Tag: democrats

In defiance of voter base, DNC rejects resolution calling for Israel arms embargo

On Tuesday, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members at the party’s summer meetings rejected Resolution 18, which called for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a ceasefire in Gaza, an arms embargo, and a suspension of military aid to Israel.

Instead, members backed a status quo resolution introduced by DNC Chair Ken Martin, which simply called for more aid to be allowed into Gaza and a two-state solution. Despite the support, Martin went on to withdraw the resolution.

“I know that there are some who are interested in making changes today, but as we’ve seen, there’s divide in our party on this issue,” said Martin. “This is a moment that calls for shared dialog. It calls for shared advocacy, and that’s why I’ve decided today, at this moment, listening to the testimony and listening to people in our party, to withdraw my amendment and resolution.”

Martin says he will establish a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this” so that they can “bring solutions back to our party.”

Resolution 18 had faced opposition from lobby groups like Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI).

“Should it advance, it will further divide our Party, provide a gift to Republicans, and send a signal that will embolden Israel’s adversaries,” claimed DMFI president and CEO Brian Romick. “As we get closer to the midterms, Democrats need to be united, not continuing intra-party fights that don’t get us closer to taking back Congress.”

Polling has consistently shown that Democratic voters are, in fact, united on Israel. A majority of them oppose the genocide in Gaza and want the Israeli government held accountable for its actions in the region.

This month, YouGov and The Economist published a poll showing that 69% of Democrats believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That includes 77% of Kamala Harris voters.

According to a June Quinnipiac survey, 12% of Democratic voters sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians, while a July Gallup poll found that just 8% of Democratic voters support Israel’s military actions in Gaza and only 9% support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

An April poll from Data for Progress and Zeteo showed that 71% of likely Democratic primary voters think the United States should end arms transfers to Israel until it stops its attacks on civilians and supports the rights of the Palestinians.

80% of likely Democratic primary voters under the age of 45 believe that military assistance to Israel should be restricted.

Keep reading

Tim Walz rips media for negative reporting on Dem party amid ‘fascist’ takeover

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz criticized the media for reporting on rifts within the Democratic Party amidst what he called a “fascist” takeover of the country by President Donald Trump.

Walz gave a fiery speech on Monday in front of Democrats gathered for the party’s summer strategy meetings in Minneapolis, where Democratic leadership are attempting to unify a party riddled with internal division.

During the speech, Walz, a progressive who served as former Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, opined about his and Harris’ 2024 election loss, saying, “We know [Harris] was the most qualified and would have been a fantastic president.”

“We wouldn’t wake up every day to a bunch of s*** on TV and a bunch of nonsense,” he asserted. “We would wake up to an adult with compassion and dignity and vision and leadership doing the work. Not a man child crying about whatever’s wrong with him.”

He doubled down on some of the Democratic Party’s more controversial platforms, saying, “We’re not shying away from diversity as a strength and equity as a goal and inclusion being the air we breathe. That’s what we should be doing.”

Though doubling down on DEI, Walz criticized the media for reporting on Democratic infighting. He urged Democrats, “Don’t take the bait.”

“It boggles my d*** mind that in the midst of a military takeover of our cities and the attempt to go into others, their flaunting of the rule of law, the cruelness and the unconstitutional nature of the way they’re attacking our neighbors, that the press finds the need to talk about, ‘Oh, there’s a division in the Democratic Party,’” he railed, adding, “There’s a division in my d*** house and we’re still married, and things are good. That’s life!”

“We can have our internal decision-making, our internal healthy debates. But – I refuse to believe – we do not have the luxury to fight amongst ourselves while that thing sits in the White House,” said Walz as the crowd broke into cheers.

Keep reading

Kamala’s Revenge: Harris Screwed the Democrats So Badly I Can’t Stop Laughing

It’s the story of a failed presidential candidate who raised record sums, left record debt, lost anyway, and gave her party the finger when it needed her most.

It’s called “Kamala’s Revenge,” and it’s the kind of razor-sharp political comedy that Hollywood hasn’t dared make since 1997’s “Wag the Dog.”

The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is even wilder than Chauncey Gardiner in “Being There” from 1979. If you need a refresher, Peter Sellers played a simpleton named Chance who was raised in total isolation by a wealthy man in D.C. When the old man dies and Chance is forced out on the street — wearing the old man’s very nice suit — “Chance the gardener” is mistaken for “Chauncey Gardiner,” and he is soon dispensing advice to Washington’s rich and powerful.

It’s an all-time favorite movie, but it has nothing on “Kamala’s Revenge.”

The premise of “Kamala’s Revenge” is that the vice president is a totally inept (not to mention comically inapt) DEI hire who, when the senescent president is forced out of his reelection campaign by his own party’s elders, finds herself with just 107 days to scrape together a presidential campaign. 

I know this sounds too crazy for fiction, but bear with me — it gets crazier.

Despite running the shortest presidential campaign in history, Kamala (with a big assist from the media and various celebrities) raises a record $1.5 billion but blows through it all and then some. She goes down in major defeat, but according to this political news site in the movie — it’s called Axios or something — months later, her party had to pony up “more than $15 million toward paying off [her] campaign expenses.”

Crazy, right? But “Kamala’s Revenge” has only begun mining its comedy gold. 

Thanks to Kamala’s debts and some massive fundraising by the other side, Axios says that her party doesn’t even have $20 million in the bank, but the other party — headed up by the bad guy she lost to — is sitting on a massive $80 million war chest.

So the bad guys run attack ads, boost their social media presence — all the smart political stuff Kamala’s party used to dominate. Instead, they’re just flailing around, talking about stolen lands, letting illegal immigrant wife-beaters out of jail, sticking male sex offenders in girls’ bathrooms, and all this other crazy stuff you’d never believe.

But it gets wilder.

“Some donors,” Axios says, “have grown reluctant” to give Kamala’s party more money even as they try to “pivot to the 2026 midterms.”

The party is searching under the sofa cushions for cash at this point. They’re so desperate that their elders go back to Kamala for help. She agrees to let the party use “her email list to help raise money and has held a few small fundraising events. But the total money raised from the events has been disappointing.”

Disappointing to them, of course, but audiences can’t stop laughing. 

The kicker, though, is in one of the final scenes. When the email list fails to accomplish much, party organizers go to Kamala and beg her to personally host the kind of big fundraisers she pulled off during her campaign — but she tells them no.

Kamala’s team “believes she’s done her part” by blowing $1.5 billion on a losing presidential race and leaving her party millions in debt.

Keep reading

Watch Chicago Mayor Johnson Repeatedly Refuse to Answer When Asked if More Police Would Reduce Crime in the City

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday morning and repeatedly refused to answer when host Joe Scarborough asked him if more police would reduce crime in the city.

The entire conversation was predicated on the idea that Trump may send federal forces to the crime-torn city and Scarborough was trying so hard to tee up the ball for Johnson, almost outright urging him to give the obvious answer, but Johnson just refused to respond.

When he finally did offer an answer, it was all about other issues like affordable housing and social welfare spending. He is such a disaster of a mayor.

FOX News has details:

Chicago mayor repeatedly dodges MSNBC questions about whether city needs more police

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson dodged repeated questions from MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Tuesday about whether an increased police presence in the city would help cut down on crime.

“Do you believe that the streets of Chicago would be safer if there were more uniformed police officers on the streets of Chicago?” Scarborough asked Johnson.

Scarborough posed the question to the liberal Chicago mayor multiple times. Johnson instead emphasized the need for expanded social programs, including affordable housing.

“I believe the city of Chicago and cities across America would be safer if we actually had, you know, affordable housing. Look, I’m not saying—” Johnson began, before Scarborough cut him off, noting it wasn’t the question he had asked.

Scarborough pressed again, asking if more officers would reduce crime. Johnson said it shouldn’t be narrowed down to police alone, calling that an “antiquated approach.”

“Are you hearing what I’m saying?” Scarborough pressed again.

Keep reading

Fulton County Board of Commissioners Defy Court Order – Refuse to Appoint Republican Election Board Nominees – Contempt Hearing Today

Last week, a judge ordered the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to seat two Republican Party nominees: Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.  The two were nominated in May but have yet to be seated.

Two of the Democrat members, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, were able to thwart Commissioner Bridget Thorne’s motion to confirm the two Republican appointees.  Because of the absence of three other members on the seven-member board, the motion was blocked in a 2-2 vote.

On August 4th, Judge David Emerson ordered the two nominees be confirmed as per Georgia law, which states that the the board’s members “shall be appointed” by the “chairperson of the county executive committee of the political party” of whichever party has the “largest number of votes in this state for members of the General Assembly”.

In that order, Judge Emerson stated, “The respondent Board of Commissioners (BOC) contends the “shall” is not mandatory, but rather “directory”, and that the county commissioners can exercise discretion to reject any nominee for any reason.”

The commissioners filed a request to reconsider, which was denied.  So they filed an emergency motion with the Georgia Supreme Court, who moved the docket to the Georgia Court of Appeals.  The appeals court denied the motion as well.

Today, at 9am, a hearing will take place regarding the two members who voted against the appointments, and a third who was not present but is also refusing to appoint the two despite the Court’s orders.

Commissioners Dana Barrett, Mo Ivory, and Marvin Harrington still refuse to vote for the appointments.

Barrett, who has served on the board since November 2022, took to Instagram to post a video calling Frazier and Adams, the Republican nominees, “election deniers” and acknowledging that the Court has ruled against her and her colleagues.  “Our elections are under attack,” she said, before invoking Texas and President Trump’s movement to eliminate universal mail-in balloting and untrustworthy black-box voting machines.

Keep reading

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Uncovers “Burn Bags” of Documents Tied to 2020 Election Corruption – Hidden from American Public

President Donald Trump announced that current Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has uncovered bags of hidden documents related to corruption in the 2020 election.

Trump, speaking in front of his administration as they continue a historic federal crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., and push for peace negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, directly addressed the bombshell findings.

According to a statement by President Trump, these files contain “massive” evidence of wrongdoing and will soon be made public.

President Trump:
“And you’ve also found many bags of information. I think they call them burn bags. They’re supposed to be burned, and they didn’t get burned, having to do with how corrupt the 2020 election was. And when will that all come out?”

Tulsi Gabbard, serving as Director of National Intelligence, confirmed the shocking find:

Tulsi Gabbard:
“Mr. President, I will be the first to brief you once we have that information collected. But you’re right, we are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes in random offices in these bags and in other areas, which again speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people and trying to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused really immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.”

Keep reading

Cannon Fodder: How Democrats Sacrificed Black Prosecutors in their Lawfare Campaign Against Donald Trump

“Cannon fodder” is a term used to describe combatants thought to be expendable. Those who send “cannon fodder” into battle have little regard for their well-being. A high casualty rate they see as the price to pay for accomplishing some strategic goal, in the case in question, the removal of Donald Trump from the battlefield.

The question needs to be asked, why did Democrat strategists push Black officials into the forefront of their lawfare campaign against Donald Trump? With the exception of Special Counsel Jack Smith, nearly every high-profile prosecution was spearheaded by Black attorneys, judges, and committee chairs like Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Tanya Chutkan, and Bennie Thompson. They became the public face of the campaign to “get Trump,” even as they bore the personal and professional risks of failure.

Make no mistake, Democrats intentionally used Black prosecutors because of their race. On the most basic level, Black prosecutors would have a stronger pull over Black jurors and White liberal jurors as well.

More critically, if these cases were criticized, party leaders could circle back with their common anti-Trump narrative and claim that the pushback was due to racism. The media would relish this narrative. As the election approached, this tactic would strengthen the bond between the Black community and the Democrats even if the cases against Trump should fail.

From a strategic perspective, Democrat party leaders believed the Trump prosecutions offered multiple advantages. Each indictment created headlines, keeping Trump’s alleged misconduct front and center while burying his policy arguments. They thought the prosecutions reinforced their portrayal of Trump as lawless, a framing that reenforced Joe Biden’s messaging about Trump being unfit for office and “a threat to democracy.”

That said, each prosecution was something of a trial ballon, floating novel legal theories on insurance fraud, campaign finance violations, racketeering, and federal obstruction. Democrats had to know how flimsy were their cases, and how vulnerable the prosecutors. They just did not seem to care.

Enter James, Bragg, Willis, Chutkan, and Thompson. These Black figures were thrust into the spotlight not merely as lawyers or investigators, but as political symbols. Democratic leaders surely understood the likely outcome, that these individuals would be intensely scrutinized, harassed, and possibly discredited if the prosecutions faltered. But from the perspective of the party’s political calculus, these Black figures were acceptable casualties.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Latest ‘Mediscare’ Gambit Is An Empty Threat

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Democrats are claiming Republicans have put the Medicare program in jeopardy. As usual, the allegation amounts to a combination of speculation and an empty threat.

The latest version claims that, because the “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill will increase the deficit, automatic spending reductions will hit Medicare. But in recent years, lawmakers of both parties have moved to cancel the automatic reductions with regularity — and you can bet dollars to donuts they will do so again.

Implications of Reconciliation

The most recent claim came via a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), requested by several senior congressional Democrats. CBO noted that, because the new law will increase the deficit by roughly $3.4 trillion in the coming decade, the measure could trigger an automatic sequester under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) law enacted in 2010.

PAYGO requires Congress to offset tax cuts or spending increases with commensurate spending reductions or revenue increases, to avoid further increases in federal deficits and debt. If, by the end of the year, lawmakers do not enact offsetting tax increases or spending reductions to “pay for” the estimated $3.4 trillion deficit increase caused by the reconciliation measure, then automatic spending reductions (i.e., the sequester) will kick in under Statutory PAYGO. (The sequester exempts Social Security and certain other programs; Medicare spending is subject to a maximum 4 percent reduction under this sequester.) 

Arcane Congressional Rules

Lawmakers can always waive or otherwise change the sequester requirement under Statutory PAYGO. However, they cannot do so under budget reconciliation, for reasons related to congressional procedure. The reconciliation process occurs when the House and Senate Budget Committees instruct other congressional committees (e.g., House Ways and Means, Senate Finance, etc.) to make changes to programs within their jurisdiction to accomplish budgetary goals (e.g., raise or lower revenue, raise the debt limit, etc.). 

But Statutory PAYGO lies under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Budget Committees. And the House and Senate Budget Committees cannot give reconciliation instructions to themselves, meaning that any waiver of, or change to, Statutory PAYGO cannot occur via the reconciliation process.

In other words, while Republicans passed their agenda bill on a party-line via reconciliation, which is not subject to a filibuster, they will need 60 votes, and therefore Democrat support, to modify or waive PAYGO. That gives Democrats leverage in theory, but it hasn’t worked out that way in practice.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Deceives Donors As She Strikes Secret Deal with DNC to Pay Off Debt from Failed 2024 White House Run

Kamala Harris deceived donors as she struck a secret deal with the DNC to pay off the remaining debt from her failed 2024 White House bid.

Recall that Kamala Harris stole Joe Biden’s delegates and took his donor money after he dropped out of the presidential race in July 2024.

After blowing through over $1 billion in virtually 3 months, Kamala Harris ended her presidential run in more than $20 million in debt.

According to The New York Times, Harris struck a secret deal with the DNC to pay off her 2024 bills, but the donors were left in the dark.

NEW: Kamala Harris and the DNC struck a handshake deal for the party to pay leftover 2024 bills.

They’ve amounted to $20.5 million.

Harris has promised to raise $$$ to cover those costs.

But small donors making the donations have been left in dark.https://t.co/8j5Jp8Y1UM

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) August 25, 2025

The secret Harris-DNC deal “obscured the extent of unpaid bills at the end of the race,” the New York Times reported.

The Harris-DNC deal obscured the extent of unpaid bills at end of race.

Harris team claimed “there will be no debt” on post-election reports.

Which was technically true.

But $20.5 million in post-election bills have been paid.https://t.co/8j5Jp8Y1UM

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) August 25, 2025

The DNC is still struggling financially after they wasted over $1 billion to lose against Trump in 2024.

Harris owed $3.5 million to a company that does influencer work since she had to pay for endorsements.

Keep reading

Unhinged Tim Walz Goes Berserk on Stage — Urges Democrats to Burn Flags with Trump’s Photo and Calls Trump a “Manchild” with “Fat Ankles”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz completely lost it during a speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) summer meeting in Minneapolis on Monday, lashing out at President Trump, mocking his supporters, and even encouraging Democrats to burn flags emblazoned with Trump’s image.

During his remarks, Walz sneered at Trump voters, mocking them as “stupid frickin’ red hat” people, before taking things to a disturbing new level: he encouraged Democrats nationwide to start burning flags with Trump’s picture on them.

Walz: Think of how easy it would be to be a damn Republican.

“Oh, what should I wear today? This stupid freaking red hat.”

“What should I say today? I don’t know. Just make sure it’s cruel.”

“Who do we listen to? That guy.”

“Oh, the felon in the White House? Yeah, listen to him, and that will be fine.”

Now he’s talking about burning flags. He’s going to have flag burning or whatever, because he knows there’s a hell of a lot of flags with his picture on them that are going to get burned.

Keep reading