Update to Four stories about abortion during the coronavirus scare


Monday, a Federal Judge stands with Planned Parenthood

Politico reported on 30 March 2020 that a Federal Judge stood against Governor Abbott’s prohibition of abortion during the coronavirus scare.

Federal judges on Monday lifted restrictions Texas, Ohio and Alabama imposed on abortion during the coronavirus pandemic in decisions that could have repercussions for several more Republican-led states that have deemed the procedure non-essential during the crisis.

District Court Judge Lee YeakelIn Texas, District Court Judge Lee Yeakel sided with abortion clinics and granted a temporary restraining order through April 13 while arguments on the underlying legality of the state’s order play out.

In Ohio, District Court Judge Michael Barrett similarly sided with Planned Parenthood and other groups challenging the state’s ban and issued a two-week temporary restraining order.

In Alabama, District Court Judge Myron Thompson ordered the suspension of the state’s abortion ban until he can hear arguments in a video conference on April 6.

“The State’s interest in immediate enforcement of the March 27 order — a broad mandate aimed primarily at preventing large social gatherings — against abortion providers does not, based on the current record, outweigh plaintiffs’ concerns,” he said.

Iowa, Mississippi and Oklahoma are among the other states that recently moved to suspend access to the procedure as the pandemic intensified, arguing it would preserve desperately needed medical supplies. Texas’ order was one of the strictest, threatening a $1,000 fine or 180 days of jail time on abortion providers who violated the ban.

Yeakel agreed with Texas clinics who argued that women who need an abortion can’t live with a weeks- or possibly months-long delay. Clinic operators told reporters Monday that they’ve already had to cancel hundreds of appointments since the ban took effect last week.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has argued that the state exercised proper discretion in halting the procedures because abortions are not “immediately medically necessary” or needed to save the life or health of the mother.

“Regarding a woman’s right to a pre-fetal-viability abortion, the Supreme Court has spoken clearly. There can be no outright ban on such a procedure,” wrote Yeakel, an appointee of President George W. Bush who has sided with abortion providers in several previous cases.

“This court will not speculate on whether the Supreme Court included a silent ‘except-in-a-national-emergency clause’ in its previous writings on the issue,” he added.

(Read more at Politico)

What do you expect from an Rino appointee?

Since the acorn does not fall far from the oak tree, what can you expect? Would you expect this judge to do something to cut the funding to other Democrats?

Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit stands with Governor Abbott

ABC reports that the Fifth Circuit appeals court temporarily has re-instated Texas and Ohio orders limiting abortion access due to the coronavirus.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing a controversial Texas executive order that blocks elective abortions during the coronavirus pandemic to remain in effect for now.

The case tees up a battle between supporters of abortion rights and a handful of conservative states arguing that bans on elective abortions and other medical procedures are necessary to help preserve medical supplies.

A divided panel of the appellate court on Tuesday put on hold a lower court opinion that blocked Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order — requiring that health care providers “postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary” to preserve a patient’s life or condition — from applying to elective abortions. The lower court had published its opinion on Monday.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had specified that “any type of abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” was included in the order, prompting a challenge from state abortion providers and national abortion rights groups last week.

In Tuesday’s 2-1 decision, the appeals court said it wants to give itself “sufficient time” to consider an emergency petition filed by Paxton. Judge Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee, voted to freeze the lower court opinion.

Judge James Dennis, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented from the order. He noted that the lower court had already concluded that “irreparable harm would flow” from allowing the executive order to go into effect as it applies to abortions.

The court has ordered more briefings in the case.

Paxton praised the court’s ruling on Tuesday, asserting that the temporary stay “justly prioritizes supplies and personal protective equipment for the medical professionals in need.”

But supporters of abortion rights accused Texas of playing politics.

“Let’s be clear, it is never the right time to play politics, but doing so in the wake of Covid-19 is a despicable low,” Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a statement.

Texas’ case is the first such challenge to a coronavirus state order to reach the appeals court, but several others may follow.

(Read more at ABC)

Let us pray

The best response is to pray for all affected.

Eight stories on illegal aliens

Featured

  1. California: Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Arrested for Triple Homicide

Breitbart reports that a twice-deported illegal alien has been arrested for a triple murder in California.

A twice-deported illegal alien, accused of murdering three men in the sanctuary state of California, has been arrested by law enforcement officials.

JoseJose Luis Torres Garcia, a 33-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was identified this week by Riverside County Sheriff’s Office in Southern California for allegedly murdering three men execution-style, as Breitbart News reported. The victims include 50-year-old Jaime Covarrubias Espindola, 38-year-old Jose Maria Aguilar-Espejel, and 28-year-old Rodrigo Aguilar-Esepjel.

Garcia had been on the run, fleeing to Cheyenne, Wyoming, but was arrested by local authorities there when he was pulled over for a traffic stop. During his arrest, police found 15 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Had the sanctuary state of California cooperated with ICE, the three victims would be alive

These three individuals (Jaime Espindola, Jose Maria Aguilar0Espejel, and Rodrigo Esepjel) might have been law-abiding Americans. However, if they were instead illegal aliens (a crime that does not carry a death penalty — unless you are attempting to break into North Korea), they should have been doubly protected in a “sanctuary city.”

Nonetheless, due to liberals ignoring the enforcement of law against those who would break our immigration laws, now three people are dead.

  1. Judge stabbed by illegal alien who had been released three times

Townhall relates the tale of a stabbing by an illegal alien who had been released three times.

David-Blackett-pic
Judge David Blackett

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) logged three immigration detainer requests for an illegal alien accused of repeatedly stabbing Adams County Magistrate David Blackett in Denver last year, according to reports. Jose Armenta-Vazquez, 39, is accused of stabbing the judge in the magistrate’s east Denver home back in August.

One month before the nearly-fatal stabbing, Armenta-Vazquez was released by the Denver Sheriff’s Department for the third time despite active immigration detainers logged against him in each case. According to Breitbart News, the illegal alien has been arrested 36 times on a wide range of charges, including child abuse, car theft, assault and traffic violations. ICE announced the Mexican citizen was first ordered to be removed from the United States back in Mar. 1999.

It’s not clear when Vazquez became a suspect in the stabbing of the judge, but the criminal alien was again arrested in October, after the judge’s stabbing, and released the same month in defiance of a fourth immigration detainer logged by the agency. Vazquez was again apprehended in December on suspicion of menacing with a deadly weapon related to a separate incident. He was finally charged for the Blackett attack on Jan. 15, 2020, according to CBS4 News in Denver.

(Read more at Townhall)

Considering the liberality of Colorado, this likely will not be the last illegal alien attack

With the sanctuary city status of Aurora and Denver along with 13 Colorado countied, there are ample chances for stabbings, drunk driving events, rapes, murders, and other crimes that should never have a chance to happen.

  1. Repeat drunk driving illegal alien released in Illinois

Townhall comments on the serial drunk-driving illegal alien who was released in Illinois.

Yoni Cruz-LopezGuatemalan citizen Yoni Cruz-Lopez may only be 24 years old, but he’s already racked up three DUI convictions over the past five years in a country that he’s not even supposed to be in. Cruz-Lopez was under the legal drinking age when he picked up at least one of those convictions. Democrats in Illinois thought it was more important for the illegal alien to get back on the road again rather than to turn the dangerous criminal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. In 2017, a federal immigration judge ordered Cruz-Lopez to be removed from the United States after he failed to show up at his immigration hearing, as many immigrants are wont to do.

ICE filed a detainer with the Illinois Department of Corrections in Jan. 2019, after the illegal immigrant racked up a felony DUI conviction earlier that year. But on Wednesday, Illinois authorities released the drunk-driving alien back into the community. Thankfully, before Cruz-Lopez could get behind the wheel of a car again, ICE agents sprang into action and arrested the felon at Union Station in Chicago that same day.

“I want the public to know that this is an example of the type of dangerous person sanctuary policies protect – an aggravated felon,” Robert Guadian, field office director for ERO Chicago, said in a statement. “This targeted enforcement action was made in one of the country’s busiest transit terminals, possibly putting commuters and travelers at risk. This arrest should have been made in the secure confines of a jail.”

(Read more at Townhall)

Has Mothers Against Drunk Drivers been disbanded?

Everyone has a mother. Therefore, the first reaction of journalists for atrocities like this was formerly to shove a microphone in front of first a grieving mother and then a representative of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

Now, since the main stream media is hip deep in supporting the cause of “immigrants” (of course, this is a code word for those who break our laws to enter the nation), these “journalists” hardly have time to put a report on the last 15 seconds of the 10 o’clock news (or the online version of the paper).

  1. FAIR: ‘No constituency’ in U.S. for criminal aliens

OneNewsNow reports the words of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) who states that there is no constituency in the United States for criminal aliens.

An immigration reform organization deems it “unforgiveable” that “sanctuary jurisdictions” continue to protect illegal alien criminals who prey on innocent members of the community.

During his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Trump touted the progress his administration has made in regaining control of the southern border through the exercise of executive authority. But he lambasted the Democratic-controlled Congress for its refusal to carry out its responsibility to ensure long-lasting solutions to illegal immigration, including funding a border wall and closing loopholes that have led to large-scale asylum abuse.

Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform isn’t optimistic anything will get done between now and the beginning of next year.

“Congress is just too polarized at this point,” he explains. “But the president did lay out an agenda that most Americans probably would share. They believe that these criminal aliens should not be protected by local governments and then put back out on the streets to prey on people again. There is no constituency in this country for criminal aliens.”

And Mehlman says the presence of Jody Jones in the House chamber, whose brother was murdered by an illegal alien, was a poignant reminder to Congress, state and local officials, and the American people of the devastating human cost of “sanctuary” policies.

“Rocky Jones, in their opinion, was just collateral damage in their political effort to basically obliterate U.S. immigration laws and the enforcement of them,” Mehlman laments. “And unfortunately, that is not a unique story. That’s been happening for a long time all across the country. That is simply unforgiveable.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Legally, there is no leg to stand on when arguing against the FAIR stance

However, in the court of public opinion, the rule of law has little sway. Try arguing this logical stance against a Democrat who has been carrying the emotional water for the local lackie of leftie policy (all built on that lackie’s rhetoric, never mind their real voting record).

In the event that you take on such an argument, you might find yourself arguing against generalities and vague accusations. For example, you might hear:

So, if you do find yourself in such a debate, just be aware of this: in my experience, I have found that I was debating the sub-conscience and their drive to dominate an unknown force. You cannot win against this lack of logic.

  1. Granddaughter of 92-year-old killed by illegal alien speaks out

Townhall quotes the granddaughter of the 92-year-old who had been killed by an illegal alien.

While addressing members of the National Border Patrol Council on Friday, President Trump invited on stage the granddaughter of an elderly New York woman who was raped and slain last month by, allegedly, a known criminal alien recently released into the community under New York’s dangerous sanctuary city policies.

reeaz-khanIn January, New York City police arrested a 21-year-old illegal immigrant from Guyana, Reeaz Khan, for the murder and sexual assault of Maria Fuertes, a 92-year-old grandmother living in Queens. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have blamed NYC’s sanctuary city laws for releasing the known criminal alien back into the community following Khan’s previous arrest for assault and criminal possession of a weapon in Nov. 2019. The elderly Fuertes was found unconscious, her body partially exposed, lying behind a vehicle close to her home just after midnight on Jan. 6. Ms. Fuertes later died from her injuries.

Towards the end of his address on Friday, President Trump invited Ms. Fuertes’ granddaughter, Daria Ortiz, to say a few words about her grandmother, described as a beloved figure in her local community.

“I’d like to take this moment to say my grandmother was very generous and educated,” Ortiz began. “She was a woman who dedicated her time to taking care of others. Before coming to America, she worked as a secretary for the president of her native country, the Dominican Republic. She’s a shining example of when people come legally to this country, work hard, and do the right thing and are law-abiding citizens. My grandmother raised her children and her grandchildren while working hard to give us a future. ”

(Read more at Townhall)

Still, someone will come to defend this grandmother rapist

Someone outside of our legal system will stand on the streets and deem anyone who would condemn Reeaz Khan as an Islamophobe.

  1. Illegal Alien Released by Chicago Authorities Who Ignored ICE, Went on to Rape 3-Year-Old in a McDonald’s Bathroom

Wayne Dupree shares the story of an illegal alien released by Chicago Democrats.

Every single Chicago “authority” involved in the release of this animal should be removed from office and arrested for rape. Because they are as much to blame as the monster who did this.

Here is Chicago’s mayor refusing to cooperate with ICE. She should be removed and arrested. She is to blame for that 3-year-old’s rape.

Again, every one of these officials must be fired and arrested. Every last one.

A Mexican immigrant who was released by Chicago authorities despite ICE telling them not to ‘went on to rape a three-year-old girl in a McDonald’s bathroom as she cried ”daddy, daddy”.’

Christopher PuenteChristopher Puente, 34, is accused of sexually assaulting the girl at the restaurant on 600 N. Clark St. in the River North area of the city at around 8am on February 19.

The alleged attack happened while the girl’s father was in another stall with her brother, who had had an accident in the restaurant.

However ICE had requested that police continue detaining the previously deported felon – who had convictions for forced-entry burglary and forgery.

Despite his background, Chicago declined ICE’s June 2019 request to detain Puente.

ICE have said this is an increasingly common battle, with the agency reporting that Cook County, which includes Chicago, denied more than 1,000 detainer requests in 2019 alone.

Puente’s bond hearing in Cook County heard the little girl’s mouth was covered as she began whimpering ‘daddy, daddy’ – before her father pulled her legs from under the door to get her to safety.

The horrific ordeal was relayed in court where the accused rapist appeared for the first time.

Robert Guadian, field office director of Chicago Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), blamed ‘irresponsible lawmaking’ for Puentes release.

‘How many more victims must there be before lawmakers realize that sanctuary policies do not protect the innocent?’ Guadian said.

‘Puente should have been in ICE custody last year and removed to his home country. Instead, irresponsible lawmaking allowed him to walk free and prey on our most vulnerable,’ he told Fox News.  [Daily Mail]

We’re not doing enough to stop this before it happens. We’re “reacting” to these crimes with outrage, but what we should be doing is shutting these sanctuary policies down by demanding that these officials be held responsible.

