Tag: democrats

Democrats’ inexcusable cover-up of Biden’s decline — and possible cancer

The American people have a right to know about the health and mental status of the president of the United States. For goodness’ sake, “physician to the president” is an official position. Whoever is in that position should be required by law to reveal to us if the commander in chief has a medical emergency, is diagnosed with a terminal illness or is otherwise incapable of fulfilling the oath of office.

We learned that former President Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has metastasized to his bones. Tonette and I offer our prayers for his recovery; we feel badly for him and his family. However, that should not stop discussions about the cover-up of his cognitive lapses while in office. If anything, the news warrants an even more extensive investigation into what was known about Mr. Biden’s health and well-being while he was president.

Sadly, it is not shocking to learn that the White House staff might have concealed the cancer diagnosis until after Mr. Biden’s term was up. Remember, this is the same administration in which the secretary of defense was incapacitated in the hospital following complications from cancer treatment and failed to notify the president or anyone in the White House.

Plus, the timing seems odd. The Bidens chose to reveal the cancer diagnosis just as CNN anchor Jake Tapper’s new book on the cover-up of the former president’s cognitive decline came out. I empathize with Mr. Biden, but things just do not add up. Members of the House and Senate should hold committee hearings and subpoena Mr. Biden’s physician, Kevin O’Connor. The good doctor needs to provide some clear answers.

None of this, however, should cloud our disdain for a media that is now acting shocked to find out about the cognitive decline of Mr. Biden. Mr. Tapper appeared on Megyn Kelly’s podcast as part of his book tour and was surprised when Ms. Kelly called him out for being part of the cover-up. He begged off until she responded with footage from his show and said, “One of us didn’t miss the biggest story of the century when it comes to presidential politics, and one of us did.”

Mr. Tapper’s book is filled with disturbing stories about the then-president’s state of mind. He writes of George Clooney greeting Mr. Biden on the way into a mega fundraiser the actor was co-hosting for Mr. Biden’s reelection. In the story, Mr. Biden appears not to recognize the well-known star. Later, Mr. Clooney was one of the first to publicly call for Mr. Biden to drop out after the disastrous June debate with President Trump.

The Washington media elite act as if they did some sort of Woodward and Bernstein-level work to uncover the truth about Mr. Biden’s problems. Instead, it’s been more like watching “Dave” or “Weekend at Bernie’s.”

Conservatives on talk radio, podcasts and social media have been discussing these problems for years. Most in the corporate media sought to dismiss or even attack our concerns. Until Mr. Biden’s disastrous performance on the debate stage last June made it impossible to overlook, most of the mainstream media were all in for Joe.

Three Judges Blocking Trump’s Tariffs Have Decades-Long Histories of Democrat Activism

The judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade who ruled that President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal have a history of Democrat Party activism.

Each of the members of the three-judge panel issuing the Wednesday ruling – which was stayed Thursday by an appeals court, allowing the tariffs to continue – fit the profile of other activists judges who continued their political activism after joining the court.

Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif, and Jane Restani have histories of supporting Democrat candidates that span as far back as 45 years ago and have thwarted Trump’s authority in both of his administrations, earning allegations of judicial activism.

Trump teed off on the judges Thursday night on Truth Social. “Where do these initial three Judges come from?” he asked. “How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?”

Katzmann, nominated by Barack Obama in 2015, attended Columbia, Oxford, and Yale Law School and later clerked for Stephen Breyer (while Breyer was on the First Circuit Court of Appeals). He was a researcher at the Center for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School as well as a lecturer at Harvard Law School.

Although Katzmann is a registered unaffiliated voter in Massachusetts, he voted in the 2018, 2016, and 2014 Democrat primaries.

Keep reading

Democrats and Their DEI Albatrosses

Afew Democrat officeholders, activists, and pundits are finally coming to their senses that their brand is toxic to a majority of the American people.

The Biden administration killed what was left of it in a number of ways.

First, it serially lied to Americans about the cognitive decline and cancerous condition of President Joe Biden, both while in and after office.

Only when caught did the complicit media fess up that the Biden inner circle serially misled the American people about Biden’s inability to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

Second, left-wing politicos used Biden as a waxen effigy. His job was to pose as a “moderate” cover to push through the most radical and unpopular agenda in the last half century.

Only that way could “Old Joe Biden from Scranton” and his backroom handlers ram down the throat of the American people unpopular policies that nearly wrecked the country: hyperinflation and $7 trillion in new debt, weaponization of the government, and partisan lawfare, an open border and 12 million illegal aliens, a racialist DEI commissariat, a crackpot Green New Deal, defunding the police, biological men competing in girls’ sports, and two theater-wide wars abroad.

Third, without either a functional president or viable initiatives, the new hard-left Democrats sought to brand Donald Trump as “Hitler” and half the country who supported him as “fascists.”

For nearly nine years, the Democrats launched one failed hoax after another on the American people: “Russian collusion,” “laptop disinformation,” and the lying so-called “51 intelligence authorities.” They proved quite willing to undermine the rule of law by manipulating the court system in efforts to destroy their bogeyman, Donald Trump.

Never had the American people seen a political party engineer 93 bogus indictments of a rival candidate and ex-president. Two dozen states tried to take Trump off their presidential ballots. And the Biden Department of Justice sicced an FBI SWAT team to barge into Trump’s home.

The people finally got tired of all the potty-mouthed Democrat videos, the congressional stunts and meltdowns, the pampered rich kids rioting on elite campuses, the knee-jerk obsessions with racial slurs, the firebombing of Tesla dealerships, the romanticization of left-wing political murderers—and always the adolescent tantrums over Donald Trump.

The Democrats had mostly given up on democracy some 13 years ago. That was the last time they transparently and democratically nominated Barack Obama a second time as their presidential candidate.

Ever since, their nominations have been rigged.

In 2020, party insiders—terrified of the left-wing crazy primary field—forced out all the leading contenders.

Then they coronated the debilitated but still supposedly useful moderate Joe Biden as their COVID-era candidate. Biden then bragged that he would pick his vice president on the basis of race and gender.

What followed was the most bizarre campaign in history.

Keep reading

Obese Democrat Activist Gives Crazy Thoughts on Why Young Men Are Ditching Her Party – Then She Freaks Out After Getting Savagely Mocked By Conservatives

One of the keys to President Trump’s landslide victory last November was making significant inroads with young adult men, who embraced his macho persona and ditched the woke Democratic Party. But now the Democrats have an ‘ace’ up their sleeve to rectify this crisis: a morbidly obese, gay, radical-left activist who has no clue what young males actually think, and conservatives know it.

During an interview with podcast host Micah Efren on Tuesday, 22-year-old Olivia Julianna gave her ‘thoughts’ on why Democrats have lost these voters and how to win them back. She started by proclaiming her love for men, particularly frat guys, before completely botching what they believe.

“You know this because we know each other in real life, but I spend a lot of time on college campuses, Julianna said. “I love young men, I love frat guys, and in that, I realize, even the ones who identify as conservative are almost always pro-choice. They’re almost always pro-gay marriage. You’d be surprised at the number of them who supported Black Lives Matter.

“I feel like people kind of just lump them into this box when the truth is, again, a lot of them are with us on the issues. They’re just not part of our coalition because they feel like they’re not welcome,” she added.

As Outkick.com notes, men, especially conservative ones, largely oppose BLM. Men are also split on abortion, with GOP males overwhelmingly opposing it across all age groups.

But Julianna thinks young men are actually woke and don’t know it. How crazy is that?

Keep reading

Trump’s Useful Idiots

The media, universities, the Democratic Party and liberals, by embracing the fiction of “rampant antisemitism,” laid the groundwork for their own demise.

Columbia and Princeton, where I have taught, and Harvard, which I attended, are not incubators of hatred towards Jews.

The New York Times, where I worked for 15 years and which Trump calls “an enemy of the people,” is slavishly subservient to the Zionist narrative. What these institutions have in common is not antisemitism, but liberalism. And liberalism, with its creed of pluralism and inclusiveness, is slated by our authoritarian regime for obliteration.

The conflation of outrage over the genocide with antisemitism is a sleazy tactic to silence protest and placate Zionist donors, the billionaire class and advertisers.

These liberal institutions, weaponizing antisemitism, aggressively silenced and expelled critics, banned student groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, allowed police to make hundreds of arrests of peaceful protests on campuses, purged professors and groveled before Congress.

Use the words “apartheid”’ and “genocide”’ and you are fired or excoriated.

Zionist Jews, in this fictional narrative, are the oppressed. Jews who protest the genocide are slandered as Hamas stooges and punished. Good Jews. Bad Jews. One group deserves protection. The other deserves to be thrown to the wolves. This odious bifurcation exposes the charade.

In April 2024, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik, along with two board members and a law professor, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ education committee. They accepted the premise that antisemitism was a significant problem at Columbia and other higher education institutions.

When Co-Chair of the Board of Trustees of Columbia University David Greenwald and others told the committee that they believed  “from the river to the sea” and “long live the intifada” were antisemitic statements, Shafik agreed. She threw students and faculty under the bus, including long-time professor Joseph Massad.

The day after the hearings, Shafik suspended all the students at the Columbia protests and called in the New York City Police Department (NYPD), who arrested at least 108 students.

“I have determined that the encampment and related disruptions pose a clear and present danger to the substantial functioning of the University,” Shafik wrote in her letter to the police.

NYPD Chief John Chell, however, told the press, “the students that were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.”

