Richmond, Virginia – where it is a felony to commit animal cruelty, but where the Governor supports cruelty to babies through abortion.😡🙏🏻💔 Richmond is on fire right now! It’s time for revival!! Mourn and repent with us! (2 Chronicles 7:14!!) Visit DayOfMourning.org for your free tickets! #DayOfMourning
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV)
While Virginia approves of child murder after birth, they pass a law making animal cruelty a felony
Virginia to enact ‘Tommie’s Law,’ making animal cruelty a felony
As revealed by this 4 April 2019 Fox News article, the radical left has all sorts of compassion for beings (just as long as they are not newly-born humans).
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed into law on Monday a bill that will make animal cruelty a felony in the commonwealth.
Dubbed “Tommie’s Bill,” the legislation is set to change current law — which, according to WWBT, states that those who abuse animals “can only be charged with a misdemeanor unless the animal dies.”
But after the Democratic governor signed the bill into law, animal cruelty will be considered a Class 6 felony, which is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, and up to five years in prison.
The bill was named after Tommie, a male brindle pit bull who was found tied to a pole after being “covered in accelerant and intentionally lit on fire” in February.
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.
…Rosa Maria Ortega was born in Monterrey, Mexico, and brought to the U.S. by her mother when she was just a baby.
Now, she faces eight years in prison for voter fraud in Texas. While Ortega is a legal resident of the U.S., she is not a U.S. citizen.
Ortega was found guilty Wednesday on two counts of voter fraud after having falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and voting at least five times between 2012 and 2014. In addition to the eight year prison sentence, she was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine.
One question for the foreign woman who voted in Texas: if you knew that you were born in another country and your parents were citizens of that country, why would you assume that you could vote in American elections? One question for Texas election officials: why did we allow a foreign national to vote in Texas elections 5 times before investigating the matter?
Officials in Texas acknowledge that hundreds of people were able to bypass voter ID laws and improperly cast ballots in the presidential election.
Voters were able to sign a sworn statement instead of showing ID.
The chief election officers in two of Texas’ largest counties are considering whether to refer cases to prosecutors for possible charges.
Officials in many other areas say they will let the mistakes go, adding that there was widespread confusion among workers and voters.
The law requires voters to show one of seven approved forms of identification.
The affidavit process was adopted after an appeals court ruled that the voter ID law discriminated against minorities. The change was intended to help voters who could not obtain identification for a variety of reasons, including disability or illness, lack of transportation or conflicts with work schedules.
The revelations come as President Trump has made frequent claims that the nation’s voting systems are vulnerable to fraud.
An Associated Press analysis of roughly 13,500 affidavits submitted in Texas’ largest counties found at least 500 instances in which voters were allowed to get around the law by signing an affidavit and never showing a photo ID, despite indicating that they possessed one.
Questionable affidavits were identified in over 20 counties around the state.
Tarrant County alone had at least two dozen. In Bexar County, home to San Antonio, the top election official estimated that a large chunk of the nearly 600 affidavits submitted should have been declined and voters instructed to cast provisional ballots instead.
Again, why do we wait until a Republican president points to the flaws in the system before we notice that the system has been as riddled with cracks as many have been reporting? Since the days of President Johnson, Texans have known of Democrats and their ballot box tricks.
At least 385 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio
When Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall asked the state’s 133 local governments to provide numbers on noncitizens and jury pools, Loudoun County produced some hefty figures.
Between 2009 and 2014, the Washington, D.C., exurb of more than 350,000 residents had disqualified more than 9,000 of them for jury duty because they were not U.S. citizens.
Loudoun County jury pools come from two sources — voter registration lists and Department of Motor Vehicle driver’s license applications. The county’s 9,000 juror disqualifications means that a potentially significant number of noncitizens vote illegally in Virginia. It suggests a basis for President Trump’s assertion of illegal immigrants voting in November’s elections, though not necessarily by the “millions” he has claimed.
After Mr. Marshall, Prince William Republican, had collected the jury pool data in 2014, a new player entered the state last year. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) began canvassing election clerks county by county, city by city, demanding they turn over information on noncitizens purged from voters lists and whether they had voted.
The foundation found itself in a stiff battle with Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s elections chief, who, PILF said, did not want to turn over voter information. In October PILF issued its first report, accusing the state of a “cover up” as “thousands” of noncitizens illegally remain on Virginia’s voting rolls.
Citing data from six counties and two cities, the report found that 1,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in those jurisdictions between 2011 and 2016, and that 200 of them actually voted.
Should we be surprised that Democrat Terry McAuliffe sandbagged the efforts to find voter fraud? Should we expect more voter fraud to be unearthed in the state where this governor enabled felons to vote?
Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.
But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.
You’d think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the “voter” was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and “play dumb” in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.
Considering the demonstrated ease of voter fraud, it seems only natural that we should make it harder to do the wrong thing (commit voter fraud) than the right (make our voice known at the ballot box, through the public forums, and with our elected officials).