Tag Archives: democrats

Insanity: Illinois Passes Law Banning Trump from 2020 Ballot

Lawmakers in Illinois have advanced legislation that would require President Trump to release five years of his tax returns in order to appear on the state’s 2020 presidential ballot.

The Illinois state Senate voted 36-19 on Thursday to pass the bill, which will now move to the state’s Democrat-controlled House, according to Chicago radio station WBEZ.

I can’t imagine why Illinois is such a dumpster fire of a state. I guess spending all your time on nonsense like this doesn’t leave much for actually doing positive things for your citizens.

“If you want to run for vice president or president of the United States, hey, what’s wrong with providing your tax returns for the past five years?” state Sen. Tony Munoz (D) reportedly said while legislators debated the bill.

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about anything,” he added.

Actually, I think the constitution might have something to say about that. Democrats arbitrarily deciding to place limits on who can run for President isn’t supposed to be a thing. The constitution is clear that the only limitations are being a natural born citizen and over 35. If Illinois is allowed to do this, what stops Texas from banning the Democrat over whatever random issue they care about?

The “if you’ve got nothing to hide” trope is such illiberal garbage. How about Trump send the FBI to that guy’s house. He’s got nothing to hide right? There’s also the question of whether Illinois could lose their electoral votes if found to be illegally interfering in a Federal election.

Try to imagine the outrage that would emanate if a Republican state had kept Hillary off the ballot in 2016. It would have been universally denounced, the top story on every network, and no one would deny it’s a terrible idea. But because we live under Trump rules now, literally anything goes as long as it is opposed to him.

These kinds of games should be denounced strongly. States do not have the right to disenfranchise voters by forcing major party candidates off the ballot. This will no doubt end up in court and it won’t stand, but the simple fact that Democrats are even trying something so ridiculous shows just how insane their party has gone.

Please follow and like us:

Trump Smashes Democrats ‘Attempted Coup,’ Now Comes Payback

President Donald Trump is thrilled with the findings of the Mueller reported that haunted his presidency for 675 days.

But that does not mean he is ready to make nice with the team of angry attorneys who made it their life’s mission to end his presidency.

They did not find collusion because there was none to be found, not because they like President Trump and wanted to help him.

And it is for that reason, that they did everything they could to find something that did not exist, that he is still enraged.

“Well, the Mueller report is interesting. After $35 million with 13 increased to 18 angry Democrats, people that truly hated Donald Trump, truly hated Trump, they found no collusion whatsoever with Russia,” he said. Open the Video

“But I could have told you that and so could most people, and so could have everybody that voted for me, which was a lot of people,” he said.

“So, after wasting all of this money and all of this time with people that were haters, people that worked on the Hillary Clinton Foundation, people that were absolutely haters of Trump, they found no collusion,” he said.

Please follow and like us:

McConnell Loses Patience With Democrat Intransigence and Moves With Major Change to Senate Rules

Earlier in the month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put the Democrats on notice that they had two options. They could stop obstructing judicial nominees and executive branch appointees voluntarily or he’d make them stop. From my post Senate Democrats Panic As Mitch McConnell Prepares A Mini-Nuclear Option To Speed Judges:

While the White House has done its job by sending large numbers of highly qualified conservatives to the Senate for confirmation, the stumbling block has been the Senate. Even though Harry (no, really, it was an exercise band that busted my face, not the guy in the assless chaps) Reed did the GOP a huge favor by eliminating the ability of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees–which McConnell used to make the same rule apply to Supreme Court Justices–a disciplined minority bent on obstruction can make the process slow as each nominee is subject to thirty hours of debate. For instance, Eric Miller’s nomination was reported out of committee on February 9, he wasn’t voted on until February 26. Chad Readler (6th Circuit) was reported out on February 7 and will be voted on today [ed. March 6].

This is what Politico had to say:

The longtime GOP leader accused Democrats Tuesday of “mindless obstruction” and said he hopes to overhaul the rules under the regular procedure, which requires 67 votes. But McConnell also suggested he’s ready to move forward even if Democrats do not support the change: “In the absence of [bipartisanship], it’s still my desire to try to achieve that.”

Republicans believe they have the required 50 votes for the nuclear option but are hoping to achieve complete caucus unity, which might prove difficult. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) could be seen trying to sway Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on the Senate floor on Tuesday during a vote.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said McConnell is likely to move soon, but won’t call up the rules change on its own. Instead, he’s likely to set up votes on a nomination and then move to change the rules when and if Democrats resist.

The Democrats refused to budge. They insisted that they would only agree if McConnell reinstated the so-called “blue slip” (as opposed to the pink ones favored by Adam Schiff) which would give Democrat senators an effective veto over Trump’s judicial nominees. And now McConnell has done what he said he would do. You have to give them credit and there were GOP majority leaders within recently memory who would have gone along with this nonsense. This is McConnell’s statement on the floor of the Senate.

“So today, I am filing cloture on a resolution that takes that bipartisan effort as its blueprint. This resolution from Senator Blunt and Senator Lankford would implement very similar steps and make them a permanent part of the Senate going forward. The Supreme Court, circuit courts, cabinet-level executive positions, and certain independent boards and commissions would not change.

“But for most other nominations – for the hundreds of lower-level nominations that every new president makes – post-cloture debate time would be reduced from 30 hours to 2 hours. This would keep the floor moving. It would facilitate more efficient consent agreements. And most importantly, it would allow the administration — finally, two years into its tenure — to staff numerous important positions that remain unfilled, with nominees who have been languishing.

“This resolution has come up through regular order, through the Rules Committee. And next week, we will vote on it. It deserves the same kind of bipartisan vote that Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid’s proposal received back during the Obama Administration. I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues have indicated they would be all for this reform as long as it doesn’t go into effect until 2021, when they obviously hope someone else might be in the White House. But they’re reluctant to support it now.

This is a very limited first step in expediting nominations. It doesn’t affect circuit court nominees or cabinet officers. It does cover district judges and other appointees that require Senate confirmation.

The resolution needs 60 votes to pass. If the Democrats don’t go along, McConnell intends to use the “nuclear option” and change the rules by a majority vote only.

Please follow and like us:

Study finds Google’s search biases may have cost Republicans House seats in 2018 midterms

A new study by a researcher who, for months, has been looking into how social media platforms can influence election outcomes, found that search biases introduced by Google into its algorithms last year likely cost at least three Republicans their congressional seats.

The study was conducted by Dr. Robert Epstein, a San Diego-based Harvard Ph.D. who founded the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. Epstein is the Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), a University of California-San Diego visiting scholar, and served as editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

In addition, he supported Hillary Clinton (like Google did) in 2016.

The scientist and AIBRT analyzed Google searches that were linked to a trio of highly competitive congressional races in southern California that were won by Democrats. In doing so, the team discovered that Google’s “clear democrat bias” likely flipped those seats away from GOP candidates.

The study noted that at least 35,455 undecided voters within those three California districts were probably persuaded to vote for the Democratic candidate because of Google’s biased search results.

Breitbart noted:

Epstein says that in the days leading up to the 2018 midterms, he was able to preserve “more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked.”

Analysis of this data showed a clear pro-Democrat bias in election-related Google search results as compared to competing search engines. Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.

As Epstein’s previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their search results are unbiased. Epstein has called this the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).

Apparently tone-deaf to the fact that a Google search reveals additional evidence indicating bias, Democrats and officials with the tech behemoth are disputing Epstein’s findings.

Besides, this isn’t Epstein’s first foray into this type of research. Studies he has conducted in the past have revealed that Google has demonstrated it is capable of changing a 50-50 split among undecided voters into a 90-10 split without anyone realizing they had been manipulated, and without making it apparent to outside observers, based on a set of search suggestions that can be implanted into algorithms.

And Epstein made another startling revelation in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson earlier this year: A single shift in Google search results on Election Day 2018 very likely shifted anywhere from 800,000 to 4.6 million votes to Democratic candidates.

He noted that “individual employees at Google have the power to manually remove material, remove content that we see, and they do so often with political ends.”

He also made a prediction during that interview.

“I guarantee you that this past election was affected,” Epstein said, noting then that he had research data he would be releasing — this month — substantiating the claim. He said Google’s posted reminder to “go vote” on Election Day in November shifted perhaps millions of votes to Democrats.

Just this week Carlson warned that POTUS Trump is in danger of having his 2020 reelection stolen from him because of what Google and other tech behemoths are doing to influence outcomes for Democrats.

Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10
Please follow and like us:

8 New Mexico Democrats Join Republicans to Block Late-Term Abortion Bill

New Mexico’s bill was supposed to be a slam dunk. But after New York, nothing on abortion is a sure thing—not anymore. In a country that saw a 17-point jump in the number of pro-lifers since January, it’s no wonder that state Democrats are taking a good hard look at their positions, especially on late-term abortion. Americans have changed—and it looks like smart politicians are changing with them.

No one was more surprised by Thursday night’s vote than Democratic Gov. (and abortion extremist) Michelle Lujan Grisham. After the House had sent the bill on with a 40-29 vote, the Democrats’ stranglehold on the Senate was supposed to mean that the New York-style H.B. 51 was a done deal. But despite the party’s 26-16 edge, the vote fell far from party lines.

In a stunning victory for pro-lifers, eight Democrats crossed over—killing a bill that would have legalized infanticide and given abortionists the right to destroy babies up to the moment of birth.

Grisham, who hadn’t counted on the intense lobbying from pastors and state conservatives, was astounded. “That … it was even a debate, much less a difficult vote for some senators, is inexplicable to me,” she told reporters.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

By a 24-18 tally, Democratic state Sens. Pete Campos, Carlos Cisneros, Richard Martinez, George Muñoz, Gabriel Ramos, Clemente “Meme” Sanchez, John Arthur Smith, and Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen proved what a complicated issue abortion is becoming—even in liberal states.

During an emotional debate, some Democrats struggled to come up with a reason why New Mexico should leave perfectly healthy babies on a hospital table to die.

Ramos of Silver City told his chamber, “This is one of the toughest decisions any of us will ever have to make.” But, he went on, “I stand unified against legislation that weakens the defense of life and threatens the dignity of the human being.” While others sometimes spoke through tears, the tension inside the Democratic caucus was obvious.

In one strained exchange, two Democrats squared off against each other. State Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino of Albuquerque quoted St. Antoninus to justify why Catholics should feel free to vote for the bill. “The importance of individual choice is what the church has always taught,” he said.

Ramos demanded to know which Catholic Church he was talking about. “Mine does not approve of abortion,” Ramos said. Then, to his colleagues he said simply, “Vote your conscience.”

Thank goodness many did. Their courage dealt one of the most significant blows of the year to the extreme abortion camp. When she was asked, one dazed senator could only say, “We did expect more to be voting in favor—and it didn’t turn out that way.”

Deep blue states like Maryland and Virginia share her surprise. There, similar proposals have been shelved because of the intense divides on late-term abortion. Even in Illinois, whose governor is vying to be the “pro-abortion state in the union,” a New York-style measure stalled after four co-sponsors asked to be removed from the bill.

The landscape is shifting—and fast. In a country where outlawing third-trimester abortion is a 70 percent issue for pro-choicers, it would appear that Hill Democrats aren’t just outside the mainstream. They’re in no man’s land.

Please follow and like us:

Republicans Having A Hard Time Believing Pelosi On Impeachment

Republicans on Capitol Hill have mixed feelings about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment comments, with many telling The Daily Caller News Foundation they believe it is a ploy for 2020 and that she will switch course eventually.

As many Democrats have pushed for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, Pelosi has been a steady force on the opposite side, saying she does not believe it should be a focus for the party and that impeachment is “just not worth it.” This comes as Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green broke with Pelosi, vowing to force a vote to impeach Trump on Tuesday.

Please follow and like us:

POTUS Trump officially calls out BIG TECH for colluding with Democrats to silence conservatives and steal elections

Liberty-minded tech startups and independent media publishers have been pleading with President Donald Trump to take on the conservative bias and potential anti-trust violations by the Big Tech giants and he’s finally done it.

During an exclusive interview with Breitbart News this week, the president accused big tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, and Google of colluding with Democrats to censor his conservative supporters to gain a political advantage.

“Actually it’s incredible that I won the election because you know it was so rigged against me,” he said Monday. “It wasn’t Russians. Russia collusion was a delusion. But what there is, is there was collusion between the Democrats and these tech companies.”

POTUS said that any Republican candidate running in 2020 (and beyond if nothing is done) is going to face a “tremendous disadvantage” on social media thanks to its pervasive nature throughout our culture and society because the tech giants are run by raging Leftists.

He also noted that he surprised those who run the large social media platforms when he handily defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“It’s totally steered, which has been proven now, totally steered toward the Democrats, and yet I won,” he told Breitbart.

The president is spot-on with his assessment. Several studies including analyses of social media referral data prove that conservative, pro-Trump media and voices have suffered from bias in the form of censorship, “shadow” bans, and outright bans.

As NewsTarget reported almost a year ago:

…[A] major new study by the Media Research Center provides evidence galore that the social media behemoths are doing all they can to censor and downgrade content which does not promote Alt-Left social, cultural, and political views.

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing — badly. If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media,” said an executive summary of the study.

In the president’s interview, Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow said he would not only be running against Democrats and the media but also the big tech social media platforms as he gears up for his 2020 reelection.

Oddly, POTUS pointed to a call by a potential Democratic nominee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose campaign recently proposed breaking up the big tech companies because they’ve gotten so big and powerful.

“Isn’t it funny? Elizabeth Warren called for their total breakup,” POTUS Trump said. “I do smile though, they’re so protective of her.”

Warren and the president are not the only ones who support a big tech breakup. NewsCorps, owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, called for Google to be broken up in a petition to Australian regulators.

“Google enjoys overwhelming market power in both online search and ad tech services,” the petition said, as reported by Phys.org. Google is “abusing its dominant position to the detriment of consumers, advertisers and publishers.”

For his part, the president was sympathetic to critics of the big tech platforms who are now pushing to regulate them.

“I understand a lot of people wanting to look into it,” POTUS Trump said. “I mean, normally I’d like to say let it be free, let it all be free, but it’s not free. It’s really run by a small number of people.”

Trump also cited reports from Breitbart that recently exposed conservative bias demonstrated by Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

“Now we’ve seen it, now we’ve caught them. We’ve seen the speeches, we’ve seen the in-house little videos that somehow got released. To men, that’s a very big scandal,” said the president.

The president did not say anything about whether his administration was gearing up to challenge the dominance of the big tech companies, but just the fact that he’s talking about their bias on a national podium will go along way towards educating millions of Americans.

Please follow and like us: