Connect with us

Democrats

Nancy Pelosi Tries to Hide Abortion Spending in Emergency Coronavirus Bill

Nancy Pelosi tried to jam millions in abortion funding in her “emergency” coronavirus spending bill.

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi tried to jam millions in abortion funding in her “emergency” coronavirus spending bill.

Typical of Democrats, isn’t it? Trying to use a bill meant to address a national crisis as an excuse to push their political goals instead of actually addressing the crisis.

What is that famous Democrat saying? Never let a good crisis go to waste?

In fact, Pelosi tried to stuff the coronavirus bill with all sorts of money-wasting, left-wing favorites. She probably did so hoping that the Republicans would oppose the bill and she could then blame them for “opposing health.” This is called adding a “poison pill” to a bill and it’s only purpose is to doom a bill for political purposes.

Trending: Black Lives Matter Threatens KY Businesses: Give Us Money Or We’ll Loot Your Store

One of the poison pills Pelosi tried to load into the coronavirus bill was a whopping one billion dollars for abortion spending.

Pelosi tried to push the wasteful spending on her death cult by adding language that would defeat the Hyde Amendment that prevents federal spending on abortion. The White House slammed the move.

“A new mandatory funding stream that does not have Hyde protections would be unprecedented,” a White House official explained, according to the Daily Caller. “Under the guise of protecting people, Speaker Pelosi is working to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent covering abortion — which is not only backwards, but goes against historical norms.”

Others called Pelosi’s billion-dollar death cult spending a “slush fund.” Another White House official said, “what the Hyde Amendment and abortion have to do with protecting Americans from coronavirus?”

Pelosi’s nonsense about the Hyde amendment was later stripped from the bill.

But the biggest question is, why the hell was Pelosi trying to stuff an emergency spending bill with abortion garbage? How is abortion spending part of the response to the coronavirus?

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Democrats

Mayor Bill de Blasio In Hot-Water After Admitting City Skipped Permit Process To Paint BLM Murals

Published

on

By

Mayor Bill de Blasio In Hot-Water After Admitting City Skipped Permit Process To Paint BLM Murals

Mayor Bill de Blasio is facing increasing backlash from angry residents in New York City Monday after the Democrat admitted his administration skipped the permit process required to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ murals on city streets.

“City officials ignored their own application process for public art projects to paint Black Lives Matter murals around the five boroughs, in order to mark an important moment in history, Mayor de Blasio said as his administration faces claims of First Amendment violations for refusing to greenlight other proposals,” reports the New York Post.

NY Post:

City officials ignored their own application process for public art projects to paint Black Lives Matter murals around the five boroughs, in order to mark an important moment in history, Mayor Bill de Blasio said as his administration faces claims of First Amendment violations for refusing to green-light other proposals.

“We haven’t said ‘no’ to people, we’ve said, ‘If you want to apply, you can apply, but there’s a process,’” de Blasio said during his City Hall press briefing Monday.

The pro-President Trump group Women for America First has sued City Hall for blocking a mural of their slogan “Engaging, Inspiring and Empowering Women to Make a Difference!” on a Manhattan roadway, while allowing multiple BLM paintings throughout the city.

Hizzoner insists he didn’t block the move, just referred groups like Women for America First and the pro-police Blue Lives Matter to the Department of Transportation’s permitting process. But there was no approval required for the BLM movement.

“That is something that again transcends all normal realities because we are at a moment of history when that had to be said and done, that’s a decision I made,” de Blasio said. More

Laws are only for the little people. When you’re spending all your energy ignoring the skyrocketing crime and murders, one can see how a simple permit process can get overlooked.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Top Five Liberal Lies Attny. Gen. William Barr Demolished During Testimony

U.S. Attorney General William Barr was able to take a wrecking ball to the Democrats’ lies last week.

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General William Barr was able to take a wrecking ball to the Democrats’ lies last week, even though they tried to muzzle him during the hearing.

The Democrats’ behavior was despicable as they blatantly impugned Barr’s integrity, called him names, lied about his actions, and then constantly interrupted him to prevent him from even attempting to reply to their questions.

Still, when he was able to speak, he got in some very good licks against the lying Democrats that day.

The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland identified eight liberal lies that Barr debunked during the July 28 House Oversight Committee hearing.

Here are the top five:

Myth 1: Barr overruled prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone because of a Donald Trump tweet

Several of Democrats’ attacks focused on President Trump associate Roger Stone. Democrat committee Chair Jerry Nadler accused Barr of personally interfering “with ongoing criminal investigations to protect the president and his allies from the consequences of their actions,” and then “when career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholden to you.” Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, drilled more specifically into the Stone case, misrepresenting the facts in the process.

“Isn’t it true that when prosecutors in the Roger Stone case filed a memo with the court recommending a sentence of seven to nine years in prison, a few hours later, President Trump tweeted that the sentence recommendation was quote, ‘a disgrace,’” Johnson began. Barr acknowledged that reality. Johnson then asked Barr whether, “several hours after that, you filed a pleading with the court stating that the sentence recommendation would be changed and that you would be asking for a lighter sentence for Roger Stone?”

Barr attempted to explain that Johnson was mispresenting the circumstances, but the Democrat cut Barr short to grandstand. “You’re expecting the American people to believe that you did not do what Trump wanted you to do when you changed that sentencing recommendation and lowered it for Roger Stone?” Johnson asked rhetorically.

However, when Republicans allowed him to explain the circumstances of the about-face, the attorney general exposed the ridiculous nature of the charge that he was cutting breaks for Stone. “Stone was prosecuted under me, and I said all along, I thought that was a righteous prosecution,” the attorney general explained. But “line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice anyone else in a similar position had ever served, and this is a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence,” Barr continued. “I wasn’t going to advocate that because that is not the rule of law.”

The attorney general also testified that he “never discussed our sentencing recommendation with anyone outside the Department of Justice.” Barr then laid out the timeline: On Monday, Barr explained, he had concluded that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “should not affirmatively advocate for seven to nine years,” but would leave the decision to the sentencing judge. However, that night, the prosecutors filed a sentencing memorandum that did not reflect Barr’s decision.

“That night I told people we had to fix it first thing in the morning. We did as soon as I got in,” Barr said. Only then did Barr learn about the president’s tweet. Barr explained that he then “hesitated because I knew that I would be attacked for doing it. People would argue that I did it because of the tweet, but I felt at the end of the day, I really had to go forward with our filing because it was the right thing to do.”

Barr did do the right thing: In sentencing Stone, the presiding judge stated she was concerned seven to nine years would be greater than necessary,” and that she “agree[d] with the defense and with the government’s second memorandum.”

Myth 2: Barr dropped the case against Flynn because he was Trump’s friend

Democrats likewise pushed the narrative that Barr filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn because of Flynn’s connection to the president. Barr countered this charge both generally and specifically.

“I agree the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks, but they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people, and sometimes that’s a difficult decision to make, especially when you’re going to be castigated for it,” Barr told the Judiciary Committee. “But that is what the rule of law is, and that’s what fairness to the individual ultimately comes to, being willing to do what’s fair to the individual.”

Barr then stressed what Democrats ignore—that it was an independent U.S. attorney in St. Louis “who had 10 years in the FBI and 10 years in the Department of Justice as a career prosecutor, who “determined, based on documents that had not been provided to Flynn’s side and not been provided to the court that in fact there was no basis to investigate Flynn.”

Rather, Missouri-based U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen concluded “that the only purpose was to try to catch him in saying something that they could then say was a lie.” “Furthermore, it was clearly established by the documents that the FBI agents who interviewed him did not believe that he thought he was lying,” Barr added.

Knowing what we know now, Barr concluded, “We don’t think any of the U.S. attorneys in the department would have prosecuted this case.” And what “I’m trying to establish is that we will use the same standards for everybody before we indict anybody. This goes for both sides,” Barr stressed. He later added that “the true two standards of justice were really during the tail end of the Obama administration.”

Myth 3: Barr fired an acting U.S. attorney for investigating Trump associates

Another line of attack focused on Barr’s firing of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman. In June, Barr had decided to replace Berman as acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York until the permanent U.S. attorney could be confirmed. Barr had announced Berman would be “stepping down” because he intended Berman to remain in the DOJ. Yet after the announcement, Berman went public with a statement that he wasn’t going anywhere. Berman’s insubordination led to his immediate firing.

