Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.
Of course, that’s not how the senators worded <a href="https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/033120_LTRDeVosTitleIX%20v.2.pdf">their letter</a> to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.
Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”
“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”
The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.
In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-colorado-settles-with-student-accused-of-sexual-assault">punish men</a> <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/11/allegheny-college-settles-student-peer-says-falsely-accused-assault-revenge-not-dating-girl-slept/">who rejected them</a>, avoid <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-rules-ohio-state-title-ix-official-can-be-personally-liable-for-helping-rape-accuser-lie/">getting kicked out of school</a>, or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-lied-about-being-raped-now-men-she-accused-are-ashe-schow">for sympathy</a>. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.
In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”
Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple. <a href="https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC">https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC</a>
— Samantha Harris (@samk_harris) <a href="https://twitter.com/samk_harris/status/1245116948964429827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1245112636305559552">H/t K.C. Johnson</a>

Warren

Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

Education

Elizabeth Warren

Kirsten Gillibrand

Sexual Assault

Title IX

Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tom Homan suggested on Monday that if he decides to run for political office in New York state, he would ultimately want to take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
&#8220;Let me just say this,&#8221; Homan told host Larry O&#8217;Connor during an episode of his &#8220;Examining Politics&#8221; podcast. &#8220;When I do return to New York and if Senator Gillibrand is still around, she won&#8217;t be around because I will take her on.&#8221;
Homan&#8217;s remarks were in response to O&#8217;Connor&#8217;s inquiry as to whether Homan would be interested in replacing Rep. Pete King (R-NY), who announce that after 14 terms in Congress he would not be seeking reelection when his current term expires.
Homan, who was born in New York, noted that he was not currently a resident of the Empire state, but will likely be when he retires, similar to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who previously held the United States Senate seat.
Gillibrand has been an outspoken opponent of the ICE and one of the first Democratic lawmakers to call for abolishing the immigration enforcement agency.
&#8220;I believe we need to protect families who need help, and ICE isn&#8217;t doing that,&#8221; the New York senator <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1012525052343017472?s=20">said in June 2018</a>. &#8220;It has become a deportation force. We need to separate immigration issues from criminal justice. We need to abolish ICE, start over and build something that actually works.&#8221;
Gillibrand received widespread backlash after she continued to promote ICE&#8217;s abolishment. She subsequently walked back some of her comments that she claimed were misconstrued. Gillibrand said that despite demanding that &#8220;we need to abolish ICE,&#8221; she stated in September 2018 that she believes America still needs an agency that will fulfill the goals that ICE was created to achieve.
Claiming that the agency has strayed from its intended duties, Gillibrand argued that ICE in its current form should be eliminated, but that a new agency should replace it that will execute the same mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and investigating criminal activity of foreign nationals residing within the country.
Homan has been a frequent witness in Congressional hearings where he has been known to get into fiery exchanges with House Democrats. After O&#8217;Connor asked whether he would be providing testimony at Capitol Hill anytime soon, Homan responded that he was scheduled to appear next week.
&#8220;The Democrats don&#8217;t want me up there but when they have these hearings and they want to attack the administration, they have to give the minority, the Republicans in the House, one witness,&#8221; Homan told O&#8217;Connor. &#8220;They&#8217;re quick to call me because I&#8217;ve done it for 34 years, I know the game, I&#8217;ve played it &#8230; if you say something that&#8217;s not right I&#8217;m going to speak up.&#8221;
Homan got into <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-former-ice-director-slams-progressive-lawmaker-for-pathetic-and-sad-dishonesty-in-fiery-exchange">a heated exchange</a> with some Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee in September after he slammed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and her Democratic colleagues for holding President Donald Trump and his administration to a different standard than they had for former President Barack Obama.
&#8220;ICE are the good guys. ICE wants to protect the community. ICE wants to take the bad guy off the street,&#8221; Homan told O&#8217;Connor.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Joins Washington Post Live For Candidate Series

LISTEN: Former Acting ICE Director Mulls Over Running To Unseat Anti-ICE Democratic Senator

New York

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) revealed on Friday that in the wake of her failed presidential run, she has decided to re-launch her political action committee to help elect Democratic women ascend to political office.
&#8220;Some of my most inspiring moments over the past year were the times I met and spoke with young girls on the campaign trail,&#8221; Gillibrand wrote on Twitter. &#8220;They were so excited to see not just one, but SIX women running for president.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Watching us showed these girls that there’s no limit to what they can do if they put their minds to it—and if we show them we have their backs. Setting that example is a responsibility I take seriously, so while my campaign may have ended, I’ve never felt more clarity of purpose.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1175047522261319681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Watching us showed these girls that there&#8217;s no limit to what they can do if they put their minds to it — and if we show them we have their backs,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Setting that example is a responsibility I take seriously, so while my campaign may have ended, I’ve never felt more clarity of purpose.&#8221;
Gillibrand became the second female senator of the 2020 election cycle to jump into the presidential race, when she announced in January 2020 that she was launching an exploratory committee.
As a staunch left-wing advocate for women&#8217;s issues and vocal supporter of the Women&#8217;s March, Gillibrand&#8217;s presidential campaign largely focused on intersectionality, feminism, and gender politics, as she tried to carve out a niche for herself in the crowded Democratic primary field.
However, the Democratic lawmaker ended her campaign in August after she had been struggling to gain traction in her bid for the presidency. The presidential hopeful failed to qualify for the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) primary debates during the fall, in what many political strategists considered to be a critical benchmark for any campaign.
Not only was Gillibrand not able to meet the fundraising threshold requiring donations from no less than 130,000 individual donors, but she had also failed to meet the polling threshold, which required candidates to receive at least 2% support in four or more DNC-approved national polls. In fact, her polling was so low that she was often omitted from national polls altogether.
Accordingly, when she ended her presidential campaign, she had an average support of less than 1% of the vote. In fact, the only fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidate that she polled ahead of, at the time of her withdrawal from the race, was former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA).
&#8220;For as long as I&#8217;ve been in public service, I&#8217;ve been driven by the belief that we need more women at the decision-making table in our country,&#8221; Gillibrand said. &#8220;Women still make up less than a quarter of Congress, women of color even a smaller share. We have some work to do.&#8221;
The New York senator initially founded the political action committee (PAC) five years ago as a &#8220;call to action to encourage every young woman and girl to make their voice heard on the issues they care about,&#8221; according to <a href="https://offthesidelines.org/about/">its website</a>. Since its inception, the PAC has raised nearly $5 million, and with the re-launch, Gillibrand hopes to raise another million dollars.
&#8220;Today, I&#8217;m relaunching Off The Sidelines with a goal to support and raise at least $1 million for Democratic women candidates,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Can I count on you to be with us in this fight?&#8221;

Rally: Stonewall 50 Commemoration &#8211; WorldPride NYC 2019

Kirsten Gillibrand Sets Her Sights On Electing Democratic Women

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Feminism

President Donald Trump mocked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) on Wednesday after the New York senator officially announced that she was dropping out of the 2020 presidential race.
“After more than eight incredible months I am ending my presidential campaign. I know this isn’t the result we wanted – we wanted to win this race,” Gillibrand said in her final campaign video. “But it’s important to know when it’s not your time and to know how you can best serve your community and country. I believe I can best serve by helping to unite us to beat Donald Trump in 2020.”
“A sad day for the Democrats,” Trump replied to the news. “Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the Presidential Primary. I’m glad they never found out that she was the one I was really afraid of!”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">A sad day for the Democrats, Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the Presidential Primary. I’m glad they never found out that she was the one I was really afraid of!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1166839524762296320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Gillibrand has been struggling to gain traction in her bid for the presidency. The presidential hopeful failed to qualify for the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) upcoming primary debates during the fall, in what many political strategists consider to be a critical event for any campaign.
Not only was Gillibrand not able to meet the fundraising threshold requiring donations from no less than 130,000 individual donors, but she also failed to meet the polling threshold, which requires candidates to receive at least 2 percent support in four or more DNC-approved polls.
Gillibrand’s polling was so low that she often was omitted from national polls altogether. Accordingly, she had support of 0.5 percent of the vote <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html#polls">on average</a> — the only opponent that she was ahead of was former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA).
Gillibrand’s campaign has been plagued with accusations of hypocrisy and flip-flopping since before it was even officially launched. She revealed in November that she was mulling over a presidential run, even though she pledged prior to her midterm election that she would serve her full six-year term if reelected to the Senate. After she handily won, she walked back that pledge.
Gillibrand is a staunch advocate of women’s issues and has been a vocal supporter of the Women’s March. Her campaign focused largely on intersectionality and gender politics as she tried to carve out a niche in the crowded Democratic primary field.
However, despite positioning herself as a champion for women’s rights, Gillibrand brushed off two separate accusations of sexual misconduct against male staffers within her office.
Most notable though was Gillibrand’s shifting stance on the Second Amendment. She has been an outspoken critic of the National Rifle Association (NRA), even touting her F rating from the gun rights organization. However, the NRA notably rated Gillibrand an A up until the year she moved to the Senate from New York’s 20th Congressional District and flipped on her support for gun rights.
In addition to the Second Amendment, her stance on immigration has flip-flopped since joining the Senate. Gillibrand referred to Trump’s immigration and border security policies as racist on multiple occasions, despite previously supporting identical positions. She further claimed that those same positions were not racist when she supported them.
She also reversed her position on allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver&#8217;s licenses only one day after she officially declared her candidacy for president.

