There’s just one problem: “Only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.” In other words, most people oppose scraping together less than $10 a month — which is comparable to many subscription services including television streaming — for an issue that evidently creates near-universal trepidation.

And who’s to blame them? Yet there’s plenty of irony in this, especially when presidential candidates like Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris claim, as she did during Thursday night’s debate: “What is the greatest national security threat to the United States? It’s Donald Trump. And I’m gonna tell you why. Because I agree: Climate change represents an existential threat. [Trump] denies the science.”

If Trump denies the science, then Democrats deny the math. Even if we assume that global warming is man-made — and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s far more complex than that — it’s plainly evident that, economically speaking, there is a huge lack of decisive  concern among voters. Several Democrat lawmakers envision climate-mitigation programs that add up to trillions upon trillions of dollars. In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. can’t exactly afford that. According to the Reuters poll, most Americans can’t either — or they simply don’t want to waste their hard-earned money.

Of course, the reality is that the average Joe may claim to have concerns about the climate, but when push comes to shove, even they understand the situation isn’t as dire as alarmism and the accompanying poll aganda make it out to be. Democrats may get around this by assuring their constituents that it’s the obligation of “the wealthy” and Big Oil to pony up. But voters and consumers need to understand that those costs, one way or another, eventually circle back to them.

And let’s not lose sight of the biggest problem of all: There is absolutely no guarantee that these “green” programs will actually benefit the climate. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved that there are ulterior motives at work with the Green New Deal, the impact of which, by the way, “would be barely distinguishable from zero,” according to the American Enterprise Institute. Which just goes to show that talk is cheap. If only politicians were as hesitant as their constituents are to spend $100 on a contentious issue.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63971?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This was Trump’s third meeting with Kim, after the second highly anticipated summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, ended abruptly after North Korea failed to agree to any substantive policy changes. At the time Trump noted that “sometimes you have to walk.”

Following Sunday’s meeting, Trump offered guarded optimism regarding the restart of the denuclearization talks, stating, “They’ll start a process, and we’ll see what happens.” He added, “Speed is not the object. We want to see if we can do a really comprehensive, good deal. Nobody knows how things turn out, but certainly this was a great day. This was a very legendary, very historic day.”

Trump’s unconventional “personal diplomacy” foreign policy method has critics complaining of him offering legitimacy to ruthless despots like Kim. However, Trump argues that “a lot of great triumphs have been based on relationships.” The Wall Street Journal calls it the “Trump Doctrine,” where he relies on personal magnetism to lead to deal making. “Mr. Trump is betting, as he always does, that flattery and personal engagement can persuade Mr. Kim to give up his nuclear weapons.”

The president believes that establishing a relationship with Kim may pay off big in the long run, and thus far it has at the very least eased tensions. As far as U.S and South Korean interests are concerned, Trump has not conceded any ground, while at the same time he has given room for Kim to denuclearize while still saving face. Like Trump said, we’ll see what happens.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63996?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Ngo, whose Twitter profile notes that he’s “hated by antifa,” was covering the movement’s march in Portland on Saturday when he was attacked by 20 or so antifa thugs. They stole or destroyed thousands of dollars of his camera equipment and beat him physically, sending him to the ER with a brain bleed.

Of course, some “real” journalists in the Leftmedia don’t count Ngo as one of them; he writes for Quillette, National Review, and Spectator USA. Thus, after the beating, the same Leftmedia outfits still writing stories about  Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder at the hands of the Saudis nearly a year ago went on the attack … against Ngo.

Various reports blamed him for the assault — or at least implied that he had it coming — because he’s engaged in an “information war,” writes to provide “ammunition for a culture war,” he “antagonizes those he knows will react in a disproportionate way,” and he’s “one of the leading amplifiers of Islamophobia” who “participates in white supremacist violence.” Ngo is … not a white guy. In fact, he’s Asian and a homosexual.

It’s true this condemnation of Ngo wasn’t universal, but it was widespread. Yet as Erick Erickson pointedly notes, “Just a few months ago, Time magazine named journalists as their ‘person of the year’ given both the sustained abuse journalists are subjected to and the President’s ongoing verbal attacks on the press.”

