It’s clear that the four auto companies’ objective here is to pressure the Trump administration into adopting California’s standard so as to eliminate having to manufacture vehicles with differing standards for two markets. In other words, they are seeking to force a single, higher fuel-efficiency standard upon all automakers.

The Trump administration, on the other hand, is seeking to revoke California’s long-running authority to set not just its own clean-air standards, something the federal government has long allowed, but effectively set the standard for the whole nation. White House spokesman Judd Deere emphasized, “The federal government, not a single state, should set this standard.”

EPA spokesman Michael Abboud criticized the automakers’ deal with California, stating, “This voluntary framework is a PR stunt that does nothing to further the one national standard that will provide certainty and relief for American consumers.”

This is an interesting fight that upon first glance looks like a federalism battle. But, again, the real issue is that of California seeking to set fuel-efficiency standards for the entire country. Any standard with which all states must comply should be set by the federal government — if there’s any federal authority for such a standard, which is another matter. California, ironically, wants it both ways — the freedom to set its own standards and at the same time reject the federal government’s authority over national interstate regulations.

Meanwhile, these automakers are free to exceed the EPA fuel-efficiency standards should they choose and if the market demands. However, seeking to force all auto companies into meeting higher standards via government diktat simply because they believe it prevents the competition from taking advantage is not an embrace of free-market principles.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64547?mailing_id=4443&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4443&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

For those who remember Guatemala as one of those Central American “banana republics” you learned about in school, it should be noted that its main export nowadays isn’t agricultural. Instead, it is — perhaps intentionally — exporting its population at an increasing rate. It’s reached the point that pockets of the nation — specifically, the medium-sized city of Joyubaj (population 100,000 and declining) — have laid claim to being the hometown of the second-largest number of U.S. deportees back to Guatemala, barely trailing the much larger national capital of Guatemala City.

But the lure toward “El Norte” is easy money from available work. Those who reach the United States send back remittances, and that source of funds now makes up 1/8 of the Guatemalan GDP. It’s made possible by wage rates in America where it takes a laborer, even one making minimum wage, a week to make what may take a month or more to earn back home. “The United States helped me more than the Guatemala government ever did,” said one 40-year-old worker, who despite being deported saved enough money in three years of working in the U.S. while awaiting deportation to return and build a palatial three-story home in his hometown of Todos Santos. He and his wife live in Guatemala, while their two teenage children now live with relatives in the United States.

Yet the traditional idea behind asylum wasn’t that of wanting to build a large house back in the homeland. While Central American nations have a reputation for instability, a recent survey claimed less than 1% leave Guatemala due to violence. But getting just one family member into America provides the golden ticket to relative prosperity, with younger members of the family pouring across our border, working for a few years, then returning home once the deportation orders become final to enjoy their newfound status.

This international American Dream has been made possible on the U.S. end by a lack of motivation to address the problem through tighter border security and stricter verification of the legal status of unskilled and semi-skilled workers who frequent the construction sites, restaurants, landscape companies, and poultry-processing plants around our nation. One party likes the potential pool of dependent voters, while a sector of the other loves the cheap labor that “does jobs Americans won’t do.”

And the clash between those interests and the Trump administration has led to the heated rhetoric about “concentration camps” along the border, not to mention the tragic drowning deaths of a father and daughter trying to circumvent the standard asylum process for purely economic reasons. Trump has also been stung by a string of judicial defeats, most recently as he tried to address the asylum question by the commonsense method of requiring these Guatemalan migrants to first seek asylum in Mexico (or another third country) rather than the United States, only receiving asylum here if they were turned down elsewhere. “This rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States,” said Attorney General William Barr when the rules were announced earlier this month.

But in a different sort of forum shopping, the ink was barely dry on the new regulations when a judge appointed by Trump’s most recent predecessor stepped in to thwart the process. So the asylum games continue and the so-called “concentration camps” are stretched even further beyond capacity.

