The Jussie Smollett case and all the players to be found


Prosecutors dismiss charges against Smollett, draw backlash

Charges_against_Jussie_Smollett_dropped1

The Associated Press reports in a 27 March 2019 article how the dismissal of charges has not been well received.

Infuriating Chicago’s mayor and police chief, prosecutors abruptly dropped all charges against Jussie Smollett on Tuesday after the “Empire” actor accused of faking a racist, anti-gay attack on himself agreed to let the city keep his $10,000 in bail. But he maintained his innocence and insisted he was attacked.

Prosecutors said they still believe Smollett concocted the assault. They gave no detailed explanation for why they abandoned the case only five weeks after filing the charges and threatening to pursue Smollett for the cost of a monthlong investigation.

The dismissal drew an immediate backlash. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called the deal “a whitewash of justice” and lashed out at Smollett for dragging the city’s reputation “through the mud” in a quest to advance his career. At one point he asked, “Is there no decency in this man?”

Smollett’s attorneys said his record was “wiped clean” of the 16 felony counts related to making a false report that he was assaulted by two men. The actor, who also agreed to do community service, insisted that he had “been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.”

“I would not be my mother’s son if I was capable of one drop of what I was being accused of,” he told reporters after a court hearing. He thanked the state of Illinois “for attempting to do what’s right.”

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Cook County prosecutors’ office said the dismissal came “after reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Tandra Simonton called it “a just disposition and appropriate resolution” but said it was not an exoneration.

First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Magats said prosecutors “stand behind the investigation and the facts.”

When dropping cases, prosecutors will sometimes insist that the defendant accept at least a measure of responsibility. Outside court, neither Smollett nor his legal team appeared to concede anything about his original report in January.

(Read more at the Apologetic Associated Press)

Chicago politics meets Democrat politics well after the videos showing various incriminating things have been out for quite a while.

Southern Poverty Law Center (where discrimination & sexual discrimination had occurred)

Turmoil roils Southern Poverty Law Center as president Richard Cohen resigns

cohen_

In a Washington Times article that most of us never saw, we find out about the departure of Richard Cohen, but not the racist actions and sexual abuse in the SPLC. Insanely, this press outlet continues to praise the SPLC in spite of the hypocritic abuse of minorities and women.

Southern Poverty Law Center president Richard Cohen announced his resignation Friday, a stunning departure that eradicates the top leadership of a civil-rights behemoth amid allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

Mr. Cohen, who joined the SPLC in 1986 and has served as president since 2003, said he wanted to “take responsibility” for the problems that have roiled the SPLC, culminating last week in the sudden exit of founder Morris Dees.

“Whatever problems exist at the SPLC happened on my watch, so I take responsibility for them,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement obtained by the Montgomery [Alabama] Advertiser.

He also asked the board to “immediately launch a search for an interim president in order to give the organization the best chance to heal.”

The SPLC has hired Tina Tchen, former chief of staff to First Lady Michelle Obama, to conduct an internal review after the March 14 dismissal of Mr. Dees, who founded the group in 1971.

No reason was given for his exit, but the Alabama Political Reporter and Los Angeles Times reported it was spurred by allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination.

(Read more tripe at the Washington Times

It stretches credulity to its limits to think that Cohen and Dees just decided to give up their racist and sexist ways and CAIR and Ms Tchen just fell into a lucky coincidence.

Watchdog group’s leader steps down after founder’s firing

Watchdog_Group_Firing

This time, it is the Apologetic Associated Press who partially reports on the departure of the founder of the SPLC. Oddly, they don’t mention the sexual oppression or the racial tirades for which Mr. Cohen was known. Neither does it mention the billions of dollars stashed in offshore accounts by Cohen and Dees.

The head of the Southern Poverty Law Center on Friday announced that he is stepping down, the latest high-profile departure from the watchdog organization best known for its work monitoring extremist groups.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen sent an email to staff saying that he would be stepping down from his leadership role at the organization. The organization last week fired founder and prominent civil rights attorney Morris Dees for unspecified reasons.

“Whatever problems exist at the SPLC happened on my watch, so I take responsibility for them,” Cohen wrote.

Cohen in October had approached the organization’s board about finding a “new generation” of leadership. He wrote Friday that he was stepping up that timeframe in light of recent events, and asked the organization’s board to immediately begin the search for an interim president “in order to give the organization the best chance to heal.”

He also asked his staff for patience as they bring in an outside party to review the organization’s workplace environment.

The SPLC did not elaborate on the reasons behind Dees’ termination. In a statement about Dees’ departure, Cohen only said the organization is “committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world.”

(Read more at the Apologetic Associated Press)

With a CAIR-friendly woman at the helm of the SPLC, I will bet the organization will keep up its persecution of Christian churches and non-profits.

Organizations Still Discriminated Against by the SPLC

FBI Ties to Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center Casts Cloud over ‘Religious Liberty Task Force’

jeffsessions_si

In a 31 July 2018 Christian Broadcasting Network article, we are reminded of dubious connections between the SPLC and the FBI.

One day after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Justice Department is creating a “religious liberty task force,” some are concerned after the FBI admitted to working with the controversial Southern Poverty Law Center.

On Monday, Sessions explained the task force will help the DOJ fully implement the religious liberty guidance it issued last year.

“The task force will ensure all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations,” he said.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

We were deluded to think that Jeff Sessions would do any part of his job that took standing up against Democrats. Sad.

D. James Kennedy Ministries Sues Southern Poverty Law Center Over ‘Hate’ Label

SPLC-KENNEDY

According to a 24 August 2017 Christian Broadcasting Network article shed light some time ago on the issue of the SPLC along with other powerful groups targeting churches and charitable organizations.

D. James Kennedy Ministries is standing up to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), filing a federal religious discrimination lawsuit against the media powerhouse for calling it a hate group.

The lawsuit says the SPLC “illegally trafficked in false and misleading descriptions of the services offered by DJKM and committed defamation against DJKM.”

It also contends that the SPLC published false information that has harmed the ministry’s reputation and subjected it to “disgrace, ridicule, odium and contempt in the estimation of the public.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

Since I cannot find an article saying which party won, I would be willing to bet that this is languishing in court. Dees was a king of delaying things in court.

Conservatives call for companies to cut ties with ‘discredited’ Southern Poverty Law Center

carlson_perkins

Also, the Washington Times reports in a 20 June 2018 article that is only partially slanted in favor of the SPLC that some organizations have stood up the bully SPLC.

A coalition of 45 prominent conservative groups and figures called Wednesday on those partnering with the Southern Poverty Law Center to sever their ties, saying the center’s credibility has been further eroded by this week’s defamation settlement.

In a joint statement, organizations targeted by the SPLC as “extremists” or “hate groups” cited the center’s apology and $3.375 million payment to the Quilliam Foundation and founder Maajid Nawaz for including them in a 2016 guide to “anti-Muslim extremists.”

The settlement announced Monday comes as “tangible proof that the SPLC, which amounts to little more than a leftist instrument of political warfare against those with whom it disagrees, fully deserves the infamy which it has lately earned,” said the statement.

“[W]e call on government agencies, journalists, corporations, social media providers and web platforms (i.e., Google, Twitter, YouTube and Amazon) that have relied upon this discredited organization to disassociate themselves from the Southern Poverty Law Center and its ongoing effort to defame and vilify mainstream conservative organizations,” said the statement.

Signers included former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, American Values president Gary Bauer, Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney, New Zealand author Trevor Loudon and ACT for America founder Brigitte Gabriel.

(Read more tripe at the Washington Times)

This may have been published in 2018, but (if it had been on a conservative group’s suppression of a set of liberal groups) we would be hearing about this weekly.

‘Who Is the Real Hate Group Here?’: Franklin Graham Unloads on Southern Poverty Law Center

franklingraham

We find out through a 31 August 2017 Christian Broadcasting Network article how Franklin Graham views the SPLC and its victims.

Evangelist Franklin Graham is speaking out against the Southern Poverty Law Center for labeling several Christian groups, like D. James Kennedy Ministries and the Family Research Council, “hate groups.”

“Why? Simply because they hold to the teaching of God’s Word on moral issues such as homosexuality and same-sex marriage,” Graham wrote on Facebook.

D. James Kennedy Ministries has filed a federal religious discrimination lawsuit against SPLC for calling it a hate group.

The son of evangelist Billy Graham also referenced author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in his rebuke of SPLC.

“They (Southern Poverty Law Center) even speak disparagingly against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who was born into a Muslim family in Somalia and bravely speaks out against the dangers and oppression of women in Islam,” Graham wrote.

“Because she dares to speak against what Islam has done to her and other women, she is being accused of hate speech!” he continued.

(Read more at Christian Broadcasting Network)

I agree wholeheartedly with Rev. Graham.

George Soros funds SPLC and CAIR database

Soros Bankrolled Unverified ‘Hate Crime’ Database Used by Major Media Outlets

Soros

Washington Free Beacon shows us in a 27 March 2019 article how Soros bankrolled the “hate crime” database used by most newspapers and tv newsrooms.

Liberal billionaire George Soros bankrolled a massive “hate crime” database that is used by more than 100 media partners—including Google News Labs, New York Times Opinion, and ABC News—to report alleged hate crimes, according to tax documents and interviews.

The database, launched following the election of President Donald Trump, is “unverified” and receives stories of alleged “hate” from the likes of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization currently in upheaval over charges of institutional racism perpetrated by its recently fired co-founder, Morris Dees, and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group that was previously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator of terrorism.

Media partners involved in the initiative have access to the unverified database, and use it to report stories of hate in the Trump era.

ProPublica, an investigative reporting nonprofit based in New York City, launched the project, known as “Documenting Hate,” in 2017. The New York Times backed the project in January 2017 editorial, “Why We Need a Project to Document Hate Crimes.”

(Read more at Washington Free Beacon)

Too bad most papers will not pick up on this.

Smollett freed? Thank Obama fixer Tina Tchen

OneNewsNow reminds us in a 27 March 2019 article by Michelle Malkin how Democrat fixers work.

Two weeks ago, Chicago Sun-Times reporters discovered that Obama crony pal and deep-pocketed campaign finance mega-bundler Tina Tchen had inserted herself in the investigation.

How did hate crime huckster Jussie Smollett get away with it? All crooked roads in Chicago lead back to the Obamas.

On Tuesday, as part of a sealed deal, the Illinois state attorney’s office dismissed 16 felony charges brought by a grand jury against the Trump-hating actor, who blamed phantom white MAGA supporters for a brutal racist “assault” that left him with a teensy-weensy scratch under his eye. The day before the “attack,” Smollett’s two bodybuilding friends were caught on surveillance tape buying costumery (red hat, ski masks, bandanas, sunglasses and gloves) that just happened to match Smollett’s descriptions of what his still-fugitive assailants were wearing.

But I guess there’s no use crying over spilled bleach.

To atone for the-fakery-that-shall-not-be-named, Smollett performed 18 hours of “community service” with Jesse Jackson’s PUSH Coalition and forfeited his $10,000 bond.

Minority liberal race-hustling has its privileges.

And that brings us to the Democratic operatives behind the scenes. Two weeks ago, Chicago Sun-Times reporters discovered that Obama crony pal and deep-pocketed campaign finance mega-bundler Tina Tchen had inserted herself in the investigation. Tchen texted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx just three days after the incident “on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know” to express “concerns.” She suggested that Foxx lean on Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to yield to the FBI and she shared an unidentified Smollett’s family member’s cellphone number with Foxx.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

We can expect this to be ignored by newspapers everywhere.

Obama Fixer

Southern Poverty Law Center Hires Obama’s Senior Advisor Who Fixed Jussie Smollett’s Hate Crime Hoax

Tina-Tchen-obama

In a 27 March 2019 report at the Geller Report, we find a lot of what went on with the Jussie Smollett case.

The Chicago PD is understandably furious over the announcement today that all charges would be dropped in the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax case.

The reasons given why were lame, and as a result the Fraternal Order of Police have amplified their call for the feds to investigate Cook County State’s Attorney General Kim Foxx’s handling of the case (bolded emphasis added):

In renewing the call for a federal investigation into what he called Foxx’s political “interference” on behalf of the Smollett family, [FOP second vice president Martin] Preib argued that the state’s attorney’s office’s decision to drop the charges “only gives more foundation to our claims.”

Foxx’s initial request that [Chicago Police Supt. Eddie] Johnson transfer the case to the FBI came after an influential supporter of the “Empire” actor reached out to Foxx personally: Tina Tchen, a Chicago attorney and former chief of staff for former first lady Michelle Obama, according to emails and text messages provided by Foxx to the Sun-Times in response to a public records request.

(Read more at )

Smollett, as we’ve recently learned, indeed has friends in high places – places much higher than Hollywood:


(Read more at the Geller Report)

Here’s a hat tip to Bunkerville, who got me interested in this topic earlier this week.

Latest news on Democrat O’Rourke


Reuters Reporter Covered Up Damaging Beto Info During Texas Senate Race

Reuters covers up O'Rourke's hacking group involvement

Breitbart reports in a 17 March 2019 article that details how a Reuters reporter has admitted to hiding information that might have damaged the Democrat’s senatorial run in 2018.

A Reuters reporter admits he offered to hide damaging information about Beto O’Rourke during the Democrat’s tight Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

On Friday morning, Reuters journalist Joseph Menn broke the news that, as a teen, O’Rourke, who is now a freshly-minted 2020 presidential candidate, was part of a secret hacking group known as the Cult of the Dead Cow.