As for antifa, once again the movement has been revealed for what it is. Moreover, “One gets the impression that Antifa rules Portland with the same impunity that the Ku Klux Klan ruled Birmingham in the 1960s,” writes Rod Dreher. “Do they actually have police in Portland? Do they have functioning government there?” The questions practically answer themselves.

We wish Mr. Ngo a speedy and full recovery.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63993?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

The nation’s oldest (1985) and one of its most prominent homosexual groups, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has since expanded its advocacy to include the other manifestations of gender confusion — LGBTQ+ (ad infinitum) — just received the results of opinion research it sponsors annually. And the news was not good … for homosexual advocacy.

The report notes: “Five years ago, GLAAD partnered with The Harris Poll to launch a unique index to measure Americans’ attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. In the first three years of the Harris Poll study, the Accelerating Acceptance report showed positive momentum year-over-year, with Americans stating they were more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues. … Last year, however, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction. More non-LGBTQ adults responded that they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ uncomfortable around LGBTQ people in select scenarios. … The decline in acceptance and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture.”

By “hateful rhetoric,” GLAAD is referring to the empowerment of dissenting social and cultural views that it attributes to Donald Trump’s election. However, I would argue that the decline in support for GLAAD’s constituency is the result of the absurd extent to which these thugs have taken their jack-boot agenda, from men invading girls’ dressing rooms and bathrooms to battles over the use of pronouns that dare imply there are only two genders. Of course, only the most reality-challenged heterophobic gender deniers argue that point.

In fact, the Harris survey results regarding what parents would want for their children is the most revealing trend indicator. Among the Left’s most dependable demographic of useful idiots, those aged 18-34, a full third (33%) said they would not be comfortable with their children in a class with a gender-confused teacher — and that was up from 25% in 2016 and 29% in 2017. And 39% of young adults indicated they did not want their children exposed to an LGBTQ-themed history lesson, up from 27% and 30%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The survey also found that only 45% of young people indicated they were “very” or “somewhat” comfortable around gender-confused/dysphoric individuals — and that was down from 63% and 53%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The number of young people indicating they would be distressed by finding out a family member was homosexual rose from 29% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.

Remarkably, there was a significant drop in acceptance among young women — 64% were “comfortable” with homosexuals in 2017, down to 52% in 2018. As I have noted previously, women voters are the largest Democrat Party voting block, and their collective LGBT sympathy is a major reason Democrats pander to that gender-confused subset.

Two years of polling results does not confirm a trend, and we will have to review GLAAD’s report next year. But the sentiments and sensibility of young people may be headed in the right direction.

Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema tipped his biased hand with this skewed observation about his company’s GLAAD poll: “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.” Well thanks for that heads up!

According to GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, the “rise in divisive rhetoric both in politics and in culture” has had “a negative influence on younger Americans.” She insists that “LGBTQ people and allies must urgently address today’s cultural crisis by being visible and vigilant.”

However, as I previously noted, the outcome of homosexual advocates “being visible and vigilant” is precisely why their support is dropping. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family agrees. He says that the drop in acceptance is because “the ‘gay’ movement continues to over-play its hand and that will certainly continue.” He adds, “Rather than simply being ‘live and let live,’ they are forcing Americans to embrace their politics, and often with overwhelming muscle and the life-crushing public accusations of a person’s so-called ‘bigotry’ and ‘hatefulness’ if they dare disagree.”

As for the absurd gender-pronoun variants, GLAAD’s Ellis notes that it’s “a newness that takes time for people to understand.” Or it takes time for people to reject.

The most ridiculous example of corporate support for gender-pronoun confusion came when Nabisco announced a new packaging scheme for its Oreo cookies: “We’re proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions. In partnership with National Council of Teachers of English, we’re giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day.” Seriously, Nabisco’s advertising department has become that detached from gender reality.

