The Interior Department will publicly list attorneys’ fees paid out, often to environmental activist groups, for legal settlements, according to a recent memo from Principal Deputy Solicitor Daniel Jorjani.
Jorjani’s memo states the Interior Department will develop a webpage within 30 days to publicly list details of legal settlements and cases, which the agency says is a big step in bringing sunshine to a non-transparent practice that the public is largely unaware is happening.
“This is a big deal that will shed light on the millions of dollars the DOI pays out every year in attorneys’ fees” under federal laws, an Interior Department official said in an email.
“This is your tax money and only by shining a light on this process can you decide if it is being put to good use,” the official said.
The memo was signed May 10, but made public Wednesday. Jorjani issued the memo in response to a 2018 order from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt while he served former Secretary Ryan Zinke’s number two. Zinke resigned earlier this year and has since been replaced by Bernhardt as head of the Interior Department.
Environmental groups have been particularly successful using “citizen suits” to sue the federal government into taking an action, then getting taxpayers to pay their attorneys’ fees. A 2016 Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found federal agencies paid out $49 million for 512 citizen suits filed under three major environmental laws during the Obama administration.
This certainly has shades of Democrat dirty dealings, the legacy of Obama scandals, and other unsavory issues on the left. With all of the left’s problems with capitalism, this certainly shows that they have no problems with gaming the system and using crony capitalism.
Alaskan environmentalists sue Department of Interior, its secretary, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over planne… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…
‘Cowardice’: Nikki Haley Takes Aim At Ocasio-Cortez, Omar And Sanders Over Venezuela
In a second 15 May 2019 Daily Caller article, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley calls out the reluctance of fake socialists (you know, the ones who have million-dollar royalties and three homes or three-figure salaries and exclusive apartments that they don’t share with the masses) to face the reality of socialism in Venezuela.
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley sharply criticized three prominent Democrats — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — for going soft on Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship.
“On the fringes of the left, celebrity politicians refuse to condemn [Venezuelan dictator Nicolas] Maduro. Worse, some have actually embraced him,” Haley wrote in a Monday post for Stand For America, her new political organization.
Haley ticked through the responses from Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Sanders, taking shots at each one.
Ocasio-Cortez dodged when asked if Maduro was a legitimate ruler. “A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed,” commented Haley.
Considering the fact that AOC does not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism (as demonstrated by the following video), it shouldn’t be hard to convince thinking liberals to consider the benefits of the system that has lifted more people from poverty worldwide.
A 15 May 2019 Reuters article points out how economic factors have worked in favor of anyone with a business. Therefore, this works well for non-socialists (non-Democrats).
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, pointing to sustained labor market strength that should underpin the economy as growth slows.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 16,000 to a seasonally adjusted 212,000 for the week ended May 11, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Data for the prior week was unrevised.
Claims had been stuck at higher levels for three straight weeks, reflecting difficulties stripping out seasonal fluctuations from the data around moving holidays like Easter, Passover and school spring breaks.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims would fall to 220,000 in the latest week. The Labor Department said no states were estimated last week.
The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 4,750 to 225,000 last week.
The labor market is strong, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low of 3.6%. The robust job market is supporting the economy as the boost from the White House’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package fades and President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with China disrupts supply chains at factories, which are already struggling with an inventory bloat that has cut production.
Reading the above Reuters article, you can tell that the author wants America to fail so that Republicans (and the evil business community that supports them) will fail. Oddly, nothing but a point of view separates the author from those he hates. Similarly, I have seen leftist Antifa supporters bludgeoning young women and old men over their having attended a Trump rally. Again, nothing but a disagreement on whether a socialist government or a free people would best govern America separates the attackers from the victims.
In contrast, I have worked for ideologies to fail, but not people. In s recent post, I advocated against the passage of the Equality Act because I am certain that it will lead to the subjugation of my religious rights. However, in other posts, I have stood against Islamists that would kill gays. That is to say, I have stood by those in the “Gay Agenda,” because I see life as sacred, all people as sinners, and the only unforgivable sin as the rejection of Christ.
Liberals have started to lose their composure due to fear of losing the battles they forced on the rest of America
Unborn Babies Are Not Human? CNN Debate Leads to Stunning Declaration: ‘That Is Not a Human Being’
A 10 May 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network article shows how liberals have been taken so aback by the possibility that Roe versus Wade might be returned to the states. As reported, a CNN panel consisting of former Senator Santorum, Chris Cuomo, and talking head Christine Quinn produced a surprising quote.
