Women for Trump 2020 Kicks Off As Media Works to Destroy the President

H/T Godfather Politics.

These women supporting President Trump shoot holes in the drive-by media narrative that women hate President Trump.

The drive-by media claims that women hate President Trump as he is a misogynist pig.

A group of about 1,000 women gathered on Tuesday to launch their “Women For Trump 2020” effort to push the president over the finish line for 2020. Who says women don’t support Trump?

The women gathered for their kickoff rally in Pennsylvania, on July 16.

Trump War Room

@TrumpWarRoom

So many great ! Thank you to all of our wonderful supporters.

Pennsylvania voter Liana Evans: “We really feel like he speaks for us.”

Embedded video

1,553 people are talking about this

The group is touting the president’s record of success in office. They have put out these talking points detailing that record:

  • Women who make up 56% of the 6,000,000 new jobs created since President Trump took office
  • Women who are 50% of the Trump campaign team
  • Women who are part of the 600,000 women who were lifted out of poverty by Trump policies
  • Women who are part of the 12.3 million women-owned businesses under Trump and who bring in $1.8 trillion in revenue
  • Women who are part of the 1,800 new businesses started every day
  • Women who appreciate the $26 billion in new drugs savings
  • Women who helped contribute to the $108 million Trump raised in the first campaign quarter
  • Women who were half of the 975,000 individuals who donated in the same quarter

As American Thinker reported:

Political celebrities supporting women included Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Ronna MacDaniels, Mercedes Schlapp, Kayleigh McEnany, Katrina Pierson, Brad Parscale, and none other than Diamond & Silk. The audience was beautiful, intelligent, enthusiastic, and involved. Chants of “USA,” loud applause, and a feeling of warmth and hope filled the room.

There were cheers for our president’s economic success of low unemployment and record-breaking stock growth, cheers for our president’s philosophy of leaving no one behind, cheers for our president’s support for our military and his success with highly complicated and difficult issues with North Korea, China, Israel, the Middle East, Iran.

Our president gave up his life of luxury and business to get bashed every day by the media and Democrats, with 93% negative coverage, because President Trump has a deep love for America and wants to help the forgotten men and women. As Katrina Pierson said, “he fights for me, so I am going to fight for him.” There were 1,000 women at the rally who are going to fight for Donald Trump. Soon they will recruit another 2,000 women who will then recruit 4,000 women, all foot soldiers who are not afraid to voice their support for Trump. God bless Donald Trump!

The media ignored the event, so here are some great tweets:

Brad Parscale

@parscale

Amazing crowd of women today in Pennsylvania for the launch of . Over 1000 showed up to hear @kimguilfoyle @LaraLeaTrump @GOPChairwoman @KatrinaPierson @kayleighmcenany speak.

This crowd is bigger than the Democrat candidates rallies!

View image on Twitter
8,099 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Landers

@ElizLanders

“Trump! Trump! Trump!” – Women for Trump launches today in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

Embedded video

12K people are talking about this

Jessie Jane Duff

@JessieJaneDuff

Excited to join @TeamTrump coalition kick-off with @LaraLeaTrump and @DiamondandSilk!

Nothing the Democrats say will stop American women from supporting our President @realDonaldTrump!

View image on Twitter
2,552 people are talking about this
Advertisements

Socialism Means Different Things to Different Democrats

H/T Clash Daily.

No matter how the DemocRats in the 2020 Presidential field try to package and sell socialism it still means misery when implemented.

Look at the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela along with San Francisco, Los Angeles Seattle and New York City. 

socialist_party_of_america_-_logo

 

Socialism sells expectation rather than proven performance. The new workers’ paradise is always one government regulation away. As sold by Democrats today, that undefined socialism means different things to different people.

  • To the government employee, socialism means higher pay, earlier retirement, and a larger pension.
  • To the union worker, socialism means less competition from companies in free states.
  • To the student who took classes at an expensive university and got an unmarketable major, socialism means someone else pays his student debts.
  • To the politically connected religious organization, socialism means spending someone else’s money and the blending of church and state.
  • To the Democrat politician and party functionaries, socialism means a new flood of “campaign” contributions.

The socialism we’re sold is never the socialism we get. By definition, socialism means the government regulates the economy. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and socialist politicians know that people will pay a lot to stay alive. Socialism means we have to ask government for permission for everything.

Under socialism, we ask permission to work for someone or to quit our job. We ask permission to hire someone or to fire them. We need permission to stay in our apartment or to move to a new one. We need permission to speak and permission to stay silent. Socialism demands permission to build a place to live or a place to work. Eventually, socialism means permission to buy food..and the more socialism the less food there is to buy.

Every required government authorization comes with a fee and a chance for government officials to get “voluntary campaign contributions”. Those contributions are really unofficial bribes. That is how socialism works in practice.

Socialism is a disaster for the working man, but not for the millionaire Socialists running for political office today. For them, Socialism is a way to become unimaginably wealthy. That is how politicians and their wives became millionaires today, and how they become multi-millionaires under Socialism. (here and here)

Socialists in the US point at Sweden and say we want that here. Socialist salesmen don’t point at Cuba and North Korea. The Venezuelans wanted Sweden too, but they got Cuba instead. I know Swedes who left Sweden and Spaniards who left Spain because they wanted the freedom we have here in the USA. Under Socialism, only what is permitted is allowed.

Today, we’re promised Sweden, but we get the spreading government-run-shit-show of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Saint Louis, Detroit, Baltimore and Trenton. I wouldn’t trust them to run a cookie sale.

That is the reality of Socialism, but that probably isn’t what the socialist student living in his mom’s basement has in mind.

DCCC Hits GOP Candidate for Taking Tobacco Money, Takes Tobacco Money

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

With the DemocRats it is a case of don’t do as we say.

It is fine for DemocRats to take money from Big Tobacco and Big Pharma but it is wrong for Republicans to do so.

The DCCC accepted a donation over four times larger from the same company.

 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Wednesday put out a press release slamming Republican congressional candidate Young Kim for accepting money from tobacco giant Altria, only a few months after accepting a $15,000 donation from the same company.

While the original press release has been deleted, the Washington Free Beacon obtained screenshots showing the DCCC going after Kim for donations she received from “the NRA and K Street’s Big Tobacco and Pharma.” The press release referred to the tobacco industry as “disreputable” and that it has been one of the industries “at the forefront of stopping progress for Orange County families that would ensure their health, safety, and security.”

The donation that the DCCC highlighted about Kim was a $3,500 donation from the Altria Group in 2018. The press release did not mention Altria’s $15,000 donation to the DCCC back in April.

The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment on the press release being taken down or the $15,000 donation.

Politico reporter Jake Sherman tweeted out a screenshot of Politico’s afternoon newsletter highlighting the hypocrisy of the attack on Kim taking money from Altria since DCCC chairwoman Cheri Bustos (D., Ill.) took Altria money in 2015, 2016, and 2017, according to FEC records. Altria also donated $2,500 to Friends of Bustos in April.

“Also in Playbook PM … the ⁦@dccc⁩ whacked ⁦@YoungKimCA⁩ for taking Altria money,” Sherman tweeted. “But ⁦@RepCheri⁩ also has taken thousands from the tobacco giant The @dccc has removed the release from its website. Easy stuff to check. Insane hypocrisy.”

Jake Sherman

@JakeSherman

Also in Playbook PM … the ⁦@dccc⁩ whacked ⁦@YoungKimCA⁩ for taking Altria money. But ⁦@RepCheri⁩ also has taken thousands from the tobacco giant.

The @dccc has removed the release from its website.

Easy stuff to check. Insane hypocrisy.

View image on Twitter
93 people are talking about this

In addition to the DCCC, Rep. Donald McEachin (D., Va.) received $2,500, John Larson (D., Ct.) received $1,500, Friends of Clyburn received $3,000, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D., Mich.) received $1,500, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D., N.J.) received $500, and several other Democrats received money from Altria this year, according to the FEC website.

Beto’s Fall Continues as His Campaign Reveals Pitiful Second-Quarter Fundraising Totals

H/T Western Journal.

Will Robert Francis O’Rourke be the next DemocRat to bail out of the DemocRat Clown Car?

Monday was the deadline for 2020 presidential candidates to file their second-quarter fundraising totals with the Federal Election Commission. For some, this was a day to take a victory lap. Others were left to spin sub-optimal totals.

And then there was Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, for whom no amount of spin could mask the very distinct burning smell that’s developed around his campaign.

It was just a few months ago that O’Rourke was raking in the cash. As CNN noted, in the first 18 days of his candidacy, donors stuffed $9.6 million down the gaping maw of his campaign. All of this because the guy lost to Ted Cruz in a Senate race — but not by as many points as one might have expected in Texas — and because he’s figured out how to be a 46-year-old and not look silly live-streaming himself on a skateboard. (Livestreaming at the dentist still looks a little bit desperate on him, however.)

Things have changed significantly in the interim.

This is mostly because of the entropy that unfailingly sets in around a candidate who has nothing substantive to offer.

There’s also the fact his personality was a media-created construct that the media is no longer willing to maintain due to the fact that he’s now running against other Democrats.

And then there was his debate performance, complete with sixth-grade Spanish, which would have been the disaster story of the two-night affair were it not for Joe Biden’s face-plant and Marianne Williamson’s … well, whatever that was.

So, fast-forward to Monday and we got a good idea just how badly the rot has infected O’Rourke’s campaign: He was only able to net $3.6 million in the whole second quarter, way less than half of what he did in his first 18 days.

In short, the best thing that happened to O’Rourke on Monday was announcing he has ancestors who were slave-owners. When that’s the acme of your day, it’s been a really bad quarter.

The leader in terms of second-quarter hauls among Democrats was South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who managed to rake in $24.6 million. To put that in perspective, that’s almost seven times what O’Rourke reported. Second-place was former Vice President Joe Biden, who reported $21.5 million in fundraising. (Or, in simpler terms, 5.97 Betos.)

Three other candidates had over $10 million in fundraising: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ($19.1 million/5.30 Betos), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ($18 million/5 Betos) and California Sen. Kamala Harris (Less than $12 million/less than 3.33 Betos).

Even among the also-rans, he still wasn’t atop the heap. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker took in $4.5 million and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took in $3.87 million, possibly by threatening her staff to pony up.

What might be more instructive is to look at the candidates who finished directly behind O’Rourke. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee only raised $600,000 less than the former Texas congressman; former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and businessman/human meme Andrew Yang both raised only $800,000 less.

Even Williamson took in $1.5 million, proof that the economy is currently so strong there are actually people willing to collectively spend $1.5 million of their money on a candidate who’s more of a crackpot than Anne Heche back when she was speaking her weird alien language.

And by the way, O’Rourke’s entire political career — at least in aspiring to levels above the House of Representatives — is based on his ability to fundraise.

There’s absolutely no way O’Rourke would have gotten close to Cruz if he hadn’t broken fundraising records for a Senate race and burned through all that money like an NBA team with expiring contracts during the free agency period.

He was taken seriously as a presidential contender, not because of his experience or charisma but the fact that he finished third in fundraising totals during the first quarter and had that huge surge of dollars in the opening days of his campaign.

But what has he done since then?

I follow this stuff for a living and can kind of think of two things:

There was a loosely adumbrated environmental policy a few months back, a sort of answer to the Green New Deal but watered-down and in a form where it might stand a chance of passing. And then there’s been his constant addressing of privilege in America — or rather, his own privilege.

A joke about his wife? Male privilege. The fact that he had ancestors who owned slaves? White privilege. That absurd Vanity Fair cover that served as a campaign announcement? Annie Leibovitz privilege. (That’s a thing, right?)

I will totally admit Beto O’Rourke is privileged. He’s a rich kid who’s never accomplished anything serious in politics other than convincing liberal donors he had a chance at beating a senator they all loathe. He didn’t, but based on the fact that he got close, he convinced them he had a chance at beating a president they all loathe.

