Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Republicans’

Poll: Democrats Cause Patriotism to Plummet Ahead of July 4th


Written by HARIS ALIC |

Protesters try unsuccessfully to burn an upside down US flag during a protest outside the White House in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014, one day after a grand jury decision not to prosecute a white police officer for the killing of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri. AFP …
MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty
 

The number of Americans who consider themselves “extremely proud” of their country is at a record low ahead of Independence Day.

A new Gallup poll released on Tuesday found that while 70 percent of all U.S. adults say they are proud to be Americans, only 45 percent say they are “extremely” proud of their country.

This was the second consecutive year in which the number of individuals identifying as extremely patriotic fell below 50 percent. Overall the share of Americans identifying as “extremely” patriotic is now at the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Gallup found the decline in patriotism to be largely driven by Democrats. Of those identifying with the party, only 22 percent said they were “extremely” proud to be Americans. Similarly “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats — women, liberals and younger adults,” also expressed lower levels of patriotism, according to Gallup.

The new polling confirms trends witnessed among Democrats since President Donald Trump took office. The share of Democrats expressing patriotism plummeted by double digits from 43 percent in 2017 to 32 percent in 2018. Although Democrats have historically reported lower levels of pride in their country, this year’s total of 22 percent is the lowest on record since Gallup began measuring the question.

Republicans, on the other hand, continue to express record levels of patriotism. Gallup found that 76 percent of individuals associated with the GOP identified as “extremely” proud to be Americans—only ten percentage points less than the group’s recorded high in 2003.

Even though Gallup shows a correlation between levels of patriotism and which party controls the White House, the level of pride among Democrats since Trump took office is exponentially low. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the percent of Democrats expressing extreme pride in their country never fell under 46 percent. In comparison, during the presidency of Barack Obama the share of Republicans identifying as extremely proud to be American never dropped below 68 percent.

Gallup, however, did find that the two parties more broadly agreed about “American economic achievements,” with 89 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats expressing pride. Likewise, Republicans and Democrats showed reverence for the U.S. military, with 98 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats saying they were proud of the institution.

Gallup conducted the poll between June 3 through June 16 by surveying 1,015 adults from across the country. The poll had a margin of error of +\- 4 percentage points.

NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 1, 2019 at 1:21am

In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.

Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.

In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.

Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.

Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.

The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”

The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.

The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.

Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.

The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”

The tweet-trackers at Twitchy compiled a couple dozen of the brutal responses they received from Twitter users to highlight just how enormously the “fact check” of Trump’s tweets had backfired on The Times.

Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.

One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”

Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”

There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Dick Morris: Trump’s Base Returns in Nick of Time


Opinion By Dick Morris | October 22, 2018 at 10:53am

The voters who elected Donald Trump in 2016 are returning to him just as the midterms approach. With their help, Trump has recorded his highest job approval in the WSJ/NBC poll since he took office — 47 percent.

But the real story is behind the numbers. Trump’s base — white non-college voters (38 percent of the country) is rallying to his candidates just as they did in the closing weeks of 2017. According to a Fox News poll, the only one that measures white non-college voters as a discrete group, Trump’s approval has surged among these folks.

In August 2016, his margin of approval over disapproval was only 11 points (54-43).  By September, it had risen to a 17 point margin (57-40).

In their latest poll, Oct. 13-16, it surged to a 21 point margin (60-39).

These voters are coming home.

This base lives in a place that is a blind spot for the mainstream media. It doesn’t really know that these voters exist. They live away from the West Coast and outside of the Northeast. They haven’t been to college. And they are white. The failure to measure their changing opinions is responsible for the media’s error in predicting a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 — and they haven’t changed their methodology since.

Trump’s base hides in plain sight during the bulk of the year. Estranged from the political process, they don’t follow it closely except when their man is in danger and summons them forth. That’s why the GOP did not do as well in the special elections of the past two years as Trump had hoped. But when the national fireball rings, they wake up and respond.

The controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination and the phony stories of sexual abuse energized the sleeping giant and motivated the voters to return to the Trump banner. Since, by emphasizing the immigration issue and the caravan arriving from Central America, he has held their attention.

The national polling is slow to pick them up on its radar. While their participation and increasing enthusiasm shows up quickly in the national job approval polling, it is slower to make its impact felt in the less frequent polling of the nation’s Senate races. The House polling, less frequent still, takes even longer to manifest their participation, but they are there, moving the needle.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owner of this website.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Scalia’s Daughter-in-Law Goes Nuclear on Democrats over Kavanaugh


Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 6, 2018 at

7:17am

Democrats desperately hoped that their antics surrounding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh would keep him off the Supreme Court … but their actions seem to have seriously backfired. Instead of stopping the conservative judge, liberals appear to have unified the right.

Recent polls show that voters are re-energized to support Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, and a majority of citizens of all backgrounds disapprove of how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in particular, handled the unproven accusations against Kavanaugh.

Now, it looks like the left’s treatment of Kavanaugh may be repelling political moderates and independents. That’s the message of Adele Scalia, the daughter-in-law of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in early 2016.

The former justice may have been known as a conservative, but Adele Scalia is not.

“I’ve always considered myself politically moderate: I am unapologetically pro-life, but my views on affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, and gun control made me sympathize strongly with Democratic perspectives and occasionally led to arguments with my husband and father-in-law,” she wrote in an Op-Ed piece published by The Federalist.

Scalia checks many of the identity politics boxes revered by modern liberals. She’s a female, of course, and is also a “person of color” who immigrated from Trinidad and Tobago. As she pointed out herself in her article, she was never completely comfortable with the Republican party for a variety of reasons.

All that changed thanks to the appalling treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats, and their rejection of evidence or presumption of innocence in favor of a political witch hunt.

“I have become a unicorn,” Scalia wrote.

“All it took was Democrats’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh over the last few weeks to turn me into that elusive creature: a minority, immigrant woman who supports Republicans,” the former attorney and stay-at-home mother said.

Mincing no words, Scalia declared that what she saw happen over the last few weeks “convinced me that Democrats are not who they claim to be.”

“The party that established itself as a champion for the voiceless, powerless, and wrongfully accused, betrayed its values and launched a vicious attack on Kavanaugh that left him voiceless, powerless, and completely incapable of defending himself,” she wrote.

Scalia pointed out something that a few others have also noticed: Despite constantly pretending to stand for the rights of the accused when it comes to urban minorities, the left betrayed those principles when it came to a conservative white male.

“Against all logic and good faith, they released uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct to the public, counting on the backdrop of the ‘Me Too’ movement to make them that much harder to criticize or ignore. I still cannot reconcile these actions with the social and criminal justice reform platforms that Democrats campaign on,” she wrote.

Then she revealed something that should be a red alert to Democrats: For the first time since legally entering the country, Scalia feels compelled to officially become a full citizen so she can vote … for Republicans.

“These events opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party,” Scalia declared, summarizing the problem.

The left just created a new minority, female immigrant conservative voter — and there could be many more previously undecided voters who have been motivated by the kangaroo court of last two weeks.

Well done, Democrats.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 28, 2018 at

11:49am

If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,”Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: