Abortion rights? Reprints from others.

Over 200 House Democrats voted to kill a baby if it survives an abortion.

Views: 47

Over 200 House Democrats voted to kill a baby if it survives an abortion. You had one Democrat say it would be gross to save the baby.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which passed by a vote of 220-210, says any infant born alive after an attempted abortion is a “legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States.” Doctors would be required to care for those infants as a “reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive.”

Doctors would also be required to admit those infants to a hospital for further care. Violation of the standard would result in fines and imprisonment of up to five years, or both.


Crime Economy Opinion

Why is Crime, Inflation, Gas prices, Food, etc. going up? Can you say Democrat?

Views: 23

Look at the state of our country. All the negative issues are up. Why is that? Look at Blue state leadership? Look at leadership in red state large cities. What do they all have in common? Democrats in power.

Nuff Said.


Elections Uncategorized

The left will find out come November.

Views: 39

Most MSM articles from the left are saying the same thing. The Republicans are coming back into power. Sure they aren’t excited like the Conservative media, but they know change is coming November 8th.And why have they thrown in the towel?

What is the left talking about? Abortion, January 6th, and Donald Trump. Trumps not running, no one cares about January 6th, and killing babies is a Progressive hang up. It’s the economy and 40 year high inflation. Nuff Said.



Back Door Power Grab Corruption Faked news Leftist Virtue(!) Opinion Politics

This is what hate and jealousy from Progressives brings you.

Views: 36

What happens when a respected Congressman is cleared by the Capitol Hill Police when he had a group of his constituents on tour the day before the To do about nothing protest?

They make up stuff and drag his good name threw the mud. Based on what? Who knows. But since that mud dragging we’ve seen that the Congressman has been receiving death threats. Please play the video below.

Despite the letter exonerating Rep. Loudermilk, the January 6 Committee on Wednesday released selectively edited video footage of GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk leading constituents on a tour around the Capitol complex on Jan. 5th.

The sham Jan. 6 Committee did this knowing it was a lie and that Loudermilk had been exonerated.


Biden Pandemic Economy Elections Opinion Politics

Democrats rush for the border so they can get here in time to vote for the 2022 elections.

Views: 36

A massive and organized migrant caravan is on its way from southern Mexico toward the U.S., and has already surged past a blockade by Mexican forces attempting to stop it from getting to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The caravan is not merely a group of migrants congregating together, organizers made migrants who wished to participate in the caravan to register with a QR code on their phones or a web link to participate.

OK they could have just mailed in their ballots just like their brothers and sisters in California and other blue states. But I guess they felt that casting their ballot in person was more important. Here’s their fearless leader leading the charge. Have you ever seen such determination?



Reprints from others. Economy Opinion Politics

Democrats blocked from including immigration reform in party-line spending bill.

Views: 14

The whole Politico article can be found here.

Democrats blocked from including immigration reform in party-line spending bill. As you know Progressives are always thinking of ways to increase their base and win elections. They know that the majority of mainstream don’t support them So import them.

In the decision, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, the parliamentarian determined that the Democrats’ proposal is “by any standard a broad, new immigration policy” and that the policy change “substantially outweighs the budgetary impact of that change.”

In their arguments before the Senate parliamentarian, a former immigration attorney, Democrats made the case that providing green cards to an estimated 8 million Dreamers, farmworkers, Temporary Protected Status recipients and essential workers during the pandemic had a budgetary impact because it would make more people eligible for certain federal benefits.

But the parliamentarian stated in her ruling that providing legal status through reconciliation would also lead to “other, life-changing federal, state and societal benefits” that can’t be meaningfully reflected in the budget. In addition, the parliamentarian rejected arguments from Democrats that there is a precedent for including immigration reform in reconciliation. 



Opinion Politics

Reprint- 8 Worst Parts of the So-Called ‘For the People’ Election Bill

Views: 36

Original can be found here.


Reprint- 8 Worst Parts of the So-Called ‘For the People’ Election Bill. HR1 is the left’s attempt to rewrite parts of the Constitution where it pertains to state rights.

H.R. 1, the deceptively entitled “For the People Act,” has arrived in the U.S. Senate after a party-line vote in the House of Representatives. It is without doubt the most dangerous and irresponsible election bill I have ever seen.

If it becomes law, it will interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, to ensure the accuracy and validity of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, and to participate and speak freely in the political arena.

H.R. 1 is an 800-page monstrosity that would usurp the role of the states. It would not only eliminate basic safety protocols, but mandate new, reckless rules and procedures. Here are the eight worst provisions of this ill-considered bill:

1. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, but I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.

2. It would make absentee ballots even more insecure than they already are. Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, but they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement. States that wisely ban candidates, campaign staffers, party activists and political operatives from handling or delivering absentee ballots would see that ban voided. H.R. 1 would require states to give access to absentee ballots to third-party strangers who may have a stake in the outcome of the election. All states also have to create permanent absentee ballot lists for anyone who wants to vote entirely by mail in all elections and mail absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters, a real problem given how inaccurate state voter registration rolls are.

3. It would worsen the problem of inaccurate registration rolls, which are full of people who have died, moved away, are ineligible felons or noncitizens, or are registered more than once. H.R. 1 severely restricts the ability of states to take the basic steps necessary to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls, such as comparing their lists with those of other states or using the U.S. Postal Service’s National Change of Address System to find individuals who have moved.

4. It would take away your ability to decide whether you want to register to vote. Instead, it requires states to automatically register individuals who interact with state agencies such as DMV and welfare offices, as well as numerous federal agencies. This will not only lead to multiple registrations of individuals in the same and multiple states, but the registration of aliens and other ineligible individuals.

5. It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals. Worse, it severely restricts the ability of state officials to reject a voter registration application even when it is rejected because the official believes the individual is ineligible to vote.

6. It imposes onerous new regulatory restrictions on political speech and activity, including online and policy-related speech, by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. The disclosure provisions that apply to membership organizations like the NRA, Citizens for Life, and other organizations that Americans of all political stripes join to multiply their voices on important issues will subject donors to intimidation and harassment. It is the modern equivalent of the donor-disclosure requirements that state governments tried to impose on civil rights organizations in the 1950s – requirements the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional.

7. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. This would enable the political party in control of the White House (and thus the IRS) to use the IRS to go after anyone criticizing them or their policies.

8. It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. This would force taxpayers to subsidize the political campaigns of individuals they may vehemently disagree with and wouldn’t vote for in a million years.

Senators who support H.R. 1 should realize that they are essentially in favor of throwing the validity and credibility of future elections in doubt and taking away the authority of the voters of their states to make their own decisions on how their elections should be run.

How much more anti-democratic can you get? 

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, where he manages the Election Law Reform Initiative.

Editor’s Note: This piece originally appeared on



Politics Opinion

We are the Champions. 43 new heroes. Democrats be afraid. Be very afraid.

Views: 46

We are the Champions. 43 new heroes. Democrats be afraid. Be very afraid. Yes the phony impeachment circus is over. Donald Trump will gloat for maybe a week, then get back to working for the American people who still love the guy. Our former awesome President is free to finish what was started. Clean the swamp for good.

The statement concluded that the movement to Make America Great Again is just beginning and that he “has so much to share with you” in the coming months.

Now the 47 Democrats the RNC targeted have to be sweating tonight cause 2022 will be here before you know it. And the 17 Republicans who ignored our Constitution will not be happy that they went against our former President.


Politics Opinion

Why you can’t trust the MSM and Progressive politicians. Democrat Impeachment Managers Withdraw Statements Falsely Attributed to Sen. Mike Lee After Schumer Intervention.

Views: 22

Why you can’t trust the MSM and Progressive politicians. Democrat Impeachment Managers Withdraw Statements Falsely Attributed to Sen. Mike Lee After Schumer Intervention. So the impeachment managers tried to pull a fast one. Using fake news they tried to use what they called evidence. Why did they do what they did?

This led to a remarkable moment where Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate who is also presiding over the impeachment trial of Trump since Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined to preside, given that Trump is no longer in office, made an unclear ruling apparently rejecting Lee’s motion. Lee then appealed his ruling and sought a vote in the Senate to override Leahy, and after several confusing moments the Senate began voting on Lee’s objection to Leahy’s unclear ruling. After a couple senators’ names were called when the clerk began calling the roll of Senators to vote on Lee’s objection, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke up and intervened to stop the vote. Schumer used a tactic called noting the absence of a quorum–essentially pausing the Senate’s formal business as televised for the nation while senators and staff handle a dispute or negotiation off camera–to “work this out.”

Moments later, they came back into action and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)–the House Democrats’ lead impeachment manager–admitted that Cicilline’s characterization of Lee as it related to the Trump-Tuberville phone call, while based on news reports, was inaccurate, and then he withdrew the matter from the record himself without a Senate vote.



What I took away from the circus impeachment so far. Part 3-4. We win.

Views: 45

What I took away from the circus impeachment. Part 3-4. We win. I could not believe that the Democrats allowed those house kept so called affirmative action clowns on the team. that’s OK. If not for them, the Trump team would have had to work harder.

Did you not love how the violence of the left was exposed? Especially Harris. Supporting hate groups and wishing to do harm to the President, Vice President, and the former AG.

Finally how the house managers were clueless on the past Supreme Court cases. Stuff a first year law student would have known. Except for the one who would have mommy dearest do their homework and fact checking. SMH.

The Black Lives Matter bail fund that was promoted by Democrat Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris bailed out a man who is accused of raping an 8-year-old girl.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund, which was promoted by Harris, secured the release of the alleged pedophile in July.



Verified by MonsterInsights