At the time, the media narrative ran that Barr had fired Berman because he was investigating Trump associates, and possibly even Trump. The House Judiciary Committee attempted to push that theory too, but Barr shot it down,” calling it “nonsense.” “Anyone familiar with the Department of Justice would say that removing a component head is not going to have any effect on any pending investigation,” Barr noted.

Myth 4: Barr punished Michael Cohen but rewarded Paul Manafort

Democrats on the committee also attempted to paint the attorney general as showing favoritism to former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort while retaliating against former Trump-attorney turned Trump critic Michael Cohen. Rep. Eric Swalwell took the lead in pushing the myth that Barr had retaliated against Cohen.

“Did you know that as a condition of Cohen’s release from prison, the government intended to direct Cohen not to engage with the media and not to write a book?” Swalwell asked Barr. Barr said “no,” then attempted to explain that situation.

Cohen had been furloughed from prison, Barr explained, and the conditions of that home confinement were set, not by the Bureau of Prisons but “by the probation office, which is part of the U.S. Court System.” “And it was the U.S. Court System that had the requirements about not writing,” Barr explained.

Swalwell ignored Barr’s response, claiming this condition of release was retaliatory, even though Barr’s office had nothing to do with the condition. Swalwell also attempted to paint Cohen’s return to prison as retaliatory, but again, Barr countered it was the probation office that had determined Cohen was being “uncooperative.” At that point, the Bureau of Prisons determined Cohen was no longer eligible for home confinement. Barr would also later testify he “didn’t even know [of] the decision to send Cohen back to prison.”

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) pivoted from Swalwell’s charge of retaliation against Cohen to an allegation that Barr favored Manafort by arranging his release from prison out of concern for the coronavirus.

“In March 26 and April 3rd, your department released guidelines, criteria, setting priorities by which people would be released early,” Garcia began. “By your own Department’s admission, Manafort did not meet that criteria. Since the start of this pandemic, we have repeatedly urged you to use your authority to protect vulnerable populations in prisons. Instead, you release the president’s former campaign manager.”

Barr had little chance to respond to the charge, with Garcia—like the rest of the Democrats on the committee—interrupting when he tried to correct the record. Yet, as she ended her tirade, Barr succinctly countered the claim: “The director of the BOP testified under oath: No one from Justice Department was involved” in the decision to release Manafort from prison.

Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump

The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.

“On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”
‘There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House. Very violent.’

While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”

“During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.

On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.

Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.

To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”

Click on over to Cleveland’s full report to see the rest.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Democrats

#BillIClintonisapedo Trends on Twitter after News of His Visits to Epstein’s Pedo Island Breaks

Last week, documents leaked showing that the FBI had known for years of Bill Clinton’s trips to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Pedophile Island/”

Published

on

Last week, documents leaked showing that the FBI had known for years of Bill Clinton’s trips to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Pedophile Island” retreat where Epstein commonly held orgies where he gave under-aged children as gifts to his rich and powerful friends.

The documents were released late on Thursday and includes records of a 2011 meeting between Virginia Giuffre and her lawyers where she talked about the powerful people surrounding Epstein — including Bill Clinton — who she said visited Epstein’s island or flew on his “Lolita Express” plane trips.

But as the news gained a wider audience, it quickly spawned the Twitter hashtag “#BillIClintonisapedo.”

But despite the fact that the hashtag was seeing massive numbers of tweets, Twitter still shadowbaned it… naturally:

The CEO of search engine Yippy recently took out after the Democrat’s top tier calling them out for what they are:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Report: Prosecutor Who Charged McCloskeys Busted For Not Reporting Trips As Required By Law

Published

on

By

Report: Prosecutor Who Charged McCloskeys Busted For Not Reporting Trips As Required By Law

A new investigation alleges that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who decided to charge Mark and Patricia McCloskey with felony unlawful use of a weapon when they defended their home from protesters, did not disclose trips she took as required by law.

“Sources tell News 4 that some of the trips were paid for in full, or in part, by an organization called Fair and Just Prosecution, a group that professes to support progressive prosecutors,” KMOV reported. “The organization has repeatedly applauded many of Gardner’s actions, including the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing guns in the Central West End last month.”

