted Harris and other Democrats indirectly for spreading the hoax.

“To make things worse,” he said, “the accusations within this phony attack received national attention for weeks. Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor.”

Harris responded to the new developments in the story with a Facebook post on Thursday:

Like most of you, I’ve seen the reports about Jussie Smollett, and I’m sad, frustrated, and disappointed. When anyone makes false claims to police, it not only diverts resources away from serious investigations but it makes it more difficult for other victims of crime to come forward. At the same time, we must speak the truth: hate crimes are on the rise in America. Just last year, the FBI released statistics that revealed a 17 percent increase in the number of hate crimes in America. Part of the tragedy of this situation is that it distracts from that truth, and has been seized by some who would like to dismiss and downplay the very real problems that we must address. We should not allow that. I will always condemn racism and homophobia. We must always confront hate directly, and we must always seek justice. That is what I will keep fighting for.

The 17% increase that Harris cites has been questioned. As Reason.com’s Robby Soave has noted:

The overall number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data also increased greatly—approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributed figures in 2017 than in 2016. This means it’s not obviously the case that hate crimes are more prevalent in 2017. Maybe the government just did a better job of counting them.

This seems even more plausible when the raw totals are considered. The FBI counted 7,175 hate crimes in 2017, compared with 6,121 in 2016. That’s a difference of about 1,000. If every agency reporting data for the first time in 2017 reported just one hate crime, this would account for the entire 17 percent increase.

Harris did not apologize for inflaming public opinion with her comment on “lynching.”

Also on Thursday, Harris made a political pilgrimage to Harlem in New York City to meet and dine with Al Sharpton.

Sharpton was responsible for promoting another notorious have crime hoax — namely, the Tawana Brawley case of 1987, in which a black teenager claimed to have been abducted, sodomized, and smeared with feces and racial slurs. She falsely accused a white prosecutor of being one of her assailants. He later won a defamation lawsuit; Sharpton was ordered to pay damages but refused to do so, relying on supporters to pay the amount he owed.

In 2012, Sharpton was also partly responsible for inflaming the death of Trayvon Martin into a national racial outrage, claiming that neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who is half Peruvian, was a “white man.”

A Gallup poll released Thursday revealed a sharp drop in public perceptions of race relations, beginning in 2013 at the height of the Trayvon Martin controversy.

Sharpton also has a long history of racism, antisemitism,and incitement, and is blamed for encouraging deadly riots in New York on two separate occasions.

Sharpton told reporters Thursday that Smollett should face “accountability to the maximum” if convicted.

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.

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).

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 months ago

According to Variety, a source close to the television production team of “Empire,” says that the studio is still expecting Jussie Smollett to finish working on the tv show, despite the controversy and bad press the actor is receiving in regards to the self-inflicted hate crime attempt.

First Smollett sent himself a suspicious letter and didn’t get the attention he wanted. Then he staged his hate crime/attack on himself, and still no one cares about him and his nonsense (many of us intuitively knew it was ludicrous.

This guy needs to disappear. He indeed is a nobody, especially now. Yes, he was on a favorite show (I never watched the show) however his actions and needed for attention shows us that he knows he’s got a severe problem.

Think about it. He refused to speak to the police after his story started unraveling, hiding behind his attorney. If he shows up for work, the police can arrest him there, which would be amazing. They need to set an example for any other losers like him that think they can waste police time and resources for attention and race-baiting.

Fox is considering removing Jussie Smollett from production on “Empire.” Sources close to the production told Variety that producers are weighing whether to suspend the actor after he was charged Wednesday in Chicago with filing a false police report.

A spokesperson for 20th Century Fox Television, which produces the series, declined to comment. Smollett’s status on the show may change amid a fluid legal situation.

Trending: Kamala Harris’ Father Categorically Dissociates Himself From Her Marijuana Conversation Travesty

According to the Cook County State Attorney’s office, Smollett is due to appear in court for a bond hearing at 1:30 p.m. CT on Thursday. Smollett is also scheduled to work Thursday on the Chicago set of “Empire.” According to a production source, as of Wednesday night there were no plans to change the show’s shooting schedule.

Fox had previously stood by Smollett, issuing two statements of support over the course of the investigation, and countering media reports that he was set to be fired from “Empire.” “Jussie Smollettcontinues to be a consummate professional on set and as we have previously stated, he is not being written out of the show,” 20th Century Fox Television and Fox Entertainment said in a statement Wednesday.

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

InformationLiberation

Published  2 months ago

The Jussie Smollett alleged hate hoax is the gift that keeps on giving

TheWrap

Published  2 months ago

Chicago Police superintendent Eddie Johnson called out celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates on Thursday for their decision to amplify coverage of what he said was the “phony attack” against “Empire” star Jussie Smollett.

“The accusation within this phony attack received national attention for weeks,” Johnson told reporters during a press conference. “Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor.

“This announcement today recognized that ‘Empire’ actor Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career,” Johnson continued, adding that the star had staged the attack because he was unhappy with his salary on the Fox show.

Cops: 'Empire' Star Jussie Smollett Staged Attack Because He Was 'Dissatisfied With His Salary'

“I am left hanging my head asking ‘why?’ Why would anyone — especially an African American man — use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusation,” Johnson added. “Bogus police reports cause real harm. They do harm to every legitimate victim who is in need of support by police and investigators as well as the citizens of this city … I’m offended by what happened and I am also angry.”

See Jussie Smollett's Mug Shot (Photo)

In the weeks after the attack was rep