Since publication, Reuters has also been forced to admit their reporter, who was on leave at the time, knew all about O’Rourke’s hacker past during the 2018 Texas Senate race but offered not to reveal it until after the race:

After more than a year of reporting, Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record. In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018.

“While I was looking into the Cult of the Dead Cow, I found out that they had a member who was sitting in Congress. I didn’t know which one. But I knew that they had a member of Congress.

“And then I figured out which one it was. And the members of the group wouldn’t talk to me about who it was. They wouldn’t confirm that it was this person unless I promised that I wouldn’t write about it until after the November election. That’s because the member of Congress had decided to run for Senate. Beto O’Rourke is who it was.

“I met Beto O’Rourke. I said ‘I’m writing a book about Cult of the Dead Cow, I think it’s really interesting. I know you were in this group. This book is going to publish after November and your Senate race is over. And he said, ‘OK.’

The key sentence there is: “And then I figured out which one it was.”

So, even before he made a deal with O’Rourke to cover up his criminal past (stealing credit card numbers, etc.), Menn knew it was O’Rourke he was looking for. And all throughout the consequential Texas Senate campaign, Menn chose to hide that information from voters.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is just one more example of how the liberal media (including Google, Twitter, Facebook, Buzzfeed, the New York Times, and much more) covers for Democrats. They act as the communications department of the Democrats, run interference for the Democrats (sometimes by shadow banning on electronic media, sometimes by being aggressive with conservative voices on broadcast media). The crazy thing is that they expect us not to notice it.

AP Headline: O’Rourke says nothing in his past will hinder 2020 run

NothingStopORourke

An 18 MRCH 2019 Associated Press article tells us that Robert Francis O’Rourke claims that nothing in his past will hinder his 2020 run.

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke told supporters Sunday that he’s never taken LSD and there’s “nothing” he hasn’t already revealed about his past that could come back to hurt his run for office.

The former Texas congressman — who has become known for his propensity for using the “f-word” — also promised again to clean up his language, despite breaking such past vows.

O’Rourke grabbed much attention as he wrapped up his first week of campaigning, but his challengers could be found at events from the Upper Midwest to the South. And looming over them all is the shadow of one prominent Democrat not in but not out, former Vice President Joe Biden. He has yet to announce a decision.

Speaking in front of a large map of Russia inside a coffee shop in Wisconsin’s capital, O’Rourke promised to return often, addressing concerns Democrats raised in 2016 after Hillary Clinton never campaigned in the state after her party’s primary and lost the state to Donald Trump by fewer than 23,000 votes.

“This state is fundamental to any prospect we have of electing a Democrat to the presidency in 2020,” O’Rourke said, adding that he was “really glad” Milwaukee was chosen to host the 2020 Democratic national convention. The city, which O’Rourke was visiting later Sunday, beat out Miami and Houston.

(Read more at Associated Press)

This makes me wonder what (other than his hacking, his fantasies of running over children, his drunken driving, his criminal record as a burglar, and his cross dressing) he has to hide.


O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

O'Rourke: ban AR-15 sales

Breitbart reports in a 17 March 2019 article how Robert Francis O’Rourke wants to ban a type of gun.

During a weekend interview presidential hopeful Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke said AR-15 sales should be banned in America.

This is a continuation of the anti-Second Amendment campaign O’Rourke conducted in his failed 2018 Senate bid.

For example, in February 2018 interview with CBS News O’Rourke supported banning bump stocks and made clear his belief that AR-15s ought not be sold in America. He said, “I think banning bump stocks makes a lot of sense. … I don’t know that we should raise the age for buying an AR-15 I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.” And on October 18, 2018, O’Rourke noted Texas’ proud gun heritage then explained his desire for Texas to lead they way on gun control by adopting the gun laws being pushed for everyone else.>/p>

He is now making gun control a central component of his push for the Democrat presidential nomination

In an interview published by the Hill, O’Rourke said current AR-15 owners ought to be able to keep their firearms, but further sales of the rifles in America ought to be prohibited. In the building up to his call for a ban O’Rourke described the AR-15 as super powerful weapon designed “for the express purpose of killing people as effectively as possible, in as great a number as possible.”

Ironically, Breitbart News took out an AR-15 and a lever action rifle to compare the power of the two weapons. We shot one concrete block four times with an AR-15, and it remains largely intact. We shot an identical block with the lever action and it crumbled in pieces.

(Read more at >Breitbart)

If nothing else, it looks like Robert Francis O’Rourke is continuing BHO’s legacy of being a great gun salesman. Get them while you can.


Whiners Whine about Beto O’Rourke Mugshot Tweet

O'Rourke's mugshot for leaving the scene of an accident while drunk

In an 18 March 2019 Breitbart article, we hear about the crybaby response to the tweet of O’Rourke’s drunken mugshot.

The usual-usual media stooges for the Democrat Party are crying “racism” over a hilarious St. Patrick’s Day tweet featuring Robert “The Spaz” O’Rourke and his mugshot.

O’Rourke, who calls himself “Beto” in an effort to pretend he’s Hispanic, was arrested for drunk driving in Texas 20 years ago. He was 26 years old at the time, speeding, hit another car, and tried to flee the scene.

After he agreed to some counseling, all the charges were dropped.

No big deal in the scheme of things, but in a political culture where the establishment media’s seething hatred for President Trump has normalized trolling, it only makes sense for the Republican Party to get in on the act, which is why the GOP’s St. Patrick’s Day tweet is so glorious:

In fact, let me count the ways in which this tweet is glorious…

  1. It reminds voters O’Rourke is Irish, not HISPANIC.
  2. It reminds voters that O’Rourke’s “Beto” nickname is an affectation so he can pretend to be Mexican.
  3. It uses O’Rourke’s mugshot, and a mugshot is never a good look for a presidential candidate.
  4. It reminds voters that O’Rourke, while speeding around drunk, caused an accident, jumped the median into oncoming traffic, tried to flee the scene, and then had the charges dropped — which is not how this works for most of us.
  5. Because insecure media simpletons are so easily baited with anything that allows them to signal their own precious virtue, the GOP knew their outrage would spread this tweet far and wide, which is exactly what has happened.
  6. Because it’s again in the news, O’Rourke again has to deal with it, which puts him on defense and knocks him off-message.
  7. This predictable (and hypocritical) outrage is yet another way for the GOP to show the American people just what a bunch of humorless, unattractive, crybaby, stick-up-the-ass prigs the media and Democrats have become, which leads me back to my overall point about the reaction…

I fully support pointing out the difference between O’Rourke’s narrative and the documented truth. Don’t you?

O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

Breitbart reports in a 18 March 2019 article how, when asked whether he approved third trimester abortion, he dodged the question by saying that the matter should be decided by the woman.

Appearing Monday at a campaign stop in Cleveland, Ohio, 2020 Democrat candidate Beto O’Rourke said he believes it’s a woman’s right to decide whether she should undergo a third-trimester abortion, signaling he would not support government intervening to prevent the procedure.

(See the transcript at Breitbart)

To be clear, a baby that has developed to the third trimester can live outside of the womb. That baby has lungs, a heart, skin that feels pain, and eyes.

‘Beto’ O’Rourke Not Sure if He’s ‘Bi-Cultural’

Through another 18 March 2019 Breitbart article, we find “Beto” waffling on whether he has bi-cultural roots.

Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke said this weekend that he is not sure if he is “bi-cultural.”

“I live in a bi-cultural community. My folks and their parents and generation that preceded them were from all over Europe so I don’t know if I would consider myself bi-cultural if you’re asking US and Mexico, but I’m very proud to live in a bicultural community,” O’Rourke reportedly told reporters days after formally entering the 2020 presidential race. “And for my kids to be going to a dual language public school where they are learning math in English and Spanish.”

White liberal media reporters have gushed over how O’Rourke can speak Spanish on the stump, signaling to white audiences that he is bilingual, and have written countless profiles about how O’Rourke comes from a “bi-cultural” community in El Paso, Texas.

But as he has done with numerous questions since he launched his candidacy—Medicare for all, impeachment, reparations—O’Rourke gave a non-answer clouded in soaring rhetoric, which already seems to be one of his trademarks on the stump.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Take a hint from Liz Warren. Lying about your heritage may or may not hurt you in the primaries, but it will be a sore thumb during the general.

Believe me, when you are in the general election with Trump, you will not want anything standing out like a sore thumb.


Ruben Navarrette: Unearned ‘Beto’ Moniker like ‘Stolen Valor’

Although it will not be news to listeners of the Chris Salcedo Show, Ruben Navarrette tells Breitbart that “Beto” is no Latino.

One of the country’s top Latino columnists ripped Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke over the weekend for his cultural appropriation, arguing that “Beto” has not “earned” his nickname.

In fact, in a USA Today column, Ruben Navarrette said that the “Beto backlash” among Latinos reminds him “of the idea of stolen valor, the righteous outrage felt by combat veterans when others who didn’t see action claim medals they don’t deserve.”

Navarrette said that numerous Latinos “— unlike the media, which is run by white liberals who are fascinated by other white liberals — refuse to go loco for Beto” because O’Rourke has not been with the community when it mattered on issues like immigration.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Much like AOC (who we find auditioned for the role of representative), O’Rourke comes to us through the Democrat machine (aka George Soros and other money sources).

2020: O’Rourke Raises $6.1 Million in First 24 Hours, Beating Bernie Sanders

Breitbart points out how O’Rourke has bested Bernie’s record for raising funds for a presidential run.

Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke raised a “record-breaking” $6.1 million online in the first 24 hours of his 2020 presidential campaign, topping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and all other Democrat candidates, his campaign announced Monday.

According to O’Rourke communications director Chris Evans, the haul came “without a dime” from political action committees (PACs), corporations or special interests.

Sanders raised $5.9 million in the first 24 hours after announcing his campaign for the White House in February. Pressed last week on whether he would take in more than Sanders, O’Rourke told reporters, “We’ll see.”

(Read more at Breitbart)


Reuters headline “O’Rourke candidacy asks: Can a moderate white male win the 2020 Democratic primary?”

Reuters tells us in a 17 March 2019 article how they seem to think that O’Rourke falls into the “moderate” range of Democrat contenders.

As he had done at several stops in his first campaign trip as a presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke on Friday climbed atop a counter at a local Iowa business and addressed a small but adoring crowd. People clapped and cheered. Outside, some waited in the cold, hoping to catch a glimpse of him.

By that measure, his tour across eastern Iowa last week was largely a success. But by no means was O’Rourke considered a front-runner. And that underscored the challenge he faces as he competes for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

O’Rourke, a former three-term U.S. congressman from Texas, became a celebrity last year when his longshot bid to unseat U.S. Senator Ted Cruz drew national attention and a torrent of money. But ultimately, his fame was not enough.

That loss led some critics to wonder why someone who couldn’t secure a Senate seat would then think he should run for president.

That is not his only obstacle. O’Rourke, 46, is a wealthy, white man from a conservative-leaning state who is more moderate on several key issues than many of his competitors. Given the energy among progressives in the early stages of the race and the diversity of the Democratic field, O’Rourke would appear to be everything that many in the party say they do not want.

(Read more at Reuters)

If anyone believes that, they have not looked at his voting record.

O’Rourke slams Israeli leader Netanyahu as ally of ‘racists’

In a 20 March 2019 Fox News article, we find that Robert Francis O’Rourke sides with the Palestinians (who have a one-party system and limited elections and who support the families of slain terrorists) over Israel.

Beto O’Rourke is taking aim at embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming the steadfast ally of Republican President Trump “has openly sided with racists.”

The Democratic presidential candidate and former congressman from Texas – on the campaign trail in New Hampshire – also criticized negotiators ostensibly trying to end the generations-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Right now we don’t have the best negotiating partners on either side. We have a prime minister in Israel who has openly sided with racists,” he charged.

O’Rourke has been a critic of Israel’s longtime conservative leader, who is facing a corruption scandal at home, but the comments were some of his most pointed in describing Netanyahu. O’Rourke also jabbed at Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

“On the Palestinian side, we have an ineffectual leader. Mahmoud Abbas has not been very effective in bringing his side to the table,” he lamented.

(Read more at Fox News)

Never mind that a political machine oiled by Barack Hussein Obama is charging Netanyahu with unsubstantiated charges (much in the same way Trump has been pursued starting with the Steele dossier). Nonetheless, how does O’Rourke come up with the racist claim?

Another Obama failure


7 Years Ago Obama Handed Him Over to Iraqis; Now Hezbollah Terrorist With US Blood on His Hands Heads Terror Cell in Syria

Hezbollah recruits

Although Obama promised that the man who executed American troops would face justice in Iraq, Cybercast News Service reports in a 15 March 2019 article that the murderer heads a militia in Syria.

Seven years after the Obama administration controversially handed over to Iraqi custody a veteran Hezbollah terrorist accused of executing Americans – only to see him released a year later – Israel says the wanted man now heads a Syria-based terror cell near its northern border.

According to the Israeli Defense Forces Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese national, heads a terror cell comprised of Syrians, based on the Syrian side of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.

Israel vowed to prevent Iran and its Hezbollah proxy from operating against Israel from Syrian soil. In New York, its ambassador warned U.N. Security Council members that Israel “will not ignore the conversion of Syria and Lebanon to a military front against us and will act with force against the aggression from Tehran.”

Daqduq, who once served as a bodyguard to Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah, was deployed to Iraq in 2005 as part of an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force operation to work with Iraqi Shi’ite militia fighting U.S. troops.

(Read more at CNS)

Here, we learn how the last socialist-leaning president put Islamists back on the battlefield in order to preserve his nuclear deal with Iran.

Now, proclaimed socialists in the Congress want to shut up those who speak against Islam.

What qualifies Robert Francis O’Rourke?


ORourke

Cultural Appropriator O’Rourke tells Texas TV station he’s running for president


Robert Francis O'Rourke

Cultural appropriator O’Rourke tells Texas TV station he’s running for president

On the evening of 13 March 2019, Robert Francis (aka Beto) O’Rourke announced on a local Texas station that he would run for the Democrat nomination for president. Following that announcement, the Associated Press and numerous other Democrat mouthpieces fell over themselves repeating the vacuous statements of the former small town politician.

Democrat Beto O’Rourke has told a Texas TV station that he’s running for president in 2020.

The former Texas congressman sent a text message to KTSM Wednesday afternoon confirming the news that he will seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

He wrote: “I’m really proud of what El Paso did and what El Paso represents. It’s a big part of why I’m running. This city is the best example of this country at its best.”

O’Rourke was little-known outside his hometown of El Paso until he challenged Republican Sen. Ted Cruz last year. He got within 3 percentage points of upsetting Cruz in the nation’s largest red state and shattered national fundraising records while using grassroots organizing and social media savvy to mobilize young voters and minorities.

He claims to be proud of what El Paso is doing. What is El Paso doing and why does that qualify this skateboard-riding, lackluster politician for the presidency? Is it that he tried to use his position in government to condemn other people’s property so that his rich father-in-law could build commercial property?

Is it that his judge dad got him out of a DUI and a burglary charge on separate occasions?

What qualifies O’Rourke? Is it that his dad had the political foresight to nickname his kid with a Spanish nickname? If so, why didn’t he make it permanent? Why didn’t “Beto” use the name when he was at college?

What are the Democrats doing to themselves?


Democrats seem intent on destroying their own party

numbskull@SXSW

After calling her big bill the “Green New Deal,” AOC ridicules FDR

Fox News reports in a 10 March 2019 article how Ocasio-Cortez, at SXSW, blasted FDR, Reagan and capitalism. Additionally, she puts down opposing Democrats by saying political moderates are “meh.”

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

It’s not odd that none of the presidential candidates at SXSW got any airtime. Every time that this political and economic neophyte opens her mouth, the vacuum inside of her head creates such a rush among the left-leaning “journalists” that it must be akin to standing by Niagara Falls.

Nonetheless, in response to her criticisms of FDR, maybe she should look into how President Roosevelt’s policies took America closer to a socialist state before she denigrates him and suggests her socialist program.

Regarding her comment on Reagan, unless she has a quotation source more extensive than EBSCO, JSTOR, and the plethora of other library databases available through my local university — she must be lying again.

Ilhan Omar Is a “Bridge-Destroyer”

Omar

According to a 9 March 2019 Breitbart article covering Thomas Friedman’s statements at CNN, Ilhan Omar is a bridge burner.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman told CNN’s Smerconish on Saturday that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) did nothing to build bridges with Jews and Muslims after her recent antisemitic comments about Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Friedman said that while Omar had the opportunity to “build bridges” between the Jewish and Somali-Muslims who reside in her district, she squandered that opportunity by repeatedly pushing forth antisemitic tropes.

“Ilhan Omar represents, I believe, the biggest Jewish community in the whole upper Midwest,” Friedman told CNN in a Saturday interview. “She represents that community. She also represents a Somali immigrant community that’s come to our city since then and added their voices and their richness and their culture.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Thankfully, one person on the left (and Mr. Friedman is a constant critic of Trump and anyone on the right) criticizing the anti-Semitic statements made by Omar.

Furthermore, it is good to differentiate between criticism of Israel (which is a part of the debate over our foreign policy) and anti-Semitic comments (which constitute bigotry and is unacceptable for a representative).

Reuters claims that Democrats are dividing over the anti-Semitic charges against Omar

DemocratScreen

Reuters claims in a 7 March 2019 article that the Democrat party has started to divide over the anti-Semitim charges against Rep. Omar.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a broad resolution condemning bigotry on Thursday after remarks by a Democratic member that some viewed as anti-Semitic exposed an ideological and generational rift in the party.

Some Democrats, including several U.S. senators who are seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, warned that party leaders were playing into Republicans’ hands and had stymied legitimate debate over U.S.-Israel policy.

The House, which is controlled by Democrats, approved the resolution condemning anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim discrimination and other forms of bigotry by a 407-to-23 vote.

The vote came less than a week after Representative Ilhan Omar, one of the two first Muslim women elected to Congress, made statements at a Washington event that were denounced by some as anti-Semitic.

The resolution does not mention Omar by name. But Republicans have seized on Omar’s statements and the resulting intra-party conflict as a sign the Democratic Party is fractured.

Many Democrats, in turn, have said House leaders were cowed by a Republican effort to divert attention from bigotry within their own ranks and that Omar is being held to a different standard.

“Unfortunately, I think the Democratic leadership here has made what I think is a pretty serious mistake in caving to this pressure,” said Democratic strategist Peter Daou, who has advised Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

The disagreement began after Omar, in an appearance at a Washington book store, said she feared that statements she and fellow Representative Rashida Tlaib made about foreign policy and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would be viewed as anti-Semitic because they are Muslim.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), of fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policies?” Omar said.

Omar’s critics denounced the statement as playing into the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish Americans are loyal to Israel over the United States. Omar said opposing the policies of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not synonymous with anti-Semitism.

(Read more at Reuters)

Although I don’t believe that a civil war of sorts could be occurring among the Democrats (rather, I think that this is a Saturday-night-Wrestling-type event being staged by the press to make the Democrats not seem so racist — except to the racist audiences that Democrats are playing to) – I say we ought to let them go at it in full view of the American public. This should be covered in the nightly news and not just on the second or third opinion pages of a conservative-leaning newspaper.

 

Ilhan Omar explodes at a reporter who later releases audio proving the reporter right

OmarExplodes

A Daily Mail article reports on an instance where Ilhan Omar yelled at a reporter who quoted her saying that Obama got “away with murder” on drone strikes because he had a “pretty face.” After the outburst, the reporter released audio proving the journalist to be right.

A day after her comments prompted a House vote condemning anti-Semitism, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar landed herself in a new controversy by claiming a reporter misquoted her bashing former President Barack Obama – and then releasing audio of the interview that appears to back him up.

Omar, 37, told Politico Magazine that while she finds some of President Donald Trump’s initiatives objectionable, Obama escaped the consequences of his own ‘bad policies’ because of his ‘pretty face.’

After the news outlet quoted from the interview, Omar tweeted that the result was ‘[e]xhibit A of how reporters distort words. I’m an Obama fan!’

‘I was saying how Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics. This is why I always tape my interviews,’ she added, along with a winking, tongue-out emoji and nearly two minutes of audio.

DailyMail.com reviewed and transcribed the recording, which supports what Politico reporter Tim Alberta wrote.

