Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Trump Administration’

Beware: Dems & Media Are Trying To Divide Trump’s Team With A Fake ‘Clash’

Posted by Staff Writer for |March 23, 2020

URL of the original posting site:

Beware, to start this week the Democrats are trying to create a news story to split the unity of President Trump’s team. They are trying to create a clash from the outside and get Dr. Fauci and the President to openly disagree and cause a rupture in the team.

Axios started the rumor and it was pushed by Congressman Ted Leui they are claiming despite there being no evidence of this that senior officials in the Trump Administration are losing patience with the doctor’s orders.

Here’s what Axios wrote:

Amid dire predictions for jobs and the economy, the White House is beginning to send signals to business that there’s light at the end of the tunnel — that the squeeze from nationwide social distancing won’t be endless.

  • Trump tweeted at 10 minutes to midnight: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD [which began a week ago, March 16], WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!”

  • Vice President Pence, who heads the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force, had signaled the change in tone earlier when he said the CDC will issue guidance today allowing people exposed to the coronavirus to return to work sooner by wearing a mask for a certain length of time.

Here’s where they are attempting to implement the divide…

Taken together, Trump’s tweet and Pence’s comment supply the strongest public signals we’ve seen that the administration is looking for ways to get people out in the world again to fire up the economy — perhaps much sooner than Dr. Fauci would like.

  • Trump is responding both to his own instincts and tomessages that key outside allies have been sending for days.

  • He retweeted a number of those outside allies echoing similar stances on Monday morning.

Lastly, they wrote, “At the end of the 15-day period, there will likely be a serious clash between the public health experts — who will almost certainly favor a longer period of nationwide social distancing and quarantining — versus the president and his economic and political aides, who are anxious to restart the economy.”

Right on cue, the Rep. Ted Leui tweeted the story claiming that the clash it’s ridiculous and irresponsible like this was happening right now.


There is no clash, the President and the coronavirus team have not announced any changes in the social distance plan. The President’s tweet was in response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s decision to destroy the economic emergency stimulus bill that is now tanking the economy.

There is no clash, the media is creating a false narrative to make it appear the President doesn’t care about you, only the economy, he’s stupid, and he doesn’t listen to experts. 


please likeand share and leave a comment

BOOM! Ukrainian Whistleblower Blows Up Schiff’s Lies – Says Obama Admin Pressured Ukraine All of the Time! (VIDEO)

Posted  |

As The Gateway Pundit first reported in December 2018, Andrii Telizhenko, an official at the Ukrainian Embassy, was approached by DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in early 2016. Alexandra Chalupa wanted dirt on candidate Trump and his campaign manager Paul Manafort. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC worked CLOSELY with the DNC operative Chalupa. Chalupa told Andrii she wanted Russian “dirt” on the Trump campaign.

The Gateway Pundit spoke with Telizhenko on the DNC Russia-gate Scandal last year.

Chalupa is also connected to a Ukrainian by the name of Vasili Filipchuk, who ran the organization labeled ICPS. Filipchuk too is suspected of helping to write the phony Trump-Russia dossier. The entity he works for (ICPS) stands for the International Center for Policy Studies and it was founded by Open Society.

Open Society is a well known George Soros funded organization that fronts as an entity that works “to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.” In reality it is a far-left organization that works against freedoms embedded in the US Constitution and across Europe.

Along with being connected to the fake Trump – Russia dossier and suspicious individuals in the Ukraine, Chalupa also is involved in the creation of astro-turfed (i.e. created by Democrat leadership) anti – Trump events in Washington D.C.

Now this…
OAN’s Jack Posobiec interviewed Andrii Telizhenko again this week. Telezhenko destroys Adam Schiff and the unhinged Democrats.

Andrii Telizhenko: Most of the Ukrainian and government officials do not even understand what the fuss is about here in Washington… We’re supposed to be the victims in this whole thing but we’re not. The Ukrainian president said there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure. And what I know is he said privately that it was the most diplomatic phone call he’s had in the last couple months with foreign leaders…

Jack Posobiec: Did you see pressure under the Obama administration?

Andrii Telizhenko: Of course, we saw pressure every time. Starting with the Ambassador from the United States in Kiev who would call the president and tell him what to do. It’s unethical to do this anywhere else in the world… And in meetings he would be told what to do, who to fire, who to hire.

This is an amazing interview by Jack Posobiec and Andrii Telizhenko. And this is from the whistleblower who first reported on Obama and the Democrat Party’s shady dealings with Ukraine.

DEAR CNN: Border Deaths Are DOWN In Trump’s First 2yrs – Is That ‘News?’

Written by Wes Walker on July 22, 2019

To hear AOC and her fraud squad tell the tale, ICE is practically throwing babies to the wolves. But what does the EVIDENCE say? Short answer — it says that they’re lying. All that weeping and finger-pointing laying the blood of children at the feet of Trump and his administration was a complete fraud.

If they were being honest, they would be thanking Trump for REDUCING deaths at the border. And considering how Democrats are working their damnedest to throw these children to the Coyotes, that’s a REALLY impressive statistic.

A tragic photograph of the bodies of Oscar Alberto Martínez and his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River from Mexico into Texas, renewed outrage about the border crisis. Politicians expressed their indignation at the image while, predictably, blaming the Trump administration.

[Harris, O’Rourke and Booker denounced Trump’s ‘inhumane’ and ‘immoral’ policies.]

…Former Vice President Joe Biden also tweeted about the tragic photo: “This image is gut-wrenching. The cruelty we’re seeing at our border is unconscionable. History will judge how we respond to the Trump Administration’s treatment of immigrant families & children — we can’t be silent. This isn’t who we are. This is not America.”

Instead of sharpening their pointing fingers, these Democratic hopefuls should have been pulling up statistics. If Trump’s a moral monster, what do you call the LAST administration? (Which, as we recall, had one Joe Biden working in the White House.)

But the reality is that deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased after Donald Trump became president, according to data from the United States Border Patrol. During the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years they averaged 291 per year, down from 372 during the Obama/Biden administration and 382 under Bush.
Source: NationalReview

Of course, that’s only PART of the story, isn’t it? Border Patrol agents are busy SAVING lives of people who try to cross a river and a desert through hostile terrain that happens to cross through criminal territory.

Not only do these hazards cost innocent lives, leaving a staggering number of women and girls to be exploited by predatory men, but the criminal cartels profit handsomely from these actions. First, by charging top dollar to cross through their territory on the way to America, second by assisting them over the border, which can include the use of a child carried over the border for amnesty purposes. (Something like one-in-three children coming over the border are non-relatives trafficked for this purpose.)

And with all that manpower (yes, we said MANPOWER) being spent on rescuing, feeding, securing and caring these thousands of illegals swarming over the border, there is ANOTHER consequence the Liberals have not been honest about.

When’s the last time you’ve heard any Democrat mention THIS:

Diverting border security resources to address the “humanitarian need” of migrants is leading to record-high levels of illicit drug smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border, said James W. Carroll, director of the U.S. Office of Drug Control Policy, in a Thursday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.

Carroll said, “I couldn’t tell you how bad this is. Seizures are down, and it’s not because there are less drugs coming in. It’s because their attention has to be diverted because of the humanitarian need, but what that means is more drugs are coming in than ever before.”

…Using federal resources meant for border security on “humanitarian” endeavors compromises the government’s ability to interdict drug smuggling, said Carroll. “That’s what these men and women want to do. They want to protect their families and their friends from these poisons coming in. That’s what we need to let them do. Fix the immigration system. Let them get back to protecting the U.S., and let us get back to the issue of saving lives.”
Source: Breitbart

Can anyone blame Dan Crenshaw for wondering their track record on policy says about the Democrats’ REAL objectives with respect to the borders?

Great point.

Then again, Democrats were the ones who said their political future would rise or fall on this issue, remember?

“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the memo read.

It finished, “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond.”
Source: Fox

Dress it up in whatever pretty little bow you like, it doesn’t change the facts. This issue isn’t about the Left’s COMPASSION. They use all the right buzzwords as though it was, but it isn’t. They said itself in that leaked memo — this is about political power, and who gets to wield it.

It is literally nothing any more noble than that ugly brute fact.

THAT is why they don’t acknowledge any history concerning this issue that predates January of 2017. Anything that undercuts the narrative doesn’t matter and is airbrushed out of history. If they showed the big picture in its proper context, the public might see that — however bad Pelosi’s Democrats are making the border situation — Trump’s administration is doing a pretty good job with the bad situation they were handed.

Deaths are down. That’s a GOOD thing, no matter HOW much you hate Trump. Now if we can just do something stop the smugglers from waltzing across our border with drugs, guns, and Lord knows what else… and redirect asylum claimants to using legal crossings where they won’t be exploited and raped by cartels, we’ll be golden.

You know, if Congress doesn’t have anything BETTER to do with its time.

We’ve all seen the dishonest games the left have played with the power they’re entrusted with, they’re obviously unworthy of that trust.

But what about 2020? Could a moral person pull a lever for Trump with their integrity intact? Would Jesus himself vote for Trump? We’re glad you asked. There’s a brand new book that covers precisely that question:

“Would Jesus Vote For Trump?” by Doug Giles and Brandon Vallorani.

Would Jesus ever choose someone, with a less than stellar past, to be a leader? Would Jesus be cool with how Trump blasts CNN, The Left, and his feckless ‘compadres’ on The Right? What about Health Care? Would the Great Physician give Trump’s opposition to ObamaCare the ‘two thumbs up?’ Find out in this BEST-SELLER!

Get it HERE today.

By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

But, you know us here at Clash, we don’t give up that easily. We’ve set up an outpost behind enemy lines. If you’re still on Facebook, check out our brand new ClashBriefing page.

We’ve also moved to a new social media platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.

Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.

Stay Rowdy!


Wes Walker is the author of “Blueprint For a Government that Doesn’t Suck”. He has been lighting up since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Ben Carson and HUD Are Reportedly About To Shut the Door on Illegals Gaming the System

Reported By Ben Marquis | Published April 18, 2019 at 9:10pm

Perhaps just as impactful as illegal migration across our nation’s porous southern border is the manner in which some of those illegal aliens proceed to game the system. Once across the border, some illegal immigrants take advantage of taxpayer-funded government benefits that are intended solely for American citizens. Accordingly — and in line with President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy — some government departments and agencies are looking closely for ways in which they can change certain rules or close various loopholes to stop this exploitation.

The Daily Caller reported exclusively that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, led by Secretary Ben Carson, is one of those departments aiming to prevent ineligible illegal aliens from further taking advantage of benefits designed for citizens and certain classes of eligible non-citizens.

According to Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act, first passed into law in 1980, most non-citizens were prohibited from applying for and obtaining federal financial housing assistance. By virtue of “mixed family” households that include both citizens or eligible non-citizens as well as ineligible illegal aliens, the prohibition has been skirted by some. Consequently, there are illegal aliens that inappropriately receive federal housing subsidies.

The HUD department is expected to produce a proposal in the near future which would crack down on that particular loophole. Such a proposal would make sure that anyone who is not eligible to receive federal benefits cannot even live in households that do receive those benefits — even if that individual is not the direct recipient.

This proposal would reportedly bring ineligible illegal aliens’ exploitation of benefits to an end by forcing all households receiving such benefits — particularly those households where illegal aliens reside — to either comply with the new rule or vacate the subsidized housing unit entirely.

HUD will use what is called the SAVE program — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — to screen all subsidy-receiving households for compliance. In other words, every household that receives benefits will have to prove that each family member residing in the household is either a U.S. citizen or a legal non-citizen who falls into one of the various categories of eligibility. Should any of the benefit-receiving households be found to not be in compliance, and one or more family members do not qualify as eligible, then there is an appeals process that can be pursued.

Ultimately, however, federal assistance will cease if the non-compliance is not rectified.

This new proposal would seem to be 100 percent in line with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy.

It is worth noting that, according to HUD statistics, there are estimated to be millions of eligible American citizens who are currently stuck on waiting lists for housing subsidies simply because there are not enough resources available to the department to process and provide benefits to all who are eligible. In other words, already limited resources for deserving citizens have been stretched even thinner by illegal aliens and their enablers who have figured out how to game the system — leaving some citizens out in the cold.

That particular sentiment was ironically posited by liberal actress/singer Cher in a recent tweet — and subsequently retweeted by President Trump in hilarious fashion — after Trump had suggested sending all detained illegal migrants to live in sanctuary cities. Trump’s suggestion sparked a hypocritical “not in my backyard” response from many Democrats.

“This proposal gets to the whole point Cher was making in her tweet that the President retweeted. We’ve got our own people to house and we need to take care of our citizens,” an unnamed Trump administration official told The Daily Caller.

“Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime,” the official added.

As Cher aptly noted in her tweet, there’s an overwhelming number of American citizens in dire need of assistance, some of whom are left wanting as limited resources are taken by illegal aliens that don’t deserve them. Cracking down on the exploitation of federal benefits by illegal aliens will help go a long way toward being able to adequately provide for our own citizens in need.



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.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention

Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”



More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Report: Company Says It Can Build 234 Miles of Border Wall for Just $1.4 Billion

Reported By Jack Davis | Published March 5, 2019 at 5:22pm

URL of the original posting site:

The president and CEO of Fisher Sand and Gravel Co. told the Washington Examiner he could build 234 miles of wall on the U.S.-Mexico border for $1.4 billion — if President Donald Trump can get the rulebook and the bureaucracy out of the way. For $4.31 billion, Tommy Fisher said, his company could build the Cadillac version of a border barrier, complete with a high-speed highway on the U.S. side of the wall for Border Patrol agents and the latest in technology to help detect migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

“Our whole point is to break through the government bureaucracy,” Fisher told the Examiner. “If they do the small procurements as they are now … that’s not going to cut it.”

Trump has $1.375 billion in wall funding available, but Congress tied a string to the funding so that it can be used only in the Rio Grande Valley. Fisher said that for $1.4 billion he could build the 20 miles required in the Rio Grande Valley, plus another 214 miles of wall. He said on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” that the work could be completed by the 2020 election.

Fisher said he would build a levee wall in the valley. The money Congress appropriated funds steel slat fencing.

The 234 miles of wall Fisher wants to build would last for 75 to 80 years, he said. He said he could get the work done because he moved quickly when it became apparent that a steel wall would be preferable.

“Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you can get behind this,” Fisher said on “Fox & Friends.”

“If you need it done now — nothing against government bureaucracy, but it takes time — so you need an expert to come in there and do it now and do it right,” he said.

Trump is seeking $8 billion overall for the wall project, including $3.1 billion from reallocated defense funding and $3.6 billion from his emergency declaration. Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, recently spoke to The Daily Signal about the need for a border barrier.

“Wall, fence, barrier. It is absolutely critical,” Burgess said.

He said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “stood up in front of a microphone after the president gave his Oval Office address. She and (Senate Minority Leader) Chuck Schumer did kind of what looked like to be a hostage video in the Capitol. But she said, ‘We want sensors, and we want to be able to detect when someone has crossed our border.’ No. With all respect to the speaker, we want to prevent someone from crossing our border.

“It does us no good to detect it, and then a week later, we can get someone out there to see where it was that they crossed. That’s not helpful when you’ve got numbers to the degree that we’ve got.

“And, look, I don’t minimize the problems that people are having in other countries. But I will say this, the United States. … First off, we’re the most generous country on the face of the earth when it comes to immigration: 1.1 million people a year come into this country legally.

“And people shouldn’t forget that because we’re oftentimes branded as being heartless, putting a ‘closed’ sign up on the State of Liberty. No. We are the most welcoming country on the face of the earth. All of the other countries combined do not allow the people in that we allow in.”

Burgess also suggested that as long as Central American nations are the source of so much illegal immigration, they should pay a price.

“Their governments are corrupt. They don’t do the work that is required to protect their people, and their people get hurt. And so they decide to come north,” he said.

“I have introduced a bill for a couple of Congresses that said, ‘We are sending you foreign aid generously, courtesy of the taxpayers of America. If you are not willing to do the job to take care of your children, when we end up taking care of them on our side of the border in facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement … it’s an expensive venture. … We are going to charge you a surcharge per child,” Burgess said. “No, we know you’ll never pay the bill. We’ll just deduct it from your foreign aid check. It will be smaller when it arrives.”



More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

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.



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.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: