Posted on 02/28/2026 2:09:35 PM PST by John Semmens
In his state of the union speech, President Trump asked members of Congress to stand to show their support for the concept that "the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens." While the Republican contingent had no qualms about acknowledging this responsibility, not a single Democrat did.
In the Democratic response delivered by Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va), she pointed out that "American citizens are among the wealthiest in the world. They are capable of protecting themselves. There are billions of folks in other countries who need America's help. Former President Biden invited tens of millions of these wretched foreigners to come to this country to receive the benefits we can easily afford to provide. In my own state I have proposed raising taxes on luxuries that most Americans don't really need like haircuts, gym memberships, dog grooming, dry cleaning, vehicle repair, travel, entertainment, and guns, among other things. Those who insist on having these things should pay the extra taxes needed to raise revenue that the government can use to subsidize those unable or unwilling to work for them."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Az) asserted "I reject the idea that citizens deserve more than non-citizens. As a senator I feel I have an obligation to humanity to spread the wealth more evenly. Americans who have more than they need must be compelled to pay more taxes so those less well off can enjoy the same sort of comfort that those who are able to work to support themselves do. Ideally, the nation's wealth should be distributed based on need and the work required to produce this wealth should be assigned based on each person's ability."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) took exception to Trump's pledge to crackdown on Somali corruption in her state, saying "Somalis didn't invent the idea of taking advantage of lax government oversight of expenditures. My Somali constituents complied with the rules that allowed them to accept payments based on the number of clients they signed up for daycare. The rules didn't require actual attendance or services to be rendered. How can my people now be blamed for following those rules?"
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore) said "Trump's demand that voters be required to show a valid ID before being given a ballot is an attempt to rig the midterm elections. In a democracy the ballot is supposed to be secret. Insisting that every voter show ID violates the secrecy of the ballot. This will allow Trump's authoritarian government to track down and punish those who don't vote the way he wants them to." Merkley brushed off the risk of fraudulent votes, saying "I view that as the lesser evil. Individuals who make the effort to cast more than one ballot obviously care more about the future of this country than those who are satisfied with casting just a single ballot."
Too many citizens are not voting for them. It’s pretty simple.
The democrats lie when they’re sworn in
Democrats see illegals as an opportunity for self-flattery; i.e., “We are defending the defenseless!”
They don’t actually give a crap about the illegals themselves; this is virtue-signaling.
“They don’t actually give a crap about the illegals themselves; this is virtue-signaling.”
Yes they do. Each one signifies at least one vote.
wy69
We differ there. I think they see illegals collectively as "our voters." They don't give a crap about them as people, although they'll trot one out for "celebration" as emblematic. It's themselves they really care about.
“They don’t give a crap about them as people...”
Then why do they vehemently protect them? They aid in getting them into the country, they create welfare programs in the state to sustain them, they find jobs so they can afford to increase their numbers taking away from the actual citizens, and they ignore or bail them out for committed crimes even violent ones...? They have to support them to get their only purpose for being coddled, to get the votes. And to do that, they have gone out of their way to shield and defend them while creating paths to the voting booth.
I equate it to having a herd of cattle. You might not be on a first name basis with every steer, but you will do your best to see none die as they are dollars on the hoof. And that takes caring.
wy69
They see them as a class of voters; i.e., a way to POWER, not as people.
“They see them as a class of voters; i.e., a way to POWER, not as people.”
The democratic party sells them as people with programs and giveaways directly related to pampering them showing their acceptance and concern. The gifts are to people, not a voting class. And the people they give them too are too stupid to evaluate and understand they are a tool, not people. They match up with freebees.
wy69
This statement is internally contradictory. This isn't about whether the welfare recipient is human or not; it's about how Democrat politicians view them, as voters cumulatively, not as individual people. Those pols babble about "families" while doing their damndest to destroy that family integrity, rendering them as isolated individual subjects of the state.
Democrat politicians care about power, not people.
“Democrat politicians care about power, not people.”
But their power is the people they can get to do the things they need...vote. And to get them, they have to provide incentives. And their programs are aimed at individual like welfare, affordable housing, and tax breaks to make the voters think them desirable. The liberals in California are only concerned with power and how to get it.
Such incentives are Promote the Vote California, League of Women voters, The Community & Voter Outreach program, All In for Health to increase voter participation rates among infrequent voters, particularly in low-income and ethnic communities, Vote Riders, Military and Overseas Voters, Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM), Voters with Disabilities,... And for the young voters, Voter Education and Outreach, Ballot Bowl, High school and Youth Initiatives, California Student Vote Project and even same day voter registration. All of these programs are geared to the individual vote to reach the groups at the grass roots. The end may be groups, but the work is done at individual beginnings.
wy69
And if they don't have them they either invent them; i.e., dead voters, illegals, or multiple ballot scans. They don't give a crap about those people as individuals. They won't take their time to help one without power to gain. They don't care. Period. They see "voters" only as means to an end.
Dear G_d in heaven you are obtuse.
“Dear G_d in heaven you are obtuse.”
I’m not obtuse enough to not have been living for the first 18 years of my life in the San Joaquin Valley of California and saw all the political graft as it happened.
The liberals did not say that they were doing things for groups of people like Mexicans, Blacks or Portuguese. They allowed or gave the opportunity for people within these groups to prosper to form the groups you try to identify.
An example is the SBA. The SBA provides, via lenders, specialized, non-discriminatory, and often enhanced financing for small, disadvantaged, and minority-owned businesses to boost economic equity. Key programs include the 8(a) Business Development Program for 51% minority-owned firms, 7(a) loans for working capital, and specialized microloans. These initiatives help bridge the racial wealth gap by providing capital to underserved communities. These loans were not for a racial group, they were applied to help the people who owned he businesses. And this costs the state taxpayers a lot of money to provide this program.
I have provided for you a number of situations though sites to prove to you they were “signed up” using individual programs and not group reward over the last postings. I find a normalcy to your last entry in that you have provided nothing but your opinion and have started a verbal attack on me calling me obtuse. This normally happens with these conversations when one side of the discussion can’t prove their entry and have no real grasp of the issue. I leave the discussion at this point as I won’t get into these types of discussions as they do not provide me with anything close to knowledge and waste my time. And referencing God and not even spelling it out proves your lack of humanity.
And to help you, here is a definition of humanity:
“In simple terms, humanity means all people on Earth (the human race) and the best qualities of being human, like kindness, compassion, and empathy towards others.”
Your attack on me to prove a point that doesn’t apply to it, displays your lack of humanity. I give you last word as I won’t be posting you again.
wy69
I made it clear that I was talking about Democrat politicians, bureaucrats, and activists with regard to how they treat their victims as a collected body or group. They don't do squat to help them as individuals. In fact, the left are notably stingy when it comes to helping those in need.
In your reply, you refer linguistically to collectivized initiatives as if they represented care for individuals. Sic:
The liberals did not say that they were doing things for groups of people like Mexicans, Blacks or Portuguese. They allowed or gave the opportunity for people within these groups to prosper to form the groups you try to identify.
Horse-feces. They talk "people of color," "Latino," "the disadvantaged," "the unemployed," "the homeless," "those in need"... all the time. They don't go out and spend their time and money actually DOING something to clean up streets, teach immigrants to speak English, or build housing (with the noted exception of Jimmy Carter's "Habitat for Humanity"). No, they force multilingual ballots and phone answering services. Their idea of "housing" is huge multifamily developments.
The SBA provides, via lenders, specialized, non-discriminatory, and often enhanced financing for small, disadvantaged, and minority-owned businesses to boost economic equity.
Those are groups. Not individuals.
These initiatives help bridge the racial wealth gap by providing capital to underserved communities.
"Communities" are collectives of people. Groups, not individuals.
These loans were not for a racial group, they were applied to help the people who owned he businesses. And this costs the state taxpayers a lot of money to provide this program.
As if advantages for "minority owned businesses" wasn't racial, not to mention that these programs are rife with corruption. Similar treatments are found in "prevailing wages" as a fob to unions, again large collectivized groups.
The protestors in Minnesota weren't helping Somali families make it in America. They were attacking ICE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.