President Trump Addresses American Veterans 75th National Convention

Trump Takes A Jab At Gillibrand As She Ends Her Bid For The Presidency

Donald Trump

On Wednesday afternoon, Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced that she has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race.
&#8220;Today, I am ending my campaign for president,&#8221; Gillibrand said in an announcement posted on Twitter and first reported by The New York Times. &#8220;I am so proud of this team and all we&#8217;ve accomplished. But I think it&#8217;s important to know how you can best serve. To our supporters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Now, let&#8217;s go beat Donald Trump and win back the Senate.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Today, I am ending my campaign for president.
I am so proud of this team and all we&#8217;ve accomplished. But I think it’s important to know how you can best serve.
To our supporters: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Now, let&#8217;s go beat Donald Trump and win back the Senate. <a href="https://t.co/xM5NGfgFGT">pic.twitter.com/xM5NGfgFGT</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1166826680134057984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;I wanted you to hear it from me first, that after more than eight incredible months, I’m ending my presidential campaign,&#8221; the senator says in the video announcement. &#8220;I know this isn’t the result we wanted. We wanted to win this race. But it’s important to know when it’s not your time, and to know how to best serve your community and country. I believe I can best serve by helping to unite us to beat Donald Trump in 2020.&#8221;
Gillibrand&#8217;s decision to drop out of the race comes amid a series of polls showing her trailing far behind the front-runners, failing to earn above 1% of the Democratic vote in many recent <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/">primary surveys</a>.
A <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638">Quinnipiac</a> national poll released Wednesday shows former Vice President Joe Biden as the clear front-runner, earning 32% of the Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent vote; Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren took 19% of the vote, while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders came in third with 15% of the vote. Sen. Kamala Harris was forth with 7%, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg fifth with 5%, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang sixth with 3%. No other candidate, including Gillibrand, earned more than 1%.
A <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/28/2020-biden-leads-democrats-voters-dread-election/2120726001/">USA Today/Suffolk poll</a> published Wednesday likewise found Gillibrand failing to earn even 1% of the Democratic vote. Similar to the Quinnipiac poll, Biden topped the poll with 32% of the vote, Warren was in second with 14%, and Sanders was third, earning 12%. Buttigieg and Harris were tied for fourth at 6%.
An <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b17i8aeg5p/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov poll</a> released Wednesday gave Gillibrand just 1%. Like most of the other polls, YouGov found Biden in the lead, but a less sizable one, with 24%; Warren was again second with 20%, and Sanders came in third at 14%. Harris and Buttigieg were again fourth and fifth, with 8% and 5% respectively.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51153/pollster-dont-pay-too-much-attention-our-big-eric-quintanar">Pollster: Don’t Pay Too Much Attention To Our Big Democratic Primary Poll</a>

Kirsten Gillibrand Drops Out Of 2020 Race

Andrew Yang

Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden

Kamala Harris

Pete Buttigieg

Presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) revealed on Wednesday she believes that instituting both a mandatory gun buyback program as well as criminally prosecuting American’s who refuse to hand those firearms over to the government are both “strong” ideas.
“On the assault weapons issue, you have talked openly about being in favor of an assault weapons ban. I’m interested if you are supportive of a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons,” CNN’s Poppy Harlow asked Gillibrand, noting that the proposal was also suggested by her primary challengers Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“Some have gone as far as to say not only should it be a mandatory buyback of assault rifles, but there should be criminal prosecution for those who don’t sell them back,” Harlow continued. “Is that something you support?”
“I think we should ban assault weapons as well as large magazines, and as part of passing that ban, do a buyback program across the country so that those who own them can be compensated for their money that they spent,” Gillibrand replied. “But I think both of those ideas are strong.”
The New York senator contended that an assault weapons ban would also require Americans to turn over certain firearms to the government so that so-called “assault weapons” would not be accessible to any people.
“You don’t want people to retain them because if you make them illegal, you don’t want to grandfather in all the assault weapons that are all across America,” Gillibrand said. “You would like people to sell them back to the government so that you can make sure that people who shouldn’t have access to these weapons couldn’t have them.”
“The point is, you don’t want people using assault weapons, and so the point is if you are arrested for using an assault weapon, you’re going to have an aggravated felony,” she continued. “I mean, the whole point is when you make it a crime to own an assault weapon, then if you are found using it, that would be the issue.”
Gillibrand quickly shifted her focus onto the National Rifle Association (NRA), criticizing the famed gun-rights organization for their opposition to banning firearm suppressors.
“It would just be part of your law enforcement in terms of what you have access to in the same way that you need to have a certain certification, a certain approval to have a suppresser on your weapon,” she said. “That’s why the NRA is desperate to make it easier to get suppressors where you don’t actually have to get a specific license or certification to have that suppressor.”
The Democratic presidential hopeful has been a frequent, yet relatively recent, critic of the NRA. While she often touts her F rating from the organization, the NRA notably rated Gillibrand an A up until the year she moved to the Senate from New York’s 20th Congressional District and flipped on her Second Amendment positions.
“[The NRA] just care[s] about gun sales, they care about money,” Gillibrand said. “They are funded by a lot of people including gun manufacturers and gun manufacturers care more about gun sales than the safety of families.”

2020 Presidential Candidates Speak At Iowa State Fair Soapbox

WATCH: Gillibrand Is Open To Criminally Prosecuting Gun Owners Who Don’t Hand Over Their ‘Assault Weapons’ To The Government

National Rifle Association (NRA)

A New York Times headline on President Donald Trump’s televised statement Monday condemning racism and calling for unity has triggered blowback from Democratic presidential candidates and inspired some of the paper&#8217;s Trump-critic readers to cancel their subscriptions. The backlash was swift and strong enough to prompt the paper to change the headline.
The leader of the establishment media is &#8220;being run through the shredder,&#8221; with many subscribers announcing that they&#8217;ve canceled their subscriptions, after what HuffPost describes as an &#8220;<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-times-donald-trump-headline_n_5d48de97e4b01ae816c75af8">outrageous</a>&#8221; headline about President Trump’s remarks addressing the horrific mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that occurred over the weekend.
On Monday, Trump unequivocally condemned white supremacy and all forms of racial hatred. &#8220;The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate,&#8221; he said in prepared remarks (full text below). &#8220;In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul.&#8221;
Trump urged Americans to come together in solidarity and for political leaders to work for bipartisan solutions. &#8220;In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.&#8221;
In its front-page coverage of the speech for Tuesday&#8217;s paper, the Times offered the (initial) headline: &#8220;TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.&#8221;
The headline, which accurately describes Trump&#8217;s comments, was noted by FiveThirtyEight Editor-in-Chief Nate Silver, who tweeted out a screenshot of the front page of Tuesday&#8217;s Times and offered his thoughts: &#8220;Not sure &#8216;TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM&#8217; is how I would have framed the story,&#8221; wrote Silver.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Tomorrow&#8217;s NYT print edition.
Not sure &#8220;TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM&#8221; is how I would have framed the story. <a href="https://t.co/quOibXsp32">pic.twitter.com/quOibXsp32</a>
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1158546596252061696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Silver&#8217;s tweet was picked up by some Democratic presidential candidates, who were less generous with their response to the Times&#8217; coverage of Trump&#8217;s speech. Among them was New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who shamed the Times: &#8220;Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Please do.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do. <a href="https://t.co/L4CpCb8zLi">https://t.co/L4CpCb8zLi</a>
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1158557177310851072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also weighed in, accusing the Times of publishing fake news. &#8220;That’s not what happened,&#8221; she wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">That’s not what happened. <a href="https://t.co/m6eIZOARcZ">https://t.co/m6eIZOARcZ</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1158555405624197126?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
As noted by HuffPost, a growing number of Times readers have announced online that the headline was so &#8220;outrageous&#8221; they feel compelled to cancel their subscriptions immediately.
The backlash was strong enough that the Times changed their headline, as noted by Silver. &#8220;FWIW (certainly better to do this than not IMO) they changed their headline between the 1st and 2nd print edition,&#8221; he noted, providing a screenshot showing the Times&#8217; new and &#8220;improved&#8221; headline: &#8220;ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">FWIW (certainly better to do this than not IMO) they changed their headline between the 1st and 2nd print edition. <a href="https://t.co/DOSAMFbvq0">pic.twitter.com/DOSAMFbvq0</a>
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1158572572805685250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Below is the full text of Trump&#8217;s remarks from the White House Monday (via <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7324427/Biden-compares-Trump-Ku-Klux-Klan-claims-president-abandoned-national-unity.html">Daily Mail</a>):
<blockquote>Good morning. My fellow Americans, this morning our nation is overcome with shock, horror and sorrow. This weekend more than 80 people were killed or wounded in two evil attacks. On Saturday morning in El Paso, Texas a wicked man went to a Wal-Mart store where families were shopping with their loved ones. He shot and murdered 20 people and injured 26 others, including precious little children.
Then in the early hours of Sunday morning, in Dayton, Ohio, another twisted monster opened fire on a crowded downtown street. He murdered nine people including his own sister, and injured 27 others.
The First Lady and I join all Americans in praying and grieving for the victims, their families and the survivors. We will stand by their side forever. We will never forget. These barbaric slaughters are an assault on our communities, an attack upon our nation and a crime against all humanity. We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed and the terror. Our hearts are shattered for every family whose children, husbands and wives were ripped from their arms and their lives.
America weeps for the fallen. We are a loving nation, and our children are entitled to grow up in a just, peaceful and loving society. Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve.
I want to thank the many law enforcement personnel who responded to these atrocities with the extraordinary grace and courage of American heroes. I have spoken with Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, as well as Mayor Dee Margo of El Paso, Texas, and Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio, to express our profound sadness and unfailing support.
Today we also send the condolences of our nation to President Obrador of Mexico and all the people of Mexico for the loss of their citizens in the El Paso shooting. Terrible, terrible thing.
I have also been in close contact with Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray. Federal authorities are on the ground and I have directed them to provide any and all assistance required, whatever is needed.
The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul.
We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism. Whatever they need.
We must recognize that the Internet has provided a dangerous avenue to radicalize disturbed minds and perform demented acts. We must shine light on the dark recesses of the Internet and stop mass-murders before they start. The Internet, likewise, is used for human trafficking, illegal drug distribution and so many other heinous crimes. The perils of the Internet and social media cannot be ignored, and they will not be ignored.
In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade. We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.
First we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs. I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass-shooters before they strike.
As an example, the monster in the Parkland High School in Florida had many red flags against him, and yet nobody took decisive action. Nobody did anything. Why not?
Second, we must stop the glorification of violence in our society. This includes the gruesome and grisly videogames that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately.
Cultural change is hard, but each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of every human life. That&#8217;s what we have to do.
Third, we must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence, and make sure those people not only get treatment, but when necessary, involuntary confinement. Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.
Fourth, we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red-flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
Today I&#8217;m also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass-murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively and without years of needless delay.
These are just a few of the areas of cooperation that we can pursue. I am open and ready to listen and discuss all ideas that will actually work and make a very big difference. Republicans and Democrats have proven that we can join together in a bipartisan fashion to address this plague.
Last year we enacted the Stop School Violence and Fix NICS Acts into law, providing grants to improve school safety and strengthening critical background checks for firearm purchases. At my direction, the Department of Justice banned bump stocks. Last year we prosecuted a record number of firearms offenses. But there is so much more that we have to do.
Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside – so destructive – and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion and love. Our future is in our control. America will rise to the challenge. We will always have, and we always will, win.
The choice is ours and ours alone. It is not up to mentally ill monsters. It is up to us. If we are able to pass great legislation after all of these years, we will ensure that those who were attacked will not have died in vain.
May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo. May God protect them. May God protect all of those from Texas to Ohio. May God bless the victims and their families. May God bless America.</blockquote>

New York Times

Democrats Blast NYT After ‘Outrageous’ Trump Speech Headline; Times Makes Changes

Cory Booker

Trump Administration

White Supremacy

&#8220;ATTENTION WHITE ACTIVISTS: take notice of this great tactic to help uplift other voices,&#8221; tweeted white, leftist activist Ethan Wright alongside a video of him passing a microphone to someone else. White people, he suggested, should shut up and let non-white people speak. The tweet amassed over 16,000 retweets, 90,000 likes, and 1.6 million views in less than two days.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">ATTENTION WHITE ACTIVISTS: take notice of this great tactic to help uplift other voices!! <a href="https://t.co/EeldF3zLml">pic.twitter.com/EeldF3zLml</a>
— ethan wright (@ethancwright6) <a href="https://twitter.com/ethancwright6/status/1157106186216464385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand made much the same muddled point on last week’s Democratic presidential debate stage in Detroit. &#8220;I don’t believe that it’s the responsibility of Cory and Kamala to be the only voice that takes on these issues of institutional racism,&#8221; she declared. &#8220;As a white woman of privilege who is a U.S. Senator, it is also my responsibility to lift up those voices.&#8221; Who better to &#8220;lift up&#8221; black voices than a blonde white woman?
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Sen. Gillibrand says, as “a white woman of privilege,” she can explain to suburban women that “when their son is walking down the street with a bag of M&amp;Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot.” <a href="https://t.co/59LU1bJRzv">https://t.co/59LU1bJRzv</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemDebate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemDebate</a> <a href="https://t.co/pRJedbcfiE">pic.twitter.com/pRJedbcfiE</a>
— CNN (@CNN) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1156747533676425217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Former presidential candidate Eric Swalwell volunteered for the job. &#8220;A white guy who doesn’t see other identities or understand other experiences should not be president,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;I do. And where there would be gaps in my knowledge or my experience, I will pass the mic to people who do have that experience.&#8221; Swalwell ultimately did pass the mic, but only after his campaign ran out of money and support.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I may be &#8220;another white guy,&#8221; but I know where there are gaps in my knowledge or my experience and I know when to pass the mic. <a href="https://t.co/jMYBwF97xY">pic.twitter.com/jMYBwF97xY</a>
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) <a href="https://twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1133111687664603202?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
None of these woke, white leftists seriously wants to elevate any voice above his own. If Ethan Wright believed whites should shut up, he would have simply passed that microphone. Instead, he broadcast his mic-passing moment of false modesty as a viral performance of his own virtue. If Kirsten Gillibrand wanted to &#8220;lift up&#8221; non-white voices, she would drop out of the 2020 presidential race and endorse either Kamala Harris or Cory Booker. If Eric Swalwell had really wanted to &#8220;pass the mic&#8221; on occasions of gaps in his knowledge, he never would have run for president in the first place.
Ironically, the cynical performance of white guilt assumes several racist premises. Wright, Gillibrand, Swalwell, and the other woke whites take their non-white audience for fools, pretending to listen while never ceasing to speak themselves. They presume that non-whites could never voice their own opinions without the aide of gracious white benefactors who deign to &#8220;pass the mic.&#8221; Worst of all, they insist on the bigoted lie that race determines one’s political opinions — but only among non-whites, who these leftists imply lack the faculties of reason that account for diversity of thought among whites.
Actions speak louder than words. Those who give voice to absurd racial pathologies could do us all a favor and follow their ideas to their logical conclusion: silence.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In First Debate Of 2020 Election Over Two Nights

KNOWLES: Woke Whites Never Want To Pass The Mic

Eric Swalwell

Racism

During Wednesday night&#8217;s Democratic primary debate, presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) ripped an applause line from former President George W. Bush and said the first thing she&#8217;d do if she were elected president would be to &#8220;Clorox the Oval Office.&#8221;
&#8220;So the first thing that I’m going to do when I’m president, is I&#8217;m going to Clorox the Oval Office,&#8221; said Gillibrand, earning cheers from the crowd.
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Kirsten Gillibrand’s first task as president? “I’m going to Clorox the oval office.” <a href="https://t.co/kt4XTSPDVx">https://t.co/kt4XTSPDVx</a> <a href="https://t.co/YpuI8AXxkQ">pic.twitter.com/YpuI8AXxkQ</a>
— Hollywood Reporter (@THR) <a href="https://twitter.com/THR/status/1156752142989873157?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Gillibrand&#8217;s laugh line is rooted in the narrative that President Donald Trump is a sexual predator, which has been time and again echoed by elected Democrats. In December 2017, for example, the New York senator called for Trump to resign from office due to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against him. &#8220;President Trump has committed assault, according to these women, and those are very credible allegations of misconduct and criminal activity, and he should be fully investigated and he should resign,&#8221; she <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-resign-gillibrand-sexual-assault/index.html">told</a> CNN&#8217;s Christiane Amanpour.
However, Gillibrand has a history of aligning herself with men accused of sexual misconduct in an effort to advance her career, deflating her &#8220;Clorox&#8221; rip against Trump.
The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ashe Schow, for instance, highlighted the politician&#8217;s ties to both former President Bill Clinton and Hollywood producer and Democrat mega-donor Harvey Weinstein, both of whom have been accused chronic sexual misconduct.
&#8220;&#8216;The first thing I would do is Clorox the Oval Office,'&#8221; Schow mockingly quoted the presidential hopeful. &#8220;Also Gillibrand,&#8221; she added, captioning photos of the senator smiling next to both men.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Kirsten Gillibrand: “The first thing I would do is Clorox the Oval Office.”
Also Gillibrand: <a href="https://t.co/XgsItyXx0W">pic.twitter.com/XgsItyXx0W</a>
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) <a href="https://twitter.com/AsheSchow/status/1156742931220295680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich pointed out, &#8220;Gillibrand says she will Clorox the Oval Office. Where was she [when] Bill Clinton left office? Oh, using him and Hillary to fundraise and win elections.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Gillibrand says she will Clorox the Oval Office. Where was she was Bill Clinton left office? Oh, using him and Hillary to fundraise and win elections.
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) <a href="https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1156742474066538496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
In 2017, Gillibrand finally said Mr. Clinton should have resigned after his infamous sex scandal with then-intern Monica Lewinsky. She made the statement against the former president about a month before she called on Trump to resign from office; the convenient timing of her belated condemnation did not go unnoticed by critics.
But just a year prior, in 2016, Gillibrand was using Mr. Clinton to help her political career. As previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/23698/gillibrand-says-bill-clinton-should-have-resigned-hank-berrien">highlighted</a> by The Daily Wire, Gillibrand gushed over Mr. Clinton while campaigning for the Senate: &#8220;I was lucky enough to receive guidance and mentorship from Hillary during that run, and was truly honored that President Bill Clinton campaigned for me in my first run for Congress in 2006,&#8221; she said.
Here are other tweets documenting Gillibrand&#8217;s reliance on Clinton:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today, I&#8217;m honored to be traveling around <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NY?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NY</a> w/Pres. <a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillClinton</a> campaigning for <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a>, letting New Yorkers know why <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImWithHer?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImWithHer</a>!
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/721406996059197440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">As <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemsInPhilly?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemsInPhilly</a> gather to nominate our next Pres. <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a>, kicked off <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCinPHL?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DNCinPHL</a> w/former Pres. <a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillClinton</a> <a href="https://t.co/nZ1uE18oRp">pic.twitter.com/nZ1uE18oRp</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/757692344326033410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">What an amazing event in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Albany?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Albany</a> this AM rallying the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NYSDRC?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NYSDRC</a> for <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a> w/<a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@billclinton</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NYGovCuomo</a>! <a href="https://t.co/qDXxiiwBlL">pic.twitter.com/qDXxiiwBlL</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/721380194771202048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillClinton</a> &amp; I stopped for coffee in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pulaski?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pulaski</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NY?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NY</a>, spoke w/New Yorkers about why we support <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a>! <a href="https://t.co/YJ0V8n067a">pic.twitter.com/YJ0V8n067a</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/721442699367354368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Had a great time on Saturday campaigning around <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NY?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NY</a> for <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a> w/President <a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillClinton</a>! <a href="https://t.co/QC1hTqx3tw">https://t.co/QC1hTqx3tw</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ImWithHer?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ImWithHer</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/722128820501942273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">What a beautiful <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCinPHL?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DNCinPHL</a> speech by <a href="https://twitter.com/BillClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BillClinton</a> tonight on the <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a> he has known for 45 years. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemsInPhilly?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DemsInPhilly</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/758135523370110977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2016</a></blockquote>
</div>
Gillibrand had also aligned herself with alleged serial sexual predator Weinstein, taking thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the producer and appearing alongside the donor at the Time 100 Gala in April 2014.
As <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/gillibrand-weinstein-another-predator-protected-powerful-industry/784987001/">noted</a> by USA Today in October 2017, Gillibrand later &#8220;donated $11,800 of Weinstein&#8217;s political contributions to the anti-sexual violence organization RAINN.&#8221;

Gillibrand Hits Trump With ‘Clorox’ Joke; Internet Reminds Her Of Her Past

Bill Clinton

Harvey Weinstein

Presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) promulgated the unfounded claim that failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams would have won her election had it not been for racist voter suppression.
“The truth is, we have Republican legislatures across this country that are trying to deny black people the right to vote,” Gillibrand said at a National Urban League conference on Thursday. “Just look at what happened in Georgia. Look what happened to Stacey Abrams.&#8221;
&#8220;But for voter disenfranchisement, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia,&#8221; she continued.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">&#8220;But for voter disenfranchisement, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia.&#8221;
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand speaks at the National Urban League Conference in Indianapolis. <a href="https://t.co/UQFr2oxiOy">pic.twitter.com/UQFr2oxiOy</a>
— The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1154787209494425601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Now-Gov. Brian Kemp handily won the 2018 statewide election by more than 55,000 votes, however, Abrams and her campaign have routinely accused Kemp of racist voter suppression going back even prior to election day.
Following Abrams’ loss, she appeared regularly on cable news shows and delivered speeches repeating those assertions, but there has been no evidence to corroborate Abrams’ claims of voter suppression.
She has refused to refer to Kemp as the “legitimate” governor and has repeatedly declined to concede the election because, she stated, a concession implies the race was “right and true and proper.”
“We had this little election back in 2018 and despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make: we won,” Abrams said in April. “I am not the governor of Georgia — remember I told you about my opponent? You see not only was he the secretary of state, he was also the architect of suppression.”
Following the election, Abrams and her voter initiative Fair Fight Action <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5331615/Fair-Fight-Action-v-Crittenden-Complaint.pdf">sued the state of Georgia</a> over alleged widespread voter suppression. Interestingly, the lawsuit condemns legislation that Abrams herself <a href="https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/the-jolt-blue-democratic-debate-for-governor-takes-vouchers-early-voting/vWMKIkWj3DfX7YlwmcgBPO/">helped pass</a> as a member of the Georgia General Assembly.
Gillibrand referenced Abrams when she was asked if she would commit to expanding voting rights legislation if she won the presidency in 2020.
“Yes, very hard yes,” the New York senator responded. &#8220;And this reason is this: I’ve been working with [Rep.] John Lewis (D-GA) in the U.S. Senate for the last five or six years on a comprehensive approach to fixing the voting rights in this country.&#8221;
Gillibrand asserted that the legislation she has been crafting with Lewis goes beyond merely ending voter suppression, vote dilution, and vote discrimination — claiming that it also restores the Voting Rights Act preclearance provision that was invalidated in the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder.
“Our plan has those things that you just mentioned specifically,” Gillibrand said. “But also things like make election day a federal holiday, guarantee early voting in all states, guaranteeing vote by mail in all states, making sure that we have the resources in every state to have a paper receipt so the next time the Russians try to hack our election and try to undermine our democracy, we can fight back with real paper receipts and paper ballots.”
“So I have a very comprehensive approach about how to restore our voting rights,” she added.

WATCH: Gillibrand Amplifies Unsubstantiated Claim: ‘Stacey Abrams Would Be Governor’ If Not For Voter Suppression

Stacey Abrams

Voting Rights

The field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates rushed to defend five convicted child murderers over the last 24 hours in response to the Trump administration&#8217;s announcement that it will resume federal executions and will start with those five criminals.
Attorney General Wiliam Barr made the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-resume-capital-punishment-after-nearly-two-decade-lapse">announcement</a> on Thursday where he said the following criminals would be executed:
<blockquote>Daniel Lewis Lee, a member of a white supremacist group, murdered a family of three, including an eight-year-old girl. After robbing and shooting the victims with a stun gun, Lee covered their heads with plastic bags, sealed the bags with duct tape, weighed down each victim with rocks, and threw the family of three into the Illinois bayou.
Lezmond Mitchell stabbed to death a 63-year-old grandmother and forced her nine-year-old granddaughter to sit beside her lifeless body for a 30 to 40-mile drive. Mitchell then slit the girl&#8217;s throat twice, crushed her head with 20-pound rocks, and severed and buried both victims&#8217; heads and hands.
Wesley Ira Purkey violently raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl, and then dismembered, burned, and dumped the young girl&#8217;s body in a septic pond. He also was convicted in state court for using a claw hammer to bludgeon to death an 80-year-old woman who suffered from polio and walked with a cane.
Alfred Bourgeois physically and emotionally tortured, sexually molested, and then beat to death his two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.
Dustin Lee Honken shot and killed five people — two men who planned to testify against him and a single, working mother and her ten-year-old and six-year-old daughters.</blockquote>
Nearly all of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates attacked the Trump administration for seeking the death penalty against these heinous criminals.
Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted: &#8220;Since 1973, over 160 individuals in this country have been sentenced to death and were later exonerated. Because we can’t ensure that we get these cases right every time, we must eliminate the death penalty.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Since 1973, over 160 individuals in this country have been sentenced to death and were later exonerated. Because we can’t ensure that we get these cases right every time, we must eliminate the death penalty. <a href="https://t.co/o9LQHWwmt7">https://t.co/o9LQHWwmt7</a>
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1154500277124251648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Mayor Pete Buttigieg tweeted: &#8220;Justice is not equally distributed in our country. Too often, race and geography determine who lives and who dies. We should be joining the ranks of modern nations and abolishing the death penalty—not expanding its reach.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Justice is not equally distributed in our country. Too often, race and geography determine who lives and who dies. We should be joining the ranks of modern nations and abolishing the death penalty—not expanding its reach. <a href="https://t.co/xYnwORQTAB">https://t.co/xYnwORQTAB</a>
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1154475913393758208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted: &#8220;This morning, the Department of Justice announced they would resume capital punishment. Let me be clear: capital punishment is immoral and deeply flawed. Too many innocent people have been put to death. We need a national moratorium on the death penalty, not a resurrection.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This morning, the Department of Justice announced they would resume capital punishment. Let me be clear: capital punishment is immoral and deeply flawed. Too many innocent people have been put to death. We need a national moratorium on the death penalty, not a resurrection.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1154410289737228295?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Far-left billionaire Tom Steyer tweeted: &#8220;Another huge misstep by the Trump Administration. Their leadership on what it means to be an American couldn’t be more misguided. Mr. Barr is a national disgrace.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Another huge misstep by the Trump Administration. Their leadership on what it means to be an American couldn’t be more misguided. Mr. Barr is a national disgrace.<a href="https://t.co/0Cl6lhaav6">https://t.co/0Cl6lhaav6</a>
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1154475792119631872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted: &#8220;Our governments have not been able to get to the truth consistently enough to have the right to take a life. I’ve always opposed the death penalty and this time is no different. The Trump administration should leave the death penalty in the past where it belongs.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our governments have not been able to get to the truth consistently enough to have the right to take a life. I’ve always opposed the death penalty and this time is no different.
The Trump administration should leave the death penalty in the past where it belongs. <a href="https://t.co/0Li9FOgc0x">https://t.co/0Li9FOgc0x</a>
— Bill de Blasio (@BilldeBlasio) <a href="https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1154432292930146306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) tweeted: &#8220;Our criminal justice system is broken and the death penalty is blatantly prejudiced and unevenly applied. We know innocent people have been executed by the state for crimes they didn’t commit. That should never happen in this country.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our criminal justice system is broken and the death penalty is blatantly prejudiced and unevenly applied. We know innocent people have been executed by the state for crimes they didn’t commit. That should never happen in this country. <a href="https://t.co/RwblSSbsnw">https://t.co/RwblSSbsnw</a>
— Tim Ryan (@TimRyan) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimRyan/status/1154434370436026371?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted: &#8220;Our criminal justice system has a long history of mistakes when it comes to capital punishment—especially when it comes to Black and Brown people. We cannot let a broken system decide the fate of incarcerated Americans. I oppose the death penalty.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our criminal justice system has a long history of mistakes when it comes to capital punishment—especially when it comes to Black and Brown people. We cannot let a broken system decide the fate of incarcerated Americans. I oppose the death penalty. <a href="https://t.co/ASCKO3k7ET">https://t.co/ASCKO3k7ET</a>
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1154436814146609154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Failed Texas U.S. Senate candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke: &#8220;Abolish the death penalty.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Abolish the death penalty.
— Beto O&#8217;Rourke (@BetoORourke) <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1154428870273249281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tweeted: &#8220;There’s enough violence in the world. The government shouldn’t add to it. When I am president, we will abolish the death penalty.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">There’s enough violence in the world. The government shouldn’t add to it. When I am president, we will abolish the death penalty. <a href="https://t.co/otUrgpYQWK">https://t.co/otUrgpYQWK</a>
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1154400416618156032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) tweeted: &#8220;I believe the death penalty is a violation of human rights, a glaring signifier of our broken criminal justice system, and a moral wrong. Our government should not be in the business of execution.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I believe the death penalty is a violation of human rights, a glaring signifier of our broken criminal justice system, and a moral wrong. Our government should not be in the business of execution. <a href="https://t.co/6L3nbiAIVE">https://t.co/6L3nbiAIVE</a>
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1154459240112652288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) tweeted: &#8220;The death penalty is not justice—it&#8217;s an immoral and ineffective form of punishment that has killed innocent people, and is biased against people of color, low-income, and those with mental illness. We should abolish the death penalty.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The death penalty is not justice—it&#8217;s an immoral and ineffective form of punishment that has killed innocent people, and is biased against people of color, low-income, and those with mental illness.
We should abolish the death penalty. <a href="https://t.co/7gtG21DNZF">https://t.co/7gtG21DNZF</a>
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) <a href="https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1154502820306907136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) tweeted out a statement suggesting that the death penalty was racist:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My statement on the federal government resuming capital punishment for the first time in nearly two decades: <a href="https://t.co/KQqVLfg2ed">pic.twitter.com/KQqVLfg2ed</a>
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) <a href="https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1154484309962551299?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Julian Castro tweeted: &#8220;As the Attorney General moves ahead with the first federal executions since 2003, I&#8217;ll say it again: We should abolish the death penalty. It is wrong.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">As the Attorney General moves ahead with the first federal executions since 2003, I&#8217;ll say it again: We should abolish the death penalty. It is wrong. <a href="https://t.co/zHeFQCQz97">https://t.co/zHeFQCQz97</a>
— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) <a href="https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1154430225377370113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

2020 Democrats Rush To Defend Child Murderers, Rapists From Death Penalty

Beto O'Rourke

Death Penalty

Leftism

A new poll of New Hampshire primary voters has some shocking news for a few of the Democrat presidential contenders.
The <a href="https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/NHIOP/Polls/719%20Executive%20Summary.pdf">poll</a>, released Monday from Saint Anselm College, shows that failed senate candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s support has vanished even though he began his campaign with media adoration. Since then, O’Rourke has apologized for various so-called transgressions, such as a joke about his marriage and his “white privilege.” Now he’s announcing that he and his wife are both descendants of slave owners as if that would help his campaign. So, it should come as no surprise that O’Rourke didn’t even register on the school’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics poll. He also had the second lowest approval rating (29.8%) despite having one of the highest name recognition scores (90.9%).
Following her odd-but-meme-worthy debate performance, self-help guru Marianne Williamson is now polling ahead of O’Rourke and other well-known candidates. To be clear, Williamson is in no way a contender according to this poll, but her 1.5% support should put some other candidates on notice.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), for example, should be questioning why he has consistently polled in the bottom in recent months. Once a social media star as a mayor in the Garden State, Booker quickly disappeared upon entering the U.S. Senate. His campaign has failed to attract media attention or stand out from the pack. He has wilted in the shadow of former California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who came in second place in the New Hampshire poll.
Williamson is also polling ahead of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who was Hillary Clinton’s successor in the Empire State. Gillibrand in recent years has disavowed many of her previous policy positions in the name of progressivism, appearing as though she will support whatever is politically useful at the time. She has also been instrumental in destroying the due process rights of those in the military and in college. She has barely registered on any poll to date, but now comes in behind a woman who once tweeted, “Your body is merely your space station from whence you beam your love to the universe.”
Gillibrand is not just behind Williamson, she has half the support. She’s currently polling at 0.7%, though she also doesn’t appear on the name recognition results.
The pollsters interviewed 351 New Hampshire registered voters who said they would vote in the primary. Former Vice President Joe Biden narrowly won the poll with 20.8% support, followed closely by Harris at 17.5%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received 16.7% and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg received 11.5%. Sen. Bernie Sanders of neighboring Vermont came in fifth with 9.9% support.
The poll dropped just before second-quarter fundraising totals were released, showing Buttigieg <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-campaign-fundraising/index.html">outraised</a> all his opponents — with $24.8 million. Biden followed with $21.5 million, followed by Warren and Sanders. Harris, whose campaign boasted about her largest single-day fundraising total following her debate performance, ended up raising $12 million for the quarter.
Booker ($4.5 million), O’Rourke ($3.6 million), and Gillibrand ($2.3 million), all raised more than Williamson, who reported $1.5 million, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-campaign-fundraising/index.html">according to CNN</a>.
<a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/07/new-hampshire-poll-has-williamson-polling-ahead-of-booker-gillibrand-and-orourke/">H/t Kemberlee Kaye</a>

Marianne Williamson Polling Ahead Of Beto O’ Rourke, Corey Booker, And Kirsten Gillibrand In New Hampshire

Marianne Williamson

Poll

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand&#8217;s comments on the pro-life cause and its advocates are illustrative of the left&#8217;s increasing extremism, militancy and disturbingly intolerant and authoritarian mindset.
Someone asked Gillibrand if having a litmus test for judicial nominees would threaten judicial independence, as she has promised to only appoint justices who would affirm the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, which created &#8212; out of whole cloth &#8212; a constitutional right to abortion.
&#8220;I think there&#8217;s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,&#8221; said Gillibrand. &#8220;Imagine saying that it&#8217;s OK to appoint a judge who&#8217;s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic &#8230; asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America. &#8230; I don&#8217;t think those are political issues anymore.&#8221;
&#8220;And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that&#8217;s what this is. And so, I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.&#8221;
What a treasure trove of otherworldly statements! You have to wonder whether this longer-than-long-shot Democratic presidential fantasist actually believes these things or if she is just desperate to outflank her rivals to the left.
Contemplate the arrogance of asserting that society has reached moral clarity in saying that it is wrong to change laws that deny women reproductive freedom. Polls show that Americans are equally divided on the abortion question, so who does Gillibrand have in mind when she says &#8220;society&#8221;? Does she live in an impenetrable bubble, or does she have such contempt for those who disagree that she doesn&#8217;t consider them valued members of society?
She seems to be saying that the pro-choice half of America has decided that the other half &#8220;is not acceptable.&#8221; This inference is not a stretch, considering that leftists consider most of us &#8220;deplorables,&#8221; and that they declare a consensus on other factual and moral questions to discourage further debate. They foreclose, by fiat, debate on climate change and many cultural issues. If you disagree with any of the left&#8217;s politically correct pronouncements, even if they have been established for only five minutes, you are not only unquestionably wrong but also irredeemably evil. So absolute is the leftists&#8217; position on these &#8220;settled questions&#8221; that the questions can&#8217;t even be considered political.
This is dangerous thinking, but it is how leftists think. They take a position, grow increasingly entrenched and then declare a societal consensus. Consensus doesn&#8217;t mean that almost everyone agrees but that everyone who matters, or who is reasonable, does. This is a neat circular trick. Proclaim, for example, that the pro-life position is so manifestly wrong that anyone who disagrees &#8212; even if dissenters equal proponents in number &#8212; is unreasonable and immoral.
Next consider her statement that no one who &#8220;takes away basic human right of any group of people in America&#8221; should be appointed to the court. The basic human right to which she refers is a woman&#8217;s &#8220;reproductive freedom.&#8221; You would expect that a right that constitutes a &#8220;basic human right&#8221; would at least be clearly stated, rather than shrouded with deceitful euphemism. &#8220;Reproductive freedom&#8221; in pro-abortion parlance has nothing to do with reproduction. Abortion only occurs when reproduction has already occurred. Reproductive freedom means the right to kill an unborn baby, which is quite the antithesis of reproduction. It is destruction. More important, it ignores the basic human right to life of the unborn baby.
Gillibrand is correct about one thing. There is abundant moral clarity on the abortion issue. With certain exceptions, which are debatable, it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. But unlike the Gillibrand left, conservatives aren&#8217;t likely to declare dissenters as societal outcasts or their views beyond debate.
Finally, there is the left&#8217;s ongoing misinformation about the so-called separation of church and state. While the Constitution&#8217;s First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government (and state governments via the incorporation doctrine) from establishing or unduly supporting a national religion, it does not prohibit people from supporting or opposing laws consistent with their faith. I support laws against murder, theft and other things based on my Christian beliefs. Secularists support and oppose laws based on their beliefs. All groups are free to do that without violating the Establishment Clause, and if you deny them the right to advocate for or oppose laws based on their respective worldviews, then you violate their First Amendment right to free speech and possibly the right to the free exercise of religion.
It is ironic that people so confused about basic constitutional issues and fundamental moral questions presume their absolute moral superiority on such questions and declare them beyond debate. But leftists will be leftists.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is &#8220;Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church.&#8221; Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

LIMBAUGH: Leftists Will Be Leftists

Abortion

The Democratic Party, as always, favoring fairness over merit, held a random drawing to determine which candidates would appear in the two debates scheduled for June 26-27 in Florida, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) got left at the kids&#8217; table.
The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html">New York Times</a> tried to put the best spin on the situation, arguing that Warren, who is running third in most polls behind former vice-president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who are both in the June 27 debate, will face-off against Beto O&#8217;Rourke, but O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s recent poll numbers show that he is not currently a serious candidate in the race. The Times wrote, &#8220;Elizabeth Warren will share the stage with Beto O&#8217;Rourke on one night, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. will face off against Bernie Sanders on the next &#8230;&#8221;
20 candidates will participate in the debates, ten on each night, which will be shown on NBC. The Times noted that Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana, Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Fla., &#8220;did not meet the polling and fund-raising criteria outlined by the Democratic National Committee,&#8221; and thus will not be part of the debates.
<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/14/2020-democratic-debate-winners-losers-1365629">Politico</a> reported that DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa told Fox News, &#8220;I think both nights will get amazing viewership. I think we&#8217;re already starting to hear, people are extremely excited about these candidates. I think they&#8217;re both very strong lineups. I think that you will also hear candidates respond to each other on various nights.&#8221;
The anchors for the debates will be Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd, the Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart, and MSNBC&#8217;s Rachel Maddow.
The first night&#8217;s debate will feature Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. (D-NJ), Julián Castro, former housing secretary in the Obama administration, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, former representative from Maryland, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Gov. Jay Inslee (D-WA), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Beto O&#8217;Rourke, former representative from Texas, and Tim Ryan, representative from Ohio.
The second night will feature former vice president Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Marianne Williamson, self-help author, and Andrew Yang, former tech executive.

SAD: Democratic Debates Announced. Warren Gets Left At Kids’ Table.

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) offered her own take on the U.S. women&#8217;s soccer team&#8217;s 13-0 thrashing of the overmatched Thailand team at the World Cup: because of the lopsided score they should be paid as much if not more than the men&#8217;s team. Gillibrand wrote, &#8220;Here&#8217;s an idea: If you win 13-0 &#8212; the most goals for a single game in World Cup history &#8212; you should be paid at least equally to the men&#8217;s team.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Here&#8217;s an idea: If you win 13-0&#8212;the most goals for a single game in World Cup history&#8212;you should be paid at least equally to the men&#8217;s team.
Congratulations, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USWNT?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USWNT</a>!
&#8212; Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/status/1138551389783810049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Gillibrand&#8217;s pitch is not exactly new when it comes to women&#8217;s sports. An article in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/womens-small-soccer-salaries-are-fair-2015-7">Business Insider</a> in 2015 asserted, &#8220;Most of us have been socialized to accept men&#8217;s sports as dominant, and somehow automatically more interesting. The problem is that once society has internalized this falsehood &#8212; and let&#8217;s face it, it&#8217;s a falsehood that&#8217;s millennia in the making &#8212; it&#8217;s not so easy to correct it. Women have been fighting for decades, centuries, to be seen as equals to men both on the playing field and off of it.&#8221;
An article in <a href="https://www.health.com/fitness/why-are-pro-female-athletes-paid-so-much-less-than-their-male-counterparts">Health</a> in 2017 complained about the disparity between the earnings the U.S. women&#8217;s soccer team made and the earnings of their male counterparts. The article stated:
<blockquote>
Sadly, soccer isn&#8217;t the only sport where women see a wage gap (<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/equal-pay#top">along with all women in the U.S.</a>, we would be remiss not to point out). According to Politico, the minimum <a href="http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/research/articles-and-reports/equity-issues/pay-inequity">salary in the WNBA</a> was $37,950 in 2013, with a team salary cap (i.e. the total team salary limit) of $913,000. Meanwhile, the lowest salary in the NBA for the same year was $490,180, and the team salary cap was $58.7 million.
</blockquote>
To link the lopsided score, as Gillibrand did, with an increase in earnings does seem strange. And the reaction of the U.S. women&#8217;s soccer team after it was clear that Thailand was hugely overmatched created a firestorm of criticism, as did team member Megan Rapinoe&#8217;s refusal to join in singing the national anthem.
The women on the soccer team, determined to score as many goals as they could because the number of goals scored has an effect on their World Cup chances, celebrated wildly even after the disparity in the score was ballooning and the Thai team was in tears. That precipitated an uproar among some who witnessed the game, as <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7130947/US-team-slammed-disgusting-obnoxious-celebrations.html">The Daily Mail</a> reported.
Former Canadian team player and current TSN analyst Kaylyn Kyle commented on the TSN broadcast, &#8220;As a Canadian we would just never ever think of doing something like that &#8230; For me it&#8217;s disrespectful, it&#8217;s disgraceful.&#8221; Former Canadian player Clare Rustad echoed on the broadcast, &#8220;I just think they could have won with some humility and grace, and they just couldn&#8217;t manage to do that. Celebrating goals later in the game like this is just completely unnecessary. What is this?&#8221; Kyle added, &#8220;They&#8217;re the No. 1 team in the world and for me, I&#8217;m disgusted, honestly.&#8221;
Kyle <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/article-tsn-soccer-analyst-gets-death-threats-for-criticizing-us-teams/?cmpid=rss&amp;utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">said she received death threats </a>after her comments, prompting her to tweet:
<blockquote>
To the people sending me death threats, let me set the record STRAIGHT! I never once said to never score as many goals as you can in a World Cup!!! PLEASE WATCH FULL SEGMENT! I said the exact opposite ITS THE WORLD CUP!!! You score as many as you can and don&#8217;t take the foot off the gas pedal! I did say I thought it was excessive and disrespectful the goal celebrations of the American team once the score hit 8-0. Everyone is allowed there (sic) opinions towards my thoughts 100% but please leave the death threats! I&#8217;m a big girl and love a good debate but there&#8217;s no need for this in this already crazy world! Love you all.
</blockquote>
Former American international Taylor Twellman stated, &#8220;Celebrating goals (like #9) leaves a sour taste in my mouth like many of you. Curious to see if anyone apologizes for this postgame &#8230; Not sure why the #USWNT is &#8216;wasting&#8217; any of their set plays when the score is 3-0. Bury (Thailand) then move on but don&#8217;t use anything that could be needed in future games.&#8221;
Rob Stone, the host of the Fox Sports World Cup coverage on American television, agreed, saying, &#8220;This got humiliating at some point. It just became an exercise in target practice. You know what I wanted to do? Pull it back, knock it around.&#8217;
Former U.S. player Abby Wambach disagreed, &#8220;For all that have issue with many goals: for some players this is their first World Cup goal, and they should be excited. Imagine it being you out there. This is your dream of playing and then scoring in a World Cup. Celebrate. Would you tell a men&#8217;s team to not score or celebrate?&#8221;
Fox Sports presenter Aly Wagner added: &#8220;It&#8217;s a World Cup. You score, you celebrate. This is a dream for these players.&#8221;
Meanwhile, Rapinoe, who had told Yahoo Sports in May, &#8220;&#8217;I&#8217;ll probably never put my hand over my heart. I&#8217;ll probably never sing the national anthem again,&#8221; was slammed for not singing the national anthem.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
After we all looked back last week on the incredible sacrifices and loss of life suffered on D-Day and remembered the American heroes who made victory possible while marking the 75th Anniversary&#8212; the timing of this move seems incredibly callous.
<a href="https://t.co/lrUwSVlYQr">https://t.co/lrUwSVlYQr</a>
&#8212; Kari Lake Fox 10 (@KariLakeFox10) <a href="https://twitter.com/KariLakeFox10/status/1138695861284696065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Spineless act for publicity. Didn&#8217;t feel strongly enough to quit the team &amp;not represent the US. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/snoozefest?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#snoozefest</a> 
US soccer star Megan Rapinoe stays true to her word: Doesn&#8217;t sing national anthem before Thailand match | Fox News <a href="https://t.co/WokjAlULgz">https://t.co/WokjAlULgz</a>
&#8212; Amber Smith (@AmberSmithUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmberSmithUSA/status/1138632908493791232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

U.S. Women’s Soccer Lopsided Win: Gillibrand Waxes Feminist, Team Slammed For Wild Celebrations On Field, Rapinoe Ignores Anthem

Soccer

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been trailing badly in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, so she&#8217;s been trying to make a name for herself with outlandish policy proposals and bizarre Instagram videos.
Over the weekend, Gillibrand posted what <a href="https://twitter.com/Behind2020/status/1137294170392080384">may be the most embarrassing campaign clip of all time</a>, and followed it up Tuesday with an interview with the Des Moines Register where she insulted around 50% of Iowa residents by suggesting that opposing abortion is akin to supporting racism.
WATCH (via <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/gillibrand-compares-pro-life-viewpoint-to-racism-not-acceptable/">The Washington Free Beacon</a>):
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZpZX6rq2OEw" width="560"></iframe>
Most Democratic primary candidates are content to express their support for abortion rights but limit their criticism of the other side of the debate to complaints about being &#8220;extreme.&#8221; Occasionally, someone far to the progressive left will suggest that pro-life Democrats don&#8217;t belong in the Democratic party, or that opposition to reproductive rights has a harmful effect on women.
Those arguments are to be expected. Gillibrand, sensing an opportunity, apparently, decided to take matters a step further, condemning everyone who opposes any restriction on abortion whatsoever and claiming there is no acceptable opposing viewpoint to her own.
&#8220;I think there&#8217;s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,&#8221; Gillibrand said, referring specifically to the &#8220;issue&#8221; of abortion, and appointing judges who would uphold the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
&#8220;Imagine saying that it&#8217;s okay to appoint a judge who&#8217;s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America&#8212;I don&#8217;t think that those are political issues anymore,&#8221; she continued, as though opposing abortion were akin to racism.
From there, Gillibrand trailed off into an ahistorical account of the &#8220;separation of Church and State,&#8221; which she seems to believe bars any religious believer from any participation in the public square whatsoever.
&#8220;And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state,&#8221; Gillibrand said, paraphrasing any number of 1990s-era atheists.
The Constitution, of course, says no such thing. It prevents the &#8220;establishment&#8221; of religion. The &#8220;separation of Church and State&#8221; is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson assuring a group of Baptists that the state would not meddle in their affairs.
It&#8217;s also quite clear that abortion is not simply a religious issue. But far be it from Gillibrand to dig deeply.
&#8220;And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution and that&#8217;s what this is. And so I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side,&#8221; Gillibrand continued. &#8220;There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.&#8221;
Although Iowa Democrats list abortion as a top consideration when selecting a candidate to caucus for, Iowans as a whole are evenly split on the issue of abortion, nearly 50-50 <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/">according to a Pew Research poll</a>. And they&#8217;re certainly unlikely to consider Gillibrand washing the entire pro-life movement as potentially racist and immoral a mark in her favor &#8212; and she can&#8217;t really afford to lose more marks. She&#8217;s barely squeaking by in polls, and only this weekend managed to cross the 65,000 individual donors mark and make the debate stage.

WATCH: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Claims Being Pro-Life Is Like Being ‘Racist,’ Says It’s ‘Not Acceptable’ To Oppose Abortion

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) told multiple lies about firearm laws in the United States and about the National Rifle Association during a Fox News town hall on Sunday and was immediately called out by host Chris Wallace.
Gillibrand, who has <a href="https://www.foxcarolina.com/fact-checking-gillibrand-claims-nra-is-largely-funded-by-gun/article_175cdf7f-ebac-5670-85f2-8f6dc5a6dd73.html">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/03/19/nothing-she-said-is-true-watch-ny-democrat-kirsten-gillibrand-totally-embarrass-n2543292">lied</a> about firearms and the NRA while on the campaign trail, repeated many of her debunked lies on Sunday night.
&#8220;The NRA is the worst organization in this country,&#8221; Gillibrand said. &#8220;They care more about their profits than the American people. They care more about selling guns to someone on the terror watch list or someone with grave mental illness or who has a violent criminal background.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kirsten Gillibrand: &#8220;The NRA is the worst organization in this country. They care more about their profits than the American people, they care more about selling guns to someone on the terror watch list or w/grave mental illness or who has a violent criminal background&#8221;
THREAD <a href="https://t.co/NC9xQBuzV8">pic.twitter.com/NC9xQBuzV8</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135326262627430400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
For starters, the NRA is a non-profit organization and they do not sell firearms.
Gillibrand&#8217;s claim that NRA wants to sell guns to &#8220;someone on the terror watch list&#8221; is laughably false. FiveThirtyEight <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-problems-with-using-the-terrorist-watch-list-to-ban-gun-sales/">reports</a>:
<blockquote>
But civil liberties and gun rights groups are critical of the list. &#8230; But the ACLU, citing secret documents released by the journalism site The Intercept, was critical in 2014 of the growing numbers of people on the watch list, saying there are no clear standards by which to determine who is placed in a database that can be used for religious and racial profiling. The rights of American citizens to contest their possible inclusion on the list is infringed because of the list&#8217;s secrecy, the ACLU said.
&#8230;
The National Rifle Association has said that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase guns but has opposed using the watch list for that purpose because some names may be on the list by mistake. In a statement on Wednesday, the group said that &#8220;due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watch list to be removed.&#8221;

</blockquote>
Furthermore, according to the <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons">Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives</a>, violent criminals are already prohibited from owning firearms, as are people who have &#8220;grave mental illness,&#8221; assuming that they have been &#8220;adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.&#8221;
Later during the town hall, after Gillibrand made <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135328892162437120">additional false claims</a>, Gillibrand made false claims about the Trump administration.
&#8220;Remember, after the shooting in Las Vegas [Trump] said, &#8216;we&#8217;re going to ban the bump stocks.&#8217; Did he ban the bump stocks? No! Because the NRA came crashing down.&#8221;
The Trump administration <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45142/trumps-bump-stock-ban-goes-place-kassy-dillon">did ban bump stocks</a> after the shooting and the ban just went into effect earlier this year.
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Kirsten Gillibrand: &#8220;Remember, after the shooting in Las Vegas [Trump] said, &#8216;we&#8217;re going to ban the bump stocks.&#8217; Did he ban the bump stocks? No! Because the NRA came crashing down&#8221;
Fact: Trump *did* ban bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting: <a href="https://t.co/855l4Ad3JM">https://t.co/855l4Ad3JM</a> <a href="https://t.co/XW3aqB7PKv">pic.twitter.com/XW3aqB7PKv</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135333390083739648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;The NRA is lying to the American people, it is not about the Second Amendment. &#8230; [The NRA] wants to make sure an abuser who has a restraining order against him can buy a weapon,&#8221; Gillibrand falsely claimed.
As stated in its <a href="https://www.guidestar.org/profile/53-0116130">bylaws</a>, the NRA exists to &#8220;protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.&#8221;
Furthermore, according to the <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons">Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives</a>, those who have been convicted of domestic violence or who have a restraining order filed against them are prohibited from owning firearms.
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Kirsten Gillibrand: &#8220;The NRA is lying to the American people, it is not about the Second Amendment. &#8230; [The NRA] wants to make sure an abuser who has a restraining order against him can buy a weapon&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7UnjBBUO2Z">pic.twitter.com/7UnjBBUO2Z</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135335556584357890?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Finally, Wallace called out Gillibrand for her complete flop on the issue of guns and said: &#8220;It sounds a lot more like it&#8217;s politics than principles&#8230; how do you explain the change?&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VBrmGMglp00?start=436" width="560"></iframe></div>
When Gillibrand was a representative in a conservative district, Gillibrand loved the NRA and supported gun rights, which the NRA reminded her of on Monday.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Gillibrand called us the worst org in the country, but when she represented NY20, she wrote us: &#8220;I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights, and I look forward to working with you for many years.&#8221; Now that she&#8217;s looking to crack 1%, she&#8217;ll say anything. <a href="https://t.co/uW5OgpUa5B">pic.twitter.com/uW5OgpUa5B</a>
&#8212; NRA (@NRA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1135566682599186432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
&#8220;I appreciate the work that the <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRA</a> does to protect gun owners rights, and I look forward to working with you for many years in Congress.&#8221; &#8211; <a href="https://twitter.com/SenGillibrand?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenGillibrand</a> to NRA when it was beneficial to her political career. <a href="https://t.co/0UvfFTc1Qb">pic.twitter.com/0UvfFTc1Qb</a>
&#8212; NRA (@NRA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1135649640995594240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: Gillibrand Goes On Lying Spree About Guns, NRA. Gets Called Out.

