The Elusive Pro-Life Democrat: The Kristen Day Interview

A departure for the Bee:
Babylon Bee

"This is the Babylon Bee Interview Show.
"Listen to this episode on our podcast page or subscribe using your favorite podcast platform here.
"Kyle and Ethan talk to Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. She caught the Bee’s eye after putting Pete Buttigieg on the spot about whether or not there is a place in the Democratic Party for pro-life voters. Kyle and Ethan chat with her about abortion, pro-life activism, and partisan divides. 

• "Topics Discussed

• There are 21 million pro-life Democrats that aren’t being served by their partyKristen’s pro-life convictions based on religious worldview and scienceHaving an opinion on abortion without a uterusSafe, Legal, and Rare becoming Legal… ‘Shout Your Abortion’Confronting Pete Buttigieg on whether there is room in the party for pro-life DemsThe goals and activism of Democrats For Life of AmericaHow the pro-abortion lobby took control of the partyThe Democrats For Life are not officially endorsing Joe Biden“Pro-life for the whole life”Political strategies and strange alliancesAdoption and pregnancy centers

Trump Campaign Trolls Biden With ‘Investigative’ Mini Series ‘Truth Over Facts’

“Join us next time when we will work with a renowned sketch artist who will reveal who, or what, is a lying dog-faced pony soldier,” said Murtaugh, in reference to Biden assigning that nickname to a New Hampshire student asking him a question in February." (I considered it to be guy talk and would have taken it in good humor. TD"

Daily Wire  "Tim Murtaugh, communications director for the Trump campaign, was featured Monday in a “new investigative series” that trolls presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden by mixing some of his memorable quotes into a mock Biden investigation. 
"In the 30-second opening montage, the video introduces several of the former vice president’s references and mistakes, including his notorious reference to “cornpop” and his accidental reference to Winston Churchill as the oldest president in American history. 
"But the video then segues to Murtaugh, who says it will be the “first episode” in a series called “Truth Over Facts” — a reference to a Biden campaign rally in Iowa last year, during which he said Democrats needed to stand against President Trump’s “facts” by using the “truth.' ” . . .

 . . . "But the video then segues to Murtaugh, who says it will be the “first episode” in a series called “Truth Over Facts” — a reference to a Biden campaign rally in Iowa last year, during which he said Democrats needed to stand against President Trump’s “facts” by using the “truth.' ” . . .

The love child of the left's media: Barack Obama

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Trump: Obama Was A “Grossly incompetent” President…  "To put it mildly"

Obama Fired an Inspector General to Cover Up a Sex Scandal and No One Said Boo About It

. . . An investigation by Congress into the illegal firing was met with stonewalling by the Obama White House, and the withholding of documents. The Obama White House also deliberately misled Congress about the reasons for the firing. Walpin was ultimately cleared of the allegations made by the Obama White House.
Obama broke the law to protect a donor and ally who had misused federal grant money and sexually abused three underage girls, then he and his appointees misled and stonewalled Congress in an attempt to cover up his own illegal behavior. Where were the Democrats then? For the most part, they were uninterested—as was the media. If Donald Trump sneezes, they call for an investigation, but real abuses by Obama were virtually ignored. It would be a lot easier to take the Democrats seriously if they had cared about Obama’s corruption even just a little bit.

 14 Real Obama Scandals That Have Nothing to do with His Wearing a Tan Suit

Once again, it seems necessary to remind the public that the Obama administration was not scandal-free. In fact, Obama was so dogged by scandals there’s a whole book detailing them. But, to prove my point, here’s are just a few of them that have nothing to do with Obama wearing a tan suit: . . .

No, 'Obamagate' Isn't a Hoax   . . . That's understandable and likely fair. But as Harsanyi says, given Obama's personal knowledge of certain details and Biden's shifting story, it's reasonable to ask what their respective roles were, and how close they got to the misconduct. Let's hope that Mr. Durham's work brings wide-ranging and sorely-needed clarity to this matter. I'll leave you with my comments on Fox News about much of the media's 180 on the importance of covering each twist and turn of the Russia investigation: . . ."

There's More to the Story of the State Department IG Firing Than the Liberal Narrative

Linick was nominated to the position by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013.

Townhall

. . . "Pompeo told The Washington Post he was unaware Linick was investigating him and said he recommended for Trump to fire him because he was "undermining" the department's mission.
" 'It is not possible that this decision, or my recommendation rather, to the president rather, was based on any effort to retaliate for any investigation that was going on, or is currently going on,” Pompeo explained. "Because I simply don’t know. I’m not briefed on it. I usually see these investigations in final draft form 24 hours, 48 hours before the IG is prepared to release them. So it’s simply not possible for this to be an act of retaliation. End of story."
"Most importantly, Brian Bulatao, the State Department’s undersecretary for management, told the Post Linick was a prime suspect for a "pattern of unauthorized disclosures, or leaks," to the media about investigations that were in an early draft form. While there was no hard evidence of Linick leaking, suspicions were elevated after he referred the leaking investigation to someone else instead of going to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to have them appoint an impartial investigator."

Oh, About That IG ‘Wrongfully’ Fired by Mike Pompeo; Turns out Dems May Want to Hold Their Fire . . . "On Friday, The Daily Caller reported that Linick was “under investigation last year by the Department of Defense’s inspector general for mishandling sensitive material.”

Why AG Barr is right about not criminally prosecuting Obama or Biden

Rayn Random   "A friend, who thinks politically as we do here, phoned this morning after just hearing Barr's comments doubting that Obama or Biden would be criminally prosecuted.  We both would love to see it, but consider how destructive the Dems' legal efforts to get Trump to testify so they could prosecute him have been for the past three years, and then imagine what could happen if the precedent were set to prosecute future presidents of either party.  Such a spectacle would draw worldwide attention and obliterate everything else our country needed to be doing that would have more impact on our country's, and even the world's, future.

"If there were a trial, it would go on for years, and that wouldn't even include all the appeals.  No matter how it concluded, whether it were an acquittal, a partial conviction, a hung jury, or a jury nullification, it would still be argued for decades.  Either way, Obama would be a hero to millions throughout the world, and he could go on another anti-American world tour as a victim of an unfair justice system.  The ones who actually did the crimes at his direction would be brushed aside in the frenzy and even forgotten.

"But it appears that A.G. Barr and Michael Horowitz are leaving nothing undiscovered and fully intend to proceed with criminal prosecutions.  If those who did the crimes under Obama's orders and direction have to hire hugely expensive attorneys, perhaps even sell their homes, as General Flynn had to do, they will be angry, very angry at Obama's getting a pass.  They will tell all on each other and on him.

"Obama will be helpless to stop it.  He will not be able to deny anything in the courtroom, and more truth will come out than if he himself were on trial.  He will have to watch his own destruction."

Team Obama’s Unmasking Dodge

Washington News Daily

"The media are mostly ignoring the news that 39 Obama officials sought to read the transcripts of Michael Flynn’s conversations with foreigners, but here and there they’ve asked a question. The unpersuasive answers suggest there’s more to learn.

"Take Joe Biden, who “unmasked” Flynn only a few days before leaving office as Vice President. Last week Biden told ABC that he knew “nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.” George Stephanopoulos reminded Biden that he attended a Jan. 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting when the FBI’s Flynn investigation was discussed. Biden replied that he’d misheard the question and admitted he was “aware that there was, that they’d asked for, an investigation. But that’s all I know about it.”

"This was more straightforward than what Biden told MSNBC when he was asked about his “involvement in the investigation of Michael Flynn.” Biden replied: “I was never a part or had any knowledge of any criminal investigation into Flynn while I was in office.”

"Except at the time there was no criminal investigation into Flynn—as Biden knows. In 2016 The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn, and it was under that pretense that it conducted the interview in which it later claimed that Flynn lied. The lack of a criminal investigation is the primary reason the Justice Department moved this month to drop its prosecution. Biden still hasn’t explained why he personally unmasked Flynn.

"James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, defended his unmasking of Flynn as “perfectly legitimate.” Clapper told CNN that he had a professional duty to investigate the “numerous engagements by representatives of the Trump camp with Russians.” As he told Sirius XM’s “The Joe Madison Show”: “People would be derelict if they didn’t have enough curiosity to inquire what was going on.' ” . . .

TV Personality Explains Why WaPo’s Stacey Abrams Photo Fiasco Is Harmful for Both the Media and America

RedState  "My RedState colleague Nick Arama wrote Sunday about a ridiculous photo of failed 2018 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams that appeared alongside an article published in Washington Post Magazine.

"The picture has to be seen to be believed:

·May 16
"Pandemonium ensues as she walks to the far left of the stage, like a runway supermodel, stops on a dime, poses, tilts her head slightly and smiles. Camera flashes explode. She next pivots and walks slowly to the center of the stage, freezes there and repeats the pose."

. . . "The accompanying article was, of course, a puff piece – like many mainstream media articles written about Abrams have been. Freelance writer Jeryl Bier tweeted out one of the more noteworthy snippets: . . ."

It is good to be a Democrat:  

CNN Reporter Who Ripped off Her Mask Has a New Talking Point, Immediately Undermines It

RedState  "CNN’s Kaitlan Collins is not too happy that a video of her removing her mask the moment she thought the cameras had turned off has gone viral (see Busted: CNN Reporter Who Chastised Trump for Non-Mask Usage Rips Off Mask the Moment She Thinks the Cameras Are Off). In fact, it’s gone so viral that President Trump and his sons have gotten in on sharing it.

"For background, here’s the original video." . . .

. . . "That’s a cute deflection, but it ignores the reality of her behavior. Collins is not just a bystander here. She has actively criticized the Trump administration for not wearing masks, even at outdoor briefings where people are socially distanced. She’s also written articles on the matter, again taking shots over non-mask usage by the President. If she’s going to be such a Karen about this matter, she can’t then be the person who rips their mask off when they think no one who will tell is looking. She wasn’t socially distancing when she removed her mask. She was doing the opposite, walking into the crowd of her colleagues after taking it off. That’s hypocrisy and deserves to be called out. . . .

Something about whose ox is being gored and the horse she rode in on, I suppose. I dunno.

The Left Is What It Once Loathed

"What is the Left, then? Mostly a Jacobin party that operates ad hoc, without principle, or consistency. "

Victor Davis Hanson

. . . "Indeed, the ACLU was outraged at what the committee revealed. [liberal Senator Frank] Church  was deified as a liberal hero uncovering government abuse. About the worst thing a government could do, liberals reminded us, was to spy on its own citizens. 
"Then we were also warned that the scandal was the result of the government, for over 30 years, targeting mostly liberals on grounds of trumped-up suspicions that they were sympathetic to Communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. Yet in addition, the Left argued that the state had no business spying on any American at all, unless it had a certified warrant and ample criminal cause—or we found ourselves in a war with enemies at home among us.
"And now?  
"Russia is no longer a global Communist superpower rival. Yet the Obama Administration’s CIA, NSA, and FBI were every bit as obsessed with Vladimir Putin as had the old Right worried about Leonid Brezhnev—as if a contemporary kleptocratic thug lording over a failed and shrinking state posed the same existential dangers as a Communist dictator reigning over a huge postwar empire dedicated to destroying the free world. 
"Actually, at the behest of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. earlier had reached out to Putin in a naïve, flawed “reset” appeasement that failed. So, the Obama Administration’s about-face obsession with Putin the monster always was largely a convenient gambit of wanting to destroy the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency." . . .. . . "A free watchdog press? Again, hardly. According to early liberal monitoring of presidential news coverage, roughly 93 percent of the news has been anti-Trump. The media by its own admissions—remember the editorialization from those like Jorge Ramos, Jim Rutenberg, or Christiane Amanpour?—believes it cannot be disinterested, given the alleged existential threat Donald Trump supposedly poses to America." . . .

. . . "A free watchdog press? Again, hardly. According to early liberal monitoring of presidential news coverage, roughly 93 percent of the news has been anti-Trump. The media by its own admissions—remember the editorialization from those like Jorge Ramos, Jim Rutenberg, or Christiane Amanpour?—believes it cannot be disinterested, given the alleged existential threat Donald Trump supposedly poses to America.
"Race? The Left sanctions racial separatism, even to the extent of marking off racially exclusive spaces on campus or allowing students to veto roommates on the basis of their race.
"Feminism and Sexual Harassment and Assault? It depends. Statutes of limitations and he said/she said evidence are of no importance if it means stopping a conservative Supreme Court judge, but they most certainly do apply if they impair a Democratic presidential candidacy." . . .

Jacobin:  Dominican:  [French, from Jacobin Dominican; from the group's founding in the Dominican convent in Paris] : a member of an extremist or radical political group  especially : a member of such a group advocating egalitarian democracy and engaging in terrorist activities during the French Revolution of 1789

Rogue Judge Sullivan

There’s no end to the tormenting of Michael Flynn — but a writ of mandamus from the Justice Department should put a stop to it.

The American Spectator

This has gone on far too long, and at far too great a cost to Flynn and his family. The DoJ should slap Sullivan with a writ of mandamus to the D.C. Circuit immediately. There is no  reason for the toll of this injustice to continue to mount.

     "Emmet Sullivan, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal trial, has delayed ruling on the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss all charges against Flynn in order to get a third party’s views.
     "Sullivan’s action is unconstitutional, cruel, and an enormous abuse of his judicial power.
     "A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.
     "Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch." . . .

Flynn sentencing hits sour note: Darcy cartoon

Hero worship of Obama contrasted with the man's character

Unmasking the Illegalities of the Obama Administration  . . . There is nothing new about Obama seeking private information in order to smear a political opponent.  It was well known that when he ran for the Senate in 2004, a California judge ruled that the divorce papers of his opponent, Republican Jack Ryan, be released.  Both Ryan and his wife argued that the disclosure of the closed records would be harmful to their son, and they both opposed public disclosure of the documents.  With the release of those documents, Ryan withdrew from the U.S. Senate election, and Obama sailed into the Senate without an opponent.  That scheme was not a new tactic for candidate Obama.  His opponent in the primary, Blair Hull, was also a divorced man with sealed records from 1998.  In the infamous Chicago, Illinois politics in 2004, an enterprising reporter "discovered" that Hull's wife had previously sought a protective order against her husband.  Obama "cruised to victory" in the primary — with the impossible odds of the same circumstances enabling him to win the general election against Ryan.  One analyst described Obama as "lucky with his enemies" — a man with a fortunate history of "hapless opponents.' " . . .

. . . "[acting director of National Intelligence Richard]Grenell has released the names of sixteen Obama officials who specifically targeted Michael Flynn by requesting that his name be "unmasked" on documents recounting his conversations with Kislyak.  In fact, during a two-month period after the 2016 election, Lee Smith, of the New York Post, reported that there were 49 requests to unmask General Flynn — a clear indication that Flynn was chosen because he was "one of Trump's 'most trusted advisers,'" thus his conversations could reveal Trump's plans.

Courage a prerequisite; Why conservatives find opposing Obama intimidating 

All Things Obama; 2008

Lindsey's Obamaphobia

President Obama must be called to testify, for it is he who gave the marching orders that started the whole corrupt Deep State coup. Close scrutiny of the intelligence community’s actions by Durham and Barr should send chills up Clapper’s spine and that of former CIA Director John Brennan’s as well 

Daniel John Sobieski  "Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who loves to bloviate on cable news and the talk shows, is the man who has launched a thousand excuses to not hold hearings on the Deep State attempt to overthrow duly elected President Donald J. Trump. Can’t muddy up the waters with all this stuff going on, Graham opined. He just might disturb someone else’s investigation.

"Running out of excuses and time, Graham has scheduled hearings in June, but with one very important proviso -- with all evidence pointing to Barack Hussein Obama as the architect and quarterback of the coup, particularly the Jan. 5 White House meeting that set up Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, Lindsey Graham wants Obama and links to him to be off limits. Lisa Page told FBI lover Peter Strzok, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” Graham wants to hear nothing about what Obama was doing, at least not from the unindicted co-conspirator himself.
"The fire Graham showed during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings has been extinguished, it seems. As Sen. John McCain’s best bud shrinks under the responsibility of actually chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee against hostile Democrats. President Trump has had enough of Sen. Milquetoast’s ambivalence and waffling:

“If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “He knew EVERYTHING.”

“Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it,” he continued. “No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!”  

. . . "No more Mr. Nice Guy, Lindsey. This fish rots from the head. Let Obama try to pull a Lois Lerner and invoke the Fifth Amendment. Exposing this criminal fraud would set a good precedent and go a long way toward Trump’s goal of assuring that this never happen[s] to another president." . . .
Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  

The writer asks Republicans to go against all this public worship. To stand against Obama will bring this press treatment: