Democrat rhetoric jumps up to bite them

Featured

Former Cop to AOC, Pelosi: ‘Defund Your Protection First’

Breitbart conveys the words of a former policeman and the sentiments of most of us when the Speaker gets the message of “Defund your protection first.”

TomHomanFormer police officer Tom Homan, speaking at Saturday’s pro-cop “We Back Blue” event in D.C., slammed progressive politicians for loudly calling for defunding police. He singled out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and challenged them to “lead by example” by defunding their own protection first.

Homan, a former officer who spent over three decades serving his community, spoke at the event and blasted progressive politicians who have, in the wake of the George Floyd protests, largely vilified police officers and demonstrated support for defunding police departments across the nation.

“Schumer and Pelosi are not speaking up,” he told the audience, emphasizing, again, that “we’re all against” racism.

“No one’s going to justify that, but they’ll stand out on a moment’s notice and defend people that are in here in the country illegally in violation of law, but they won’t stand out there and defend the men and women who leave the safety and security of their home every day … to defend their communities,” he continued. “They haven’t said a word. “

He used far-left “Squad” member Ocasio-Cortez as another example of a progressive politician who has failed to defend officers, instead using her platform to champion defunding police departments.

“She says we should defund the police, and we should all make sacrifices. Okay. So lead by example,” he suggested.

“Let’s take the law enforcement officers that provide them 24/7 law enforcement security. If they want to take protection away from the American people in their communities, lead by example,” Homan said.

“Defund your protection first,” he added. “You think they’re going to do it? They’re never going to do it.”

Ocasio-Cortez said on Thursday that a “defunded” police “looks like a suburb.”

“It looks like a suburb. Affluent white communities already live in a world where they choose to fund youth, health, housing, etc more than they fund police,” she wrote in response to a question on Instagram.

(Read more at Breitbart)

My dad was once a Democrat, but the party left him

My question when reading about the Democrats who want to defund the police is this: are these the traditional Democrats or the few who have stayed after the rest left them? Long ago, the Democrat party left my dad. So, is  it these remnants of my dad’s former party who now want to defund the police?


Nancy Pelosi discusses ‘defund the police’ & ‘Justice in Policing Act’

NBC News shares Nancy Pelosi’s sales job on the “Justice in Policing Act” (which sounds like a nationalization and a politicization of the local police forces).

ComfortablySmugHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other top Democrats in the House and the Senate on Monday unveiled far-reaching legislation to overhaul policing in the United States as protests over excessive force by law enforcement against African Americans and others have gripped the nation.

The bill, called the “Justice in Policing Act,” would ban chokeholds, including the kind used by a then-Minneapolis police officer in the death of George Floyd last month, as well as no-knock warrants in drug cases, as was used in the incident leading to the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky, in March, according to a a House Democratic aide and a bill summary obtained by NBC News.

The legislation, which has more than 200 Democratic co-sponsors in the House and the Senate, would require local police departments to send data on the use of force to the federal government and create a grant program that would allow state attorneys general to create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force, according to the five-page summary of the bill. Further, the bill would make it easier for people to recover damages when police departments violate their civil rights and, for the first time, would make lynching a federal hate crime.

“The martyrdom of George Floyd gave the American experience a moment of national anguish as we grieve for the black Americans killed by police brutality today,” Pelosi said at a news conference on the bill. “This moment of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action as Americans from across the country peacefully protest to demand an end to injustice.”

Pelosi said that in the coming weeks, the House will hold hearings, a markup and a vote on the legislation. Democratic leaders expressed confidence that it would pass the House, and Pelosi said she hopes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would “swiftly” take it up.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at the news conference that Senate Democrats “are going to fight like hell” to make the legislation “a reality,” adding the “poison of racism” has permeated American society, beyond just the criminal justice system.

The measure comes in the wake of massive protests that have swept the nation over the last two weeks since Floyd’s death while in the custody of Minneapolis police. While some activists have been calling for the defunding of police departments, the bill doesn’t shrink police budgets. The legislation also would not provide new funding to police departments to implement the proposed reforms, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass, D-Calif., who played a lead role in crafting the legislation, said at a press conference Monday that the power of the protest movement across the U.S. will help Congress pass this measure, which, in addition to holding police accountable and increasing transparency, would change police culture.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said that while white people originally came to the U.S. willingly in search of a new world full of liberty and justice, black people came against their will, shackled and enslaved — and the injustices have continued to this day.

(Read more at NBC News)

One of the best ways to stop  racism is to stop being racist

To stop racism, stop considering race as a part of input. Make the system blind and punish those who introduce racial bias in a provable way.

Of course, that would kill a lot of political rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Democrats are grappling with calls to “defund the police”

Vox reports on the discussions between the more and less insane elements in the Democrat party on whether to defund the police.

Clyburn&MaskedTheivesHouse Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) explicitly rejected the “defund the police” slogan that has emerged among progressive activists fighting against police brutality and racism in recent weeks, saying on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday that “nobody is going to defund the police.”

Later on the same program, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) embraced the term. She suggested defunding efforts are often misunderstood, and argued that they do not mean “that the community is not going to be kept safe.”

The disconnect between the two prominent Democrats symbolizes how “defund the police” is emerging as a wedge issue between the activist left flank of the party and its more moderate leadership. And the nature of the debate is also bringing to the fore that advocates and critics are struggling to communicate precisely what the phrase “defund the police” means as they go about adopting or rejecting it.

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Clyburn firmly opposed embracing the concept amid Democrats’ push for criminal justice reform legislation.

“I would simply say, as I have always said, nobody is going to defund the police,” he said. “We can restructure the police forces, restructure, reimagine policing. That is what we are going to do. The fact of the matter is, the police have a role to play. What we have got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times, one that responds to these communities that they operate in.”

Clyburn went on to say that growing up he didn’t fear the police, but that “all of a sudden now I do fear police.”

“The fact of the matter is this is a structure that has been developed that we’ve got to deconstruct. So I wouldn’t say defund. Deconstruct our policing,” he said.

Clyburn did not define what exactly he meant by “deconstruct,” but there are some measures that would achieve some of the goals he described included in police reform legislation unveiled by Democratic lawmakers last week. That bill includes measures that make it easier to prosecute and regulate police misconduct and to demilitarize police departments. It also would end qualified immunity, a policy that gives police officers and other public officials immunity from civil lawsuits.

Clyburn has previously suggested that he opposes defunding the police because he believes it is a phrase that is vulnerable to opposition messaging from the GOP.

“You know all that will do is give Donald Trump the cover he needs,” Clyburn told CNN’s Ana Cabrera Saturday in a separate discussion about the slogan. “I’ve been saying to people all the time, ‘If you allow yourself to play the opponent’s game, you’re going to lose and the opponent will win.’ Let’s not play his game.”

Omar’s outlook on police reform is different. When speaking to Tapper, she argued forcefully that the Minneapolis Police Department — whose officers killed George Floyd — was in need of a fundamental overhaul.

“A new way forward can’t be put in place if we have a department that is having a crisis of credibility, if we have a department that’s led by a chief who’s sued for racism, if we have a department that hasn’t solved homicide — half of the homicides in Minneapolis police department go unsolved,” Omar said. “There have been cases where they’ve destroyed rape kits. And so you can’t really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild.”

She pointed to San Francisco’s proposed measures for narrowing the range of issues that police respond to as a model. “And just like San Francisco did — right now, they’re moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to.”

(Read more at Vox)

There is nobody so blind as those who refuse to see

Google says that John Haywood said, “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.” Similarly, Jeremiah also said:

‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear. Do you not fear Me?’ declares the Lord . ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; They have turned aside and departed. (Jeremiah 5:21‭-‬23 NASB)

 

Along these lines of thought, it seems that some have their minds made up and will not be dissuaded from their opinion. Having been backed into a corner and forced to defend their position, they now want us to think that “defund the police” means something other than “remove money from supporting police departments and invest it in social programs.”

However, there is a problem with that. The problem is this: words mean things.

Seventy-nine percent of truckers say they won’t deliver to cities with defunded police departments

For those cities who decide to defund their police departments, Breitbart reports that truckers have responded that 79% will not deliver to these cities.

A majority of truckers are vowing to halt deliveries to cities that defund or disband their police departments, according to a recent poll.

Seventy-nine percent of truck drivers said they felt their safety would be at risk if they had to deliver to a city with a disbanded police department, according to CDL News, a website for the commercial trucking industry.

Long-haul truck drivers have been on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic for the past year due to stay-at-home orders requiring most Americans to buy their goods online, and have had to deal with protests.

Now many truckers are worried about going to places such as Minneapolis, Minnesota, where their city council president reportedly planned to dismantle their police department following the death of George Floyd.

CDL News asked drivers on its app to explain their reasoning for not delivering to these cities.

“I will not deliver to an area with a disbanded police department. My life matter and I do this for my family. We are already at the mercy of these towns and cities with laws and hate against us for parking, getting a meal or even using a restroom,” one driver responded.

“Simple. We may not like it all the time, but laws and order is necessary,” another driver said.

Truck driving has historically been ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Shut off cell service, water, electricity. and gas to CHAZ

We do not provide free infrastructure to Canada, Mexico, or other countries. We should not provide such services to a group that wants to be independent of the United States of America.

If they want to stand on their own, let them stand alone.

Answer this: how can Democrats lock U.S. citizens with “stay home, work safe” orders and promote illegal immigration?

Featured

Democrat leaders have a monopoly on the lockdown

Lina Hidalgo, Gretchen Whitmer, Tom Wolf, all Democrats, all extend “stay at home” orders

As posted previously on this blog, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced on 21 May 2020 that her “Stay Home, Work Safe” order would be extended until 10 June.

Similarly, Michigan Governor Whitmer has further extended the stay-home order, as well as restrictions that have shut down many Michigan bhusinesses to limit the spread of the coronavirus outbreak to 12 June 2020.

Likewise, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has extended stay-at-home orders in red counties despite mounting opposition.

These Democrat leaders have promoted policies that encourage illegal immigration

Judge Lina Hidalgo proposes and a narrow margin of Democrats approve a taxpayer-funded plan for “Deportation Defense”

Although violation of immigration law remains a civil (not criminal) offense, Judge Lina Hidalgo proposed and got passed a tax-payer-funded plan for defending illegal aliens, as reported by Houston Public Media.

Harris County commissioners voted Tuesday to approve a resolution to create an immigration legal services fund.

lina2The vote was 3-2, along party lines. The resolution, proposed by County Judge Lina Hidalgo, allocates an estimated $500,000 in its first year to help people facing deportation who can’t afford a lawyer. The funds would go toward helping improve due process in the federal immigration system, Hidalgo said.

“The goal is to provide attorneys for immigrants to be able to pursue their case. If it turns out their case has no merit, and they’re not to stay, that’s fine. But they should have a shot at a fair process and they can’t possibly navigate the system, complicated confusing system, without the legal support,” Hidalgo said.

Dallas, Austin and San Antonio have similar city-funded programs in place, but this would be the first county-funded effort in the state and the first program in Greater Houston.

A study by the Vera Institute of Justice found detained immigrants who have a lawyer are 10.5 times more likely to win their case than those without representation.

The report also found that when immigration cases involved women with children, having legal representation improved their odds of winning 14 times.

The county’s next steps are to run a request for proposals from nonprofits likely already working in immigration legal defense, according to the Harris County Judge’s office.

Harris County spends $21 million annually to fund its public defenders office. A large portion of that budget staffs 88 public defenders.

(Read more at Houston Public Media)

Harris County does not provide citizens paid representation when we get sued. Why do illegals get it?

Two things feed into Lina Hidalgo’s need to provide taxpayer-funded legal representation for illegal aliens:

  1. Her need to perpetuate the class struggle of the proletariat
  2. Her need to perpetuate racism (she calls “equity”)

One thing that baffles me is that Democrats cannot seem to see how supporting one side over another (even if done in the name of purported “social justice”) divides us. Rather than giving special advantages to one side over the other, we should promote equality and freedom (not this division and racism).

On the other hand, why do Americans (as opposed to Democrat socialists) vote for this? My answer is simple: we cannot.

Whitmer backs driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants

The Detroit Free Press points out how Gretchen Whitmer backs providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

WhitmerGov. Gretchen Whitmer appeared to support a change in state law to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, when she gave an impromptu interview to an immigrants rights organization during the Democratic presidential debates in Detroit.

“We need to ensure that everyone’s got a path to getting a license, so they’ve got identification,” Whitmer, a Democrat, said in a video released by the group Movimiento Cosecha after an organizer for the group asked her if she favored issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.

“That’s something that’s important to me, it’s important to our economy, and it’s important to the people of Michigan.”

Michigan passed legislation to ban the practice in 2008 after Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican, issued a formal opinion in 2007 saying undocumented immigrants could not obtain driver’s licenses. Cox’s opinion reversed a 1995 opinion from former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat.

Tiffany Brown, a spokeswoman for Whitmer, would not answer directly Friday morning when asked whether Whitmer favors changing state law to allow undocumented immigrants to hold Michigan driver’s licenses. But she did not deny the accuracy of the video and transcript released by Movimiento Cosecha.

“Not sure I’ll have much more to add outside of what the governor said in the video about ensuring that undocumented immigrants have a path to getting an ID,” Brown said in an email.

She did not specify what that path would look like or whether she was talking about a state identification other than a driver’s license. In the video, Whitmer specifically referenced driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.

(Read more at the Detroit Free Press)

Certainly Whitmer sees that a license gives an illegal alien an avenue to the legal

Certainly Whitmer understands that giving the illegal alien a drivers license also gives the illegal alien the possibility of various legal documents (including the ballot); therefore, for Whitmer to play with this idea is the equivalent of playing with a metaphysical gun. She cannot expect to pick this idea up and not draw attacks from those who stand for our freedom.

So, with this information (and with the knowledge that Whitmer has acted as a little dictator in the name of health while Sweden has fared better without a lockdown), freedom-loving people should vote her out.

Governor Tom Wolf seeks the removal of an ICE detention center in Pennsylvania

The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania CBS affiliate Local21News reports that Governor Wolf seeks the closure of the Berks ICE detention center.

WolfWhile target cities wait, advocacy groups continue working to shut down detention centers. Governor Wolf says he wants the Berks County center closed.

“I haven’t had a conversation on the most recent thing,” Wolf said, when asked about the detention center. “Since I’ve been in this position, since I first learned about the Berks County detention center, I’ve been against what they do, I think it’s wrong. It’s immoral, it’s inhumane and I don’t think we should be doing that in Pennsylvania. It gives us a bad name.”

(Read more at Local21News)

Here again, Governor Wolf seems to live to produce oxymoronic situations

Weeks ago, Governor Wolf placed COVID-19 patients in nursing homes in the name of health. Now coronavirus reigns in Pennsylvania nursing homes.

Governor Wolf continues to strangle the economic health of numerous counties in the name of health, but where does he expect the funds for their physical and economic health to spring from?

Governor Wolf wants the average citizen to obey his mandates and probably threatens them with jail time and fines if they do not obey. But for the illegal alien who broke into the country and is competing with our citizens for the resources here, he wants to shut down the ICE center (and probably let them all go).

Oddly, Democrats wonder why people cannot take them seriously.

This is the result of Democrat policies

Illegal alien arrested in deadly-hit-and run as county looks to buck ICE

The Daily Caller reports on one illegal alien in Northern Virginia’s Prince William County (where county officials had decided not to work with ICE).

An illegal alien was arrested in a Northern Virginia suburb for his alleged involvement in a deadly hit-and-run accident and handed over to immigration officials, but local leaders are looking to scrap a program that allows law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Officials in Prince William County, Virginia, have debated ending a years-long partnership program with federal immigration authorities, the 287(g) program. The introduction of new jail board appointees is expected to lead to the end of this partnership, according to proponents of the program.

As the debate was occurring this week, an illegal alien was arrested after he allegedly struck a man with his vehicle, killing him, and speeding off, according to ICE. Federal authorities and proponents of the program are pointing to the arrest of this man as a prime example of why the partnership needs to stay in place.

Walner Alberto Pichinte Echeverria
Walner Alberto Pichinte Echeverria

A 62-year-old northern Virginia man, attempting to cross a road in the early morning hours of May 6, was struck by two vehicles, with the injuries he sustained ultimately causing him to die, according to news outlet Inside NOVA. The second vehicle that struck him as he laid on the road sped away. The Prince William County Police Department identified and arrested 35-year-old Walner Alberto Pichinte Echeverria May 18, Inside NOVA reported.

Pichinte Echeverria, a Salvadoran national, was living unlawfully in the U.S. and was placed in ICE custody on May 21, a spokeswoman for the agency told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Walner Alberto Pichinte Echeverria, 35, an unlawfully present Salvadoran national, was turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on May 21 by the Prince William County Police Department in Manassas, Virginia, after his arrest May 18 for felony hit and run,” ICE spokeswoman Kaitlyn Pote said in a statement provided to the DCNF.

“On May 19, a designated immigration officer with the 287(g) Program at the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center in Manassas, Virginia, trained to identify and process removable aliens with criminal charges, served Pichinte a warrant of arrest and an immigration detainer,” Pote continued. “He remains in ICE custody pending the outcome of his removal proceedings.”

The 287(g) program allows Prince William County to verify the immigration status of suspects who are arrested and charged with a crime. If the individual is discovered to be living in the U.S. unlawfully, they are subsequently handed over to ICE.

The Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center has been a partner in the program since 2007, according to ICE.

The cooperation agreement also allows the agency to pay for most of the tab for immigration enforcement. Critics of the program have argued that local officers shouldn’t expend their own resources to assist federal authorities.

“The goal of 287(g) is to enhance public safety by identifying aliens, lodging immigration detainers, and initiating removal proceedings by issuing charging documents on criminal and removable aliens booked into the jail facility,” ICE said in a statement.

(continued)

The partnership has become controversial among progressive community leaders, particularly in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Prince William County, much like the rest of northern Virginia, has shifted toward the Democratic Party, and the now-Democrat-controlled county board of supervisors may have set the stage to scrap it.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

So, it sounds like there will be no justice for the victims of this hit-and-run

Oddly, Americans have worked for about 60 years to eliminate giving people preference on the basis of their skin color. No longer are there “Whites only” fountains, cafes, or bars. No longer are there “Negroes only” schools or entrances.

However, now Democrats have worked to establish a separate class for the illegal alien. Unlike citizens, illegal aliens seem to have an agreement with police where the illegals are not detained at auto accidents. They don’t find themselves asked about proof of insurance or title.

Twelve stories that show the danger of Sanders


  1. Sanders says he was briefed on Russian effort to help campaign

The Hill reports that Bernie Sanders knows that Russians have schemed to help his campaign.

BernieScreamsSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday acknowledged that he was briefed by U.S. intelligence officials about Russian attempts to interfere in the 2020 elections, with The Washington Post reporting that Russia has sought to help his presidential campaign.

The Post’s report was published the day after The New York Times reported that House lawmakers were told by U.S. officials last week that Russia was also attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections to help the campaign of President Trump.

Sanders told reporters on the campaign trail Friday that he was briefed on Russian interference efforts “about a month ago,” speculating that the news of potential Russian interference efforts came out now because it was on the eve of the Nevada caucuses.

“It was not clear what role they were going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are gonna get involved in this campaign,” Sanders said.

“The ugly thing that they are doing, and I’ve seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That’s what they did in 2016,” he added.

Sanders described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “thug” in a statement on Friday, emphasizing that he stands “firmly against” Russian interference efforts.

(Read more at The Hill)

Other reports have Sanders claiming no involvement by the Russians

Other sources suggest that Sanders either denies or deflects any suggestion that Russians might be influencing people to vote for him (as we have heard about President Trump by the main stream media for over four years). This, along with a lack of questions from the main stream media on how many of his policies will limit our rights and kill our economy, show how journalists are actively covering for Bernie Sanders.

However, if the “journalists” wanted to scare up the real sleeper Soviet agents, why don’t they look at the guy who recently praised Fidel, who honeymooned in Moscow, and who claimed Russian-style bread lines were a good thing?

  1. Washington Post reports Russian help for Bernie

Townhall points to the Washington Post as they report on Russian help for the Bernie campaign.

Bernie_SandersAre we seeing a pattern here yet, liberal media? Are we starting to get it when it comes to Russia? No. You people are still a bunch of insufferable morons on this stuff. For years, you thought the Trump campaign and the Kremlin colluded during the 2016 election, despite there being zero evidence to back up that allegation. It was a myth. It was a hoax. It was based on a shoddy piece of political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign that was exposed as bunk not by one, but two reports. Ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller trashed it as did the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Still, the Left has been consumed by Russophobia. Collusion delusion is still a thing, but now the shots are being fired inside the ship. U.S. officials informed Sen. Bernie Sanders, the frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination, that the Russians are trying to help his campaign (via WaPo):

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

That’s it. Based on the Left’s rules on this nonsense, Bernie is a Russian agent. His trips to the USSR in the past were really meetings with his KGB handlers.

(Read more at Townhall)

It seems only fair that chants of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie” should be countered with “Russia, Russia, Russia”

sandershoneymooninMoscowPhotos of Bernie in his underwear at a Russian restaurant should be unfurled at every Bernie rally. Chants of “Russia, Russia, Russia” should meet Bernie as he enters the stage.

Just to be fair, the protesters should also include some of Bernie’s words of wisdom like “bread lines can be a good thing,” “wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures,” and other choice bits of knowledge.

  1. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez push bill to ‘ban fracking nationwide’ by 2025

Breitbart reported in a 3 February 2020 article that Sanders and AOC want to ban fracking by 2025.

oilfieldAn anti-fracking bill crafted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) aims to end the practice altogether, making it illegal “on all onshore and offshore land in the United States” by Jan. 1, 2025.

Left-wing actor Mark Ruffalo teased the bill last week, allowing Sanders to jokingly knock him for “ruining the surprise” of the new fracking legislation.

“I don’t mind if @MarkRuffalo spoils his own movies. But please, don’t ruin the surprise of our new legislation with Rep. @AOC, @SenJeffMerkley and @RepDarrenSoto,” Sanders wrote with an accompanying clip of the Avengers actor evidently “spoiling” the upcoming legislation:

The bill, according to the Hillaims to end fracking altogether, revoking permits for “wells where fracking takes place and that are within 2,500 feet of a home, school or other ‘inhabited structure’” beginning February 1, 2021. It would also “immediately prevent federal agencies from issuing federal permits for expanded fracking, new fracking, new pipelines, new natural gas or oil export terminals and other gas and oil infrastructure.”

It would make the practice, which Ocasio-Cortez has identified as the “leading contributor to our climate emergency,” illegal by January 1, 2025.

“Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly explosive,” Sanders said in a statement, according to the Hill. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change.”

“If we are serious about clean air and drinking water, if we are serious about combating climate change, the only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide,” he continued.

Critics of Sanders have defended the practice, warning that its elimination would “spike household energy costs and hurt farmers and manufacturers.”

American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Bethany Aronhalt told the Hill:

Banning a safe, successful method of developing energy would erase a generation of American energy progress and in the process destroy millions of U.S. jobs, spike household energy costs and hurt farmers and manufacturers.

“Thanks to fracking, the United States is the global leader in reducing carbon emissions,” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) tweeted in response to the announcement:

Sanders has long maintained the need for the elimination of fracking, promising to ban it during his presidential bid in 2016.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Rather than banning fracking, maybe start by forcing all socialists to register their party affiliation at their employers

Maybe even the union leadership might want to know who has decided to vote away their Cadillac-health care packages. Surely the owners of the bus company or trucking company might want to know who voted to exponentially increase their costs of operation (electric buses and semi-trucks don’t fall off of the lemon tree). What’s more, I am sure that the biggest employers in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana would be interested in who voted to put them out of business.

  1. Bernie Sanders has already drafted ‘dozens of executive orders’ to bypass Congress if elected President

Lifezette pointed out in a 30 January 2020 article that Bernie had already drafted dozens of executive orders to bypass Congress.

BernieTweetDisturbing campaign documents have just come to light showing that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ staffers have already begun preparing “dozens of executive orders” so that he can bypass Congress in the first days of his presidency, should he win the election in November.

The documents, which were obtained by the Washington Post, show that Sanders’ has executive orders prepared on a wide range of issues that include the environment, immigration, and the economy.

Sanders’ team has prepared over a dozen options for reversing President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, with one of them being the immediate halting of construction on the border wall. Another potential executive order would remove the limit for the number of refugees that could be admitted to the United States, while a third would reinstate Barack Obama’s DREAMER program, which granted legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children.

This is just the beginning of the executive orders that Sanders has planned. One order legalizes marijuana in the entirety of the United States, and another would allow the U.S. to import prescription drugs from Canada. Sanders would also declare climate change to be a national emergency as soon as he took office, and he would ban the export of crude oil.

This shows that Sanders is anticipating that Republicans will keep control of the Senate come November, and that he has no intention of letting this stop him from achieving his radical agenda.

Another document obtained by the post was written by Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager; Warren Gunnels, a senior adviser; and Josh Orton, the campaign policy director, who all urge him to use the executive orders to undo the many “wrongs” of Trump’s presidency.

“We cannot accept delays from Congress on some of the most pressing issues, especially those like immigration where Trump has governed with racism and for his own corrupt benefit,” they said.

(Read more at Lifezette)

For all who claimed Trump to be a dictator, they had better speak up here

For all of the freedom-loving people who protested Obama’s and Trump’s use of executive order, I hope that you will stand up against this misuse of executive power.

However, I also have a number of issues against the things that it seems that Mr. Sanders would write his orders on. On these items, there are several contentions that I have with Mr. Sanders’ issue on the “Muslim ban.” First, Mr. Sanders knows that the restriction on travel to the United States only held back peoples from countries that acted as sources of terrorism (Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela). Second, for Mr. Sanders to call this a “Muslim ban” ignores the majority religions of the last two countries on the list.

Regarding the rest of your laundry list of executive orders, Mr. Sanders, you need to go to Congress to propose laws and have them work their way through Congress. Despite your adoration of socialism, this is not a dictatorship, yet.

  1. A problem in the Nevada caucuses

Townhall mentions through a 22 February 2020 article the problems in the Nevada caucuses.

The results during the Iowa Caucuses were nothing shy of a mess and a large part of that had to do with the math worksheets used to calculate how delegates were awarded. There appeared to be some rounding errors and confusion about what happens when the number of potential delegates a precinct had versus how many were actually awarded.

Fast forward a few weeks later and we’re seeing issues yet again. This time they’re somewhat math-based.

According to MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki, Democratic voters’ initial preferences were for Sen. Bernie Sanders (35 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (17 percent) and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (15 percent). Once votes had to be reallocated, Sanders’ preference spiked to 42 percent, Biden’s jumped to 19 percent and Buttigieg remained the same. Those numbers were based on 10 spotters throughout the state. As of now the Democratic Party has yet to call any precincts.

The National Election Pool, a consortium of various media outlets, have reporters stationed across the Silver State. According to Kornacki, six reporters have reported issues with the caucus process.

“They have reports from six of their reporters, six of their reporters out of 63 sites that they have these reporters at. Six out of 63 or about 10 percent, who have said that they have witnessed issues at precincts with incorporating the early vote with the same-day caucus activity,” the MSNBC reporter explained. “Remember, 75,000 early votes cast statewide. They’re trying to take those results from folks who voted days ago and merge it with what’s happening in real-time with the people who show up and break up with these groups. So at 10 percent of these locations where the National Election Pool has folks witnessing this activity, they say they have been seeing this issue.”

Kornacki said those issues could be part of the reason the Nevada Democratic Party has failed to call any precincts. The projects are based on spotters who watched the vote take place, recorded the results and called it into the National Election Pool.

(Read more at Townhall)

The article above more accurately points to a Democrat party where nobody got 50% of the votes from socialist Democrats

With Joe Biden in the headlines weeks ago due to his bragging about forcing the Ukraine government into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and Biden’s son, Hunter — one wonders how many moderates who would have voted for him have now decided to throw in the towel.

Considering that Buttigieg wrote an essay praising the socialist Bernie (or all of the similar answers that came from any of the Democrat contenders at the debates), maybe we should not expect a dime’s worth of difference between Bernie and Mayor Pete.

  1. Three of the five takeaways from the Nevada caucuses

The Hill points to five takeaways it thinks can be derived from the Nevada caucuses. Here are excerpts from the first three takeaways that The Hill supposes.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won a resounding victory at the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, putting together a coalition of young people, Latinos and working-class voters to cement his status as front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Here are five takeaways from the Nevada caucuses.

Sanders has a diverse coalition that could carry him to the nomination

In the 2016 primary, Sanders struggled mightily with voters of color, who broke in large numbers for Hillary Clinton and ultimately propelled her to the nomination.

Since then, Sanders has invested heavily in outreach to racial minorities and he’s accumulated a diverse team of dynamic surrogates.

Those efforts are paying off in 2020, as Sanders has built a diverse coalition of Latinos, young people, and union members, who drove him to a huge victory in Nevada, the most diverse state to vote so far.

With 60 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders stood at 46 percent support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19.6, former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 15.3, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 10.1.

And Sanders’s diverse base of support makes him even more imposing heading into Super Tuesday on March 3, when about one-third of the delegates will be allocated, with most of them coming from the racially diverse states of California and Texas.

Rivals have an uphill climb in stopping Sanders after decisive Nevada victory

There is not much positive news coming out of Nevada for the also-rans.

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has dramatically outperformed expectations so far, narrowly winning more delegates at the Iowa caucuses and barely falling short in New Hampshire.

But those predominantly white states are not reflective of the racial make-up of the states that have yet to vote. Buttigieg, along with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the third-place finisher in New Hampshire, have not shown an ability to make inroads with voters of color.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised an astonishing amount of money in the days since she took down former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg at the Las Vegas debate. But she’s poised to finish a distant fourth place in Nevada, and it’s unclear where she’ll be able to defeat Sanders, who will be looking to win in her home state of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday.

Biden’s support among black voters appears to be on the decline.

Bloomberg has unlimited money and is the only candidate on the airwaves in all 14 Super Tuesday states, but his disastrous debate performance raises real questions about whether he’ll be able to compete.

The Buttigieg and Bloomberg campaigns are already warning that Sanders might be headed for an “insurmountable” delegates lead by March 3.

Democrats are enthusiastic and turning out in record numbers

Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief — the lower than expected turnout for the Iowa caucuses was a mirage.

More than 176,000 people caucused in Iowa earlier this month, a slight increase from 2016, but nothing close to the blowout numbers from 2008, when the Hawkeye State sent former President Obama on his way to the nomination.

Democrats assumed that caucus and primary turnout would be gangbusters, driven by grassroots energy to defeat President Trump.

But New Hampshire painted a different picture, with a record 300,000 people turning out, blowing past the 288,000 who voted in the 2008 primary.

(Read more at The Hill)

In many ways, this paints too rosy a picture for Bernie

However, a too-rosy picture of Bernie might motivate Trump supporters to get off of dead center. That would be one of the better outcomes of this article.

  1. MSNBC contributor calls Bernie supporters racist liberals

One America News Network reports how Jason Johnson called Bernie supporters racist liberals.

An MSNBC contributor sparked backlash this week after he referred to some of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (D-Vt.) campaign staffers as “an island of misfit black girls.”

During a recent interview, Jason Johnson spoke at great length about Sanders’ supporters and, more specifically, the demographics involved.

“I do find it fascinating that racist, liberal whites seem to love them some Bernie Sanders. (They) consistently and always have a problem with any person of color who doesn’t want to follow the orthodoxy of their lord and savior, Bernie Sanders. The man cares nothing for intersectionality. I don’t care how many people from the island of misfit black girls you throw out there to defend you on a regular basis, it doesn’t mean your campaign is serious.” – Jason Johnson, MSNBC contributor

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This assessment fits with the words of the Bernie staffer

If you refer back to the words of Kyle Jurek, Bernie staffer who was recorded by Project Veritas, this assessment somewhat fits.

  1. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compares Sanders’ Nevada win to France’s fall to Nazis, draws calls for his firing

Fox News relays the words of MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews who suggested Sander’s Nevada win was like the Nazi win over France.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews drew ire on social media Saturday after he compared the Nevada Democratic caucus victory of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to France’s fall to the Nazis during World War II.

“I’m reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,” Matthews said during the network’s caucus coverage. “And the general calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over,’ and Churchill says, ‘How can it be? You got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’”

The backlash on Twitter was swift and severe, with many commenters calling for Matthews to resign or be fired. Many pointed out that Sanders’ family includes survivors of the Holocaust.

(Read more at Fox News)

Here, however, Mr. Matthews could have made his point without using a Nazi reference

If he had just said “the race is over” or told a story about the ending of some central event, he could have made the same point. Reference to Nazis cannot be justified.

  1. Buttigieg takes aim at intractable socialist Sanders

Townhall comments on Mayor Pete’s suggestion that Bernie is an intractable socialist.

It did not take long for the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, to target the winner of Saturday’s Democratic caucuses in Nevada. Socialist Bernie Sanders is projected to win a decisive victory in the Silver State, sending the media into a frenzy over renewed concerns that nominating a socialist would all but guarantee a second term for President Trump. In a speech following his apparent loss in Nevada, Buttigieg told a crowd of supporters that nominating Bernie Sanders would not sit well with the American people.

Buttigieg said he believes the best way to defeat President Trump “is to broaden and galvanize the majority that supports [Democrats] on the critical issues.”

“Senator Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans,” Buttigieg warned. “I believe we can defeat Trump and deliver for the American people by empowering the American people to make their own health care choices with medicare for all who want it. Senator Sanders believes in taking away that choice, removing people from having that option of a private plan and replacing it with a public plan whether you want it or not. … but that is different from Senator Sanders’ vision of capitalism as the root of all evil that would go beyond reform and reorder the economy in ways that most Democrats, not to mention most Americans, don’t support.”

It’s going to be harder for Pete Buttigieg to say most Democrats don’t support the Vermont socialist the longer Sanders remains the party’s front-runner. Buttigieg called for an end to the so-called “viscousness and bullying” of the Trump era, warning that a Sanders’ presidency would only continue the toxicity and polarization of our nation’s politics.

(Read more at Townhall)

Prior to the Bernie wins, Buttigieg and Sanders were singing from the same sheet

In the last few weeks, both Mayor Pete and Bernie suggested that Democrats must be exclusively pro-abortion. Both Mayor Pete and Bernie (and all of the Democrats on the debate stage) want to extend health benefits to illegal aliens.

  1. Bernie Sanders Says U.S. Is Worse than Communist China in Jailing People

Breitbart quotes Bernie Sanders in a 22 February 2020 article where Bernie says the USA is worse than the communist Chinese in jailing people.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said during a rally in Texas on Saturday evening that the United States was worse than Communist China in regards to the number of people in jail — a figure that does not count Muslim Uyghurs and others detained in China’s detention camps.

“This is the United States of America. We should not be having more people in jail than any other country on earth including Communist China four times our size,” the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist said.

According to the World Prison Brief’s website, the U.S. has more than two million people in jail, while China has 1,700,000 in jail.

However, China’s figure does not count pre-trial detainees and those in administrative detention. The website said that China had more than 650,000 people held in detention centers in China in 2009, and if still true, that would mean the total prison population would be at least 2,350,000 — surpassing the U.S.

NBC News reported in October that approximately a million Uyghur Muslims are detained in China, according to the U.S. government and human rights organizations.

Nonetheless, Sanders suggested the U.S. was worse than China, for its “racist and broken criminal justice system.”

“The people in jail, as everybody here knows, are disproportionately African American, Latino, and Native Americans,” he said.

He said he would invest in more education for kids instead of “more jail and incarceration,” and he would end the cash bail system in the U.S.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is nothing but a lie

Considering that this lie about the level of jailing is so blatantly false, it is amazing that it comes from the guy who says “the president lies all the time.”

  1. Sarah Sanders warns Trump backers about Bernie’s momentum: ‘We can take nothing for granted’

Fox News quotes Sarah Sanders in a 23 February 2020 article where Sarah Sanders reminds us that we cannot take anything for granted (since we know of the Democrat penchant for election fraud, counting “hanging chads,” and other issues).

Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders warned supporters of President Trump on Saturday night not to underestimate Sen. Bernie Sanders following his projected victory in the Nevada Democratic caucuses.

“I think [Bernie Sanders] is looking like the presumptive Democrat nominee at this point. He’s certainly moving in that direction,” Sanders said on “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “And I think Republicans have to be extremely careful. We can take nothing for granted at this point. The stakes have literally never been higher.”

Bernie Sanders, who is no relation to Sarah Sanders, will win the Nevada caucuses, Fox News projected Saturday, furthering the democratic socialist’s lead over his Democratic rivals and raising the question of whether he can be stopped on his path to the Democratic nomination.

Sarah Sanders noted the importance of Republicans voting in November to combat Bernie Sanders.

“If crazy socialist Bernie Sanders is the Democrat nominee, as he is well on track to be, literally the way of life and our very freedom is at stake at the election in November and Republicans have to come out in full force and make sure that they get Donald Trump reelected,” Sanders said.

(Read more at Fox News)

As I said before, we must work to the end

We can never take anything for granted. We have to work to the moment that the polls close.

  1. New FEC Filings Show Financial Woes For Democratic Candidates

The Daily Caller reports in a 21 February 2020 article how the FEC filings show how Democrat presidential candidates have experienced financial woes.

Democratic presidential candidates spent more money than they raised in January, new Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show.

Independent Vermont Bernie Sanders stood out as the leading fundraiser thanks to a high volume of small donations while billionaire Michael Bloomberg continued to spend away, The Washington Post reported. Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren struggled financially early on but is showing signs of recovering, while the more moderate candidates appear to be sinking financially, Politico added.

Here’s how each campaign did financially.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, who is the current frontrunner in the race, had the most funds of any non-billionaire candidate going into February with nearly $17 million, according to The Washington Post.

Sanders spent $26 million and raised $25 million in January, with a majority of donations being less than $200, The Post reported. The only other candidate to raise more than $10 million was Warren.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren had a rollercoaster of a month, starting with the lowest amount of money headed into February with only $2.3 million, according to Politico. The shortage of funds led her to pull ads from Nevada and South Carolina while also taking out a $3 million line of credit.

Still, Warren spent the second-most excluding the two billionaire candidates. To help cover this, Warren turned to PACs. Persist PAC was formed Tuesday to help aid her campaign. This is a flip from her previous opposition to taking PAC money. She told reporters that she would support efforts to weaken PACs in the future, but that in the current state of the campaign, taking money from PACs is “how it has to be.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This all sounds good, but we still need to work

If you look at all the numbers (especially Trump’s), this can be encouraging. Still, we don’t need to take anything for granted.

Thirteen stories on Bloomberg’s failures, problems, insults, and attempts at redemption


Bloomberg’s failures

  1. Bloomberg’s gun ban rejected in Virginia with Democratic help

The Washington Examiner reported in a 17 February 2020 article that the gun grab in Virginia funded by Michael Bloomberg went down in flames.

Despite spending millions to turn Virginia’s legislature blue and a last-minute visit to Richmond, Democrats in the Senate turned back presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg’s top goal in the state of banning “assault weapons.”

In a lopsided 10-5 vote, the state Senate Judiciary Committee killed any advancement this year, pushing the legislation off for a year.

VCDLtweet

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Thank God and some sensible Democrats for rejecting this idiocy

While I have a hard time calling some Democrats sensible, I can reasonably affix that label to a few. Thank heavens that those Democrats stopped this incursion into our Second Amendment rights.

  1. Bloomberg’s ban on super-sized colas was both unpopular and unconstitutional

A 30 July 2013 article at Reuters explained first why the measure had been found unconstitutional.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial plan to keep large sugary drinks out of restaurants and other eateries was rejected by a state appeals court on Tuesday, which said he had overstepped his authority in trying to impose the ban.

The law, which would have prohibited those businesses from selling sodas and other sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces (473 ml), “violated the state principle of separation of powers,” the First Department of the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division said.

The decision, upholding a lower court ruling in March that struck down the law, dealt a blow to Bloomberg’s attempt to advance the pioneering regulation as a way to combat obesity. Beverage makers and business groups, however, challenged it in court, arguing that the mayoral-appointed health board had gone too far when it approved the law.

A unanimous four-judge panel at the appeals court agreed, finding that the board had stepped beyond its power to regulate public health and usurped the policy-making role of the legislature.

In particular, the court focused on the law’s loopholes, which exempted businesses not under the auspices of the city’s health department and left certain drinks, such as milk-based beverages, unaffected.

As a result, grocery and convenience stores – such as 7 Eleven and its 64-ounce Big Gulp – were protected from the ban’s reach, even as restaurants, sandwich shops and movie theaters were not. Meanwhile, milkshakes and high-calorie coffee drinks like Starbucks’ Frappucinos would have remained unfettered.

(Read more at Reuters)

My opposition to Bloomberg’s soda ban stands on the same reasons that I oppose other Bloomberg initiatives

We do not need a nanny state. It cannot be there to protect us when we need it (for, as you know, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”)

  1. A full list of the things banned by Bloomberg

With a hat tip to ChrisX at KSEV, we can find a full listing of everything banned by big-government Michael Bloomberg at Gizmodo. These bans were:

  1. Smoking in commercial establishments like bars and restaurants (2003)
  2. Smoking in public spaces (2011)
  3. Cigarette sales to those under 21 (2013)
  4. Sales of “flavored” tobacco products (2009)
  5. Smoking e-cigarettes in public spaces (2013) ***
  6. Cigarette in-store displays (2013)
  7. Cars in Times Square (2009)
  8. Cars from driving in newly created bike lanes (2007-2013)
  9. Cars causing congestion below 60th Street in Manhattan (2007) *
  10. Speeding on residential “slow zones” (2013)
  11. Illegal guns (2006-2013) **
  12. Sodium levels in processed foods (2010) **
  13. Trans-fats in restaurants (2006)
  14. Loud headphones (2013) **
  15. Styrofoam packaging in single-service food items (2013)
  16. Sodas larger than 16 ounces (2012) *
  17. Collection of yard waste and grass clippings during certain times of year (2003-2013)
  18. Organic food waste from landfills (2013) **
  19. Commercial music over 45 decibels (2013)
  20. Chain restaurant menus without calorie counts (2008)
  21. The posting of signs in “city-owned grassy areas” (2013)
  22. Non-fuel-efficient cabs (2007)
  23. New cabs that aren’t Nissan NV200s (2013) *
  24. Greenhouse gas emissions (2007)
  25. Government buildings that aren’t LEED-certified (2005)
  26. Non-hurricane-proof buildings in coastal areas (2013)
  27. Black roofs (2009) **
  28. Construction cranes over 25 years old (2013)
  29. No. 6 and No. 4 “heavy” heating oils (2011)
  30. Less than a 2-1 ratio of female and male restrooms in new public buildings (2005)
  31. Cell phones in schools (2006)
  32. Two-term limits for city elected officials (2008) *

* Overruled/appealed ban
** Suggested/voluntary ban
*** Proposed/pending ban

Bloomberg’s problems

  1. Bloomberg’s billions a big problem

OneNewsNow reports in a 17 February 2020 article that one of Bloomberg’s biggest problems is wealth that he has amassed.

A conservative activist says New York’s former mayor will have to overcome several obstacles if he hopes to “buy” the U.S. presidency.

Much has been made about Michael Bloomberg’s obscenely deep pockets and the fact that he could spend a billion dollars of his own money to blanket the country with campaign ads, posing a serious challenge to President Trump’s re-election. But Bloomberg could also face a serious blowback from black voters following the release of a 2015 speech in which he said 95 percent of all crime is committed in minority neighborhoods.

“The tapes that came out recently showing certainly what appeared to be his disdain for the people that live in minority communities is the kind of thing that will hurt him deeply with perhaps the most important voting bloc in Democrat Party primaries,” comments Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families.

And Bauer says Bloomberg has something else to deal with.

“He is the ultimate capitalist success story — a self-made billionaire running in a political party that is increasingly socialist in its orientation,” the conservative activist notes.

And as Bauer points out, some polling data shows nearly 60 percent of Democrats could never vote for a billionaire to be their party’s nominee.

(Read the original at OneNewsNow)

For a party like Democrats, having billions is a liability.

For both parties, having earned multiple millions while in office should be a liability for Bernie, Warren, and others.

  1. Bloomberg voices his views on health care for older Americans

Forbes repeats Bloomberg’s words regarding health care for older Americans.

If Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was 95 years old and had prostate cancer, he could afford advanced and extreme medical care to improve and extend his life.

But what about a 95-year-old non-billionaire with prostate cancer who requires medical treatment using taxpayer dollars? In 2011, Bloomberg made the following statement: “If you show up with prostate cancer and you’re 95, we should say ‘go and enjoy, have a nice day, live a long life.’ There’s no cure and we can’t do anything. If you’re a young person, we should do something about it,” said Bloomberg, a former New York City mayor.

Bloomberg warned that society was not yet willing to make hard choices with respect to treating older Americans and this is “going to bankrupt us.”

The video reportedly was released by Daily Caller, a hyper partisan conservative website.

Bloomberg’s 2011 statement surfaced as he released a proposed health care plan to improve retirees’ lives, from giving low-income workers access to government-provided retirement savings plans to bolstering Social Security. Bloomberg said he would limit out-of-pocket drug costs and provide federal coverage for long-term care costs.
Do Bloomberg’s statements constitute age discrimination? Yes. Without a doubt.
Dr. Robert N. Butler, M.D., (1927-2010), who coined the term “ageism” in 1968, said generations throughout history have justified the futility of granting the aged access to health care due to unfounded ageist beliefs. Butler defined ageism is ‘a process of systematic stereotyping, prejudicial attitudes and direct or indirect discrimination against people because they are old.”

In his book, Age-ism: Another Form of Bigotry, Butler writes: “Age-ism reflects a deep seated uneasiness on the part of the young and middle-aged – a personal revulsion to and distaste for growing old, disease, disability; and fear of powerlessness, ‘uselessness,’ and death.”
Scapegoating Older Americans
Moreover, Bloomberg’s 2011 ramblings while sitting Shiva with a Jewish family also seem profoundly misguided. There are many other criteria that seem just as likely to bankrupt the United States.

The U.S. health care system is notoriously inefficient and outrageously expensive. It costs four times more to run the U.S. health care system than Canada’s single-payer system. Why is America saddled with a failed system? The U.S. Congress has failed to act in the face of intense lobbying by insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

And why is aging singled out as opposed to other conditions, such as obesity? Some 40 percent of American adults aged 20 and over are obese, a condition that can lead to coronary heart disease and stroke.

The Centers for Disease Control states that coronary heart disease and stroke cost the U.S. health care system $199 billion per year and cause $131 billion in lost productivity on the job.

Why doesn’t Congress address America’s “new national epidemic” and enact sound policy changes, such as limiting unhealthy foods at schools and restoring “gym ” for all students. Congress could tax products that contribute to obesity or require informative labeling of food products  Many blame lobbying by the mammoth food production and retail industries for Congressional inaction.

(Read more at Forbes)

Democrats need to stop fixing what works

Consider this: when Bernie had a heart attack, he did not go to Canada, Great Britain, or Venezuela for treatment. Although he has been hypocritically hopping in his personal jet while lecturing us on “climate change,” he did not hop down to his much-praised comrades in Cuba for treatment. Instead, he went to an American hospital.

So, if the Democrats want to fix anything, they need to open up markets and reward those of us who come together in medical collectives.

  1. Bloomberg insults Christians and Jews

A 15 February 2020 article in Vanity Fair, we find a new set of insults. Among these insults is one that should offend both Jews and Christians (refer to the bold, italicized sentence below).

Friday was Michael Bloomberg’s 78th birthday and the Washington Post gave a belated gift Saturday morning, a blast from the former New York City mayor’s past. “Aw, you shouldn’t have,” he must have said, seeing the news.

The paper has reprinted, in full, The Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg, a gag birthday gift published by former Bloomberg L.P. chief marketing officer Elisabeth DeMarse 30 years ago. “Yes, these are all actual quotes,” it says in the introduction, adding “no, nothing has been embellished or exaggerated. And yes, some things were too outrageous to include.”

The Wit and Wisdom, an ersatz monograph on corporate culture, may plunge the 2020 political discourse into a new period. One can easily foresee people arguing if describing the Bloomberg Terminal device as something that “[can] do everything, include give you a blowjob. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business,” is as bad as “grab ‘em by the pussy.”

The pocket-sized collection has long been the stuff of lore. ABC News had a piece on it in December and Bloomberg himself distanced himself from the collection in 2001 during his first mayoral campaign. But today’s reproduction, as Bloomberg readies himself, at long last, to compete in Democratic primaries, is the first time citizens considering him for national office can scroll through his alleged recorded office musings.

Bloomberg’s campaign spokesman Stu Loeser, upon learning of the book’s imminent reproduction, said that the candidate “simply did not say the things somebody wrote in this gag gift, which has been circulating for 30 years and has been quoted in every previous election Mike has been in.” He did add that “Mike openly admits that his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life and some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.”

Not all of the 121 quotes, divided into sections like “On Computers” or “On Customer Service” will raise eyebrows. Some quotes are simply business-speak, the type of thing you half-hear while zoning out during a meeting. For example:

Everyone I know who is successful loves what they do. The question is: are they successful because they love what they do, or do they love what they do because they are successful? I don’t know. I suspect it’s a combination of both.

Other quotes, while admittedly coarse, are simply benign jokes, like this listed in the “On Profanity” section:

When the Wall Street Journal article came out saying I was profane, my dear old mother called me to ask me if it was true. ‘Ma,’ I said, ‘Fuck ‘em!’

Then there’s typical Manhattanite braggadocio, which might get a laugh at work, but probably isn’t something you want spreading around if you are, you know, running for President of the United States of America. Such as:

You know, there’s a Federal Law that prohibits the serving of good food west of 12th Avenue — look it up.

Or:

I make it a rule never to go to Queens — and since that eliminates both airports I don’t travel a great deal.

And then there’s the sexism and casual bigotry:

If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of Bloomingdale’s.

The Royal Family — what a bunch of misfits — a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.

The three biggest lies are: the check’s in the mail, I’ll respect you in the morning, and I’m glad I’m Jewish.

If Jesus was a Jew, why does he have a Puerto Rican first name?

Whenever my wife catches me eyeing some broad, she’s very careful to turn to me and say “That’s the most expensive piece of ass in the world!”

The scanned PDF also includes some cartoons.

In the middle of all this, however, one can find seeds of progressivism if you look really, really hard. One quote shows a surprising lack of fiery hatred concerning the topic of taxes, at least coming from a business tycoon whose fortune stemmed from letting Wall Street killers know about deals a fraction of a second ahead of the poor schmucks who couldn’t afford his proprietary information system.

(Read more at Vanity Fair)

I encourage you to download the PDF and view it for yourself

Inform yourself by downloading and reading the PDF linked above. This guy said many more offensive things than Trump has been accused of saying. So, when the Democrats support any of these clowns, you know that it is not on principle.

  1. A former Clinton staffer questions Bloomberg’s racist comments (including “stop and frisk”)

Townhall reports that one Clinton staffer suggests that Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” comments will need to be explained.

Rumors are swirling that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is contemplating adding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to his ticket. According to one of Clinton’s ex-staffers, Zerlina Maxwell, the move is highly unlikely. But, regardless of whether or not Clinton is on Bloomberg’s ticket, the MSNBC analyst believes people need to dig deep into the billionaire’s past.

“One of the things that’s been annoying me about this particular election cycle is when the men who are running for president speculate about women or women of color they’re going to put on the bottom of their ticket as their number two in order to help their chances. Why can’t we just talk about the women themselves?” Maxwell asked.

She reminded people that the former secretary of state has repeatedly said she would not run for president again.

“I’m highly skeptical of this particular report and I think, in some ways, it’s to send a signal to the folks who still love Hillary Clinton, that they should look at Michael Bloomberg,” the former staffer explained. “But they should look at Bloomberg on his own record. He has plenty of issues that he needs to address. He has not been in a debate. He has not done a national interview on television, so, right now, he’s blanketing the airwaves with glossy advertisements. And if millions of dollars in advertisements didn’t work to sell products, even defective ones, they wouldn’t spend so much on advertising.”

Bloomberg has taken hits over redlining and stop and frisk, MSNBC’s Alex Witt said. Despite that, three members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have endorsed the former New York City major.

Maxwell said voters shouldn’t overlook Bloomberg’s past policy positions simply because they want to beat President Donald Trump come November.

“I don’t think that by accepting a deeply-flawed candidate, particularly one who hasn’t debated any of the other candidates. I think black and brown people are jumping ahead before we’ve even had an opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box,” she said. “It’s very important to get endorsements from the [CBC members].”

As the former Clinton staffer said, a candidate can receive CBC endorsements but that doesn’t necessarily translate to black voters. In 2016, Clinton received substantial CBC endorsements but black voter turnout was low.

“His record is one that should be examined by black and brown communities because it’s nice to put money behind good causes and philanthropy, but if you’re doing that at the same time that you’re throwing black children up against the wall and defending it up until weeks before announcing your run, then people have a right to be skeptical of whether or not you really care about these communities,” Maxwell explained.

(Read more at Townhall)

  1. Bloomberg’s sexist remarks

We have to go across the pond to The Guardian‘s 15 February 2020 article to read about Michael Bloomberg’s sexist remarks.

The presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has insisted he is a “champion for women in the workplace”, after the republication of a 30-year-old booklet purporting to contain his “Wit and Wisdom” cast an uncomfortable spotlight on the billionaire former New York mayor.

The Washington Post made the 1990 booklet available online as it published an investigation of how Bloomberg has “for years battled women’s allegations of profane, sexist comments”. The booklet was presented as a gift to Bloomberg on his 48th birthday party and contains a catalogue of sexist remarks attributed to the billionaire during his time at the company he founded.

The renewed attention on Bloomberg – who has for years been the subject of allegations that his company fostered a hostile and sexist environment towards women – comes as he has surged in the race for the Democratic nomination to face Donald Trump in November.

With the leftwinger Bernie Sanders climbing in national polls and former vice-president Joe Biden falling away, Bloomberg’s self-financed candidacy has begun to attract support from moderates seeking what they believe will be an electable alternative to Donald Trump.

On Saturday the rightwing Drudge Report website caused a stir when it said “sources close to the Bloomberg campaign” said he was considering Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate beaten by Trump in 2016, as his running mate this year.

But with such increasing prominence, fuelled in part by a massive TV and Facebook advertising effort, has come increasing scrutiny of the former Republican’s record in office and his comments and views.

In one comment printed in the 1990 booklet, the businessman turned politician is said to have said of Britain’s royal family: “What a bunch of misfits – a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”

Of the Bloomberg Terminal, the computer system on which a fortune estimated at $60bn was built, Bloomberg is quoted as saying: “It will do everything, including give you a blowjob. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”

He is also quoted as comparing “a good salesperson” to “the guy who goes into a bar, and walks up to every gorgeous girl there, and says, ‘Do you want to fuck?’ He gets turned down a lot – but he gets fucked a lot, too!”

(Read more at The Guardian)

  1. Bloomberg implied farming doesn’t take intelligence in 2016 comments

Fox News reports in a 17 February 2020 article how Michael Bloomberg denegrated farmers in 2016.

Presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared to belittle both farmers and factory workers in 2016 comments made at a university forum, continuing a trend of old remarks resurfacing to plague the billionaire’s bid for the Democratic nomination.

Joining the Distinguished Speakers Series at the University of Oxford Saïd Business School, Bloomberg was responding to a question about whether it is possible to unite people in middle America and the coasts. One of the issues standing in the way of that, Bloomberg said, was the inability of blue-collar workers to adapt to the information economy even if they have their education subsidized.

“The agrarian society lasted 3,000 years and we could teach processes. I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer,” Bloomberg said. “It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. At one point, 98 percent of the world worked in agriculture, now it’s 2 percent in the United States.”

Bloomberg continued: “Now comes the information economy and the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter. It’s not clear the teachers can teach or the students can learn, and so the challenge of society of finding jobs for these people, who we can take care of giving them a roof over their head and a meal in their stomach and a cell phone and a car and that sort of thing. But the thing that is the most important, that will stop them from setting up a guillotine someday, is the dignity of a job”

(Read more at Fox News)

During my stint while earning a Bachelor of Arts at Texas A&M, I was introduced to many agricultural scientists

BloombergFarmerI concentrated on technical subjects during that time and took a number of classes in programming. However, that did not dim my respect for the work that students in the agricultural sciences went through. Obviously, Mr. Bloomberg has a bit of a vaunted view of himself regarding a field he seems to have invested little time in learning.

Bloomberg’s attempts at trying to redeem himself

  1. Bloomberg delivers his best attack line against Bernie Sanders … and it was pretty brutal

Townhall comments on the Bloomberg attacks against Bernie during the Nevada debates.

Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg jumped into the 2020 ring. Or was it a shark tank? He secured a spot on the debate stage for the Nevada debate—and everyone was gunning for him. Mike clogs the spot. He threatens Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He has to be destroyed. He pulls from bases of support that makes everyone’s path to the nomination no matter how small, even smaller. They had to deliver a thousand blows to him. And he was beaten pretty badly by everyone. From stop-and-frisk to allegations of sexually suggestive remarks, Bloomberg came off as cold, calculating, and just unlikeable. He was horrific on the non-disclosure agreement issues that were brought up. It was not good. CNN’s Van Jones called his performance a disaster, but he did have one good attack line against Sanders—and it was a brutal one.

BernieScreamsThe Vermont democratic socialist went on his usual line about how socialism is awesome. He railed against what he sees as socialism for the rich, calling out Donald Trump for getting hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for his business ventures. Sanders also railed against the welfare state expenditures for Walmart’s workers because the Walton family pays what the Left sees as “starvation wages.”

“I believe in a democratic socialism for working people, not billionaires. Health care for all, educational opportunity for all,” said Sanders as he finally ended his stump speech by declaring he will create a government that works for everyone.

And then Bloomberg torpedoed it in a couple of sentences.

“What a wonderful country we have. The best-known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses. What did I miss here?” he replied.

(Read the rest at Townhall)

  1. Michael Bloomberg considering Hillary Clinton as running mate

Breitbart reports that Michael Bloomberg has suggested Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering choosing failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as a running mate, according to the Drudge Report on Saturday.

Matt Drudge launched a siren banner on the front page of the Drudge Report to highlight the news, citing sources close to the Bloomberg campaign.

According to those sources, internal campaign polling found that the Bloomberg/Clinton ticket would be a formidable force to tackle Trump in the general election.

(Read more at Breitbart)

While Bloomberg may be strategizing, this may be a wrong move

If Bloomberg were to win the presidency with her at his side, it might be the shortest presidency on record.

  1. Candidate Bloomberg Adds Memes to Campaign Arsenal

Breitbart also reports that Bloomberg has been buying memes to build his brand on social media.

Michael Bloomberg’s campaign said Thursday it has invested in sponsored Instagram meme content in a new illustration of his record spending aimed at securing the Democratic presidential nomination.

As he vies to be the candidate to take on President Donald Trump, the former New York mayor is also challenging the president on one of his preferred battlefields — the world of social media, where the comic images known as memes flourish.

“Mike Bloomberg 2020 has teamed up with social creators to collaborate with the campaign, including the meme world,” campaign spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said in an email to AFP.

“While a meme strategy may be new to presidential politics, we’re betting it will be an effective component to reach people where they are and compete with President Trump’s powerful digital operation,” Singh added.

Trump’s surprise election win in 2016 was attributed in part to his use of social media, which was much more aggressive than his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Among the Instagram content creators recruited by Bloomberg are fuckjerry, grapejuiceboys and tank.sinatra, each of which has millions of followers.

On Wednesday they published screen shots of humorous (but fake) private messages with Bloomberg on Instagram — and which they said were sponsored by him.

In one of them, the 77-year-old candidate says that his granddaughter showed him the account.

In one post, Bloomberg appears to ask the account to post a meme to let everyone know he is “the cool candidate” — along with a picture of him in oversized shorts, a Polo-style shirt and a rust-colored vest.

In the meme, the candidate agrees to pay “a billion dollars” for the post.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is another sad instance of buying the presidency

Original articles said that Bloomberg was offering $150 per endorsement. Later scuttlebutt says that people have been earning thousands.

  1. Bloomberg Hits Sanders: ‘Outrageous’ to Call Soleimani’s Death an ‘Assassination’

If I am going to blog on all the things I disapprove of among Bloomberg’s acts, I should also refer to Breitbart‘s 6 January 2020 article where Bloomberg pointed out the outrageousness of Bernie’s statement on the killing of Soleimani.

Presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg (D) said it is “outrageous” to describe the death of Iran’s top terror chief as an “assassination” — a description used by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Bloomberg last week took issue with Sanders describing the elimination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, an “assassination,” telling reporters that it is an “outrageous thing to say.”

“Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general,” the billionaire said:

His remarks followed the Sanders campaign’s statement, describing the terrorist’s death as an “assassination”:

Sanders said in a video statement that he would “do everything that [he] can to prevent a war with Iran” and added that he apologizes to “no one” for his position:

Bloomberg, however, took a more measured approach, stating that Soleimani had the “blood of Americans on his hands.” While he took shots at Trump in his statement and questioned his judgment, he did not outright condemn the action:

(Read more at Breitbart)

Thirteen stories on Democrats doing what Democrats do best


Hating

  1. Texas Democrat doubles down on wishing Barack Obama had cancer

The Daily Caller points out one hypocritical Texas Democrat who seems to wish harm on the former president.

This comes with a hat tip to The Chris Salcedo Show.

Justin-LeceaDemocratic Texas congressional candidate Justin Lecea said he hopes former President Barack Obama gets cancer in a series of tweets posted Sunday night.

Lecea attempted to justify his ill-wishes towards the 44th president by calling Obama a war criminal, and citing his administration’s record on deportations and immigration enforcement.

“Y’all are defending a war criminal who was in authority during the deportation of over 3 million immigrants,” Lecea said in one of his tweets.

Lecea also attacked the former president’s record on climate change and health care.

“People are criticizing me for wishing cancer on Obama. I say that having lost a parent to brain cancer after 12 years of fighting, and getting to see just how terrible our Healthcare system is, and I still think he deserves it or worse,” Lecea said.
JustinLeceaTweet

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I will admit that I did not support the policies of Barack Hussein Obama

I will admit that I opposed the policies of Barack Hussein Obama. I resented his intrusion into my health care costs where he promised to lower them and then increased them by multiples. Additionally, while I supported getting the US out of Iraq, I did not support the power vacuum he created (facilitating the creation of ISIS). Also, I stood against him on a number of other stances (such as the abandonment of Christians in the area of ISIS). Still, I did pray for the president.

In contrast, it seems that this Democrat wants to ingratiate himself to those who are hurting from the effects of the ACA and other Obama administration policies by wishing ill on the former president rather than suggesting ways to cure these ills. It seems that this puts him in the swampier part of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

  1. Driver in Florida plows van into GOP voter registration tent, nearly hitting 6 volunteers

Miami Fox affiliate WSVN reports on the man who drove into a GOP voter registration tent in Jacksonville, Florida. A video from Jacksonville independent station WJXT also covers the event.

A man in Florida is under arrest after he deliberately drove a van into a tent where voters were being registered by local Republicans, authorities in Jacksonville said Sunday.

William Loel TimmThe Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said via social media that 27-year-old Gregory William Loel Timm has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a person 65 years old or older, one count of criminal mischief and driving with a suspended license. The Republican party of Duval County said it had set up the tent on Saturday in order to register voters.

The county GOP said via Twitter that six volunteers for President Donald Trump’s campaign “were intentionally targeted while registering voters.”

Local media said there were no injuries.

“Kind of out of the blue, a man approached us in a van, was waving at us, kind of a friendly demeanor, thought he was coming up to talk to us, instead he accelerated his vehicle and plowed right into our tent, our tables,” volunteer Mark Alfieri told television station WJAX.

(Read more at WSVN)

Trying to run over 6 people due to their political persuasion might seem like a hate crime

Making a video (though he accidentally stopped making the video before the “good part”), stopping the van, making another video of the damage, and then speeding off certainly seems like a premeditated hate crime. An admission of “someone had to do it” and claiming allegiance to Antifa seems like relevant information. Why hasn’t the main stream media reported on any of this?

  1. Don’t let the media make you forget a Democrat just tried to run over Republicans in Jacksonville

The Red State also reports on the 27-year-old who drove into a Florida GOP voter registration tent.

Maybe you hadn’t heard or maybe you’ve already forgotten. You can’t be blamed for either.

On Saturday, 27-year-old Gregory Timm drove his car into a Republican voter registration tent in Jacksonville because “he did not like Donald Trump.” He was subsequently arrested at his home for his actions and luckily, no one was hurt.

Timm was open about what he was trying to do and why he did it. Even going so far as to show police officers a video he made just before he committed the crime, and even bragging to police that the “good part” was when it drove into the tent. The video actually cut out before that happened and Timm expressed disappointment.

For some reason, the police redacted the part of the report where Timm admits that he is a part of an organization, but many have guessed that the group he’s a part of is Antifa, as this kind of violence and destruction fits with their patterns.

It is currently unclear if he intended to hurt the volunteers at the tent or just run the tent down.

I tell you all this not to report on the crime, but to show you the lack of reporting on it. At this time, there hasn’t really been much media activity on it at all since Saturday. I don’t think I need to explain to you why, but I will anyway.

This was an attack by a leftist on right-leaning people who clearly supported Donald Trump. Despite the fact that people could have died or been seriously injured during the attack, the media has no interest in covering something so mundane as a bunch of Republicans in danger from a Democrat.

We all know that if the role was reversed, then this story would be plastered all over every working television screen you walked by. The media wouldn’t be able to stop talking about it. They would hold rallies and marches. They would put the people who worked the tent that got run over on television and radio as often as humanly possible. The narrative that would be cooked up would be that this is Trump’s America and that this kind of hatred and violence is only around because Orange Man fosters it.

The state of our media isn’t one where information is king, but agenda and narrative. There is a clear bias that prevents certain facts about the world around us from getting in. In fact, as a man who works in media myself, I can tell you that I see a lot of the mainstream media leaving stuff out more than it is putting stuff in.

This is one of those moments. At this time I’m watching as conservative outlets like RedState and the Washington Free Beacon report about it, but nothing from the mainstream media. At least as of this writing.

(Read more at the Red State)

JackPosobiecTweet
Josie80360617tweet

When did the police become the agency that redacted information about Antifa?

Why has the Jacksonville police department become the protectors of the violent faction of the Democrat party?

  1. Milwaukee teacher placed on leave for tweet about Limbaugh’s cancer

The Milwaukee Star Tribune reports in a 6 February 2020 article how a teacher has been placed on leave for applauding the cancer diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh.

This comes with a hat tip to The Chris Salcedo Show.

Travis Sarandos_tweet

A Milwaukee Public Schools teacher has been placed on leave after tweeting that it was “awesome” that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has cancer.

Travis SarandosThe district said English teacher Travis Sarandos was placed on leave Wednesday pending an investigation.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports Sarandos tweeted “limbaugh absolutely should have to suffer from cancer. it’s awesome that he’s dying, and hopefully it is as quick as it is painful.”

Sarandos has since deleted his Twitter account.

(Read more at the Milwaukee Star Tribune)

Although I am certain that Rush has thick skin and this poorly-thought-out comment may fall under free speech, this “man” should think about others

Since this comment was certainly not borne out of love, this “man” must certainly not have thought about the possible other audiences he might be addressing. Therefore, if he is allowed to continue his future in education, he might consider the following: he might consider the feelings of the suffering and of those who support the suffering. While he may have had his focus on someone who obviously affected this petty person, he did not consider the outside world.

Avoiding the truth

  1. Nancy Pelosi’s staff demands takedown of video of her SOTU tantrum

Breitbart reports in a 10 February 2020 article how Nancy Pelosi’e staff has called for the removal of the video that shows the people mentioned during the State of the Union speech which she destroyed.

A video shared by President Trump showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tearing apart the State of the Union address has amassed over 18 million views on social media despite her allies’ efforts to convince platforms to remove it.

The video, posted by the president last week, shows Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union address and highlights memorable moments of the speech, such as Trump honoring 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman Gen. Charles McGee. It has now surpassed 11 million views on Twitter, 3.1 million views on Facebook, and 4.1 million views on Instagram:

The video, titled “Powerful American Stories Ripped To Shreds By Nancy Pelosi,” has drawn criticism from Democrats, who claim it is misleading:

“Researchers say the Pelosi video is an example of a ‘cheapfake’ video, one that has been altered but not with sophisticated AI like in a deepfake,” the Associated Press reported.

Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill asserted that the video was “deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people” and blasted social media platforms for failing to remove it.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This video does faithfully show a number of people honored in the State of the Union speech.

Because campaign commercials have used video compilations to illustrate the wide range of components within any particular subject, the idea that Freedom Fights cannot use images of each of the central honorees of the State of the Union speech while protesting San Fran Nan’s desecration of the historic copy of the speech flies in the face of reason.

Still, like the nuclear option and the concept of an impeachment without a crime, this obviously gives the next Republican Speaker of the House serving under a disagreeable Democrat president some new options.

  1. FACT CHECK: Do 2,900 Children Die From Gun Violence Every Year?

Fact checking group Check Your Fact countered a claim in a recent Michael Bloomberg advertisement that claimed that 2,900 children die annually from gun violence.

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg aired a Super Bowl ad that at one point said, “2,900 children die from gun violence every year.”

WATCH:

Verdict: False

The statistic includes the deaths of 18- and 19-year-olds who are legally considered adults in most U.S. states. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2013 to 2017, the time period used by the Bloomberg campaign, show there was an average of 1,499 gun deaths per year among children between the ages of 0 and 17.

Fact Check:

Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City, has so far spent more than $140 million on TV and digital advertising for his presidential bid, according to The Wall Street Journal. His campaign reportedly paid $10 million to air a 60-second advertisement during the Feb. 2 Super Bowl match-up between the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Francisco 49ers.

The ad features Calandrian Kemp discussing the death of her son, George Kemp Jr., who was shot and killed outside of Houston in 2013 at age 20. She praises Bloomberg for his efforts to implement more stringent gun control laws.

At one point, the ad shows a graphic saying, “2,900 children die from gun violence every year.” That figure, however, is misleading.

The statistic appears to come from a 2019 report by Everytown for Gun Safety, a Bloomberg-affiliated gun control nonprofit. It uses CDC data between the years of 2013 and 2017. But as the report clearly states in a June 2019 fact sheet, the figure includes 18- and 19-year-olds legally considered adults in most states, not just those considered children under the law.

When looking at the same CDC data for children ages zero through 17, the number of deaths by firearm (intentional and unintentional) drops to 1,499 per year. That figure is roughly 48% lower than the 2,900 deaths in Bloomberg’s ad.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Gifford’s Law Center, both nonprofits that advocate for gun control, reported roughly 1,500 children killed by gun violence per year for the same time period.

It’s important to note that both the CDC and Bloomberg campaign’s numbers include suicides, police shootings, accidental shootings and shootings that have an undetermined intent. These instances may or may not be counted depending upon which definition of gun violence is used.

(Read more at Check Your Fact)

 Then again, when have facts mattered to a Democrat when lies can be used to whip up hysteria?

As the Kavanaugh  and House impeachment hearings both illustrated, Democrats have shown a propensity to rest their cases on unfaithful witnesses. Rather than invest the time in vetting witnesses, Democrats recently have leaned on the tactic of building the pathos (emotion) of their argument while ignoring the logos (logic), ethos (ethics), and kronos (timing) of that argument. In this case, it seems that the ad-maker took the most compelling numbers on gun violence with children and then bumped it. In the case of the Kavanaugh hearings, Democrats took the word of Christine Blasey-Ford without checking to see if her testimony would stand cross-examination with her named witnesses [it didn’t]). In the case of the various permutations of the impeachment trial, the lack of credible witness testimony was best demonstrated when Representative Steve Scalise asked the panel of witness professors to identify any impeachable offenses or crimes committed by President Donald Trump and none did.

  1. CNN’s false fact check on Comey’s apparent leaking gets modified

The Daily Caller calls out a false fact check that was recently revised by CNN as a result of recent events.

ComeyAtPolConCNN issued a false fact check Thursday that said former FBI Director James Comey had never admitted to leaking sensitive information.

A couple of hours later, fact checker Daniel Dale revised the fact check to clarify that Trump had falsely claimed that Comey admitted to leaking in a May 2017 committee exchange with Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. The CNN Twitter post now reads: “Fact check: Trump falsely claims Comey admitted to leaking to Grassley (Clarification: the headline of this post has been updated to make clear that it is about what Comey said to Grassley.)”

The “fact check” came as a result of Trump’s post-impeachment acquittal speech to supporters and media Thursday in the East Room of the White House. Trump incorrectly recalled that Comey had first admitted to leaking information under cross-examination from Grassley during a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In fact, Comey had admitted during testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2017 to coordinating a leak of a memorandum that recorded his private conversation with President Donald Trump.

“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey said. “I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons.” The friend was later revealed to be Columbia law professor Daniel Richman.

But CNN’s initial fact check suggested Trump was lying in stating that Comey had ever admitted to leaking.

The network’s subsequent fact check clarified that Comey did not admit to leaking to Grassley. That is accurate, but the senator, who was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was aware of Comey’s activities. Grassley wrote in a letter to then-deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, “If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

CNN, why not act like a reputable journalistic endeavor and print a retraction instead?

Rather than doing the dishonest thing of changing the record and pretending nothing happened, why not do what most main stream media outlets do? Why not print a retraction in only the print version of your publication, put it in agate print on the last page of your Want Ads section, and be done with it? That way, when you get caught, you can “honestly” say that there was a retraction.

Criminalizing those who deserve praise and protecting criminals

  1. NYC cops ‘declaring war’ on Mayor de Blasio, union says, following ‘assassination attempts’ on officers

Fox News reports in a 8 February 2020 article that New York City cops have decided to fight back against the anti-cop mayor.

police union says the men and women of New York City’s finest are now “declaring war” on Mayor Bill de Blasio following a pair of shootings targeting officers in the Bronx over the weekend.

The fiery rhetoric directed at the Big Apple’s Democrat leader — who has implemented several measures critics say are hostile to police – comes as the NYPD filed charges against suspect Robert Williams in both attacks.

“Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you!” the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote in a tweet. “We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you.

“NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you,” the tweet added. “This isn’t over, Game on!”

Police say Williams first ambushed two officers from the 41st Precinct on Saturday night, who had been sitting in a marked patrol van. One officer was wounded as a result of that attack when a bullet grazed his chin and neck.

Williams then walked into the precinct’s station house the next morning and opened fire with a 9mm handgun, injuring a lieutenant, police added. Only after running out of bullets did the 45-year-old Bronx native lay down on the ground and surrender.

The two officers wounded in the attacks have been treated and released from New York City hospitals.

Williams, meanwhile, has been charged with attempted murder, criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest.

De Blasio’s office ripped Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins on Monday, telling Fox News that his “comments are absolutely reprehensible.

(Read more at Fox News)

Take note of who really displays reprehensible behavior (that is, Bloomberg’s protege)

The person who has really exhibited reprehensible behavior would be the person who enjoys taxpayer-funded, continuous armed protection while:

  • Lobbying with Bloomberg’s group against our second amendment rights and
  • Telling his son not to trust the officers who provide this mayor with his protection.

  1. NYC police attacks are encouraged by de Blasio’s anti-police rhetoric

According to Fox News host Dean Cain, the attacks against police have been spurred on by the anti-police rhetoric of mayor De Blasio.

Actor and former reserve police officer Dean Cain said on Monday that the assassination attempts against New York City police officers over the weekend are due in part to anti-police rhetoric by Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Gov. Chris Cuomo.

“De Blasio and Cuomo are part of that problem,” Cain told “Outnumbered Overtime.”

“The rhetoric and the words coming out of [De Blasio’s] mouth have done nothing except for encouraging these sorts of attacks on police officers and it’s an absolute nightmare.”

Cain added that the mayor has no support among the NYPD’s rank-and-file.

“I spoke to officers this morning and the morale is horrible and the feeling is terrible,” Cain said.

Police say a man, identified as Robert Williams, carried out two attacks on officers in the Bronx fewer than 12 hours apart. Williams was taken into custody on Sunday morning after unloading his 9mm handgun on officers at the 41st precinct, wounding a lieutenant in his upper left arm.

The weekend attacks come amid rising tensions between the city’s 34,000-member force and the de Blasio administration, which has implemented several measures that critics say are hostile to police.

De Blasio oversaw the end of the stop and frisk policy, which gave beat cops wide latitude to detain and search people for weapons, made the Big Apple a sanctuary city and has slated the Rikers Island jail for closure. In addition, new criminal justice reforms passed by state lawmakers have effectively ended cash bail for a wide variety of criminal suspects.

(Read more at Fox News)

  1. Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group just vastly outspent the NRA to help Democrats win in Virginia

CNBC reports in a 6 November 2019 article that Bloomberg’s gun control group has become the powerhouse behind the gun control effort in Virginia.

A gun-control lobbying group funded largely by billionaire Michael Bloomberg just helped Democrats take over the state government in Virginia – right in the National Rifle Association’s backyard.

In Tuesday’s elections, the Democrats tipped the Virginia House and Senate in their favor, giving them full control of the state government for the first time since 1994. The election had stronger-than-usual turnout in the suburbs, according to media reports.

While the results could be a good omen for Democrats’ chances in 2020, it may also be a tipping point in the money battle over gun rights. Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control advocacy group that the former New York mayor helps fund, spent $2.5 million this year to influence voters in Virginia versus approximately $300,000 by the NRA, which has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.

“In the past, the NRA has had its way with lawmakers because it was considered powerful and wealthy, and that has dynamic changed drastically — even within the last year,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, which is part of Everytown.

The NRA, in a statement, said “Virginians are about to experience life under a distant tycoon’s thumb,” referring to Bloomberg.

“Candidates who proudly accepted Bloomberg’s cash — and every voter they misled — will soon realize the cost of being beholden to a Manhattan billionaire who despises Virginians’ right to self-defense,” the organization said.

Other issues, such as minimum wage and health care, were also a focus for voters in the election. But gun control was in the spotlight. Three in 4 voters rated gun policy, including mandatory background checks, a “very important” issue, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll. A mass shooting in Virginia Beach left a dozen dead earlier this year, while massacres in Ohio, Texas and California also emboldened groups calling for tougher gun laws.

Bloomberg helped found Everytown for Gun Safety in 2014 to “end gun violence and counter the Washington gun lobby.” The group put its focus beyond Congress, to bring attention to state elections and corporate boards, “fields of play formerly occupied almost solely by the gun lobby.” Bloomberg has pledged to spend at least $50 million to support the cause. The group now has 350,000 financial backers, though Bloomberg remains a major contributor.

(Read more at CNBC)

This seems to go against the wishes of most Virginians I know

Admittedly, my acquaintances tend toward the conservative side (go figure, since there is likely a large amount of confirmation bias between the tweets we share). Still, it does not seem that a Democrat who preaches against the electoral college would take the disproportionate representation afforded him by his investment in Everytown for Gun Safety.
ShannonRWattsTweet
DacheslowTweet

Then again, Buttigieg has always pushed for the elimination of the electoral college. However, when the system in Iowa gave him more delegates, he accepted them.

Being Racist

  1. Bloomberg heard in 2015 audio clip defending “stop and frisk” and telling cops to throw “minority kids against wall”

A 11 February 2020 Fox News article reports on the Bloomberg tape that recorded him defending the “stop and frisk” policy where he says he will send all his cops to minority neighborhoods and other racist gems.

A newly surfaced recording from a 2015 speech by Michael Bloomberg, in which the former three-term mayor of New York City gives a full-throated defense of the controversial policing procedure known as “stop and frisk,” is threatening to undermine the 2020 presidential candidate’s subsequent apologies for backing the policy and hurt his status with minority voters.

President Trump blasted his fellow New Yorker as the audio emerged, saying in a Tuesday morning tweet as the New Hampshire primary was getting underway: ‘”WOW, BLOOMBERG IS A TOTAL RACIST!” The tweet was later taken down, without explanation — but his campaign manager Brad Parscale soon afterward tweeted “#BloombergIsARacist,” next to a separate clip of Bloomberg complaining in a 2013 radio interview that police stop white people “too much” and minorities “too little.”

Parscale added in reference to the 2015 comments, “All the money in the world can’t undo this.”

In an audio clip of the 2015 speech Bloomberg gave to the Aspen Institute, the billionaire acknowledged that “stop and frisk” targeted minority “kids” whom cops must throw “up against the wall” to disarm. The Aspen Times reported at the time that Bloomberg representatives asked the Institute not to distribute footage of his appearance.

“Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” he said. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”

Bloomberg also said urban crime-fighting required cities to “spend the money” and “put a lot of cops in the streets,” particularly in “minority neighborhoods,” where he said the crime is. He also acknowledged the “unintended consequences” of the policy.

“So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods,” Bloomberg is heard saying on the recording. “Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them… And then they start… ‘Oh I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Sending police to high-crime areas must be supported; however, using race as probable cause cannot be supported

For a mayor to introduce a policy that calls for minority-community men and boys to be searched without probable cause shows how that mayor (Bloomberg) might display dictatorial tendencies. However, that may not come as a surprise to those who experienced Bloomberg’s  soft drink bans, high taxes on cigarettes, and other nanny-state programs. Additionally, like the Democrats who have taken part in the debates, Bloomberg has expressed an interest in funding health care for illegal aliens by heaping more taxes on those who work.

Shady dealings

  1. Iowa Democrat party chair calls for probe into caucus

One America News Network reports that the Iowa Democrat party has called for a probe into the caucus that took 3 days longer than usual.

The chair of the Iowa Democrat Party is calling for an independent investigation into what went wrong with the caucus this week. On Friday, Troy Price said while 100 percent of reporting has been achieved, delays and inconsistencies have hindered the final result.

Price added the review will take as long as needed.

“We will be undergoing an independent forensic review of the challenges that we saw on Monday night,” he said. “What went right, what went wrong, from start to finish, and what we can do better in the future.”

The Iowa Democrat Party will also give 2020 campaigns the chance to submit evidence of inconsistencies and file a request for a recanvass. Candidates will have until noon on Monday to submit discrepancy claims from the caucus results.

“This morning, we informed campaigns of two new steps over the coming days to ensure that the numbers we reported match the records from caucus night,” stated Price. “First, we are providing presidential campaigns the opportunity to submit evidence of data entry inaccuracies, and we will work to make necessary corrections.”

The chairman went on to say “the IDP will compare the reported numbers with the results from caucus night to ensure the integrity of their reporting.”

According to reports, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates and Sen. Bernie Sanders took 12 from the flawed Iowa caucus. Additionally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren walked away with eight delegates, former Vice President Joe Biden got six and Sen. Amy Klobuchar received one. The Iowa Democratic Party has yet to finalize those numbers.

The Associated Press calculated how the 40 delegates would be distributed, revealing an extra delegate yet to be claimed. Many believe it could be withheld due to the chaos surrounding the precincts’ reporting.

However, this may give Buttigieg and Sanders an opportunity to tie for the top spot. This would make quite the déjà vu for Sanders, who virtually tied with Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2016.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

You know that the corruption is rife when Democrats ask to be investigated

When a Democrat asks to be investigated (as opposed to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz when Democrat computers were involved), you know that things are bad.

  1. Iowa Democrat Party: ‘Inconsistencies’ Found in Reporting of Caucus Results

Breitbart reports on the failure of the Iowa caucus.

The Iowa Democrat Party announced late Monday evening that it discovered “inconsistencies” in the reporting of three sets of caucus results as delays continue to plague the first-in-the-nation primary contest.

<“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report,” Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure said in a statement. “This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”

The development comes after officials announced they are doing “quality control” on the results prior to releasing them out of “an abundance of caution.”

As of 11:30 P.M. EST, final caucus results have not yet been confirmed. Previous races have been called between 8 P.M. EST and 10 P.M. EST.

The Biden campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democrat Party regarding the delay, raising concerns about the “considerable flaws” in the reporting system.

“I write on behalf of the Biden for President Campaign regarding the considerable flaws in tonight’s Iowa Caucus reporting system. The app that was intended to relay Caucus results to the Party failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system likewise has failed,” wrote Biden campaign general counsel Dana Remus.”Now, we understand that Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically to the Party. These acute failures are occurring statewide.”

“We appreciate that you plan to brief the campaigns momentarily on these issues, and we plan to participate. However, we believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released,” Remus added.

Iowa Democrats went to their precinct caucuses Monday to vote for their choice for the 2020 presidential race among a historically large field of candidates and no clear front-runner.

The caucuses officially begin the 2020 primary season, which will ultimately lead to party presidential nominations this summer.

Under Iowa’s Democrat Party caucus system, members gathered at 1,678 neighborhood locations across the state, or at one of 87 “satellite caucus” locations around the world, to cast a ballot for their choice for the Democratic nominee among 11 candidates.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Ten reasons to keep the heat on Democrats


  1. Pelosi may realize impeachment politics have ‘turned around’ in key states

Fox News points out that Pelosi may realize that her impeachment have turned politics around in key states.

pelosi“Special Report” anchor Bret Baier said on Thursday that impeachment politics may have turned against House Democrats in key states, prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to state that she may wait to send articles of impeachment to the GOP-controlled Senate.

“The politics of this perhaps turned around in some key states because, obviously, you would want to talk about it if you’ve accomplished the thing you’ve set out to do for a long period of time,” Baier told “America’s Newsroom” after Pelosi took only a limited number of questions about impeachment Thursday at her weekly news conference.

Pelosi’s move to wait to send their articles of impeachment against President Trump to the GOP-controlled Senate is based on a stated concern that they are incapable of holding a fair trial. Pelosi held a press conference on Wednesday following the House impeachment vote and was asked what would qualify as a “fair trial.”

She was then asked about possibly withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until they get certain reassurances, and the speaker refused to give a direct answer.

“Again, we’ll decide what that dynamic is, but we hope that the resolution of that process will be soon in the Senate,” she said.

The Speaker then repeatedly fended off questions about withholding the articles, before saying it would ultimately be a joint decision between the House and Senate.

“We will make our decision as to when we’re going to send — when we see what they’re doing on the Senate side, but that’s a decision that we will make jointly,” she said.

The impeachment vote total on the abuse-of-power count was 230–197, with Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard voting present. The obstruction vote total was 229–198, with Gabbard also voting present on that count, too.

(Read more at Fox News)

Making San Fran Nan realize her mistake and contemplate her actions should be our mission

The Democrat presidential contender spent millions on the Steele dossier and had that

  1. Democrats, you created this divide

‘Awkward’: Negative Reactions Pour In After Bernie Sanders’ Outburst About Being White

The Daily Caller reports on an odd moment in the Democrat debate of December.

Bernie Sanders2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders was widely panned in the media for his outburst about being white during Thursday’s Democratic debate.

Politico correspondent and moderator Tim Alberta noted a comment made by former President Barack Obama Monday about old men who won’t get “out of the way” being to blame for many world problems.

When Alberta said that Sanders, 78, was the oldest candidate on stage, the Vermont senator interjected, yelling “and I’m white as well!” and an awkward silence followed.

Negative reactions poured in after Sanders’ outburst.

“Awkward exchange of the night goes to Bernie Sanders,” the Sacramento Bee noted on Twitter.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza simply wrote, “True,” in response to Sanders’ outburst. Mediaite writer Tommy Christopher tweeted that the senator’s statement “is not the bumper sticker Bernie Sanders needs.”

Tom Namako, the news director at Buzzfeed News, highlighted the silence that followed Sanders’ comment. Washington Post reporter Amy B. Wang echoed this, tweeting out that his comment was followed by “some awkward silence.”

Culture editor at The Federalist Emily Jashinsky joked that “absolutely no one” had asked Sanders to comment about his race.

(Read more at Daily Caller)

The Democrats have specialized in identity politics for decades

In fact, one of the pushes currently in effect centers on paying all Blacks in reparation for slavery. Never mind that:

  • Not all Blacks can trace their lineage to the period where slaves were owned
  • Some Blacks owned slaves
  • Not all White Southerners owned slaves
  • Although many will argue that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was certainly a central factor (and many Whites and Blacks died in that conflict)
  • No surviving slaves still live and no surviving slave owners still live

All this (and the numerous other identity politics measures) tends to do is to divide us. As years of Antifa (today’s KKK) and the resistance have shown us, we do not need more division.

  1. Look Where San Francisco Is Today — and What the Democrats Aren’t Fixing

Lifezette points out the mess created in San Francisco and how Democrats are not fixing the problems.

san francisco poopIt is one of the hallmarks of civilization, for it contributes to stable public health and suppresses the spread of infectious disease.

But in areas governed by a certain ideology, the public health situation has become so bad — virtually medieval — that diseases long thought to be eradicated are making a potential comeback to plague-city populations.

Welcome to San Francisco, California.

Under Democratic Party rule for more than several decades, the City by the Bay increasingly has become a haven for the very poor and the very rich — the exact opposite of the stated aspirations of Democratic Party platforms.

Young tech millionaires share the city spaces with the homeless and indigent in a scene more reminiscent of pre-revolutionary late 18th century Paris or Dickensian London than a modern American city.

Fox News medical correspondent Dr. Marc Siegel spoke to that earlier this week on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“Isn’t it ironic that a city of germaphobes, of exercise-conscious, environmentally conscious [people] … [is] now a city that’s awash in human waste, which is spreading hepatitis A outbreaks every year?” he said to Carlson, in part. “Big outbreaks of hepatitis A, rats in the streets feeding off the garbage in sewage, typhus, typhoid fever, rotten bacterial infections and even the plague may be coming.”

Siegel added, “And here’s the other thing that’s even worse. It’s not just the homeless population, right? People trek through those neighborhoods. They get [human waste] on their shoes and then they bring it to other neighborhoods — and then the diseases spread to other neighborhoods.”

(Read more at Lifezette)

Maybe San Fran Nan needs to go back and help clean up the streets

__

  1. New Jersey is the 15th state to give illegals drivers licenses

One America News Network reports that New Jersey has become the 15th state to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Naturally, their legislature is dominated by Democrats.

NJ_licensesToIllegalAliensNew Jersey has become the 15th state in the U.S. to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Governor Phil Murphy signed the legislation at Thursday’s event, which was attended by immigrants and advocates alike.

“Many of our undocumented neighbors are already behind the wheel and on our roads, going to work, school and the grocery store,” stated the governor. “Today’s bill will make us all safer, while ensuring that our immigrant communities can continue contributing to our state, our economy, and our future.”

Analysts said the move will benefit more than 400,000 illegals in the state. However, critics said the new law prioritizes illegal immigrants over everyone else, raises the potential for voter fraud and runs the risk of drawing more illegals to the state.

Murphy commented on the bills prior rejection by former Governor Chris Christie.

“When Assemblywoman Keanu first tried to have a hearing on this bill – not even a vote mind you, just a hearing – former Governor Chris Christie implied that it would open the door for terrorists,” he said.

The new law will not go into effect until January 2021.

(Read more at One America News Network)

We need to look for the possibility of illegal aliens voting in these 15 states

The Federal Elections Commission needs to look for the possibility of illegal aliens trying to vote in these 15 states.

  1. Selling Impeachment: Nancy Pelosi-Aligned PAC Spends Millions to Help Swing District Democrats

Breitbart reports in a 15 December 2019 article that a Pelosi-aligned political-action-committee has spent millions trying to help Democrats in tough spots.

pelosiAlignedSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s rush to impeachment is receiving an assist from the millions of dollars at least one PAC aligned with her has already spent on House Democrats who currently represent swing districts.

Those financial incentives appear to be increasingly relevant as the final vote on the two articles of impeachment is scheduled to come to the House floor this week.

Pelosi needs 216 ‘yes’ votes to pass each article (there are currently four vacancies in the 435 member House), and at least two Democrats have already announced they will vote no, barring any unknown developments, leaving Pelosi with a potential 232 yes votes (231 Democrats and one independent, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI)), 16 more than the majority she needs.

But when Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN-7) told the Globe, a newspaper in his district, on Saturday that he would be a ‘no’ vote “barring new developments,” he also said that four to five other Democrats might join him.

If Peterson is right, and the four additional Democrats who he believes are ‘no’ votes join Van Drew and Peterson, the tally would drop to 228 ‘yes’ votes and 203 ‘no’ votes, just 12 more than the 216 needed to reach a majority.

Pelosi and her allies appear to be taking no chances. “NEW … HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD — an arm of House Majority PAC, which supports House Democrats — is spending $2.5 MILLION thanking HOUSE DEMOCRATS for voting for the Democrats’ most recent bill aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs for Americans,” Politico reported on Friday:

THE 30-SECOND SPOT differs region by region. The spot for Rep. MAX ROSE , whose district is anchored in Staten Island, is called “Like Hell,” and the narrator says, “Max Rose knows you need to fight like hell to make things better. Thank him for fighting to lower drug prices.” The ad they cut for Rep. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER of Virginia is called “And You” — it says if Medicare could negotiate lower drug prices, it should be good for seniors, “for you, and you, and you.” The spot for Iowa Rep. ABBY FINKENAUER urges her to “keep taking names and lowering costs,” and highlights the bill’s benefits for rural Americans.

HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD is also airing ads on behalf of Iowa Rep. CINDY AXNE, Maine Rep. JARED GOLDEN, Michigan Reps. ELISSA SLOTKIN and HALEY STEVENS, Nevada Rep. SUSIE LEE, New Jersey Rep. ANDY KIM, New Mexico Rep. XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New York Reps. ANTONIO DELGADO and ANTHONY BRINDISI, Oklahoma Rep. KENDRA HORN, South Carolina Rep. JOE CUNNINGHAM, Utah Rep. BEN MCADAMS and Virginia Rep. ELAINE LURIA.

Ballotpedia reported on the origins of the House Majority PAC:

House Majority PAC was founded in 2011 to answer what its organizers saw as “the barrage of GOP outside spending and ensure that never again would groups funded by Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the like be able to drown out Democratic candidates.” The super PAC is associated with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who raised funds for the group in its early stages. It is also, according to Politico, seen as a sister group to the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC associated with former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D).

All sixteen Democrat House members identified in the Politico report as beneficiaries of this current largesse from House Majority Forward are among the 31 House Democrats who represent districts President Trump won in 2016.

As of Sunday afternoon, two of them: Rep. Max Rose (D-NY) and Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) have announced they will vote ‘yes’ on the articles of impeachment on the floor of the House this week.

(Read more at Breitbart)

If you disagree with Pelosi’s impeachment, you need to fund PACs that say so where it is needed

We need to put heat on:

  1. Max Rose of Staten Island
  2. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia
  3. Abby Finkenauer of Iowa
  4. Cindy Axne of Iowa
  5. Jared Golden of Maine
  6. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan
  7. Haley Stevens of Michigan
  8. Susie Lee of Nevada
  9. Andy Kim of New Jersey
  10. Xoshitl Torres Small of New Mexico
  11. Antonio Delgado of New York
  12. Anthony Brindisi of New York
  13. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma
  14. Joe Cunningham of South Carolina
  15. Ben McAdams of Utah
  16. Elaine Luria of Virginia

It seems like these 16 have some explaining to do.

  1. Democrat Xochitl Torres Small: Impeaching Trump Will Protect National Security, Constitution

Breitbart reported in a 15 December 2019 article on a Democrat who seems to be trying to convince others by bravado rather than logic.

em020419gFreshman swing district Democrat Rep. Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM) said Sunday that impeaching President Donald Trump will protect America’s national security, the Constitution, and American democracy.

Rep. Torres Small said that President Trump jeopardized national security through his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The New Mexico Democrat said in a statement Sunday:

We cannot allow any President of either party to abuse the power of the highest office, jeopardizing our country’s national security in the process, to pressure foreign leaders to conduct investigations against political rivals. We also cannot allow any President to obstruct Congress’ power to investigate impeachable offenses by prohibiting White House and other administration officials from testifying or providing evidence. I must act to protect our national security, our Constitution, and the integrity of our elections.

The New Mexico Democrat represents one of the 31 congressional districts that President Trump won during the 2016 presidential election, and House Democrats flipped during the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans need to retake roughly 20 House seats to retake the House majority.

Then-candidate Torres Small beat Republican candidate Yvette Herrell by 1.8 percentage points.

In response to the report that Rep. Torres Small will vote for both articles of impeachment against Trump, Herrell said that “it’s time to vote out” the New Mexico Democrat.

Herrell told Breitbart News Saturday that the House Democrats impeachment “charade” is wearing “thin” for Americans and New Mexicans.

“We sent her to Washington, she voted against the wall, she voted against the Second Amendment, she voted for the Equality Act, that is a direct hit on our values and principles, we are a pro-life district,” she added.

(Read more at Breitbart)

We need to keep the heat on Xochitl Torres Small until she is the ex-Representative

Every disappointed voter in New Mexico needs to vote against Ms Xochitl Torres Small and the rest of her do-nothing House.

  1. Warren Campaign Touted Endorsement From Anti-Israel Politician Who Called Cory Booker ‘AIPAC Puppet’: Report

As reported by the Daily Caller in a 13 December 2019 article, it seems that Warren wants to brag on an endorsement from an anti-Israel politician.

LieawathaDemocratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign touted the endorsement of an anti-Israel politician who reportedly called Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker an “AIPAC puppet.”

Americans and Palestinians for Peace (AMPAL) leader John Dabeet endorsed Warren in November, the Free Beacon reports, and the Massachusetts senator’s campaign included Dabeet in a list of “Iowa leaders” who are backing her in the Democratic primary. Dabeet is also a Muscatine Community School District board member.

Dabeet has praised Warren for standing up against Israel, saying in a November Facebook post, “Thank you Senator Warren for standing up for what’s right and for acknowledging the Palestinian deaths, and the Palestinians rights to live in peace and freedom in their homeland in the past four days due to the Israeli attacks on Gaza along with Senator Sanders. You got our support and will connect with many people across Iowa and United States and will ask them to stand by you.”

Dabeet has called Israel a “fake democracy,” and labeled Sen. Booker an “AIPAC puppet,” the Beacon reports, adding that the AMPAL referred to a deceased leader of the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization in 2016 as an “immortal leader” and “martyr leader.” AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is a pro-Israel advocacy group.

The Iowa politician has also called for a boycott of Israel and tweeted his support for Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, both of whom support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

So Warren has decided to follow in the anti-Semitic steps of Omar and Tlaib

__

  1. Another Trump District Democrat Ripped By Constituents Over Impeachment: ‘If She Votes For Impeachment, She’s Screwed’

The Daily Caller uses a 13 December 2019 article to repeat some promises from the constituents to a freshman Representative.

kendra_hornConstituents ripped Democratic Oklahoma Rep. Kendra Horn on Sunday, saying Democrats focus too much on impeachment and too little on improving the lives of Americans.

Horn, who represents most of Oklahoma, Pottawatomie and Seminole counties, spoke at a Sunday town hall meeting where voters angrily questioned her on why she continues to focus on impeachment. President Donald Trump won Horn’s district in the 2016 presidential election, and eight Republicans announced they will run for her vulnerable seat in 2020, according to the Oklahoman.

“As an independent voter, I think you’re in a lot of trouble if you vote for this impeachment,” said Edmond, Oklahoma, resident Susan Jaslow, the Oklahoman reported. Jaslow voted for Horn in 2018, but said she is part of a group of independent voters upset about the impeachment circus.

“If she votes for impeachment, she’s screwed,” Jaslow added.

“We want Congress to get back to work for the American people, please,” said Ronda Peterson, who identified herself as a conservative. Peterson said Congress has been obsessed with impeaching Trump all year.

Horn responded to Peterson by saying, “It’s frustrating for me.” Horn has said she has not made up her mind about impeachment, and her press secretary told the Daily Caller she is “reviewing the articles of impeachment” and “has not announced a decision.”

“Because that’s not what I’m doing on a day-to-day basis,” Horn told Peterson. “I didn’t run to impeach anybody. I ran to fight for Oklahoma, for education, for health care … and that’s where I’ve been spending my time.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

__

__

  1. These five Democrats should be doomed

According to Lifezette, these five Democrats should be doomed due to their vote against President Trump and his impeachment.

There will be a political price to pay for moderate and freshman Democrats if they vote for impeachment and if President Donald Trump carried their districts in the 2016 general election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) must know this, but nevertheless she plows on, held hostage, some believe, by her party’s far-Left wing.

By pushing the Trump impeachment, she could even be imperiling her own speakership.

But apparently personal animus toward the president and fear of her own Left “trump” political sense.

Here are the five House Dems who will most suffer for her blind obstinacy if they follow her down the impeachment path.

JoeCunningham1.) Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.). The attorney won narrowly by one point in last year’s midterms on an anti-off shore drilling campaign. But Trump took the district by 13 points in 2016.

South Carolina is deep red and his chances do not look good anyway.

Tie an impeachment vote around his neck — and he’s a goner.

2.) Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.). Trump took New York’s 22nd Congressional District by 15 points in 2016 and Brindisi won by two in 2018.

This upstate district looks solid for Trump (this particular district extends from the east end of Lake Ontario through Central New York to the Pennsylvania border, including Utica, Rome and Binghamton).

And with the president on the 2020 ballot, if Brindisi votes for impeachment, he will get hurt — a lot.

3.) Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.). Oklahoma is one of the most politically conservative states in America. President Trump won its 5th Congressional District there by 14 points in 2016. Horn, an attorney, won by one meager point in 2018.

She has so far out-fundraised her possible GOP opponents.

But the power of incumbency can be responsible for that. Odds are, with the president running this year, she is toast. Add a yes vote on impeachment — and the GOP can pick the curtains.

4.) Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.). Staten Island is a GOP island surrounded by a New York City sea of blue. Trump won in the Staten Island borough by 10 points in 2016. Rose won by 6 in 2018.

Though not that far apart in numbers, the current trend and the district’s history indicate a strong Trump showing in 2020.

If Rose, an Army combat veteran, bucks his district and favors the impeachment of the president, he can kiss that six-point spread goodbye — and he puts himself in serious peril.

5.) Rep. Xochitl Torres-Small (D-N.M.). Trump won this district by 10 percentage points in 2016 and Torres-Small, a water rights lawyer, won it by 2 in 2018.

As some of her support probably came from Democrat moderates who do not support impeachment, there isn’t a good range of options for her when it comes to an impeachment vote. Just as in many close Dem seats, if she votes yes, she loses some moderates.

A “no” vote — and her base deserts her. She can afford neither in that district.

Also of note: Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.). Not a freshman, Collin Peterson is a conservative Democrat and the only Dem who could hold onto a district that went for Trump in a landslide in 2016 by 31 points.

(Read more at Lifezette)

These five Democrats all voted for the impeachment of Trump. Now, they need to pay.

Since little else but omnibus spending bills has made it out of both the Senate and House, none of these Democrats have any accomplishments to brag about (unless they want to brag about impeaching President Trump). So, if you do not support the impeachment of President Trump, you need to make these do-nothing Democrats pay.

  1. Lizzie Fletcher ran her bid for the House on helping Houston

After winning the 7th Congressional District in Texas for the US House, Lying Lizzie Fletcher claimed that she planned to work across the aisle. She claimed that she wanted to work for Houston business.

That was a lie, par excellence.

In the following video, Lizzie Fletcher claims that she will reach across the aisle to work with Republicans and help local business.

In the following video, Lizzie’s actual voting comes into view.

What the even the liberal media has to say about Bloomberg


Michael Bloomberg’s billions can’t save an unserious campaign

The Hill recently provided an editorial comment on Bloomberg and the rest of the vanilla-ice-cream presidential candidates (along with a sprinkling of vanilla Republicans).

Ever since seeing firsthand how then-candidate Donald Trump would connect with voters in the 2016 campaign, I’ve been asked time and again who would be the best candidate to take on the president in 2020. A single archetype always came to mind — a job creator, an American success story, someone who could self-fund his campaign and not feel the need to bow to establishment donors or a responsibility to play by the political rules.

2012BloombergSomeone like Michael Bloomberg.

But following his official entrance into the 2020 Democratic presidential race this week, I’m starting to think that I may have been wrong this entire time.

If there’s something to learn from 2016, it’s that voters are looking for excitement. They want a campaign they can believe in. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) understood this in 2016 — and, had the DNC not worked so hard to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, the Democratic leadership might have realized it too. Heading into 2020, Bernie is still one of the candidates to understand and harness this force on the campaign trail. He still draws large crowds, and his core base of supporters genuinely believes in the “revolution” he advocates.

As for Mike? His first speech as a candidate literally put me to sleep.

The energy just isn’t there, but if energy were the only problem, I’d see a little more hope. In today’s Democratic field, where big promises and big grievances define the game, it’s tough for another nearly-80-year-old moderate to carve out a dominant position for himself — especially when he supported President George W. Bush, rode Rudy Giuliani’s endorsement to become mayor of New York City, and supported the 2012 challenger to progressive darling Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

The appetite for a former registered Republican in a Democratic primary is pretty low.

However, Mike Bloomberg is smart; no one could ever genuinely claim otherwise. He realizes that in order to have any chance of meeting the Democratic base where they are, he’s going to have to apologize. A lot.

White. Male. Billionaire. He has a lot of problems he has to address before we even start criticizing his tenure as a tough-on-crime New York City mayor. Apologizing to the Democratic base for stop-and-frisk was a first step, but — apparently — it’s not even close to enough. Google his name and look at the articles that come up — from everywhere. This may be the first time since 2015 I’ve seen so many attack articles written about a man whose name isn’t Donald Trump.

(Read more at The Hill)

Ok. No excitement in the Bloomberg campaign. Have you noticed the mortuary line-up of other Democrat candidates?

This little piece complains that Bloomberg creates no excitement; however, has the writer looked at the crowds at the other presidential contenders’ rallies?

Not to be outdone by Biden, Bloomberg has placed his foot in his mouth

Luckily, people on Twitter caught it and put it into tweets

With a hat tip to Bunkerville for the first tweet, here are some jewels.











Bloomberg News Tells Reporters Not to Investigate 2020 Democrats

According to the Free Beacon, Bloomberg News tells its reporters not investigate the Democrats running for president.

michaelbloombergNoInvestigationOfDemocratsBloomberg News‘s leadership promulgated a new editorial policy forbidding staff journalists from investigating 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

According to multiple reportsBloomberg News editor in chief John Micklethwait informed staff in a memo that the outlet would continue “our tradition” of not investigating owner Michael Bloomberg, his family, or his personal foundation. But Micklethwait also announced it would “extend the same policy to [Bloomberg’s] rivals in the Democratic primaries.” Reporters will still be allowed to investigate President Donald Trump so long as he is not a “direct rival” to Bloomberg’s presidential aspirations.

The policy change follows Bloomberg’s formal announcement on Sunday that he was entering the 2020 Democratic presidential race. The billionaire and former New York City mayor’s presidential run presents difficult questions for Bloomberg News, which has a longstanding policy of not reporting on its founder and CEO.

In the memo, Micklethwait announced that Bloomberg‘s opinion editorial board will cease operation. Several members of the opinion team will take leaves of absence and join the Bloomberg campaign as staffers.

2020 is not the first time the news outlet has had to grapple with its founder’s political ambitions. Bloomberg Politics Washington news director Kathy Kiely resigned in protest in 2016, when Bloomberg was considering running for president, citing concerns that the outlet would be unable to cover his campaign fairly. Kiely’s resignation came on the heels of reports that Bloomberg News staffers were being instructed not to write stories speculating about their boss’s potential run without approval from higher-ups.

(Read more at the Free Beacon)

This sounds like a contribution in kind to the Democrat party

This agreement to suspend all investigations of Democrat presidential campaigns seems very much like a “contribution in kind” to the Democrats. Of course, what would I know about Federal Election Commission law, since I am just a conservative blogger (and not a high falutin Democrat like Hillary or Bernie)?

Barney Frank: ‘Great Deal’ of Bloomberg’s Record Is ‘Real Problem’ for Democrats

Breitbart reports the words of former Representative Barney Frank regarding Michael Bloomberg.

barney-frankFormer Democrat congressman and network contributor Barney Frank told CNBC’s Squawk Box on Friday that 2020 White House candidate Michael Bloomberg’s past policies will likely prevent him from winning his party’s nomination.

A partial transcript is as follows:

REBECCA QUICK: Are you surprised to see Mike Bloomberg already jumping into fifth place, even though he only announced in the last week that he’s going to be running for president?

BARNEY FRANK: No, because what’s more important about fifth place is that it’s three percent. That’s a very, very low number. He has an enormous amount of money that he’s pumping in ads. He’s got a very high-profile name. I’m not surprised he’s at three percent, which I said is the relevant statistic. … There’s a great deal in Mike Bloomberg’s record that is a real problem for many Democratic voters. I’m personally aware of his opposition to financial reform. In 2006, he was calling for even more deregulation, just before the crisis. He opposed almost all serious regulation. He has a record for raising money for Tom DeLay. With all his money and celebrity, three percent isn’t a very impressive number.

QUICK: You don’t think he’s going to be able to survive the Democratic primary?

FRANK: Oh, no. As I said, there’s even more negative about him, more that will come out.

(Read more at Breitbart)

What “even more negative about him” Franks referred to will be interesting to find out about

Since this is a primary season and we will soon enter an election season, we can expect the mud to be thrown and the knives to come out.

This should be a fun spectator sport.

A 2015 Michael Bloomberg Op-Ed article supports the Iran deal

A 12 August 2015 edition of the Jewish World Review provided a means for Michael Bloomberg to rail against detractors of the Iran deal.

Michael_R_BloombergIf you oppose the Iranian nuclear agreement, you are increasing the chances of war. And if you are a Democrat who opposes the agreement, you are also risking your political career. That’s the message the White House and some liberal leaders are sending — and they ought to stop now, because they are only hurting their credibility.

I have deep reservations about the Iranian nuclear agreement, but I — like many Americans — am still weighing the evidence for and against it. This is one of the most important debates of our time, one with huge implications for our future and security and the stability of the world. Yet instead of attempting to persuade Americans on the merits, supporters of the deal are resorting to intimidation and demonization, while also grossly overstating their case.

Last week, President Barack Obama said that it was not a difficult decision to endorse the agreement. I couldn’t disagree more. This is an extraordinarily difficult decision, and the president’s case would be more compelling if he stopped minimizing the agreement’s weaknesses and exaggerating its benefits. If he believes that the deal “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” as he said in his speech at American University last Wednesday, then he should take another look at the agreement, whose restrictions end suddenly after 15 years, with some of the constraints on uranium enrichment melting away after just 10.

Overstating the case for the agreement belies the gravity of the issue and does more to breed distrust than win support. Smearing critics is even less effective. In his speech, the president suggested that critics of the deal are the same people who argued for the war in Iraq. The message wasn’t very subtle: Those who oppose the agreement are warmongers. (Of course, those who voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 include Obama’s vice president and secretary of state.)

Then he went further, saying: “It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.” From a president who often complains about hyperpartisanship, and whose stated aim is to elevate the discourse, the public deserved something better.

Emblematic of all this — and what has prompted me to write — was the treatment of Sen. Chuck Schumer. In his thoughtful statement opposing the deal, Schumer noted that the best course of action is not clear. Reasonable people can and do disagree.

Yet rather than acknowledging a respectful difference of opinion, the president’s spokesperson and others close to the White House suggested that Schumer’s decision may cost him the opportunity to become the leader of the Senate’s Democratic caucus. What they should have said is: President Obama signed legislation that gives Congress a voice on any deal with Iran. This debate is far bigger than partisan politics, and personal political considerations should play no role in deciding it.

Schumer is right that this is a vote of conscience. Each member of Congress, after closely studying the deal and listening to all arguments on both sides, ought to decide the matter on the merits — and the White House should be focused on making the case on the merits, instead of using campaign-style tactics to pressure Democrats into standing together.

The White House’s behavior is especially disappointing given the way the negotiations unfolded. Every negotiation comes with give-and-take. This one was no exception. Significant concessions were made at the last moment, including on ballistic missiles and arms. These were surprising changes and they come with large implications that require careful scrutiny.

Throughout this process, the president and his secretary of state gave Americans assurances that the United States would not be cornered into a bad deal. Yet in his speech last week, the president said that Congress must decide “whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough” or to block it “over the objection of the vast majority of the world.”

Congress should not act based on the opinion of the rest of the world, nor the opinion of the American public, which opposes the agreement by a 2-to-1 margin, according to a recent poll. Congress should make its own hard and careful assessment of the agreement — something it cannot possibly do without seeing the yet-to-be-revealed side deals. How can you vote on a pact that you haven’t been able to read in full?

(Read the original at the Jewish World Review

Bloomberg sees the need for Congress to govern against the will of the people

Although Bloomberg masks his support by pointing out the flaws within Obama’s promotion of the Iran deal and further masks it by closing with a call for the Congress to read the entire agreement, overall, he takes a supportive stance with the Iran deal. Furthermore, taking Michael Bloomberg at his word, we see that he supports the imposition of a treaty with the world’s leading supporter of terrorism — something opposed “by a 2-to-1 margin, according to a recent poll.”

Therefore, with his support wavering from the autocratic Obama to the yet uninformed Congress and then against the unknowing people — thinking that Bloomberg might be the savior of “the people’s party” might be a case of missing the mark.

Why we all need to be Bereans regarding topics of the day


Being a modern-day Berean

First, let me define “Berean.” In the Bible’s book of Acts (specifically, in the 17th chapter), we hear of a group from Berea who looked in their Bibles to verify the preaching of Paul.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:10‭-‬11 NASB)

So, to be Berean is to be studious and open to the truth. Hopefully, that will include you, at some point.

Christians have no mandate to avoid interracial marriage

Next, let me explain how I came upon this topic. Recently, I came upon a post at The Domain for Truth where SlimJim asked “Is it OK to marry a Moabite?”

Whether my reply was prompted by a leading of the Holy Spirit in response to a need someone else had or the reply was a demonstration of my own hubris, I wish I could tell you. Nonetheless, to the question, I responded:

Wouldn’t the best response be to see that God forbids spiritual adultery (aka, marrying outside of the faith), but does not really see the skin.

One proof of this might be Ruth, who was of another race than Boaz, but of the same faith. Likewise, Moses married a Cushite (who, obviously was of another race, but, as far as we know, must have converted to the faith of Moses).

When I considered my response at The Domain for Truth, it seemed weak considering my lack of outside citations and Bible references.

Therefore, this post should provide a more reasoned response to today’s version of “Is it OK to marry a Moabite?” Let me start by using a post I had once abandoned.

An answer through an old article that I once meant to post with comments

Although this article is a bit dated, this 4 September 2019 FaithWire article may do Christians a service by telling the whole story of error, repentance, and redemption of a ill-informed Christian business owner who later corrected her course.

A lot of the headlines coming out of Mississippi over the weekend were about racism and religion after the owner of a wedding venue denied an interracial couple access to her space, citing her “Christian belief” that such a union is counter-biblical. But the untold story here is one of forgiveness, humility, and understanding.

LaKambriaWelchLaKambria Welch told Deep South Voice magazine on Sunday that she drove to Boone’s Camp Event Hall in Booneville after the venue told her brother via Facebook that he wouldn’t be allowed to hold his upcoming nuptials there “because of [the company’s] beliefs.”

The crux of the cordial conversation was this comment from the venue staffer: “We don’t do gay weddings or mixed race, because of our Christian race — I mean, our Christian belief.” Welch simply listened politely.

interracialWelch’s brother and his fiancée, who is white, had been considering the event space as a possible venue for their wedding and had been in communication with the owner of the space for about a week, according to NBC News. It wasn’t until the venue owner discovered the couple’s skin colors through Facebook that she attempted to talk with them in person.

All of those details have been widely reported. But here’s what hasn’t been shared very much: it’s harder to hate up close, and the owner of the Mississippi wedding space learned that over the weekend.

Welch, who is also a Christian, was kind and forgiving.

“I’ve stated that I am a Christian as well,” she told NBC News. “So, growing up, my grandmother would always tell me to forgive, even without an apology. I’ve always lived by that with everything.”

But the venue owner did apologize. In fact, she went home and took out her Bible to research the issue herself — to reexamine the perspectives she had, to determine if they were really biblical or actually just the racist remnants of a bygone culture.

She discussed the issue with her husband and her pastor.

She then shared her shifted beliefs in a transparent and thoughtful Facebook post to the wedding venue’s fan page:

As a child growing up in Mississippi, our racial boundaries that were unstated were that of staying with your own race. This was never verbally spoken, but it was an understood subject. On Saturday, my husband asked me to show him in the Bible where it was located as to the content concerning biracial relationships.

I studied for a minute and began to think about the history of my learning this and where it came from. I was unable to recall instances where the Bible was used, giving a verse that would support my decision.

After searching Saturday evening, Saturday night, most of the day Sunday and sitting down with my pastor Sunday night after church, I have come to the conclusion my decision, which was based on what I had thought was correct to be supported by the Bible, was incorrect! I have, for many years, stood firm on my Christian faith not knowing that biracial relationships were NEVER mentioned in the Bible! […]

As my Bible reads, there are 2 requirements for a marriage and race has nothing to do with either! All of the years I had “assumed” in my mind that I was correct, but have never taken the opportunity to research and find whether this was correct or incorrect until now.

As for the engaged couple, they have decided they won’t be getting married at the Booneville location, but the interaction certainly sparked a positive change in the owner of the venue.

(Read more at FaithWire)

While this article does provide a source-less response the question of “Is it OK to marry a Moabite?” of the blog post, it does not address the question as posed by today’s crowd. Specifically, it does not ask whether gay marriage is biblical.

You see, an allowance to marry inter-culturally does not mask the need to limit marriage to one man and one woman

As I searched for articles to buttress my views on people questioning intercultural marriage, I most often came upon articles questioning or providing secular support to same-sex marriage. And while there is no question that, at this time, there is full legal acceptance of same-sex marriage within the United States, there is also no question about the teachings of the Bible and Jesus on the matter.

Jesus calls marriage an institution between a man and a woman, but does not mention race or culture

To narrow down what the Bible says about marriage, why not start with what Jesus says?

But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:5-9 NASB)

Had Jesus supported same-sex marriage (which was part of Greek culture of the time), He could have replaced “male and female” with “a couple.” Additionally, He spoke of the permanence of marriage by referring to the fact that men should not divide what God has put together. Therefore, unlike America’s model of marriage and divorce, Jesus mapped an institution of permanence. Nonetheless, in an area where most people spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and other languages, nothing is mentioned forbidding cross-cultural marriage.

The text in Matthew presents somewhat a similar picture.

Jesus said, “He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.” (Matthew 19:4-6 NASB)

However, in verses 8 and 9, Jesus makes allowances for the hard of heart. If your spouse commits adultery, you can divorce that spouse. However, this provision was provided for those who could not find it within themselves to forgive a cheating spouse. This was not a mandate. Additionally, being a Christian and not forgiving others could be a topic for another day. Nonetheless, the option of divorce was provided for adultery.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
(Matthew 19:8‭-‬9 NASB)

Still nothing is mentioned forbidding cross-cultural marriage.

The New Testament calls for believers to marry within the faith

In 2 Corinthians, we are told to refrain from alliances with those who do not believe in Christ. This means no marriages with unbelievers, no business alliances, and no other pairings.

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14 NASB)

However, if believers of any race present themselves for marriage, they are qualified to marry as defined in the Bible.

On the other side of this overall debate on marriage, there are multiple verses within both the Old and New Testaments forbidding homosexual acts and behavior (e.g., Romans 1:24–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Leviticus 18:22; and a number of other passages). Therefore, there would be an equal prohibition against gay marriage by the Church.

God, in the Old Testament, specifically does not forbid interracial marriage, but does stand behind Moses as a prophet when he chose such a wife

In the case of Moses, after the death of his first wife, he married a Cushite (a woman from present-day Ethiopia).

Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); and they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard it. (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.) Suddenly the Lord said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, “You three come out to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them came out. Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, He said,

“Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord , shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?”

So the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my Lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”
(Numbers 12:1‭-‬12 NASB)

Although this account does not relate whether the second wife of Moses became a believer (although I will assume that she did, due to what God says in Deuteronomy 7:1-4), it does make clear that Moses married a woman of another culture and race. It also makes clear that God defended the decision of Moses to marry that woman even when Miriam and Aaron did not accept.

When God brought Moses to the edge of the Promised Land, God warned to not marry the unfaithful people who were in the land

As the People of God prepared to enter the Promised Land, God had at least one thing to say about marriage. And this word on marriage centered on how these unfaithful people might draw the people of God away from the true God.

When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NASB)

The reason that Israelites were not to intermarry was “they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods …”

When it comes to one famous Israelite and his former Moabite wife

In the case of one pair of King David’s and Jesus’ ancestors (Boaz and Ruth), the marriage between a prominent Israelite and a former Moabite was a gift from God for the following reasons:

      1. First, Ruth, the Moabitess, had accepted God as her God.

        But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. (Ruth 1:16 NASB)

      2. Second, Ruth found that Boaz could be her kinsman-redeemer when her mother-in-law informed her of the possibility. Therefore, in that patriarchal society, Ruth had Boaz to redeem her (just as Christ redeems the believer).

        Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. (Ruth 3:1‭-‬2 NASB)

      3. Third, after Ruth presented herself to Boaz, Boaz sought out a closer relative and got him to agree to let Boaz redeem Ruth.

        Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by, so he said, “Turn aside, friend, sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. So the closest relative said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” And he removed his sandal. Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. (Ruth 4:1‭, ‬8‭-‬9 NASB)

      4. Everything was done by the book. Therefore, this marriage between one faithful Israelite and one former Moabite resulted in God’s will.

        All the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah, through the offspring which the Lord will give you by this young woman.” So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed is the Lord who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” (Ruth 4:11‭-‬15 NASB)

6 things Christians should watch


#1 – Christians should be aware of cultural trends that weaken the weak

Lesbian Feminist Testifies Against the ‘Equality Act’

1beck

A 2 April 2019 National Review article points to the words of lesbian feminist Julia Beck as she points out many of the things that Christians have regarding the Equality Act. Specifically, she points out many instances where the Equality Act will allow the blurring of lines that protect women.

On Tuesday Julia Beck testified against the Equality Act (H.R. 5) before the House Judiciary Committee. Beck is a lesbian who was booted out of the Baltimore LGBT Commission for describing a male transgender rapist as a male and saying that men can’t be lesbians.

Advocates of the Equality Act characterize it as anti-discrimination for LGBT people and a much-needed extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nearly 300 Democrats (and a few Republicans) support the bill. It is scheduled for hearings later this spring, and a vote this summer. It will likely pass the House, if not yet the Senate.

In her testimony, Beck said the law would mean that,

male rapists will go to women’s prisons and likely assault female inmates as has already happened in the U.K.; female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male presence in women’s shelters; men will dominate women’s sports — girls who would have taken first place will be denied scholastic opportunity; women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined, and banned from social media platforms; girls will stay home from school when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed-space toilets; girls and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical staff or intimate care providers, including elderly or disabled women who are at serious risk of sexual abuse; female security officers will no longer have the right to refuse to perform pat-downs or intimate searches of males who say they’re female and women undergoing security checks will no longer have the right to refuse having those security checks being performed by men claiming a feminine identity.

She pointed out that “everything I just listed is already happening, and it’s only going to get worse if gender identity is recognized in federal law.” And added, “I urge my fellow Democrats to wake up. Please acknowledge biological reality.”

(Read more at National Review)

Now that a recognized leader in the lesbian community has said the same thing that Christians (such as Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association) has been saying, maybe more people in government will start to take note.

Then again, maybe they will just sideline Ms. Beck just like they have sidelined Christians.

Still, with that said, what about the Christians who want to live out their faith despite aggressive attacks from liberal activists? What about Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop? What about the former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa? What about Barronelle Stutzman?

Rep. Nadler says that we cannot hide behind religion when discriminating against transgenders and homosexuals. Can this question be turned around? Have lesbians used their power with liberal states to persecute Christians? Is there equal representation under the law?

#2 – Christians should be aware that government doesn’t want to protect your children

Houston Library continues program after registered sex offender found in Drag Queen Storytime

houston-storytime-drag-suspect

The Houston Chronicle tells of Alberto Garza in a 17 March 2010 article, a transgender who was convicted of abusing an 8-year-old boy has now been found participating in the Houston Public Library’s program that has transgenders reading to preschoolers. What can go wrong there?

Houston Public Library officials apologized Friday for failing to conduct a background check on a registered sex offender who read books to children at an event hosted by drag queens.

Albert Garza, a 32-year-old registered sex offender, participated in the program under the name Tatiana Mala-Niña, according to the conservative anti-LGBTQ group, MassResistance.

Library officials acknowledged in a statement Friday that Garza has “a criminal background that should have prevented him from participating” in the Drag Queen Storytime program, in which drag queens read books at the Freed-Montrose library.

Department of Public Safety records show Garza was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of an 8-year-old child in 2009, for which he received five years of probation and community supervision.

Mala-Niña did not respond to attempts Saturday to confirm her apparent criminal background.

“We assure you that this participant will not be involved in any future HPL programs,” the library’s statement reads. “…We deeply regret this oversight and the concern this may cause our customers. We realize this is a serious matter.”

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

Although many citizens of Houston’s Montrose would not be surprised to find that a transvestite who was reading to children at the public library was a registered sex offender, this is still a breach of the public trust. The sad thing is that it was not the Houston Public Library’s last breach of trust under this program.

Second Child Sex Offender Unmasked at Drag Queen Story Time, Houston Activists Say

Sex-Offender-Drag-Queen_sized-770x415xc

According to a 5 April 2019 article on PJ Media, a second child abuser discovered within the Houston Public Library Drag Queen program.

On Thursday, activist parents with MassResistance unmasked another child sex offender who greeted children at Drag Queen Story Time. According to local MassResistance leader Tracy Shannon, a drag performer with many aliases has sexually assaulted children and publicly recounted his history as a transgender dominatrix and prostitute for hire. His name has been redacted here because he was allegedly convicted for sexual assault against children at age 16, so his record has been sealed.

“We have another big reveal today at our press conference which will take place at 2 PM at the Freed Montrose Library,” Shannon announced in an email. “Due to this individual using multiple aliases and having moved around a lot it was hard to nail down his identity but we finally connected the dots. We found his name a few days ago but trying to find some affirmation and photos was like looking for a needle in a haystack of social media postings.”

“Once we affirmed the identity we ran background checks and found the record. We will reveal all at 2 PM Central time at our press conference,” she added. She also excoriated the Houston Public Library (HPL) system for allowing child sex offenders to greet children.

At the conference, “MassResistance will demand an audit of the entire HPL background checks vs volunteer applications to see how many have experienced an ‘oversight’ and how many sex offenders have been allowed to participate in children’s programming at the libraries in Houston. We will also be demanding a city ordinance that requires background checks for all city-sanctioned programs for children when we have our press conference.”

Shannon sent PJ Media the research document outlining how MassResistance uncovered this second alleged sex offender.

She connected the man to an article at About Online recalling experiences in “sex work” as a “professional dominatrix.” At the beginning, the anonymous author admitted, “I had tried for so many years to alleviate my depression and dysphoria through random sex, I had lost track of how many partners I’ve had.” This eased the transition from “sex work” to becoming a transgender prostitute and porn actor.

(Read more at PJ Media)

Hat tip: Frank and Freeda Blunt, Trigger Reset

Hopefully, this will be the last breach of trust for the Houston Public Library for a while.

We must protect children and others who are incapable of protecting themselves. Allowing preditors, whether in the library or in the church, does not cut it. We need to either stay with them or know those in whom we trust our children.

#3 – Christians should know that most powers want to shut us up

From Baylor to Yale, Free Speech for Christians Is Dying, and Ted Cruz Wants Some Answers

As made evident in a 5 April 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network article, even liberals on Christian campuses are threatened by Christian speakers coming with messages that other crowds of Christians want to hear.

Freedom of speech is under fire now possibly more than ever on college campuses as this fundamental American freedom is being stripped from students, professors, and even public speakers.

Examples of threats to free speech continue to roll in across the nation, especially for Christians and conservatives and their biblical stand on issues.

Even at a Christian university in the Bible belt, free speech is at risk. Some at Baylor University in Texas are trying to stop Matt Walsh, a Christian author and blogger, from speaking on campus.

Walsh was invited by Baylor’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter to give a speech titled, “The War on Reality: Why the Left Has Set out to Redefine Life, Gender, and Marriage.”

It didn’t sit well with some students and so they circulated a petition to stop him from speaking on the topic from a biblical perspective.

The petition accuses Walsh of spreading “harmful hate speech.” Some students even vandalized posters advertising the event.

Walsh took to Twitter saying he simply wants to express a point of view, is trying to have a good sense of humor about the protest, and is asking students to try to have a rational dialogue with him.

Organizers say the event, scheduled for April 9, is now sold out.

A second recent case involves Yale Law School saying students who work for Christian groups supporting biblical teaching on marriage being between one man and one woman will no longer receive school financial support.

The controversy erupted when an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom was invited to speak on campus about Christian baker Jack Phillips who, for religious reasons, declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

A number of Yale’s liberal groups, including the LGBTQ advocacy group the “Outlaws” protested the speech and the school’s financial help to conservative students.

Yale responded by pulling the funding for students who follow their biblical beliefs.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) is now involved. He sent a letter to the dean of the Yale Law School saying its new policy is “transparently discriminatory” and intended to “blacklist Christian organizations.” Cruz has threatened legal action.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

It would seem that a number of liberals have flocked to the private institutions founded by religious groups (like Baylor, which is currently at least partially funded by the Southern Baptist Convention). Therefore, it seems that Christians have been tolerant of liberals who moved into their halls of learning. However, it also seems that those same liberals cannot be tolerant of Christians.

#4 – Christians should watch for politicians who try to pander to the crowd

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Melts Down over Criticism of Fake Accent

This Breitbart article highlights both the extremes of pandering that the Democrats have fallen to and the degree of pain they feel upon being called out for that pandering.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to criticism for her patronizing use of a fake accent in front of a black audience in the usual manner — crybabying.

The not-terribly-bright socialist was caught on video Friday patronizing the mostly black audience with a fake southern drawl at Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference.

The humiliating video quickly made the rounds on social media, earning the criticism and ridicule it deserved.

The video is as shocking as it is excruciating. All of a sudden, the Westchester socialist, who is famous for her Jerry the Mouse voice, starts talking like a black preacher.

“This is what organizing looks like. This is what building power looks like,” Ocasio-Crazy said with her affected cadence. “This is what changing the country looks like. It’s when we choose to show up and occupy the room and talk about the things that matter most, talking about our future.”

“Ain’t nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with working retail, folding clothes for other people to buy,” she continued. “There is nothing wrong with preparing the food that your neighbors will eat. There is nothing wrong with driving the buses that take your family to work”:

The moment is reminiscent of two-time presidential loser Hillary “Hot Sauce” Clinton’s similar attempt to condescend to a predominantly black audience with her “Ain’t No Ways Tired” remarks in 2007:

(Read more at Breitbart)

#5 – Christians should know that apostasy is growing in the “Church”

The Swedish Church Creates LGBTQ View of the Bible for Children, Identifies Jesus as ‘Queer’

SwedishChurch&Sexuality

One 5 April 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network article shows that one diocese of the Church of Sweden has published a guide stating that Christ was homosexual.

The Diocese of Västerås, a division of the Church of Sweden, is now giving away an LGBTQ guide for “Christian queer kids.” Bible-believing Christians may be stunned to hear that this extreme guide describes Jesus as “queer” and Joseph as transvestite.

No, this isn’t just some radical college course about the Bible. This is coming from the actual Church of Sweden.

The church, which identifies as Protestant, has created what it calls a “survival guide” for LGBTQ youth. A Swedish news site, Nya DagBladet, states the church’s guide contains definitions and concepts, a bit about the Bible and LGBTQ, as well as Bible stories that it claims are related to LGBTQ people.

The guide goes on to contradict Scripture by stating the Bible is actually not against homosexuality, implying scriptures dealing with it are actually about exploitation or rape. Click Here to see what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

#6 – Christians should know that the groups that spew hate aren’t going away

‘Hate-Filled, Anti-Christian, Anti-Conservative Organization’: Why the SPLC Has Been Given an ‘F’ by Charity Watch

SPLC-2

A 4 April 2019 article at the Christian Broadcasting Network points out the vehemence of the attacks by the SPLC.

More than 25 Christian and conservative leaders have signed a letter to the CEO’s of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon, urging them to end any working relationships with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC has notoriously listed Christian and conservative groups as hate groups.

“It is now clear that the SPLC has proven to be a hate-filled, anti-Christian, anti-conservative organization and nothing more than a weapon of the radical Left, whose goal is to bully people into compliance with their ideology,” the letter states. “Fail to comply with their demands, and you will be labeled as a hate group or an extremist.”

The Family Research Council is one group the SPLC has put in that hate group category for its Biblical beliefs and defense of traditional marriage. Others like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Prager University have also been targeted.

And this letter may be just the beginning of the SPLC’s worries. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is calling on the IRS to investigate the non-profit and review its tax exempt status.

“They’ve really become kind of a hate group themselves,” Cotton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. “Serial repeated defamation against what you see as a political opponent is not a tax exempt purpose.”

The SPLC has a reported $500 million in assets with a good chunk of that in offshore accounts.

(Read more at Christian Broadcasting Network)

When you also consider that the leadership of the SPLC left under the cloud of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism, you would not know it from the virtual silence among the mainstream media outlets.

Additionally, you would not know that the current leader of the SPLC (Tina Tchen) has close ties to the Obama administration — including Greg Craig — and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case). What do we here about this? Do we even hear crickets out of the media?