Keep reading

There Is Nothing Democrats Will Not Ruin

Is there a place in the country better off because Democrats have control over the local or state government? I mean, I guess if your hobby is getting pregnant so you can have an abortion, living in Chicago or Boston is a plus, but not if you’re a fan of things like not being robbed or shot. Otherwise, only slumlords and progressive “organizers” thrive in a world controlled by the left. And if you want to get your kid an education, forget about it. There is nothing Democrats can’t ruin, and there is nothing even potentially good they will not ruin.

You’ve all heard about “equity,” Democrats present the word like it’s the cure for something, anything. They pretend it is about opportunity when it is about outcomes. Democrats want to dictate outcomes – pick winners and losers, rewarding their donors while ignoring their voters, whom they take for granted. OJ Simpson treated women better than Democrats treat their voters. 

But hey, they keep voting for Democrats, so why be effective when you don’t have to be? 

Back to equity. 

San Francisco, the progressive Petri dish from which so many bad ideas spring, is implementing “equitable grading” in their schools. Why? Because minority students are not doing as well as Asian students, who are also minorities. (As an aside, it always cracks me up when Democrats talk about how racist the country is; they whine about how well Asians and Indians are doing. Are we racist or not? Because if we were, why are two minorities out-earning evil whitey?)

What is “equitable grading”? It is a scheme to cover up just how badly Democrats have screwed up the education system in their cities by lowering standards for grades. As I always say, if you control the unit of measure, you control everything. If you can change what constitutes a passing grade, you will have a higher passing rate without improving the education of a single student. 

The Voice of San Francisco reports, “Without seeking approval of the San Francisco Board of Education, Superintendent of Schools Maria Su plans to unveil a new Grading for Equity plan.” There is no input from anyone, just a top-down imposition. It’s how the party of “This is what democracy looks like” operates.

Keep reading

Liberal Outlet Politico Urges Democrats to Create a ‘Shadow Cabinet’ to Counter Trump – Suggestions Include John Fetterman’s Wife

The progressive outlet Politico is urging Democrats to create a ‘shadow cabinet’ to fight Trump. Perhaps they haven’t heard, but the chair of the DNC announced that they’re already doing that. He said so back in April.

Remember when Democrats and the media claimed to care about saving our precious norms? What do they call this?

The only difference between Politico’s plan and the one the DNC chair already announced is who will be featured in this unconstitutional body.

From Politico:

As Democrats cast about for a strategy to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, rebrand their party and take back power, Sen. Elissa Slotkin recently offered one intriguing idea: Build a shadow Cabinet.

The shadow Cabinet, as envisioned by the Michigan Democrat in an interview with POLITICO, could be composed of the ranking members of congressional committees who could then take the lead in challenging the Trump administration. It’s a common feature of opposition politics abroad and could be a way for Democrats to flood the media zone and deliver a coordinated response to Trump’s most wild maneuvers. But … ranking members?

Ranking members have their uses. They’re good at reclaiming their time and making motions to recommit. But they are not the fresh faces who can give the Democratic Party a sleek new look.

Nor are the thirsty crop of presidential wannabes right for a shadow Cabinet. Everything they say would be parsed for self-serving motivation, distracting from the party’s broader task at hand.

Here are some of the names they float:

Samantha Power – SHADOW SECRETARY OF STATE

Letitia James – SHADOW ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jon Stewart – SHADOW SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Gisele Fetterman – SHADOW SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bill Nye – SHADOW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR

Didn’t we just go through this?

Keep reading

Democrats Hate that New Bill Requires People to Work for Benefits

President Trump’s new budget proposal, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” is already drawing fire from Democrats, who claim it robs the poor to enrich the wealthy. In reality, the bill delivers substantial tax relief for working families, without handing out money to the rich. It also introduces a simple requirement: some individuals receiving government benefits will need to work in order to qualify.

Critics claim that over 13 million people will lose Medicaid coverage under the new bill. But that figure is cumulative over ten years, not immediate. The bill doesn’t “take healthcare away from the poor”; it raises the bar for eligibility. Able-bodied adults under 65 will be required to complete a minimum number of hours each month in employment, job training, education, or, in some cases, community service to qualify for certain benefits. This requirement does not apply to the vulnerable, children, the elderly, pregnant women, the disabled, or full-time caregivers of young children are all exempt.

Importantly, those affected aren’t being denied care; they’re losing access to free, government-funded coverage under Medicaid due to updated qualifications. Many are expected to return to work and obtain insurance through employers or private plans. Others may requalify and reapply as their circumstances change.

Trump’s big sin here is requiring a portion of recipients to work for the benefits they receive. And Democrats hate any system where people are expected to earn their handouts.

Supporters of work requirements argue that they promote personal responsibility, encourage economic independence, and help control long-term government spending. They also reflect a widely held belief that public aid should be tied to effort, not handed out unconditionally.

Critics counter that such requirements create administrative hurdles that could cause eligible individuals to lose benefits. However, this is a non-issue. If someone qualifies, they will receive aid; if they don’t, they won’t. It’s that simple. If a bureaucratic glitch prevents them from getting their benefits, they can go down to the office, fill out the necessary forms, and request the aid be reinstated.

That shouldn’t be too difficult, after all, they’re not tied up at an office job all day.

Keep reading

Report: Democrats Set $20 Million Plan to Win Back Young Men

The Democrats reportedly plan to spend $20 million as part of an elaborate plan to win back all the young men President Donald Trump captured.

According to the New York Times, top Democrat donors have been huddling it up at luxury hotels since the 2024 election in an effort to turn the tide on young men.

“Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places,” national political correspondent Shane Goldmacher wrote.

The Democrats reportedly coded the plan SAM – Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan.

“The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democratic support among young men, especially online,” wrote Goldmacher. “It is code-named SAM — short for ‘Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan’ — and promises investment to ‘study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.’”

The plan even reportedly goes so far to recommend that Democrats start “buying advertisements in video games, among other things.”

The report follows the Democratic National Committee (DNC) moving to oust David Hogg as vice chair of the party even though he was appointed specifically to bring young men back into the fold.

“The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has taken steps towards removing gun control activist and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg as vice chairman,” Breitbart News reported earlier this month.

Keep reading

“Reduce the Need for Personal Vehicles”: Top Massachusetts Democrat Wants to Limit How Many Miles Residents Can Drive or Drive at All, Because ‘Climate Change’

Massachusetts Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem (D) introduced a bill this year to create a commission with the goal of reducing the number of miles driven by residents in their cars because of ‘climate change’, with an ultimate goal to “reduce the need for personal vehicles.”

The 82-year-old Creem wants the state government to promulgate regulations that could fine residents for driving too much and force them into riding public transportation, using bikes paths and walking.

Excerpts from Bill S. 2246:

(b) No metropolitan planning organization shall approve a Regional Transportation Plan or Transportation Improvement Program developed pursuant to 23 CFR Part 450, and the department shall not approve a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, unless the plan or program, including any mitigation measures interlinked to individual projects within the plan or program, provides a reasonable pathway to compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions sublimits for the transportation set pursuant to section 3A of chapter 21N and to the statewide vehicles miles traveled reduction goals established by the secretary pursuant to section 81 of this chapter.

SKIP

(f) The department may promulgate rules or regulations for the implementation of this section.

Section 81. (a) To relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, and promote compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions limits established pursuant to chapter 21N, the secretary shall, in consultation with the secretary of economic development, the secretary of energy and environmental affairs, and the secretary of housing and livable communities, set a statewide vehicle miles traveled reduction goal for the year 2030 and for every fifth year thereafter. The vehicle miles traveled reduction goals shall be incorporated into: (i) the greenhouse gas emissions sublimits for the transportation sector set pursuant to subsection (b) of section 3A of chapter 21N; and (ii) the roadmap plans published pursuant to subsection (b) of section 3 of said chapter 21N.

SKIP

The council shall assess and report on strategies and plans necessary to reduce statewide vehicles miles traveled through the establishment of an equitable, interconnected, accessible and reliable network of non-personal vehicle transportation options and through land use policies that reduce the need for personal vehicles. The plan shall facilitate: (i) compliance with the greenhouse gas emissions limits and sublimits set pursuant to chapter 21N of the General Laws, with emphasis on compliance with the emissions limits and sublimits set for 2030; (ii) attainment of the numerical benchmarks for vehicle miles traveled set pursuant to section 81 of chapter 6C; (iii) the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods; and (iv) advancement of access to, and affordability of, non-personal vehicle transportation options.

The assessment shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the present condition of, and future needs for, non-personal vehicle transportation infrastructure and services, including, but not limited to, bicycle paths and lanes; bicycle sharing stations; pedestrian paths; bus, ferry, subway, and train services; transportation demand management programs; and microtransit programs ; (ii) the present status of, and future needs for, land use policies that reduce the need for personal vehicles; (iii) suggestions for optimal locations for new, expanded or improved non-personal vehicle transportation options in urban, suburban and rural areas including, but not limited to, low-income and moderate-income communities; (iv) discussion of programs and policies that may incentivize residents to adopt non-personal vehicle transportation options; (v) discussion of present and projected future costs and methods of financing those costs; (viii) recommendations to assist local governmental and private sector officials in expanding access to non-personal vehicle transportation options and in planning and developing compact, walkable neighborhoods; and (ix) identification and discussion of current policies and recommendations for policies, laws and regulatory actions that may facilitate reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Keep reading