Yes Virginia Planned Parenthood is racist

When asked if PP would accept donations to be used to abort only Black babies PP said yes.

The abortion industry was built upon racism.

We asked Planned Parenthood if they would accept donations to specifically abort black babies.

Here was their response. pic.twitter.com/WVuMv6Znma

— Live Action (@LiveAction) May 28, 2019

As Justice Thomas has pointed out PP's founder, Margret Sanger, was an avowed racist and eugenicist. While she didn't support abortion as a way to improve the race other eugenicists did.

Today in America Black women are 3 times as likely to abort as white women and PP doesn't care.

Today in America the leading cause of death for Black Americans is abortion and PP doesn't care.

Actually PP does care; they like those statistics.  Why else would 80% or so of PP clinics be in minority neighborhoods?

How we know Obama was spying on Trump

When the FBI thought that a person on McCain's presidential campaign might have inappropriate contacts with foreigners they told McCain who resolved the issue.

But when the FBI was supposedly concerned about a similar case with Trump they didn't tell him and they instead launched a massive spying effort against Trump's campaign.

That says that from the beginning the Obama administration was targeting Trump even though there was no evidence of any wrong doing.  Remember the Steele dossier, which is all that Obama's goons had at the time, is unverified information--according to Steele--from anonymous Russian sources.

While the #FakeNews media pretends that all the political opposition research Obama's government turned over to Hillary was an accidental side effect of a sincere investigation the fact that Trump wasn't told of the problem when Obama's lackeys were saying that they didn't think Trump had done anything wrong shows otherwise.

From the beginning the whole foreign collusion investigation was a witch-hunt aimed at Trump.

Bonus fact.  Mueller didn't even look at the admitted collusion between Hillary, via Steele, and Russian sources.

Democrat double standards: Comey, Mueller edition.

If you're old enough you'll remember when all Democrats were incensed that Comey said that Hillary had horribly mishandled highly classified data but that it wasn't a crime.

They said that if he wasn't prosecuting her he should have just said so and left it at that.

But today Mueller is saying that even though he can't find any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal he knows that Trump is a crook and Democrats are cheering.

What makes the situation even more vile is that in Comey's description of what Hillary did he established that she did in fact break the law right before he absolved her by effectively declaring she was above the law.  But in the case of Trump Mueller hasn't produced a single fact that shows that Trump did anything wrong.

Interestingly Mueller points to Trump's firing of Comey as something that might be obstruction.  The problem is that Rod Rosenstein, the man who appointed Mueller, said that Comey should be fired for his mishandling of the Hillary case; ie he said that the Democrats concerns about Comey's actions were valid.

So Mueller is saying that Trump might have obstructed justice for firing Comey for having violated FBI policies.

Comey lied about the law and cleared Hillary for crimes she clearly committed.

Mueller implied that Trump was guilty while admitting that he hadn't found any evidence of that.

That's the double standard; Democrats are innocent even when found guilty and Trump is guilty even when found innocent.

The Dog That Didn't Bark in the Night: Mueller corruption edition

In his recent speech Mueller said that he'd been tasked to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But his report shows that that's not what he investigated.

One very large example of potential Russian interference in the 2016 election is a matter of public record but Mueller didn't even look at it; Russia supplying Hillary with fake dirt on Trump that was used to enable Obama to enlist the entire US Intelligence Community(IC) to spy on the Trump campaign.

Thanks to the diligent work of Rep. Nunes we know that Hillary paid Russians for what turned out to be lies about Trump.  Given that the Russians she paid--through a British ex spy--are anonymous we don't know if they were working for Putin and supplying disinformation to attack the Trump campaign and to put Hillary in Putin's debt.

There are however reasons to believe that's the case.  The likelihood that tens of highly places sources in Russia would communicate through third parties with Steele--Steele's cover had been blown and he couldn't safely go to Russia-- without the knowledge of Putins secret police is rather low.  Also the idea that Russians would put their necks on the line by helping Hillary, if in fact Putin's policy was to help Trump, strains credulity.

Given that we now know that the Steele dossier was the only evidence presented to justify a FISA warrant which enabled the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign it's clear that if the information in it was Russian disinformation it was the biggest example of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Nixon ended up resigning because some of his operatives, without his approval, broke into a Democrat campaign headquarters trying to find information about the Democrats strategy.  To this day Democrats say that was the most horrible thing ever done by a President.

But we now know that Obama et al did far worse. The bungling bunglers of the Nixon came up empty handed and they weren't government employees.  Obama managed to weaponize the entire IC, the FBI, and the DOJ to do what Nixon's burglars did; spy on the opposition. What's more frightening; a few inept employees of the President breaking into an opposing campaigns office or the entire Federal Government being tasked with breaking into an opposing campaigns conversations?

If the entire abuse of power by Obama was enabled by disinformation from Russia in the form of the Steele dossier it would be far more significant than a few hundred thousand dollars of social media ads purchased by Russia.

If Mueller was really interested in Russian interference, rather than nullifying the 2016 election, why didn't he even look at what Hillary did?

But it gets worse. One of the "might have been" obstruction issues raised by Mueller was that supposedly emails related to a meeting between Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer were concealed.

Which means that while Mueller completely ignored a Hillary employee contacting tens of Russian sources about dirt on Trump he is complaining that concealing emails about one Trump employee meeting with one Russian is a crime.  Even worse it's agreed to by all that Trump Jr left the meeting with no dirt on Hillary while Hillary certainly got her money's worth out of the Steele dossier.

The very fact that Mueller never even looked at the Steele dossiers provenance to see if it was disinformation tells us a lot about the real nature of his "investigation".

Mueller's ignoring the Hillary aspect of collusion is the dog that didn't bark in the night.  It shows that Mueller is friendly with Hillary and hostile towards Trump. That explains why Mueller didn't bark at Hillary's apparent collusion.

Mueller proves he's a Democrat and a fascist

Mueller's farewell speech was designed to accomplish the same objective as his report; imply that Trump did criminal things even though Mueller found no evidence of criminal activity by Trump.

Mueller spent time trying to make people think about Trump when he was talking about Russia's attacks on the electoral process even though his report said there was no collusion what's so ever.  If there was  shred of decency in Mueller he wouldn't have done that.

Mueller also tried to make it appear that the only reason that he didn't indict Trump was because he's a sitting President but that's a lie.

If, as Mueller concluded, there was no collusion then it would be impossible for Trump to have committed a crime related to collusion hence there was no basis for Trump to be indicted on any charges related to collusion.

As to obstruction Mueller himself, as Barr has pointed out, failed to point to anything that he could show was obstruction. Mueller listed a few things that "might" have been obstruction but prosecutors don't deal with "might". They say that something is either criminal or not; they may be overruled by judges or juries but prosecutors don't just randomly tell the public that something someone did "might" be wrong.  They don't do so because it's not their job to smear someone's reputation it's their job to prosecute crimes.

Given that among the things Mueller pointed to as obstruction was Trump wanting to fire Mueller and replace him with a less compromised individual--a key person in the obstruction story was Comey who is Mueller's friend-- it's clear that Mueller was trying to fabricate something.  Unless Mueller thinks that he's the only person who could have run this investigation replacing him with someone else and not stopping the investigation can't be obstruction.

If you look at the things that Mueller claimed "might" be obstruction you'll find that none of them are things that sane people think of as obstruction.  Contrary to what Mueller tried to imply in his speech none of the items mentioned in his report involve lying to or asking someone else to lie under oath.  But they do include Trump saying that someone who was attacking him was a rat.

Mueller made a big deal of not being able to indict a sitting President but he failed to mention that his report did not say that any action by Trump was obstruction. Rather he listed a few things that "might"be obstruction.  It is a matter of fact that Mueller now or in his report did not say that but for his inability to indict a sitting President he would have indicted Trump or even that he had evidence of any crime.  Mueller's report didn't say "there is evidence of obstruction but we can't indict"; it said these things "might" be obstruction.

He's trying to avoid directly lying while doing his best to imply that despite his, Mueller's, inability to find any evidence of any crime that Trump did in fact do something criminal.

One way to see the dishonesty of Mueller's position on obstruction is that it's impossible to obstruct a witch hunt and Mueller's admission, which he tried to cover over in his attack speech, that there was no collusion means that there was no valid investigation to obstruct.  Essentially Mueller is trying to criminalize a wrongfully accused individual fighting back against an unjust politically motivated investigation.

In light of that it's amazingly dishonest for Mueller to have said this in his attack:

"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge."

Some of you may be thinking that calling Mueller a fascist is a bridge too far. But here's what he said:

"And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."

In our democracy we are innocent until proven guilty. In fascist regimes people are guilty until prove innocent.

Mueller's comment that they didn't clear the President is saying that he believes Trump is guilty until proven innocent.

The way our system works is the following.  If there is evidence of a crime, which there wasn't in the case of Mueller's investigation of Trump, a prosecutor investigates.  If sufficient evidence is discovered then the prosecutor indicts and brings the person to trial.  If there is not sufficient evidence then the prosecutor does nothing. He certainly doesn't write a report and make speeches about how he didn't prove the alleged perpetrator to be innocent precisely because doing so is, as Mueller said himself, unfair.

Yet Mueller's report and his speech do precisely what he says is unfair; imply that Trump is guilty of something while not in fact presenting any evidence of any crime.

There are two options. Either Mueller is an incompetent who, despite spending a fortune, didn't find evidence that exists or he's a dishonest political hack who in spite of finding no evidence is doing all he can to malign the President he personally doesn't like.

Democrat Ilhan Omar implies Latinos are stupid

Trump and conservatives are calling for a merit based immigration policy where we let people who have useful skills and won't end up on welfare become Americans.

Ilhan Omar was very upset about this and declared that a merit based policy would discriminate against Latinos which of course means she thinks that Latinos aren't skilled or competent.

She didn't realize that her racism was showing but Ted Cruz did:

As the son of a Cuban immigrant whose Dad came to get a math degree & become a computer programmer, I’m troubled that Dems seem to believe Hispanic immigrants can’t qualify for skills-based legal immigration. Bringing in more scientists, engineers & doctors is good for US jobs. https://t.co/iugniZgJtL

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 29, 2019

Ilhan has removed the original tweet but it's too late. We now know that in her mind she thinks of Latinos as stupid and incompetent.

The reality is that the Democrat party of today is the party of racism. They ignore the mass shootings of Blacks in Democrat run cities and they view Latinos as stupid and lazy.

The notorious RGB denies science and common sense

In her opinion about the Court's ruling that it's legal for the state of Indiana to require aborted babies to be buried and not just thrown in the trash Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,”

This is akin to saying the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth. Modern science has unequivocally determined that a new human being is formed at conception when a new unique set of DNA is produced.  

As a society we know that from the moment of conception a woman becomes a mother.  Look how we treat women who announce they're pregnant; no one waits for the birth to congratulate her or to share in her joy.  

Similarly we all extend great sympathies to a woman who miscarries her baby even very early in the pregnancy.  By RBG's reasoning however we're mistaken to do so because if a baby isn't a baby if she's aborted then a baby isn't a baby if she dies before birth.

Unless of course one makes the claim that the mother's will determines whether or not her unborn daughter is a human being.  Declaring that we can by our will change biological realities is the epitome of insanity and hubris.

In order to maintain the facade that abortion is anything other than the sanctioned killing of an innocent person because they're inconvenient--less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or the need to save the mothers life-- dishonest people like RBG have to deny both science and common sense.

They have to act as though prior to birth babies aren't human and then somehow due to some magical effect they become human when they're born.

There's an old saying "Abortion doesn't make a woman unpregnant; it just makes her the mother of a dead baby".  That is true and what RBG said is a lie.  Unless of course you want to reject both science and common sense.

There is no limit to the illogical and self contradictory positions that the pro-abortion crowd will take in order to preserve their right to have sex without consequences.

The Democrats short memory

Joe Biden is the current front runner for the 2020 Democrat presidential nominee.

Yet in 2008 Biden said this about Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

The clear implication is that Jesse Jackson, and probably most Blacks, aren't those things.

This is just one more example of the racism of the Democrat party in general and Joe Biden in particular. 

The real vs the remembered Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Pretty much everyone in America says that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man.

Even though I knew of his cheating on his wife, which was pretty much covered up by the media, I accepted and admired the remembered man; the person that America praised as opposed to who the man really was.

Americans remembered King as the man who proclaimed the truth; we should judge people based on the content of their character not the color of their skin.   The King we remember is a good man and the sort of hero we should hold up for emulation.

The real King is coming into the light again however because a leftists Brit Pulitzer prize winning author has now said that King cheated on his wife much more than had been thought and that he may have not been opposed to a friend raping a woman.

These claims may all be false but the leftist making them has no reason to lie and he says they are based on recordings made by Bobby Kennedy.

As an aside one more bit of evidence of the racism of the modern Democrat party is that Bobby Kennedy spied on King and released damaging information he found to the press to discredit King.

If they're true then by the standards of the modern left they mean nothing.

Some conservatives are saying that this new information could bring about a meaningful dialog about how condemning people like Washington and Jefferson because they weren't perfect--they both owned slaves--isn't right. That since no one is perfect we should admire the remembered Washington and Jefferson rather than dwell on their failings.

The problem with those conservatives hopes is that they're forgetting that to the left failures by leftists aren't failures.  The left still refuses to condemn Bill Clinton for his #MeToo crimes, Democrat governor Northam for his racism, or Ilhan Omar for her antisemitism.

Even if we could prove that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were a serial killer, which he most certainly was not,  the left wouldn't dream of waging a campaign against him like they are against Washington and Jefferson.  The left hates all the Founders because they gave us a country where the people rule and the left wants an America where the elites, who they fancy themselves as, rule.

The interesting thing is that the left should hate King because they completely reject his call to judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.  To the left all Blacks, except conservatives, are good because of the color of their skin and all whites, except themselves, are bad because of the color of their skin.

Day after day the left issues sweeping condemnations of every person of pallor in direct opposition to the call for which most Americans admire King.

Every society needs heroes.  Few people are perfect.  Hence it's perfectly fine for us to admire the remembered heroes and not the real flawed men.

Left wing fantasy: Climate Change is responsible for tornados

Since a powerful tornado hit Ohio we'll probably see a bunch of leftists up in arms. No they won't be donating their own money to help the victims but they will be declaring this is "proof" that climate change is real.

They've been using the claim that the increase in tornado activity has been due to climate change.

The only problem is that not only don't scientists say that there is a provable link but that there hasn't been an increase in tornado activity:

It's clear that if there is any trend it's for fewer strong to violent tornados. Oh and leftists can trust these results because they were generated by the government.

All minorities are oppressed except for Asians who are really white

One of the techniques being used by the left to destroy America is to claim that whites, except themselves of course, are racists.

But if that's the case why are Asians doing so well?  In fact Asians are doing so well that they are discriminated against even more than whites are in college admissions.

Leftists have now started to say that Asians effectively enjoy white privilege.  Unclear how that works.

The truth is simple if someone stays in school, doesn't do drugs, doesn't have kids out of wedlock, works hard, gets married and stays married to the same person odds are they'll do well in America no matter what their race.

Blacks who aren't doing as well in America aren't following those rules and the Blacks who do follow those rules do just fine.

Leftists don't like those rules because they mean you can't do drugs, have casual sex, and not work hard.  Since those are core values for many leftists they want to redefine reality so that people who don't want to be responsible get the same rewards as those who are responsible.

The left's freedom to hate America was bought with the blood of soldiers

Despite the long term campaign against American soldiers by the left-- our troops are monsters who killed huge numbers of civilians in Iraq, Vietnam, etc-- most real Americans are grateful for the sacrifices so many have made to protect our freedoms.

Not only veterans but their families have given much to our country so instead of portraying them as violent psychopaths we should commend them for being so merciful and taking such huge risks to avoid killing civilians.

But to the left the only enemy in the world is America and those who stand for the Constitution.  Other than a short period right after 9/11 the left has constantly attacked American soldiers both as individuals and as tools of a fascist imperialistic state.

When the communists conquered South Vietnam and people where killed, imprisoned, or forced to flee the left had no words of condemnation. They continued to describe all American soldiers as monsters and to spit on them.

When Iraq conquered Kuwait the hatred decreased for a bit but then it ramped up again.

The objective of the left is to destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4th Amendment, and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as well so to them Islamic terrorists aren't the enemy Americans who support the Constitution are the enemy.  Hence leftists don't care about our troops because in the minds of leftists, who are constantly telling us that Islamic terrorism isn't the threat conservative terrorism is the threat, the troops aren't doing anything useful.

Interestingly the hatred of the troops is also motivated by the fact that soldiers tend to be conservative.  You don't see a whole lot of pampered left wing millennials volunteering to defend America. That's why in 2000 the Democrats running the vote count in Florida did everything they could to keep the absentee ballots cast by soldiers from being counted while desperately trying to count every hanging chad for Gore.

If you're a veteran I want to express my thanks for all you've done for your country. Even if you never went in harms way you said you would if it was needed and even if you weren't shot at you suffered a huge spectrum of inconveniences, like having to move often, for we the people; things that most of us haven't had to do.

God Bless and know that real Americans respect your service, your dedication, your compassion, and your sacrifice and that we keep you in our prayers.

Why it's easy to hate big companies

On January 14 2019 AT&T unilaterally changed its contracts with people who use its DirectTV, Uverse, AT&T phone, or AT&T Internet services.

Now if you cancel the service you can't get a refund for unused days.  So if you switch to another provider and don't need the AT&T service you'll still be billed for it up until your next billing date.

This is similar to a change that AT&T implemented a while ago which says you pay for your services before they're provided.

While it's true if this sort of thing upsets you, as it should, you could change phone companies which is a huge pain and which just leaves you at the mercy of another mega company. Essentially the big companies can rip you off this way and there's nothing you can do about it which doesn't hurt you more than it hurts them.

The feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness that people feel when they encounter this sort of nastiness by a big company may be a key aspect of why so many Americans hate big business.

In the old days people rarely interacted with really large companies since most of their money was spent on local stores.  While the phone company was a big company it was also a government regulated monopoly that couldn't get away with things that AT&T is getting away with.

How many online contracts and/or end user agreements have you seen where the big company can change the content arbitrarily and unilaterally?

Companies that effectively rip off their customers this way get millions of people to think of those companies the same way they think of DMV.

The left hates personal responsibility

One of the key elements of modern leftists, including Democrat politicians, thinking is a strong desire to live off the hard work of others and to declare that leftists aren't ever responsible for the consequences of their actions.

We see that in the Green New Deal which said that perfectly healthy people who are capable of working but who don't feel like it, historically we called those people bums, are entitled to a nice lifestyle paid for by hard working Americans.  Given that few people really enjoy their work what the left wants is for people who are irresponsible to benefit from the hard work of responsible men and women.

Given that less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and even less are due to medical need the vast majority of abortions are because two people who chose to have sex knowing that they could produce a new human being don't want to be responsible for their actions. The left says that it's ok to kill an innocent unborn child because her parents are irresponsible.

Gays suffer from a wide spectrum of diseases because they engage in massively promiscuous sex.  But the left says we should endorse their irresponsible lifestyle and spend billions trying to cure their STDs.

Leftists give less of their own time and money to help the poor. Instead they consider voting for politicians who impose higher taxes on other people as their contribution to charity.  Essentially leftists are irresponsible when it comes to their personal obligation to use what they have to help the needy.

Hillary Clinton paid Russians for fake rumors about Trump and put highly classified information where foreign governments could easily see it but the left says that she shouldn't be held responsible.

Bill Clinton lied under oath to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit but the left says that he shouldn't be held responsible.

George Bush knew there was a problem with home loans in 2006 but Democrat politicians refused to let him fix Fannie and Freddie. When the housing market collapsed and took the economy down Democrats not only refused to take responsibility they, including the #FakeNews media, blamed Bush.

Bill Clinton ran from Somali after the Black Hawk down incident which we know caused Osama bin Laden to think that Americans were weak. That in turn led to the 9/11 attack because Osama was sure America wouldn't retaliate. But of course the left says that Clinton wasn't responsible.

Obama lied to we the people about our being able to keep our doctors under Obamacare.  But the left doesn't hold him responsible for his lies.

Like most totalitarians the modern American left are all about taking from the productive hard working people and spending what they take on themselves and the people who vote for them.

ACLU continues its Tradition of siding with the Nazis

The ACLU was infamous for demanding that Nazis be allowed to march through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors in Chicago.  They rejected the idea that the Nazis could march but in a different location.

In the last few years however they've bought into the idea that free speech means speech that they agree with is protected and speech they don't agree with isn't.  So they stopped supporting Nazis.

But now they're attacking the Alabama bill that prohibits murdering innocent human beings except when the mothers life is at risk.

Just like the Nazis the ACLU believes that the way to solve certain problems is by the mass murder of  innocent people.  Like the Nazis who rejected the science that said Jews were just as human as anyone else the ACLU is rejecting the science that says that the unborn are human from the moment of conception.

And just like the Nazis pro-abortion fanatics like the ACLU that want abortion legal for any reason at any point during a pregnancy will be viewed by civilized nations in the future as monsters.

#FakeNews media's selective outrage

When lunatics threaten Democrats the #FakeNews media rightly condemns them. But when left wing thugs use actual violence and intimidation against Republicans, beating them with bats and driving them out of restaurants as well as shooting them, the #FakeNews media is either supportive of the violence or silent.

The latest example the wife of an Alabama Republican who voted to end what Jesse Jackson called genocide against Blacks was threatened with rape and their kid was threatened as well.

Don't expect that story to get much air time.

Democrats always fail: LA can't pick up the garbage edition

Over at Breitbart Nolte has a great article on how LA can't pick up garbage which has lead to an explosion in typhus cases; just like in a 3rd world city.

While LA is providing sanctuary to illegals who commit crimes in the US and ensuring that illegals get every welfare dollar they can the Democrats who run the city can't manage to pick up garbage.

In every way Democrats are failing California but doing what the very rich want.

The Real Pope Francis: Abortion is like hiring a hitman

While the left in America is constantly trying to portray Pope Francis as a leftist who supports their immoral agenda the reality is that he supports the same moral code that the Church has taught for 2000 years.

Recently the Pope said this about abortion:

“Is it licit to throw away a life to resolve a problem?” he asked. “Is it licit to hire a hitman to resolve a problem?”

It's a great analogy. People hire hitmen to eliminate people who they consider to be hurting their lives and abortionists kill unborn babies who mothers view as burdensome-- less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and less than 1% are due to medical necessity.

So much for the Pope supporting the leftist agenda on abortion.

Democrats hate Catholics: California edition

Catholics confess their sins to a priest with the knowledge that nothing they ever say will be revealed.  Priests are required by the Church to die rather than divulge the secrets of the Confessional.

But now California Democrats are demanding that Catholics no longer exercise their faith. The Democrats are demanding that if certain people confess certain crimes to a priest he must inform on them to the government.

Of course once the principle is established that Catholics can't practice their faith there is nothing stopping Democrats from demanding full access to anyone's confession.

What's amazing is that if a defense lawyer knows that his client raped a little girl that lawyer doesn't have to tell anyone and he can in fact do his best using legal technicalities to get the guilty man off so he can rape again.

That means that Democrats aren't really motivated by their desire to help children but by their desire to attack Catholic's First Amendment rights.

Banning medically unnecessary abortions protects Blacks; Democrats condemn

In Alabama 60% of abortions are of Black babies.  Yet Blacks only make up 26% of the population of Alabama.

Hence the new law banning non-medically necessary abortions would save a lot of Black lives; which Democrats keep telling us matter.

But Democrats rather than welcoming the law are condemning it.

What's odd is that Democrats constantly tell us that any disparity in outcomes, such as the percentage of CEOs who are Black, is proof positive of racism have no problem with Blacks having such a high abortion rate.

Perhaps that's because several Democrats have declared that abortion will reduce crime and the welfare population.  Of course when rich white Democrats talk about criminals and welfare recipients they're not thinking about white people.

Just one more sign of the racist agenda of Democrat politicians.

Everything Democrats say is a lie: Leland Yee edition

Democrat Leland Yee was a staunch proponent of gun control when he was a California State Senator.  He even condemned violent video games.

Now he's going to jail for facilitating gun running to organized crime in America.

Of course the #FakeNews media isn't giving this story a lot of coverage.

Defining God as yourself

Leftists in America today have a predilection for creating a Jesus who is nothing more than a version of themselves.

If we truly believe that Jesus is God then common sense tells us that we should do what He said we should do.

On the other hand if we don't believe He's God then we are comfortable changing what He taught to conform to what we want.

We see this when Hillary Clinton stated that religions will have to change their teachings to conform to the beliefs of the left wing culture and when various Democrats like Kirsten Gillibrand declares that Christ supported abortion.

This is an outgrowth the the Reformation which effectively declared each individual is master of the Bible; authorized to personally decide what Jesus was really saying. But it goes further in that even when the Bible is clear it says that if what He said isn't what we want to hear we can change it to something that makes more "sense".

This is just another Democrat Big Lie; they clearly reject what every Christian for the last 2000 years has believed but pretend to be following Jesus.

Understanding "white supremacy"

In New York City the top educational authorities are targeting "white-supremacy culture".

Now that sounds reasonable, after all who likes Nazi's and racists, but when you read what they define as "white-supremacy culture" you'll find that like most left wing actions they're really lying through their teeth and using a hate label to cover good things.

Among the things that are "evil" is the idea that Blacks discriminating against whites is bad.  According to to the NYC bureaucrats only whites discriminating against Blacks count.

There's a lot of projecting going on as well. For example "perfectionism" is a part of "white-supremacy culture".  It's defined as follows:

"Giving undo focus to the shortcomings in someone or their work, or viewing them as personal flaws. "Making a mistake is confused with being a mistake...""

That sounds like a perfect description of how the left treats Trump and anyone who supports him doesn't it?

The overall list is basically an attack on American culture that says that people have rights and responsibilities and an endorsement of Chinese Communist culture where the people are nothing more than cogs in the states machine.  For example the document condemns "individualism", "progress is good", and as the piece de resistance it condemns "objectivity" and the idea that there is any truth other than individuals truth.

The simple reality is that Democrats are trying to label standing up for traditional American values, being responsible and not depending on the government, as racist.

Of course Democrats have to redefine racism since by the old definition they're the racist party:

1) Democrats do nothing as year after year thousands of Blacks are shot in Democrat run cities; we all know if 3000 white people were shot in Chicago last year there would be a cop every 20 ft.
2) Democrats oppose plans to improve educational opportunities for inner city Blacks; they call them racist.
3) Democrats are upset about every disparity declaring that they all show racism except for the fact that Black women are 3 times as likely to abort as white women.
4) Democrats don't care that the leading cause of death for Blacks in America is abortion; what Jesse Jackson called genocide against Blacks
5) Democrats are for open borders even though illegals steal jobs from Blacks and drive down Black wages

Democrats flee the truth

President Trump issued an order that information related to the Democrats attempted coup be declassified.

Naturally Democrats are saying that revealing the truth of what the US Intelligence Community(IC) did to aid in the coup is "weaponizing" the IC.

The obvious question is how can revealing what the IC did, in terms of spying for the Democrat party, be weaponizing it?  Trump isn't asking the IC to do anything.  Specifically Trump isn't asking the IC to even things up by spying on the 2020 Democrats campaigns.

All Trump is doing is saying that if there is evidence of malfeasance by the IC in support of Democrat political objectives then that evidence shouldn't be hidden behind a wall of classification.

For decades America last Democrats have been complaining about military procurement failures and IC operational failures being hidden behind classification. Democrats have applauded people like Assange when they released highly classified information--though they strenuously objected when he released information that damaged Hillary--but suddenly they want we the people kept in the dark about how they misused the IC.

In the past the #FakeNews media revealed a highly successful antiterrorist program because it impacted Americans who were friends of or working with terrorists.  Yet now the Democrats are saying that we the people don't need to know about the IC straying into fascist territory by aiding and abetting a coup against the 2016 election.

It says a lot about the Democrats that at the same time they're seizing Trump's financial records without a shred of evidence that he's done anything wrong, in violation of the 4th Amendment, they're incensed about the fact that Trump has said that evidence of the IC working against the American people can't be hidden.

Rich white woman says Black brain surgeon is mentally crazy

Joy Behar said the following about Ben Carson:

"He's under the influence of Donald Svengali [Trump] who has already created this cult of mentally crazy people," she said. "I mean everybody who believes Donald Trump -- I believe has to look a little closer."

Can you imagine if a rich white guy said something similar about a Black man?  Yet there is no attack from the left about Behar's vicious, false, and politically motivated attack on a Black man who isn't afraid to reject what rich white leftists like Behar demand he believe in.

This is one more sign of the deep seated racism in the left.  Conservatives never use that sort of personal attack against Blacks who endorse the white left's policies. When conservatives made substantive critiques of Obama's policies people like Behar called them racists.

The reality is that Democrats believe that the role of Blacks is following the policies laid out by rich white leftists while conservatives believe that Blacks are capable of deciding what they want to support.

Democrats hatred for the Constitution is showing again

Banks are turning over Trump's private financial data to the Democrats in the House even though there is no probable cause to do so.

Under the 4th Amendment the government can't just demand people's private information without showing a judge that there is probable cause of a crime.  Democrats have shown no such evidence and Mueller has already declared that the crimes that Democrats said Trump was guilty of didn't occur.

What this means is that any enemy of the Democrats is now living in a fascist state where they have no Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.  Even worse by turning over the documents before Trump had a chance to appeal the banks have colluded with the Democrats to destroy the same legal system that Democrats so assiduously support when rapists and murderers are being investigated.

To the Democrats the law is just a tool to persecute their foes.

Pelosi is a lying bully.

Pelosi and the Democrats continue to lie incessantly about Trump after Mueller cleared him.


Yet they are shocked and offended when as they lie about Trump and threaten to impeach him because they won't accept the results of the 2016 election that he doesn't sit down and negotiate with them.