All this is the unfortunate byproduct of making immigration a political issue rather than a Rule of Law priority. Within the last decade, both political parties had control of both the White House and Congress, yet neither made any significant progress on addressing the issue. While it’s a really good thing the American economy is strong enough to indirectly help such far-flung locations as Joyubaj and Todos Santos, it could work a lot better if we had an orderly system to allow the laborers we need and the diplomacy to work with the nations in our hemisphere to improve their own conditions so they wouldn’t feel the need to export their people just to keep their rickety economic ships of state afloat. One shouldn’t need to come to America to make a Guatemalan Dream of home ownership and status come true.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64543?mailing_id=4443&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4443&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

At Colorado State University, the clock has “struck thirteen.” A group of officials called the Inclusive Communications Task Force has created an Inclusive Language Guidethat aims to “help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community particularly inclusion, respect, and social justice.”

Promoting institutional infantilization is more like it.

Laughingly, the Task Force insists the Guide “is not about political-correctness or policing grammar, but rather helping communicators practice inclusive language and helping everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.” No, it’s not. It’s about advising students to walk on politically correct eggshells — to the point of lunacy — to avoid offending anyone. Hence, their “best practice” suggestions:

• Use people-first language (i.e. person with a disability vs. disabled or person of color vs. colored) unless the person indicates another preference.

• Never assume a person’s gender identity based on their name or their appearance — if you don’t know, use gender-inclusive pronouns or ask for their pronouns.

• Use gender-inclusive language when speaking in generalities or about groups of people that you do not know the individual pronouns of (i.e. everyone vs. ladies and gentlemen and they/them/theirs vs. he/him/his and she/her/hers).

What else is problematic? “American/America.” Why? “The Americas encompass a lot more than the United States,” the guide states. “There is South America, Central America, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean just to name a few of 42 countries in total. That’s why the word ‘americano’ in Spanish can refer to anything on the American continent. Yet, when we talk about ‘Americans’ in the United States, we’re usually just referring to people from the United States. This erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.”

But the United States is dominant. It has the largest population, the largest economy, and a Constitution and Declaration of Independence that are the envy of the world. And saying so doesn’t “erase other cultures.” Nonetheless, in order to remain sufficiently “woke” one must use “U.S. citizen; person from the U.S.”

What if a person in the U.S is here illegally? “The term ‘illegal immigrant’ was first used in 1939 as a slur towards Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entered Palestine without authorization,” the guide insists. “Saying that a person is ‘illegal’ dehumanizes them and implies that they are a criminal, not taking into account that they may be a refugee seeking asylum. The term also suggests that the individual, and not the potential actions they have taken, are unlawful.”

Unsurprisingly, in a sop to the LGBT Mafia, “Male/ Female” and “Mr. /Mrs. / Ms.” are also terms to avoid because “we very rarely need to identify or know a person’s biological sex and more often are referring to gender,” and because “titles can be problematic when you are not aware of a person’s gender identity and try to guess or when the use of the title is against a person’s personal preference,” respectively.

Thus, “He or She, Ladies and Gentlemen” are also verboten because they “imply that gender is binary (i.e. either man or woman) and does not acknowledge that people may identify anywhere along the gender spectrum and/or their biological sex may not match their gender identity.”

It goes further downhill — and more nonsensical — from there. “Starving / I’m Starving / I’m Broke” is no good because “these terms appropriate real situations of hardship and can cause harm to individuals who are experiencing extreme poverty or hunger crisis.” “Peanut Gallery” is off limits because, despite the fact it is used to reference hecklers and critics, it actually refers to “a section in theaters, usually the cheapest and worst, where many Black people sat during the era of Vaudeville.” “Freshman?” If you guessed the “man” part is problematic because it “excludes women and non-binary gender identities,” go to the head of the class.

“The guide certainly does encompass a great deal of everyday, common expressions, and it is possible that the speech of some students will be chilled if they are confused into thinking that the document represents official policy of the university,” stated Azhar Majeed, spokesman for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). “However, given the introductory language … I think it would be unlikely that any student carefully reading the guide would be mistaken and led to believe they could face disciplinary action for their speech,” Majeed added.

How about social ostracization? In reality, this guide is about one thing above all else: the elicitation of guilt, directly leading to either self-censorship — or silence.

That is the antithesis of what college is supposed to be about.

Colorado State is no outlier. At the Catholic University of Dayton, a gender-inclusive language “resource” frowns  on the usage of “husband/wife,” which should be replaced with “spouse, partner, significant other.” The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill advises students to avoid using any word that includes “man,” such as “mailman,” “policeman,” or “man-made.”

At George Mason University, graduate teaching assistants (TAs) attending a mandatory training session in 2017 were warned to avoid using the terms “freshman,” “last name,” and “it is easy to imagine.” Their syllabi were to be written in “non-sexist, gender-inclusive terms,” while striving to embrace “inclusive language that does not assume Eurocentric name forms.”

At the University of New Hampshire, the Presidential Task Force on Campus Climate was created in response to 2017 Cinco de Mayo celebrations that “generated considerable outrage among students, faculty and staff throughout UNH and the region.” It produced a 58-page document to address a list of 15 student demands that included adding a mandatory “4-credit social justice course requirement” for students, and bimonthly “holistic diversity training” for all faculty and staff.

Such utter nonsense is apparently contagious. On Monday, three Democrat presidential candidates — Julian Castro, scumbag-Bill de Blasio, and Elizabeth dinky-Warren — released Twitter bios that included their preferred gender pronouns. For Castro it’s “He/Him/Él,” for scumbag-de Blasio “He/him,” and dinky-Warren “She/her.”

The rest of the field has yet to weigh in, but one suspects all of them will display an equal reverence for the intersectionalist bankruptcy that afflicts their party.

It is bankruptcy that elicits an obvious question: In the world of self-inflicted Newspeak, how does one nominate any white, male, heterosexual, Christian — currently defined in leftist terms as a “privileged, toxic, cisgender, bitter clinger” — to be the party standard-bearer without committing a thought crime of the first order?

loose lips liar-Joe Biden should certainly be curious. So should every other candidate who doesn’t tick enough “intersectional” boxes to be sufficiently “woke.” Moreo

ver, how much narrower — as in radical to the point of nihilism — will the party’s thinking become?

“Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think.” —George Orwell  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64504?mailing_id=4441&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4441&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Political Editors:  As much of the East Coast was in the throes of a midsummer heat wave, more than 50,000 New Yorkers lost power over the weekend as the city’s power company, Con Edison, struggled to repair the power grid damaged earlier in the week by a transformer fire. Following the blackout, Democrat New York Gov. scumbag-Andrew Cuomo leveled blame on Con Edison, stating, “We’ve been through this situation [with] ConEd time & again & they should have been better prepared — period.”

However, the lion’s share of the blame resides not with Con Edison but with scumbag-Cuomo and his “green” energy policies. As The Wall Street Journal reports, “A new state law the Governor signed last week requires 70% of state electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100% from ‘carbon-free’ sources by 2040. Meantime, the Governor has blocked three natural gas pipelines and mandated the premature shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plant that supplies a quarter of New York City’s power.”

In short, scumbag-Cuomo and his fellow leftists pass virtue-signaling legislation that does little other than crippling the power company with nearly impossible “green” regulatory standards — standards that also effectively jack up the cost of electricity for all New Yorkers for an inferior product. And to top it off, scumbag-Cuomo has the gall to blame the power company for failing to meet customer demands.

It’s another classic case of Democrats instituting leftist polices that inevitably fail, but they then turn and blame the failure for their polices on their constituents.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64499?mailing_id=4441&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4441&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

For safety reasons, fire marshals control the number of people who can occupy a building at any one time. We’ve seen what happens when crowds get too large and a fire breaks out, causing panic and often death. So why not control the crowd illegally entering America?

We control water so that it won’t overflow a bathtub or sink, causing damage requiring expensive repairs, so why not shut off the flow of those illegally entering at the border?

Pick your own analogy, but the U.S. immigration system is worse than broken. It can be fixed, but politicians from both parties refuse to do it. The immediate and long-term damage inflicted on our country as a result of this neglect will be severe.

President Trump has the power to shut off the flow of immigration until those who have entered the country illegally can be accounted for, those without proper documentation can be deported and the ones here legally become U.S. citizens.

The president has the authority under 8 USC1182. The law includes categories of persons “ineligible” to enter the United States. A key section relates to those entering the country illegally whose only motivation is to find a job and make money. The following is taken directly from the law:

“In general, any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that (1) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified… (and) (2) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.”

During the administrations of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, immigration was reduced to a trickle. After leaving office, Coolidge wrote in a December 13, 1930 newspaper column that most immigrants had come to demonstrate loyalty to America, but they must come “slowly” and avoid “city colonies while spreading across the county.” He then explained why, which ought to resonate today: “We have certain standards of life that we believe are best for us. We do not ask other nations to discard theirs, but we do wish to preserve ours. … We reflect on no one in wanting immigrants who will be assimilated into our ways of thinking and living.”

When Coolidge was president, a 2 percent quota was established for immigrants entering the U.S. After July 1, 1927, the 2 percent rule was replaced with an overall annual cap of 150,000 immigrants. Quotas were set according to “national origins” as listed in the 1920 census. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the floodgates were opened and what some call an “invasion” began. It has only gotten worse as anyone with a TV set or who lives along the border can plainly see.

Yes, the quota system discriminated in favor of “preferred” nationalities. The website u-s-history.com confirms its intent: “The clear aim of this law was to restrict the entry of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, while welcoming relatively large numbers of newcomers from Britain, Ireland and Northern Europe.” Mexican laborers were also banned.

If Congress continues to fail in its responsibility to protect our borders — Republicans because they and their U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporters want cheap labor and Democrats because they see potential votes — then President Trump should follow the example of two of his predecessors and the law to shut off the human tidal wave until we can deal with those already here.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64446?mailing_id=4436&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4436&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

One suggestion that has been floated is to lower the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. Proponents note that over a dozen other countries, including the United Kingdom, have already adopted such a practice. The reason for lowering the recruitment age by one year has everything to do with eligibility. As Shane McCarthy, chief marketing officer of Sandboxx, explains, “According to the Department of Justice, there are twice as many arrests of 18 to 20-year-olds as there are arrests of 15 to 17-year-olds.”

However, the idea has drawn a fair share of criticism. Peter Warren Singer, a fellow at the Washington think tank New America, suggests that the idea reveals a “misunderstanding [of] the different brain chemistry of youths and their ability to make informed judgement.” Others point out that there has been little research as to the overall impact of recruiting 16-year-olds into military service.

Rebecca Burgess, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that the U.S. military will need to adapt its recruitment marketing to better compete in a changing market place, “something the military doesn’t do very well.” She adds, “It tells the story of itself that’s very traditional: ‘We’re freedom fighters doing good throughout the world; be part of our team.’ And it expects people to kind of come to them.”

In the end this competition is a good thing, forcing innovation and rethinking, which in turn will produce a better product. The current strong economy provides the military a challenging opportunity for evaluating and innovating its recruiting practices.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64443?mailing_id=4436&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4436&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Why did this happen? Well, Iran has a long track record of aggression and sponsoring terrorism going back to 1979. The country has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel off the map. The regime’s Houthi stooges in Yemen fired missiles at a U.S. vessel multiple times. When President George W. Bush put Iran on the Axis of Evil, it was for that and a host of other reasons. This maritime hostage-taking escalation is just the latest on the list of reasons to kick this genocidal regime’s collective rear.

Well, that’s the readily apparent reason. However, if you want to get to the root cause, it comes down to the fact that evil, genocidal mullahs in Tehran thought they could get away with it. To see why, look at this graphic from the Twitter feed of NavyLookout. This represents the entirety of the Royal Navy’s force of major surface combatants: Six Daring-class guided-missile destroyers and 13 Type 23 guided-missile frigates. The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are not even ready to deploy.

Loyal Patriot Post readers will note that we have discussed the Navy’s need for hulls in the water on  multiple occasions — not just in terms of the aircraft carriers but also the need for more submarines. Just take a look at that graphic about the Royal Navy again, and you will see why.

Of the six Daring-class destroyers, only two are actively deployed as of this month. Of the other four, two have been undergoing major refits (significant maintenance to address wear and tear), and two others are undergoing minor maintenance). One has deployed to the Persian Gulf on short notice, the other is preparing to operate in the Western Atlantic. In essence, to have one ship deployed, you really need three hulls to account for upgrades and maintenance.

Looking at the baker’s dozen of guided-missile frigates, the British are in the same sort of fix. Five of the ships are undergoing extensive modernization to receive a new surface-to-air missile (among other upgrades). One is inactive, waiting its turn. That leaves seven active frigates, with one deployed to the Persian Gulf, one making a hasty deployment there, one returning from an exercise in the Baltic, and four others in British waters.

This is exactly why the decline in the United States Navy’s ship totals has to be considered a huge problem in need of immediate addressing. The good news is that the Navy’s FFG(X) program offers one chance to do that. Buying the designs based on the Freedom and Independence classes of the littoral combat ship and the Coast Guard’s Bertholf-class national security cutter would help boost the totals. But the real benefit would also be to buy the version of Spain’s Alvaro de Bazan-class guided-missile frigate.

That ship, with many systems similar to those on the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, would be an excellent addition to the Navy’s fleet with a few minor tweaks. But the other real problem is that the Navy needed even more ships built earlier. The Zumwalt-class of destroyers was supposed to be 32 ships. We’re only getting three. It will be even worse as the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers keep aging and need replacement. There seems to be no movement forward there. And a large navy will be needed to help Japan protect the Marcus Island motherlode that could neutralize one of China’s economic weapons.

President Trump is buying time with his policies aimed at China and Russia. However, if the United States does not start building the necessary hulls in the water now, we’re squandering a strategic opportunity.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64444?mailing_id=4436&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4436&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

President Donald Trump has won the second of three lawsuits alleging he violated the Constitution because foreigners and state officials patronize his businesses, such as the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the claim by Maryland and the District of Columbia that Trump was violating the Constitution’s domestic and foreign emoluments clauses.

The foreign emoluments clause reads:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The domestic emoluments clause reads:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

In throwing out this latest suit, the 4th Circuit chastised the plaintiffs for wasting the court’s time with a plainly meritless case.

The court also scolded federal Judge Peter Messitte, a Clinton appointee, for not throwing out the case sooner and for refusing to let the president appeal his erroneous rulings.

Messitte’s faulty reasoning “blinks reality,” the court said, and his actions “amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”

Messitte’s rulings were so erroneous that the 4th Circuit didn’t even wait for an appeal. It accepted the president’s request for writ of mandamus — a rarely granted procedural tool that allows early review of an otherwise nonappealable issue — to take the case away from Messitte, reverse his rulings, and force him to throw the case out for good, without the possibility of further appeal.

The lawsuit alleged that, because government employees and foreign officials pay for services they receive from Trump’s businesses, payment produces a constitutionally forbidden “present” to the president.

The court held that Maryland and the District’s interest in the case was “abstract” and “simply too attenuated” for the case to proceed.

Maryland and the District argued that they are harmed by the alleged constitutional violation because the Trump Hotel “competes” with conference centers and hotels they own. Which, of course, brings up a question not dealt with in the lawsuit: Why are Maryland and D.C. involved in the conference and hospitality industry to begin with and competing with private industry?

Their claims rested on the speculation (accepted at face value by Messitte) that government officials patronize the Trump Hotel because it distributes profits to the president and not for any other reason.

But there are, of course, two equally plausible competing speculations: that some government officials avoid the Trump Hotel because of its association with the president, and that some government officials stay at the Trump Hotel because it’s a nice place to stay.

Regardless, courts don’t decide cases based on speculations.

What’s more, Maryland and the District couldn’t explain how prohibiting the president from earning money from the hotel would stop government officials from going there. In other words, even if they had a viable legal claim, there is no possible remedy.

Assuming that foreign officials were trying to curry the president’s favor by staying at his hotel, the hotel is associated with him and would financially benefit his family even if it didn’t benefit him — and the emoluments clauses have no application to the family members of a federal official.

The 4th Circuit found this a fatal flaw in the plaintiffs’ argument and noted that the lawyer for Maryland and the District was “repeatedly unable to articulate the terms of the injunction” that was being sought to remedy the supposed violation of the Constitution.

As the court expostulated, “when plaintiffs before a court are unable to specify the relief they seek, one must wonder why they came to the court for relief in the first place.”

The only other interest that Maryland or the District had in the case was “a general interest in having the law followed.” And a plaintiff “raising only a generally available grievance about government” has no right to do so in court.

So ended the second of three emoluments clauses cases. The president won the first case in 2017 when a federal court in New York tossed out an almost identical lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal advocacy organization.

One emoluments case remains, this one before federal Judge Emmet Sullivan in the District of Columbia. In that case, Democratic members of Congress, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., personally sued the president for allegedly violating the foreign emoluments clause.

In an order reminiscent of Messitte’s “clearly erroneous” orders, Sullivan simply accepted the speculation — with no supporting evidence — that foreign officials are staying at the Trump Hotel only because it pays the president part of its profits.

Sullivan then went on to say that congressional Democrats have a personal interest in the case because — and now hang on, because this is wild ride — the president, by accepting the alleged foreign payments, has denied Congress, as an institution, the right to vote on these payments.

You might wonder how Sullivan made the logical leap from the Democrats’ personal interest to Congress’ institutional interest. Sullivan answers that question by calling that distinction “relevant … but not dispositive.”

That case is ongoing, and Sullivan is letting the congressional Democrats subpoena the president’s financial information. Additionally, Sullivan recently denied the president’s request to delay the case while he appeals.

Political fights belong in the political arena. As the 4th Circuit said here, the claims made by Maryland and the District were “so attenuated and abstract that the prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts.”

It isn’t. And in light of the 4th Circuit’s opinion, perhaps the president should seek another writ of mandamus in the D.C. Circuit to overrule what is clearly an erroneous decision by Sullivan.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64410?mailing_id=4434&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4434&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Mueller had initially insisted he would not testify before Congress, but he eventually reached a deal to do so. He would have been better off not showing up today, because it’s been a slow-motion train wreck.

According to The Federalist’s Sean Davis, “I’m not sure anyone could have done more to discredit Mueller’s report and investigation than Mueller is doing right now. He can’t answer simple questions about his own investigation, fumbles answers about his own report, and seems utterly befuddled by what’s happening.” Specifically, Mueller said he wasn’t familiar with Fusion GPS or Glenn Simpson, its founder, despite Fusion being the firm that produced the phony Christopher Steele dossier — funded by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and the DNC — that got the whole collusion hoax off the ground. Mueller said in his opening statement that he would not discuss “the so-called ‘Steele dossier’” because it was “the subject of ongoing review” by the FBI and “it’s outside my purview,” but the appearance of being stumped by basic questions is nonetheless troubling.

Davis also observes, “Mueller just said his deputy, who was the personal attorney for the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton aide who smashed her Blackberries, was in charge of ‘day-to-day oversight’ of Mueller’s investigation. What exactly was Mueller doing?” For two years and $35 million, we might add. Furthermore, the fact that scumbag/liar-Clinton’s people were the ones composing Mueller’s team exposed it from the beginning as a partisan witch hunt. That those hunters still found no witches is even more telling.

Fox News’s Brit Hume notes, “Mueller stumbles badly on whether ‘collusion’ is a synonym for ‘conspiracy’ in Russian election interference. He says no, only to have his report quoted back to him saying the words are synonymous. He then says he’ll go with what the report says.” Maybe Mueller should have reviewed his own report prior to coming to Capitol Hill.

Democrats, of course, moved the goal posts to “obstruction of justice” — as in alleging that Trump committed it against Mueller’s investigation. Mueller has always been as ambiguous as possible about this. His report specifically did not exonerate Trump, and today he said simply “Yes” when asked if the president could be charged with obstruction after leaving office.

But he also could not provide a single other instance in which the subject of an investigation had to prove his innocence. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” asked Rep. John Ratcliffe. “I cannot,” Mueller answered, “but this is a unique situation.” Ratcliffe fired back, “It doesn’t exist.” That’s because “the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.”

Mueller still must testify before the House Intelligence Committee this afternoon, so stay tuned for more thrilling excitement from the never-ending story.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64488?mailing_id=4438&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4438&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Negotiations are ongoing between Congress and the White House over a two-year spending deal, but reports indicate that in exchange for raising or suspending the debt limit, everyone will spend more money. Yes, you read that correctly.

To be fair, negotiators for President Donald Trump pushed for minor cuts, but even that was too austere for House Speaker liar-Nancy Pulosi. She rejected cuts of $150 billion over 10 years, during which time the federal government is on track to spend $57 trillion. As Reason’s Eric Boehm notes, “In the context of a $50,000 annual household budget, that’s like cutting about $150 per year — the cost of a single lunch each month. That’s hardly enough to get the federal government out from under $22 trillion in debt.”

Oh, and by the way, The Daily Signal notes the bill for that debt “currently averages $67,000 for every single American.”

On the downside, Trump has essentially yawned as the annual federal deficit once again approaches $1 trillion. He has given vague instructions to aids about looking for big cuts in his second term, but what are the chances of those cuts coming to pass?

Why is the debt problem so intractable? Essentially, there are two reasons. First, the debt apocalypse so many have warned of has yet to materialize. We’ve argued that it’s gradual and then sudden, but few people pay it much mind until they feel the consequences. It’s like the fable about the slow-boiling frog.

Second, corruption in the Swamp is rampant. Political favors and graft for constituents in 435 congressional districts and all 50 states mean that someone is very invested in each part of the federal budget — especially the lobbyists who make sure it stays there. Cuts are only acceptable for the other guy’s priorities, which means those cuts never actually happen. Follow the money.

The House adjourns for a six-week recess Friday, while the Senate hangs around for another week. In any case, as long as Washington politicians — the president included — view the debt ceiling as a bigger problem than the debt itself, the American fiscal train will continue barreling ahead at full steam until it can’t anymore.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64434?mailing_id=4434&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4434&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

In response to the embarrassing news, commie-Sanders insisted over the weekend that his staffers would now be paid the promised $15 minimum wage, though this announcement came with a significant caveat: staffers’ hours would be cut to pay for it. As commie-Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir explained, “We look forward to continuing those discussions and obviously are disappointed that some individuals decided to damage the integrity of these efforts before they were concluded. As these discussions continue, we are limiting hours so no employee is receiving less than $15 for any hours worked.” Welcome to real-world economics. Yet Shakir and his boss threw those complaining staffers under the bus for the sin of naively believing that commie-Sanders  actually meant what he so loudly preaches.

commie-Sanders himself expressed anger at his complaining staffers, stating, “It does bother me that people are going outside the process and going to the media. That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it’s improper.” Spoken like any good socialist dictator, “Your time is my time.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) quipped, “So does this fall under the category of hypocrisy, irony, or poetic justice? All three? Can’t make this stuff up.”

The Blaze’s Aaron Colen noted the obvious economic problems associated with artificially raising the minimum wage, stating, “This situation is an instructive example of the downside of more than doubling the minimum wage. Companies don’t just suddenly get more money to pay employees. They have to make tough decisions; usually either cutting hours, or worse, cutting staff.”

What will the greater impact of this be upon the rest of the Democrat primary field? Clearly, Sanders would love to force the rest of his opponents into spending their campaign cash to match his expensive virtue signal. Nevertheless, we fully expect Democrats will continue to ignore the Congressional Budget Office’s recent reportwarning that a $15 minimum wage would cost at least 1.3 million jobs, while at the same time raising the cost of living for millions more. Socialism is only for the true believers.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64435?mailing_id=4434&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4434&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body