Tag: democrats

Happy Holiday! Here Is What They Won’t Tell You About Democrats and Juneteenth…

Happy Juneteenth!

Today is the day the United States celebrates Juneteenth, a little-known date that was recently dug up to divert attention from the real civil rights achievements by brave Republicans who fought to free the slaves.

Here is more background.

When the Civil War ended, and after Republican President Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, Democrats initiated Jim Crow laws to punish blacks. Democrats discriminated against blacks. In fact, the KKK was founded as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

The Ku Klux Klan assassinated many Republicans, including Republican Representative James M. Hinds (December 5, 1833—October 22, 1868) of Little Rock. Hinds represented Arkansas in the United States Congress from June 24, 1868, through October 22, 1868, before his violent death.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded as the activist wing of the Democratic Party.

On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a “Negro hunt,” killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)

Democrats in hoods slaughtered hundreds of Republicans and blacks across the country.
They beat and threatened and murdered Republicans for standing with the black man.

On April 20, 1871 the Republicans passed the anti-Ku Klux Klan Act outlawing Democratic terrorist groups.

The last KKK official to serve in Washington, DC was former Senator Robert Byrd, a KKK kleagle. Byrd was a top Democrat and friend of Joe Biden.

In fact, throughout the Civil Rights era of the 19th and 20th centuries, Democrats fought against freedom and rights for the black man.

Keep reading

California’s Secretary of State Weber Shares Disingenuous, False Narrative Rationalizing State’s Corrupt Elections

California’s Secretary of State Shirley Weber shared a false narrative to cover-up the state’s totally broken and uncertifiable elections.  

Democrat California Secretary of State Shirley Weber took to social media Wednesday to say the reason why the state takes weeks to process election votes is due to the fact that it would cost up to an estimated $110,000 in each county per election.

This statement by Weber is totally misleading and false on so many levels.  It is a good example of a limited hangout where she focuses on a small piece of a much greater problem.

But then again, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, PhD, claimed the 2024 Election in California was “safe, free, fair, and accessible to all”.

As noted previously, the only thing accurate in that statement was that the elections were “accessible to all” with an estimated 3.8 million non-citizens on California’s voter rolls, the 2024 election was accessible to non-citizens as well as citizens.

Currently elections in California are a mess under Weber.  Voter rolls are bloated with non-citizens, drop boxes and ballot harvesting are legal.  Electronic voting machines are in use and voter-ID requests at polling places are outlawed.  The state is looking more and more like a communist state due to its bogus elections where corrupt politicians cannot be voted out of office.

Keep reading

‘Trans’ Congressman Says Democrats Went Too Far on ‘Trans’ Rights Push

Facing mounting political backlash and growing public fatigue, a high-profile Democrat is urging his party to reevaluate its aggressive push on “trans” issues. 

Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE), who made history in 2024 as the first openly trans-identifying person elected to Congress, is now calling for a reset, warning that Democrats may have gone too far.

In a recent interview with The New York Times’ Ezra Klein, McBride acknowledged that the progressive movement advanced too far, too fast, without bringing the public along. 

“We as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage,” he explained.

According to McBride, the party’s absolutist stance on “trans” policies and broader progressive ideals may have alienated key segments of the electorate. 

He argued that the movement’s pursuit of “every single perfect policy and cultural norm” failed to account for where the public truly stands.

“It misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,” McBride said.

He pointed to what he called a sense of “cultural aggression” that developed around “trans” advocacy, suggesting that it allowed Republicans to present themselves as reacting to extremism rather than instigating conflict. 

“We’re punishing trans people because of their actions. Rather than: We’re going after innocent bystanders,” McBride said of how GOP messaging has reframed the debate.

The freshman congressman also leveled broader criticism at the progressive movement, saying, “We became absolutist — not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement — and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. Part of this is fostered by social media.”

These comments mark a notable shift from McBride’s previous public stance. 

Keep reading

80 Percent Of Anti-Trump Lawsuits Are Filed In Courts Ruled By Democrat Appointees

As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.

Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice — ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80 percent of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60 percent of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of last week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling — a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction — prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

This is consistent with other analyses indicating that Democrat-appointed judges have handed down the bulk of all adverse rulings against the Trump administration.

Trump critics note that Republican-appointed judges have also ruled against the administration. They contend that the courts have halted Trump’s policies at an unprecedented scale because of his administration’s unprecedented overreach.

Nevertheless, evidence shows that the anti-Trump cases used to stymie policies in areas ranging from immigration to DEI and the administrative state have overwhelmingly come before courts that, on their face, would appear unfriendly. Plaintiffs have brought roughly 60 percent of all cases against Trump in three district courts with a disproportionate number of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents: the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Plaintiffs filed 41 percent of all cases RCI identified — 143 in all — in the D.C. District Court, where Democratic presidents appointed 73 percent of active judges.