Their hypocrisy is truly amazing.  Other than pass a law that destroys women's sports and allows men who molest kids access to women's bathrooms all the Democrats have done is try and overturn the 2016 election.

They don't care about the American people they only care about power.  To them fixing America's infrastructure problems is of no interest; all that matters to them is nullifying the 2016 election.

Should politicians serve for life?

When Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath back in the 1990s many of the same politicians were in office as are in office today. People like Nancy Pelosi and Nadler were defending Clinton back then even as they attack Trump who hasn't committed any crimes today.

Given that so many politicians are in office for life it's not surprising that their loyalty is to each other not to their constituents.  Those politicians spend the vast majority of their time in DC reading DC newspapers and listening to what the ruling class of bureaucrats say.  Their constituents live in a different universe.

That's why we need term limits. The intent of the Founders was for people to suffer through a term or two and then go back to real life. That way they'd avoid passing laws that make life for people who aren't politicians worse.  But as it stands there is no reason for politicians to avoid passing bills that help them but hurt we the people.

We've seen this in the past.  Until Republicans took over Congress under Clinton Congress had exempted itself from the onerous laws that they had imposed on we the people.  The Republicans changed that.  When Obamacare was passed it exempted politicians.

We need politicians who care about we the people not just about themselves but so long as we allow such a large fraction of politicians to be elected for life that's not going to happen.

Jim Acosta; Democrat propagandist pretending to be a reporter

Acosta has a new book coming out which will be a highly biased truth free hit piece. While the books contents are being protected the description of the book tells us all we need to know:

"From CNN’s veteran Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta, an explosive, first-hand account of the dangers he faces reporting on the current White House while fighting on the front lines in President Trump’s war on truth."

Dangers?  To pretend that Acosta was in danger is an insult to real reporters in war zones who risk their lives to inform the American people.  Acosta hasn't even been spied on by Trump. Acosta hasn't had his computer bugged the way Obama bugged Sharyl Attkinson's computer.  Unlike a large number of AP reporters who Obama's government spied on Trump hasn't gotten hold of Acosta's phone records.

The idea that by pointing out the lies of the #FakeNews media, Russian collusion anyone?, Trump is waging a war on truth is absurd.  The reality is that people like Acosta are the ones waging the war on truth in order to advance the left's agenda.

What's interesting is that Acosta is apparently unaware that his attacks on Trump are no different than Trump's attacks on him. The difference of course is that Trump is a politician and Acosta is supposed to be an unbiased observer.

Propagandists like Acosta are fighting a war against Trump because Trump is pointing out their bias and dishonesty to we the people and that's something that could destroy the power of the #FakeNews media.

What this book will show is that Acosta is in no way an unbiased objective reporter who feels his job is to inform we the people so that we can decide. Rather it will show that he believes his job is to guide us to the "correct" conclusions that he supports.

According to the New York Times "Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.

If you needed any proof it's now official; we're living in a perpetual 1984 where hate is love, war is peace, and pregnancy is killing while abortion saves lives.

The author of the New York Times article is Dr. Warren Hern who makes his living by butchering unborn babies.  

Here's an illustration of a 20 week old unborn baby; this what the women to be that Hern kills for a living look like:

His victims aren't "blobs of cells" or part of their mother's bodies. They are people just like you and me but younger.  Every one of us was just like the children that Dr. Hern earns money by killing at some point in our lives.

The bad Dr. starts his article off by saying:

"Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant."

Women die from plastic surgery too yet the bad Dr. isn't condemning that.

The bad Dr's argument, to the extent that he has one, is that even though the new Alabama law allows an abortion when the mother's life is at risk is that pregnancy itself is a dangerous thing even if the mother's life isn't obviously at risk.

What he's saying is that since any pregnancy can result in death, just as any car trip can, a Dr. should be able to declare that every woman who wants an abortion should get it because there's always a chance that she could die from her pregnancy.

His own numbers show that what he's calling for is the mass execution of babies who wouldn't threaten their mother's health because a tiny fraction of them might.

He says that in Alabama 11.9 women died out of every 100,000 who became pregnant.  That's 0.01%.

Another way to look at that is that if Hern had his way and abortion at any point in time and for any reason were legal in Alabama then for every woman who lived 8402 babies would have to be killed. Which means roughly 4201 unborn women to be would die for every one born woman who didn't die.  

Currently one of the hot arguments against the death penalty pushed by leftists like Dr. Hern is that innocent people are being executed.  That's actually a valid concern.  However what Dr. Hern is saying is that 99.99% of the babies he wants to see executed are innocent.  Can you imagine even the staunchest proponent of the death penalty continuing to support it if they knew for sure that 99.99% of the people being executed were in fact innocent?

Yet Dr. Hern is all in for killing hundreds of thousands of unborn babies who don't threaten their mother's lives. Of course since he makes money by killing the unborn it's not unfair to wonder if money is his real motivation.  Essentially he's a hitman who's arguing against laws prohibiting murder.

But his argument also fails because it presumes that women die from pregnancies with no warning.  If the women who do die could be saved if they were treated promptly then his argument falls apart.  Like Thanos who choose to kill half of all life in the universe rather than double the size of the universe Hern is saying we should kill babies rather than improve the health care for pregnant women.

The Dr's bias for death is a constant in this article.  He sarcastically writes:

"Surely the Alabama legislature has carefully considered all of the above in drafting this law, which affects more than 2.5 million women in that state, some of them more than others."

He apparently is unaware that in every abortion a human being is killed and in 50%, or more if sex selection abortions occur, the victim is a woman. Apparently he doesn't think that those women are impacted more than their mothers who simply don't want to accept the consequences of their actions-- only 1% of abortions are dueto rape.

Hern tries to drum up support for his position by pointing out that Black women are more likely to die from pregnancy than white women.  That's either a racist argument that Black women are less capable of being mothers than white women or it's a call for better health care for pregnant Black women. But Hern uses it to argue that as a result we should kill more Black babies.

Hern says that in Alabama 0.03% of Black pregnancies result in the death of the mother while only 0.006% of white women's pregnancies result in death.  He makes no attempt to explain that ratio for the simple reason that if he did the answer to the problem would not be more abortions but voluntary lifestyle changes by pregnant mothers and improved pre-natal health care not killing hundreds of thousands of Black babies of whom 99.97% wouldn't hurt their mothers.

What's interesting is that Hern doesn't mention that Black women are three times more likely to abort than white women. A key part of that disparity is that Planned Parenthood targets Blacks in what Jesse Jackson called genocide against Blacks.

The real racial component of the abortion question in America is why people like Hern aren't concerned by the huge racial disparity in abortions.  In any other aspect of life if Blacks were three times more likely to have an issue than whites leftists would automatically declare that it to be prima facia evidence of racism.  But somehow the fact that abortion kills far more Blacks than whites percentage wise and the fact that abortion is the leading cause of death for Black Americans are of no interest to people like Dr. Hern.

If Dr. Hern really cared about Blacks he'd be all in for banning abortion because that would mean America would have, over time, millions of Black citizens who are currently being killed before they can help make America great again.

It's not surprising that a monster like Hern who casually chops apart babies who look like the image above for a living calls for keeping his lucrative killing for cash business alive. What is truly shocking is that the editors at the NYT are so completely unaware of reality that they had no problem with the headline. They felt completely comfortable with declaring that the process that gives us all life is killing and the process that would have killed us before we could have learned to love arugula saves lives.

The NYT's demonstrates by this that they are in Thano's camp--death is the solution life is the problem.

As Reagan pointed out everyone who supports abortion is already safely born so supporting abortion for any reason at any time, including shortly after birth, is truly selfish.

No one at the NYT would be happy if they'd been aborted but they're eager to do to others what they would not want done to themselves.

UPDATE: The original version of this article said that 99,989 babies had to die to save one woman from dying.  That assumed that the mortality rate was 1/100,000.  Since the mortality rate is actually 11.9/100,000 8402 babies, of whom 4201 are women to be, have to die to save the life of one woman.

Women don't usually abort due to a crisis but for convenience

Data from 2018 show that the vast majority of women don't kill their unborn daughters to save their own lives or because they've been raped but because they just don't want the baby they voluntarily conceived.

Fewer than 1.5% of abortions were due to non-life threatening physical health issues and only 0.3% were when the mothers life was at risk.  2% were due to psychological problems, which includes things like being depressed.

Only 0.14% of women who killed their unborn babies did so because they were raped and 0.01% occurred because of incest.

The reality is that the vast majority of abortions occur because women had consensual sex and didn't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.  The reality is that no form of contraception, other than abstinence, is perfect--a typical woman has a 40% chance of an unplanned pregnancy when using the Pill for example--so women know that every sex act risks pregnancy.

But women continue to have sex with men who won't be there for them because that's what society is telling them they have to do. Women are lied to about contraception and then they're told that it's ok if the father just walks away.  That puts many women into a tough spot where it's easy for them to give in and just kill their daughter rather than accept their responsibility.

We need to be sympathetic to those women but it doesn't change the fact that they're killing their unborn child just to avoid the consequences of their own freely chosen action.

Democrats favor illegals over Americans

Ben Carson is being attacked by Democrats because he's decided that the limited amount of government provided subsidized housing should go first to Americans not illegals.

Currently many illegals are getting government subsidized housing while Americans are waiting in line.  Because Carson cares about Americans he's planning to use the taxes that Americans pay to help Americans in America first before helping illegals.

But to Democrats that's evil. They'd rather have Black Americans living under overpasses than illegals being homeless.

One more bit of evidence of who Democrats really care about.

Impeachment; another way of saying elections only matter if Democrats win

Modern Democrats are fascists who think that the democratic process exists to crown themselves as our rulers.

When Bill Clinton was impeached there was clear proof that he had lied under oath to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit for sexually harassing an Arkansas government employee.  Yet Democrat Jerrold Nadler, who is spearheading the Democrats baseless attack on Trump, said that holding Clinton responsible for his criminal action was a "coup d'erat".

We know that Trump didn't collude with Russia because Mueller, whom every Democrat said was infallible and just, said so.

We also know that despite desperately trying to avoid saying it Mueller's report makes it abundantly clear that Trump didn't obstruct justice.

We know that for at least three reasons:

1) If a prosecutor finds evidence of a crime he's supposed to indict the perpetrator. Mueller didn't indict Trump which means that Mueller effectively said that there isn't evidence that Trump committed obstruction.

2) Obstruction is only possible if a person is guilty of a crime. An innocent person trying to end an investigation into a crime he didn't commit can't obstruct justice for the simple reason that in that context justice is ending the investigation.  Hence since Mueller found that Trump didn't collude with Russia then there was no crime and Trump couldn't have obstructed.

3) The "potential" obstruction issues that Mueller's biased team of Clinton fans raised aren't in fact obstruction. For example Trump wanting to replace a clearly biased Mueller, Comey was a key person in the investigation but he was a long time coworker of Mueller's, without stopping the investigation isn't obstruction.  Also Trump condemning the investigation isn't obstruction since an innocent man declaring his innocence can't be obstruction.

Nadler wants to nullify the 2016 election because we the people dared to deny Democrats their rightful position as our rulers.  Given that Mueller was dishonest enough to try and imply Trump did something bad but not dishonest enough to actually lie and say that Trump did do something wrong Nadler and the rest of the Democrats are left with an enraged base screaming for tyranny.

To sate those voices Democrats are declaring that they need no probable cause to access, and publish, all of Trump's private information, in hopes that they will find something, anything that they can accuse him of.

Their endgame is to impeach Trump simply because the don't like him and their own lust for power. Due to our lack of term limits many of the same people, including Nadler, who are working feverishly to get rid of Trump even though they have no evidence he's committed any sort of high crime or misdemeanor told us that lying under oath and sexually harassing subordinates weren't grounds for impeaching Clinton.

It's clear that to Democrat politicians elections are nothing more than a gloss to cover up their usurpation of we the people's power of self governance and as such elections don't count when Democrats don't win.

Fundraising statistics show that Republicans are the party of the people

The RNC is raising a lot more money than the DNC and they're doing so due to many small contributions while the DNC counts on lots of big donations.

Yes it's true the Democrats are the party of the uber rich and the Republicans are the party of the people.

In April the RNC raised $15.9 million of which 75% came in small donations, <$200.  In the same month the DNC raised $6.6 million of which 50% was from big donors; twice the rate as for Republicans.

This isn't surprising. Every aspect of the Democrat agenda is directed towards niche groups, including the very rich, and is designed to either increase the power of Democrats over the people or to buy votes while under Trump the Republican agenda is designed to help hard working Americans no matter how they vote.

The idea that the Republican party is the party of the rich is another big lie promulgated by the Democrats and the #FakeNews media just like the idea that the Democrats, who do nothing to stop the mass shootings of Blacks in Democrat run cities and who deny Blacks a decent education, love Blacks while Republicans, who call for school choice for Blacks and being tougher on criminals, supposedly are racists.

The dishonesty of the judge who says Trump has no 4th Amendment rights

In addition to declaring that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump the judge who has ruled that the hyper partisan Democrats in Congress have the right to Trump's private information without having to show any probable cause has refused to grant a stay until the appeal is heard.

That's like saying we're going to execute a convicted killer before his appeal is heard.  In both cases the results are irreversible. That's why in cases where the results are irreversible a stay is almost always granted.  Otherwise the whole appeals process is meaningless.

But the clearly Trump hating judge has refused to issue a stay. Which means that the Democrats will be able to get the information even if a higher court overrules the idea that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to the political enemies of the Democrat party.

Interestingly this dishonest judge gave money to the Obama Biden campaign.

Democrat Kamala Harris pays women less than men.

Apparently Kamala Harris is enforcing the mythical gender pay gap since women in her employ make less than the men who work for her.

Check out this FreeBeacon article for the details.

The Democrats Grand Conspiracy against Democracy is starting to fall apart

A key part of Comey's explanation for why he went public with his white wash of Hillary's criminal misuse of classified data has always been that he didn't trust Lynch.  In some sense that's odd given that Comey ignored the law to not prosecute Hillary so what could Lynch have done that was worse?

However now in sworn testimony Lynch is contradicting Comey.  She says she never told Comey to call the investigation into Hillary's blatant criminal actions a "matter" rather than an "investigation".

Clearly Lynch has a huge motive to lie and we can be almost certain she lied about her secret meeting with Bill Clinton while Hillary was under investigation.

Also her testimony is odd.

Loretta Lynch DENIES telling Comey to refer to the Clinton email case as a "matter," rather than an investigation, directly contradicting statements made by Comey. SOMEONE IS LYING. pic.twitter.com/qb0U4Jopp3

— Cory Groshek (@CoryGroshek) May 20, 2019

 

She was being asked if she'd told Comey to refer to the investigation as a matter but her response is about how she wouldn't tell a witness, not an FBI agent, what to say. While her initial "I did not." appears to be clear her immediate follow up seems to indicate that she's talking about something different since Comey wasn't a witness.

Whatever the truth this is the beginning of the inconsistencies in the stories of the various conspirators who worked so hard to stage a coup and nullify the 2016 election.

Democrats war on democracy

When we had irrefutable evidence that Bill Clinton had lied under oath in order to keep from losing a #MeToo lawsuit--he'd sexually harassed a government employee--the Democrats told us that that wasn't a basis for impeachment.

Today the only basis Democrats have for impeachment is that they only support democracy when their candidate wins.

Mueller, who Democrats praised as being infallible, determined there was no collusion with Russia and no obstruction. Wait you say Mueller said that he couldn't come to a conclusion about obstruction.  That's sort of true but not really. If a prosecutor can't find sufficient evidence to show that a person has committed a crime he doesn't indict.  If he finds sufficient evidence he does indict.

Mueller didn't indict. That means that no matter what weasel words Mueller used to try and smear Trump Mueller admitted that there wasn't a case that would stand up in court. In fact the obstruction instances he mentions aren't even obstruction for a variety of reasons including the fact that one can't obstruct a witch hunt against an innocent man.

Obstructing justice means that someone is doing something either to frame an innocent man, which is what Mueller is doing, or that someone is working to ensure that a guilty man goes free.

Given that Mueller has admitted that there was no collusion nothing Trump did to impede the Mueller investigation could be obstruction; it was just an innocent man trying to defend himself against a witch hunt.  But of course Trump did nothing to impede Mueller; he never invoked Executive privilege for example and he told all his people to provide Mueller with all the information he wanted.  What Democrats are calling obstruction is Trump proclaiming his innocence and Trump wanting a less biased special prosecutor than Mueller--Trump never suggested that the investigation should stop.

Contrary to what Mueller has said some people are saying he didn't indict because a sitting President can't be indicted. But Mueller did not say that he wasn't indicting because he couldn't; he said he wasn't indicting because he didn't have a case.

It's clear that Democrats will do anything to get more political power and that they refuse to accept the results of elections that they don't like.  Democrat politicians today are nothing more than fascists who want to rule we the people not represent us.

If only Trump was a serial killer or drug dealer

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Democrats are constantly demanding that rapists, terrorists, thieves, drug dealers, child molesters and serial killers not have their financial information turned over to the government without probable cause.  Republicans agree with that.

No one supports the cops being able to go to a judge and say "we've got zero evidence but we've got a gut feel this guy is a crook" and get a warrant to examine that persons financial data.

Democrats go even further; to them if a clerk mistakenly dates a search warrant the 27th when the judge said to date it the 26th any evidence found in the search on the 26th has to be thrown out; even if it proves that the target of the search warrant murdered a kid.

But when Trump is concerned Democrats, including at least one Obama appointed judge, throw the 4th Amendment out. That judge ruled that even though it's likely that Trump's private financial information will be leaked to the public and even though there is no evidence of Trump having actually done anything criminal the fact that the hyper partisan Democrats have a "gut feel" that Trump is guilty of something is enough for them to access all of Trump's financial data.

Can you imagine if the Republican House had subpoenaed Obama's birth certificate, financial data, or his college transcripts just because?  Everyone would have screamed bloody murder. Because the Republicans actually respects the Constitution though they never did that.

But today Democrats are declaring that if they lose an election the guy who won has no constitutional rights, he's like an unborn baby girl in their minds.

The hypocrisy is amazing. They refuse to extend to the President of the United States the constitutional rights that they fight for for rapists, drug dealers, terrorists, and murderers.

But what should really worry you is the precedent this sets.  If Congress can get all of Trump's private data and leak it to the press just because there's nothing stopping them from doing the same to you.

If you express ideas that they don't like you could be really persecuted.  We saw this with Joe the Plumber who embarrassed Obama and in retaliation Democrats released supposedly confidential information about Joe.

If a Republican President isn't protected by the 4th Amendment then neither are we the people.

Jim Carrey shows how abortion kills a person

Jim Carrey, whose only skills are his ability to memorize lines and pretend to be someone else, has recently shown that every aborted baby is a person.

I think If you’re going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama. pic.twitter.com/6QgsY2rMz7

— Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) May 18, 2019

By showing a grown woman, isn't calling for killing a woman a sign of misogyny anymore?, being aborted Carrey is demonstrating the obvious truth that the pro-abortion crowd is always trying to hide; we all were unborn at one point in our lives and if the unborn aren't killed they become key players in society.

Democrats have often called for abortion because the aborted babies will become criminals or welfare recipients if they're allowed to live.  Interestingly those calls are generally about Black babies which both evidence of the intrinsic racism of most modern Democrat politicians and an explanation of why those Democrats aren't bothered by the fact that Black women are 3 times as likely to abort as white women.

To help your leftist friends understand just what Carrey is saying ask them what they'd think if someone had suggested that the world would have been better off if Obama had been aborted?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson has said that if abortion had been legal his mother would have probably aborted him.  While conservatives disagree with Jackson's positions on most issues not one conservative bemoaned the fact that Jackson wasn't killed before he was born. Yet here we see Carrey calling for the pre-birth execution of a woman just because she believes that we shouldn't kill people before they're born.

Sadly in America today more and more Democrat leaders are embracing the idea that physically assaulting and even fantasizing about killing people they don't agree with is ok before and after birth.

Not only are Democrat leaders either silent or only mildly disapproving of Antifa's violence they openly fantasize about murdering Trump. Can you imagine the outcry, from both left and right, if someone had made a play about assassinating Obama or an actress had posed for a picture while holding what looked like Obama's severed head?

Yet Democrat leaders were muted in their condemnations of those who call for the killing of people who oppose the Democrat agenda.

Democrat Swalwell shows why Democrats favor tax and spend

Eric Swalwell is one of the seemingly thousands of random Democrats running for President.  Interestingly almost all of those candidates supports massive tax increases, abortion for any reason at any time--including after birth--, and unlimited illegal immigration.

What's interesting is it turns out that Swalwell can't manage his own finances but he says he can run the government.

Prior to entering Congress Swalwell was making over $100 thousand a year and after entering Congress his salary is $174,000 a year.  That's decent money even in over priced California.

Yet in his financial disclosure statements he reveals that he hasn't significantly paid down his college loans but he has sold off his biggest asset, a pension fund, and increased his credit card debt significantly--going from $20-30 thousand in 2016 to $25-65 thousand in his 2017 disclosure.

He is required to list any bank accounts with more than $5 thousand so the fact that he lists no bank accounts means he doesn't have any cash.

People who make as much as he does shouldn't have tens of thousands of dollars in high interest debt.  That shows an inability to manage his own money which should disqualify him from running we the people's finances.

Taxes; politicians taking the money you earn to spend as they like

Taxes are necessary to pay for the critical governmental functions defined in the Constitution; such as defending the country.  But more and more taxes are simply a way for politicians to steal what we the people earn and use it for their own selfish ends.

Obama spent nearly a trillion of our dollars on a "stimulus" package that didn't in fact improve the economy; but it sure improved the bottom line for his supporters like the founders of Solyndra.

Democrats are constantly pushing for higher taxes, the only differences among the leading Democrat candidates are about how much more of our money should belong to them, which they use not for critical tasks but to buy votes to ensure they stay in office.

But the vast majority of our taxes goes to help the poor you say.  You're right of course defense only takes up about 15% of the Federal budget and the vast majority goes to "help the poor".  The problem is program to help the poor generally are more about buying votes by creating a dependent class than about helping the truly needy.

Did you know that 64% of the people on welfare have either cable or satellite TV?  Did you know that 80% of "poor" families in America have air conditioning; back in 1970 only 36% of all households had air conditioning?  More than 1/2 of "poor" families with children have a video game system.

That's right your hard earned tax dollars are going to provide luxuries for the "poor" in America.  Now if those people were all incapable of working due to a handicap or a medical issue no one would mind but that's rarely the case.  Similarly if people got government benefits for only a short period of time as they're getting back on their feet we the people would be ok with it.

But that's not the case.  For example when Maine require able bodied childless adults who were receiving food stamps to either work, go to school, or provide community service 80% of them dropped out of the program.  They clearly didn't need the money and they clearly didn't want to work.

Historically we call those types of people bums.  We know that they don't spend their money in a responsible way; over half of them spend, on average, over $100 a month on cigarettes. Yet Democrats are demanding that we the people give more of our hard earned money to support bums.

Democrats have even admitted that they believe that people who are able to work but who don't want to work should have a nice lifestyle supplied by the taxes the government takes from hard working Americans; it was a key part of Democrat darling Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.

Just as Democrats try to hide behind the very rare 12 year old girl who was raped by her father when they really support abortion for any reason, including because the unborn child is a girl, at any time up till some period of time after birth they cite poor starving children to justify their support for ensuring that bums who don't want to work can live comfortably at the expense of lower middle class Black families.

For Democrats taxes aren't about doing what the Constitution says the government should do they're about buying votes.  In ancient Rome the politicians used their own money to provide bread and circuses to buy votes but in modern America Democrats steal the money; which is why they tend to get so rich.

Next time you hear some Democrat saying how we have to increase taxes remember they want your money so they can keep getting elected not because they give a darn about you or the country.

Democrats new slavery

Back when Democrats were fighting a war to keep slavery legal in the US one of their rationalizations was that Blacks were human yes but so primitive and lacking in intelligence that they couldn't run their own lives.

Democrats actually argued that they were looking out for Blacks by enslaving them.

Today Democrats are looking to enslave we the people. They want complete control of our lives from how much soda we drink to what our religious beliefs are and they want to take more and more of our money to use as they see fit.

The rationale they use today is the same as back then; they're smarter than us and we're not really capable of running our own lives. We drink too much soda, we like NASCAR, we don't believe in casual sex, we don't think innocent unborn human beings should be killed so clearly in their minds we're unfit to run our lives.  We'd obviously just mess our lives up.

So it's imperative that Democrats get complete and total power over every aspect of our lives from what we eat, how we move around, and our medical care so that they can ensure that, like the Blacks who were slaves for Democrats in the past, our lives can be "improved".

Fortunately today we're not as powerless as Blacks were in the Democrat run South.  But if we don't keep Democrats out of power we may end up powerless. After all given that all the research shows that taking guns away from honest citizens doesn't reduce "gun crime" we have to conclude that either Democrat politicians are idiots who feel but don't think or that they're intentionally trying to disarm us so that when they steal our freedom we can't resist; just like those Black slaves Democrats kept in shackles for generations.

Silicon Valley racism; Candice Owens is a hate monger who needs to be censored

It's a familiar story. A Black person speaks out against the Democrat party and all of a sudden the left is attacking that person using language that if used by a Republican about any Black, even a convicted murderer, would be declared to be prima facia evidence of racism.

Think of Justice Clarence Thomas, Kanye, Ben Carson and now you can add in Candice Owens.

Because she's leading the #Blexit movement, Blacks exiting the Democrat party which hasn't done anything to help Blacks, Facebook has her on a secret list of "hate agents" that Facebook is desperately trying to find an excuse to silence.

We all know that Democrats are racists.  We know because of the following among other reasons:

1) Democrats ignore the thousands of Blacks shot in Democrat run cities each year.
2) Democrats care about every racial disparity declaring that any disparity is proof of racism but they are silent about the fact that Black women are 3 times as likely to abort as white women.
3) Democrats don't care that abortion is the leading cause of death for Blacks.
4) Democrats support massive illegal immigration which drives down Black wages.
5) Democrats refuse to let inner city Blacks have the ability to choose their school so that they can get a decent education; something the public schools in Democrat run cities just don't provide.
6) Whenever a Black person objects to Democrat policy they are viciously attacked.

Hence it's not surprising that Blacks who dare step off the left's intellectual plantation are viciously attacked and censored to the extent possible.

After all it's not surprising that racists think that "real" Blacks can only have the opinions that the white leadership of the leftists movement declare to be acceptable.  Just like the earliest Democrats thought that Blacks needed to be enslaved because they weren't capable of running their own lives.

Democrats create a market for stolen children

A recent pilot program at our Southern border has determined that at least 30% of illegals who are caught with children who agents suspect aren't theirs are in fact using children they're not related to to improve their chances of entering the US illegally.

By pushing to get the US to release "families" who have children but who were caught illegally entering the US Democrats are incentivizing the monetization of children.

The massive left wing hypocrisy about children in cages who have been separated from their parents isn't odious just because those same leftists support the mass murder of unborn children but because their policies are actually incentivizing the trafficking of children.

Why Democrats hate school choice even though it helps Blacks

The first thing to note is that Democrats don't care about Blacks. If they did they'd be talking non-stop not about Trump's now disproven collusion with Russia but about the thousands of Blacks who are shot each year in Democrat run cities and about how Black women are 3 times as likely to abort as white women.

The Democrats silence on the slaughter of Blacks in America tells us what Democrats really think about Blacks.

But whenever they can Black parents avail themselves of school choice, often making great sacrifices to do so, because unlike the public schools alternative schools actually educate Blacks.

There are three key reasons that Democrats oppose letting kids choose their schools:

1) The public school teachers unions give millions to Democrat candidates and many union teachers don't want to have to compete with private schools or be required to actually do their jobs well.

2) Private schools don't indoctrinate kids into the leftist orthodoxy.

3) Keeping Blacks, who would be the biggest beneficiary of school choice, uneducated keeps them voting Democrat.

Democrats know that their fascist agenda to convert themselves from our representatives to our rulers won't work if the American people are well educated.  Hence they are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that all our children are indoctrinated and poorly educated by public schools.

Democrat Buttigieg endorses packing the Supreme Court

To date Democrats have consistently imposed their social agenda of hedonism and abortion not through the democratic process but through an imperial judiciary which simply declares that we the people must follow the left's edicts.

Abortion, gay "marriage", coddling criminals, legalizing the worst forms of pornography, etc were all imposed by a dishonest Supreme Court. In the case of gay "marriage" the Court overturned the votes of 55,000,000 Americans and in the case of abortion the Court overturned the laws of all 50 states.

Without the imperial edicts on these issues from the Court American society would be a much better place today.

The Trump presidency has created an existential problem for Democrats in that if Trump ensures that the majority of Supreme Court justices are honest, ie they won't create new laws while pretending to be interpreting the Constitution, then not only won't the left be be able to impose new rules on we the people there's a chance that the old dishonest imperial edicts could be revoked.

The Democrats response,  espoused by Pete Buttigieg--my only strength is that I'm gay-- is that if they win the Presidency and the Senate they'll simply add more dishonest judges to the Court in order to ensure that they can continue to rule as kings rather than represent the will of the people.

FDR proposed this and he managed to cow the court so much that they declared that his unconstitutional New Deal policies--which didn't help the US recover from the Great Depression, that took WWII--were in fact constitutional paving the way for the massive expansion of the Federal government and the major reduction in the rights and freedoms of we the people.

But it's easy to see how this fascist trick will eventually play out.

The Democrats will add 5 judges but then if the Republicans win they'll add 10 judges, and then the Democrats win and they add another 20 judges.

Before too long any authority the Supreme Court has will be rendered moot.

On the whole that might be a good thing in that most Americans, due to the constant lying by the #FakeNews media, actually think that the Supreme Court hasn't become a monstrous abomination which completely circumvents the Constitution.

In any case Buttigieg's support shows that he is nothing more than a fascist tyrant wanna be who endorses the idea that a few unelected mostly white rich lawyers can impose whatever the rich elite leftists happen to think is right this week on we the people.