Democrats And Children

Democrats say they love children and that Republicans are cruel..

Here is President Clinton’s Secretary of State saying that killing half a million Iraqi children was “worth it”

Here is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bombing Syrian children.

Here are leftists promoting the murder of skeptical schoolchildren by their teachers.

And when Democrats aren’t talking about their love for children, they are murdering tens of thousands of them every day.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Democrats And Children

  1. Griff says:

    More weird politics…

    This relates to climate how?

    Perhaps you could run another blog on the politics, which have nothing to do with climate science?

    • Gator says:

      Really Tony, remember your audience, Ms Griff puts human life at the bottom of her priorities. Isn’t there some melting ice somewhere?

      • arn says:

        Well,when you are coldhearted the loss of a cube ice in the arctic is more important than everything else.

        When someone is so crazy to be worried about abstract BS like climate than the worldview has been so corrupted that human live will not matter anymore.(that”s why communists were so extremly succefull in killing of tens of millions of people)

        just wait till the next school shooting
        when these “i don’t care about half a million dead children”-people ask for total gun confiscation
        because 5 children were killed
        and how shocked and worried they are.

        That’s pure co2 logic.
        You have the sun and a planet 75% covered with climate gas which is permanetly released
        but 0.01% co2 is responsible for the climate.
        You have half a million dead children(and noone was ever held accountable though lies have been used to cause the killing)
        but 0.001% being killed elsewhere and everyone is freaking out.

    • arn says:

      Your compassion is remarkable
      (maybe because you have better and more important things to do = crying over the loss of a mile of arctic ice that happened in march or so)

    • Simon Platt says:

      Two things:

      First, if you want to define how a blog is run, you might like to consider running one of your own.

      Secondly, the relationship between this post and climate science, or climate politics, is very clear. You might not like it. You might think it ill judged. But you can hardly say it’s not coherent.

    • Rah says:

      Perhaps Griff the blog owner has the right to post what he or she wants on thier blog and to ignore arrogant asses that try to tell them what the content should be.

    • Tom Bakert says:

      It’s his blog. He can discuss growing rutabagas if that is what he wants.

    • Nutation_discombobulation says:

      Griff – blissfully unaware of the political bastardisation of climate science!
      Griff you’re as empathetic as a rat turd.

    • Andy DC says:

      Politics has everything to do with climate science, because left wing nut jobs are obviously using the fake climate crisis as a means to achieve their Marxist goals. Those goals are to eliminate capitalism, redistribute wealth and destroy the US as a sovereign, independent nation. All under the phony guise that we need to unite the world to fight a climate crisis. A totally non-existent climate crisis!

    • Squidly says:

      Hey Griff … (Tony, pardon the language, but…) fuck you!

      This is Tony’s blog and he can post whatever he likes. If you don’t like it .. then go away!

      And Tony, you are spot on my friend! .. The Dumbocraps and the left-turds are an abomination to mankind. They are disgusting genocidal animals.

    • Sharpshooter says:

      Because climate science is 98% politics and 2% “science”

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Ms Griff, this so called “climate science” is not science but it sure is politics. The closest thing in progressive academia would be political “science” and womyn’s studies (in which I’m sure you are well versed).

    • David A says:

      Griff, what a tool! Watch the second video. It is directly about the insane leftists and climate.

  2. arn says:

    Wait-aren’t those the same human excrements who cry
    like little children when 5 syrian children are killed by Assad in his own country with gas(while there,as usual, is zero evidence he did it because they took his gas weapons away)
    and asking to attack Syria and remove the stateleader.

    But attacking a country on the basis of lies,
    turning into a shithole on the verge of,
    massivly lowered living standards,
    permanent terror attacks(non existent during saddams reign)
    and than being so sick to even say that the death of 500.000 children was worth to get this catastrophic results.

    The Logic of full blown psychopaths and perverts:
    And as long as such people live and are allowed to enter politics gun ownership must be mandatory.

  3. Pathway says:

    It’s not politics, it’s trying to save humanity from the marxist left. The street flow with blood anytime they take power.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Ms Griff is tough. She can handle a few unpleasant things happening to other people in far away places. They are weird, anyway. Just no blood on her street, please. That’s icky.

    • Rah says:

      The ruling also provides some legal backing for the wall.
      I believe the Democrats are going to lose badly in the next few months and their obstruction of any efforts to secure our borders and attempt to paint anyone that supports it as racists is going to turn out every bit as bad as Hillary’s “deplorable” statement did for her and them.

      • Squidly says:

        Rah, you are correct.

        Consider; Congress has still not passed a federal “budget” but only a “continuing resolution and funding authorization” .. because of this, Trump actually has all of the latitude he needs to build whatever he wants. Congress cannot stop Trump from reappropriating funds to any project he so chooses.

        For example, Trump does NOT have to utilize funds for things like Planned Parenthood, or any other program mentioned in the “authorization”. Unlike a “budget” (and SCOTUS has already ruled on this in the past), the executive branch cannot be compelled to spend any of it.

        Further, since Trump secured an additional $86 BILLION above what was originally asked for defense spending, he can deem the border wall a matter of national security and use the excess defense authorization to build the wall. And finally, to actually build it, he can order it be done by the Army Corp of Engineers to do it, who would in turn necessarily be required to engage contractors to do the actual work (necessary resources) and thus would be forced to take bids from construction contractors to do the actual work.