Keep reading

Oregon lawmakers advance bill to limit federal use of National Guard

Oregon lawmakers are moving to restrict the federal government’s authority over the state’s National Guard despite a surge of violent anti-ICE protests, particularly in Portland.

Three Democratic state representatives introduced legislation that would block any deployment of the Oregon National Guard that would hinder its ability to respond to state emergencies such as wildfires. The bill also outlines the specific duties the Guard can and cannot be assigned. The proposal comes in response to President Donald Trump’s move to federalize the National Guard in California to help protect law enforcement amid anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles.

“Deploying the military against our country’s citizens is an affront to our democratic principles,” said Representative Dacia Grayber, one of the sponsors of the bill, in a statement. “Ensuring that the Guard can only be mobilized in keeping with their congressionally-authorized functions is a common-sense safeguard to ensure separation of responsibility between our military and our local law enforcement.”

The bill passed the House Rules Committee on Tuesday, though Republican House Leader Christine Drazan voted against it, saying she wanted to consult with the caucus, according to KATU. The bill now heads to the full House to be voted on.

Keep reading

AIPAC Demands Democrats “Stand With Israel” on Iran

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has been furiously urging House Democrats to release messages of steadfast support for Israel in its war with Iran, the Prospect and Drop Site News have learned, even as bipartisan lawmakers come together on a War Powers Act resolution to prevent U.S. troops or funds being used in yet another Middle East conflagration.

One member relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups. AIPAC wants House Democratic members to state explicitly that they “stand with Israel” in its actions against Iran aimed at destroying the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capability, and add that Iran “must never have a nuclear weapon.”

In addition, AIPAC has taken particular pains to denigrate the moderate pro-Israel group J Street, both in private conversations with members of Congress and in public, picking a fight aimed at blocking any Democrats from using J Street as cover to deviate from AIPAC’s maximalist position. “They’re worried their members in Congress may start to shift toward J Street and they’re trying to head that off,” said an aide to one Democrat.

“I did see that AIPAC took issue with my statement,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. “They were taking on J Street for endorsing me, which was ridiculous.” To get a sense of how extreme AIPAC’s demands are, note that J Street’s own statement merely calls for diplomacy while still supporting Israel. “We urge the Trump Administration to meaningfully pursue a diplomatic resolution to this conflict as quickly as possible while making clear the US will do what is necessary to defend Israel and US troops from retaliation,” the statement read.

AIPAC issued the same tweet in response to any statement that fell short of its expectations, such as one by Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, which called for a diplomatic resolution: “Consistent pattern: J Street endorsees issue anti-Israel statements. @jstreetdotorg is many things, but it’s not pro-Israel.”

Keep reading

The $96 Billion Lie: How Liberal Economists Manipulate Immigration Statistics to Hide the Truth About America’s Job Crisis

An economic analysis reveals how selective statistics are used to portray illegal immigration as beneficial while obscuring its true impact on American workers.

For years, liberal advocacy groups and complicit media outlets have pushed a narrative that sounds almost too good to be true: illegal immigrants are contributing $96 billion annually in taxes while maintaining higher employment rates than native-born Americans. Like most things that sound too good to be true, this claim crumbles under basic economic scrutiny.

The recent surge in claims about immigrant “tax contributions” and “employment rates” represents a sophisticated misinformation campaign. The cornerstone of pro-illegal immigration propaganda is the claim that undocumented immigrants pay $96 billion in taxes annually. This figure, popularized by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and parroted by countless media outlets, is a masterpiece of statistical deception.

The $96 billion figure lumps together sales taxes paid by everyone, excise taxes on gasoline and utilities, property taxes supposedly “indirectly paid through rent”, which is an economic fallacy, and a small fraction of actual income taxes.

Advocates then present this mix as if undocumented immigrants are dutifully filing tax returns and contributing to Social Security like law-abiding citizens.

They are not.

Keep reading

Indicted Atlantic City Mayor Wins Democratic Primary By Over 1,000 Votes

It’s only fitting that corruption pays off in a town that was bankrolled by the mob…

Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small is, to put it gently, in legal hot water. Facing criminal charges related to child abuse and witness tampering, Small is heading toward a July 2025 trial in a courtroom rather than a campaign trail.

And yet, none of that seemed to matter to Democratic primary voters in Atlantic City, according to WPUR.

In what might be the most on-brand moment for Atlantic City politics, Small not only won his primary — he cruised.

The report says that he beat challenger Bob McDevitt by over 1,000 votes (2,683 to 1,580 at last count), Small proved that being under indictment is apparently not a dealbreaker in local elections. If anything, it might just be a résumé booster.

Keep reading

Ivy League Researchers Scaremonger About GOP Health Policy But Say Nothing About Similar Democrat Plans

Ivy League faculty members have a leftist bias — would you believe it?

That sarcastic conclusion comes from the latest example of rhetorical scaremongering over the budget reconciliation bill being considered by Congress. When Republican lawmakers decide to scale back health care benefits, the professoriate loudly proclaims that people in their legions will die. But when Democrat lawmakers do the same thing, these same commentators decide to join the Witness Protection Program.

Deaths Metric

On June 3, a series of researchers affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the Yale School of Public Health released a letter regarding the House-passed budget reconciliation bill. In it, they claimed that several specific provisions in the bill “would result in more than 42,500 deaths annually.” They further claimed that allowing enhanced Obamacare subsidies to expire at year’s end, as they are scheduled to do under current law, “will cause an additional 8,811 deaths,” meaning that “altogether, we project that these changes will result in over 51,000 preventable deaths.”

The letter leaves much to unpack. For starters, the idea that anyone can know with any level of certainty the precise number of deaths attributable to a specific policy — not 8,810 or 8,812, mind you, but exactly 8,811 — is absurd on its face. If the researchers know the specific number of people who will die due to one policy change, then why not tell us the names of said individuals, and where, when, and how those people will die, while they’re at it?

Second, the expiration of the enhanced subsidies at year’s end comes because of Democrats, not Republicans. When they controlled Congress and the presidency, Democrats passed provisions letting these subsidies expire. Democrats fully expected future Congresses to extend them but wanted to try to disguise their true cost, just like they tried to hide the full $5 trillion cost of the failed Build Back Bankrupt legislation. They should neither complain nor blame Republicans for not wanting to fix or extend Democrats’ bad law. (The same applies to Republicans when it comes to tax gimmicks they might include in reconciliation.)

Ideological Bias

But the real “tell” regarding this letter comes in the form of a question the researchers didn’t answer. I emailed the lead authors, Rachel Werner at Penn and Alison Galvani from Yale, with a simple question: “Do you plan on conducting similar analyses on the number of deaths associated with Gov. [Gavin] Newsom’s proposal to freeze enrollment of undocumented immigrants in MediCal, and charge existing undocumented enrollees a $100 monthly premium? Why or why not?”

Astute readers may not be surprised to learn that, even after following up, I received nary an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. The researchers might claim they never received my message or that they only published their letter in response to a request from Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for an analysis of the effects of the reconciliation bill. (Any Republican lawmakers in California reading this should please — please — ask the researchers for the type of analysis I requested, if only to highlight their hypocrisy.)

But it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in economics to recognize the real reason for the disparate treatment. The letter was a headline — “Republican bill will kill X people per year!” — in search of a story and a justification. That’s why Wyden and Sanders requested it, and that’s why the researchers gladly complied. But when it comes to attacking Newsom, or Democrat Govs. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois or Tim Walz of Minnesota, all of whom have proposed scaling back taxpayer-funded coverage of illegal immigrants — not because they believe such benefits should go only to citizens, mind you, but because of skyrocketing costs — they suddenly become mute.

Keep reading

Economic suicide by design

This week, Oregonians heard the announcement that Tektronix, an iconic Oregon-based company, is moving its headquarters from Oregon to North Carolina.

Tektronix has decided that it has had enough of the Oregon Democrat high taxes, poor schools, and constant degradation of the quality of life for its employees. Textronix was once one of the largest employers in the state of Oregon. Anybody working in the electronics branch of technology relied on Tektronix test equipment to troubleshoot electronic problems. Driving by the Tektronix campus was very sad for me when we moved to Oregon. The parking lots around the Tektronix buildings were mainly empty, and slowly got even emptier. As an Electronic Technician who relied on the Tektronix test equipment my entire career, this was like watching an old friend slowly die from neglect.

Elections have consequences, and so does how people vote. Voting for more taxes, higher fees, and the crazy bills the Democrat supermajority pushes through is costing Oregon thousands of highly-paid citizens who have had enough, and they then leave Oregon for different states. Yet Oregon continues down the same old path to economic disaster. Oregonians cannot figure out that Democrats are all the same; their solution to problems is to raise taxes and fees on everything. For decades, Oregonians have been voting for Democrats to lead Oregon, and nobody noticed that conservatives and Republicans were leaving over economic or freedom issues. The Democrats, Liberals, and progressives just kept on making Oregon less affordable and less desirable to raise a family or retire here.

Keep reading