Tag: democrats

Colorado Bill Would Take Kids Away From Parents Who Refuse To Trans Them

Colorado’s Democrat state legislators want to force transgenderism on parents, requiring them to affirm their child’s “gender identity” or risk losing custody.

Radical lawmakers introduced “Concerning Legal Protections for The Dignity of a Minor” (SB 26-018) on Jan. 14, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, referring it to the full Senate on Feb. 18.

In its intended form, the bill requires courts to consider whether parents embrace their child’s “gender identity” when determining custody. Courts must favor parents who support their child’s “preferred name and pronouns” and push their child to receive harmful and damaging “transgender” drugs, hormones, and surgeries.

The bill states courts must “consider whether the parties recognize the child’s identity as it relates to a protected class” when “determining parenting time and the allocation of decision-making responsibility.”

Defining the “protected classes,” the bill references the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which includes individual’s “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Kids Removed from Parents

While the bill seeks to regulate custody disputes, it also opens the door for courts or child protective services to remove transgender-identified kids from the custody of parents who believe in biological reality and don’t want to irreversibly harm their child with drugs and surgeries.

SB 26-018 would establish “de jure” what is already happening in Colorado and in other states around the country —  even in red states like Indiana, Montana, Texas, and Arizona.

When Krista and Todd Kolstad’s 14-year-old daughter landed in a Montana hospital for suicidal thoughts, her parents had no idea she would soon be taken from them. After the Kolstads’ daughter revealed her desire to “change genders,” Montana Child and Family Services removed her from their custody and relocated her to a treatment facility in Wyoming focused on “gender therapy.”

“They have a complete agenda. We have no voice, no voice in court,” Todd said. “They just gag ordered us and threatened jail time.”

Likewise, Mary and Jeremy Cox lost custody of their 16-year-old son for refusing to affirm his sexual identity confusion.

In courtroom proceedings, the Indiana Department of Child Services —  while using biologically incorrect pronouns — argued the Coxes’ son needed to be in a home “where she is accepted for who she is,” not one that will “tell her how she should think and how she should feel.”

Too many courts across the country already feel emboldened to allow the state to kidnap children from “non-affirming” parents — even without any allegations of abuse or neglect. If SB 26-018 in its original form becomes law, this deceptive scheme will only get much worse.

Keep reading

AOC Has Emotional Meltdown on Camera, Appears to Hold Back Tears, Blames Trump and Critics for Her Foreign Policy Disasters

Once again, the Radical Left’s favorite Squad member is substituting actual policy knowledge with absolute theatrical melodrama.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, AOC delivered one of the most humiliating performances by a U.S. politician in modern history at the Munich Security Conference. She made a host of mind-boggling gaffes in response to simple questions while botching basic geography.

In one instance, a moderator at the event asked AOC if the US should commit troops to defend against China, and she turned into a stuttering mess.

“Um, you know, I think that, uh, this is such a, uh, you know, I — I think that this is a, umm, this is of course a, uh, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States – uh and I think what we are hoping for is we want to make sure that we never get to that point,” AOC said.

“And we want to make sure that we are moving all of our economic research and global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise,” she said.

In addition to the ugly episode, AOC also incorrectly stated that Venezuela was below the equator and called Secretary of State Marco Rubio racist for saying cowboys came from Spain.

AOC then called The New York Times and vented her fury over the coverage of her gaffes and the questions she was asked.

“This reporter came up to me and was like, ‘Is Munich the new New Hampshire?’ And I cannot say enough how out of touch and missing the point, genuinely, that is,” AOC whined during the interview with the Times.

“Global democracies are on fire the world over, and established parties are falling to right-wing populist movements.”

AOC continued to complain about the media clips that went viral, saying, “Any five-to-10-second thing” only serves to “distract from the substance of what I am saying.”

AOC later took to Instagram, her voice wavering and her eyes welling up, as she pushed back hard against claims that she lacks ‘serious foreign policy chops.’

Keep reading

CIA Retracts 19 Different Intelligence Reports After Review Found Leftist Political Bias

CIA Director John Ratcliffe has ordered the withdrawal or major revision of 19 intelligence assessments after an internal review found they did not meet the agency’s standards for analytical rigor and political neutrality, the agency said Friday.

The CIA released unredacted versions of three of the affected reports, all of which had a strong left-wing political bias.

The topics covered included LGBT activists in the Middle East, women and white violent extremism, and access to contraception during the COVID pandemic.

The reports spanned multiple administrations, including one produced under Obama, one during Trump’s first term, and one during Biden’s tenure.

According to the agency, the reports “fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned.”

“There is absolutely no room for bias in our work, and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record,” Ratcliffe said in a statement.

”These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis,” he continued.

The reports were identified during a broader review conducted by Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which examined hundreds of CIA analytic products from the past decade.

An internal review led by Deputy Director Michael Ellis reached the same conclusion, the agency said.

The move follows earlier efforts by Ratcliffe to revisit past intelligence work tainted by political bias within the agency.

Keep reading

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