Kim Gardner’s office released the following statement declaring that she “refuses to apologize” for her actions and calls reports on her trips with the progressive group a “veiled attempt to disparage her:”

Since shortly after her election, Circuit Attorney Gardner has been an active member in Fair and Just Prosecution’s network of progressive prosecutors. She was invited to participate because of her beliefs, values, and goals. Those goals are in line with FJP’s priorities and the same as policies the Circuit Attorney has promised to deliver for St. Louis since day one.

The suggestion that there is any quid pro quo involved here is patently absurd. By working with FJP, she has access to a network of prosecutors who are also implementing change in their communities across the country, prosecutors who are working to create a fairer, more equitable justice system and move beyond the failed policies of the past that created our mass incarceration crisis. Ms. Gardner has been able to share ideas and strategies, learn new approaches, and benefit from the experience and expertise of others. Her work with FJP has benefitted the office and, by extension, the people of St. Louis.

Circuit Attorney Gardner refuses to apologize for seeking reasonable opportunities to further her knowledge and access prosecutors from throughout the nation for best practice. The suggestion that she would be persuaded to follow an alternative that is not focused on addressing the root causes of crime for a few plane tickets and hotel rooms is insulting.

The Circuit Attorney is confident that the public will see through this veiled attempt to disparage her and her efforts to continue to change our criminal justice system to be more just and fair.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrat Melts Down Over AG Barr Hearing, Departs From Reality In Attack On Him

Published

on

By

Democrat Melts Down Over AG Barr Hearing, Departs From Reality In Attack On Him

Rep. Madeleine Dean departed from reality while discussing the Barr hearing on MSNBC and said “You saw his affect yesterday. He was disrespectful. Spoke over top of every one of us. In particular, he spoke over women. He was flanked by at least 10 staffers, not a person of color among them.”

Here’s the clip of Madeleine Dean’s comment about Barr. With Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC.

Transcript:

Rep. Madeleine Dean: “What are we going to do? We’re going to comb through his entire statement, find the mistruths and falsehoods and hold him accountable.”

Stephanie Ruhle: “What does holding him accountable look like, though? Are there actual consequences?”

Rep. Madeleine Dean: “There — we have many options for consequences. What I want people to know is we actually have to hold him accountable to the American people. You saw his affect yesterday. He was disrespectful, spoke over the top of every one of us. In particular, he spoke over women, he was flanked by at least ten staffers; not a person of color among them.”

Continue Reading

Democrats

Nadler Denies Barr A Bathroom Break, Barr Snapped Back “You’re A Real Class Act”

Published

on

By

Nadler Denies Barr A Bathroom Break, Barr Snapped Back "You’re A Real Class Act" (Video)

Attorney General William Barr finally snapped back at Democrats in his House Judiciary Committee hearing when they denied his request for a break.

William Barr slammed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler as a “real class act” during his testimony Tuesday after the New York Democrat would not allow him to take a five-minute break to get some lunch.

Transcript:

NADLER: “Ms. Dean is recognized.”

BARR: “Sorry, Mr. Chairman, could we take a five-minute break?”

NADLER: “Ms. Dean is recognized.”

BARR: “Could we take a five-minute break, Mr. Chairman?”

NADLER: “No.”

MAN: “That’s a common courtesy, Mr. Chairman, of every witness.”

BARR: “I waited 45 — an hour for you this morning. I haven’t had lunch. I’d like to take a five-minute break.”

NADLER: “Mr. Attorney General, we are almost finished. We are going to be finished in a few minutes. We can certainly take a break but — “

BARR: “You’re a real class act, Mr. Chairman. A real class act.”

NADLER: “After this if you still — “

JORDAN: “He wants a break now, and you just mentioned rudeness, I think we’re seeing it on display. Let’s let the Attorney General have a break.”

NADLER: “The committee will stand in recess now.”

BARR: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Twitter weighs in:

Continue Reading

Democrats

After Confusing Where He Is Joe Biden Claims “That Was A Joke”

Published

on

By

After Confusing Where He Is Joe Biden Claims “That Was A Joke”

After confusing where he is, 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden claims: “That was a joke.” From a speech on his economic agenda in Wilmington, Delaware on 7/28/2020.

“Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Kingswood Community Center. Actually, that’s the one down I used to work. That was a joke. You didn’t know where you were anyway (laughter). It’s great to be here.”

Twitter jumps:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend