Democrats show how not to promote a free press
The Democrat press accuses Trump of suppressing the Freedom of the Press
I cannot count the times the press has accused President Trump of oppressing the members of the American press. However, finding an example of the whining required reference to an 8 January 2019 commentary at The Federalist that detailed the scaremongering by the American press on freedom of the press.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a group alleging to promote press freedom and the rights of journalists, awarded President Donald Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” in its “Press Oppressors” awards this week. The story was giddily retweeted across the liberal Twitterverse, because, one imagines, people actually believe it.
From there, the author (David Harsanyi) goes on to characterize the battle between the American press and President Trump as a “slap fight (between) a couple of sloshed Real Housewives.” Sadly, until President Trump moved his press gatherings out to the edge of Marine One, I would have to agree with Mr. Harsanyi and say that the press got too much press out of the White House. Nonetheless, the move to the edge of Marine One happily put an end to much of the grandstanding by the press.
Additionally, I would suggest that any freedom-loving conservative read this article by Mr. Harsanyi so as to glean:
While Trump’s efforts to stop Michael Wolff’s fabulist “Fire and Fury” from being published are silly and counterproductive and sure to fail (update: as is his new lawsuit against Buzzfeed), he is merely accessing the legal rights that all Americans enjoy. In the meantime, Democrats, right now, support new laws that would allow the state to ban political books and documentaries. The Obama years made overturning the First Amendment via the Citizens United a tenent of its party platform. Obama, in perfect syntax, engaged in an act of norm-breaking, called out the Supreme Court publicly for upholding First Amendment. That was rhetoric, too. Few defenders of the press seemed bothered by any of it.
(Read more at The Federalist)
Although sometimes embarrassed by Trump’s foibles, I still support a President who punches back
Admittedly, there are times that I wince at the words tweeted by the President; however, I appreciate this President who fights (unlike some seemingly spineless Republicans).
This is particularly accentuated since I have seen that this President has taken into consideration many of the topics that have been heavy on my heart. He has held the hope presented by the pro-life position. Moreover, he took in mind the effect the misdirected courts have had on our lives by appointing constitutionally-minded jurists. Furthermore, he removed the chains placed by previous administrations on our economy through unnecessary regulation. More to the point, he removed the mandate that we be required to kowtow to governmental meddling between me and my doctor.
And while I will not make this portion of this post into a listing of the major accomplishment of the administration, I do find it necessary to reiterate the mistrust I have in the press due to their 90% negative reporting on this President.
Democrats show how not to allow journalism
O’Rourke ejects a conservative journalist
We find by reading Breitbart that Presidential hopeful Robert Francis O’Rourke tossed a conservative journalist (Joel Pollack) out of a public meeting.
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) has styled himself as a champion of press freedom, tweeting last October: “The press is not the enemy of the people but the best defense against tyranny.”
It is now August, and with his poll numbers falling in the Democratic presidential primary, O’Rourke has decided that he is entitled to abuse members of the press who cannot be relied upon to provide favorable coverage.
O’Rourke’s campaign ejected this Breitbart News reporter from a speech at Benedict College, a historically black college, on Tuesday afternoon.
This reporter was standing along the side of a lecture hall in the basement of the Henry Pinder Fine Arts Humanities Center, waiting for the event to start, together with roughly 200 students and college staff members. Other news outlets had set up cameras in the back of the room.
Several minutes after the 3:00 p.m. event had been scheduled to begin, a staff member in a Beto O’Rourke t-shirt approached this reporter and asked what outlet I represented. Upon reading the press credential on my chest, he put a hand on my shoulder and said, cheerfully, “Oh, hey. All right.”
A few minutes later, before the event began, a campus police officer approached this reporter and motioned for me to accompany him to the back of the room, adding that I should bring any property I had with me. In the hallway outside, he informed me that I was to leave.
A different member of the O’Rourke campaign staff, who said his name was “Steven” and would not give a last name, said that I was being ejected because I had been “disruptive” at past events.
This reporter has covered two O’Rourke events. The first was at a protest outside a shelter for migrant teens in Homestead, Florida, in June; the second was at the College of Charleston “Bully Pulpit” lecture in Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday evening. At no point was there any disruption whatsoever.
This reporter asked a question during a press gaggle on Monday evening; that was the only interaction of any kind with the candidate.
The question asked the Democratic presidential hopeful whether misquoting Trump’s comments on riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was consistent with O’Rourke’s pledge to “heal” and not “inflame” divisions in this country.
Considering how the Left howled when Jimmy Acosta was barred from White House briefings, this should have made front-page news
Or, more to the point, did they think that we did not notice how they encircled Acosta after he was called out for blocking a female White House staffer from taking the microphone he had repeatedly been told to relinquish? News to the Nightly News: you cannot successfully champion both the #MeToo movement and a bully of females.
Bodyguards for April Ryan rough up an invited guest photojournalist
The New York Post lets the cat out of the bag by reporting on the attack that one bodyguard of April Ryan perpetuated on a photojournalist who was trying to ply his trade.
CNN political analyst April Ryan — who has repeatedly blasted President Trump for attacking and vilifying the press — got her bodyguard to forcibly remove a journalist from an event she was speaking at in New Jersey, leading cops to charge him Monday with assault.
“This was more than just an assault on me,” tweeted New Brunswick Today editor Charlie Kratovil. “This was an assault on freedom of the press.”
Kratovil claims he was violently tossed from the New Jersey Parent Summit on Aug. 3 by Ryan’s goon after spending two hours inside filming other guests and speakers without any problems.
Kratovil had been invited to The Heldrich Hotel, where the event was held, by a public relations firm and asked to cover it. Video posted online shows him sitting in the audience as Ryan takes the stage and starts speaking.
Moments later, her bodyguard — Joel Morris, 30, of Illinois — comes into view and is told something by Ryan. He promptly walks over to Kratovil and allegedly attempts to take his video camera.
“Put that down,” Kratovil yells. “Don’t you dare — put that down, sir! That’s my camera!”
A tussle allegedly ensues and Morris winds up walking Kratovil out of the venue — with his arm twisted around his back, the journalist says.
“This is a personal event,” Morris can be heard telling him. “You’re not allowed back in.”
A woman can be heard screaming at Kratovil at one point, saying: “How dare you come in here and interrupt this event like this!”
“I didn’t interrupt,” he fired back.
Kratovil posted a video on his Twitter page Monday, explaining how cops found “probable cause” to charge Morris with harassment, assault and theft.
“I was there to cover April Ryan’s speech,” Kratovil explained. “Joel Morris stole [my] camera, high-tailed it out of the room. One thing led to another, I ended up being assaulted after retrieving the camera. But now Mr. Morris is going to have to show up on Sept. 12…in Superior Court.”
Kratovil added, “It’s a shame that we even have to be at this point.”
He read a statement from the NJ Society of Professional Journalists, saying: “It is never under any circumstances permissible for a person aggrieved at being photographed or videotaped to lay hands on the journalist, or attempt to take away the journalist’s equipment.”
“It is sad we have to say this, and remind people of this — and it’s super sad that we have to remind another journalist of this,” Kratovil said. “We are still waiting for [Ryan] to comment on this unfortunate incident…Maybe now that there’s criminal charges we might hear something from her. I hope sincerely that she does comment and I hope she does condemn this. This is unacceptable…Not in our country, we have freedom of the press here.”
(Read more at New York Post)
Although this started in full view of April Ryan and the bodyguard was in her employ, she denied involvement
Somehow, a person who made a name for herself by reporting on other people has surrounded herself with bodyguards and will not allow herself to be the subject of reporting.
Another phase of the killing of the Freedom of the Press: Liberals stand against the free flow of ideas
Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy
Due to the slanted reporting by NBC News in their 22 August 2019 article on the Epoch Times, it becomes evident that maybe this outlet (that liberals want to close down) merits our support.
To quote NBC (and, thence, read beyond the liberal bias to see the possible truth):
Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.
The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.
“Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us.”
Facebook’s decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad’s sponsors.
The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as “Honest Paper” and “Pure American Journalism,” allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules. Facebook’s ban will affect only The Epoch Times’ ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication.
A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement’s anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content.
(Read more tripe at NBC News)
Facebook as one of the gatekeepers for the Democrat party
Nobody can deny the numerous times Facebook has acted to suppress points of view that counter the Democrat orthodoxy. When at a gathering of liberals, Mark Zuckerberg bragged that Facebook had banned pro-life ads to the platform just prior to the Irish referendum on abortion (something that at least one Spanish article corroborates).
So, how can we consider Facebook (or Google or Twitter) a unbiased platform for the digital exchange of information? Considering that it took Facebook years of anti-Semitic offenses by Louis Farrakhan to get him banned, but only months of right-wing reporting or commentary by Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer to get them banned, there is no way to trust Facebook in such a manner.
NYTwits: You’re not the resistance
NYT Staffer Pleads With Newsroom: ‘We’re Not F**king Part Of The Resistance’
Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we are told of an instance where a member of the press resisted “The Reistance.”
The New York Times takes a lot of heat from the right for just existing.
But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.
But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.
That they even needed a reminder on this matter speaks volumes.
The meeting came after Manhattan’s paper of record caught hell when editors ran — and then changed — a headline that put President Trump in a favorable light. The headline changed after the Twitterverse descended on the NYT like an angry swarm of bees.
“Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,” last Monday’s headline read after Trump delivered a speech denouncing white supremacy after the recent spate of mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso killed 30 people.
Lefty Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor and longtime editor at The Nation, dramatically dropped her subscription. If you lose Joan Walsh you know you’re in trouble (eye roll)
In the next edition, the NYT changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”
CNN media writer Oliver Darcy wrote about a newsroom town hall that happened at the behest of Executive Editor Dean Baquet last Friday.
Stating the obvious, one staffer said, “There are a lot of people that think The Times is too liberal, and when you start throwing words like that around, people will accuse us of editorializing.”
Baquet didn’t need his arm twisted. “It was a fucking mess,” he told reporters and editors of the headline choice.
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
A headline to state the obvious: the New York Times is only objective as a mouthpiece for Democrats
Nobody can gloss over it. All pretense that there might be true objectivity at the New York Times has evaporated.
Muslim-American Journalist Says Twitter Shadow-Banned Her After Asking Ilhan Omar For An Interview
Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we hear the story of Dalia Al-Aqidi, a Muslim, female journalist and refugee, who was shadow-banned from Twitter after pressing Ilhan Omar for an interview.
A Muslim-American female journalist and refugee was shadow-banned from Twitter after criticizing Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Dalia Al-Aqidi said Omar has largely refused to grant sit-down interviews to U.S. media outlets, while doing so with Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar.
Al-Aqidi is a longtime journalist who has covered the White House and the Iraq war for Alhurra TV, a U.S.-based Arabic network, where the Chicago Tribune lauded her as the “most-watched TV reporter no one in America has seen.” She has also contributed stories to the U.S. government-run Voice of America and the Saudi-government-run Alarabiya in the past. She previously fled Hussein’s Iraq.
“I dared her to give me a 30 minute 1-on-1 interview. I believe we have things in common we can discuss — we’re both immigrants, women, and Muslims. And from what I’ve seen from her she only gives interviews to Al Jazeera,” Al-Aqidi told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Two hours later, CAIR started following me” on Twitter, she said, referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “So I pointed out CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Soon after, it was as if Al-Aqidi didn’t exist on Twitter. From her side, everything looked normal. She never received communications from Twitter notifying her of violating its terms of service, and she could log in and send tweets.
But no one could see them. When a user searches her name on Twitter, it never comes up in the autocomplete. If you type in her screen name “@dalia30,” it does not come up, with Twitter instead suggesting @dalia30900915. When you search for key words that she has tweeted, her own missives are missing from the search results.
Known as a “shadow-ban,” the practice of Twitter secretly preventing others from seeing someone’s tweets, while misleading the user that this is not happening, is so common that a website, shadowban.eu, tests for it. It confirms that Al-Aqidi is shadow-banned.
(Read more at 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller)
This goes to prove that insider politics has killed journalism
Just as Dalia Al-Aqidi got shadow banned for asking questions of the untouchable Ilhan Omar, Laura Loomer got banned from Facebook shortly after reporting on Nancy Pelosi and Sharyl Attkisson left from CBS with her persistence in investigating the Obama excesses.
And Democrats present themselves as tolerant.
Democrats on race relations: Ilhan Omar demonizes all White men
Ilhan Omar suggests people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists in 2018 interview
The New York Post reveals through a 25 July 2018 article how Rep. Ilhan Omar demonized all White men.
Rep. Ilhan Omar said Americans should be “more fearful of white men” when discussing the threat of “jihadist terrorism.”
The Minnesota progressive was asked in a resurfaced interview with Al Jazeera from August 2018 about the rise of Islamophobia, citing the attacks that killed eight people on a Manhattan bike path in 2017 and the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14.
“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar answered.
“And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men,” she continued.
Omar, a Somalia-born Democrat, along with other first-year Democratic congresswomen — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — have been feuding with President Trump after he tweeted earlier this month that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”
(Read more at the New York Post)
If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account …
If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account for this statement (or her accusations that represenatives friendly to Israel held dual allegances or her “Some people did something” comment about 9/11 or her many anti-Semitic statements), then it might again start to set unfortunate trends.
Ilhan Omar must not have believed her own advice on White men (quoted above), since she had an affair with a married White man
In yet another article, the New York Post explains how Rep. Omar has been accused of having an affair with her white, male campaign worker.
A Washington, DC, mom says her political-consultant husband left her for Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.
Dr. Beth Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.
The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.
“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.
“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.
“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.
“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.
The Mynetts lived together for six years before marrying in 2012, the filing said.
Omar — a member of “the Squad,” a group of far left-leaning female freshman House members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two others — recently separated from her husband, according to reports.
The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.
Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.
(Read more at New York Post)
If Ilhan Omar were anything but a hypocrite
If Ilhan Omar were a true, principled politician, she might consider taking acts that would be best for her constituents.
If she were true to Islam, there would be no room in her life for infidelity or racism.
If she were a dedicated racist, she never would have had an affair with a White man.
With all of this said, all I can say is that she definitely is a hypocrite.
Democrat hypocrisy on personal protection
In response to the Odessa shooting, Democrats call for ineffective gun control
On Saturday, 31 August 2019, an insane man went on a shooting spree after he was fired and then pulled over for failing to signal a turn. Previously described by neighbors as “scary” and “violent,” this nut called the FBI and began “incoherently rambling” after his firing. Although he had both a criminal record and had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and, therefore, failed his background check, this madman purchased a rifle by way of a private sale. By the end of his rampage, the man who won’t be named here had killed seven and wounded 22 as he drove around shooting randomly before he was stopped by a policeman’s bullet near a movie theater.
During the same weekend in Chicago (where gun laws are in effect), eight were killed and 26 injured during a respite from violence (this is the lowest murder rate since 2011).
Over the years, articles demonstrate that Democrats want gun protection for them, not you
Democratic Congressman: Yeah, You Don’t Need Guns, But ‘We Deserve’ Armed Guards
The Daily Wire reports in a 23 June 2016 article on the hypocrisy of Charlie Rangel.
Democratic New York Representative Charlie Rangel, no stranger to hypocrisy, told The Daily Caller in an interview that while members of Congress “need” and “deserve” to be protected by guns, law-abiding citizens should not own guns.
(Read more at the Daily Wire)
These are the Democrats who carved special payments out that cover their Obamacare expenses
If anyone finds any bit of surprise in the fact that Congress expects armed protection even as they devise methods of disarming the people, then remember these similar situations. Remember that they exempted themselves from Obamacare. Remember that insider trading laws that apply to you do not keep Congress members from using their Congressionally-acquired information to profit.
7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns
Townhall comments on the liberal hypocrisy that surrounds the topic of gun control.
One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.
But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.
Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.
(Read the list of seven people and organizations who use guns but campaign for gun laws at Townhall)
Beyond knowing who to ignore and boycott
By knowing to avoid the print of the Journal-News and the bloviating of politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein or that of celebrities like Mark Kelly, Shania Twain, Rosie O’Donnell, or Michael Moore — we can be happier when we ignore it all.
Democrats accuse the NRA of profiting from bloodshed
Ridiculous Hypocrite Celebrities Launch Dumb New Attack on NRA
Red State rightfully points out one instance of where celebrities started a hypocritical attack on the NRA.
Even as it becomes apparent that Tinseltown’s celebrity set is an increasingly inconsequential political faction, they continue to hector and lecture the rest of as if they are still socially relevant and influential.
Undeterred by the fact that their overwhelming support of and assistance for Hillary Clinton in 2016 not only didn’t push her over the finish, but actually contributed to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unnecessary and unwanted opinions.
Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — resulting in zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March, and their donning of vagina hats has provoked far more laughter than change. Celebrities have openly funded and supported the latest surge of gun control fervor following the Parkland school shooting, and the result has been an increase gun sales and a huge spike in new memberships for the NRA.
So not merely inconsequential to success for their liberal causes, but actively detrimental to it, and yet totally unaware of it.
This lack of awareness has led to a particular crowd of celebrities who, unable to ascertain the reason for rising NRA memberships and gun ownership, to concoct a plan to counteract it. Remarkable.
The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction, this outfit crafted an open letter (PDF) to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning, condescending, angry tone. Just as you’d expect from these geniuses.
This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”
Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.
The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.
(Read more at Red State)
Not terrorists, but founded by pastors seeking to protect former slaves from the KKK
As I previously blogged in 2016, there are a number of Blacks who support Second Amendment rights. Still, when you compare the support that should exist for the protection of Black families against the stated support for senseless Democrat policies, there really can be no comparison.
Additionally, considering that the NRA was established by former abolitionist pastors who wanted Blacks to be able to protect their own families against the KKK (the Southern Democrat’s violent tool of oppression), there should not be a debate within poor America as to whether only the rich deserve the protection of sidearms via bodyguards (refer to April Ryan above).
As evidenced by the words of the Black conservatives in the 2013 conference documented in the below two videos (both long and short versions), we have ample evidence to support the good intentions of the founders, leaders, and members of the National Rifle Association.
The O’Rourke campaign shows no control in promoting itself after the Odessa shooting
Beto O’Rourke campaign selling ‘this is f—ed up’ T-shirts to help gun control activists
In a 1 September 2019 USA Today article, the sickness of one Democrat campaign comes out.
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not mince words when describing the deadly shooting in Midland-Odessa, Texas, that left at least seven people dead and 22 wounded.
Later Sunday, his presidential campaign announced that the “f—ed up” quote had become a T-shirt being sold for $30 on the campaign website.
“100% of the proceeds from the sale of this item will be shared equally between Mom’s Demand Action and March for Our Lives,” the campaign wrote on the O’Rourke campaign website, referring to two prominent gun violence prevention groups.
According to the campaign, the shirt was printed by a union and made in the United States.
The campaign has defended O’Rourke’s profanity on Twitter.
“if you’re angrier about a swear word than a baby being shot in the face, consider your choices,” the campaign wrote, referring to a 17-month-old girl who had been shot in the Texas shooting.
(Read more at USA Today)
News for “Beto”
What I am angry about stems from the continual attack by “Beto” on my Second Amendment rights any time he can make an emotional plea based on the acts of someone else.
Unlike “Beto,” I believe that murderers should be executed (rather then babies). Unlike “Beto,” I believe that the guilty should be punished, not those law-abiding citizens who have done nothing and who want to protect themselves.
Lead Democrats hypocrisy on “Climate Change”
Obama commits America to higher taxes with the Paris Climate Accord
According to a 1 June 2017 Business Insider article, Obama brought the USA into the Paris Climate Accord in order to supposedly slow the progress of global warming.
In December 2015, nearly every country, including all of the world’s biggest polluters, came together in Paris and agreed to limit carbon emissions.
The Paris Agreement was designed to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
It was a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Now President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from the accord.
Here’s a quick primer on the Paris Agreement.
What did the US agree to?
The Paris Agreement laid out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.
The US’s plan, which the Obama administration submitted in March 2015, set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. The baseline level this reduction is measured against is 2005, when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
(Read more at the Business Insider)
After claiming the seas would rise due to global warming, Obama buys multi-million dollar beachfront property
As discussed at PJ Media, Obama has purchased a mulit-million dollar beachfront property which would easily be wiped out by global warming, if it existed.
After the news broke that former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are buying a $15M waterfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, some took to social media to accuse the Obamas of hypocrisy on climate change.
“If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion on…Martha’s Vineyard. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously,” wrote Twitter user @RantyAmyCurtis.
If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t by a $15 million mansion on...Ma… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) August 23, 2019
Others made a similar point in reaction to the news of the Obamas purchase, which has reportedly not been finalized yet.
“If climate change is as bad as Obama said it was, why is he buying property on or near the beach?” wrote Twitter user @Huffman_Hippy.
“How about Obama pushing climate change legislation then buying a coastal mansion at Martha’s vineyard?” wrote Twitter user @Mikel1618.
Twitter user @Chris_Roy wrote that the Obamas $15 million investment in a waterfront property “seems odd for a climate change alarmist believing in sea level rise and the destruction of coastal regions.Hmmm 🤔. Obviously not thinking of what he will leave his children.”
(Read more at PJ Media)
This was not the first high-profile Democrat to become a climate hypocrite
Al Gore, who hit his peak during his years in the as the Vice President under Bill Clinton, told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” Additionally, he told American households to conserve by keeping the air conditioning and heating at uncomfortable levels (while he maintained a sprawling mansion that included an Olympic-sized, heated pool). Likewise, he encouraged America to abstain from burning gasoline while he uses a fleet of jets and gas-guzzling sedans.
More recently, AOC has been called out for jet-setting and using SUV’s while advocating her drastic “Green New Deal.”
Democrats on terrorism
Democrats want to both coddle and demonize terrorists
When The Atlantic pointed out the incoherence within liberal (hence, Democrat) thought on terrorists.
Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.
Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects “attack” neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such acts—that fear is what the terrorists want—does not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. It’s designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.
In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that they’ll be kept safe, not to be told that they’re overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the country’s many “dark realities”—the government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the “grim problem of existence,” and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely “material things,” and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.
Murphy’s reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters’ questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the president’s overseas trip:
Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. That’s when the president’s advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.” Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.
Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.
Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obama’s ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays “radical Islamic terrorism” as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.
Obama’s stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didn’t scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bush’s war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to “spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.” Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.
(Read more at The Atlantic)
From these and other instances, Democrats seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too
In the event that one might review the above article (or consider how radical Islam was never mentioned during a Senate hearing on the 9/11 attacks or think about how Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have never been punished for their many anti-Semitic attacks, just remember.
San Francisco City government declares the NRA to be a terrorist organization
By reading between the lines of the New York Times, we discover the degree of disrespect doled out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors toward the National Rifle Association.
Unsettled by recent mass shootings across the nation, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution this week declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.
The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.
Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.
“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”
While the resolution has no practical effect, Ms. Stefani said in an interview on Wednesday, “I firmly believe that words matter, and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the N.R.A.”
(Read more at the New York Times)
Consider the results of the Board of Supervisors on San Francisco
To those who might consider the words of Ms. Stefani, walk the streets of San Francisco and decide whether the NRA or the Board of Supervisors has done the most to terrorize San Francisco.
AOC and Pressley raise bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston
According to the New York Post, AOC and Pressley raised bail for Antifa.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a fellow member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade” in Boston.
Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pressley (D-Mass.) both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.
“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”
Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Pressley’s initial tweet about the fund. Pressley slammed the “Straight Pride” event as an “#LGBT hate march” and asked followers to join her in making a contribution to the fund.
(Read more at the New York Post)
An answer that aligns with our founding
We can stop mass shootings without restricting Second Amendment liberties
Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation argues that America need not give up its guns in response to the recent violence.
It is often said by people of all political persuasions, and certainly by my fellow conservatives, that the primary duty of the federal government is to keep us safe.
The problem is, that’s not true. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the Federalist Papers, make it clear that the primary duty of the federal government is the preservation of liberty, not safety. The Founders had very clear ideas about the trade-offs between safety and liberty, and they willingly gave up their own security in order to take a desperate shot at more political liberty.
The Founders were primarily concerned about preventing tyranny, and they correctly understood that a free people could keep themselves safe, but a safe people might not be able to keep themselves free. You could live safely in a police state or a military dictatorship, or remain subjects of King George, but you wouldn’t be free.
That’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Americans in the tradition of the Founders don’t trade liberty for safety.
But liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. The Founders believed that a free people could, through self-organization, create the means and the institutions necessary to maintain public safety. Liberty logically precedes safety, but it doesn’t preclude it.
Confronted with the horror of repeated mass shootings, proposed solutions have rushed toward restricting Second Amendment rights. But an American solution for reducing mass shootings should not focus on erosions of liberty.
On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it’s also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety.
And let’s not get distracted by discussions about root causes. That might strike you as peculiar, but root causes are notoriously difficult to address, and government is particularly ill-equipped to do so. So what can we organize to do now to increase safety without eroding liberty?
Travel almost anywhere else in the world and you will commonly encounter armed security in public places. Somehow, uniquely in America, we see this as a bad thing. That needs to change.
In the church my family attends, we adapted after a threat. There is now armed security scattered throughout the congregation, in the sanctuary, in the lobby, and even on the platform. Air transportation obviously adapted after 9/11, with added airport security and air marshals on flights.
It’s time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. Every school, every church, every large retailer and every government facility should have armed, obvious guards at all entrances. We don’t need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. This is now the cost of protecting our children and of protecting the public.
(Read more at the Institute for Policy Innovation)
1. By reviewing the Ocasio-Cortez initial announcement on the “Green New Deal,” we can see her blind spots and her focus
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Super Wealthy be Taxed Up to 70% to Fund ‘Green New Deal’
In a 4 January 2019 Mediaite article, the basic information on the Anderson Cooper interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she first unveils the Green New Deal appears in print.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat with Anderson Cooper for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview set to air this Sunday, a portion of which has been released as a promotion. In the released segment, Ocasio-Cortez reveals how exactly she suggests paying for the environmental agenda known as the “Green New Deal” — with remarkably higher tax rates for the super wealthy.
Ocasio-Cortez suggests in the clip that in her esteem, people should be doing more to pay their “fair share.” When Cooper pressed on how she could possibly pay for the deal, she pointed to the progressive tax rate system in the 1960s, explaining that if you earn 0 to $75,000 a year, you would only pay 10% or 15% in income tax.
“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your $10 millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”
(Read more at Mediaite)
From reading this, we can glean:
- Regarding her view of salaries and rich people
- Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to understand that if income (or another reward) is removed, people will likely not produce at the same level
- The people earning $10 million are company owners that — when they scale back — may cause many people to lose their jobs. It seems she didn’t learn anything from Obama’s “The Great Recession” or Solyndra.
- She objectifies rich people as miniature banks for funding her pie-in-the-sky programs (not as people capable of compassion, mercy, or other laudable traits).
- She wants to divide us (the noble “green” voters) from the “rich” (who, according to her, do not pay their “fair share”).
- Regarding her elevated view of “green” projects
- She assumes that “green” projects are so noble that they will escape strong questions by the press
- When she does get the muted criticism that this is “radical,” she glosses over the undercurrent of association with the failed states of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and many other broken states by glorying in the title.
Republicans: Let Americans keep more of their own hard-earned money Democrats: Take away 70% of your income and giv… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) January 05, 2019
Here is one thing we've not talked about: this is all for her new Green Deal...which means that it would allow for… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) January 05, 2019
2. By reviewing the details of her “Green New Deal,” we can see how it will explode costs and kill jobs
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more dangerous than you think
The 3 January 2019 Washington Examiner opinion piece that describes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed “Green New Deal” should be reviewed by all (along with the linked draft resolution).
Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., hasn’t officially started her first term in office, but she’s already pushing a massive, far-left proposal that would fundamentally transform much of the economy and push the country closer than ever to socialism.
For several weeks, you might have heard Ocasio-Cortez reference the creation of a “Green New Deal,” but until recently, few people knew what would be included in the plan. In a draft resolution to form a select committee in the House that would help develop legislation to put her plan in action, Ocasio-Cortez finally outlined numerous proposals that she says should be part of future Green New Deal legislation. Taken together, the many ideas included in Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be the most radical policy shift in modern U.S. history, dramatically increasing the size and power of government and running up the national debt by trillions of dollars.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and at least 40 House Democrats, would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.
This policy alone would create widespread economic chaos. Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation. My colleagues at the Heartland Institute found that electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.
Not only is Ocasio-Cortez proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, she’s demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal doesn’t merely advocate for a gigantic shift in the U.S. energy industry. Her draft resolution says one of the proposed House committee’s priorities would be “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” Taken literally, this mandate would cost trillions of dollars. There were about 136 million housing units in the United States in 2017, not including any businesses. Even if it would cost just $10,000 to “upgrade” every home and apartment, an extremely low estimate, this one relatively small part of her plan would cost more than $1.3 trillion.
(Read more at the Washington Examiner)
As much as people have enjoyed the sudden renaissance of jobs caused by Trump’s deregulation, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn towards the bureaucracy of socialism must be resisted. Not only does it abandon our resources of oil, gas, and coal — it cannot do anything to regulate the biggest polluters (China, India, and third world countries).
Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill plays loosely with tax dollars being collected and handed out. In fact, it is wrong on so many levels, because:
- The quickest way to raise the price of a commodity (like electrical power) is to mandate that the public buy that commodity from a monopoly (the green power producers)
- The best way to ensure a service (like the installation of green power conduits) is inordinately high-priced involves requiring everyone install them under penalty of law
- Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates the use of natural resources (that — through gasoline formulation technology and scrubbing technology — have become increasingly cleaner)
- Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates currently good-paying jobs in a time window too short to allow a workable transition
3. If the above issues are not enough, Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on forcing entrepreneurs from New York
Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers
If we go to a 4 January 2019 article by Americans for Tax Reform, we find a bleaker picture painted for the job creators of New York.
In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.
The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.
New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:
Federal income tax rate: 70.0% NY state income tax rate: 8.82% NYC income tax rate: 3.876% TOTAL: 82.696%
New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).
(Read more at Americans for Tax Reform)
If this is not a formula for speeding the exodus of businesses from New York, I don’t know what is.
4. For those concerned with border security, the new House Democrats have nothing. But they do have a nice gift for the dictators of Central America.
Democrat Spending Bill Offers $12 Billion More for Foreign Aid, $0 for Border Wall
A 3 January 2019 Breitbart article outlines the excesses the Democrats have taken to advance socialism and abortion internationally.
The spending bills proposed by House Democrats to end the partial government shutdown offer no funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, but provide over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested, according to a statement on Thursday from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The statement warned the new House Democrat majority of President Trump’s intention to veto the bills, noting that the administration “cannot accept legislation that provides unnecessary funding for wasteful programs while ignoring the Nation’s urgent border security needs.”
The statement reiterated President Trump’s request for “at least $5 billion for border security” and asserted that the Democrats’ proposal “does not come close to providing these necessary investments and authorities.”
The White House then highlighted the billions in funding the Democrats are offering for “unnecessary programs at excessive levels” beyond what the Trump administration requested, including:
- $12 billion more for “international affairs programs,” including $2.9 billion more “for economic and development assistance, including funding for the West Bank/Gaza, Syria, and Pakistan, where our foreign aid is either frozen or under review.”
- $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restored funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund, which would undermine the administration’s Mexico City Policy that bars the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign organizations that “promote or perform abortions.”
- Approximately $2 billion more than requested for the Environmental Protection Agency
- $7.1 billion more than the administration requested for Housing and Urban Development programs
(Read more at Breitbart)
Of course, these Democrats have to know that these measures will not pass the Republican Senate and will not be signed into law by President Trump.
Still, forget reality. These are the Democrats.
5. Democrats know from commercial sources that America wants Border Security
Americans want border security, and the numbers show it
A 5 January 2019 Fox News article on a recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans value border security.
President Trump is far from alone in his determination to secure our borders — according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans view immigration as the second-biggest problem facing the country today.
That’s bad news for the Democrat Party, which is hellbent on opposing the president’s efforts to fix our broken immigration system, especially the border wall he needs in order to get illegal immigration under control.
The Democrats have a very simple, two-part strategy on immigration: first and foremost, they want to keep President Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people; second, they want to make it even easier for foreigners to enter this country illegally.
With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that Americans are deeply troubled by the immigration crisis.
Over the past several decades, millions of illegal immigrants have successfully evaded our efforts to enforce immigration laws, putting local economies and welfare programs under tremendous pressure to cope with the massive influx of undocumented workers and their families, most of whom receive at least one form of government welfare.
In fact, illegal immigration costs taxpayers a staggering $134.9 billion a year while contributing only $19 billion in state, federal, and local taxes. At the federal level, medical costs make up the lion’s share of government expenditures on illegal immigrants, while education is the largest single expense that illegal immigration imposes on state and local governments.
(Read more at Fox News)
Although it is the Democrats who seem hellbent on denying border security to America, I have to admit that the Republicans have had ample chances to fix the problem over the past two years.
6. If you don’t live in a major population center, the Democrats do not care about you.
Nolte: Tyrannical Democrats Introduce Bill to Kill Electoral College
According to a 4 January 2019 Breitbart article, the Democrats would like to silence the fly-over states between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.
“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release. “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”
Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.
If you will pardon a small digression… never forget that those who claim to believe in Global Warming also choose to stubbornly live on the very same coasts that are supposed to be underwater already.
Anyway, eliminating the electoral college is the road to tyranny — which is why Democrats and the media desperately want it eliminated.
Trust me, the last place any free person wants to live is in a country where 51 percent of the population can strip the rights away from the 49 percent.
Imagine a country where the only way to get elected president is to appeal to the left-wing extremists who live in large population centers, which is exactly what would happen. In fact this would be the only way to win the presidency because it would be the easiest — the cheapest as far as ad buys, getting out the vote, and that most precious commodity of all: time. Campaigns are going to go to where the most votes are.
(Read more at Breitbart)
While the Democrats know that getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution, I have read elsewhere that Democrats are doing an end-run on the electoral college by getting individual fly-over states to voluntarily give their delegates to the popular winner of the overall presidential election.