The faces of the political Left are interchangeable, speaking in one voice to demand the Democrats’ declared “right” to abort babies. That demand has now been revealed to be extreme and daring in the escalated embrace of death to the unborn from conception to the moment of birth.

Two states, New York and Virginia, buoyed the vileness of abortion to the surface over the last few weeks. There was the celebration held by a cheering New York State Assembly as Democrat Gov. Andrew evil-Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act, which ensures the availability of an abortion on demand up to the very moment a child is born — even if the mother has gone into active labor. The law also removes criminality from those who fail to provide aid or resuscitation to a baby born despite an attempted abortion. New York is not just the abortion capital. New York is led by people who cheer death of infants.

Virginia’s General Assembly had its own moment of truth in introducing a bill very similar in scope and effect. Democrat Gov. Ralph Notrhram described how the law would be put into practice in the delivery, um, that is the procedure room. Now, more criticized for his scandal involving a 1984 yearbook photo that may or may not include him in blackface or KKK garb, Northram, a trained and practiced child neurologist, offered his support of the abortion bill in a very matter-of-fact description during a talk-radio segment: “So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Stunning? Not really, though it is sickening. The conscience is shocked because the details of abortion were spoken so very plainly and clearly that painted with words the image of a newborn being murdered, rather than some clump of cells or as a being threatening the life of the mother. Last week, Democrats spoke of abortion for the act that it truly is — a procedure used to end the life of a child with very rare occasions to save the life of the mother. It’s only stunning if you tolerate murder on a sliding scale.

Using the most currently available data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 638,169 abortions performed in the U.S. in 2015. Of those, over 91% were performed at or before 13 weeks, or just over three months, gestation. Within that cohort, 65% of abortions were obtained by mothers terminating their pregnancies at or before the eighth week, or two months gestation or less. Using 2015 survey data from the state of Florida, since the CDC doesn’t make publicly available reasons cited for abortions, of the 71,740 infant deaths caused by abortion, 0.001% were involving an incestuous relationship, 0.065% were due to protect the life of the mother, and 0.085% were performed in the cases of rape. So, a total of 0.151% of the time, abortion was performed for those rare circumstances that are oft-cited by the abortion industry justifying the ease of obtaining the procedure.

Looking at the real-time U.S. Abortion Clock, that projects the number of abortions performed daily, annually, and since Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 61 million abortions have ended the lives of conceived children. While the procedure’s popularity has declined over the years with the availability of technology like ultrasound, the absolute war fought by the political Left to protect this procedure is vicious and very determined.

Whether it’s New York, Virginia, or the other states like Maryland, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts rushing to file legislation that will yield the same horrors of infanticide, Americans are being given information that should forever frame their approach to political decisions.

Is there room in the Democrat Party for pro-life politicians? Clearly, no.

With the data proving abortion is used to end pregnancies, not save lives, can we all now just reject the lie that abortion is “reproductive health?”

Since the New England Journal of Medicine has published data studying premature births at 24 institutions to record that infants born as young as 22 weeks gestation are able to survive outside the mother’s womb when given supportive measures, can’t Americans now just admit that late-term abortions are performed upon human beings who are viable?

Are there any Christian Democrats who’ll speak loudly against this modern-day practice of infanticide?

At this moment, the silence of any who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, whose image we’re fashioned into, is deafening.

Using both faith and science, the evidence is in. Democrats’ commitment to abortion on demand should be a line of definition that separates those who support the endowments of the Creator referenced in the Declaration of Independence as well as the tenets of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There is a red line. It’s one pulsing with the blood of life of the children whose rights are being disregarded by an unhinged political party that has abandoned God, science, and virtue.  

~The Patriot Post

In Washington, the cause is clear: non-vaccinated individuals. This fact has shown a bright spotlight on an increasingly heated debate over the broader societal health risks posed by the growing anti-vaccination trend.

As we’ve said before, those who opt out of vaccines benefit from what’s known as herd immunity. In other words, as long as about 90% of people are vaccinated, the “more enlightened” few may choose to avoid doing so and suffer little consequence. But there is a mathematical limit to this gamble, and it’s often upper-class liberals who are rolling the dice. In the affected areas of Washington, vaccination rates are only about 75%.

Anti-vaxxers blame vaccinations for the supposed rise in rates of certain autoimmune disorders, but this belief is born out of a rejection or misunderstanding of mainstream medical practice due in part to debunked pseudo-scientific explanations. This skepticism is coupled with a strong antipathy toward corporations or a deep distrust of governmental authority, and there’s a growing belief among some Americans that vaccinations are more of a health problem than a solution.

While a majority of Americans may disagree with anti-vaxxers and see their views as dangerously foolish, the First Amendment protects their right to hold and express them. However, the real rub comes when one’s individual beliefs may have direct impact upon the physical health and well-being of society at large. The current outbreak of measles demonstrates this balance and raises the question: When does protecting public health supersede the freedom of the individual to live according to how they see fit? Or to put it another way, when does the government have the right or responsibility to compel individuals to conform to certain behavioral expectations irrespective of personally held beliefs? As 19th-century physician Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” The choice to refuse vaccination — when rooted in vain conceit rather than medical reality — endangers others.

Frankly, given the devastating history of diseases like the measles and polio and the amazing medical breakthroughs that have (or had) virtually eradicated many of these diseases, profoundly improving the lives and health of all Americans living today, it is mind-boggling that this is even an issue up for debate.  ~The Patriot Post

Having lost the government shutdown standoff, President Trump has also lost his leverage. But there is one way he can get it back.

Democrats are standing firm in opposition to a border wall, but they have also been at pains to argue that they are not weak on border security. House Speaker Nancy Pulosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Charles scumbag-Schumer, D-N.Y., say Democrats support “smart, effective border security solutions — just not the president’s wasteful and ineffective wall.”

Trump should call their bluff. He should go back to the experts at the Department of Homeland Security and ask them: If Democrats refuse to give you the addition physical barriers you have said are essential to secure the border, what other funding would you need to make up for it? How many extra border agents would you need in the absence of a wall? How many more canine units? How much more for improved coordination with state and local law enforcement in our border communities? How many more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents for interior enforcement? How much for underground sensors, radar, unmanned drones and fixed towers with infrared cameras? How much more advanced detection technology at our ports of entry? How many more portable scanners to detect smuggled narcotics, weapons and other dangerous materials? How much for construction of new ports of entry? How many more immigration judges? How much for employment eligibility verification? How much more in humanitarian assistance and medical support for those detained at the border? How many more detention beds and temporary housing units for migrant families? How much more for DNA testing to establish family relationships? How much to set up a new system that will allow Central American minors to apply for asylum in their home countries?

The total, he should tell the border professionals, can be far more than $5.7 billion. Just tell me what you need — the sky’s the limit.

Then, the president should then use his State of the Union address to demand that congressional Democrats fund every single penny. He should announce that if Democrats won’t pay for a wall, this is what border agents and homeland security professionals say they need immediately to secure the border without one. Unfortunately, it is more expensive to secure the border with people and technology than it is with steel slats.

Trump should make clear these demands are nonnegotiable. He will not make any concessions for them. No protections for “dreamers” or extension of the Temporary Protected Status program. Those things are still on the table, but only in exchange for a physical barrier.

If Democrats refuse, Trump will have regained the moral high ground. He can tell the American people: First, the border professionals told us they needed an additional 230 miles of physical barriers, and Democrats refused. Now, they have told us what they need to secure the border without those physical barriers — and Democrats still refuse. The Democrats are not against a wall; they are against border security, period.

But Democrats will not refuse, because they have no grounds to do so. They have repeatedly claimed over the past few weeks to support such measures. Well, now it is time to start funding them.

Such a massive border security request would divide the Democratic caucus. While Democratic leaders claim they want to secure the border, their rank-and-file members do not. Those members want to abolish ICE, not give it more resources. If Trump wants to pit the likes of Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her neo-socialist followers against Pulosi, this will do it.

If Democrats agree, then Trump can legitimately claim to have done more than any president in history to secure the southern border. He will have essentially built a virtual wall. And he can do all this without giving up on a physical barrier. Trump can make clear that he will make wall funding a condition of every policy initiative that Democrats put forward in the coming two years. He can declare that he is more than willing to cut a bipartisan deal to reform our broken immigration system — as long as that deal includes a wall.

Right now, Democrats have a winning hand when it comes to a border wall. But when it comes to border security, Trump essentially has carte blanche. Democrats have little choice but to give him pretty much anything he wants to secure the border short of a physical barrier. If he recognizes this reality and uses it to his advantage, he can still win.  

~The Patriot Post

Investor’s Business Daily says, “Far-left media advocates for the Democrats’ have benignly called the proposed new law ‘election reform’, claimed it ‘could save American Democracy’ and characterized it as ‘a sweeping anti-corruption proposal.’ It is none of those things. Instead, H.R.1, the new law’s official designation, is a shocking power grab on the part of the Democrats who seek to nationalize all elections so they can permanently silence the Red States that stand in their way. It does so by transferring most of the power over elections to the federal government, and taking it away from the states, as the Constitution requires.”

On Jan. 29, the Conservative Action Project unveiled an opposition memo, which Investor’s explains is cosigned by “some 154 conservative former government officials, think tank heads, writers and activists.”

The memo reveals that the legislation “would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations.”

Furthermore, “H.R. 1 reasserts the ability of the federal government to micromanage state elections through a process known as ‘preclearance.’ Preclearance, which was previously overturned by the Supreme Court, requires states to get permission from the federal government for changes as small as modifying the hours of an election office, or moving a voting location from a school gym to the library.”

As if that’s not bad enough, “The Federal Election Commission, which is currently a neutral body, would be given a 3-2 makeup, guaranteeing a partisan outcome with little accountability toward the actual votes which are cast. H.R. 1 also includes a 600 percent government match for political donations, and authorizes even more public dollars to campaigns. The bill also wants to make Election Day a new paid holiday for government workers, with additional paid vacation given to bureaucrats to oversee the polls. All of these changes are designed to distance the outcome of the election from those casting their votes.”

The memo further explains that voter registration would become mandatory; all felons would be permitted to vote; early voting would be protracted; same-day voter registration would be required; the ability to cross-reference voters from different states would be hamstrung; election observers would be free from having to assist in cases related to election abnormalities; political speech that may dissuade a person’s voting would be outlawed; states would be forbidden from legislating mail-in votes; chief election officials partaking in federal election campaigns would be made illegal; absentee ballots would become “free”; and redistricting commissions would be necessitated.

The cosignees warn that “H.R. 1 would cause sweeping and irrevocable damage to the free speech, privacy, and integrity that are central components to free and fair elections in America.” Investor’s adds, “It’s a blatantly unconstitutional Democratic attempt to create a permanent national majority, a one-party leftist state. That would freeze out Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and even most Independents.” Of course, neither the GOP Senate nor President Donald Trump would ever sign off on the For the People Act of 2019. But this is the mother of all omens. And it signals some of what Democrats hope to achieve if future elections tilt their way.

It would, for all intents and purposes, be the most damaging attack yet on our Republic and accelerate — perhaps irreversibly — its demise.  

~The Patriot Post

The Post says these excursions underscore “an awkward dynamic for one of the world’s most outspoken crusaders of renewable energy: In September, a few days after calling fossil fuels ‘the dumbest experiment in human history,’ his plane burned thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying 300 miles from L.A. to Oakland so Musk could view a competitive video-gaming event.”

This self-righteous behavior has precedent, of course. As the Post concedes, “Musk is far from the only corporate leader to depend on the speed, flexibility and privacy of flying across the world on a private plane, and his high-profile role as chief executive, visionary and hype man for multiple companies helps explain why he would rely on it so heavily to get around.”

Yet there is hardly as much finger-pointing and lamenting over hypocrisy when it comes to other climate crusaders like scumbag-Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Bill Nye. These alarmists and many others regularly traverse the globe via airplanes for the sole purpose of vilifying the fuel that gets them places.

Just last week, MarketWatch reported, “Despite global warming being one of the major issues discussed at Davos every year, some 1,500 private jets are expected … at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, according to an estimate from Air Charter Service, up from 1,300 last year.”

Nobody in Davos has apparently heard of Skype.

Tesla’s mission is honorable. In fact, renewable energy is a worthy goal. But the agenda, rhetoric, and egregious hypocrisy surrounding the industry is repugnant. Musk undoubtedly deserves some criticism for his hypocritical behavior, but so too does the Post for its sanctimoniously looking the other way when it serves the Left’s broader agenda. In addition to Musk, the Davos story further demonstrates that elitists never actually practice what they preach. But coverage of leftist duplicity isn’t necessarily created equal.  ~The Patriot Post

So we’re treated to New York Times headlines such as, “On North Korea and Iran, Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump” that are meant to portray Trump as an uninformed rube blundering his way through foreign policy. The topic at hand is the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment prepared by the U.S. intelligence community. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the assessment.

The trio warned about threats from Russia and China, which the assessment says are “more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.” They also addressed North Korea, Iran, and ISIS. On each nation, Coats, Haspel, and Wray did indeed contradict some of Trump’s more brash assertions. For example, in announcing U.S. withdrawal from Syria, Trump declared, “We have won against ISIS; we’ve beaten them, and we’ve beaten them badly.” By contrast, Coats said the Islamic State will continue “to stoke violence” in Syria.

In our humble shop, however, we consider this to be another instance when Trump should be taken seriously but not literally. While Barack scumbag/liar-nObama effectively created ISIS, Trump has done a lot to beat it back. Unfortunately, by making hyperbolic, black-and-white declarations, he opens himself up to eye-rolling “fact checks” by the media and others. Trump has a maddening ability to be both wrong and right at the same time.

On North Korea, he did the same thing, saying after his summit with Kim Jong-un, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” Yes, there is, says the intelligence assessment. “We currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities, because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival,” Coats said. “Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization.”

Naturally, a good deal of time was spent on Russia’s election interference through Facebook. But Terence Jeffrey astutely argues what grassroots Americans are thinking: “The top national security issue facing the federal government today has nothing to do with deceptive political speech on social media. It has everything to do with our southern border.”

In the final analysis, the intelligence threat assessment is done in conjunction with the White House — these are executive agencies, after all — and the apparent disagreement arguably strengthens the American position in negotiations with our geopolitical foes. How? By keeping them off balance, on the ropes. Meanwhile, here at home, the Leftmedia is happy to keep churning anything that can be spun to make Trump look bad, reporting on complicated issues as checker games rather than chess matches.

Update: And of course Trump couldn’t resist punching back against the impression of him given over the last 24 hours:

“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”  

~The Patriot Post

Socialist Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders made socialized health care integral to his 2016 Democrat presidential primary campaign, and other Democrats — already having favored quasi-socialist scumbag/liar-nObamaCare — are going all in for the latest version, marketed under the name “Medicare For All” banner.

In 2013, former Senate Majority Leader Harry dinky-Reid eagerly admitted single-payer (read “government-run”) health care was the ultimate goal, with scumbag/liar-nObamaCare just a step along that path. Of course, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and his fellow Democrats knew they could not openly admit that back in 2008, so they blatantly and repeatedly lied. Or, as MIT professor and scumbag/liar-nObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted candidly at a 2014 health economics conference, “This bill was written in a tortured way. … Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. … Call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

scumbag/liar-nObama knew he was a liar when he repeatedly claimed, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”; a lie so egregious that PolitiFact awarded scumbag/liar-nObama with its “Lie of the Year” in 2013. Yet few Americans realize that the disastrous results scumbag/liar-nObamaCare produced — the bankrupted CO-OPs, the millions of Americans kicked off private insurance, the skyrocketing costs — were designed to make Americans so frustrated and angry with those greedy insurance companies that they would clamor for government-run health care.

And now Democrats, more radical than ever, are pushing socialized health care once again — albeit with some feigned resistance among the ranks to at least make it appear there’s thoughtful debate.

At a town hall meeting Monday night, Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris, current frontrunner for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination, was unapologetic in calling for socialized health care. After endorsing Medicare for All, she was asked if Americans who liked their current insurance could keep it. She replied unequivocally that private insurance would be outlawed, stating, “Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don’t have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require. … Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.”

The private health care of 150 million Americans? Gone.

Moreover, hers was a lie so gargantuan as to make scumbag/liar-nObama proud.

Medicare has mountains of paperwork, as well as an approval process run by government bureaucrats. Saying so isn’t a “conservative attack,” as leftists claim; those fact come directly from the Medicare website. So with Medicare for All, when your life is on the line, you get the efficiency of the DMV, the competence of the Postal Service, and the compassion of the IRS.

And an astronomical price tag, which George Mason University’s Mercatus Center estimates at a mind-boggling $32.6 trillion over 10 years, nearly doubling the cost of all government. Harris and other proponents claim the doubling of taxes will be offset by eliminating premiums, reducing administrative inefficiencies (because we all know government is the gold standard of efficiency), and cutting drug costs, but these are more blatant lies. scumbag/liar-nObamaCare was passed promising costs under $900 billion over the following decade, but costs had doubled just three years after passage of the law, despite not being fully implemented.

We don’t even have to guess if this would work. The leftist utopias of Vermont and California both tried to implement single-payer, government-run health care, and both quickly abandoned the quixotic venture after costs spiraled out of control.

And what of results? We already have two government-run health care programs — the Veterans Administration and Indian Health Services — and both are national embarrassments. Five years ago the scandal broke in which we learned VA employees were falsifying appointment records to make it appear wait times were less than 14 days, when in actuality tens of thousands of veterans waited months, or even years, for treatment, with many dying while waiting.

Today this disaster is still not fixed, and has in fact gotten worse. What possible leap of logic would lead us to believe a government-run health care system that leaves hundreds of thousands of veterans without care will suddenly, miraculously be able to provide excellent care to hundreds of millions of Americans?

Leftmedia propagandists are eager collaborators in the “progressive” plan, recently touting polls showing a majority of Americans (56%) favor Medicare for All. That is true … sort of.

Americans support Medicare for All when told it would guarantee health insurance as a right (71%) and eliminate premiums (67%). But that support plummets when people are informed that the government-run system would lead to delays in getting care (26%) and higher taxes (37%), or that it would eliminate private insurance (37%) and the current Medicare program (32%).

Thousands more doctors each year are refusing to take Medicare patients because of shrinking reimbursements and the bureaucratic nightmare of fighting to get paid. It is delusional to think Medicare for All would improve the situation. In Canada and Great Britain, which have nationalized or regionalized health care, primary care is adequate, but seeing a specialist takes months.

Medicare for All would be an unmitigated disaster, and the American people overwhelmingly reject it when given the facts. Now Americans need to reject those who keep trying to repackage it and sneak it past us.  ~The Patriot Post

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoUoCAEkooU