Left-Wing Candidate Will Stand Up for Harambe But Not the Unborn

Dr. Jill Stein (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Jill Stein, the far-left Green Party’s presidential nominee, recently issued a public statement decrying the shooting of Harambe the Gorilla.

“Other countries, especially in Europe, have begun to provide legal rights and protected status to primates as living beings,” the statement said. “Non human primates should have the legal right to live freely or, when necessary, in sanctuaries only for medical rehabilitation or ecological assistance for endangered species.”

Stein also tweeted that the death of Harambe should remind everyone to be a “voice for the voiceless.”

In response to a support, Stein also tweeted that she “opposes killing people”:

However, Stein is no opponent of a culture of death. In reality, her hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Jill Stein thinks it is important enough to tweet about the death of a gorilla, but she has not once sent out a tweet mourning the deaths of nearly 60 million babies since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

In fact, Stein has consistently said that she wants to expand the ability of women to get abortions — even going so far as to assert that abortion is a fundamental right and that government ought to provide access to it:

Continue Reading

The Third Party Debate Lawsuit Was Just Rejected

“Libertarian” presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein received bad news on Friday when Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer threw out their lawsuit aimed at entering the general election’s presidential debates this fall.

Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) and Stein (physician) sued the Commission on Presidential Debates after both “failed to receive invitations to the privately-sponsored presidential debates in 2012”. The Commission offers invitations to candidates who are constitutionally eligible, have secured the necessary ballot access, and are garnering at least 15 percent support in public polling prior to the election.

The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the Republican and Democratic parties, along with their respective candidates in 2012, “conspired to restrain commerce; monopolize; violate the campaigns rights to free speech; and intentionally interfere with prospective economic advantage and relations.” Together, these four complaints amount to one: The Republicans and Democrats have conspired to ensure that no third party candidate can get on the debate stage and benefit from the free media exposure that such a debate provides.

The Court rejected this line of reasoning because the allegation was “wholly speculative and dependent entirely on media coverage decisions.” As such, the Court ruled that Dr. Stein and Governor Johnson did not have standing, as they could not prove that they were actually hurt electorally by absence from the debates. Essentially, if the Commission were to allow Dr. Stein and Governor Johnson onto the debate stage, they would have to allow all declared presidential candidates onto the stage, at which point the debate would be such a circus that ratings would plummet and the media wouldn’t broadcast them because viewers wouldn’t be tuning in. Continue Reading