Tag: democrats

We Knew It Was This All Along…

CNN commentator Scott Jennings exposed the extreme open-borders stance of Democrats by cornering Tennessee congressional candidate Justin Pearson, who squirmed and evaded simple questions about deporting violent criminal illegals – revealing the party’s reluctance to protect American citizens from threats unleashed by Biden’s lax policies.

This on-air dismantling highlights how leftists prioritize “undocumented” migrants over victims of their crimes.

Jennings pressed Pearson during the heated exchange on CNN’s NewsNight, asking “Is there a single illegal alien you’d deport?!”

Pearson hesitated and then stuttered “You know…”

Jennings pressed: “Is there ONE? NO? Is this the 2026 Democrat position?!”

“Do they need to deport illegal aliens?” Jennings continued, adding “Can you say it? CAN YOU SAY IT?”

“Do we need an agency to deport illegal aliens. YES OR NO?” Jennings further queried.

Keep reading

Hakeem Jeffries Suddenly Discovers Border Security as 2026 Panic Sets In 

In a visit to Laredo, Texas, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries attempted to rebrand himself as a supporter of “strong, safe, and secure borders.”

The messaging shift was striking, not because border security is controversial, but because it conflicts with years of Democrat resistance to enforcement policies that would meaningfully achieve that goal.

Standing alongside Henry Cuellar, Jeffries emphasized the importance of U.S.–Mexico trade, the renewal of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, and the economic harm caused by tariffs and ICE enforcement actions at worksites.

Laredo’s mayor highlighted the city’s role as a major port of entry and a central hub in the bilateral commercial relationship.

Jeffries followed with familiar Democrat language about “shared prosperity,” humane enforcement, and the need for stability and certainty.

The rhetorical pivot came when Jeffries declared support for “strong, safe, and secure borders.” That phrase has been a cornerstone of Republican messaging for years, particularly under President Donald Trump, who built his first and second administrations around border enforcement, physical barriers, and expanded deportations.

For much of the Biden administration, Democrat leadership dismissed those policies as excessive, unnecessary, or politically motivated.

Now, facing public frustration over record encounters at the southern border and mounting pressure in swing districts, Democrat leaders appear eager to sound like moderates.

The substance, however, tells a different story. Jeffries criticized ICE for conducting worksite enforcement operations and suggested that agents were targeting “law-abiding immigrant families.”

He called for independent investigations and argued that the Department of Justice could not be trusted to oversee enforcement actions fairly. The mayor echoed opposition to a border wall, stating that the focus should be on “bridges” rather than barriers.

This approach reflects the core tension within the Democrat position. Leaders publicly endorse border security while opposing the very tools required to enforce immigration law at scale.

Keep reading

Calling the SAVE Act ‘Jim Crow’ Is an Insult to History

For months, the SAVE Act has been debated as though it represents a constitutional crisis. Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have labeled the proposal “Jim Crow 2.0,” arguing that requiring documentary proof of citizenship and identification for federal elections risks disenfranchisement. Such a charge requires evidence—evidence contradicted by nearly every available statistic on the U.S. voting population. 

The SAVE Act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Its premise is straightforward: American citizens should determine the outcome of American elections. That principle is neither novel nor radical. Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal contests. The SAVE Act formalizes a verification mechanism to ensure that statutory prohibition is meaningfully enforced. 

Democrats frequently cite raw identification statistics to suggest that the SAVE Act would lead to large-scale voter exclusion. Approximately 29 million voting-age Americans lack a valid driver’s license. That figure, while accurate, is analytically incomplete. A driver’s license is not the legal standard. The relevant question is whether an individual lacks any non-expired, government-issued photo identification. That number is closer to 7 million—roughly 3 percent of the voting-eligible population. 

Even that figure requires context. Voter participation varies significantly by education and income. Recent election data show that approximately 82 percent of Americans with advanced degrees vote, compared to about 52 percent of those with only a high school diploma. Turnout among white voters approaches 70 percent. Among Black voters, participation has hovered near 59 percent. Hispanic turnout has often been lower, around 47 percent. 

Keep reading

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker Demands $8.6B in Tariff Refunds from Trump

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) demanded that President Donald Trump give the people of the state a total of $8.6 billion in refunds after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

In a letter addressed to Trump that Pritzker posted to X, Pritzker described Trump’s tariffs as having “wreaked havoc on farmers,” having “enraged our allies,” and increased the cost of groceries.

Pritzker explained that he was demanding “a refund of $1,700 for every family” in the state, and that because there were roughly 5,105,448 households in the state, the total came to $8,679,261,600.

“Your tariffs wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof,” Pritzker wrote. “This morning, your hand-picked Supreme Court Justices notified you that they are also unconstitutional.”

Pritzker added: “On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois. There are 5,105,448 households in my state, bringing the total damages you owe to $8,679,261,600.”

Keep reading

PASS THE POPCORN: Jasmine Crockett is Now Accusing the Left of Racism

Did you ever think you’d see the moment when Rep. Jasmine Crockett would accuse the left of being racist? Well, that time has come.

It’s all because of what’s happening in the Texas Democrat primary for the Senate and her rival James Talarico.

The stunt he pulled with Stephen Colbert was all about freezing her out of the race and Colbert has not invited her on the show.

The Daily Caller reports:

Jasmine Crockett Drops Race Card On Liberals

Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett claimed during a Thursday campaign event that attacks she received from liberals were motivated by race.

Crockett and Democratic Texas state Rep. James Talarico were tied in the Democratic Senate primary, according to Friday’s RealClearPolling average. Crockett said during the remarks at an event in Richardson, Texas, that she was campaigning on her “credentials,” before claiming liberals were attacking her because she is a black woman.

“The thing that’s not normal is for me too be attacked from the left. That is the new wild wildcard in scenario. It’s just interesting,” Crockett said. “I’ve been asked a couple of times a couple of things about it. I look at this specifically as a civil rights lawyer. I’ve seen that sending out ads in darkening my skin, I am just like, I know what this is. And the reality is that, I woke up a black woman. I was born a black woman. I was a black woman for everyone who doesn’t think I know, just FYI. But I am not running on the fact that I am a black woman. I’m running on my credentials.”

Keep reading

Democrats Claim GOP ‘Gutted’ Medicaid. Federal Data Shows The Opposite

etween now and the November midterm elections, Democrats and their allies will spend countless hours and energy claiming Republicans “cut” Medicaid in last year’s reconciliation legislation. Don’t you believe it. 

A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report demonstrates how Republicans’ reforms in that law merely attempted to slow an unsustainable Medicaid program following a Biden-era spending explosion. But for good or for ill, the program’s spending continues to grow inexorably higher, notwithstanding those reforms.

Scaling Back Biden’s Spending Binge

Last January, I wrote about that Biden-era Medicaid explosion. From June 2024 to January 2025, CBO increased its estimates of Medicaid spending by $817 billion, or 12 percent, and cited five factors driving such rapid spending growth. Democrat policy priorities, most of them imposed by the Biden administration unilaterally, were at the root of those factors: administrative actions to expand eligibility and prevent states from cracking down on fraud, a mandate on states to cover anti-obesity medications, greater incentives for states to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults, and policy changes allowing states to bilk the federal government out of additional Medicaid matching funds.

The budget reconciliation bill Republicans passed last year undid many of those changes. It repealed the additional incentives Congress passed in 2021 for states to embrace Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, blocked several costly Biden-era mandates, cracked down on state abuses of the Medicaid financing system, and instituted work requirements for able-bodied adults. But it made no explicit changes to the benefits provided to the vulnerable populations — seniors, individuals with disabilities, and children — for which Medicaid was originally designed.

The Other Half of the Story

Last week, CBO released its annual report on the budget and economic outlook, its first fiscal update since the reconciliation measure last July. It estimated that last year’s bill would reduce Medicaid spending by $1.184 trillion, a fact Democrats will dutifully repeat ad infinitum between now and Nov. 3.

But the welfare-industrial complex won’t bother to mention several other important Medicaid facts to voters. First, even after taking into account the changes in the reconciliation bill, CBO now estimates Medicaid will spend more under Donald Trump than it estimated during the last year of Joe Biden’s presidency. You read that right: From 2026 through 2034, CBO now estimates that Medicaid will spend $7.124 trillion, versus an estimate of $6.862 trillion in June 2024.

In part, that dynamic occurs because, notwithstanding the changes Republicans enacted into law last year, Medicaid spending continues to climb ever higher. Even as it reduced Medicaid spending by nearly $1.2 trillion to reflect legislative changes from the reconciliation bill, CBO cited “technical changes” to increase spending by $700 billion over the coming decade. While noting lower-than-expected enrollment growth in 2025, “[c]osts per enrollee grew by 16 percent in 2025 — significantly more than CBO had anticipated,” and a trend the budget gnomes expect to continue.

Contra claims about Medicaid “cuts,” program spending will continue to grow every single year over the coming decade. From 2026 through 2036, CBO believes Medicaid spending will grow by a total of 39 percent, due to both growth from inflation and 18 percent growth in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) spending per beneficiary.

Democrats will cite the estimated 14 percent reduction in Medicaid beneficiaries as evidence of the likely harm caused by the budget reconciliation measure. But even here, CBO notes that the number of individuals “losing” coverage “includes 1.5 million enrollees whose records indicated enrollment in more than one state and who would retain Medicaid eligibility in their current state of residence.” This “cut” reflects not individuals being harmed but “enrollees” who never should have had duplicate coverage to begin with.

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Hates Black Women and Other Universal Truths

As someone who loves comedy, what a*s-clowns like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert havedone to the concept is like what Harvey Weinstein did to movie production or what Democrats have done to journalism, if journalism were their cellmate in Super-Max. Colbert is the Jeffrey Epstein of truth and Kimmel is the Luigi Mangione of honesty. That’s why it was not shocking to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that Colbert would go on his show and lie, doing his best to help a white guy, James Talarico, beat a black woman, Jasmine Crockett, in the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race.

First, I have to tell you about the concept of equal time. It is surprising how many “journalists” out there either do not have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept, or simply are willing to come off as morons for the cause of their party. It’s about half and half, as I think you’d be stunned by just how many of these people have the intelligence of someone who snacked on lead paint chips.

But the concept of equal time is pretty basic: If you are going to have a candidate for office on a show that uses the public airwaves (broadcast tv and radio, not cable or streaming), other legitimate candidates (those who are on the ballot officially) can request an appearance for the same amount of time. This only applies to real candidates, not write-ins, and ONLY for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The rest of the time, it is a free-for-all and shows can have on whoever they want.

One thing I’ve heard morons in the media claim is that the FCC is monitoring broadcasts or warning networks of the equal time obligations, but that is a lie. The FCC does not monitor any broadcasts, they respond to reports filed by viewers/listeners and anyone else, either for violation of decency rules or equal time. An audience member can’t make a claim for equal time on behalf of someone else; the candidate or politician must. The FCC decides if a claim is valid, period.

This is not rocket science, not even close, which means the people deliberately saying otherwise are lying or don’t have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept.

Keep reading

Sinema accused of illegally spending $700,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses

Acampaign watchdog group has accused former U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of illegally spending more than $700,000 in campaign cash on personal expenses, including on luxury hotel rooms, concert tickets and fancy meals.

In its complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, Campaign Legal Center says Sinema spent the money in 2025, after she left the U.S. Senate, in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibition on personal use of campaign funds.

“Ms. Sinema converted over $700,000 in campaign funds to personal use during 2025, after leaving the Senate, by spending it on travel, lodging, meals, staff salaries, and other expenses that were unrelated to any campaign or political activity,” Campaign Legal Center wrote in its complaint.

Federal law bars candidates from converting campaign funds to personal use, and it allows former officeholders like Sinema a six-month wind-down period for legitimate expenses needed to close down a campaign. The complaint alleges spending continued well after that window should have closed on July 3, 2025 — through at least October — with no apparent political activity to justify it.

When Sinema left office on Jan. 3, 2025, her campaign account had $4.2 million on hand. By Jan. 31, 2026, when she filed a termination report for her campaign committee, all of that money had been spent.

“Federal campaign finance laws are clear that politicians who leave office do not have the green light to use leftover campaign funds however they want,” Saurav Ghosh, Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal campaign finance reform, said in a written statement. “Former Sen. Sinema appears to have spent an exorbitant amount of campaign money on a personal spending spree during the 12 months after she left office. The FEC must investigate her use of campaign money and hold her accountable for any violations of campaign finance law.”

More than half of the alleged illegal spending was on salaries for six staffers, including several who were paid while working other jobs — either with Sinema or at organizations she founded. 

For instance, Daniel Winkler, the senator’s former senior adviser, moved with her to lobbying firm Hogan Lovells in March 2025, but collected campaign paychecks totaling $151,000 through September 2025. And Michelle Davidson, Sinema’s former deputy chief of staff, collected $85,000 in campaign pay even as she was working as the executive director of the Spark Center for Innovation in Learning at ASU — the center Sinema founded with $3 million in campaign funds.

Keep reading

Check Out How Nashville Jacked Up Property Taxes for One Local Business

Democrats love taxes. That’s no secret. In Virginia, the Democrats who run the state are pushing a massive slate of new or increased taxes on everything from gym memberships to Uber Eats. In New York, Mamdani is extorting Albany to either let him raise taxes on the rich and corporations or he’ll go after New York City homeowners and jack up their property taxes, too.

And in Nashville, the Acme Farm Store — one of the city’s landmarks — is facing closure after the city jacked up its taxes by $500,000 a year.

The shockwaves from historic property tax hikes in Nashville are no longer abstract. They are now threatening to erase some of the city’s most beloved and authentic landmarks.

One of the men most responsible for preserving Nashville’s past says he may be forced to walk away from it — unless City Hall intervenes.

You may not know the name Tom Morales, but you almost certainly know what he saved.

Morales helped preserve the Loveless Cafe, the historic Woolworth building and the iconic Acme Feed and Seed on Lower Broadway. Now, he says Acme — one of the last true anchors of old Nashville — is on the brink of closing because of a staggering property tax increase.

The original Acme Feed and Seed operated downtown for 56 years before closing in 1999. When Morales saw the building sitting vacant for more than a decade, he decided to bring it back — not as a theme park version of Nashville, but as the real thing.

The property taxes were $129,000 a year. They’re now north of $600,000 a year. That’s more than the company’s rent and net profits combined.

Keep reading

Maryland to ‘Reap the Consequences’ of Dem Governor Wes Moore’s Political Stunt

States don’t come much bluer than Maryland. My father-in-law, who lived much of his adult life in Maryland, was heavily involved in local politics there, as a conservative Democrat – there were some then, and in Maryland, even in the ’60s and ’70s, you registered Democrat, or you were shut out of the process. He has told me on numerous occasions that there wasn’t an elected official in Maryland who had two IQ points to rub together.

Case in point: Governor Wes Moore, who on Wednesday was eviscerated by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for his action prohibiting local law enforcement from working with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Here’s how the Press Secretary responded to a question on the topic:

First of all, it’s another despicable action by Governor Wes Moore. Why would you prevent your state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement? If you just ask them, to your point, you ask sheriffs across the country if they want to have that level of cooperation and coordination with the federal government, of course, they do. It makes their jobs easier, it keeps them out of hostile and dangerous environments, it allows them to detain illegal alien criminals who have committed heinous crimes in our country with, with, the most safe circumstances possible. So the president, of course, continues to always stand on the side of law enforcement, and this is another, just horrible and frankly political action taken by Governor Wes Moore, and unfortunately, the people of his state are going to reap the consequences of it.

Of course, it’s a political action, one taken due to the governor suffering from a nasty case of Stage V Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Keep reading