        At the end of the day, Trump can build the entire wall and there isn’t thing one that Congress can do to stop him. With this latest SCOTUS decision, he has that much more legal standing to do all of the things I mentioned above and I am doubting that at this point there could be any legal measure that could stop him.

        I wish he would just get on with it and get it done!

      • RAH says:

        Ya gotta love it! Chris Matthews blowing a gasket over the ruling. This really is a short fun video to watch.

  4. bobw40 in NC says:

    Your post was needed to show the hypocrisy of the Left. Thank you, Tony, for bringing sanity to this “debate.”

  5. Gamecock says:

    Democrats, being Cultural Marxists, love children when they can use them as props to further their cause. They cry about the children because YOU care, not because they do. They don’t. They use your concerns and fears against you.

    Everything is political, and value is in how things and events can be exploited. School shooting? Ahhh . . . an opportunity to push gun control. They don’t care about the kids; they care about gun control. Kids being murdered is an opportunity.

    “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel

  6. Del Roberts says:


    • tonyheller says:

      What Del is saying is that Democrats under Bill Clinton starved 500,000 Iraqi children to death over WMD’s which Democrats didn’t even believe existed. Should we start up the war crimes trials?

      • David A says:

        Tony, priceless response.
        Yet another poster who clearly did not watch and or comprehend the video you linked.

        “Reason has forsaken him, but he can still shout”

      • nfw says:

        It was the Democrats who instituted the concentration camps for Japanese Americans. It was the Democrats under FDR who were so enamoured of Mussolini and Hitler they sent emissaries to study them. While I have no objection to the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan to end the killing they started, it was a Democrat president who killed “the children” therein. Vietnam? Kennedy and Johnson; it was Nixon who wound it down. It’s funny how their memories and “facts” can be so selective specially with no mention of Obama’s atrocities.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I objected. Some Democrats objected.

      But, contrary to your propagandist twist of history and reality, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats voted along with the Republicans to invade Iraq.

      I am not a Bush acolyte by any means. But at least G.W. Bush, unlike Obama – who unilaterally decided to topple Libya without consulting and getting a vote from Congress – at least he brought it to Congress for a vote.

      Congress approved the Iraq War Resolution. Both sides had to do that – contrary to your propagandist revisionism that the Democrats had nothing to do with it. Enough with your revisionist propaganda (and your idiotic ALL CAPS).

      • David A says:

        To be clear, “…not a Bush acolyte by any means. But at least G.W. Bush, unlike Obama – who unilaterally decided to topple Libya without ANY PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH LEADING TO TENS OF THOUSANDS DEATHS

    • RW says:

      Tbis is pretty silly considering the Dems held the Senate in 2002 when Congress authorized tbe use of force in Iraq.

    • --B-- says:

      Del, George Bush the younger ordered the invasion of Iraq. The deaths of children in Iraq being discussed here happened due to the sanctions maintained and imposed during the Bill Clinton years. Bill Clinton was president -before- Bush the younger. Bush the elder did not allow US military forces to invade Iraq beyond some heat of battle incursions. Borders were restored to their pre-gulfwar 1 state. Shortly after the war Bush the elder was replaced in the presidency by Bill Clinton. Thus what is being discussed in the above video had nothing to do with the invasion. The invasion of Iraq occurred in 2003 or so, the events being discussed above happened between roughly 1992 and 2000.

      Why do I always find myself explaining even the basic time lines of things to people, especially leftists?

  7. Pathway says:

    Hillary voted for the war.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Yes. And she presided over the Libya/Qadaffi – and Benghazi – massacres. Hillary sold the NATO bombings of Libya.

      It’s pure BS that Democrats are peace-loving. They’re warmongers as much as neocons – two sides of the same coin.

      • Squidly says:

        BINGO! … so sad that so many people are so incredibly blind to the fact that you illuminate.

      • RW says:


        Which is why the GOP must be hollowed out from the inside, reclaimed and refurnished as the party of individualism, personal freedom, and minimal state intervention in civil and foreign affairs. Been wedded to and perverted by big business and imperialist-minded political megalomaniacs since WW2 and the days of Eisenhower, who knew he was helping feed the beast.

      • Robertv says:

        neocons/progressives are a cancer for a healthy society. Their only task is to grow and eventually kill the body.

  8. Ph.D. Guy says:

    Abortion by demand is equivalent to genocide. There have been ~60 million abortions in the USA since Roe vs. Wade. In comparison, during WWII there were ~60 million killed worldwide and most people are stunned by these numbers. In regards to abortion, all you hear is crickets.

  9. TA says:

    Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the president’s authority to ban any non-citizen from the United States.

    As you can see from the excerpt below, the president has the authority to ban ANY alien at ANY time for ANY reason. The law does not restrict the president in any way.

    That’s why it is so ludicrous that people argue there is some restriction on the president’s authority on this matter.

    The president has the authority to deny anyone who is not a citizen from entering the United States and he doesn’t have to give a reason for his decision.

    What’s troubling about the Supreme Court ruling is that it wasn’t a 9-0 vote in favor of the president. We have four Supreme Court Justices who apparently can’t understand what they read.

    “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    end excerpt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.