(Read more at Wayne Dupree)

Just as with the case of Reeaz Khan, someone will defend Christopher Puente

Someone will stand outside the court (or, in the court of public opinion) tell those who object to the rape of 3-year-olds that we are anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic or some other liberal sob line. You can bank on it.

  1. Undocumented Population Up In Texas, Despite Nationwide Decline

According to Houston Public Media, the illegal alien population in Texas has risen while the nationwide population has declined.

Texas’ undocumented immigrant population grew 5% over the last seven years, according to information provided by the Center for Migration Studies.

Nationwide, however, the undocumented population decreased by 9%, according to a new report by the center.

Though the state’s undocumented population now includes 75,000 fewer Mexicans, more people are coming from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and India.

“The entire undocumented population living in Texas, including Mexico and every other country, actually increased by 95,000,” said Center for Migration Studies researcher Bob Warren.

undoc-population

The report also showed that nationwide 62% of undocumented immigrants came to the U.S. by overstaying their visa.

Researcher Bob Warren said that’s why solutions to illegal immigration should address both the border and visa overstays.

(Read more at Houston Public Media)

While this article dates to 2019, most main stream outlets gave it no play

Because the article above goes against the Democrat narrative that says nothing has changed with the invasion occurring through our Southern border, it got no play through the main stream media. Therefore, most Democrats will react with skepticism when confronted with the truth.

  1. Is Houston a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

Back as far as 2007, the Houston Chronicle seemed to be pointing torward current trends where Sheriff Gonzalez cut ties with ICE, Mayor Turner announced Houston to be a “welcoming city,” and Police Chief Art Acevedo complained loudly against Texas’ law governing sanctuary governments. Nonetheless, against all reason, the Houston Chronicle suggested the following:

Earlier this month, O’Reilly blamed White and Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for the actions of Pasadena resident Joe Horn, who shot to death two illegal immigrants from Colombia who had burglarized his neighbor’s home.

“These two illegal aliens are dead because of Houston’s sanctuary city policies,” O’Reilly said during an interview segment on his cable TV show. “That’s why they’re dead.”

White couldn’t disagree more.

“It’s a blatant untruth that Houston is a sanctuary city,” White said in an interview last week.

Hurtt agreed, blaming O’Reilly’s “erroneous reporting” for the sanctuary controversy. Still, the debate shows no signs of diminishing locally or nationally. Even the definition of what constitutes a sanctuary city is hotly contested.

Recently, the term has become a kind of political hand grenade, lobbed around in the GOP presidential debates to make opponents appear soft on illegal immigration. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly been accused by his opponents of running New York as a sanctuary city.

(Read more blather at the Houston Chronicle)

That was an almost prophetic article from 2007

Considering that Texas now has a law governing sanctuary governments within Texas (where officials can sent to jail if illegals are released to cause harm to citizens and where funds can be withheld to governments that do not comply), this article almost seems prophetic

  • In the way liberals then wanted to blame the conservative for defending himself,
  • In the way liberals would latch on to a then-undefined term and use it as if it held an understood meaning,
  • In the way that the liberal appealed to emotion (even going so far as to make an unsupported suggestion that “Giuliani has repeatedly been accused by his opponents of running New York as a sanctuary city”) while the conservative appealed to logic

It was for the abuses suffered at the hands of both illegals and libersls — along with these types of arguments — that the Texas law on sanctuary governments was signed into  law on Sunday, 7 May 2017.

Four stories on the problems of Mayor Pete Buttigieg

Featured

  1. Buttigieg Says He Won’t Be ‘Lectured On Family Values’ By Rush Limbaugh Or Trump Supporters

The Daily Caller points out that Mayor Pete has rejected the criticism of various people.

MayorPete2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Sunday that he will not be “lectured on family values” by the likes of radio host Rush Limbaugh or Trump supporters.

The former South Bend, Indiana, mayor spoke on “Fox News Sunday” with anchor Chris Wallace, who brought up separate comments Limbaugh and “America First” host Sebastian Gorka made on Feb. 12 about Buttigieg’s stances on abortion and electability.

“A gay guy, 37 years old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages. Can you see [President Donald] Trump have fun with that?” Limbaugh asked, while Gorka questioned, “Why is a homosexual man lecturing us about the sanctity of life in the womb? Just a little curious there, strange.”

“What is your reaction to those comments?” Wallace asked Buttigieg.

The gay presidential candidate responded: “I am in a faithful, loving, committed marriage. I’m proud of my marriage, and I’m proud of my husband.”

He added:

And I’m not going to be lectured on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or anybody who supports Donald J. Trump as the moral as well as political leader of the United States. America has moved on, and we should have politics of belonging that welcomes everybody. That’s what the American people are for. And I am saddened for what the Republican Party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This seems like a return to the times before the Israelite kings and the times of the Proverbs

This does seem like a return to the times of the Septuagint. You see, in the days before the kings, “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6 NASB). Likewise, Solomon observed this binary nature of the paths we can take:

Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2 NASB).

Like the men of those earlier times, Mayor Pete only wants to do things his way. He would rather ignore the counsel of both the Old and New Testaments concerning homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Mark 10:6-9; Romans 1:26-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2-3; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude 1:5-8). Likewise it seems that he would ignore the verses limiting marriage to one man and one woman (such as Matthew 19:4-6). Like many others, Buttigieg would like to focus on a a message that offers the love and forgiveness of God without requiring repentance. Sorry to say, but that adulterates the entire message of the Bible. Therefore, this has become one step too far.

You might ask why anyone would bother pointing out this discrepancy. Normally, politicians build coalitions based on shared goals of various groups they may claim allegiance. In this case, Buttigieg claims to be a Christian. Mind you, this type of Christianity falls outside of most Christian orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it would seem that an aspiring politician would do everything to build commonalities between himself and the large groups. Not so in this case, which does not seem so wise — which brings up back to Solomon.

Solomon also reminded us:

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1 NASB).

It seems to me that Mayor Pete might want to listen to someone who does not exactly mirror his own views.

  1. Buttigieg Scorns Pro-Life Votes

Lifezette reports that Mayor Pete calls for Democrat purity on the pro-abortion topic.

ButtigiegScornsProLifeVotesAt a Fox News town hall appearance on Sunday Democrat presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, IN, read out of his party anyone who supports the rights of the unborn and who disdains infanticide.

He instead hoped they could work together on other issues, he responded to a pro-life Democrat who queried him on the matter.

Democrats for Life of America leader Kristen Day said on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, “But I would first of all say that when I asked him the question, I didn’t ask him where he stood on abortion. And the fact that he took that opportunity to double down and sort of alienate pro-life Democrats even further just showed me that he did not — he does not want our vote. And, you know, I’m willing to discuss platform language with, but…he could say that and reinforce that he is pro-choice and…let’s find ways that we can work together,” Day also said.

“The people will have to go to the polls and decide, but I know for sure a lot of Democrats did not go out and vote for Hillary Clinton because of her extreme stance on abortion,” Day concluded.

(Read more at Lifezette)

If Buttigieg and Bernie want to turn their backs on pro-life votes, there is room elsewhere

If Mayor Pete and Senator Sanders would like to make commitment to abortion a Democrat litmus test, then I wish them all the power they need. There is room in the conservative ranks for debate on various issues and we can welcome any degree of pro-life supporters that want to join.

  1. Media Ignores Buttigieg Refusing To Say He Does Not Support Infanticide

The Daily Caller points out how other outlets have ignored Mayor Pete’s refusal to say he does not support infanticide.

Establishment and liberal media failed to cover a presidential candidate refusing to say he does not support infanticide.

2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg refused to come out against late-term abortion or infanticide Thursday, speaking to The View’s Meghan McCain. Yet establishment and liberal media, including CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, HuffPost and Vox, did not cover Buttigieg’s remarks. None of these publications responded to requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

McCain reminded Buttigieg that he once suggested unborn babies can be aborted up until they draw their first breath, and offered Buttigieg a chance to walk back the statement.

Buttigieg said “it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line. It should be up to the woman.” When McCain pressed him on this, specifically asking if he would be comfortable with a situation where a “woman wanted to invoke infanticide after a baby was born,” Buttigieg still didn’t distance himself from infanticide.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Does anyone expect the media to come out against a Democrat?

I cannot express any surprise that the media that carried San Fran Nan’s message of “it’s for the children” now kow-tows to the abortion until birth mantra.

  1. Queer community isn’t happy with Mayor Pete

Townhall points out that Buttigieg doesn’t hold universal support among the gay community.

The LGBTQ community in San Francisco isn’t happy with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. They feel as though he fails to represent their community. On Friday, two protestors were booted from a fundraiser at the National LGBTQ Center for the Arts for attempting to ask him a question. When it became obvious that they were protestors, supporters began chanting “Boot-Edge-Edge! Boot-Edge-Edge!”

“I’m definitely proud of the fact that a gay candidate has made it thus far, but it’s hard to enjoy or appreciate when his stances are so middle of the road and speak to a predominantly white, upper class audience,” Celi Tamayo-Lee, one of the women who was kicked out of the event, told The Guardian.

Those who feel he’s too moderate take issue with Buttigieg not supporting Medicare for All, free college tuition, his issues with the black community and his ties to billionaire donors. There are issues that don’t impact the LGBTQ community as a whole but impact individuals who are also queer.

(Read more at Townhall)

While I have seen the purity test play out in the Tea Party, I have seen it even more in liberal groups

Over the past few years, it seems that many liberal groups have called for ideological purity (refer to Bernie’s call and Buttigieg’s call for abortion purity). Hence, I expect this to continue and certain groups to tear themselves apart.

To those who find themselves victims, please hear this: every person was made in the image of God. All of us have messed something up, but each of us can be forgiven when we ask for that forgiveness.

Four stories on the Democrat side of the election

Featured

  1. Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire, falls short of 2016 performance

Breitbart reports in a 11 February 2020 article on Bernie’s win (and how it does not stack up to his 2016 performance).

Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, but he fell far short of his 2016 performance.

Sanders, who had been leading in the polls ahead of the first in the nation primary, only bested former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg by less than two percentage points when the race was called with 80 percent of precincts reporting. Sanders beat Buttigieg, garnering more than 64,000 to the former mayor’s less than 62,000.

The numbers stand in stark contrast to 2016 when the Vermont septuagenarian bested former Secretary of State Hillary by double digits in New Hampshire. In that contest, Sanders garnered more than 152,000 votes, compared to just a little over 95,000 for Clinton. Overall, Sanders carried New Hampshire by more than 22 percentage points during that cycle.

The 2016 victory was made possible by high turnout and little competition—two luxuries Sanders did not have this time around. According to exit polls conducted by NBC News, turnout appeared to be lower across New Hampshire than in prior presidential primary cycles. The biggest dropoff seems to have come from new and young voters. In particular, according to one exit poll, only 11 percent of New Hampshire voters were younger than 29 on Tuesday, down from 19 percent in 2016.

Complicating matters for Sanders is that the same exit polls showed that half of New Hampshire primary voters found his position too liberal, while only 40 percent thought they were a good fit.

(Read this at Breitbart)

As many reports have been made on Bernie’s NH win, no other addressed the smaller support he received since 2016

The way Bernie proclaimed that he would beat President Trump, I wonder whether he knows that his own support has decreased since 2016. Maybe nobody had enough courage to mention the falling numbers to the angry old socialist.

  1. Sanders: ‘Being pro-choice is an essential part’ of being a Democrat

The Daily Caller points out how candidate Bernie Sanders sees no room in the Democrat tent for pro-life Democrats.

bernie-sanders

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders said Saturday that “being pro-choice is an essential part” of being a Democrat.

The Vermont senator spoke Saturday morning at the “Our Rights, Our Courts” presidential forum in New Hampshire. Demand Justice Initiative, Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America and MSNBC cosponsored the event.

Sanders discussed whether Democrats must be pro-choice. “I think in the Senate’s, probably 95% of the Democrats are pro-choice, the other few are not — in the House, maybe even a higher percentage,” he said.

“So that’s kind of what my view is. I think by this time in history, I think when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.

Sanders’s words come after pro-life Democrat Kristin Day questioned former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Democratic inclusion of pro-life Democrats during a Jan. 26 town hall with Fox’s Chris Wallace.

“I’m a proud pro-life Democrat,” she said. “Do you want the support of pro-life Democratic voters?”

“There are 21 million of us. And if so, would you support more moderate platform language to ensure the party of diversity and inclusion does include everybody?” she continued.

Buttigieg said that though he respects her views, he is not going to try to earn her vote “by tricking” her.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This comes from the party of “inclusion” and “diversity”

So, to be a Democrat according to Comrade Sanders, you need to goose-step to his tune. Of course, this comes from the party where all of the front runners are white. At least they got away from the requirement that they all be white and 70+.

  1. Bernie Sanders goes full tilt abortion

Townhall comments on the diatribe of Bernie Sanders on taxpayer-funded abortion and pro-life Democrats.

A conglomerate of pro-abortion groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Demand Justice, held a forum in New Hampshire on Saturday focusing on abortion.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made it very clear he believes that in order to be a Democrat a person must be pro-choice, a clear jab at pro-life Democratic voter Kristen Day. She was the one who asked former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg if he supported the Democratic Party changing its platform to be more inclusive of pro-life Democrats.

“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” NBC News’ Stephanie Ruhle asked.

“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” he replied to audience cheers. “If you’re asking me – and I think I may be wrong on this – I think in the Senate, probably 95 percent of the Democrats are pro-choice, the other few are not. In the House, maybe even a higher percentage. So that’s kind of what my view is.”

“I think, by this time in history, I think when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially an essential part of that,” Sanders concluded.

Later in the forum, he discussed Medicare for All and how, under his version of the plan, abortions would be funded by the taxpayers.

(Read more at Townhall)

Once we knew that Sanders would limit Democrats to the pro-abortion view, we should expect that the socialist would require us to participate in abortion

Never mind the Supreme Court decisions on freedom of religion. This angry old socialist will shout down any opposition to abortion. If he can, he will likely be the one to require Christians stand before firing squads (considering his past views on Christians in office).

  1. Poll says Americans do not accept Bernie’s socialism

Townhall comments in a 15 February 2020 article on a poll that suggests that America has not developed a taste for Bernie’s brand of socialism.