They bought it at first. They don’t now. His dollar totals are plummeting along with his poll numbers, which currently stand at 2.6 percent nationally according to the RealClearPolitics average.

That’s a very distant sixth and falling — a difficult position in a race where live-streaming yourself on a skateboard will only get you so far.

Mark Sanford, SC Republican, former US Rep, considers presidential run against Trump

H/T  Post And Courier.com.

I want to set the record straight Mark Sanford is not a Republican but at best he is a RINO.

Mark Sanford stands about as much of a chance of becoming the 2020 Republican Nominee for President as I do becoming the next Pope.

Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina congressman ousted from office after President Donald Trump urged voters to reject him, is considering a run for president.

Sanford, in an exclusive interview Tuesday with The Post and Courier, confirmed he will take the next month to formulate whether he will mount a potential run against Trump as a way of pushing a national debate about America’s mounting debt, deficit and government spending.

He would run as a Republican.

“Sometimes in life you’ve got to say what you’ve got to say, whether there’s an audience or not for that message,” Sanford said. “I feel convicted.”

If he does get in the race, Sanford faces mammoth odds of getting any traction within the Republican Party. Hours after news broke of Sanford’s possible presidential bid, he faced blunt condemnation from his own South Carolina Republican Party.

“The last time Mark Sanford had an idea this dumb, it killed his Governorship. This makes about as much sense as that trip up the Appalachian trail,” S.C. GOP Chairman Drew McKissick said in an emailed statement. The comment was later shared on the S.C. GOP Twitter account, which features a banner image of a Trump-Pence campaign logo.

State GOPs, both in South Carolina and elsewhere, would have to agree to hold primaries or caucuses pitting their current White House occupant against an upstart.

So far, only former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld has formally announced a challenge versus Trump.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, widely considered the dean of Southern political pundits, said Sanford’s potential long-shot endeavor could still make an impact.

Sabato said Sanford would come to the challenge with relatively high name identification both in South Carolina and nationwide.

“Is he a serious challenger to Trump? If you mean by serious challenger that he could beat Trump, the answer is no, but there are other ways to measure challenges,” Sabato said. “If he can make the argument against Trump, if he can really whatever remaining ‘Never Trumpers’ there are out there, then he could have an impact.”

Since leaving office in January, Sanford said he has been privately mulling whether to run for the nation’s highest office. He described the internal debate as a drumbeat that never went away.

“I’m a Republican. I think the Republican Party has lost its way on debt, spending and financial matters,” he said.

Sanford conceded he had been waiting to see if any other high-profile Republicans, such as former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, would primary the president.

If he finds a presidential run is not viable, Sanford said he might pursue setting up a think tank aimed at addressing the deficit. Sanford also said he has no interest in running for the 1st Congressional District seat, a post he held from 1995 to 2001, and again from 2013 until 2018.

Sanford’s announcement comes as Trump faces renewed fire, even from some Republicans, over racist comments directed at four Democratic congresswomen who are minorities.

Sanford did not directly address that latest controversy Tuesday but his White House review started long before this weekend.

In a late-afternoon tweet on the day of Sanford’s Republican primary, Trump asked state voters to replace Sanford with Katie Arrington, going so far as to say Sanford is “better off in Argentina,” a reference to his extramarital affair when he was governor in 2009.

The message was delivered less than three hours before the polls closed, illustrating Trump’s willingness to take out one of the few Republican congressmen who call out the president for his sometimes crude behavior.

During his concession speech in the 2018 midterm election, Sanford told his supporters, “I stand by every one of those decisions to disagree with the president.”

The feud between the two Republicans didn’t stop there.

A week after Sanford lost his GOP primary race, Trump reportedly made fun of the Charleston Republican in a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, where some members of Congress reportedly booed president for his comments. Trump denied the reports, tweeting the following day that Republicans “applauded and laughed loudly” when he picked on Sanford.

Trump then took the ridicule into Sanford’s home state. While campaigning for McMaster, Trump knocked then-Gov. Sanford’s 2009 extramarital affair, an incident forever tied to Sanford’s lie that he was “hiking the Appalachian Trail’ when he was on a trip to Argentina to see his mistress.

“The Tallahassee Trail – must be a beautiful place. Unfortunately, he didn’t go there,” Trump said, mixing up the reference, at a rally in Cayce.

In a deep dive into Sanford’s background and career, The Post and Courier described his spectacular political collapse and his drive for redemption in the 2013 congressional race, which he won. A presidential bid would certainly add a next chapter to that story.

A presidential bid had been speculated once before in Sanford’s political career.

While governor, Sanford had been considered a conservative favorite for the presidency based on his rising profile as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. He became a household name when he rejected President Barack Obama’s stimulus funding in 2009.

His infamous 2009 affair with Argentinian television journalist María Belén then dashed talk of any presidential path forward for Sanford.

If Sanford’s run does progress to the primary stage, he could find a friendly reception in South Carolina, which is third in line in the calendar behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Gov. Henry McMaster told The Post and Courier in March he would support the state holding a primary if a legitimate challenger against Trump came forward.

Even though McMaster remains one of Trump’s staunchest allies, he said he’d welcome Republicans hosting a primary as a means of growing the state’s GOP majority and protecting South Carolina’s first-in-the-South voting status.

The S.C. GOP’s Executive Committee will meet in the coming months and discuss the chance of holding a primary. They have to inform the Republican National Committee of their intent by Oct. 1.

Holy Beto’s Ancestors Were SLAVE Owners – Here’s His Response To That Revelation

H/T Clash Daily.

No big surprise that the ancestors of Robert Francis O’Rourke owned slaves as he is a DemocRat.

It was DemocRats of that era that were slave owners.

Robert Francis O’Rourke has found a way to prove his intersectional street cred besides using a Hispanic nickname. Check it out…

The failed Senate candidate that was the Left’s “Great Irish Hope” against the son of a Cuban immigrant, wrote a piece on the dirty little secret of his and his heiress wife’s family histories.

it appears that Beto recently learned that his ancestors as well those of his wife, Amy, owned slaves. He wrote a piece for Medium about the impact that this information has had on him, “the legacy of slavery in the United States — now has a much more personal connection.”

Beto explains that he was recently given documents showing that among the list of possessions of one of his ancestors were the names of two individuals, Rose and Eliza.

A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s. There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).

Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army.

Beto then explained that this ownership of individuals didn’t just benefit his ancestors 5 generations ago, but they had an effect on the benefits that he now enjoys. So does marrying into money, isn’t that right, John Kerry? But that little tidbit about Beto’s life was left out of this article.

And yet, that’s precisely what he’s talking about — inherited wealth, and yes, the privilege that comes with it. Let me be clear here, that what he’s talking about isn’t the inherent privilege that comes with white skin, ie. “white privilege,” but the privilege that comes with wealth and inherited wealth.

He then writes that the inherited privilege that he received is mirrored by the systemic racism that afflicted the descendants of Rose and Eliza.

The way that fortune was passed through the generations from Andrew to me, misfortune was passed through the generations from Rose and Eliza to their descendants who are alive today. Rose and Eliza were denied their freedom and the benefits that their labor produced; they and their children were then denied their civil rights after the end of Reconstruction; and their descendants endured open terrorism, economic exclusion and racism in the form of Jim Crow, lynchings, convict leasing, voter suppression, red lining, predatory lending, and mass incarceration. Everything their descendants have accomplished in their lives is despite having all of these odds stacked against them.

In the aggregate, slavery, its legacy and the ensuing forms of institutionalized racism have produced an America with stark differences in opportunities and outcomes, depending on race.

He’s not completely wrong here. There was discrimination. There was segregation and red-lining in America. There was institutional racism, most profoundly exhibited by the Democratic Party in the early part of the 20th century. But of course, the Democratic Party’s racist history is ignored. 

Beto says that the wealth gap between black descendants of slaves and whites who owned slaves is due to the legacy of slavery itself.

Really?

So how is it that Oprah Winfrey, Denzel Washington, Spike Lee, and Condoleezza Rice were able to transcend that history and succeed so spectacularly? 

It’s because this is America, and we believe that all people should be treated as equal. We have anti-discrimination laws. We have an ethos — if you work hard, you can succeed.

But that’s not what Beto proposes. He thinks that we need to throw money at the problem.

Not all of his policies are bad ones, his investment in Education isn’t a bad idea, though I personally think that school vouchers are a much better one. Some are things that Beto suggests are already law like equal pay. Other proposals are solely redistributive in nature.

He says that he supports reparations for the descendants of slaves.

In addition to making significant changes to education policy (immediately address $23 billion in underfunding for minority-majority public schools), economic policy (ensuring equal pay, deploying capital to minority- and women-owned businesses, $25 billion in government procurement to these same businesses), healthcare (universal healthcare and home health visits to women of color to reverse trend in maternal and infant mortality) and criminal justice (police accountability, ending the drug war, and expunging arrest records for nonviolent drug crimes), I will continue to support reparations, beginning with an important national conversation on slavery and racial injustice.

Source: Medium

It’s interesting that Beto is bringing this out now when just recently the Left tried to use this same family history as an attack on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Beto seems to be trying to get ahead of a possible attack. What exactly is he worried about? He’s been out-Betoed by Pete Buttigieg and has about as much chance of winning the nomination as The Media(D) of being fair to President Trump.

Dear Robert Francis O’Rourke, here is the correct response:

Embedded video

ABC News

@ABC

“We both oppose reparations and we both are the descendants of slaveholders.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell compares himself to Pres. Obama, after being asked whether knowledge of his slave-holding ancestors has affected his stance on reparations. https://abcn.ws/2Jqj48I 

529 people are talking about this

Slavery was horrible and wrong.

Jim Crowe was horrible and wrong.

Discrimination is horrible and wrong.

But taking money from people who never owned slaves, or descended from slave owners to pay for the descendants of slaves is also wrong.

Now, if Beto were serious about reparations, he and Amy could cut a check to the descendants of Rose and Eliza. They could track down all of those people and give them some of the wealth that they inherited.

It could get awkward, however, if one of those people was Oprah.

We’ve all seen the dishonest games the left have played with the power they’re entrusted with, they’re obviously unworthy of that trust.

Warren: I Would Push Israel to End Occupation of Palestinians

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Princess Fauxahontas needs to heed these words from God,

Genesis 12:3 King James Version (KJV)

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Senator tells activists ‘I’m there’

2020 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) told activists at an event Monday that she supported pressuring Israel to, in their words, “end occupation” of Palestinian territories.

In a video posted by the left-wing Jewish group IfNotNow on Twitter, two of its activists approached Warren for a picture—she poses for photos with anyone who wants them after campaign events—and introduced themselves as American Jews with a proposition for her.

“We really love the way you’re fighting corruption. We’d really love it if you also pushed the Israeli government to end occupation,” one of the activists said.

“Yes, yes. So I’m there,” Warren said quickly.

Warren then took a picture with the two activists.

Warren’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment about her stance on the conflict.

The group gleefully promoted the clip, writing, “BREAKING: Our members in New Hampshire just asked @ewarren if she would commit to pressuring the Israel to stop their 52 year military Occupation over the Palestinian people. She said YES.”

The group also sent a press release saying Warren’s views on Israel had gone from recycling “right-wing talking points” to being “more in line with her progressive values.”

While Warren has expressed support for Israel in the past, she backed a resolution in April condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

IfNotNow became a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in political activities last month. Its goal is to put public pressure on Democratic candidates to be more hostile to Israel regarding its conflict with the Palestinians, a view growing in popularity among the Democratic Party base.

It recently posted a photo of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) with the group’s activists holding a sign reading, “Jews Against the Occupation.” Among IfNotNow’s supporters is Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), a Palestinian-American and one of the most outspoken anti-Israel voices in Congress.

The group was co-founded by Max Berger, a Warren staffer who has taken criticism after deleting a 2013 tweet that he would “totally be friends with Hamas,” the Palestinian terrorist group.