Regarding how LOUD the “LGBT+” crowd has become, another just-released research report found that Americans think one in four people are LGBT+. According to the report, “Americans’ estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than five times Gallup’s more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans are LGBT, based on respondents’ self-identification as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

Finally, for those who are quick to label others who don’t embrace their gender-bending orthodoxy as “haters,” we as Christians are called to love other sinners but not to embrace sin. That distinction is too often lost in rancorous rhetoric from the Left, as was the case over the weekend during New York’s “gay pride” parade. The storefront of a Chick-fil-A in Manhattan was desecrated with signs reading “F—k haters,” a reference to the fact the business is Christian owned. Of course, the “haters” were those who posted that message.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63972?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

So maybe that’s why the Left has a problem with it.

You see, the progressive-socialists who’ve infected academia over the past 50 years — and now dominate some fields by tenfold or more — don’t want young minds to know the truth.

What they do want is to indoctrinate students as left-wing activists eager to do violence to America’s institutions, rather than to produce knowledgeable citizens prepared to uphold and defend Western values.

What’s more ironic is that leftists are the very people who, as college students in the 1960s, formed sit-ins and other protests to speak out against the “system” and who championed themselves as defenders of free speech.

Today, they’re the tyrants who force-feed your 18-year-old a diet of Marxism repackaged as “democracy.” Indeed, the Left has now become the very system they fought against in the ‘60s.

And this new system ensures that conservative guest speakers, students, and faculty are shouted down or otherwise silenced. Impressionable students are thus a captive audience for leftist ideology, whether in science, history, literature, or elsewhere. Outside of the lecture hall, campus activities boards and administrators fully support and encourage student organizations to serve as conduits for “LGBTQ” issues, “social justice,” and the like.

There’s no way to escape it. Conservative students are routinely belittled if they dare challenge their professor’s dogma, and often publicly shamed or threatened if they dare to invite someone to campus to speak favorably about capitalism, Western civilization, or conservative ideas.

But there’s a bit of hope.

South Dakota is challenging this assault on free speech. Last year, legislators enacted S.D. 1087, described as an “act to promote free speech and intellectual diversity at certain institutions of higher education.” Additionally, the act requires an annual report to the state legislature and ensures that outdoor spaces on campuses are forums for free speech. The law takes effect on July 1, but campus leftists are fighting it tooth and nail to make sure conservatives don’t have a voice.

An important part of the effort to quash right-leaning voices is the widespread practice of hiring “diversity officers.” With an average salary of $175,000, these bureaucrats police the college campus by promoting leftist programs and policies, integrating social justice into the institutional framework, and employing an army of uninformed Millennials to seek out any ideas not in line with their own. There’s hardly an institution of higher learning today that doesn’t have an office of diversity. But these campus cops care little for diversity of opinion or thought, and they certainly don’t want diversity in speech.

Imagine the outcry if colleges and universities across the country started hiring “freedom officers” who pushed a conservative ideology and actively prevented liberal students and faculty from speaking or holding events on campus.

In South Dakota, lawmakers justified their free-speech act by explaining that “while beneficial programs for Native American students, and students of other diverse cultures should be preserved, the build-up of diversity offices which are used to promote social justice causes associated with the political left such as safe zone training, the biannual drag show, and social justice training, to name just a few, should be dismantled.”

It’s about time that someone fights back against this assault on our freedom. But could the Mount Rushmore state’s bold stroke spread to other states?

Frederick M. Hess writes at National Review, “South Dakota’s experience is a microcosm of what’s unfolding across American higher education, and the resolution and implementation of S.D. 1087 may have national implications. After all, across the land, liberal faculty members outnumber their conservative counterparts five to one, and the disparity is starker still when it comes to the social sciences and humanities. Such a lack of intellectual diversity affects who gets hired at colleges and universities, who enjoys the platform provided by prestigious institutions, what gets researched, and what gets taught.”

If we’re going to have diversity officers on campus, they ought to be standing up for the free-speech rights of everyone. Now, thanks to South Dakota’s legislature, the tide may be turning.

That’s good news for all who believe in free speech, and bad news for those who’ve used our colleges and universities as a training ground for the next generation of socialist warriors.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63949?mailing_id=4374&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4374&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The candidates Thursday night: loose lips liar-Joe Biden, commie-Bernie Sanders, lowlife-Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, and scumbag-Eric Swalwell.

The punches were primarily thrown at loose lips liar-Biden, who leads the field. And the hardest ones were thrown by Harris, who Mark Alexander argues may join loose lips liar-Biden on the ticket. After last night, they’d have to bury a few hatchets.

lowlife-Harris the prosecutor showed up to tell the jury why loose lips liar-Biden isn’t the right guy. She hit him for his record on race, saying, “I do not believe you are a racist … but it was actually very hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. … You also worked with them to oppose busing.” She recounted how she benefited from busing as a little girl.

loose lips liar-Biden, the vice president for America’s first black president, shot back, “It’s a mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise racists.” In fact, he said, “I ran because of civil rights.” After bickering with lowlife-Harris over his record, loose lips liar-Biden eventually gave up, saying, “Anyway, my time’s up.” Wrong thing for a 76-year-old with a near-50-year career in Washington politics to say.

loose lips liar-Biden 2020: “My time’s up.”

On that note, one of the other zingers of the night was from scumbag-Swalwell, who said, “I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said, ‘It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.’ That candidate was then-Senator loose lips liar-Joe Biden. loose lips liar-Joe Biden was right 32 years ago, and he’s still right today.”

commie-Sanders, 77, didn’t take too kindly to that, blasting the assertion as “ageism” in post-debate comments. But though the old socialist tried to set himself up for the debate with an op-ed selling socialist snake oil, he fell rather flat. His most memorable line might be that he opened the debate by admitting that taxes will necessarily go up for the middle class to pay for his income-redistribution schemes. “Yes, they will pay more in taxes,” he said, “but less in health care for what they get.” The question is this: What kind of health care will we get? It won’t be good.

Sidebar on immigration and health care: All 10  candidates raised their hands when asked if government health care should be provided for illegal aliens. Astounding.

As for “Mayor Pete,” he is the Democrats’ version of John Kasich. He made his mark by sanctimoniously telling Christians how to do politics. Buttigieg lectured, “For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say … that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.” It’s a tiresome act now, just as it was for Kasich in 2016.

One stand-out line: Harris, the media’s consensus “winner,” stopped a lot of crosstalk arguing by saying, “You know what, folks, Americans don’t want to witness a food fight. They want to hear how we’re going to put food on their table.” That is not the president’s job, and it’s exactly what’s wrong with today’s Democrat Party, brought to you by a woman who promises to do everything by executive order.

The next Democrat debates are July 30 and 31 in Detroit.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63956?mailing_id=4374&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4374&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The Trump administration thinks appealing to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un by dangling promises of prosperity in front of him if he agrees to change his ways is the path to peace on the Korean Peninsula. So far there have been no agreements to build a Trump resort and Kim has made no effort to adopt any other form of capitalistic behavior.

Undeterred, the administration’s front man for Middle East peace, the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has revealed part of his plan (the rest he says will come after Israeli elections this fall) to settle the multi-decade conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Kushner told Reuters the plan includes $50 billion in economic incentives, if the Palestinian leadership will simply recognize Israel’s right to exist, promise not to engage in terrorist actions and seek a peace agreement with the Jewish State.

One critical element is being left out of what we know so far about the proposal and that is religion. Kushner, who is Jewish, should have some particular insight into the conflict that eludes secularists. The Palestinians and Muslims in some neighboring countries believe they have a religious mandate to wipe out Israel, killing as many Jews as possible, because Israel is an illegal occupier of “their” land and Allah has ordered it.

Evidence that Kushner’s plan is likely to experience the same fate as those that have gone before is contained in a study of textbooks used by Palestinian schoolchildren.

The study, conducted by Eldad J. Pardo of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and published in April 2017, found the latest textbooks and curricula for grades one through four are “significantly more radical than previous (publications).” Pardo says the latest texts “(teach) students to be martyrs, demonizes and denies the existence of Israel and focuses on a ‘return’ to an exclusively Palestinian homeland.”

Even math books use martyrs to teach arithmetic.

In upper grades, writes Pardo, “The strategy of violence and pressure (in place of negotiations) is advocated as the most effective action to achieve Palestinian goals. … And in these upper-grade textbooks, the concept of ‘eternal war’ is instigated through the abuse of Islamic terminology.”

Real history is replaced with Palestinian and Islamic reinterpretations and even reinventions of history. One example: Pardo says Palestinians are being taught that they have always occupied the land. In fact, even their name — Palestinians — is a modern invention. As noted on the Jewish Virtual Library website, “Leading up to Israel’s independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians. It was not until years after Israeli independence that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were called Palestinians.”

There is much more from the study. “The Palestinian national anthem is taught in third-grade,” writes Pardo, and “instills the spirit of fighting, revenge and sacrifice.” And then there’s this from the same third-grade text: “Jerusalem is a Palestinian city and capital of the State of Palestine. The Palestinian flag will be hoisted on the city’s walls after the liberation from Israeli occupation, God willing.”

Add these incitements to the sermons from Palestinian mosques and media in which Israel and the Jewish people are degraded and their enemies are encouraged to destroy their state and evict or murder their people.

How does a Jewish-American who will be doubly hated for his citizenship and his religion bribe Palestinian leaders into reversing their religious mandate and political goals? If that strategy is not revealed in the rest of Kushner’s peace plan, and if the Palestinians refuse to take the bribe, the plan will fail.

In the mind of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas it already has. At a news conference last Sunday, Abbas appeared to reject Kushner’s plan, saying, “We will not be slaves or servants.”

The Kushner plan is a miscalculation similar to those made by previous administrations. Aside from abandoning the land-for-peace formula, which never worked, this plan appears to differ only in the amount of money being offered.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63909?mailing_id=4367&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4367&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Put it this way: The counterintelligence resources of the FBI and other parts of the intelligence community were turned on the presidential campaign of an opposition party to counter “collusion” that did not exist. Let’s say this again: There was NO collusion between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Many of the same people who condemned George W. Bush for the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime because we didn’t find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction are now demanding that Barack scumbag/liar-nObama be given the benefit of the doubt. Umm, it seems like they are comparing apples and T-bone steaks here.

Whether or not you believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was a big mistake, it involved action against a hostile regime that sponsored terrorism and was refusing to demonstrate compliance with UN resolutions. In the aftermath of 9/11, Saddam’s removal was a prudent action, and Bush’s failure to adequately defend it was a mistake on par with his failure to rebuild and expand America’s military. Hussein did not have rights to due process from the United States government.

But the use by scumbag/liar-nObama of counterintelligence assets on domestic political opponents is a very different matter. There has to be a very high bar to be cleared with the use of clear and convincing evidence. From what we know, there wasn’t. Instead, it seems that the major source was a DNC-funded dossier from a retired British intelligence officer. Worse, we have the texts between illicit FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which are akin to the infamous Fuhrman tapes that emerged in OJ Simpson’s murder trial in terms of casting doubt on the integrity of the investigators. We won’t even even touch the IRS scandal.

Had this pattern happened in Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Turkey, or Maduro’s Venezuela, we would recognize it for what it was: Hallmarks of an election that was not free and fair. We’d demand that the State Department issue harsh releases, and we’d never hear the end of it from the mainstream media. But because this was done by the scumbag/liar-nObama administration, we hear crickets. We’re told to just be quiet because there was no corruption at the IRS.

One of two things seems to be going on: Either there was a massive screw-up with no ill intentions toward Americans exercising their constitutional rights, or there was and is deliberate targeting of those who disagreed with “progressives” on political issues.

Take a long, hard look at the John Doe investigations — particularly the compelling coverage by National Review’s David French — efforts to use RICO against so-called “climate deniers”, and scumbag-Andrew Cuomo’s actions  against the NRA. Do those look like innocent mistakes, or were bureaucrats and government officials stepping beyond their boundaries?

The sheer weight of this tilts the preponderance of the evidence toward a misuse of power for political ends. This is why we need to come down on Spygate, find answers, and hold to account those responsible. If this isn’t halted, everything else becomes a theoretical discussion.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63870?mailing_id=4361&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4361&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body