A CNN interview this week raised some powerful questions about the humanity of the unborn, taking the abortion debate straight to the most central question. But the arguments made by CNN’s host and contributor are stunning.
Host Chris Cuomo took the pro-abortion side as he questioned former US Senator Rick Santorum and CNN political contributor Christine Quinn.
They spoke about states that are passing restrictive abortion laws like Georgia’s hearbeat law, with Cuomo and Quinn arguing that a decision by five people on the Supreme Court is more valid than the rights of states or the beliefs of millions of Americans.
That turned into a heated exchange over when life begins before Quinn said something a lot of people find shocking.
The pro-life Santorum had challenged Cuomo and Quinn about their belief that the unborn baby inside a woman’s womb is not a human.
“Do you guys realize a baby DIES in an abortion? Are you ignoring that fact. This is a human life,” Santorum says.
“It’s not a legal fact,” Cuomo inserts.
“Do you disagree that at the moment of concept that child is human and alive? Is it biologically a human life?” Santorum says. Cuomo says the issue should only be about “viability,” to which Santorum replies, “You guys talk about being the party of science, that is so a-science.”
Then he raised the issue of humans being treated as property in a clear reference to the wrong-headed arguments that had been used by pro-slavery forces in the 1800’s. “That’s a unique human being inside that woman. So is it the property of a woman, that you can do whatever you want with it?”
Christine Quinn, a board member of the National Institute of Reproductive Health, said, “When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It’s part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control over her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.”
When liberals start claiming that babies in utero are not human, they are losing their grip with reality. Nobody thinks that you will crack an eagle egg and get a chicken or a wolf, but (somehow) liberals want us to believe that there is an immaculate conception each time a woman decides to keep her child. Until then, according to Christine Quinn, no human is human.
Even Street Artist Sabo recognizes the wrongness of Ilhan Omar’s Anti-Semitism
PHOTOS: Street Artist Sabo Calls Out Ilhan Omar over Her Anti-Semitic Remarks
Political street artist Sabo put up a number of signs criticizing anti-Semitic comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the Woodland Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles amid the freshman lawmaker’s appearance in town for a speech.
Ilhan Omar is scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Los Angeles Saturday. Counter-events have been organized against her appearance.
“CAIR-LA is honored to have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as the featured speaker for the 4th Annual Valley Banquet,” the group’s website states.
“Born in Somalia, Ilhan and her family fled the country’s civil war when she was 8 years old. They lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for four years before coming to the United States, eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997.”
Street artist Sabo is mocking both Omar and CAIR with new street art. The art calls out Omar for her past of anti-Semitic statements.
When the arts community recognizes the way Democrats are working against the good of the rest of us, we are talking about a sea change. Like the tweets by Cher regarding the money spent on illegals while American vets and American homeless starve on the streets, it seems that some on the left have started to wake up.
Drake acquires a gigantic plane. – Via Daily Caller – “The superstar rapper showed off his plane, called “Air Drake,” on Instagram Friday, and it’s downright absurd. The interior is absolutely massive, and he points out that it’s not a ‘timeshare’ or ‘rental.’ It’s just all his.”
While I support his right to use a jet and as many gas-guzzling SUV’s as he wants in the commission of his work, he needs to stop preaching unproven theories to the rest of us.
Socialist ‘It’ Candidate Ocasio-Cortez Rips ‘Unregulated’ Uber, Then Spends $4,000 On … Uber
Socialism: Self-described social democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving. The youthful socialist can hardly go a day without saying something that undescores the hypocrisy of her beliefs.
Last week, we noted the irony of the socialist movement’s most visible star (besides Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, of course) lamenting the closure of the restaurant she once worked at. Turns out, the restaurant closed largely due to enormous hikes in the minimum wage — a policy Ocasio-Cortez would enthusiastically impose on the whole country.
For her latest display of socialist hypocrisy, you have to go back to March.
Then, tragically, a New York cab driver named Nicanor Ochisor took his own life. He did so apparently in response to financial struggles. As Zuri Davis of the Reason.com blog points out, New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber immediately blamed ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft for the death and faulted local government for letting the ride-sharing companies operate.
Seeing a chance to score political points, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “NYC’s fourth driver suicide. Yellow cab drivers are in financial ruin due to the unregulated expansion of Uber. What was a living wage now pays under minimum.”
And she had a whole socialist agenda for fixing the problem, as she saw it.
-to call Uber drivers what they are: EMPLOYEES, not contractors
-Fed jobs guarantee
-Prep for automation”
But, surprise! Fox News reports that Federal Election Commission records show that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign used Uber repeatedly, despite her sharp criticisms of the business model.
Indeed, her campaign spent around $4,000 on 160 Uber rides in California alone from April to late June. For the record, Ocasio-Cortez isn’t running for office in California, but in New York. Apparently, California is where the really BIG socialist billionaires live.
For someone who claims to be so so concerned about the environment (to the point of forcing the rest of us to embrace socialism and abandon our cars), she sure does not want to sacrifice anything.
Hypocritical Democrat. AKA, common Democrat.
#AOC recants: ‘…world ending in 12 years due to climate change’ – it was “a joke”
In the electronic folds of the Watts Up with That blog, we are informed that AOC’s demands that we should give up all for the Green New Deal were just a joke that sea sponges should have understood.
Ocasio-Cortez recants with insult: I Was Joking About World Ending In 12 Years, and you’re an idiot if you believed me
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that she was joking around when she claimed the world was going to end in 12 years if we do not take serious action against Climate Change, a declaration she’s been widely criticized over. The 29-year-old socialist mocked the Republican Party for taking her claim about the end of the world seriously, which she suggested was a combination of “dry humor + sarcasm.”
AOC in a tweet published on Mother’s Day:
This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
I am with Mr. Watts. I saw her proposal of the Green New Deal as a real platform for her. However, I can also see the other side.
That is, by AOC making her own “deplorable” statement like this, she shows that she is the joke and those that vote for her are the punch line.
Green New Deal Vote Exposes Democratic Hypocrisy on AOC-Led Insanity
Even left-leaning CNN cannot help but poke at AOC’s Green New Deal as a stupid idea.
One thing Democrats are notorious for is sticking together. However, the ludicrous Green New Deal is going to expose which of them will break ranks from the ascendent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party and air on the side of sanity.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has set a vote over the Green New Deal for Tuesday afternoon. Most Democrats have boasted about the greatness of the radical proposal since it was introduced last month. However, since McConnell said, “okay, let’s vote,” they’ve been screaming bloody murder.
I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of th… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Further down in the CNN article, the author says “virtually all” Democrat presidential contenders support the Green New Deal. However, an incomplete post that I had to leave behind found that all of the then-18 (now 24) contenders were for the Green New Deal. They reaaly need to own their issues.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likes to talk a good game on environmental issues, but recent findings show that while she talks the talk, she does not walk the walk. Michael Knowles calls her out on Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show.” Transcript and video below.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our favorite socialist from Yorktown Heights, she said (paraphrasing), “We’re like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” That’s what she said, so what she is saying is we need to have zero greenhouse gases, we need a full transition off of fossil fuels within ten years or else the world will end, or else it is not okay to have children, that’s what she said, (paraphrasing) “You have to ask yourself if it’s moral to have children in this world. And what did we learn from federal filings?” She’s a hypocrite, she doesn’t practice what she preaches. So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lives in the city with the greatest subway system in the world, and according to her federal filings, she listed over 1,000 Uber, Lyft and Juno transactions during her campaign. She spent $30,000 on rideshare apps. Guess where her campaign headquarters was located? One minute away from the Seven Train and the Seven Train can take you anywhere because the Seven Train connects to a bunch of other lines so you can get all around. She lived a one-minute walk away from the Seven Train and she spent 30 G’s on ride-share apps. To put that into perspective, Max Rose, who’s another freshman Democrat from New York, he only spent $6,000 on rideshare apps and he only spent them on 329 rides during his campaign, so she used multiples more than this.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently moved into a luxury apartment complex in Washington, D.C. that does not offer the affordable housing units that were a key plank in the New York congresswoman’s campaign platform.
The freshman congresswoman, a self-described socialist, campaigned on a platform to expand affordable housing, and her controversial Green New Deal proposal promises “Safe, affordable, adequate housing” for all.
But Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.
In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.
“We need to kick luxury real estate lobbyists to the curb and defend working people’s way of life,” Ocasio-Cortez said last March. “Skyrocketing cost of living is a national crisis that CAN be addressed. It’s not just an NYC issue – it’s happening in every US metro area.”
Ocasio-Cortez also promised not to take campaign contributions from luxury developers during her campaign. “It’s time we stand up to the luxury developer lobby,” she said in a speech last April. “Every official is too scared to do it – except me.”
Sure, she is a hypocrite, but look at her mentor Bernie.
Lifestyles of the rich and socialist: Bernie Sanders has 3 houses, makes millions
Considering the fact that Bernie preaches the confiscation of wealth, you would think that he would live meagerly. You would think that one house (not three), public transportation (not $100K sports cars), and the health care system he forced us to use would be sufficient. However, if we go to a 21 February 2019 Fox News article, we get a description of his holdings that does not match up with his socialist preaching.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., entered the 2020 presidential race this week promising to transform America with a left-wing vision of economic and environmental justice. But the self-described democratic socialist’s high-end income, multiple houses and fondness for air travel have already opened him up to criticism that his lifestyle doesn’t always match the rhetoric.
Sanders has pitched himself as a grassroots economic populist, focusing on income inequality and higher taxes for the rich.
“Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice,” he said.
“Together you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revoution,” he said. “Now it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.”
But Sanders has raised eyebrows over his spending and personal wealth. Notably, he owns three houses. In 2016, he bought a $575,000 four-bedroom lake-front home in his home state. This is in addition to a row house in Washington D.C., as well as a house in Burlington, Vermont.
My bet is that most Democrats would rather be talking about healthcare than Rep. Ilhan Omar, the by-now-notorious Democrat from Minnesota.
This wager is based on a simple enough axiom: It’s best to fight on your strong issues, not your weak ones. Or, as the ancient Roman military strategist Vegetius wrote of the general who wants to win: “He must consider the field of battle and judge whether the ground is more advantageous for him or his enemy.”
As the 2018 midterm elections showed, the most advantageous ground for the Democrats has been healthcare, and so naturally, they were planning on more such campaigning in the 2020 election.
But not every plan happens. Now, instead, the Democrats are confronted with a much different issue, being fought on much less advantageous terrain—in the form of Omar. This is, of course, the nature of anything in human affairs; be it politics, or warfare—things change. As another famous military strategist, Helmut von Moltke, put it, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
The disruption of the Democrats’ happy healthcare plan started on March 23, when Omar delivered a speech to a Council of American-Islamic Relations assembly in Los Angeles in which, bringing up 9/11, she said those words that will live in infamy: “some people did something.”
Actually, Omar’s words didn’t get much attention until they were highlighted by Mohamad Tawhidi, an Australian Muslim cleric who holds decidedly anti-jihad views. As he tweeted on April 8,
Ilhan Omar mentions 9/11 and does not consider it a terrorist attack on the USA by terrorists, instead she refers t… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Considering the number of times that Ilhan Omar has used anti-Semitic tropes (refer to the first and second video below), laughed about Americans’ fear of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah (refer to the third video), and dismissed the 11 September 2001 attacks on America as “some people did something” (refer to the fourth video), this woman is a one-person Democrat mine field.
Bernie Sanders Defends Being Millionaire: ‘I Didn’t Know It Was a Crime to Write a Good Book’
Again, we have a case of a politician either being willfully ignorant of the Bolshevik revolution, the Cultural Revolution in China, and other socialist uprisings where the rich (or those accused of formerly being rich) were accused and murdered. So this declared socialist tells us through a 13 April 2019 Breitbart article that he did not know that it was a crime to be rich — maybe he should study the history of socialist uprisings.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Saturday attempted to play down the significance of his millionaire status, quipping dryly that he didn’t imagine lucrative book sales would hurt his chances to win the White House.
Bernie Sanders speaks in Gary, IN: "I didn't know that it was a crime to write a good book, which turned out to be… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Sanders said in his remarks at a community meeting in Gary, Indiana:
I didn’t know that it was a crime to write a good book which turns out to be a bestseller. My view has always been that we need a progressive tax system which demands that the wealthiest people in this country finally start paying their fair share of taxes,” he continued. “If I make a lot of money, you make a lot of money, that is what I believe. So again, I don’t apologize for writing a book that was number three on the New York Times bestseller, translated into five or six languages and that’s that.
Sanders’ remarks come after revealing in an interview this week that his New York Times best-selling book Where We Go From Here made him a hefty sum of money. “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he told the paper. The 77-year-old Democratic Socialist also confirmed he plans to release his tax returns on Monday.
For a change, lead by example. Stop trying to change the subject as you did in the sham of a townhall.
Anyone who votes for this idiot is voting for the hope of a government handout before the economy tanks so badly that government programs start getting shut down.