Well, this should make for some good talking points against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ agenda to transform America into a socialist utopia. The Vermont senator is running on one of the most radical agendas in recent memory. It’s decidedly left-wing. Its supporters are decidedly left-wing. The energy that is has channeled has forced the Democratic Party to lurch to the left, much to the annoyance of the establishment. You see that with the Democratic National Committee pretty much changing the rules so that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg can be on stage. Sanders supporters will only see this as yet another time the Democratic National Committee interfered in a primary contest to screw over Sanders. Still, there is this poll to deal with that shows a majority of Americans would not vote for a socialist for president (via Fox News):

The results of a new Gallup poll suggest that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., may face a big challenge winning the White House if he succeeds in capturing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.

The survey, conducted from Jan. 16-29 among 1,033 adults, found 53 percent said that they would not vote for their party nominee if they were a, “generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist.”

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, went into the New Hampshire Democratic primary on strong footing Tuesday night, after he nearly tied former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa Caucuses.

[…]

The Gallup poll showed Democrats are most willing to support a socialist, with 76 percent saying they would vote for a candidate with that political ideology. Only 45 percent of Independents and 17 percent of Republicans said they would do the same.

This is by no means a silver bullet that could end Sanders’ agenda. Or could it? Seventy-six percent of your party’s voters is not a strong showing from the base. Yet, let’s not take Sanders out of the realm of the possible, which is one of the reasons why Trump won; Democrats simply couldn’t fathom him winning. Keep this trend in your back pocket. Yet, what is does show is that all-in-all Americans know what far-left policies yield: equal suffering.

(Read more at Townhall)

One wonders whether the 76% of Democrats supporting socialism have looked at Venezuela

It seems that the line that gets toed is whatever the Democrat leadership says calls it. If the Democrat leadership says abortion-to-birth constitutes the Democrat line, then almost 80% of the Democrat faithful sidle up to that line. If San Fran Nan and Bernie say that capitalism sucks (even though just about every Democrat in Congress for more than a term has amassed a fortune), then the Democrat faithful fall in line with socialism.

Four impeachment stories that could jump up and bite the Democrats


  1. House Judiciary Committee Report Misquotes Trump — Again — on Article II

Breitbart tells us in a 17 December 2019 article how Nadler and his cohorts misquoted Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee’s final report accompanying its articles of impeachment misquotes President Donald Trump — again — talking about his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

As Breitbart News reported during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings earlier this month, Democrats repeatedly misquoted Trump as claiming that Article II of the Constitution entitles him to do “whatever I want” as president.

The context of Trump’s remark, which he has made several times, was clearly his power under Article II to hire and fire executive branch employees, specifically Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was investigating so-called “Russia collusion.”

Yet Democrats — including Judiciary Committee counsel, and Democrat donor, Barry Berke — played deceptively-edited video of Trump that suggested, falsely, he believed he had absolute power under Article II of the Consitution.

(Read more at Breitbart)

__

__

  1. Pelosi: Impeachment has been going on ‘Two and a half years, actually’

Breitbart reports in an 11 December 2019 article how Speaker Pelosi admitted that impeachment has been going on for much longer than many Democrats wanted to admit.

On Tuesday in Washington, D.C., at Politico’s Women Rule Summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admitted the impeachment process of President Donald Trump has been going on for “two and a half” years.

When asked about criticisms of “the speed” of the House Democrats impeachment, Pelosi replied, “Speed? It’s been going on 22 months—two and a half years, actually.”

She continued, “I think we are not moving with speed. Was it two a half years ago they initiated the Mueller investigation? It’s not about speed. It’s about urgency. One of the charges against the president of the United States—saying he was violating the oath of office by asking for government to interfere in our election undermining the integrity of our elections.”

She added, “If we did not hold him accountable, he would continue to undermine our elections. Nothing less is at stake than the central point of our democracy, of a free and fair election not to be disrupted by foreign powers.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

This admission invalidates any claim that the impeachment is based on misdeeds during a phone call in July 2019

If any Representative claims to vote for impeachment because “nobody is above the law,” they are lying. Beside the fact that no instances of lawbreaking were cited during the impeachment hearings in the House, the fact that work on impeachment goes back to the first quarter of 2017 shows that this impeachment has no basis in fact.

  1. FISA Court Rebukes FBI Abuse, Sets January Deadline for Reforms

Breitbart outlines the rebuke of the day-late-and-dollar-short FISA Court Judge.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance warrants on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page said in an order on Tuesday that the FBI’s handling of the warrant applications was “antithetical” to its “heightened duty of candor.”

The order, issued in response to reports the FBI provided false information to the Justice Department and withheld information that went against their case, stated, “When FBI personnel mislead NSD in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC.”

The order described the process in which the FISC grants Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, stating that it was “useful” to understand the requirements in getting a FISA warrant “in order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications.”

The FISC judge must determine whether the government’s application provides probable cause to believe the proposed surveillance target is a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power,” the order said. It added that Congress intended that the judge act as an “external check on executive branch decisions to conduct surveillance” to protect U.S. persons’ rights.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. House Democrats Pass Partisan Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump

(i.e., Democrats outline the following treatment against the next Democrat president)

Breitbart provides an outline of the things that must be done against the next Democrat elected to the presidency.

House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday, making Trump the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.

The House passed article one of H.R. 755, which charges Trump with abusing the office of the presidency.

Article one passed on mostly partisan lines, 230-197, with Republicans united against the resolution. Two Democrats, Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), voted against the resolution.

The second article of impeachment, which charges that Trump obstructed Congress, passed the House with 229-198 votes. Three Democrats, Reps. Van Drew, Peterson, and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) voted against the resolution.

Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), a former Republican, voted in favor of article one of impeachment.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, voted present for article one of impeachment. She also voted present on the resolution establishing the rules surrounding the impeachment bill.

(Read Breitbart to see the balance of things Republicans need to do to the next Democrat president)

Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump “a coward” & then invokes God


Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump a coward & then invokes God

As reported by Yahoo News on 6 December 2019, Nancy Pelosi reacted violently to a question from James Rosen of Sinclair News. Possibly in response to the observed Trump Derangement Syndrome observed by the reporter, that reporter asked, “Do you hate President Trump?” In response, the following came:

SanFranNanI think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence.

I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our “Dreamers.” I think he’s in denial about the climate crisis. However, that is about the election. Take it up in the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office.

As a Catholic, I resent you using the word “hate” in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.

So she says that she does not hate; however, what do her actions say?

First, take the actions within this presser

Even if we limit our attention to this presser, we see that she called the President a “coward” for not accepting gun control measures. In truth, no gun control law has made people more safe (otherwise, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the nation — rather than one of the leading murder capitals). Therefore, her calling the President a “coward” was nothing but an empty insult.

Regarding empty insults, Jesus said (but the emphasis is mine):

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:22 NASB)

In addition to endangering herself of fiery hell by assigning an empty insult to the President, Ms. Pelosi went on to mix in several lies. First, she accused him of cruelty regarding “our Dreamers.” The problem is that the last President originally repeatedly said that he could not change immigration law. Then he changed it by executive fiat (also known as abuse of power). No laws were passed to accommodate this new class of non-citizens (although Trump offered a deal that the Democrats and Pelosi rejected). Hence, she cannot honestly claim that Trump alone has acted cruelly toward the Dreamers.

Regarding the third accusation by Pelosi (on how Trump has been denying climate change), since AOC’s Chief of Staff admitted that their climate change initiative was only introduced as a means to introduce socialism, we can all afford to deny “climate change” or “global smarming” or whatever junk science name Democrats decide to assign to their smoke and mirrors.

Consider her actions for and against the powerless

By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I primarily speak of the unborn. Her side calls them “fetuses” and uses other euphemisms. However, more to the point, her party has recently promoted full-term abortion. And though we cannot blame her for the over 45 million babies killed in the US between 1973 and 2015, Democrats cannot be held blameless. Therefore, for Pelosi to claim her Catholic faith while not renouncing her commitment to abortion means denying the core of the following Biblical mandates:

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22‭-‬23 NASB)

You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. (Psalms 10:14 NASB)

A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation. God makes a home for the lonely; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, Only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalms 68:5‭-‬6 NASB)

The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. (Psalms 146:9 NASB)

Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. (Proverbs 31:8‭-‬9 NASB)

Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)

Honor widows who are widows indeed; (1 Timothy 5:3 NASB)

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27 NASB)

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NASB)

By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I also could be talking about her lack of action in support of the poor of America. That is, the people who the Democrats have forgotten in their headlong rush to accommodate illegal aliens. Admittedly, while we will always have poor in America, opportunities for the poor have reduced with the Democrat’s drive to aid the illegal aliens through sanctuary cities, Democrat policies, and other initiatives.

In the current context of her presser, I might also refer to the President the United States of America. As soon as the Democrats voted for the impeachment procedures, we knew that:

Consider her position as a Democrat

The Democrats — the party who booed God and removed reference to Him from their party platform — this is the party that Nancy Pelosi leads. Therefore, this is the party that might have some Christian influence were she as much of a Christian as she claims. In her position in the “party of the “nones” and the party whose most recent President sued religious organizations to force them to violate their consciences — she could make a difference.

That is, she could make a difference if she were a true follower of the Church.

Give the devil his due, she does make one right references

Pelosi does correctly note that Christians should pray for their leaders, for we are told:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1‭-‬2 NASB)

However, as we know of Satan when he came to tempt Jesus, he came misquoting and then ignoring the central points to scripture (Mark 4:1-11).

PelosiOnAbortionAdditionally, while we know that Christians are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), we also know that faith without works is worthless (James 2:18-26). Therefore, Nancy Pelosi’s proclamation of Christian love, prayer, and faith without any proof of it within her professional life seems pretty useless.

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.