The Second Class Second Amendment?

by Brian Mark Weber

             We’ve described Putin’s abuses of international law and peace for a number of years now, including his annexation of the Crimean Peninsula (there is of course no “Crimea” or “Georgia” anymore, from a practical standpoint), extorting Ukraine and Europe with threats of cutting off gas supplies, invading major parts of Ukraine, shooting down a Boeing 777 airliner, and a host of other here’s-blood-in-your-eye moves that leave no doubt about Russia’s ill intent. As for Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s “reset” button, Putin told scumbag/liar-nObama where to stick that button, then started resetting a few buttons of his own, making scumbag/liar-nObama look like the weakling he was and humiliating America in the process.
               Fast-forward to today. What’s changed? Well, in one sense nothing: Russia is still as belligerent as ever — not its people, that is, but its bull-in-a-china-shop government and military. That’s evidenced by the Kremlin’s latest violation of international law, in which the Russian Navy fired on three Ukrainian naval ships in the Azov Sea, wounding six and capturing ship-and-crew. The Azov is a major trade conduit for Ukraine, which shares the shallow sea as co-territorial water with Russia under a 2003 treaty between the two nations. Russia’s blatant act of war prompted Ukraine to impose martial law on a sizable portion of its territory in anticipation of imminent conflict with Russia. But what else has changed? A lot.
               For one thing, we no longer have feckless, impotent leadership atop a listing U.S. Ship of State. As if to accent the contrast, President Donald Trump stated flatly, “I don’t like [Russia’s] aggression. I don’t want that aggression at all.” He also threatened to cancel his upcoming meeting with Putin during the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. This threat may not sound like strong action at first blush, but it would lessen Putin’s esteem in the international community and further isolate him from the rest of the civilized world. The move would also put pressure on him at home, where his popularity continues to slide. Presumably, however, Trump received some assurances, because the two have set a meeting for Saturday at noon.
               Update: Later Thursday, Trump canceled the meeting, saying, “Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia, I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned to cancel my previously scheduled meeting in Argentina with President Vladimir Putin. I look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!”
               Nor do we have feckless U.S. leadership at the UN. Our favorite United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, echoed President Trump’s strong words through an even more blunt condemnation of Russia’s actions at an emergency assembly of the UN Security Council: “Sunday’s outrageous violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory is part of a pattern of Russian behavior. As President Trump has said many times, the United States would welcome a normal relationship with Russia. But outlaw actions like this one continue to make that impossible.” Ambassador Haley also noted that Russian-instigated attacks against Ukraine in recent years have left more than 100,000 Ukrainians dead.
               What else has changed? Other nations have started to wake up to the fact that the U.S. is not as easily rolled as it was only a few years ago. The sea-change in this international leadership was readily apparent not only in Ambassador Haley’s unvarnished but accurate characterization of Russian aggression, but also in Trump’s rebuke to Europe for not ponying up its fair share of support for NATO. Punctuating Europe’s “skin in the game” against Russian belligerence, the president dropped this gem off the top turnbuckle: “And by the way, Europe shouldn’t like that aggression. And Germany shouldn’t like that aggression. They’re absolutely not doing enough — Germany. … Many of those countries are not doing enough toward NATO. They should be spending much more money.” Perhaps for starters they could FedEx a few hundred antiship missiles to the Ukrainian Navy, which would take care of any unlawful-boarding problems toot-sweet.
               The broader danger posed by Russia’s leader is analogous to a dying star, which makes a spectacular showing — then the lights go out. In this analogy, Ukraine is simply the canary in the coal mine, signaling the impending supernova. Putin senses that his control and popularity, once very strong, are slipping — fast. In the wake of his exceedingly unpopular pension reforms earlier this year, for instance, his approval rating plummeted to its lowest point ever. In the past, when his ratings tanked he boosted them by “defending” Russia through strong military actions that demonstrated Russian primacy and strength to its people. Those people have since become inoculated to this ploy, especially in light of the widespread economic poverty affecting all but society’s wealthiest — like Putin, for instance.
               Facing this growing unrest, Putin is once again showing he is willing to take any action available to him to regain his stature and to turn Russia’s sorry ship around. Desperate or not, however, unless Putin’s hostile acts are met by an effective response he will continue to stir turmoil around the planet, in vain hopes of regaining former glory.
               Less than a century ago, Stalin wiped out anywhere from seven to 12 million Ukrainians through his genocidal, engineered famine — exact figures are impossible to render, owing to the sheer magnitude of the famine. But the more Putin continues to evolve into the image of his brutal predecessor, the closer those deaths will move to the forefront of Ukrainians’ minds. Meanwhile, maybe this time the U.S. will act decisively so the world does not have to relive such horrors.  ~The Patriot Post  

             In a setback to Trump’s efforts, one of Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s appointees on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jon Tigar, blocked Trump’s order requiring that illegal alien asylum applications, the free ticket to America, be processed at legal points of entry. (There’s a reason that circuit is also known as the Ninth Circus and the Nutty Ninth.)
               Trump responded to the ruling, “You go the 9th Circuit and it’s a disgrace. And I’m going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win — if you’re us — a case in the 9th Circuit and I think it’s a disgrace. This was an scumbag/liar-nObama judge.”
               On that note, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in an unprecedented rebuke of a U.S. president, chastised Trump for stating the obvious: that an scumbag/liar-nObama-appointed federal judge “was an scumbag/liar-nObama judge.”
               Roberts declared, “We do not have scumbag/liar-nObama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or scumbag/liar-Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
               It would have been proper for Roberts to say nothing about Trump’s remark, but, ostensibly endeavoring to protect the integrity of the courts, he apparently felt compelled. Obviously, Justice Roberts knows full well how highly politicized the federal courts are — and his assertion that we now have an “independent judiciary” defies reality. The objective of impartial “blind justice” is certainly what our Founders prescribed for the judicial branch, but they knew that attaining equal justice under the law was a high bar.
               The most recent skewering of then-SCOTUS nominee and now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an airtight case in point. So one might conclude that Roberts was projecting what he believes should be the nonpartisan nature of the courts. But as he stated it, he’s flat wrong.
               Responding to Roberts, Trump said, “I have a lot of respect for [Roberts] but I think we have to use some common sense. This 9th Circuit, everybody knows it’s totally out of control and what they’re doing, what they’re saying, the opinions are very unfair to law enforcement, very unfair to our military, and they’re very unfair, most importantly, to the people of our country because I’m keeping them safe.”
               Trump added: “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘scumbag/liar-nObama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is[,] why there are so many opposing view cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned[?] Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise! Judges must not Legislate Security and Safety at the Border.”
               Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a former federal prosecutor and a strong candidate for a Circuit Court nomination once he retires from the House, declared, “I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish there were not a politicization of the judiciary.”
               Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, added, “Every print article that you will go find … refers to judges based on the president that put him or her in office. And you see terms like conservative and ultra conservative and liberal and moderate, which are political terms. … So I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish that we did not refer to judges based on which president put them in office as if that is somehow going to inextricably lead us to the conclusion.”
               The fact is, federal judges have proven to be partisan for generations, and there is most assuredly a very distinct division and partiality on the federal bench.
               Judges nominated and appointed by Republican presidents are partial toward Rule of Law and the Liberty  enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they honor their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution.
               Conversely, judges nominated and appointed by  Democrat presidents are clearly partial toward the so-called “living constitution” embraced by those who reject Rule of Law in deference to the rule of men, the irrevocable terminus of which is tyranny.
               Of the latter, Thomas Jefferson warned they would “make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” As the venerable former Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC) once put it, these are judges who “interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it.” Jefferson warned that such interpretation would render our Constitution “a mere thing of wax … which [judges] may twist and shape into any form they please.”
               As James Madison cautioned, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
               As for partiality on the Supreme Court, over the last 18 months, according to The Daily Wire, “The four left-leaning judges on the Supreme Court are far more consistent about voting together as a bloc than the conservatives on the court; Elena Kagan votes with Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg an average of 89% of the time; Breyer votes with his cohorts an average of 91% of the time; Ginsburg also votes with her pals an average of 91% of the time, and Sotomayor joins them 90.3% of the time.”
               The assessment notes further, “By contrast, among the four right-leaning judges, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts, Gorsuch sided with them an average of 82.7% of the time; Thomas 86.3% of the time; Alito 85.7% of the time, and Roberts 80.7% of the time.”
               As Cal Thomas concludes, “If all judges thought the same, as Roberts seems to suggest, why are there so many 5-4 rulings by the high court?”
               And regarding significant immigration decisions by the lower courts since Donald Trump took office, according to a  Washington Times review, “53 of the 54 Democrat appointed judges who issued or signed onto opinions in immigration cases ruled against the Trump administration’s get-tough approach.” The Times study noted further, “By contrast, among GOP-appointees to the federal bench, 15 judges have backed the administration in immigration cases and 13 have not.”
               As I have noted, judicial opinions are not about “Right” versus “Left”; they’re about Liberty versus tyranny. Thus, in 2016, when I voted for Donald Trump instead of his leftist opponent, scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, I voted for the Supreme Court. And indeed, President Trump has consistently nominated constructionist judges to both the upper and lower courts.
               And finally, what debate about the Supreme Court would be complete without Senate Minority Leader scumbag/clown-Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offering one of his mind-numbing observations. In an opinion that sounded far more satirical than senatorial, scumbag/clown-Schumer offered an affirmation of Roberts’s assessment of judicial independence, while in the same breath accusing Roberts of partisanship in his decisions: “I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political. … But I am thankful today that he … stood up to President Trump for an independent judiciary.”
               Yes, you heard that correctly: scumbag/clown-Schumer sided with Trump about the Court’s partisan nature, then laughably implied that he supports “an independent judiciary.”
               But no sooner had he sucked up to the chief justice than he was back to his old obfuscatory games. This week on the Senate floor, scumbag/clown-Schumer, singing the Demos’ midterm “rigged election” theme song, declared, “Justice Roberts will go down in history as one of those who worked to take away voting rights when he authored the Shelby decision and stated that he didn’t believe that … more or less, he stated that he didn’t believe that discrimination existed any longer, so we wouldn’t need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”
               Of course, Roberts never wrote that. In fact, quite the contrary. In that decision, Roberts noted, “At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.”
               Never let it be said that scumbag/clown-Schumer allowed inconvenient facts to get in the way of a partisan cheap shot.
               Footnote: Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We are now the Web’s most influential grassroots journal promoting freedom and challenging the Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots — people like you. Please support The Patriot Fund’s Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.  ~The Patriot Post  

             The researchers further studied the speech of white liberals and conservatives when addressing minority individuals. Again, the researchers found that white liberals engage in a “competence downshift” in their language, whereas white conservatives did not. Dupree noted the uncomfortable irony, stating, “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect. Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” It most certainly could.
               Brandon Morse of RedState observed, “We often hear from social justice adherents that we carry an implicit bias toward people of other races, and then immediately point to anyone other than themselves. Now we see why. On average, the white left is guilty of believing minority individuals are of lower intelligence than they are and dumb down their speech in order to feel like they’re being kinder to them by doing so.”
               The Left’s insistence of playing identity politics leads to the inevitable classification of everyone by some basic shared group dynamics, including and especially race. Conservatives, by contrast, elevate the individual over the collective group dynamic and therefore are less inclined to judge others simply by group identity. Without even realizing it, “woke” leftists are the ones most guilty of perpetrating the very racial stereotypes they so vehemently condemn.
               As a final thought: To the extent that minorities do lag behind whites in education, leftists can look in the mirror there too. Democrats running the nation’s cities keep blacks in failing schools for a reason.  ~The Patriot Post  

             The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman agrees. Noting yesterday’s updated but largely unrevised report of third-quarter GDP growth of 3.5%, Freeman wrote, “Despite concerns over trade disputes and a slowing global economy, the corporate tax rate cut enacted in December of 2017 continues to encourage the business investment that leads to higher productivity and higher wages for American workers. Today the government reported that such investment was higher than it initially reported for the third quarter of the year.”
               In other words, the significant revision to the GDP report was that American companies invested substantially more than initially reported. Freeman explains, “The Commerce Department has reported that non-residential fixed investment rose 2.5% at an annual rate in the three months ending in September, up from 0.8% in the earlier estimate. Within this overall category of business investment, spending on equipment was revised to estimated growth of 3.5%, up sharply from an earlier 0.4% estimate.”
               How did companies have that money to invest in growth? Their taxes were substantially lower. If Democrats blaming Republicans for GM had their way, the U.S. would still have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Lower tax rates obviously don’t fix every ill in the economy, but leaving businesses — and by extension consumers — with more of their own money means there will be more jobs, higher wages, and overall economic growth that would be hampered by Democrat policies.
               That’s why it’s so laughably absurd for Barack scumbag/liar-nObama to keep taking credit for Donald Trump’s economy. Let’s hope House Democrats don’t, as they like to say, turn back the clock.  

~The Patriot Post 

             The publicly stated goal of LBJ’s War on Poverty, making America’s poor more self-sufficient so as to bring them into the mainstream economy, has been an abject failure. More Americans than ever find themselves dependent on some form of government welfare. In fact, prior to the passage of War on Poverty, the percentage of Americans living in poverty had been steadily declining over a 20 year period, from 32.1% down to 14.7%.
               Meanwhile, government spending on welfare, a.k.a. wealth redistribution, has gone from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 per person in 2016. As John Early and Phil Gramm note in The Wall Street Journal, “Transfers now constitute 84.2% of the disposable income of the poorest quintile of American households and 57.8% of the disposable income of lower-middle-income households. These payments also make up 27.5% of America’s total disposable income.” Thus more Americans than ever find themselves as de facto wards of the state.
               LBJ’s War on Poverty in reality was a war on America’s poor, robbing them of their most valuable commodity: a work ethic. As Early and Gramm further argue, “Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing.” And the segment of American society that has been most directly impacted by the loss of a work ethic are men. Edward Glaeser  writes in the City Journal, “In 1967, 95 percent of ‘prime-age’ men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. During the Great Recession, though, the share of jobless prime-age males rose above 20 percent. Even today, long after the recession officially ended, more than 15 percent of such men aren’t working. … The rise of joblessness — especially among men — is the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century. It is a crisis of spirit more than of resources.”
               Now that the Democrat Party has been almost entirely taken over by hard-left socialists, their only answers to societal problems are to double down on even more of LBJ’s failed “Great Society.” Meanwhile, the souls of many Americans become increasingly bereft of that spirit of freedom and individual responsibility that makes our nation the envy of the world.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Yes, there are two establishments. The Republican establishment we hear much about (and that is derided as RINO) tends to be very moderate. But there have also been otherwise solid conservatives who went Never Trump as well. Folks in these two establishments feel that the MAGA wing has made some deals with the devil in supporting Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign, to put it mildly, and there’s no doubt the Trump wing has some work to do to win back the suburbs.
               But the problem is, the establishments managed to rack up some intense levels of mistrust. In 2016, the GOP had a number of successful governors running for president, including Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry. Other luminaries such as Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also were strong candidates. But Trump beat them all.
               Why? The big reason is that the Republican and conservative establishments failed to effectively address some big issues. There was the IRS scandal, an initial manifestation of the deep-state threat. There was also the scumbag/liar-nObamaCare shutdown of 2013 — a major tactical and strategic miscalculation on the part of the more conservative House Republicans and Sen. Cruz. The long-running failure to secure our borders also became a festering sore.
               Moreover, when Democrats made outlandish claims, like Michelle scumbag/liar-nObama claiming that opposition to her failed school-lunch program meant people were okay with kids “eating crap,” the establishments didn’t fully fight back — or so MAGA voters perceived. Even much worse slanders, like those directed at the late rino-John McCain, went largely unanswered by the establishments. The slanders were turned up to 11 after the 2016 election, and some of the failed establishment types joined in. In some cases, it was to cover up their own bad track records.
               Worst of all, in some cases, establishment Republicans who were defended by MAGA Republicans in the past, like George W. Bush — the beneficiary of many Republicans and conservatives defending him on a wide spectrum of issues — often repaid that defense with trashing those who defended them. Not surprisingly, that didn’t go over well.
               At this point, a MAGA Republican or conservative has every right to trust an establishment Republican or conservative about as far as they can throw a Nimitz-class supercarrier. The lack of trust means that MAGA Republicans are less likely to stick their necks out for an establishment Republican. Some establishment Republicans and conservatives may never regain that trust.
               The good news, though, is that many Republicans still in office have learned some of these lessons, and they now fight back. Two of the most notable examples are Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Both have taken major stands and have begun to punch back — Graham was particularly notable in his blistering rebuke of Democrats in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Given his history of “working across the aisle,” this was a welcome show of GOP spine.
               But this has to be a routine among Republican party leaders, as well as conservative leaders outside the GOP. This is particularly important when slanders like being okay with “kids eating crap” and worse are uttered.
               The conservative and Republican establishments have a long way to go to regain the trust of MAGA voters. They may never fully regain it. But unless they try, they will find themselves shunted to the sideline — and our liberties and the future of the country will be paying the ultimate price.  ~The Patriot Post  

             In three critical, high-profile races — governor of Georgia, and governor and U.S. Senate in Florida — the Republican won by a very narrow margin, and it was black men voting Republican who arguably cost Democrats those seats.
               In the gubernatorial races, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams made history by becoming the first black woman to earn a major-party nomination for governor. Likewise, in Florida, Democrat socialist-Andrew Gillum sought to become the state’s first black governor.
               But baffling Democrats is the fact the three-term Democrat Senator scumbag-Bill Nelson (an old, rich, white man) outperformed former Tallahassee Mayor socialist-Andrew Gillum (a black man). Nelson won 43,000 more votes than socialist-Gillum, but where he won them is astonishing. According to exit polling, while 90% of black voters cast ballots for Nelson, only 86% voted for socialist-Gillum.
               In Gadsden, Florida’s only majority black county, and in the five counties with the highest percentage of black residents, scumbag-Nelson outperformed socialist-Gillum by thousands of votes. It was former Congressman Ron DeSantis’s strong showing among Hispanics and men, and socialist-Gillum’s (relatively, compared to scumbag-Nelson) lackluster showing with black voters, that likely cost socialist-Gillum the governor’s mansion.
               In Georgia, the race was not quite close enough for Democrat Abrams to steal a victory over Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp, though not for lack of trying. Abrams found a friendly judge on Election Day and forced polling stations in several heavily Democrat counties to stay open four hours past the legal cut-off. Another judge, violating his judicial oath to uphold the law, barred counties from disqualifying ballots with signature mismatches. Abrams also filed a lawsuit attempting to force counties to count illegal, fraudulent, and inaccurate ballots.
               Her efforts nearly paid off, but in the end Kemp’s margin of victory was still large enough to withstand Democrat dirty tricks and co-conspirator judges.
               Democrats have manufactured a variety of sore-loser excuses to explain these losses. Showing an utter lack of class, Abrams refused to concede for nearly two weeks after the election, even when it was clear there was no mathematical path to force a run-off. In her concession she slammed Kemp, claiming Georgia did not have a “free and fair election,” and promising lawsuits, which she filed this week.
               She was joined by two-time presidential loser scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, and Democrat Senators scumbag-Cory “I am Spartacus” scumbag-Booker and Sherrod Brown, among others, in claiming the election was stolen, claiming (what else?) racism and systemic voter suppression, despite the fact that everything Kemp did was required by state law.
               This is an interesting tactic to use considering that under Kemp, Georgia voter registration hit a record high of nearly seven million, including more than a quarter million new registered voters since April of this year, the majority of those coming in counties won by Abrams. There is also the fact that in the 2018 midterm elections, Democrat Abrams lost her race for governor with more votes (1.9 million) than current Republican Governor Nathan Deal won reelection with in 2014 (1.3 million).
               Notice a pattern? Democrats seem to think electoral victories are theirs by birthright, and any time a Republican wins it must be racism or voter suppression or some other nefarious machinations.
               That’s why you get Washington Post articles with language that would be considered hate speech if the races were reversed. Columnist Vanessa Williams, commenting on the Georgia governor’s race, wrote, “White female voters in Georgia showed little interest in helping black women fulfill their dream of electing Stacey Abrams as governor, which would have made her the first African American woman to head a state in the nation’s history. … But another group of voters also raised eyebrows for how they voted in the race. … Black men voted for Kemp at a higher rate than black women, according to exit polling, a data point that drew gasps and rebuke on social media and news commentary.”
               In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring law-enforcement officials to arrest runaway slaves and return them to their owners. Today, Democrats think they own the votes of black Americans and are outraged when black (or Hispanic, or Asian, or women) voters flee the modern Democrat poverty plantations and vote Republican.
               Under President Donald Trump, black Americans are thriving; black unemployment hit historical lows, with 1.2 million more blacks employed under Trump than scumbag/liar-nObama. Black home ownership is on the rise. And despite the Leftmedia’s hilarious attempts to deny Trump credit for the rise in black prosperity, at least some black voters have taken notice that their lives are much better under Republican policies than Democrat.
               And that terrifies Democrats. If a 4% swing in black male votes from Democrat to Republican was enough to cost them Florida’s governorship and U.S. Senate seat, imagine the dire straits they would find themselves in if the black vote for Republicans rose to 15%, or 20%! It would be devastating for Democrats, who rely on race, sex, and economic divisions for electoral victories.
               Blacks across America suffer most when living in Democrat-run cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and St. Louis. Blacks thrive under Republican policies. Hopefully more will realize that truth and let their votes reflect it.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Significantly, of course, Hyde-Smith’s win provides Senate Republicans with a majority of 53 seats, and thus a more comfortable cushion for anything from confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees to advancing conservative legislation to blocking sick-Nancy Pulosi’s House legislative agenda. As we argued the day after the midterms, GOP gains in the Senate were driven mainly by voter concern over the judiciary in the wake of Democrats’ horrendous treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
               Speaking of horrendous treatment, that brings us back to the big issue in this race — race. The Washington Post called it a “racially charged election.” But why was that the case? Because Democrats injected race into the mix. Blacks make up 37% of Mississippi’s population, the highest of any state, and Espy would have been the first black senator to represent the state since Reconstruction. Thus, any apparent gaffe made by Hyde-Smith — from innocuous comments about a public hanging to donning a Confederate uniform cap at a tourism appearance — turned into a scandal supposedly proving her racism, all to motivate black voters. As it turns out, however, some of the “evidence” of racism and hate in Mississippi came in the form of nooses left hanging from trees near the state capitol … by Democrat protesters.
               None of this is to say Hyde-Smith was a particularly strong candidate — she wasn’t. But it is to say, as Erick Erickson notes, “2020 is going to be the nastiest campaign season we have ever seen because the Democrats will look at Georgia, Mississippi, Florida and elsewhere and conclude they must amplify, sustain, and magnify their accusations of racism to suppress some voters while driving up the turn out of others.”  ~The Patriot Post  

             First, we’ll restate a couple of things we noted the only other time we’ve commented on the subject. Murder is what authoritarian regimes do, be they Islamic or otherwise. A free press is anathema to totalitarians. But with Khashoggi, there may be more than meets the eye. He joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s. He wasn’t an advocate of Western-style democracy, instead favoring an Arab Spring-style political Islamic regime. That isn’t to minimize his death; it’s to see clearly who he was, which the WaPo in its lionization refuses to do.
               Second, the Leftmedia coverage is driven by the fact that Khashoggi was a journalist (or, more accurately, a propagandist), not by true care for or understanding of sometimes messy foreign alliances such as the one the U.S. has with Saudi Arabia.
               Third, we also drew this back to the actual scandal of the 2012 Benghazi attack. The Leftmedia would like to make this “Trump’s Benghazi.”
               Now, to recent developments. The CIA last week concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman not only knew about the murder but ordered it, contradicting the Saudi government’s claims. Trump then contradicted the CIA, expressing doubt about its conclusion. Of Salman’s order or knowledge, Trump said as only he could, “Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” Trump’s generally crass letter regarding the murder and the CIA’s conclusion largely reduced the relationship with Saudi Arabia to arms sales, oil, and Iran, but without the right emphasis or caveats. As The Wall Street Journal observed, “We are aware of no President, not even such ruthless pragmatists as Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, who would have written a public statement like this without so much as a grace note about America’s abiding values and principles. Ronald Reagan especially pursued a hard-line, often controversial, foreign policy against Soviet Communism, but he did so with a balance of unblinkered realism and American idealism. Mr. Trump seems incapable of such balance.”
               But Trump wasn’t entirely wrong, either. As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis correctly noted, “There has to be accountability for anyone involved in the murder. Yes, I’m calling it murder. We’re not going to apologize for our human-rights stance. Nor are we going to apologize for working with Saudi Arabia when it’s necessary for the good of innocent people who are in trouble. Presidents don’t often get the freedom to work with unblemished partners.”
               Finally, the CIA — hardly an unblemished partner, by the way — does not set foreign policy; the president does. And as he concluded his letter, Trump said, “Very simply it is called America First!”  

~The Patriot Post  

             Never mind that outdated garbage if you’re a Democrat, right? The Senate is suddenly “undemocratic” and established in an “unfair” manner, according to unsatiated Democrat operatives, whose plan to stop the Republican confirmations of judges nominated by President Donald Trump fell short on Election Day. In fact, Republicans actually picked up a couple of Senate seats thanks to Democrats’ despicable treatment of Brett Kavanaugh. As usual, because they failed to get their way, Democrats are now clamoring to change the Constitution regarding the election of senators.
               For background, let’s establish what Democrats do if they lose or have a less-than-desirable outcome in an election. They claim elections are rigged and stolen (think Georgia gubernatorial race). They sue or construct some legal barrier to a legitimate election (think Florida Senate). But it didn’t start with the 2018 elections.
               In October 2016, scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton declared that Trump’s hedging on whether he’d accept the presidential election results if they were close, based on his belief that Democrats work intentionally to help illegal immigrants and others without legal standing to cast ballots, was “a direct threat to our democracy.” Yet back in April of this year, Democrats filed suit against the Russian government and the Trump campaign for the alleged coordinated efforts through computer hacking and dissemination of stolen campaign information to benefit Trump. All of this despite not one piece of evidence, still, that there was any collusion between Trump and the Russians, who daily, like the Chinese, spy and seek to disrupt us.
               So whether it’s bellyaching about the bipartisan political use of gerrymandering, photo ID laws, the Electoral College, or their recent losses in the Senate, Democrats are committed to their hold on raw power with obstacles such as the Constitution treated as just a formality to reinterpret. Remember, it’s supposedly a living document meant to reflect the whim of the day, not serve as the Rule of Law for our nation.
               Democrats’ current cry is to change the number of senators to reflect population, more like the House. Representatives are apportioned to speak on behalf of approximately 711,000 citizens as determined by the U.S. Census.
               As an example, Democrats are upset that the states of Tennessee (with its 6.7 million people) and Wyoming (population 579,000) have two elected senators while the states of New York (20 million) and California (40 million) have the same number of seats. Simply put, Democrats want their more populated states, home to the hard-Left agenda, to have greater influence over these God and gun lovers in “flyover country.”
               During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison spoke of the Senate as “a necessary fence” that would protect “the people against their rulers” and from “the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” What might be those transient impressions be?
               Well, to today’s Democrats, this was constitutional claptrap originating from white male privilege to serve the colonialism sought by oppressors. Now, the GOP is refusing to open our borders, give free college education, and a basic living wage without work.
               Democrats win by changing the rules to fit their agenda. Their agenda caters to the urban centers of their extreme party that is moving ever more leftward as days pass. And, ironically, as more Democrats move to those urban centers, they “lose” representation in the Senate. Thus, they’re now beginning to rumble about changing the rules again — as if the 17th Amendment didn’t already do enough damage to states’ rights.
               Conservatives must guard Liberty and the Constitution that speaks of both our inalienable rights endowed by our Creator and the manner in which we have to protect them.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Okay, maybe that’s a little exaggerated, but professors Melissa Hunt, Rachel Marx, Courtney Lipson, and Jordyn Young at UPenn’s psychology department found that decreasing social media usage can reduce feelings of depression and loneliness. It may also reduce a person’s narcissistic and other self-centered behavior.
               The study, published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, delved into the social-media habits of 143 University of Pennsylvania students over a period of several weeks. Half the students used Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat like they normally would, while the other half restricted their usage to 10 minutes a day. Both groups where evaluated throughout the course of the study on seven different scales measuring moods and psychological well-being.
               The group that significantly restricted their social-media usage demonstrated improved mental health, while the other group showed signs of increased depression and loneliness.
               Participants in the study noted feeling happier when they used social media less. “Not comparing my life to the lives of others had a much stronger impact than I expected,” said one student. “I felt a lot more positive about myself during those weeks.”
               This report breaks new ground in the study of social media and its effects on human behavior because prior studies only found a correlation between social media and depression, whereas the work at the University of Pennsylvania demonstrates that social media may be the cause of depression.
               More work needs to be done to determine the cause and effect of such behaviors, but we already have the evidence we need to prove that over-reliance on social media is harming our society. Many people in today’s youngest generation, who never knew a world without social media, have become so entranced by the power of social-media platforms that they make most decisions based on gleanings from the online world.
               Depression, loneliness, and attempted suicides among adolescents have risen sharply since 2010. There is also a steep rise in the number of people suffering from narcissism. These are not just people who are stuck on themselves in the classic sense; these are people so self-absorbed that it negatively impacts their lives and their ability to have functional relationships with other people.
               Social media does have value. It can help spread information, it keeps us connected with people, and it can bring together people of common interest who might not otherwise connect. However, the creators of these platforms have designed it in such a way as to make it addictive.
               Facebook’s “like” button, which has since been copied by many other social media platforms, is a perfect example. What started out as a simple feature to show approval for someone’s post became a craving for affirmation. Very quickly, people drew a direct connection between how many “likes” they received with their sense of self-worth. Instead of sharing information on social media for the sake of sharing it, people began crafting posts specifically to draw positive responses from others. The number of likes or followers a person collected on social media inflated or deflated their self-worth, skewing their sense of self-importance, and hampering their ability to negotiate social interactions.
               As we have said many times, on platforms like Facebook and Twitter you are the product. The goal of these companies is to rope you in, collect as much data on you as possible, and use that data to make money, either by selling your data outright to third parties or by selling you products or services. The platforms will tell you whatever you want to hear and show you whatever you want to see to keep you coming back.
               One way to combat the problem is to exercise personal responsibility and treat social media more like a disease. Throughout history, one of the best ways to combat disease was nutrition. The same can be done for social media.
               Proper nutrition creates a healthier body and a stronger immune system, making it harder for disease to take hold. The same can be done for the mind, making people more resilient to the ill effects of social-media addiction. Examples of this include engaging in critical thinking, healthy skepticism to group ideas, and using common sense can protect yourself from the mass hysteria, fake news, and narcissistic impulses that social media so easily breeds.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Cue the media outrage … at President Donald Trump. No doubt GM’s announcement does hurt Trump. After all, two of the plant closures and much of the job loss will occur in states he won — Ohio and Michigan. His campaign was and is centered on bringing jobs back to the U.S and restoring downtrodden towns in Middle America; GM is doing the opposite.
               Democrats were quick to blame Republican tax reform. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said in a statement, “GM received record tax breaks as a result of the GOP’s tax bill last year, and has eliminated jobs instead of using that tax windfall to invest in American workers.” That ignores the forest to focus on one tree, but it’ll swing some votes thanks to amplification by the Democrats’ Leftmedia super PAC. We’d like to say that every instance of a corporation paying less in taxes ($157 million less in GM’s case) led to more jobs, but that’s not always the case due to other considerations.
               GM itself fairly laid some of the blame on Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which the company says cost $1 billion over a full year — dwarfing its corporate-tax savings. Tariffs are no doubt a factor in GM’s decision. Tariffs are taxes, of course, and companies pay for them by cutting costs elsewhere; GM’s cutting took the form of 14,000 jobs. It’s going to take more than Trump threatening GM CEO Mary Barra that the company “better damn well open a new plant [in Ohio] pretty quickly” to get those jobs back.
               We’re struck by the near-total lack of any media mention of the massive bailout of GM or of the role unions have played in driving up production costs. But another major factor here is what products GM chose to make. GM builds its popular SUV models in other countries, while it struggles to sell the sedans and compact cars it makes in the U.S.
               By the way, the Chevy Volt is on the chopping block. Making that car was not a market-driven decision but a political one, hence the massive taxpayer-subsidized rebates for it. Poor sales are now costing jobs. “When I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself,” Barack scumbag/liar-nObama  promised in 2012. We suppose his dream scumbag/liar-nObama Car will never become reality now. Likewise for the Chevy Cruze, which he literally signed the hood of as he dubbed it “the car of the future.” That model too was axed.
               From a big-picture standpoint, this doesn’t bode well for Americans’ already declining view of capitalism, either. As Main Street workers lose their jobs, GM’s Wall Street stock went up. Now, cronyism isn’t capitalism, and as we’ve already explained above, this is a complicated story. But the socialism captivating so many Democrats these days is much worse. The free market is still the best economic system ever devised, even if there are painful cuts along the way.  

~The Patriot Post  

             What about the women and children caught in the fray? Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen set the record straight, stating, “It appears in some cases that the limited number of women and children in the caravan are being used by the organizers as ‘human shields’ when they confront law enforcement. They are being put at risk by the caravan organizers as we saw at the Mexico-Guatemala border. This is putting vulnerable people in harm’s way.” Exactly. As Philip Wegmann of the Washington Examiner bluntly put it, “Don’t want to be gassed? Don’t riot. Don’t want your children to be gassed? Don’t bring them to the kind of protests susceptible to rioting.”
               Nielsen also pointed out that the use of tear gas to disperse a mob has been regularly used at the border. “The accepted use of nonlethal force (also used by the scumbag/liar-nObama Administration in 2013) prevented further injury to agents and a mass illegal rush across the border,” she said. As we noted yesterday, under the scumbag/liar-nObama administration U.S. Border Patrol agents were authorized to employ the same nonlethal mob-dispersing tactics, including the use of both tear gas and pepper spray. In fact, at times during  scumbag/liar-nObama’s tenure, the Border Patrol used tear gas and pepper spray monthly. Where was the Democrat and media outrage then?
               As they did with the photos of kids in cages, Democrats and their media cohorts are appealing to emotion over reason as they intentionally conflate and confuse legal and illegal immigration and asylum. The Leftmedia willfully misinforms the American public as it seeks to promote the acceptance of a globalist, anti-American agenda that is dead set on eroding national boundaries. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the migrants who violently rushed the border Sunday were in fact young men. The images of helpless migrant children caught in the fray are designed to prey on the maternal instincts of the Democrat Party’s largest voting block: women.  ~The Patriot Post