Additionally, despite Mr. Sanders assertion that his wealth comes from his having “written a good book,” he amassed quite a holding in the banks, a set of 3 houses, and an expensive sports car purportedly on the six-figure salary afforded to a member of Congress for over 35 years (16 years in the House and a Senator since 2006).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Melts Down over Criticism of Fake Accent
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to criticism for her patronizing use of a fake accent in front of a black audience in the usual manner — crybabying.
The not-terribly-bright socialist was caught on video Friday patronizing the mostly black audience with a fake southern drawl at Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference.
The humiliating video quickly made the rounds on social media, earning the criticism and ridicule it deserved.
The video is as shocking as it is excruciating. All of a sudden, the Westchester socialist, who is famous for her Jerry the Mouse voice, starts talking like a black preacher.
“This is what organizing looks like. This is what building power looks like,” Ocasio-Crazy said with her affected cadence. “This is what changing the country looks like. It’s when we choose to show up and occupy the room and talk about the things that matter most, talking about our future.”
“Ain’t nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with working retail, folding clothes for other people to buy,” she continued. “There is nothing wrong with preparing the food that your neighbors will eat. There is nothing wrong with driving the buses that take your family to work”:
Congressional Democrats are going to battle with the Justice Department, voting to subpoena the full Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. They say Attorney General Bill Barr’s redacted version won’t be enough. They want to see everything.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “I frankly believe that we are being both fair and balanced.”
Democrats in the House made it official and partisan, voting 24-17 along party lines to authorize subpoenas, but waiting before firing them off.
“The committee has a right and the responsibility to see the full contents of this report,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) said.
Attorney General Barr has already promised to get them a version scrubbed of classified material, secret grand jury testimony, and anything related to ongoing investigations or the personal privacy of third parties.
“The department is wrong to try to withhold that info,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). “The Constitution charges Congress with holding the president accountable for alleged official misconduct. That job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves – not the attorney general’s summary – not the substantially redacted substance – but the full report.”
Nadler compared Mueller’s report to the release of the Ken Starr report into President Bill Clinton, holding up boxes of information produced by Starr along with “some of the grand jury material” from the Nixon impeachment process.
Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins said those props are like apples and oranges, saying the comparison between the Starr report and the Mueller report “just doesn’t work.”
Never mind that some of the same Democrats (i.e., Jerry Nadler) who want Attorney General Barr to break the law by exposing the full content of Special Counsel Mueller’s report were the same lawmakers who changed the law after Special Counsel Starr exposed all sorts of dirty laundry from the Clintons.
If Nadler doesn’t like how he wrote the law, maybe he should look in the mirror and give himself a good lecture for a couple of years.
If you compare the videos of today’s Nadler demanding to see all of the special counsel’s report to 1990’s (really fat) Nadler telling us why the special counsel’s report violates the President’s legal rights, you get the idea that Nadler must have Dissociative identity disorder.
A Connecticut woman says Joe Biden touched her inappropriately and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich when he was vice president, drawing further scrutiny to the Democrat and his history of unwanted contact with women as he ponders a presidential run.
“It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” Amy Lappos told The Courant Monday. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”
Lappos posted about the alleged incident on the Facebook page of Connecticut Women in Politics Sunday in response to a similar account by former Nevada legislator Lucy Flores, which comes as Biden is considering a 2020 run for president. Flores accused Biden of kissing her on the back of her head in 2014, when she was a candidate for lieutenant governor.
Lappos, 43, who is now a freelance worker with nonprofit agencies, said she felt extremely uncomfortable when Biden approached her at the 2009 fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th, where she was volunteering. At the time, Lappos was a congressional aide to Himes, who she said was not in the room when the incident took place.
“I never filed a complaint, to be honest, because he was the vice president. I was a nobody,” Lappos said. “There’s absolutely a line of decency. There’s a line of respect. Crossing that line is not grandfatherly. It’s not cultural. It’s not affection. It’s sexism or misogyny.”
The weird thing is that, so far, none of these “problems” with Joe Biden are illegal. They’re weird. They’re something that I would not allow him to do to any 14-year-old girl under my care, but they’re not illegal acts.
The thing that has been at work here has been the full-blown identity politics that the Obama regime perfected.
Well, if you like your politician, you can keep your politician.
#2: MeToo Movement Strikes Again: Even MORE Women Accuse Biden of Sexual Harassment
Caruso, 22, told the Times that Biden rested his hand on her thigh even as she attempted to show her discomfort by squirming in her seat during a sexual assault event at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. Caruso, who was 19 at the time, added that Biden hugged her “just a little bit too long.”
She told the newspaper that the interaction was uncomfortable because she had just discussed a time she was sexually assaulted and expected Biden to be aware of physical boundaries.
“It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,” she told the paper. “These are supposed to be people you can trust.”
Hill, 59, told the Times that while taking a photograph with Biden in 2012, the then-vice president placed his hand on her shoulder and began moving it down her back, something she said made her “very uncomfortable.”
While I don’t come anywhere near Uncle Joe’s politics, this stupid stuff is not criminal.
Maybe #MeToo (or Bernie Sanders) would like to make it a felony for a short time, but the law now …
#3: More identity politics
#3: Democrats double down on identity politics with Pete Buttigieg
As pointed out by a 6 April 2019 on SFGate, it seeems that Democrats are intent on doubling down on identity politics. In this case, Pete Buttigieg is counting on riding the label of “gay” into the White House.
Pete Buttigieg sat in the back of a black SUV with a couple of staffers, sipping a still-steeping cup of tea to ease the fatigue from his suddenly frenetic schedule, when he looked out the window and interrupted himself.
“Man,” said Buttigieg, taking in the rainbow-hued signs and colorfully dressed passersby that signaled he had entered West Hollywood, Los Angeles’ de facto gay neighborhood. “It got real gay real quick out there.”
Few Democratic presidential candidates could assess their surroundings so bluntly without seeming painfully out of line. But Buttigieg is not like any other Democratic presidential candidate – in part, if not exclusively, because he is gay.
Although I did not understand the electorate’s support of a moral reprobate like Bill Clinton, I understand a little of their desire to keep government out of private affairs. Considering that, Obama and his NSA scandal should have been a bigger deal (except for the cover provided by the Democrat press).
Still, Democrats are going to have to provide more of a reason for voter support than “Vote for me, I’m gay.”
#4 – #9: The AOC Efforts to kill voter followings
#4: AOC – You Guys, They Amended the Constitution to Stop FDR From Running Again, or Something
According to her supporters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a singular obsession of the right-wing media. This framing ignores the indisputable reality that she’s a creation of the mainstream and left-wing media, heralded and celebrated as the fresh face of a new generation of hard-charging progressives. She’s also succeeding in yanking her party leftward, as multiple presidential candidates have endorsed her fanatical and fanciful “green new deal” legislation — although they all scurried behind a wall of “present” votes when the moment to support the resolution actually arrived.
Her latest media showcase occurred on MSNBC late last week, during with the freshman Congresswoman made all sorts of attention-grabbing assertions and comparisons — including advancing the notion that “environmental justice” must only be achieved alongside “economic justice,” which certainly won’t hlep dispel many skeptics’ suspicion that programs like the green new deal are less about addressing an urgent crisis, and more about redistributing wealth and amassing governmental control. Among other topics, she explained that the Tea Party is different than her movement because unlike those xenophobic white supremacists, she doesn’t call her opponents names:
After no Senate Dems vote for the Green New Deal this past week, Rep. Ocaiso-Cortez says "And first of all of, you… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Seems legit, and duly noted. She went on to make the following claim about the success of aggressive statism in American politics. FDR’s vast expansion of government was so popular, she averred, that opponents had to amend the constitution to prevent him from winning again:
According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected:
"They had to amend the C… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Her point is correct, except for the fact that (a) President Roosevelt (who ignored the Washington-set precedent of serving a maximum of two consecutive terms) had been dead for roughly two years when the 22nd Amendment was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan Congressional majorities, and approximately six years by the time it was ratified by the states and implemented, and (b) even if it had been directed at FDR while he were still in office, the amendment only applied to future presidents. It’s also worth noting that Republican majorities were only able to introduce this ultimately-successful amendment because they’d won sweeping landslide victories in the 1946 midterm elections, winning control of both legislative chambers. Also, at least two Republican presidents opposed the amendment, with Ronald Reagan going so far as to urge its repeal. Some dutiful media acolytes are performing their own version of Trumpist ‘translations’ in order to ostensibly demonstrate how AOC was actually kind of correct, if you ignore the actual substance of her core claim.
#5: Ocasio-Cortez slammed as ‘financially illiterate’ at Sharpton event over Amazon, faces calls to be ousted from office
According to one 6 April 2019 Fox News article, even members of the socialist branch of the Democrat party have had enough of the idiocy that comes out of AOC.
Hours before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for an “agenda of reparations” at an Al Sharpton-sponsored event in New York on Friday, she was slammed as “financially illiterate” at the same conference for killing the Amazon deal with the state.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke to the crowd at the National Action Network, saying her Green New Deal will consider reparations to black Americans for slavery in addition to the radical overhaul of the economy in a bid to combat climate change.
But at the same conference, hours before Ocasio-Cortez’s speech, an investor ripped those who opposed the Amazon deal with the state that would have generated billions in tax revenue and 25,000 jobs.
“The people campaigning against the Amazon campus are financially illiterate,” said Tracy Maitland, president and chief investment officer of Advent Capital Management during a panel discussion the Black Economic Agenda, according to the New York Post.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., reportedly has been de-listed from the board of left-wing activist group Justice Democrats, following legal and ethical questions about her affiliation with the group.
The Daily Caller reported that Ocasio-Cortez, along with chief of staff and former campaign chair Saikat Chakrabarti, have been removed from the board of the political action committee after previously holding “legal control over the entity” in late 2017 and early 2018.
The Daily Caller had reported earlier this month on Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti’s role with the PAC, noting that the congresswoman never disclosed to the Federal Election Commission that they “controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign.” Former FEC officials said at the time this could represent violations of campaign finance law.
Well, at least someone is catching on.
#7: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Melts Down over Collapsing Poll Numbers
Earlier this week, Breitbart News reported on Ocasio-Crazy’s awful polling numbers as reported by Gallup. There is just no question that as her national profile has exploded, primarily through gushing coverage from the establishment media, it has backfired bigtime with the public.
The more people know about Ocasio-Crazy, even though the media’s Vaseline-smeared filter, the less they like her.
Although she is much better known than almost all of her counterparts in congress, better known than even Chief Justice John Roberts, a plurality of 41 percent view her unfavorably, a leap of 15 points since September.
Meanwhile, her favorable rating has only jumped seven points, from 24 to 31 percent.
Right now, Ocasio-Crazy is underwater with the public by double digits, by ten full points.
The latest Gallup poll reveals that the public’s opinion of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has plummeted, as the socialist Democrat’s ignorance on issues and shocking ultra-left stances continue to make more and more Americans fearful about the potential damage she can do in Washington.
Before the young “rock star” candidate rocked the world by defeating 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) at the ballot box last November, American negativity toward the self-proclaimed socialist was relatively low, but after her numerous controversial gaffs and oblivious comments exposing her inexperience and dangerous worldview, more Americans are becoming wary about the destructive path on which the left-leaning representative could lead America.
Since Americans were surveyed in early September, a shocking upward shift in their negative opinion toward AOC has been discovered, as Gallup’s new poll indicates that the millennial Democrat is scaring off many once-impressed left-leaning sympathizers.
Let’s just hope she keeps it up.
#10: Obama acolyte warns of the unpopularity of socialism
A prominent Democrat is warning his party that Donald Trump will exploit their far-left ideas in 2020, and a political analyst says it’s good advice that won’t be heeded.
“Rahm Emanuel warns Democrats in 2020 not to play to ‘socialist’ type,” a USA Today headline states to begin a March 21 story.
Emanuel, the outgoing Chicago mayor, wrote an op-ed for The Atlantic warning fellow Democrats that they are serving up “slow pitches over the plate” to Trump, and he said the Republican president will peel away Democrats over proposals such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.
Emanuel, a Bill Clinton advisor who later served as Barack Obama’s chief of staff, is not appealing to Democrats out of niceness: he is known as a ruthless political player who once sent a mob-like dead fish to a pollster he didn’t like, and rattled off a list of political “enemies” as he stabbed a steak knife into a table.
Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s ties to anti-Semitism run deeper than previously known, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.
Tlaib, part of a heralded freshman class of House Democrats, has already come under scrutiny over her positions on Israel and ties to fringe figures. But TheDCNF’s investigation uncovered additional ties to anti-Semitism.
Tlaib is a member of the Facebook group “Palestinian American Congress,” where members often demonize Jews. The group’s founder, Palestinian activist Maher Abdel-qader, was a key fundraiser for Tlaib and organized campaign events for her around the country.
In January 2018, Abdel-qader shared an anti-Semitic video that claimed Jews aren’t actually Jewish, and invented their historical claim to Israel and secretly control the media.
The video, which described Jews as “satanic,” also questioned whether 6 million Jews actually died in the Holocaust.
“Research the truth about the Holocaust, and you’ll definitely start to question what you thought you knew,” the video’s narrator says.
Freshman Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar ignited a new controversy on Sunday night when she suggested GOP support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group.
Omar singled out AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, as the source of those donations.
Omar’s comments touched upon a long-running, and particularly ugly, thread of the anti-Semitic movement — that Jewish money fuels backing for Israel in the United States and elsewhere. A freshman Democrat, Max Rose of New York, said, “Congresswoman Omar’s statements are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself.”
And the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is a non-profit that doesn’t donate directly to candidates. AIPAC, however, does relentlessly push a pro-Israeli message on Capitol Hill and inside the executive branch, and its members donate to pro-Israel lawmakers and candidates while seeking to defeat those it considers a threat to U.S.-Israeli relations.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) just can’t get past the anti-Semitism issue. She has peddled in such trash before, posting tweets that were very…problematic with regards to this issue. And no, they’re not old. They’re not from high school. They’re from last month. And it’s stuff that isn’t new; Jewish Minnesota leaders had to have a sit-down with her because of her remarks. It was when she tweeted “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel” back in 2012. Now, after her “all about the Benjamins” fiasco, which once again peddled old anti-Semitic stereotypes about people of the Jewish faith, money, and influence, these local leaders might not treat her with “kid gloves” anymore. The media certainly hasn’t let her off the hook, reporting on her serial stupidity on this front.
So, what’s her latest anti-Semitic trainwreck? Well, she sort of accused people who are pro-Israel of exhibiting dual loyalty. She made such remarks last Wednesday. Even liberal writers can see through her nonsense, noting that she’s peddling the Palestinian cause to smuggle in bigoted talking points (via NYT):
Representative Ilhan Omar, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota, came under scrutiny again this week because of her comments about Israel.
The remarks in question came during a discussion at a Washington bookstore on Wednesday about how critics have repeatedly labeled Ms. Omar’s criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. She argued that the label is being used in bad faith to shut down debate.
The sentence that garnered the most attention was, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
Ms. Omar questioned why it was acceptable for her to speak critically about the political influence of the National Rifle Association, fossil fuel industries and “big pharma,” but not the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. (After she was widely criticized for a tweet about Aipac last month, she deleted it and apologized.)
In an article for New York magazine about the bookstore event, the writer Jonathan Chait accused Ms. Omar of using the cause of Palestinian rights “to smuggle in ugly stereotypes.”
He added that she was “invoking the hoary myth of dual loyalty, in which the Americanness of Jews is inherently suspect.”
Some conservative news outlets also posted articles critical of the comments. And Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for Aipac, said in a statement that the accusation of “dual loyalty” was alarming.
“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,” Mr. Wittmann said.
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.
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.
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).
“She was perfectly poised to be a bridge builder between Muslims and Jews, between Arabs and Israelis. ... She has… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
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.”
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).
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.
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
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.’
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.”
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
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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!”
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?
Democrats decried the separation of illegal alien adults from the children with 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The charge of dual loyalty not only raises the ominous specter of classic anti-Semitism, but it is also deeply insu… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
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.
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 fundraises to end U.S.-Israeli Relationship.
I am sad to say; they will raise monies for their agenda. It see… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
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.
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.
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.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) delivered an “inaugural address” in her Congressional District on Saturday afternoon, declaring that issues like the “right to migrate” will not be negotiable.
Addressing hundreds of supporters in the Bronx, the freshman lawmaker even had a swearing-in ceremony before uttering mostly platitudes.
Defending the Green New Deal after she and her office botched the rollout to much ridicule this week, the Democratic-Socialist claimed that the “Green New Deal is the legislation of indigenous communities in the United states” and many others.
“The Green New Deal is the legislation of the residents of Flynt. The Green New Deal belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. The Green New Deal belongs to the coal miners in West Virginia,” she continued. “It belongs to the victims of wildfires in California.”
She accused President Donald Trump of holding Americans “hostage” during the government shutdown and took pride in helping defeat his plans to get full funding for his border wall. Though she did not yell like former NBA player Kevin Garnett, Ocasio-Cortez said that “anything is possible” when “we center our communities and allow them to lead.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who voted against keeping the government open because the spending bill gave additional funds to the Department of Homeland Security, said the “dignity of immigrants, a living wage, an economic and ecological future” are “not up for negotiation.”
So AOC has gone from her initial claim that Republicans took her Green New Deal site down to now blaming the ownership on Puerto Rico and coal miners in West Virginia? As unbelievable as AOC has always been, this is really unbelievable.
In the land of Bloomberg 7mdash; where they want to legislate away your gun rights and your ability to drink large soft drinks — this is almost fitting that they would have jobs taken away by someone who wants to give money away to those unwilling to work.