How long have Americans been told that Congress and the president were going to produce “comprehensive” immigration reform? That campaign promise goes back to the amnesty given to three million illegal immigrants by President Ronald Reagan, who signed the Immigrant Reform and Control Act of 1986. The border securitydummycrats-Democrats promised in return never materialized.
               Fast-forward four presidents and 32 years through promises, pledges and pontifications of bothdummycrats- Democrats and Republicans about the issue — the need to secure the southern border and the priority of a legal immigration system — and there’s nothing to show for it. This yielded President Donald Trump, who was elected primarily because of his tough stance on America’s laughable legal immigration enforcement with the help, surprisingly, of more black voters than GOP nominees in 2008 and 2012.
               Huh? More black voters supported Donald Trump — the guy who’s supposedly a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe, unstable “Hitler”?! Yep. Even in November 2016, a larger number of black voters had become “woke” to the reality that they were being shelved by dummycrats-Democrats, to whom they’ve been loyal for almost six decades, in exchange for a more in vogue victim group — illegal immigrants.
               It’s so “yesterday” for dummycrats-Democrats to care for the troubles of blacks when an entire new group of potential voters needs victimhood status to fulfill the standard practice of identity politics in the Left’s playbook. With the Russian scandal not panning out and the economy roaring, a new crisis is needed. Thus the emotional uproar over children temporarily removed from their parents after illegally crossing the border.
               Meanwhile, for blacks who live in this nation legally, things are very bad. According to the National Center for Fathering, 58% of black children live “absent their biological father,” compared to 33.7% of all children nationally. In 2012, according to the CDC, 73% of black children were born out of wedlock. The sudden worry that children’s best interests are served when with their parent is pretty interesting, especially given thatdummycrats-Democrat policies destroyed the black family. How? By making dads unnecessary. In fact, the government pays women to have children out of wedlock. Are we surprised when that happens more?
               If that hypocrisy wasn’t enough, the sudden outrage over immigrant children reeks even worse when Barack liar-nObama’s own secretary of homeland security, Jeh Johnson, admitted Sunday that they “expanded family detention” because “we can’t have catch and release.” The hysterics from the Left fueled by the constant cable news coverage never captured this expanded separation of families beginning in 2014 with the liar-nObama administration, and leftists certainly didn’t fuss when, as Johnson noted of his three-year tenure, “We deported or repatriated or returned over a million people.”
               Many of the current members of Congress were in the Senate and House without a peep during this earlier expansion under liar-nObama. These same elected officials also witnessed the largest expansion of food stamp and welfare recipients in our nation’s history. Where were the caterwauls when the black unemployment rate hit 16.8% in March of 2010? Was it of little consequence to black families in our country legally to find it so difficult to work?
               And don’t forget that dummycrats-Democrats oppose empowering black parents whose children are trapped in failing schools to have other options through school choice. Worse, dummycrats-Democrats have actually defunded successful programs, like Washington, DC’s Opportunity Scholarship Program that served almost exclusively poor Hispanic and black kids. It’s alsodummycrats-Democrats who attack law enforcement and gin up racial tension instead of addressing rampant black-on-black crime and violence that is destroying cities like Chicago and Baltimore. Where needed most, law enforcement efforts have been minimized and rendered less effective due to the “Ferguson Effect” that cultivates an unhealthy environment for law and order.
               Why are these items important to mention in recognizing that blacks are the forgotten friends ofdummycrats-Democrats? In an October 2016 campaign speech, Trump addressed an audience in Toledo, Ohio, with remarks that included a plan for the black community that included “safe communities, great education and high-paying jobs” with a challenge to black voters: “What do you have to lose?”
               With May’s unemployment rate for blacks at a historic low of 5.9%, Trump is delivering on this key promise. Blacks may be reluctant to vote Republican whendummycrats-Democrats are still screaming “racist!” at each one they see, but blacks compare how they’ve fared underdummycrats-Democrats versus Republicans.
               Two other areas Trump is also tackling that have significant impact on the black community are criminal justice reform and abortion. One in nine black children has had a parent in prison. Clearly, children, due to no fault of their own, are separated from their parents because of their parents’ poor choices. Further, Dr. Alveda King has observed that since 1973’s Roe v. Wade, the black population has been reduced by about a fourth due to abortion. A black child is three times more likely to be aborted in the womb than a white baby.
               The examples of selective separation anxiety are too numerous to cite, yet a fact has emerged. dummycrats-Democrats have overpromised and overreached for half a century with very little to show to blacks for their loyalty.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56759?mailing_id=3567&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3567&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             During the protest, Nielson was called serval names, including a “villain” and a “fascist pig,” and was accused of separating illegal alien minors from their parents permanently. You know, the standard talking points from Democrats and the Leftmedia.
               After the protest made the news, due to the mainstream media’s recent obsession with this latest illegal immigration controversy, Hrabar’s presence at the protest and her employment status with the DOJ was brought to light. When questioned about her involvement in the protest, Hrabar defended herself saying that she wasn’t on government time and it was her First Amendment right. She added, “It feels really good to confront people who are actually responsible, which is what we have a unique opportunity to do in DC.”
               However, while the protest may have not been on government time, it appears that Hrabar has been engaging in political speech at work. She sent several political tweets during work hours, including on Wednesday at 1:56 p.m. when she tweeted, “Keeping families together in jail is not an acceptable solution.” The Daily Caller reports, “Despite Hrabar’s claims of keeping her personal politics outside of her time as an employee of the federal government, a look at her Twitter account, @allisongeroi, features tweets during the workday openly celebrating her behavior Tuesday night.” One of those messages stated, “No one who has ever made their living terrorizing immigrants deserves peace. If you see one in a restaurant, at a movie, or in your neighborhood, remind them of that.”
               Hrabar has since privatized her account. No wonder.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56705?mailing_id=3563&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3563&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Why were the members of NAC so incensed by the citizenship question, especially when the committee is highly supportive of including more questions designed to further delineate various racial and ethnic groups? Is not the designation of “American citizen” arguably the most important identifier of the census? Critics claim that citizenship questions deter noncitizens from engaging in the census survey, but other smaller surveys of American households that include the citizenship question do not suffer this problem.
               Could the actual reason that leftists like NAC oppose the citizenship question have more to do with their globalist open-borders ideology rather than any genuine fears of discouraging noncitizens? Maybe the better question is why the Census Bureau believes it needs the help of leftist committees like NAC to conduct the census?   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56674?mailing_id=3560&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3560&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             “The conservatives’ proposal would drive control of health care almost entirely to the states, reversing the ACA’s [Affordable Care Act’s] federal mandates that seek to provide basic minimum benefits and consumer protections, which Republicans argue limit people’s choice,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “Under the conservative plan, states would receive ACA money in the form of block grants to help low-income consumers buy coverage. Health savings accounts, which let people set aside tax-free money for medical expenses, would be expanded. Insurers could give discounts to people who are young or maintain continuous coverage.”
               The Journal adds: “The block grants would be the backbone of the conservative plan. Half of the grant funding would go toward supporting the purchase of private health coverage, and half toward helping low-income Americans get coverage, although the two categories would likely overlap. The grants would ban states from using the money to fund abortions, according to the draft proposal. Medicaid expansion would also be repealed, and people on Medicaid would be able to buy private insurance coverage.”
               The caveat, of course, is succinctly laid out by the Journal: “Republican leaders have said they have no appetite for another push to repeal the ACA before the November midterm elections unless such a bill clearly has the votes to pass. Republicans faced a series of obstacles — including internal division and unified Democratic opposition — as their effort to repeal the ACA collapsed last year. There is little evidence those dynamics in Congress have changed.”
               As David Thornton points out at The Resurgent, “The midterm elections may seal the fate of the repeal effort. If Republicans lose their majority in either the House or the Senate, any serious effort to repeal the ACA would be doomed. At that point, the best that Republicans could hope for would be a bipartisan effort to fix the worst problems of the law.”
               Fortunately, even if this new liar-nObamaCare repeal endeavor falters, there are liar-nObamaCare changes afloat. The Wall Street Journal editorial board this week revealed that “the Labor Department rolled out a final rule on AHPs,” or association health plans. The editors explain: “The point is to allow more small businesses to join forces to offer health insurance, using economies of scale to reduce costs and diversify risk. This is how corporations and unions manage health insurance in the large group market, either by paying an outside issuer or self-insuring.”
               It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s progress. “For once,” the Journal writes, “the test of a health-care policy will depend less on government dictates than on the choices of millions of Americans.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56671?mailing_id=3560&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3560&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz, an Islamic reformist, was highlighted in the SPLC’s “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” a few years ago. In response, a lawsuit was filed by Quilliam, the outcome of which was revealed this week. According to a Quilliam press release, “The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” The press release adds, “The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.”
               Of course, the $3.75 million figure is chump change relative to the SPLC’s $432.7 million endowment. It does, however, hopefully send a signal. How many more people and organizations stand on equally solid legal grounds to sue? Many, for sure. And a massive retaliation could theoretically bankrupt SPLC if litigation wasn’t so expensive. Sadly, money, not legitimacy, is at the heart of SPLC’s modern-day mission. As columnist Dennis Prager  writes, “Any organization that labels Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the extraordinary Somali-American woman who devotes her life to fighting for oppressed women, especially in the Islamic world — an ‘extremist,’ as the SPLC has done, is not a moral organization.” It is, for all intents and purposes, the Southern Poverty Lies Center.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56642?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             On Monday, in what may have been one of the most pointed exchanges during the Senate hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) countered Horowitz’s conclusion that he found no bias in the FBI’s eventual conclusion with its liar-Clinton investigation. Graham stated, “I’m not buying that the liar-Clinton investigation was on the up and up, and the reason I am not buying it is because the two people intimately involved, one, the lead investigator, clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president of the United State.” He was referring to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Graham later noted that between former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Strzok “someone is lying” about McCabe’s presence in a particular meeting. Horowitz effectively agreed.
               Tuesday, it was the House’s turn, and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) didn’t hold back. Gowdy specifically focused on the IG report’s findings on the behavior and decisions made by former FBI Director James Comey. “We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ polices to follow and which to ignore,” Gowdy noted. “He appointed himself FBI director, attorney general, special counsel, lead investigator and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him.” Gowdy then pointed out the obviously biased actions taken by members of the FBI who conducted the liar-Clinton email investigation, stating, “These exact same FBI agents and attorney prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before. Prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins,” Gowdy insisted, is the “textbook definition of bias.”
               Here are more of Gowdy’s statements: I am alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s finding of numerous failures by DOJ and FBI in investigating potential Espionage Act violations by former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton.
               This report confirms investigative decisions made by the FBI during the pendency of this investigation were unprecedented and deviated from traditional investigative procedures in favor of a much more permissive and voluntary approach. This is not the way normal investigations are run.
               The investigation was mishandled. The investigatory conclusions were reached before the end of the witness interviews. The July 5th press conference marked a serious violation of policy and process. And the letters to Congress in the fall of 2016 were both delayed in substance and unnecessary in form.
               Moreover, the treatment afforded to former Secretary liar-Clinton and other potential subjects and targets was starkly different from the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Voluntariness and consent in the former were replaced with search warrants, subpoenas, and other compulsory processes in the latter. Many of the investigators and supervisors were the same in both investigations but the investigatory tactics were not.
               Former Director Comey violated Department policy in several significant ways. The FBI’s actions and those of former Director Comey severely damaged the credibility of the investigation, the public’s ability to rely on the results of the investigation, and the very institutions he claims to revere.
               The report also conclusively shows an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI. Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation. Bias is so pernicious and malignant as to both taint the process, the result, and the ability to have confidence in either.
               The law enforcement community has no greater ally in Congress than me. But continued revelations of questionable decision making by FBI and DOJ leadership destroys confidence in the impartiality of the institutions I have long served, respected, and believed in.
               This is not the FBI I know. This is not the FBI our country needs. This is not the FBI citizens and suspects alike deserve.
               It is now urgently incumbent on Attorney General Sessions and Director Wray to take decisive action to restore Americans’ confidence in our justice system.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56645?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             President Donald Trump was elected to undo much of Barack liar-nObama’s legacy, and part of that legacy was having liar-Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC, if that wasn’t clear before) sign the U.S. on to participate in this farce after George W. Bush had refused. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced Tuesday that the U.S. is withdrawing both membership and funding from the HRC. The final straw was the council’s chief calling U.S. border policies concerning families“unconscionable.”
               “The council has failed in its stated objectives,” Pompeo declared, adding that it’s an “exercise in shameless hypocrisy.” Furthermore, he said, “The council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable.”
               Haley rebuked the “hypocritical and self-serving” organization for defending rights abusers. This “cesspool of political bias,” she said, is particularly guilty of “chronic” and “pathological” bias against Israel. She accused the council of “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel,” which included its issuing of more resolutions (70) condemning Israel than North Korea, Iran and Syria combined. It’s never passed a resolution condemning abuses in China, Russia, Cuba or Saudi Arabia, but it has regularly recommended “improvement” for the United States.
               “American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has,” Haley concluded. “That is precisely why we must leave.”
               In effect, the inmates are running the HRC asylum and the Trump administration will no longer indulge that lunacy. It’s about time.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56663?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             One of those photographs was used to create a viral social media firestorm claiming it was “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Donald Trump,” and comparing Trump to Hitler — even though the photo in question was taken when liar-nObama was in charge.
               There were no outrageous claims of “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Barack liar-nObama!”
               Clearly, Democrat leaders don’t care about “the children” unless they can be used as fodder to advance their statist political agenda — in this case, establishing open borders to ensure future voters.

~The Patriot Post 

             In the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the Court ruled 9-0 against a group of Democrat voters who claimed that the state’s redistricting plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
               Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the alleged dilution of the plaintiff’s voting power is an injury specific to a voting district. “Remedying the individual voter’s harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring of all the state’s legislative districts,” Roberts wrote. The case was sent back to the lower courts for another look.
               Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch objected only in sending the case back for review. “After a year and a half of litigation in the District Court,” Thomas wrote, “the plaintiffs had a more-than-ample opportunity to prove their standing under these principles. They failed to do so.”
               In the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, the Court ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed Democrat officials put them at a disadvantage in drawing a congressional district that led to the defeat of Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in 2012. In an unsigned opinion, the Court sided with the district court, which decided not to block Maryland from holding congressional elections and forcing the state to redraw the district in question.
               The Supreme Court added that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek relief, since they did not ask for an injunction until 2017.
               Voting-rights advocates were stunned by the back-to-back decisions. The ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and other leftist voter groups had hoped the Supreme Court would pass down specific guidance on how to handle these types of cases. In other words, they were hoping that the justices would legislate from the bench.
               No such luck. The Supreme Court has a solid track record of stepping around gerrymandering cases and avoiding wading into the political quagmire. Districting is a power delegated to the political branches, notes David French of National Review. “States can choose different ways to district,” writes French, “but when a state chooses the political path, the Supreme Court’s default position should be to defer, absent clear and unequivocal constitutional violations.” Claiming that your voting power was diluted because your political party happens to be in the minority in your district or state does not constitute a violation of voting rights.
               Democrats have cried foul about redistricting for much of this decade because Republicans have won control of so many of the levers of power at the state and national level. Of course, Democrats can thank Barack liar-nObama for their plight. His presidency drove millions into the waiting arms of the GOP, which picked up close to 1,000 state seats to give it control of two-thirds of state legislatures, as well as winning Congress by gaining 63 House seats and 10 Senate seats. But it wasn’t just liar-nObama who poisoned Democrat fortunes. Activist judges are primarily responsible for the pickle the Democrat Party finds itself in with redistricting.
               In the 1980s, Democrats redrew congressional districts with the express purpose of putting more blacks and Hispanics in Congress. This effort was clearly aimed to help the Democrat Party because these minority groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Districts were remade so that large numbers of minorities would virtually guarantee electing a minority to Congress. However, by grouping minorities into specific districts, other districts inevitably became more nonminority, in some cases overwhelmingly so. The result was that formerly competitive majority-minority districts ended up becoming Republican strongholds with few minority voters.
               Democrats should not be puzzled that their high vote counts have not translated into widespread electoral victory. What is happening now is a consequence of their attempts going back 30 years to game the system in their favor. If Democrats want to fix it, they must look elsewhere, because the Supreme Court has decided, at least for this term, that they are on their own.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56634?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body