Connect with us

News

Mad Maxine Tells Crowd She’s Ready To Take Out Trump Herself, Immediately Pays For It

How’s that for karma, Maxine?!

Published

on

It has been a long road to recovery since House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (LA-D) survived an attempted assassination by a supporter of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. Yet in that four months, the calls for violence have only increased.

Scalise’s Congressional colleagues like Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-D) are calling for harassment and refusal of service of anyone who works in the Trump administration. In Waters’ extreme lack of self-awareness, it seems to completely pass her by that she is an active member of Congress herself IN the Trump administration.

So is she calling for violence and harassment against herself as well? It seems were she sincere in protestations of “the terrible evil of the Trump administration” as she claims it, then she should resign. Take the moral high ground. Remove herself from the taint of the Trump administration…except she won’t. Waters is simply a power-hungry political despot like much of Washington and despots never surrender. Despots simply continue in their hypocrisy.

Waters was noted as the “most corrupt member of Congress” on four separate occasions and passed a paltry three bills in her lengthy tenure in Congress, promised a group that benefits “homeless LGBTQ youth” that she will “take out” the president — and the far left-leaning progressive audience wildly applauded. Waters was attending the Ali Forney Center gala in New York City. It took a mere 27 seconds for Waters to start in on her usual anti-Trump tirade. *yawn*

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

Waters started out in the video clip – Wow, what a moving evening this is! She continues – “I’m sitting here listening, watching, absorbing, thinking about Ali even though I never met him. And with this kind of inspiration, I will go and take out Trump tonight,” she said as the crowd roared in approval and Waters pumped her fist.

Just two days later, Waters continued her usual ranting about President Trump, this time at a Los Angeles AIDS walk. Waters took the stage in front of Los Angeles City Hall and quickly turned the event into a platform to push her personal political agenda.

But now as Waters has escalated her calls for violence and her attempts to provoke her base into extreme actions against those she views as her political opposition.  She must be stopped before her calls for violence end in someone getting hurt before some crazed Antifa member takes a bike lock to someone’s head or attempts to assassinate a member of Congress again.

In an effort to hold Waters accountable for her actions, Investigative Journalist Laura Loomer approached the Congresswoman to ask her about her “suggestions” that the Trump administration and its supporters be harassed. It turns out Waters does not like to be questioned and she likes it even less when her own advice is taken and used against her.

Loomer attempted to have a little chat with her about where conservatives are allowed to go. This is in the halls of the Capitol.

LOOMER: I just wanted to ask you, where are conservatives allowed to go?

WATERS: Please come to my office —

LOOMER: Are there separate —

WATERS: — and talk with me.

LOOMER: Do we sit at the back of the bus?

WATERS: Please come. Please come to my office and talk with me.

LOOMER: Where can we eat?

WATERS: We’ll be happy to talk to you.

LOOMER: Where can a conservative eat at a restaurant in D.C.?

WATERS: Please come to my office and talk.

LOOMER: I’m asking you right now.

WATERS: Please come to my office and talk.

LOOMER: You’re talking about civility.

WATERS: Yes.

LOOMER: Do you think it’s civil to call for the harassment —

WATERS: Please come to my office and sit down and talk with me.

LOOMER: No. I’m asking you right now.

LOOMER: Where can we eat?

WATERS: We’ll be happy to talk to you.

LOOMER: Where can a conservative eat at a restaurant in D.C.?

WATERS: Please come to my office and talk.

LOOMER: I’m asking you right now.

WATERS: Please come to my office and talk.

LOOMER: You’re talking about civility.

WATERS: Yes.

LOOMER: Do you think it’s civil to call for the harassment —

WATERS: Please come to my office and sit down and talk with me.

LOOMER: No. I’m asking you right now.

Loomer states that Waters instead hit her hand and swatted her in the face twice with papers. As a result, Loomer has filed a police report for assault.

Loomer tweeted: “I filed a police report w/Capitol Police against Maxine Waters. Yesterday when I confronted her on Capitol Hill, she ASSAULTED me. She hit my hand, then she swatted me in the face twice w/her papers. I’m pressing charges.”

BizPac Review correctly pointed out that Loomer was simply doing to Waters what “the California Democrat urged liberals to do to Trump aides: Confront them in public.”

Washington watchdog Judicial Watch also sent a letter on Tuesday morning to the House Office of Congressional Ethics asking for an investigation into Waters’ inflammatory statements, and another source reported the Secret Service was looking into the comments.

President of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton cited the requirement, found in House Rule 23, clause 1, that a member “shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditability on the House.”

He wrote the congressional investigators, “In encouraging individuals to create ‘crowds’ who will ‘push back’ on President Trump’s Cabinet members at private business establishments and in seemingly trying to prevent these Cabinet officials from obtaining basic necessities without fear of assault and violence, Rep. Waters seems to be in violation of House rules.”

Now we wait and see if Congress will actually DO something…

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.