Thirteen stories on Democrats doing what Democrats do best


Hating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local media said there were no injuries.

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

(Read more at WSVN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Red State)

JackPosobiecTweet
Josie80360617tweet

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

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

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

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

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

Travis Sarandos_tweet

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

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

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

Sarandos has since deleted his Twitter account.

(Read more at the Milwaukee Star Tribune)

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

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

Avoiding the truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATCH:

Verdict: False

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

Fact Check:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Check Your Fact)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

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

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

Criminalizing those who deserve praise and protecting criminals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at CNBC)

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

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

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

Being Racist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

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

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

Shady dealings

  1. Iowa Democrat party chair calls for probe into caucus

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

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

Price added the review will take as long as needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the One America News Network)

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

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

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

Breitbart reports on the failure of the Iowa caucus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

Do not let them shift the blame


Just as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA, pictured above) tried to blame the President for the crisis that the Congress created through years of inaction, Democrats continue to try to shift the blame. Do not let them do it.

Do not let Democrats shift the blame for 9/11

“Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes the Ilhan Omar Route in Describing How 9/11 Happened

On 11 September 2019, Red State pointed out the hypocrisy of the New York Times as the NYTwits cover for Ilhan Omar.

Five months ago, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said “some people did something” in a CAIR speech she gave where she talked about the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. The “some people” she was referring to, of course, were the radical Islamic terrorists who “did something” by committing the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

Hands-Off-Ilhan-RallyOutrage was swift and came from many corners including from President Trump. The New York Post published a brutal front page reminder in response to Omar’s reprehensible comments:

Unfortunately, on the 18th anniversary of 9/11 it seems that the New York Times took a page from Omar’s book in characterizing the horrific events of that awful day.

In a now-deleted tweet they posted early this morning, the paper wrote that “airplanes took aim” at the World Trade Center, rather than noting terrorists “took aim.” They also noted the WTC was where “more than 2,000 people died” rather than accurately reporting it was where “nearly 3,000 people” were killed. Here are a couple of screen captures of the original tweet:

Not only was that how the tweet was written, but the actual story originally contained the same language:

(Read more at Red State)

“Never forget” was the promise — not reassign blame

Although we must not assign guilt to the innocent, we also cannot become blind to the real danger. We cannot think that radical Islam can be disassociated with the murder of innocents (unless it turns from the more violent commands within its own tradition — at which point it ceases to be radical Islam). We cannot let our guard down, because the remembrance does not link to a sense of vengeance desired, but from the need to protect future generations.

Do not let Democrats lie about the border crisis

Former ICE Director to Wasserman-Schultz: “I’ve forgotten more about this issue than you’ll ever know”

Real Clear Politics shares a recent dust-up between DWS and Former ICE Director Holman.

Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:

Speaker Testimony
Wasserman Schultz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my questions, since it has not yet been done I think it’s important to really make sure that the jingoist, bigoted testimony of Mr. Homan is called out as nearly completely untrue, as being an outrage. And as a former official directing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, he should know better. So making sure that I am–
Unknown: Mr. Chairman.
Wasserman Schultz: No, no, this is my five minutes.
Homan: What did I say that was inaccurate?
Wasserman Schultz: I’m not asking a question.
Raskin: Okay, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. She’s made her point, and I will try to resolve any other issues at the end of her questioning.
Wasserman Schultz: Thank you. So I just think it’s important that it’s not accepted as accurate testimony.
Jordan: I just want to get–because your–your testimony is that the broader issue and I–this is critically important but we also have a broader issue that we have unbelievable numbers we have seen on the border with apprehensions and everything else, right?
Homan: Absolutely. And if I can respond to the earlier remark from Wasserman Schultz I have forgotten more about this issue then you will ever know. So to say my testimony is inaccurate is wrong. Everything I said here is accurate. Bottom line. If you want to go toe to toe I am here. I am here on my own time to speak to the American people about what is what and what is fact.
Wasserman Schultz: I am sure happy to go toe to toe with you Mr. Homan. Happy to do that any day.
Homan: Well, I–I am here. But you’ve got to let me respond to your question rather than dropping a bomb and running away.
Wasserman Schultz: It was my time (mumbling).
Homan: There is a crisis on the border and–and it is not going to go away if we keep enticing more and more–if we want to abolish ICE, we want to give away college education and drivers licenses and free medical care and rewarding illegal behavior you are never going to solve the immigration crisis on the border. It’s not going to happen.

I, for one, am tired of the Main Stream Media ignoring Democrats as they compound the border issue

Of course, to me, Democrats include the likes of the Koch brothers (who lobbied for and profited from illegal aliens in their chicken processing plants).

Furthermore, these Democrats also include those shamelessly ignoring the crisis at the border in order that they might:

  1. Absolve their compatriots of the inaction required by the likes of the Koch brothers
  2. Build a new identity-politics group from the illegal aliens
  3. Create a feeling of distrust between conservatives and the communities that might identify with the illegal aliens

With these groups identified, we must watch these Democrats and demand action.

Do not let Democrats re-write the genetic code

Although there is no “gay” gene, journalists continue the search

Kirby Anderson of Point of View points out a central flaw within the “gay” gene debate.

DNA molecule research

Two weeks ago, the largest study of the genetic basis of sexuality was published in Science. Based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, the research concluded that there was no “gay gene.” But you wouldn’t know that from some of the headlines.

Associated Press proclaimed that “New Genetic Links to Same-Sex Sexuality Found in Huge Study.” The Washington Post was a little less spectacular: “There’s No One Gay Gene, but Genetics Are Linked to Same-Sex Behavior.” Fortunately, you had some headlines like NPR that offered a better perspective: “Search for Gay Genes Comes Up Short in Large New Study.”

The range of headlines illustrates how political and politically correct any discussion of same-sex attraction and homosexuality has become. Researchers and gay activists have been looking for this elusive “gay gene” for decades in order to affirm the cliché that homosexuals were “born that way.”

What the researchers found is that a few genes might have some influence on same-sex sexual behavior. To put that in perspective, consider that about 60 percent of height is influenced genetically, while the rest is due to environment. The research concludes that genetic influence of same-sex behavior is less than a third of that.

I also found it interesting that the researchers actually consulted with LGBTQ groups before publication in order to “clarify wording and highlight caveats.” I doubt that has been done for too many other scientific research studies.

(Read more at Point of View)

If you took just a sampling of the studies on identical twins and homosexuality, you could have predicted this reaction

By looking at the conclusions of a wide sampling of the scholarly articles on the occurrence of homosexuality with identical twins, you would have found phrases like:

  1. “(A)ttempts at final answers are only partially successful and beget still other scientific puzzles” (Whitam, Diamond, & Martin, 1993)
  2. “(M)ale homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part” (Eckert, Bouchard, Bohlen, & Heston, 1986)
  3. “(T)he need of additional work in relation to the genetic aspects of homosexuality cannot possibly be questioned” (Kallman, 1952).

However, statements like the following were either cryptic or missing:

  1. “Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation” (King & McDonald, 1992). [Homosexuality cannot be inherited by only one individual out of two identical twins.]

Do not let Democrats redefine normalcy

Patriots’ Ben Watson Tells Media to ‘Stop Lying’ about Brees, Focus on the Family

Christian Headlines shows how Ben Watson called out the media for lying about Drew Brees and Focus on the Family.

ben-watson

A 15-year veteran of the NFL is defending New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees and Focus on the Family following mainstream media criticism of both.

Benjamin Watson, a tight end for the New England Patriots, said Monday the criticism against Brees and Focus on the Family was unfair and inaccurate. As Christian Headlines previously reported, Brees faced a backlash after he recorded a video promoting Bring Your Bible to School Day, which is being held Oct. 3 this year and is sponsored by Focus on the Family.

The criticism focused on the organization’s stance on LGBT issues, including its defense of the traditional definition of marriage. The articles that sparked the controversy said Focus on the Family was “anti-LGBT.”

Watson, who is known for his Christian views, previously played with Brees.

“My reaction was, first, that the article itself was misleading and a mischaracterization of Focus on the Family and of Drew. It was slanderous,” Watson said Monday on Fox and Friends. “And so my response was to stop lying with those sorts of labels.”

It is a lie, Watson said, to label Focus on the Family “as anti-gay, anti-non discrimination.”

“It’s a shame in this country right now, where if you adhere to certain biblical beliefs that we all have a right to choose what religion we adhere to, you’re labeled as anti,” he added. “What Focus on the Family does is uphold marriage. Family is the basic building block of society. [Focus on the Family] upholds those things, and they’re labeled [as] anti by other people. And there’s an agenda there. And that’s what really upset me.”

(Read more at Christian Headlines)

At one time, the Gay groups said all they wanted was acceptance
Now they seem to want to vilify anyone who doesn’t join them

As Jack Philips, Melissa Klein, Elaine Huguenin, Barronelle Stutzman, and a number of other Christians might testify, gay groups have been known to take peoples’ livelihoods in response to a perceived slight. This has to stop.

Loving and praying for our enemies must continue; however, standing by as our Christian brothers and sisters become victims of gay groups has to stop.

 

Wasserman Shultz Words Point Toward Obama Holding Environmentalists Captive to the Keystone Pipeline


One thing that I have learned two things about words from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. First, if those words center around any bad press for the Democrats, she will be loudly denying any possible connection between the event she is talking about and the Democrats. Second, with 10 minutes and access to 10 news sources, any tenth grader can usually build a cogent case against her claims.

In the event that either you hail from the show-me state and need a demonstration Wasserman Schultz in fact has a reputation for lying, consider these instances:

  1. Debbie Wasserman Schultz attributes her lie to a reporter of The Examiner, claims that she was misquoted, and then finds that the reporter recorded her initial lie.
  2. When confronted by Anderson Cooper regarding her misquote of the LA Times in a fundraising e-mail, she repeatedly says “it does not matter.”
  3. Wasserman Schultz repeatedly claims that Obama did not lie when he said “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
  4. Wasserman Schultz claims that US citizens will not have to purchase insurance nor pay penalties. An IRS official explains the truth.

Therefore, having established that Wasserman Schultz has a reputation for lying, why would this blog mention it? Considering the emphasis that this blog put on untruths and lies several months ago (Obama’s Continuous Attack on Truth: Handing the Internet Over From Bad to Worse and Lies and Untruths, Part 2 – Eric Holder Cannot Name the Basis For Obama’s Executive Orders), why even devote more column space to it?  The reasons are simple. First, if you remember the distinction between lies and untruths to be that untruths were in defense of other peoples’ lives and if you review the things that Wasserman Schultz, you will find that she singularly defends the killing of other people (that is, she defends abortion). Therefore, this is one logical continuation of the arguments posited in those earlier posts. Second, consider this a cautionary tale that would point you away from doing things that would destroy your reputation.

In addition to considering the poor relation between Wasserman Schultz and the truth (and what that has done to her reputation), please consider these sets of verses on the value of a good reputation:

  1. A good reputation can benefit anyone.
  2. A good reputation and respect are worth much more than silver and gold. (Proverbs 22:1 NIV)

    A good name is better than fine perfume, … (Ecclesiastes 7:1 NIV)

  3. A good reputation helps Christians communicate the good news about Jesus.
  4. Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:11-12)

    Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel (Philippians 1:27)

  5. A good reputation is necessary if you want to be a church leader.
  6. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. (1 Timothy 3:2-7)

  7. Working to keep a good reputation helps us follow the commands of Jesus
  8. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:35)

  9. Not working to have a good reputation does not fool God.
  10. “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. (Revelation 3:1)

    … the way of the wicked leads to destruction. (Psalm 1:6)

  11. God rewards a good reputation
  12. “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. … Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. (Revelation 3:7, 8, & 10)

    For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous … (Psalm 1:6)