Who says Dems can’t go any lower?

I guess having a white Christmas or even “dreaming of” one is now racist too!?🎄

Notice how Democrats always need to “move on” from anything…..except racism.
And if you happen to laugh at that thought, then you too must be a racist.

 

But speaking of over the top liberal rhetoric in the last post — which turns out to be a bottomless pit to hell — comes this prize work in keeping with liberal tradition.

In other words, there is no such thing as too much or too far for aspiring Leftinistas.

This Michael Harriot of The Root tried desperately to probe the bottom. Then it was deleted. But that didn’t stop him from defending his lone, solitary “hope” later.

After taking the heat he comes back to defend his high hope from a critic:

Nope, no room for virtue signaling in that ballpark. He’s covering deep Left field.

I know, it’s like a game where the left trogs try to outdo each other on the old outrage meter. A practiced skill set; where there are no rules or accountability.

Then here we find out that San Fran Nan and Chuck the Schmucko must be twins separated at birth. Proof is in the pudding. Christmas Eve is so unifying.

Not to be outdone, Chelsea Clinton dabbles in her mother’s forte` of fraternizing with evil.
Call it a genetic gift to a real child prodigy.

Those eyes, don’t they just scream “dark side”?

Hey, let’s throw in the latest Obama slime news too for flavor. Susan Rice never disappoints in serving over-the-top hypocrisy and hyperbole with her lies.

Breitbart

Former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice [in a land where they are really never former anything] penned an OP-ED for the New York Times claiming Trump is a bigger threat than any foreign adversary.

NYT:

“The president couldn’t care less about facts, intelligence, military analysis or the national interest. He refuses to take seriously the views of his advisers, announces decisions on impulse and disregards the consequences of his actions. In abandoning the role of a responsible commander in chief, Mr. Trump today does more to undermine American national security than any foreign adversary. Yet no Republican in Congress is willing to do more than bleat or tweet concerns.” [Read]

Hey Suzie Q, there is a little matter of all that unmasking we’d like to talk to you about regarding this whole conspiracy you all cooked up. I know the demands on your time, with writing post-script memos to yourself that take a toll. But inquiring minds have a lot of questions about this national security struggle you seem to be having — along with Obama’s non-scandal record you all hallucinated.

(*In case the Dana Loesch link disappears, here is the original image. There’s a Lincolnesque quality about it.)

Right Ring | Bullright

Leave it to Chelsea and Planned Parenthood

Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.

Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:

By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
Comments

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.

And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/

She’s a monster, trust me on this one!

Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.

Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.

If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?

But maybe I could be off target somewhere.

Chelsea forming swamp of support

Brought to you, again, by the corrupt Clinton’s perpetual campaign of enablers. Back, by unpopular demand, is the slobbering press now pimping Chelsea Clinton for mass public consumption. Who cares about Chelsea? Well that doesn’t matter.

How cool? Not. Power of women? Oh, they found just the perfect model… of nothing.

The corrupt Clinton machine is busy grooming her for what, as a favorite politician? A bridge way too far.

They aren’t floating her possible candidacy, They are steaming full speed ahead Titanic style toward the biggest iceberg out there. The last Clinton has not yet admitted why she lost, but here’s another… in case you couldn’t stomach the last one. Cool?