Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) noted the irony of a bill ostensibly crafted to expand and protect the voting rights of Americans but doing the exact opposite: “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?” Crenshaw added, “Today I offered a motion to recommit #HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens  should have the right to vote. Dems rejected it. Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.”

The bill makes an absolute mockery of federalism, as it would establish greater centralized control over elections by Washington bureaucrats. In other words, this bill is little more than a federal power grab that National Review’s editors criticize for “creating a chilling effect on political communications through sheer uncertainty and confusion.” NR’s editors further note, “Democrats seem to believe that political speech is just too dangerous to be unrestrained. It has to be micromanaged, regulated by technocrats until it is directed into its government-approved lanes. This is of course exactly what incumbent politicians tend to prefer. They want predictable debates, reliable funding streams, and (above all) power — including the power to punish their opponents.”

In fact, HR 1 is so bad that even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes it, writing in a 13-page letter that the bill would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.” And the chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, Bradley Smith,  observes that the Democrats’ “goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large. However, even candidates are likely to find their speech severely restricted were H.R. 1 to become law.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky astutely argues, “All legislation proposed by Congress should be necessary, constitutional, and good policy. H.R. 1 is none of these things. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and bad policy. It does nothing to protect voters or to help election officials administer a fair and secure voter registration and election process. Put bluntly, it imposes federal micromanagement on the states, reversing the local oversight of the election process that our Founders believed was essential to preserving liberty and freedom in America.”

This is nothing but a bald-face attempt by Democrats to further direct and control the outcome of America’s national elections. It is anything but constitutional or democratic for that matter. Legislation like this, coupled with the attempt by several Democrat-controlled states to subvert the Electoral College, is yet more evidence of the extreme Left’s near-complete takeover of the Democrat Party. And for all intents and purposes, the current Democrat Party has more in common with one-party Marxism than the U.S. Constitution.  ~ The Patriot Post

Trump hit upon a sore subject for many conservatives: the ongoing attempt by many American universities to silence and limit conservative voices on campuses all across the country. It’s a very real problem that has been repeatedly documented by many, including The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, himself a frequent target of leftist protests and abuse.

However, while we respect the president’s desire to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans, especially where those rights are being systematically and sometimes violently attacked, his proposed executive order runs into the realm of overreach. Unlike instructing executive agencies as to how and where to spend money based on an emergency declaration, President Trump has no authority to determine policies at our nation’s universities. One of the many problems with federal funding is that it comes with so many strings. But Trump is proposing a rope. Instead, he should do the constitutional thing: Work to cut off funding altogether.  ~ The Patriot Post

Take Social Security, for instance. Now that Nancy Pulosi is once again speaker of the House, her party is working on a plan to make all those young people pay more to keep Social Security solvent. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) wants to expand benefits through his Social Security 2100 Act.

Yet, as the editors at The Wall Street Journal remind us, “The political pitch is that this would make Social Security more financially secure, but it would do the opposite. Social Security financing is increasingly stretched as fewer workers are available to support each baby boomer retiree. Social Security’s trustees reported in 2018 that filling the looming financing gap would require an ‘immediate and permanent’ payroll tax increase to 15.18%, a 17% benefit cut, or some mix of both.”

Someone should alert these up-and-coming American socialists that they’re actually going to have to pay for all that “free” stuff. And they’ll pay big when they finally enter the workforce. Some of them will have to fork over a third or even half of their income to foot a bill that’s becoming an ever-more massive portion of federal outlays.

The editorial board at USA Today writes that in the next fiscal year, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will “account for nearly 62 percent of all expenditures, far exceeding national defense (15.7 percent) and interest on the national debt (9.7 percent.) In fact, the federal government might best be described as a nuclear-armed, if woefully underfunded, health care and retirement provider. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in just 10 years, half of all federal spending (except for debt service) will be benefits to senior citizens.”

And that’s one of the main issues with the Social Security 2100 Act. The plan may very well keep Social Security funded, but there won’t be a penny left for all those other utopian projects Democrats dream of implementing. How many Millennials would support this act if they knew it would require putting aside fantasies of free tuition or the Green New Deal?

Of course, all of this assumes that the money collected for Social Security is put aside for our seniors. How many times have we heard about a Social Security “lock box” or trust fund that the government raids whenever it needs funding for its pet projects? And let’s not forget about the national debt, which has just surpassed $22 trillion.

Democrats and Republicans alike don’t seem to care about anything other than pandering to their interest groups. In this case, it’s seniors. But at least Democrats reward their supporters — unlike the GOP, which talks a good game about reform but doesn’t tend to follow through when it has the opportunity.

During the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency, Republicans controlled all branches of the federal government. They could have done what they’ve promised but failed to do for decades: rein in federal spending and privatize entitlements in order to keep the government leaner and more efficient.

That’s a tall task for a party that couldn’t even muster enough support in its own ranks to repeal and replace scumbag/liar-nObamaCare. It doesn’t help that President Trump himself has promised to not touch entitlements. For now, the Social Security 2100 Act isn’t likely to go very far with Republicans holding the Senate. But Democrats are moving forward to expand government programs that Republicans didn’t have the courage to tackle.

Unfortunately, this latest scheme is nothing more than a shell game designed to help Democrats attract more senior votes in the next election. Sure, it may put a few more bucks into grandma’s purse during her golden years. But everyone contributing to the system now will pay the ultimate price when this fiscal house of cards collapses.  ~The Patriot Post

So, what does this all mean? For one thing, it appears that as more and more Americans find gainful employment, the overall number of new jobs being filled will naturally decrease. Second, a lower unemployment rate means that employers will be competing for employees, which in turn drives up wages.

The low jobs-created number is somewhat concerning as it may indicate a slight slowing of economic growth, which Democrats are hoping turns into a recession they will then blame on President Donald Trump. As Mark Alexander wrote in December, “Caught in the Democrats’ political crossfire are tens of millions of American workers and their families whose jobs and income prospects will fall victim to the Demos’ politically induced recession — the direct result of having thrown economic confidence under the bus in order to attack Trump.”

Finally, this is only one month’s numbers, and a seeming anomaly at that. It will be more informative to see where everything stands at the end of the first quarter. But one more thing: The labor force participation rate remained at a five-year high of 63.2%. A lot of Americans are working.  ~The Patriot Post

What kind of authenticity? “Triggering the blowup was Wednesday’s votes on a bill to expand federal background checks for gun purchases,” the Post explained. “Twenty-six moderate Democrats joined Republicans in amending the legislation, adding a provision requiring that ICE be notified if an illegal immigrant seeks to purchase a gun.”

In other words, Democrat Party members who would like to take Americans’ guns away were furious that some of their colleagues supported making sure illegals can’t get guns. As a result, media-made “superstar” commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared through her spokesman that Democrats who side with Republicans “are putting themselves on a list.”

It’s going to be quite a list, and ideology is only half of the equation. As Victor Davis Hanson so aptly explains, Democrats are a party where “ending capitalism, the internal combustion engine, and so-called white privilege become, for now, the new revolutionary agendas.” And while the old party elitists may pay lip service to the first two tenets, he warns, “The third canon of race unfortunately is not apparently, like gender, a social construct, but innate, unchanging and genetic — and historically an igniter of tribal strife every time it is elevated to being essential rather than incidental to identity.”

The new breed of Democrats, whose ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance, couldn’t care less. If the old guard won’t get more tribal, they are eminently expendable. Thus, when former VP loose lips-Joe Biden called current VP Mike Pence a “decent guy,” he infuriated leftists who believe Pence’s anti-same-sex marriage stance is all that matters. And when failed New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon called him out, loose lips-Biden backtracked. “You’re right, Cynthia. I was making a point in a foreign policy context, that under normal circumstances a Vice President wouldn’t be given a silent reaction on the world stage. But there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President,” he tweeted.

loose lips-Biden is the tip of the iceberg. commie-Bernie Sanders? Just “an old white, and rather affluent career politician, still barking at the class-struggle moon,” as Hanson puts it. A person “burdened by his utter lack of intersectionality,” National Review editor Rich Lowry adds. Elizabeth dinky-Warren? Her Native American “ancestry” has proved to be as tenuous as her explanations for exploiting it, making her just another rich, old, white women.

lowlife-Kamala Harris? In order to authenticate her “blackness,” the daughter of a Tamil Indian mother and Jamaican father told a radio audience she used to get high in college while listening to “Snoop” and “Tupac” — neither of whom released music until years after she graduated. scumbag-Cory Booker? Apparently inventing a drug dealer friend named “T-Bone” was his ticket to “down with the struggle” relevancy.

And on it goes, as each of these Democrats and others try to out-authenticize one another by moving further and further left. commie-Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70% tax rate? Punked by Ilhan Omar, who wants to jack it to 90%. Both are outflanked by Warren, who apparently believes advocating for outright wealth confiscation will mitigate her tribal deficiencies.

The party’s new breed and their establishment fanboys and fangirls are also on board with a Green New Deal, universal Medicare (and the subsequent elimination of private insurance), tearing down the existing border wall, reparations for black and Native Americans, abolishing ICE, and embracing post-birth abortions.

And yet, as always, Democrats remain fearful too much elucidation of their intentions is their worst enemy. “Democratic leaders agree that candidates need to be careful not to say anything now that could haunt them in the general election, if they become the nominee,” The Washington Post reports.

The haunting is in full swing. As Hanson points out, Democrats are a party “in which over a dozen and often overlapping victim cadres agree that each degree of non-white-maleness adds authenticity and becomes a force multiplier of left-wing radicalism.”

It is a force multiplier whose ultimate destination elicits a question: How could any white, heterosexual, male — routinely vilified as “privileged,” “cisgender,” and “toxic” — still be a member of the Democrat Party, much less one of its presidential candidates?

And what about Christians, who were referred to as “bitter clingers” by the former Democrat president, and saw the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic fraternal organization,  vilified as a promoter of “extremist” views by two Democrat senators?

Jewish Americans? How many anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, pro-BDS, Louis Farrakhan-supporting Democrats does it take to engender irreparable alienation?

After all, the House failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism.

Yet the rush to the left remains undimmed. “So many Democratic presidential prospects are now claiming the progressive mantle in advance of the 2020 primaries that liberal leaders are trying to institute a measure of ideological quality control, designed to ensure the party ends up with a nominee who meets their exacting standards,” Politico reports.

Quality control? Exacting standards? Ideological purity with all the attendant fanaticism is more like it. “You don’t just get to say that you’re progressive,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told party donors at a conference last December. She and her followers envision 2020 as a watershed election where they will get a chance to “leverage our power.”

As always, power is all that matters to the American Left. That’s at least partly why DNC chairman Tom Perez announced Fox News would be barred from holding a Democrat Party presidential debate because of its “inappropriate relationship” with President Trump. Apparently 90% negative coverage of the president by the media is insufficient.

The list of initiatives mentioned above is all about the Liberty-crushing empowerment of progressive-controlled government, and their desire to abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court with four new leftist justices is all about making the arrangement permanent. Yet why are the same Democrats who hid behind a facade of “tolerance” for decades now embracing in-your-face radicalism?

Two reasons: The election of Donald Trump so enraged them they can’t contain themselves, to the point where they’ve made it clear they intend to investigate unprecedented portions of his adult life, and the lives of his associates and family, irrespective of their relationship to his presidency — and irrespective of what the Mueller investigation finds.

In other words, Democrats are embracing the Stalinesque “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” mindset championed by the Soviet dictator’s secret-police director Lavrenty Beria.

Yet far more important, Democrats think a combination of mass immigration — absent assimilation — and five decades of indoctrination-based education, that produced legions of Americans united solely by the idea they live in an inherently flawed nation needing radical transformation, has reached critical mass.

Don’t bet on it. “Progressives are like a worn rope being pulling apart at both ends,” Hanson states. “At one end, there is an effort to radicalize prior radicalization, and on the other end victimhood is heading toward parody.”

Not parody. Self-inflicted political irrelevancy.  ~The Patriot Post

In fact, Trump humorously rejoined, “Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!”

It’s not surprising that the DNC aims to continue promulgating the long-running charade of a non-biased MSM, while seeking to convince Americans that its increasingly extreme leftist ideology is mainstream. In fact, the hypocrisy on display here is quite frankly amazing even for Democrats. Recall back in 2016 when it was discovered that scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign organized with CNN’s Donna Brazille to feed questions for a town hall debate hosted by the network. Another example is the 2012 debate between Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and Mitt Romney in which CNN moderator Candy Crowley infamously injected herself to defend scumbag/liar-nObama with an erroneous “fact check” on Romney’s claim that scumbag/liar-nObama had initially denied the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi was terrorism. No bias there? Please.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway observes, “One of the reasons Trump was successful and won the presidency was that he declined to play the game where he treated the media as if they weren’t biased and facing massive credibility problems.” She then asks, “Do other Republicans enjoy being treated like second-class citizens? Do they think they must accept it?”

The fact of the matter is the illusion of the MSM being non-biased reporters of truth is no longer believed by the vast majority of the American public. The real question is why so many Republicans still seem to believe they must continue to kowtow to the media when they know the MSM will never give them a fair shake.  ~The Patriot Post

Oh, wait; it was yesterday. And they declined to do so amid intra-party squabbling over identity politics.

The recurring theme of freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism brought Democrats to the brink of introducing a resolution condemning such anti-Semitism, though avoiding actually naming Omar. In fact, Nancy Pulosi even offered the asinine assessment that Omar’s comments were not “intentionally anti-Semitic.” But an uprising led by commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez forced an expansion of that resolution to include “all forms of hate,” including “Islamaphobia.” It’s no coincidence that Omar is Muslim. The Latina commie-Ocasio-Cortez even wants anti-“Latinx+” statements to draw a rebuke.

Several 2020 presidential contenders from the Senate, including lowlife-Kamala Harris, commie-Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth dinky-Warren, jumped to Omar’s defense.

Pulosi even reportedly grew so frustrated that she dropped her microphone and walked out of a closed-door Democrat meeting, bitterly complaining, “Well if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking.” Perhaps all she needed to do was sleep on it, as Democrats will reportedly vote on the watered-down resolution later today.

The Wall Street Journal aptly notes, “An exercise that began with trying to distance Democrats from an anti-Semitic slur has evolved into a display of political cowardice that equates smears against Jews that have a horrific historical meaning with generalized ‘hate.’ Thus does a specific hatred get consumed, and trivialized, in today’s Democratic identity politics. And Ms. Omar can keep her Foreign Affairs Committee seat.”

Moreover, while commie-Ocasio-Cortez wants to deflect this hate problem to Republicans, it is Democrats who are trafficking in hatred these days — especially hate for Donald Trump. In fact, that’s what’s so ironic about this whole thing. As PowerLine’s John Hinderaker points out, “Ilhan Omar hates like a Democrat, and she openly expresses that hate like a Democrat. The problem is that she hates people who mostly support the Democratic Party.” I.e., Jews. As long as the hate is directed at groups leftists deem worthy of it, especially on the Right, Democrats are pleased. But you have to hate the “correct” people.  ~The Patriot Post

“Why does the left hate the tax cuts?” Crenshaw rhetorically asked Tuesday. “[Because] they think the people exist to fund the [government]. We believe the [government] exists to protect the inalienable rights of the people. When people keep their money, we get more jobs & wage growth, & less wasteful spending by ‘benevolent’ bureaucrats.”

With that comment, he posted video of his remarks at a House hearing, where he really nailed it (emphasis his):

We’re talking about a difference in philosophy, not just tax rates. It’s a question of whether the government should be taking more of your money or whether you should keep more of your money. It’s the difference in the role of government, in what we believe. It seems to me that you all believe that the role of government is to tax the people as much as possible so that you and your benevolent fellow academics can dream up more programs for the government to spend money on. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that’s what the role of government is for.

The role of government is to protect God-given rights that we have and to ensure that we live as free as possible. The role of government is to tax people to the least extent possible, while still taxing them enough to cover basic needs for government. And if we’re questioning what those needs are, we can just look at our Constitution; they’re generally pretty clear there.

Indeed, the Constitution is quite clear on the role of government, and today’s federal behemoth exceeds its mandate at nearly every turn. Much of that growth has been fueled by exactly what Crenshaw rightly criticizes: “more programs for the government to spend money on.” Democrats have become increasingly cynical and “generous” in their vote-buying scheme to offer “free stuff” to more people. But Republicans are hardly blameless. In 2017 and 2018, Republicans controlled both branches of government responsible for spending — and it increased drastically. Everyone wants to cut government, so long as it’s not their program. Thus, government never gets smaller.

If more elected Republicans would follow through on Crenshaw’s philosophy, that might begin to change.  ~The Patriot Post

There’s a similar scheme being conjured up in Washington. In January, Gov. Jay Inslee (now a 2020 Democrat presidential contender) declared: “My budget would also offer universal home visits. This gives every new parent the opportunity to get a visit from a nurse during the first few weeks back home with their newborn to share important information and build confidence.”

“Iowa Democrats are also attempting to gain oversight of families, specifically those of homeschoolers,” The Resurgent’s James Silberman reports. “IA HF272 would mandate quarterly ‘health and safety visits’ to homeschool families by school district officials. The bill states that these visits would be with the consent of the parents but also specifies that parents can be overridden if a judge determines there is probable cause for home inspection.”

PJ Media columnist Paula Bolyard astutely observes, “As someone who has been involved in the homeschooling movement for more than 20 years, I have seen many attempts to increase the oversight of children taught at home by requiring home visits by a teacher or social worker. … Anytime a state or locality has tried to draft legislation requiring home visits for homeschooled children, the immediate response has always been, ‘What are they going to do next, require inspections for children from birth until they enter school?’ The answer to that, of course, is yes. That has been the plan all along.”

This is statism, pure and simple. The Daily Signal this week relayed the story of a parent who said, “I was shocked when my 13-year-old daughter told me she was really my transgender son.” The parent added, “Where did she get the idea she was transgender? From a school presentation.”

This is precisely why more and more families are pulling their kids from public schooling and increasingly homeschooling. And while their reasons for doing so are more than justified, statists are ensuring that no age and no home is off limits when it comes to regulating thoughtcrimes.  

~The Patriot Post

This is just a sampling of the criminal, often violent activities engaged in by Mara Salvatrucha, otherwise known as MS-13; a vicious, brutal El Salvadoran street gang now firmly rooted in the U.S.

MS-13 was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s by El Salvadorans fleeing their own country’s civil war. Today, there are an estimated 30,000-50,000 MS-13 gang members, having spread from LA into nearly every state in the U.S., and throughout Central and South America.

The horrific violence waged by MS-13 in El Salvador has become so bad that El Salvadoran police officers are fleeing their own country and seeking asylum in the U.S., fearing for their lives and the lives of their families.

In an effort to bring stability to the region south of our border, the U.S. government spent nearly $50 million opening a law-enforcement academy in San Salvador, with the FBI and other U.S. law-enforcement agencies training nearly a thousand police officers in El Salvador, as well as Honduras and Guatemala, between 2014 and 2017.

The government tried an “iron fist” strategy of heavy crackdowns on MS-13, but it ultimately failed, leading the government to enter a truce with the gang to stem the bloodshed. The effort helped, bringing the El Salvadoran murder rate down from a staggering 60.8 murders per 100,000 residents to a slightly less staggering 50.3 murders per 100,000.

Unfortunately, the truce was soon broken, the violence surged again, and now the murder rate includes a frightening number of police officers. The murder of police officers has become a sort of gang “currency,” earning those who kill cops more respect, prestige, and power within the gang. But MS-13 no longer targets just the cops; they now target their families as well.

Police officers in El Salvador only earn between $300 and $400 per month, which means they often live in the same poor, gang-infested areas they are policing. This puts them and their families at extreme risk, and MS-13 is now so brazen that they murder police officers and their families in their own homes.

As one anonymous anti-gang unit officer — awaiting refugee status after being threatened at home by MS-13 gang members — explained, “They have more control than we do. When we go home, we’re in neighborhoods where there’s one police [officer] to 100 gang members. We’re easy victims.” Another officer, shot 12 times in two separate attacks, filed a refugee application that included a letter from his commander, telling him “There’s nothing we can do for you. You need to protect yourself.”

Just how much control does MS-13 have? Earlier this year, El Salvador’s police chief warned officers not to return to their homes because they could not be protected there. In response, El Salvadoran police officers are fleeing their homeland by the dozens, seeking asylum in the United States and other countries.

MS-13 is no longer just an El Salvador or Los Angeles problem. It is a cancer that has metastasized and spread throughout the country; it’s a threat we must take seriously.

Last year, Democrats berated President Trump for calling MS-13 gang members “animals.” Then-House Minority Leader (now Speaker) Nancy Pelosi scolded Trump, calling his comments “inhumane,” and asserting, “We’re all God’s children.” She then asked, “Does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”

This was after a string of violent crimes in which two MS-13 gang members violently murdered a teenage girl in Texas as an offering to Satan, and after MS-13 gang members in Maryland stabbed a man more than 100 times before cutting out his heart and cutting off his head. Other gang members stoned an 18-year-old boy to death and dumped his body under a bridge.

As conservative columnist Dennis Prager wisely rebutted, “Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if ‘human’ is to mean anything moral — anything beyond the purely biological — then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise ‘human’ has no moral being.”

Despite indisputable evidence that MS-13 gang members have infiltrated migrant caravans and used them as cover for drug smuggling, human trafficking, and murder, the Democrats dishonestly distort the issue, claiming migrants are just good people seeking work and a better life. Many are, but some are bloodthirsty killers.

And the problem gets worse by the day, aided by the Democrats not only refusing to help President Trump secure our border, but actively seeking to prevent him from doing so.

In New York, police officers have been warned to be vigilant while off-duty because it appears MS-13 gang members have been scouting out where they live to prepare for future attacks. In Texas, in February alone, at least seven MS-13 gang members were captured illegally crossing the border in a single sector.

If that many were apprehended, how many more got through to engage in the rape, murder, kidnapping, and sex trafficking of American girls and women?

From Maryland middle schools to Boston streets to Virginia suburbs to Houston neighborhoods, MS-13 now stalks our wives, our children, our neighbors, and our friends.

This threat must be taken seriously and acted on immediately. The blood of future innocent victims is on Democrat hands if they block that action.  ~The Patriot Post

Given rino-McCain’s reputation as a thorn in the side of conservatives, it’s no surprise that Malkin, whose syndicated columns appear at The Patriot Post, generated applause from the audience with that line during her speech. As much as anything, it’s the hypocrisy that rankles. While she complained about the Left abusing the dead for political gain, she did just that in her CPAC speech.

Unfortunately, Malkin also has had a close relationship with VDARE.com, a site that is remarkably tolerant of white nationalists. That relationship with VDARE (including an interview with Faith Goldy) has not only made it easier for a dishonest mainstream media to paint all those who want a secure border as racists, but it hands Silicon Valley“evidence” to justify its censorship of conservative voices on this and other issues.

We are aware that broken promises on border security are a major reason that the MAGA wing of conservatism has a valid reason to distrust both the Republican and conservative establishments. We also want our borders secure (including our maritime borders), and we want illegal immigration stopped, but we vehemently reject white nationalism and racism.

All that being said, rino-John McCain came in for his fair share of deserved criticism from our team when he was alive. All too often, he sought plaudits from the mainstream media at the expense of conservatives. He had a tendency to imply bad faith (or corruption) on the part of people who did not see things his way on issues that he was very passionate about (like campaign-finance “reform”), especially when it came to legislation.

That failing — an occasional blindness to the fact that Americans could disagree with him in good faith — was somewhat overlooked in the 2008 presidential campaign, largely due to his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. But even as he was being smeared by Democrats in that presidential race, he was simultaneously managing to annoy those whose enthusiastic support he needed to even have a prayer of winning the election in a very unfavorable political landscape.

Afterwards, rino-McCain sincerely pursued a number of policies he felt were best for the country. We had disagreements with some of them, including the halt of F-22 production and putting incredibly foolish limits on interrogations. rino-McCain also tended to push for bipartisanship, trying to address some of the most thorny issues America faced, but often undercut more conservative solutions.

One thing that we can say, though, is that there were never any grounds to doubt rino-McCain’s love for the United States of America. That was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt during his involuntary stay at the Hanoi Hilton. In addition, it is also certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that America would have been better off if rino-McCain had won the 2008 presidential election instead of Barack scumbag/liar-nObama.

When it comes down to it, rino-McCain supported the cause of limited government more often than not. He was a man who sacrificed much for this country while serving in the United States Navy, and who then spent his retirement from military service by again serving the United States in Congress as opposed to potentially more lucrative civilian employment.

In the past, our team has noted that while Donald Trump has been an effective president in advancing conservative policies and goals, he is not exactly the best role model. With rino-John McCain, we have to admit that in some ways, the opposite is true — he was often an outstanding role model who was, to put it mildly, probably not the best at advancing conservative policies and goal.

We wish that Malkin had kept that balance in mind.  ~The Patriot Post

Leftist DNC Chief Tom Perez declared last year that commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party.” Indeed, he gushed, she’s “the new face of the Democratic Party.” And that was before she had even become the youngest woman to win election in November. Particularly since taking office in January, the Millennial socialist heartthrob has exuberantly taken up that mantle. She’s everywhere in the media, Left and Right, with a steady stream of ignorant pronouncements trumpeted 24/7. The Leftmedia does so because she’s their hero and a path to solidifying Democrat support among young voters. Conservative media outlets want to expose her for what she really is — a dangerous hypocrite.

Her ecofascist Green New Deal is, of course, all the rage, even if Pulosi mocked the “green dream or whatever” and Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore dismissed her as a “pompous little twit” for such a stupid proposal. But like any true socialist, commie-Ocasio-Cortez has one system for herself and one for everyone else. From scarfing down a burger while admonishing people against eating beef to save the planet to allegedly flouting campaign-finance law to illegally pay her boyfriend, she’s got double standards. Now she’s facing Federal Election Commission complaints about her multimillionaire chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, illegally funneling nearly $1 million in campaign contributions to his own private companies. Such graft for the powerful and well-connected is a “feature” of socialist governments all over the world, so it would be no surprise if she and her staff were testing those waters.

Moving on, Ilhan Omar, a young Muslim woman representing Minnesota, has likewise drawn rebuke for her anti-Semitism. Half-hearted apologies notwithstanding, she doesn’t appear to be changing — or even masking — her stripes. The most recent kerfuffle is between Omar and New York Democrat Rep. Nita Lowey, who is Jewish. Lowey called Omar’s recent comments “vile,” “anti-Semitic,” “outrageous,” and “deeply hurtful.” Omar fired back, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” And no one is asking her to.

Democrat leaders have had enough, and House Dems will vote Wednesday on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. National Review notes, “It remains unclear whether the resolution … will condemn Omar by name or just anti-Semitism in general.” Either way, the message is clear: Democrats would be greatly hurt politically by the appearance of anti-Semitism in the party.

commie-Ocasio-Cortez and Omar may be female, young, and pass the Democrats’ Melanin Test, but they are radical extremists that induce heartburn even among leading Democrats. We’ll see where things stand five years from now.  ~The Patriot Post