Tag: democrats

Georgia Judge Orders Fulton Commissioners to Pay $10,000 Per Day Over Rogue Democrats Refusing to Seat GOP Election Board Nominees

Earlier today, The Gateway Pundit reported on at least three democrats on the Fulton County Board of Commissioners who refused to seat the lawfully nominated Republican Party nominees Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.

Commissioners Ivory and Barrett took to Instagram to express their disgust that “election deniers” would be appointed to the board and vowed to hold out no matter the costs.  Fellow commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr posted on Instagram that he’d be willing to go jail over this.

This morning, Superior Court Judge David Emerson found “beyond a reasonable doubt that the Board of Commissioners has failed to comply with the court’s order” and has held the Board in civil contempt.  Beginning on Friday, August 29th at 12pm, the Board will be fined $10,000 for every day that they fail to appoint the Republican Party’s members to the Board of Elections.

He further noted that the fine “is to be paid daily” but stopped short of holding the respondents in criminal contempt.

Judge Emerson also awarded attorney’s fees “incurred in both the bringing of this case to compel compliance with the relevant local legislation and for the intentional failure to comply with the court’s order enforcing the law.”  Emerson further wrote:

The court does find that the respondent Board of Commissioners has been stubbornly litigious and acted in bad faith in its conduct prior to this litigation by its failure to comply with clear local legislation which forced the plaintiff to file this action.  The court further finds that it has caused the plaintiff unnecessary difficult in the conduct of this litigation by its failure to comply with the court’s order. (emphasis added)

Keep reading

Independent school leaders BEGGED Tim Walz for help securing their schools 2 years ago…

Independent and Catholic school leaders begged Governor Tim Walz for help securing their schools two years ago, but he never helped did it. Rather he was focused more on the transgender pretenders and their cause.

Fast forward to today when a trans-terrorist murders Catholic school children in horrific display of hatred.

Here’s more from Daily Wire:

Two years before a shooter opened fire on students attending daily mass in Minneapolis, the leaders of independent and Catholic schools in Minnesota begged Democrat Governor Tim Walz for help securing their schools, according to a 2023 letter reviewed by The Daily Wire. The funding was never authorized.

In a letter dated April 14, 2023 that specifically addressed “school safety in nonpublic schools,” Tim Benz, the president of MINNDEPENDENT and Jason Adkins, the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, stressed an “urgent and critical need in Minnesota to make sure our schools are secure and safe” in light of “recent, and continuing attacks, on our schools in this country and in our state.”

The letter says there are about 72,000 students in Independent, Catholic, Jewish, Christian and Muslim nonpublic schools within the state of Minnesota. It came just weeks after the shooting at a Christian school in Tennessee, which was also carried about by a transgender-identifying individual in their twenties.

“The latest school shooting at a nonpublic Christian school in Tennessee sadly confirms what we already know – our schools are under attack,” Benz and Adkins wrote. “In Minnesota, nonpublic schools, particularly our Jewish and Muslim schools, have experienced increased levels of threats, all of which we must take very seriously.”

“The tragedy from last week at Covenant School must never happen in Minnesota or in our country again,” they wrote. “We need to ensure that all [our] schools have the resources to respond to and prevent these attacks from happening to our schools.”

Keep reading

Democrat VA Gubernatorial Candidate Abigail Spanberger Wants to Turn Virginia Into a Sanctuary State for Illegal Aliens

Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat candidate for governor of Virginia, is vowing to turn the commonwealth into a sanctuary state by reversing the immigration policies put in place by the current governor, Republican Glenn Youngkin.

Spanberger has also made it clear that she is an ally to the transgender agenda, and would allow boys in girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms.

On nearly every issue, Spanberger embraces the unpopular positions of the far left that the majority of the country rejected in the 2024 election.

Spanberger made her comments about immigration in an interview with the Virginia Mercury:

Spanberger vows to scrap Youngkin’s immigration order if elected governor

Democratic nominee for governor Abigail Spanberger says one of her first acts if elected would be to undo Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s February directive requiring Virginia law enforcement to help carry out federal immigration crackdowns — a policy she argues wastes local resources and undermines community trust.

“I would rescind his executive order, yes,” Spanberger told The Mercury in a lengthy policy interview earlier this month, referring to Youngkin’s Executive Order 47 issued in February. The order gave state police and corrections officers authority to perform certain immigration duties and also urged local jails to fully cooperate with federal deportation operations.

The governor said at the time the measure was meant to keep “dangerous criminal illegal immigrants” off Virginia’s streets. Spanberger countered that Youngkin’s approach illustrates how immigration enforcement can pull local agencies away from their core responsibilities while pushing state agencies into federal civil enforcement.

“Our immigration system is absolutely broken,” she said. “The idea that we would take local police officers or local sheriff’s deputies in amid all the things that they have to do, like community policing or staffing our jails or investigating real crimes, so that they can go and tear families apart … that is a misuse of those resources.”

Spanberger has been leading her Republican opponent Winsome Earle-Sears, the current Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, for weeks but Sears has rapidly closed the polling gap just within the last ten days. The race is now nearly tied.

Keep reading

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