Alberta fired back at Omar in a tweet: ‘Exhibit A of how politicians use the media as a straw man to avoid owning what they said. Your tape…supports what I wrote 100%. So does my longer tape. It’s beyond dispute. Next time, a phone call from your office before the Twitter ambush would be appreciated.’

(Read more at Daily Mail)

First rule of good journalism: have proof of your researched information that does not sit well with the interviewee. Second rule: never pull your punches.

Ocasio-Cortez follows the Hillary Clinton model of political action

Ocasio-Cortez has racked up three major ethics complaints during her first months in Congress

The Daily Caller enumerates in a 8 March 2019 article the accused transgressions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has racked up several ethics complaints since she began her first congressional term.

She has yet to address one of the most damning reports about her campaign team’s actions during the election.

Two watchdog groups have filed ethics complaints against Ocasio-Cortez for misusing her resources as a congresswoman with the Office of Congressional Ethics, while another group filed a complaint with Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging she and her chief of staff set up a million-dollar private slush fund. Ocasio-Cortez’s term officially began in January.

Ocasio-Cortez “improperly converted U.S. House resources to her non-official, personal use by obtaining an official ‘@mail.house.gov’ e-mail address for her boyfriend, despite the fact he was not employed by her congressional office,” the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation claimed in a complaint Thursday.

She also falsely designated her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a “staff” member to help secure the address, the group noted. The Coolidge-Reagan Foundation’s website champions itself as a first amendment watchdog group that defends, protects and advances “liberty.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

I hope that the FBI, the FEC, and all other law enforcement agencies that might normally have a hand in controlling wayward politicians would learn to prosecute liberals the way that they go after conservatives. I would love to see Fox News staked out at AOC’s place in the way CNN was placed for the Roger Stone raid.

House Democrats vote to water down citizens votes

Democrats defend localities that allow illegal aliens to vote

Fox News reports in a 9 March 2019 article on the provisions of Nancy Pelosi’s HR 1.

U.S. House Democrats passed a sweeping anti-corruption and voting rights bill Friday that they said was intended to make voting easier, as well as strengthen ethics rules, while also rejecting a motion to condemn voting by undocumented immigrants.

The legislation, dubbed the “For The People Act” or “H.R.1,” passed 234-193 along party lines.

The proposal — nearly 700 pages — calls for Election Day to be designated a federal holiday, requires all states to offer automatic voter registration, restores voting rights to convicted felons, institutes independent redistricting commissions to weed out gerrymandering and requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of donors who contribute more than $10,000 in an effort to rein in dark-money groups.

In the broader debate over voter accessibility, House Democrats also voted Friday to defend localities that allow non-citizens to vote in their elections, the Washington Times reported. The 228-197 vote would have almost no effect as noncitizens are barred from participating in federal elections. The GOP-backed measure would have added language to “H.R.1 stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Take this bill into mind the next time you have to choose between a Democrat and any other candidate.

{tweet https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/1104125270813011970 ]

Democrat Duplicity on Display


Democrats’ current top priority: abortion and infanticide

cuomo-womens-agenda
This is a Democrat pandering to the pro-abortion lobby.
ThirdTrimester
This is the child during the third trimester.

The New York abortion law was all about gifts to abortion extremists

The New York Post pointed out the brutality of the New York abortion law in an 18 February 2019 article published just days before the law passed.

How it is in women’s best interest to lower the not-very-high safety bar for the elective surgical procedure is anyone’s guess.

It’s also not clear how women will benefit from the elimination of a penal law that makes it a homicide to intentionally cause the death of an unborn child over 24 weeks gestation. The law now adds a felony criminal charge against the perpetrator of a violent attack on a pregnant woman that results in the death of her child. This works to protect women from domestic violence, which has been shown to increase when a woman is pregnant and the father resents the coming child.

New York law calls an unborn child killed by violent means in the third trimester a “person.” The governor’s budget bill amends as follows: “ ‘Person’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”

This designation of personhood will make no sense to a bereaved mother whose unborn child dies after a violent attack. It certainly didn’t to Michelle Wilkins, who was seven months pregnant when she was attacked with a butcher knife by a woman who lured Wilkins into her home by pretending to sell baby clothes. Though her baby died, her attacker wasn’t charged with murder thanks to Colorado’s laws.

Cuomo’s budget bill also eliminates legal protection for born children — those who have slipped through the abortionist’s fingers and inadvertently survived the procedure.

In second-trimester abortions, which are often performed after a fetus has reached the stage of viability, a fetus sometimes slips out intact through the birth canal before the abortionist has time to stop their heart with an injection. That baby then takes a breath, ready to fight for his or her life.

Instead, Cuomo wants to make the world a little less safe for women driven to abortion, and a lot less safe for babies, both born and unborn.

(Read more at New York Post)

Something tells me that Democrats of the future will want to blame this on Republicans (just as they now want to push Jim Crow laws, their KKK, and Governor George Wallace away from the Democrat party).

As much as abortion (and, before it, slavery) stands central to the current Democrat ideology, why won’t they acknowledge that both of these Democrat-supporting concepts depend on designating a class of humans as non-human?

To those Democrats celebrating Roe-versus-Wade, do you see the connection between this case and Dred Scott-versus-Sandford?

RI_Gina_Raimondo
Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo

RI_Joe_Serodio

Rhode Island Democrat Admits He Didn’t Read Bill Allowing Abortions Up to Birth

Life Site News reported in a 1 February 2019 article published just before the signing of Rhode Island’s abortion-up-to-birth law.

Both H 5127 and H 5125 would “eliminate any constitutional restrictions on late-term abortions” and “eliminate any constitutional restrictions on methods of abortion.”

It would also “undermine the authority of the State and the Department of Health from enacting and adopting constitutional restrictions on the performance of abortions at facilities where abortions are performed.” And, it would “require the State to pay for all abortions sought by Medicaid-eligible pregnant women and women covered by the “payer of last Resort” program.”

In addition, H 5127 would “repeal existing constitutional protection for a viable unborn child from criminal assaults on the child’s mother and H 5125 would substantially ‘water down’ the State’s parental consent statute by allowing consent to be obtained from persons who have no constitutional right to give consent (grandparents and adult siblings).”

“Neither H 5127 nor H 5125 could plausibly be regarded as merely ‘codifying’ the principles of Roe v. Wade,” states Rhode Island Right to Life.

(Read more at Life Site News)

Although Democrat Representative Joe Serodio pulled his support for Rhode Island’s third trimester abortion bill (that is, their abortion-up-to-birth bill), it passed. So his little protest had no effect when it came to the wholesale sell-out to Planned Parenthood’s abortion mill.

Vermont ‘right to abortion’ bill goes even further than New York’s

In a 22 February 2019 Washington Examiner article, we get a description of the Vermont abortion law.

Keen to make New York and the racists and rapists in Virginia look good by comparison, the Vermont House just passed a sweeping and abominable abortion law which deems terminating a pregnancy at any stage and for any reason a “fundamental right.”

Unlike the Virginia proposal and New York’s recently passed law, Vermont makes no attempt to guild their law with a facade of women’s health or medical discretion. It’s a celebration of the positive good, not the necessary evil, of murdering a viable, sentient human being for the sheer ideological pleasure of it, or perhaps just the utility.

The New York law, unconditionally legalizing abortion through 24 weeks, past the early point of fetal viability and likely fetal pain, and authorizing physicians to sign off on an abortion up until the point of labor due to the mother’s “health,” may have seemed like a fluke. But between New York’s success in passing the law, allegedly “blue” Virginia seriously entertaining its own incarnation of the law, and now Vermont on the cusp of its own unrestrained abortion-on-demand law, one thing has become abundantly clear: The abortion lobby has abandoned its pursuit of public opinion. It is now putting all efforts into fortifying state laws against the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The Democratic Party abandoned “safe, legal, and rare” long ago, but the average American has not and shows no signs of doing so. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that first-trimester abortions should be legal in some capacity, especially for victims of rape or cases of deformity. But the statistics are clear: Americans absolutely do not view abortion as a positive good, but rather as a necessary evil, as a last resort they would happily restrict but would hesitate to make legally impossible early in a pregnancy.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Looks like the mask is off of Vermont Democrats.

No wonder the Democrat-enabling media has done nothing to cover this issue.

HoebenTweet

All Senate Democrats (and some Republicans) join hands to defeat a bill that would protect anyone born after a failed abortion

Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion

In a 25 February 2019 article by the Washington Post, we find the details of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that Democrats felt must be suppressed.

The Senate voted Monday to block consideration of a measure that would punish any doctor who fails to provide medical care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion.

All but three Democrats voted against a procedural motion on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, denying it the necessary 60 votes to proceed. The final vote count was 53 in favor and 44 opposed.

The bill would require a health-care practitioner to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as he or she would to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” The bill includes criminal penalties, a right of civil action for an affected mother and a mandatory reporting requirement for other health providers.

Opponents of the bill argued that it represented an unjustified attack on abortion rights, preventing doctors from exercising their best medical judgment and exposing them to possible lawsuits or prosecution.

(Read more at Washington Post)

Members of the Senate justified their vote with appeals to women’s health. However, I cannot understand how, once the child is born, the matter remains a matter of that woman’s health (unless one contends that allowing the baby to live would drive the woman insane).

If after-birth killing is permitted based on that person’s continued life will drive someone else insane and if we cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, then who will be safe from abortion?

Abortion-Virginia
Democrat Del. Tran explains that her bill would allow abortion up to birth.

Democrats lined up behind the Virginia abortion bill until the draconian measures in it were published

Virginia governor under fire for comments on late-term abortion bill that almost passed

As lightly covered by one 31 January 2019 CBS News article, it seems there was sufficient pushback from Governor Northam’s comments regarding the statements he made regarding the disposal of an infant.

A new bill proposed in the Virginia legislature would loosen restrictions on abortions during the third trimester of pregnancy, and allow abortions during the second trimester to take place outside hospitals. Virginia’s governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, stirred controversy on Wednesday when he suggested how such a late-term procedure could occur.

Under current Virginia law, abortions during the third trimester require a determination by a doctor and two consulting physicians that continuing the pregnancy would likely result in the woman’s death or “substantially and irremediably” impair her mental or physical health.

The bill, proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates by Democrat Kathy Tran, would require only one doctor to make the determination that the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health. The proposed legislation would also eliminate the requirement that abortions during the second trimester be performed in a state-licensed hospital.

Republicans narrowly control the House of Delegates, so the bill is unlikely to pass anytime soon. A subcommittee voted to table the bill in a 5-3 vote Monday.
Proponents of the Virginia legislation argue the bill, which is similar to a law recently passed in New York, is needed to protect women’s health. But opponents argue late-term abortions are rarely medically necessary, and the Virginia bill has provoked a swift backlash from conservatives. But that response was compounded by comments Northam made on WTOP radio Wednesday when asked about the bill.

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way,” Northam said. “And it’s done in cases where there amy be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

(Read more at Washington Examiner)

I fully believe that the revelations of Northam’s blackface indiscretions would never come to light had he never mentioned the tenets of this Virginia bill. To say it another way, the revelation of Northam having worn blackface was nothing but a smoke screen to deflect attention from the atrocious abortion bill.

pelosi-&thekids
Pelosi surrounded with children during her swearing-in ceremony in 2007.

Former Democrat top priority: doing it “for the children”

Surrounding herself with children, Nancy Pelosi tried to set a theme

In a 4 January 2007 New York Times article, Nancy’s focus on children became evident.

Most of the time, Congress looks as if it’s run by children.

But today, it actually was. Republicans brought at least 41 children and Democrats brought more than 75 little ones — children and grandchildren of the members — into the House chamber to witness Nancy Pelosi’s ascent to speaker. Mrs. Pelosi herself was buried under five grandchildren for most of the event, with Representative Rahm Emanuel’s three kids in seats nearby.

“For my grandchildren and all the children around the world,” Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York said as she cast her vote for Mrs. Pelosi.

A few moments later, when Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts shouted out the new speaker’s name for his vote, his small children echoed: “Pelosi!”

(Read more at the New York Times)

Although this can be seen as little more a trope used in debates to sway the audience when other facts did not support your argument, at least it gave a nod to children and their importance to our future.

It looks like today’s Democrat has figured out that a child will not vote for the next 15 or so years; therefore, why not just kill the kid and let Planned Parenthood sell the parts?

IllegalAlienChildren

Democrats decried the separation of illegal alien adults from the children with them

Our National Public Radio reports the Democrat party line in a 19 June 2018 article when they write about the separation of criminal aliens from the children who accompanied them.

Since early May, 2,342 children have been separated from their parents after crossing the Southern U.S. border, according to the Department of Homeland Security, as part of a new immigration strategy by the Trump administration that has prompted widespread outcry.

On Wednesday, President Trump signed an executive order reversing his policy of separating families — and replacing it with a policy of detaining entire families together, including children, but ignoring legal time limits on the detention of minors.

(Read more at National Public Radio)

Therefore, Democrats care if someone who criminally entered the nation is separated from the children who are with them; however, they do not care if a doctor kills a baby who has been born during a botched abortion.

Be certain. There are many people who have survived abortions.

Obama administration separation of families

Just to be fair, USA Today documented the Obama administration separation of families in a 23 June 2018 article.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at a June 18 press briefing: “The Obama administration, the Bush administration all separated families. … They did — their rate was less than ours, but they absolutely did do this. This is not new.”

Nielsen went on to explain that there is indeed something new, as we wrote in another article on this topic. Under a “zero tolerance policy” on illegal immigration announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in early April, the administration is now referring all illegal border crossings for criminal prosecution. By doing that, parents have been separated from their children, because children can’t be held in detention facilities for adults.

(Read more at USA Today)

Still, what could we expect from our Democrat-complicit media, reporting factually in real time on President Obama?

Current Democrat secondary priorities: racism, bigotry, & anti-Semitism

Rep. Tlaib calls a Black woman a “prop” and then accuses a senator with a bi-racial family of racism

Fox News documents through a 27 February 2019 article that exposes Tlaib’s racism.

Accusations of racism swirled Wednesday during Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony, after a Democratic House freshman, Rashida Tlaib, appeared to accuse fellow lawmaker Mark Meadows of being racist.

Tlaib, D- Mich., was addressing the chamber when she turned her remarks to a Trump employee who’d been invited to the hearing by Meadows, R-N.C.

“Just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them, does not mean they aren’t racist and it is insensitive that some would even say, the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber, in this committee, is alone racist in itself.”

An emotional Meadows fired back, saying Lynne Patton, a Trump aide and official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, wanted to be present in support of President Trump. He asked that Tlaib’s remarks be stricken from the record.

“My nieces and nephews are people of color. Not many people know that. You know that, Mr. Chairman. And to indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend of the Trump family, who has worked for him, who knows this particular individual (motioning to Cohen), that she’s coming in to be a prop — it’s racist to suggest that I asked her to come in here for that reason.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Take in mind that Ms. Tlaib’s race and religion had everything to do with her election. Nobody should be surprised that Tlaib will view everything through a racial and religious prism and will not bother to do any homework (like researching the background of her “opponent” to find that he has people of color in his family. But those are just unimportant details to her when she is on the giving end of racial discrimination.

Rep. Omar makes multiple anti-Semitic remarks

USA Today reported in a 3 March 2019 article on some of the more recent anti-Semitic comments offered by the representative.

Freshman Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar is once again facing criticism and charges of anti-Semitism from her own party’s leadership for comments about the political influence of Israel.

On Friday, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., called on Omar to apologize for “a vile, anti-Semitic slur” she made at a town hall event in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday where she suggested Israel demands “allegiance” from American lawmakers.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” the congresswoman from Minnesota said in a video of the event shared on Facebook.

She was joined at the event by Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and Mark Pocan, D-Wis.

Omar and Tlaib are the first Muslim women elected to Congress. Omar said she was concerned that because of their religion, “a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, (think) that everything we say about Israel (is) anti-Semitic because we are Muslim.”

She said the charge of anti-Semitism is “designed to end the debate” about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Omar said she was “sensitive to” and “pained by” accusations of intolerance. But she added that “it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say,” she and Tlaib are “labeled.” And “that ends the discussion because we end up defending that and nobody ever gets to have the proper debate of what is happening with Palestine.”

Critics said Omar’s remarks played into old doubts about the loyalty of American Jews.

“The charge of dual loyalty not only raises the ominous specter of classic anti-Semitism, but it is also deeply insulting to the millions upon millions of patriotic Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, who stand by our democratic ally, Israel,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said in a statement.

Engel said it was “unacceptable and deeply offensive to question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the Israel-U.S. relationship,” in a statement on Friday. “Worse, Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur.

“This episode is especially disappointing following so closely on another instance of Ms. Omar seeming to invoke an anti-Semitic stereotype,” Engel said, referring to her controversial statement last month that money from AIPAC was used to buy support for Israel.

“Her comments were outrageous and deeply hurtful, and I ask that she retract them, apologize and commit to making her case on policy issues without resorting to attacks that have no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives,” he said.

(Read more at USA Today)

Because Ms. Omar came from a district dominated by Somali immigrants, her view of Islam (and, therefore, of how Jews and Christians should be treated) probably falls in the mainstream of that district.

AOC re-enters the religious bigotry fray by lying about Jerry Falwell, Jr and Liberty University

As reported in one TownHall article, it seems that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes felt that Falwell’s attendance at the CPAC was reason enough to lie about him by editing Dr. Falwell’s comments.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest falsehood was exposed on Monday when she tweeted several lies regarding previous statements given by Liberty University President Jerry Falwell.

AOC, as she is nicknamed, tweeted only part of a statement given in the past by President Falwell. AOC tweeted Falwell as saying, “I always thought that if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they (unintelligible)…” What AOC left out was the part at the end of his sentence where Falwell said “before they walk in and kill us.” Falwell made the statement in the wake of the ISIS inspired 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA and was urging his students to train to learn to how properly carry weapons so that Liberty students would not be a future target after yet another Radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States. As is said, half the truth is often a great lie but Cortez was not done.

AOC also said Falwell made those comments at CPAC this past weekend but, as noted above, Falwell made those comments at Liberty University and in the context of adult age students exercising their God-given Second Amendment rights.

What AOC could have reported on was that Liberty University served as satellite location for this year’s CPAC and it likely will not be the last. Speakers included Donald Trump, Jr., Charlie Kirk, Gary Sinise, Sean Spicer and many others. Thousands of students showed up during their time away from classes, and military veterans were given a place of recognition and honor.

(Read more at TownHall)

There are no glory days for Democrats regarding bigotry — not then and not now

Prior to the Civil War, Democrats were the pro-slavery party that opposed Lincoln’s Republican Party. From the 1900’s through the 1960’s, Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws in the South. It was Democrat Governor George Wallace that opposed the integration of schools in Alabama. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who not only served in the senate, but was also a grand dragon in the KKK.

byrdkkk
Senator Robert Byrd

Now, the Democrats will have to own anti-Semites like Ms. Omar, Ms. Tlaib, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Democrats return to their racist roots by refusing to sanction Rep Omar over multiple anti-Semitic comments

According to a Washington Post article, Democrats have refused to sanction Ms. Omar for her repeated anti-Semitic comments.

House Democrats argued acrimoniously Wednesday over whether to rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar for alleged anti-Semitic remarks, forcing party leaders to confront a growing rift over race and religion that threatened to hamstring the newfound majority.

Omar (D-Minn.) suggested last week that Israel’s supporters have an “allegiance to a foreign country,” remarks that angered some Democrats who saw them as hateful tropes and pushed to condemn the freshman lawmaker. Her defenders argued that leadership was applying a double standard in singling out one of the two Muslim women in Congress.

In a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting Wednesday morning, lawmakers debated whether to vote on an anti-hate measure in response to Omar. The session quickly became rancorous, reflecting splinters over wider issues such as America’s long-standing support for Israel, the appropriate response to racial and religious grievances, and a new generation’s reliance on social media. Plans for a quick vote appeared to fade amid the uproar.

Democratic leaders openly fretted that the divisions would overshadow their legislative agenda, especially a planned Friday vote on a major campaign and ethics reform bill, just days after they launched a sweeping investigation focused on the president. Meanwhile, President Trump and Republicans sought to capitalize politically, eager to position their party as the more reliable ally of Israel — and the more appealing choice for Jewish voters who have long trended Democratic — ahead of the 2020 election.

(Read more at the Washington Post)