On Sunday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the erstwhile <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-gun-record-nra-cnntv/index.html">pro-gun rights moderate</a> Upstate New Yorker who is now <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls">barely registering in the polls</a> in her quixotic quest to secure the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, decided to once again create headlines to appease the hard-left flank of the Democratic Party and thereby try to increase her support. 
Her solution: Vow that, as president of the United States, she would not enforce our immigration laws and would, instead, bluntly ignore statute and implement mass catch-and-release for all illegal aliens attempting to infringe upon our sovereignty.
The Washington Times <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/19/kirsten-gillibrand-wont-detain-migrants-they-can-g/">reports</a>:
<blockquote>
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said Sunday she will not have asylum seekers and those seeking refuge in the United States held in detention facilities if she is elected president.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate rejected the push by some GOP lawmakers to pass legislation to allow the Trump administration to hold families for a longer period of time to help combat the increasing flow of migrants across the southern border.
Under current policy, children can only be held in detention for 20 days.
&#8220;As president of the United States, I wouldn&#8217;t use the detention system at all,&#8221; the New York Democrat told CBS&#8217;s &#8220;Face the Nation.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Even more glaringly, Gillibrand also frankly conceded that, instead of being detained, illegal aliens under her administration would all abscond and &#8220;go into the community&#8221; instead. Perhaps Gillibrand is unaware that, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission&#8217;s final 2018 <a href="https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2018/FY18-Annual-Report-and-Sourcebook.pdf">report</a>, a whopping <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/doj-report-43-of-all-offenders-last-year-were-non-citizens/">43% of all federal offenses</a> last year were committed by non-citizens. And every crime committed by an illegal alien is, by very definition, eminently preventable.
What Gillibrand proposes is also flatly contrary to extant, on-the-books U.S. statutory law. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/heres-secret-trump-power-end-judicial-amnesty-today-current-law/">explained</a> last month, in the context of immigrants who arrive at our border and plead asylum, that mandatory detention is the law of the land:
<blockquote>
The only caveat is that those rejected from a credible fear claim can ask for review by an immigration judge of the actual denial of credible fear. But statute mandates that this be done ideally within 24 hours and at most within 7 days. Also, they SHALL be detained during that week [8 U.S. Code §&#8239;1225(B)(iii)(IV)] and cannot be released. The sole discretion for guidance in dealing with initial interviews and appeals is up to the DHS secretary and the attorney general. They have the power to shut this down. Beyond that, U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) states, &#8220;[t]he Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).&#8221;
Thereafter, they must be deported without any access to the courts. The only petition they can make to the court is that they are being removed without an official expedited removal order, they got the wrong man, or the deportee is in fact a citizen.
</blockquote>
I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46601/hammer-why-did-dhs-abort-its-re-writing-infamous-josh-hammer">explained</a> similarly in a Daily Wire op-ed last month about the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/31980/media-are-lying-about-trump-separating-illegal-ben-shapiro">much-ballyhooed</a>, <a href="https://cis.org/Report/History-Flores-Settlement">misbegotten</a> Flores consent decree:
<blockquote>
The Flores consent decree was likely itself illegal, insofar as it undermined the clear statutory text of 8 U.S.C. § &#8239;1225(b)(B)(iii)(IV): &#8220;Any alien subject to the [asylum interview] procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.&#8221; Note that there is no &#8220;without unnecessary delay&#8221; language in the statute &#8212; rather, the statutory text merely stipulates that aliens who seek asylum at the border &#8220;shall be detained&#8221; (emphasis added). As the statute sub-heading reads verbatim, this amounts to &#8220;mandatory detention.&#8221; No room for ambiguity there!
</blockquote>
This is hardly the first time that Gillibrand, as a nascent presidential candidate, has attempted to appease far-left activists within the Democratic Party. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47354/democrat-sen-gillibrand-abortion-bills-are-against-amanda-prestigiacomo">reported</a> last week, Gillibrand recently took the farcical step of condemning pro-life laws as &#8220;against Christian faith.&#8221;

LAWLESSNESS: Kirsten Gillibrand Vows To Implement Mass Catch-And-Release As President

Illegal Immigration

Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Progressivism

Southern Border

It worked to an extent in 2012. It failed in 2014. It failed in 2016. It took a break somewhat in 2018. Now the &#8220;war on women&#8221; trope has been revived by failing presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
Gillibrand doesn&#8217;t even have enough donors to qualify for the first Democrat primary debate &#8212; and she doesn&#8217;t even consistently show up in polls as voters&#8217; choice for president. She&#8217;s built her campaign on the idea that American women are oppressed in this country. She&#8217;s claimed her bad poll numbers are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47182/kirsten-gillibrand-blames-sexism-low-poll-numbers-emily-zanotti">due to sexism</a>, even though rival Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) are the third and fourth most popular candidates. She has, for years, targeted men in her campaigns to broaden the definition of sexual assault and create a greater victim class.
Now she claims President Donald Trump &#8220;has started a war on America&#8217;s women.&#8221;
Speaking on CBS&#8217;s &#8220;Face The Nation,&#8221; the struggling candidate blamed Trump for the abortion laws recently passed in Alabama and Georgia &#8212; even though he had nothing to do with them.
&#8220;This is nothing short of an all-out assault on women&#8217;s reproductive freedom, an effort to take away our basic human rights and civil rights,&#8221; Gillibrand said, as <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/444454-gillibrand-president-trump-has-started-a-war-on-american-women">reported by The Hill</a>.
&#8220;President Trump has started a war on America&#8217;s women. And if it&#8217;s a fight he wants to have, it&#8217;s a fight he&#8217;s going to have and he&#8217;s going to lose,&#8221; she added.
Georgia&#8217;s Republican-controlled legislature <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47202/media-are-lying-you-about-georgias-pro-life-amanda-prestigiacomo">passed a bill</a> that bans abortions after a heartbeat is detected. It was signed into law by the state&#8217;s Republican governor. Days later, Alabama&#8217;s Republican governor, Kay Ivey, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47263/breaking-alabama-governor-signs-abortion-bill-law-ryan-saavedra">signed a bill</a> that essentially makes abortion illegal in the state and punishes doctors who perform the procedure. A law similar to Georgia&#8217;s &#8220;heartbeat&#8221; bill is likely <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47394/party-break-louisiana-abortion-bill-poised-be-amanda-prestigiacomo">to be signed</a> by Louisiana&#8217;s Democrat governor, John Bel Edwards.
Trump didn&#8217;t push for these laws or make abortion a cornerstone of his campaign or presidency, but Gillibrand needs attention and needs to set herself apart from her primary rivals.
Gillibrand, according to the Hill, has said she would codify Roe v. Wade if she becomes president. Notice to Gillibrand: Laws can be repealed, so this promise is nothing more than a platitude for low-information voters.
Gillibrand isn&#8217;t even coming up with a new idea. The Democrats have been trotting out the &#8220;war on women&#8221; trope for nearly eight years now. In 2012, they claimed then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney was waging a &#8220;war on women&#8221; because he &#8230; dared to ensure women were hired at his company. In 2014, even though every Republican running for Congress was accused of hating women, the GOP took back the Senate. In 2016, Trump won the presidency and Republicans retained control of the House and Senate. In 2018, the trope wasn&#8217;t used to the extent it had been previously, but anger over Trump&#8217;s alleged decimation of women&#8217;s rights (women have not lost any rights under the Trump administration) led to Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives.
Expect the tired phrase to be used a lot more in 2020.

HERE WE GO AGAIN: Gillibrand Revives The Tired “War On Women” Trope

On Thursday, 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) claimed that pro-life legislation is &#8220;against Christian faith.&#8221;
Gillibrand, who is seriously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47182/kirsten-gillibrand-blames-sexism-low-poll-numbers-emily-zanotti">lagging</a> in the polls, made the controversial comments at the Georgia State House, surrounded by pro-abortion legislators and activists. Earlier this month, Georgia passed a law banning abortion after an unborn baby&#8217;s heartbeat is detected (typically around six weeks&#8217; gestation).
&#8220;If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenets of our faith is free will,&#8221; the Democrat said.
&#8220;One of the tenets of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort,&#8221; she added.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirsten-gillibrand-says-anti-abortion-laws-are-against-christian-faith/">According</a> to CBS News, Gillibrand laid out a three-step pro-abortion plan that she would adopt as policy if she were to be voted into the White House: &#8220;Codify abortion across the country, end the Hyde amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, and guarantee reproductive healthcare in every state.&#8221;
The Democrat also said she would only tap judges who support the decision in Roe v. Wade to sit on the Supreme Court. Gillibrand was a vocal critic of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the bench in October, generally over concerns about abortion.
&#8220;Any Democrat who expects to win the presidency must answer definitively where they stand on this issue,&#8221; she said, before landing a predictable shot at President Donald Trump.
&#8220;If this is a fight that President Trump wants, if this is a fight that he wants with the American people, if this is a fight he wants with America&#8217;s women,&#8221; the senator said regarding abortion, then &#8220;it is a fight he will have and it is a fight he will lose.&#8221;
A flurry of pro-life legislation has swept states across the nation since New York State celebrated the permission of abortion up until the moment of birth in January. On Wednesday, for example, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed the nation&#8217;s more restrictive bill into law, outlawing the fatal procedure totally, save and exception for the life of the mother.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47182/kirsten-gillibrand-blames-sexism-low-poll-numbers-emily-zanotti">reported</a> earlier this week in The Daily Wire, Gillibrand has fingered sexism as the reason she&#8217;s been struggling in national polls. Currently, it&#8217;s unclear if she&#8217;ll have enough support to make the first Democratic primary debate stage, despite Sen. Cory Booker (D-CA) asking people to donate to his 2020 opponent.
<blockquote>
&#8220;<a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/gillibrand-on-polling-woes-people-are-generally-biased-against-women/">The Washington Free Beacon</a> reports that Gillibrand, in a wide-ranging CNN profile, blamed Americans&#8217; &#8216;bias against women&#8217; for her own failure to achieve the two key milestones necessary to be part of the 2020 Democratic primary debates: at least 5% in national polls or 65,000 individual donors.&#8221;
</blockquote>
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women,&#8221; said the Democrat. &#8220;There&#8217;s just bias and it&#8217;s real and it exists, but you have to overcome it.&#8221;

Menu