This is the demorat party of today: Demonizing federal employees who are hired to follow the law and protect our borders.
From the video description:
“Democrat Senator Kamala Harris compares ICE to the KKK during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Ronald Vitello to be the director of ICE.”
On Nov. 16, 1993, then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected” into law, with an almost-unanimous approval by Congress. Every House member approved of the bill; only three senators voted no.
Incredibly, both the House and Senate versions of RFRA were sponsored by Democrats: Rep. Chuck Shumer (NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA).
Then is then, and now is now.
The Democrat Party that spearheaded RFRA has become the hate-America, hate-God Demonrat Party that now is bent on the all-but-in-name repeal of the same law it once championed.
In an op/ed for the Washington Examiner, November 14, 2018, former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), who now teaches political science at Utah Valley University, reports that even before the Nov. 6 election, 50 House Democrats had co-sponsored H.R. 3222, a bill to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). With a majority of Demonrats now in control of the House of Representatives after the recent mid-term elections, there are now 172 House Democrats who support H.R. 3222, as their party takes control of the House.
H.R. 3222, sanctimoniously and deceptively titled the Do No Harm Act, is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and co-sponsored by 170 other House members, all Demonrats, one of whom is the anticipated incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), 71. That committee would be in charge of approving the undoing of RFRA.
H.R. 3222’s companion Senate bill (S. 2918) is authored by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 28 other Demonrat senators.
Instead of a head-on repeal of RFRA, H.R. 3222 and S. 2918 take a sly approach by creating a long itemized list of exemptions from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thereby diminishing and undermining RFRA’s protection of religious freedom. The exemptions include sexual orientation, gender identity, and abortion. In effect, our Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of religion would be declared less important than other claims never mentioned in the Constitution and often not even legislated by elected officials.
Groups endorsing HR 3222 and S 2918 are the usual leftwing suspects and promoters of evil: the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, Lambda Legal, NAACP, NARAL, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Organization of Women, and Planned Parenthood.
H.R. 3222 would declare that religious freedoms must yield when they run counter to the LGBTQ agenda or to other progressive causes such as abortion rights. Pushing this are progressive groups which claim that religious beliefs are just a cover for discrimination, bigotry, and hate….
The turnaround [since RFRA] dramatizes how culture and politics have changed in 25 years. Secular values have been given priority and religious freedoms have been narrowed.
Istook warns that HR 3222 and S 2918 will also reverse the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop decisions. State-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are also being attacked. Those were enacted in 21 states after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that RFRA protects only against intrusive laws on the federal level.
And although the GOP-majority Senate is very unlikely to approve S. 2918 or any legislation gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those who oppose RFRA will be emboldened by HR 3222, and they will keep trying.
The media continue their all-out attempt to push progressive narratives ahead of the mid-terms. Case in point: Glamour magazine has published their annual “Women of Year” issue and it includes several TDS-infected libtards.
“In the 28 years that we’ve celebrated Women of the Year—both in our pages and at our annual summit and awards ceremony—the stories of our honorees often start with the same idea: a woman that refuses to wait for someone else to make things better. Alone, or with an army behind her, she decides to act.”
Kamala Harris: The California senator who loves abortion and illegal aliens once joked about killing President Trump.
Chrissy Teigen: The anti-everything Trump model has a garbage mouth and calls for civility yet routinely trashes people on Twitter.
The Women Activists of March for Our Lives: These teenagers apparently “demanded change” and “won’t take no for an answer.”
What change exactly did they achieve?
Did they see that the Broward Coward sheriffs were held responsible for their inactions? Did they hold Sheriff Scott Israel responsible for his ineffective leadership? Did they see that the FBI was responsible for their inaction on the tips about the Parkland shooter?
Sure, some new gun laws were passed in Florida. Exactly how many school shootings have these new gun laws prevented?
Rather all these activists did was trash the NRA, Dana Loesch and responsible gun owners. As a result of their activism, NRA membership dramatically increased.
What a bunch of liberal garbage Glamour magazine is promoting.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), viewed as a rising star in the Demonrat Party with presidential ambitions, is vocal in her gun-control advocacy.
Like other gun-control politicos, Harris is a hypocrite, spouting off on gun control, while she is protected by armed Los Angeles police officers, the costs of which are borne by taxpayers.
More outrageous still is that Harris has the LAPD’s armed protection even when she isn’t in Los Angeles.
Eric Leonard and Andrew Blankstein report for NBC4 Los Angeles, Sept. 6, 2018, that City of Los Angeles Payment Vouchers show that armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party.
LA taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals for the LAPD officers, according to detailed expense reports obtained by NBC News. The total cost of the trips, not including the officers’ overtime, topped $28,000.
Although the LAPD routinely provides security for dignitaries and officials visiting LA, a senior retired LAPD official said the protection extended to Harris for her travels to other cities was unprecedented.
Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti‘s spokesman Alex Comisar claims Garcetti had been “unaware” of this unusual arrangement, although Section 4.242.9(b) of the L.A. Administrative Code states:
With the exception of employees of the City Council or Office of the Mayor, all non-elected City officials and all other City employees shall notify the Mayor, the Chair of the Committee that oversees the Intergovernmental Relations function, and the Chief Legislative Analyst prior to traveling on official City business to Sacramento or to Washington, D.C.
Garcetti insists he hadn’t known until July, when new LAPD Chief Michel Moore conducted an “assessment of the threat” to Harris and “determined that this arrangement was no longer needed”.
Garcetti blames former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said “Chief of Police Charlie Beck assigned a security detail for US Senator Kamala Harris shortly before she was sworn into office in 2017, based on a threat assessment he believed to be credible. Funding for the detail was provided by the Department budget.”
Beck’s signature appears on many of the LAPD documents authorizing the trips, including:
Just 10 days after Harris was sworn-in to the Senate, two LAPD officers flew to Oakland to go with Harris to a “retirement event” for a California Department of Justice official.
A trip in April 2017 when Harris gave TV interviews.
A trip in March 2018 for a speech by Harris at a YMCA event.
A trip in June 2018 to escort Harris to the San Francisco Pride parade, where LAPD officers were visible in video and pictures captured along the parade route.
Altogether, in the 1½ years between January 2017 and July 2018, LAPD officers flew to San Francisco at least seven times to provide armed protection for Harris. LAPD officers also traveled to Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego for Harris.
The decision to end the out-of-town security program for Harris was made around the time the Los Angeles Times filed a lawsuit that demanded Mayor Eric Garcetti turn over records detailing the taxpayer expense of his own security detail during his extensive out-of-state travels, after both City Hall and the LAPD refused to release the documents through a routine California Public Records Act request, claiming that the documents “could potentially undermine the Mayor’s safety and security.”
But the Times‘ lawsuit claims there is no portion of the Records Act that exempts these expense records from public disclosure. Even the U.S. Secret Service has provided information about the cost of traveling security details for both Presidents Trump and Obama, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle have all produced similar mayoral expense records for public review.
According to a Crazy Days and Nights blind, Kamala Harris began her political career by being the mistress of the powerful and married Willie Brown — former mayor of San Francisco and speaker of the California State Assembly — who took her to swinger parties that were “glorified orgies” where she engaged in sex with “large numbers of men and women”. CDAN claims there are compromising pictures of Harris at these orgies, “which is why senior leaders from her party are quietly trying to discourage her presidential ambitions”.
In 1993, she [Kamala Harris] started dating California Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, who introduced her to many powerful individuals in the California and Sacramento political and campaign management establishment.
Kamala Harris was Willie Brown’s “girl friend” although he was — and still is — married to his wife Blanche Vitero (see James Richardson, Willie Brown: A Biography, p. 404).
H/t Big Lug
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Kamala Harris, 53, is a first-term Senator from California.
She is a Democrat and a rising star. She is also black and her name is already among those floated as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election.
Ryan Foley reports for Newsbusters (via LifeNews) that during an appearance on the daytime talk show Ellen, aired last Thursday, April 5, 2018, Host Ellen DeGeneres gave Harris a lavish introduction, calling her “California’s first African-American senator” and “the first Indian-American to ever be elected to the Senate”, adding “there are many who would like to see her become the first female President of the United States.”
Responding to DeGeneres’ question, “If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?,” Harris implied that she wants President Trump (and VP Pence and Attorney General Sessions) dead. Kamala Harris said:
“Does one of us have to come out alive?”
At that, Harris, DeGeneres and the audience laughed and clapped because, you know, wishing a duly-elected, sitting President of the United States dead is just so very funny.
As the segment drew to a close, DeGeneres once again referred to Harris “as possibly your next President of the United States!” as the audience of women cheered enthusiastically.
H/t Big Lug
From Yahoo: Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said that Democrats have a message “much bigger” than opposing President Trump and that the party is focused on telling Americans “we see them.”
“The issues are not simple, so the message is not going not be simple,” Harris told Yahoo News in a small gaggle of reporters after she gave a speech at the “Women Unshackled” criminal justice conference Tuesday morning. Harris said Democrats should not have a “monosyllabic” simple slogan, but instead focus on issues that matter to Americans, like jobs, the economy, health care, climate change and criminal justice reform.
“It’s going to be multitiered, but essentially it’s about telling the American public we see them,” Harris said of the Democrats’ message. “All Americans want to know that they are healthy, that their children and their parents are going to have access to health care and dignity. All Americans want to know they can get a job and keep a job. All Americans want to be able to retire with dignity.” “These are truths, and when we see people for who they really are, and instead of some demographic based on what a pollster looks at, I think we’ll all be better for it,” she added.
Democrats have struggled to articulate a unified message since Trump won. And the issue of the party’s branding sparked up again after a top House Democrat, Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., recently told the Associated Press that the message is “being worked on.” Harris is a buzzed-about potential candidate for president in 2020 and has already raised significant amounts of money for her Senate colleagues running in 2018. Harris has said she’s not giving “any consideration” to running for president, but Democratic donors are increasingly speculating about her as a top contender.
Harris’ criminal justice speech Tuesday to a bipartisan group of lawmakers and activists was greeted with enthusiastic applause, and the senator was nearly mobbed afterward with fans wanting to take selfies with her. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., are also speaking at the event, organized by the U.S. Justice Action Network.
In her speech, Harris criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for steering the country back toward another war on drugs, which she called an “abject failure” and “crazy.”
“We made a mistake when decades ago we decided to criminalize what is a public health matter,” Harris said, advocating for drug treatment instead of jail time for nonviolent offenders.
She also spoke of her recent visit to a women’s prison in Chowchilla, Calif., where she talked to incarcerated women who were making American flags. “I walked away thinking, ‘Isn’t it part of who we are as Americans that we believe in second chances?’” she said. Harris, a former prosecutor elected just last November, has made criminal justice reform one of her top issues in her short time in the Senate. She has co-sponsored legislation with other Democratic lawmakers to ban the practice of shackling pregnant inmates, and she announced during her speech that she would also be introducing legislation to reform the bail process so that decisions about whether to release prisoners ahead of their trials is based more upon the security risk of doing so and not upon how much money the prisoner has.
The senator told reporters she’s “optimistic” that legislation could pass, even in a divided Washington. “I think this is something that should not be thought of as even bipartisan — this should be a nonpartisan issue,” Harris said.
From Q13Fox: A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons — allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.
The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.
At issue was California’s law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have “good cause” to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license. The 9th Circuit held 7-4 in the case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, that the restrictions on concealed carry are constitutional, ruling that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not provide a right to carry concealed arms.
Judge William Fletcher
“The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent,” wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. “We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Fletcher also cited the most recent Supreme Court cases on gun rights, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which were major victories for gun rights activists, in making his case. The Heller decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, solidified a Second Amendment right of the public to keep guns, but it specifically noted the right was not absolute, and Fletcher pointed out that Scalia cited restrictions on concealed weapons as a historical example.
The court was careful to make the ruling narrow. The opinion does not say concealed weapons are unconstitutional, nor does it make any decisions about openly carrying weapons in public.
The case was a blow for gun rights advocates, and sets up the fight on gun rights for the Supreme Court to consider, says UCLA law professor and gun law expert Adam Winkler.
“This case raises the next great question for the Supreme Court: Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to carry guns in public? And if so, what kind of licensing can states use to permit people to carry concealed weapons?” Winkler said. The Supreme Court would not necessarily have to take up the case. The ruling does not create a substantive divide among different circuit courts in the U.S., one of the major factors the court considers in weighing which cases to take.
Judge Consuelo Callahan
Four judges dissented from the ruling, with the main dissent by Judge Consuelo Callahan (appointed by Bush) arguing that California’s laws taken together amount to a substantial restriction on citizens’ right to bear arms for self defense, as protected by the Second Amendment.
Whether the court does or does not take the case, the early 2016 death of Scalia looms large over it. Scalia authored Heller, the most substantial gun ruling in modern history of the court. And Republicans in the Senate have refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for replacing Scalia on the court, meaning the eight justice panel can split 4-4. Without a ninth justice, Winkler said, it’s unlikely the court would take up the case, even with Scalia’s allies on the issue Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas still on the court.
Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland, was chosen in large part for his moderate record. But one of the most substantial conservative arguments against Garland has been that his record on guns is too liberal, though his written record on the issue is limited.
The case was argued by Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the George W. Bush administration and one of the top litigators for conservative causes at the Supreme Court in recent years. Ever since the Supreme Court decided the Heller decision and a follow up case two years later, the Supreme Court has declined to take another major second amendment case, a frustration Clement cited in a 2013 filing with the court.
In the years since Heller had been decided many expected a “major consideration” or extant firearms laws, Clement wrote. “Instead, jurisdictions have engaged in massive resistance to the clear import of those landmark decisions, and the lower federal courts, long out of the habit of taking the Second Amendment seriously, have largely facilitated that resistance.” California state Attorney General Kamala Harris said the decision “is a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws. The ruling ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.”
The idea was first floated by academics when 20 professors & scientists signed a letter asking Obama to prosecute climate change (or what used to be called “global warming”) skeptics. They signed the letter despite the fact that there isn’t even agreement within the scientific community that (a) the Earth’s climate indeed is warming; and (b) it is human actions that cause that alleged warming.
Then the action swiftly shifted to government because government has the coercive force and power. (A classical definition of government, as any first-year undergrad political science major can tell you, is the institution in society with a monopoly on power.)
On March 9, 2016, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Obama’s attorney general Loretta Lynchadmitted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has discussed taking civil action, i.e., civil lawsuits, against climate-change deniers. (See “Thought crime comes to America: Obama admin is considering civil action against ‘climate change’ deniers“)
Now 17 state governments are doing what the federal government is considering. On March 29, 2016, flanked by climate-change profiteer and hypocrite Al Gore — he who owns several luxury, energy-consum mansions and attended the Sept 2014 People’s Climate March in New York in a large carbon-burning Chevrolet Suburban SUV — 17 Democratic attorney generals (AGs) announced in a press conference that they will be targeting, with legal action and huge fines, any company that challenges or denies climate change.
Hans von Spakovsky reports for The Daily Signal that the coalition of 17 “AGs United for Clean Power” treated climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is— a controversial and unproven scientific hypothesis.
Speaking at the press conference on March 29, New York AG Eric Schneidermandeclared, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He threatened that the AGs will pursue “to the fullest extent of the law” companies that commit fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change.
The coalition of 17 consists of:
The attorney generals of 15 states: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington;
AGs of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
16 of the 17 AGs are Democrats, while the AG for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.
Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California respectively, have alreadylaunched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questions climate change.Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.
Standing next to Schneiderman throughout the press conference was the new inquisition’s Tomas de Torquemada — Clinton’s former VP Al Gore, who narrated a climate change propaganda film in 2006 entitled “An Inconvenient Truth” and deftly peddled the global-warming propaganda to amass a multi-million-dollar fortune. Gore praised what the coalition is doing as “exceptionally important,” never mind that what the AGs are doing is nothing less than prosecuting a thought crime.
When pressed on the effect that such investigations and prosecutions will have on free speech, Schneiderman said climate change dissentersare committing “fraud” and are not protected by the First Amendment.
At least for now, other state attorney generals still respect the First Amendment. Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt and Alabama AG Luther Strangesaid they would not be joining this coalition:
“Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do. This scientific and political debate is healthy and should be encouraged. It should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence. It is inappropriate for State Attorneys General to use the power of their office to attempt to silence core political speech on one of the major policy debates of our time.”
Sacramento Bee: President Barack Obama was praising the bona fides of California Attorney General Kamala Harris today when he complimented Harris for something unlikely to show up in her campaign platform.
“She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated, she’s tough… She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general,” Obama said during a Thursday lunch, according to a pool report written by Todd Gillman of the Dallas Morning News.
The president also called Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, “not a real tall guy,” according to a tweet posted by Mike Rosenberg of the San Jose Mercury News.
Obama was in town for a fundraising swing that brought him to Atherton this morning for two Democratic National Committee events. Last night he appeared at an event costing $5,000 a head at the home of Tom Steyer, who spearheaded the push for Proposition 39 but has broken with the Obama administration over the Keystone XL pipeline, and a $32,500 gathering hosted by billionaire Gordon Getty.
Don’t expect anyone in the state run media to call him out on this comment. But if a republican had said this you know it would be front page news. Double standards, the only standards liberals have ever met.
Tammy Baldwin: an open lesbian recently separated from her gay partner.
Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth, endorsed by NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America and EMILY’S List, a political action committee (PAC) that aims to help elect pro-abort Democratic female candidates to office.
Sandra Fluke: A 3rd-year law student and Democratic Party and “women’s rights” activist who, despite being 30 years old, thinks taxpayers should pay for the condoms for her sex romps which, according to her estimate, amount to $3,000 over 3 years.
Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America: once a Special Education teacher caring for America’s most vulnerable children who now supports killing special needs children before they are born.
Lilly Ledbetter: the plaintiff in the employment discrimination case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and a women’s equality activist. No doubt she will remind the DNC that women on Barack Obama’s White House staff are paid 18% less than men in violation of the law named after her. [Snark]
Caroline Kennedy: who has spent her whole life silently smiling while the men in her family have cheated on their woman, including her own mother. Despite her seller’s remorse about the POS, whom she likened to her father in 2008, as a loyal Democrat, in the words of Edward Klein (author of the bestseller, The Amateur), “she has nowhere to go, no one else to possibly support except Obama” and “the Obamas know that she has nowhere else to go, so they see no point in being nice to her.”
Eva Longoria: best known for using her acting talents to celebrate adultery on the now-cancelled ABC show “Desperate Housewives”.
Cecile Richards: the president of Planned Parenthood, the abortion mill to which Obama funneled $500 million of American taxpayers’ hard-earned money last year. PP will launch a bus across America to campaign for the POS.
Elizabeth Warren: Massachusetts senatorial candidate who actually coined the expression borrowed by the POS, “You didn’t build that”, telling small business people they can’t succeed without government.
Every one of the DNC’s female speakers is stridently pro-abortion.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States. World wide, there have been over 1,260,000,000 abortions performed. I can’t find statistics on the gender of aborted babies, but given the phenomenon of gender selectivity, it is reasonable to assume that females make up at least half of the abortions in the U.S., totaling at least 25 MILLION since 1973.
Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. [Source: Wikipedia]
That’s the real War On Women that Obama and the Democrats won’t tell you about.