ACTION

There are 61 males on federal death row: 26 white, 26 black, seven Latino, one Native American and one Asian, as well as one white female. The list holds inmates whose sentencing dates to 1997, but the five named by the Department of Justice to have their executions set are:

• Alfred Bourgeois, who emotionally and physically tortured, as well as molested, his own daughter at the age of two and a half years before he beat her to death.

• Dustin Lee Honken, who murdered two men set to testify against him, along with a single, working mom and her 10-year-old and six-year-old girls.

• Daniel Lewis Lee, who robbed a family of three that included an eight-year-old girl, shooting each member of the family. But he didn’t stop there. He covered their heads with plastic bags, taped them at the throat with duct tape, and weighed the bodies down with rocks before dumping them in an Illinois swamp. Oh yeah, and he’s in a white-supremacist group.

• Lezmond Mitchell, who stabbed his 63-year-old grandmother and took hostage a nine-year-old granddaughter. The young lady was forced to sit beside her dead grandmother for about a 40-mile drive before her own throat was slit twice, her head was bashed in with large rocks, and, like her grandmother, she had her hands and head severed. At least they were buried together.

• Wesley Ira Purkey, who viciously raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl before dismembering her, burning her body parts, and dumping the remains in a septic pond. Purkey was also convicted in a second murder where he employed a claw hammer to bludgeon to death an 80-year-old crippled female afflicted with polio.

Barr, citing current law, explained that his motives transcended the focus on the rights of the convicted. “Congress has expressly authorized the death penalty through legislation adopted by the people’s representatives in both houses of Congress and signed by the President. The Justice Department upholds the rule of law — and we owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”

Naturally, that won’t cut it for those advocacy groups who are focused on the rights of the convicted.

It’s interesting that in his guidelines, Barr ordered that the single drug, pentobarbital, be used as in Texas, Georgia, and Missouri. This single-drug protocol is exactly that which is used is assisted suicide, deemed so humane in the eyes of many on the political Left. But that doesn’t matter, right?

Another incongruous thought is that many who will be found among the critics of this revival of the death penalty are, themselves, of the opinion that the murder of the preborn — the innocent life in a mother’s womb — is humane, while a defense is mounted to protect individuals, far from innocent, whose capital crimes are deemed to have been excessively dark, vile, and deliberate.

States are moving away from death-penalty cases and they’re driven by financial considerations. According to data from the Death Penalty Information Center, non-death-penalty cases have a median cost of $740,000 while death-penalty cases cost about $1.26 million with tremendous strains on the victims’ families. But should cost drive justice or do we choose only to navigate a legal system to expedite and avoid the controversies?

Be ready for the commentaries and the talking heads to seize upon these pending executions as “controversial” because they’re tied to Donald Trump’s attorney general. The trend we’re witnessing, however, is to strangely view the victims of murder as those whose lives taken from them find justice depending on the cultural plumb line or the budget.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64573?mailing_id=4447&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4447&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

On that note, a significant argument last night was just how much “free” health care Democrats can promise without, as John Delaney warned, committing “political suicide” by being “the party of subtraction, and telling half the country … that their [private] health insurance is illegal.” While “moderates” like Delaney are making their last stand against “impossible promises” about “free everything,” socialists commie-Bernie Sanders and his left-hand woman Elizabeth dinky-Warren argue that their $40 trillion government plan to take away your private health plan is the best way to go.

Warren flat-out lied: “We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone. That’s what the Republicans are trying to do.” That’s a BIG Lie — a false assertion so brazen they’re hoping voters won’t question it. They hope to dishonestly frame the debate as one between benevolent and caring Democrats and “bigoted” Republicans who “take stuff from you.”

John Hickenlooper says commie-Sanders’s policies are too extreme and that “you might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump.” But leftists like Hickenlooper are losing to the radical Left.

On a more humorous note, it’s ironic to hear Democrats like commie-Sanders declare, “Nobody can defend the dysfunctionality of the current [health] system!” That would be the health system now defined by scumbag/liar-nObamaCare, rammed through by Democrats without a single Republican vote.

Immigration provided an interesting contrast. Whereas Warren called for citizenship for “students who have overstayed their visas” among others, commie-Sanders insisted that “strong border protections” are necessary to prevent illegals from abusing all the “free” stuff. Now, we don’t believe for a minute that commie-Sanders would actually secure the borders as president. But maybe he’s reading the tea leaves. Polling shows that many Americans view immigration as a top issue, and they specifically worry about illegals overwhelming and abusing income-redistribution programs.

Naturally, the subject of race came up. CNN’s Don Lemon, who has defended antifa thugs and compared President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, asked utterly preposterous questions: “What do you say to those Trump voters who prioritize the economy over the president’s bigotry?” And “President Trump is pursuing a reelection strategy based, in part, on racial division. How do you convince primary voters that you’d be the best nominee to take on President Trump and heal the racial divide in America?”

The entire history of the Democrat Party is one of racial division, which some now propose to “heal” by confiscating money from whites for reparations. The Democrats’ 2020 strategy comes from the same old playbook: Paint Trump as a racist (with the help of Leftmedia race-baiters like Lemon), and demand that all “people of color” (which simply means everyone but white people) fall in line with leftist groupthink.

We’ve only just touched on some of the biggest issues debated last night. But here’s some final food for thought: It is the leftist commie-Sanders-dinky-Warren-lowlife-Harris cabal, pitted against the more moderate choice of loose lips liar-Joe Biden, that will be the Achilles heel for Democrats. loose lips liar-Biden is a terrible candidate, but where else do moderate Demos go?

Footnote: Also on stage last night were Pete Buttigieg, socialist-Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock, and New Age guru Marianne Williamson.  ~The Patriot Post

Cue the leftist outrage machine, which appears to have become little other than a broken record repeatedly screeching “racist” each time Trump lands a well-placed political jab. Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren (D-MA) asserted, “Donald Trump, once again, is a racist who makes ever-more outrageous, racist remarks.” Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders, who back in 2015 called Baltimore a “Third World country” with “hundreds of buildings that are uninhabitable,” derided Trump as “a racist president who attacks people because they are African-Americans.” House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) waved the race canard as well, lecturing, “We all reject racist attacks against [scumbag-Cummings] and support his steadfast leadership.”

Unfortunately, once again there were some members of the conservative media who couldn’t help but bemoan what they saw as racism in Trump’s message. So accurately highlighting the horrible living conditions of a longtime Democrat-run urban poverty plantation like Baltimore equates to racism if those elected officials responsible are minorities? When exactly did speaking the truth become “racist”? Evidently, Baltimore’s own black Democrat mayor must be a “racist” as well. Just last year, when touring the city’s violence-riddled, trash-filled neighborhoods, she was caught on camera expressing her disgust: “What the hell? We should just take all this s—t down. … Whoa, you can smell the rats… You can smell the dead animals.”

Getting down to brass tacks, Trump has effectively responded to undeserved and politically motivated attacks by scumbag-Cummings against Border Patrol officials who are simply trying to do the best they can while they receive nothing but condemnation and ridicule from Democrats and the Leftmedia. As the commander-in-chief, Trump is clearly unwilling to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats like scumbag-Cummings grandstand with their vacuous virtue signals at the expense of these Border Patrol officials’ reputations. So Trump stepped in, redirecting the Left’s arrows toward himself, and in so doing he effectively exposed to the American people who the Democrats really are.

As with the Gang of Four flap two weeks ago, Trump has successfully brought into the light the fact that the Democrat Party has sold out to the extreme Left. He has shown that Democrats are now fully invested in transforming the U.S. into a socialist state at the cost of the Constitution and individual Liberty. Trump has also laid bare the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream media has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Trump is a brawler, whose seemingly wild verbal swings effectively hit the target more often than many within the Washington Beltway realize or understand.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64590?mailing_id=4447&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4447&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Many war-torn Democrats and their media cohorts are in mourning over special counsel Robert Mueller’s stunningly bad performance before Congress, and it is a wonderful thing to behold.

Take, for example, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who, upon watching Republicans take Mueller apart in cross-examination, asked God for forgiveness for ever having been a Republican.

So Joe, do you mean to say you are ashamed for having associated with Republicans because they asked tough questions of the man who diverted the nation’s attention for two years with a partisan hoax of gargantuan proportions? You are more comfortable lying in bed with mean-spirited Democrats, progressives, liberals and leftists who delight every day in savaging President Trump and his supporters. We understand that you are sorry you were ever a Republican, and we’re sorry, too, but could you please come up with a better reason — one that might convince more than a sliver of credulous people?

MSNBC proudly tweeted a video clip of Mourning Joe ranting against Democrats for failing to fight back against President Trump. The written portion of the tweet reads, “If you want to stop Donald Trump, it is time to … roll up your sleeves and go after him and do whatever it takes to win. If you don’t do that, you’ll have (him) for four more years.”

Well, Joe, you outdid yourself on this. With such trenchant analysis, one wonders whether MSNBC is lamenting that it ever hired you. Well, not really. You fit in perfectly there, as evidenced by the nodding heads of your co-host and guests as you were spewing forth your inanity.

In the video clip, GI Joe boasts that if he had been one of the other 16 GOP presidential candidates who Trump insulted during the primary campaign, Trump would never have been elected because he would have made it his singular mission to destroy Trump. Quite the tough guy.

Sorry, Joe, but you think you can sit there perched in your host seat and convince us that you could have done what no other Trump opponent could do? Granted, some of them lacked energy, but others brought their A-game and fought Trump toe-to-toe and still came up short. This is not to discredit Trump’s opponents, but it is to say that Smoking Joe is inhaling if he thinks he — an obviously inauthentic Republican from the jump — could have been more successful.

But the larger point is not about Scarborough’s faux machismo. It is about his obvious blindness to reality. Not only did his Republican competitors give it their best shot but Democrats have also been attacking Trump relentlessly for years now. That’s all they’ve done, to the point of abandoning any semblance of a policy agenda. To call them one-trick ponies is an insult to small horses.

Scarborough is simply throwing a tantrum — in total frustration that his now beloved Democrats are powerless to change the results of the 2016 presidential election after three years of trying. Like his fellow Democrats, Scarborough doesn’t understand that you can’t beat Trump on his own turf — the octagon. He is a UFC warrior, and they are barking Chihuahuas, as I’ve said before. It’s not just that Trump fights back; he does so more effectively than any other Republican leader since Ronald Reagan.

More and more Americans are coming to understand that Democrats have no constructive policy ideas, or if they do, they don’t respect voters enough to share them. Especially considering the president’s remarkably successful record to date, it is amazing that Democrats think riding the Trump-hatred train is all they need to regain power.

But that is indeed what we’re learning. Despite Republicans’ interception of Democrats’ Hail Mary pass to Robert Mueller, Democrats, like scentless hound dogs, are even more determined to pursue impeachment against Trump based on their false allegations that he stole an election they’ve been trying to steal for three years. They are possessed and seem to have no prospects of liberating themselves from the bonds of their self-inflicted poison.

In the meantime, President Trump will continue to pursue pro-growth, pro-life and pro-liberty policies, and those that will protect our borders and promote America’s interests on the national stage. People are starting to pay attention, as the polls show. 2020 is looking better all the time.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64532?mailing_id=4443&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4443&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Responding to an unprecedented backlog of nearly 877,000 cases paralyzing our immigration courts, the Trump administration launched a new policy Tuesday that allows immigration officers to deport illegal immigrants before they appear in court.

The move is a step in the right direction, but more action is needed to deal with the immigration crisis on our southern border. We describe some practical steps below that can make a huge difference.

The “expedited removal” authority under federal immigration law that went into effect Tuesday will allow federal Customs and Border Protection officials to deport illegal immigrants who’ve been in the U.S. for less than two years without giving them access to immigration courts.

This fast-tracking of deportations is unquestionably needed, because the current enormous backlog of immigration cases is delaying court hearings for migrants for months or even years.

Illegal immigrants are released to await their court hearings, but many never show up when the hearings are finally held. Instead, they join millions of others who are in the U.S. illegally, often getting jobs and often having children who automatically are U.S. citizens by virtue of being born in America.

The parents then become objects of public sympathy if the government seeks to lawfully deport them, because this would separate them from their U.S.-citizen children.

The American Civil Liberties Union and American Immigration Council said they will file lawsuits to block the expedited deportation policy that began Tuesday, as they once again seek to stop the government from enforcing our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, the fast-track removal the Trump administration has implemented still won’t apply to migrants who seek asylum in the U.S. and express fear of returning home, as long as they pass an initial screening interview for asylum. This is a gigantic loophole that growing numbers of migrants are using to avoid deportation.

The border crisis requires urgent attention. The Department of Homeland Security has apprehended an unprecedented 800,000 illegal immigrants trying to cross into the U.S. just since last October. And that’s just the number we caught.

The backlog of cases clogging immigration courts was 260,000 in 2011 — a serious problem even then, but far below today’s nearly 877,000 cases today.

Judges in the immigration courts make final determinations on everything from asylum claims to deportations.

The immigration courts are not regular federal courts under Article 3 of the Constitution. Rather, they are administrative courts inside the U.S. Department of Justice. The judges are hired by the attorney general and do not have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Soon after President Trump assumed office, he instructed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to hire more immigration judges. The Justice Department has done that, but the department still doesn’t have enough judges to deal with the rising tide of illegal immigrants sweeping into the country.

Today our federal district courts have 677 judges handling some 460,000 civil and criminal cases across the country. Yet the Justice Department has only 424 immigration judges to deal with nearly twice as many cases.

Put another way, the average immigration judge has about three times as many pending cases as the average Senate-confirmed federal district court judge. And unlike immigration judges, the average federal district court judge has several law clerks and magistrate judges to help him or her with those cases.

It would be nice if the Justice Department could just hire its way out of this mess, but the problem goes beyond a shortage of judges. Our immigration judges lack the standard tools that other judges have. They labor under administrative rules that hobble their efficiency.

For example, unlike other federal and state judges, immigration judges can neither dismiss a case for failure to state a claim, nor render final judgments at the pleading stage.

So even when immigration judges know that a migrant has no legal right to be in the U.S., they still have to manage the claim, hold a hearing, and can only enter a judgment against the migrant after the entire judicial process has been exhausted.

Experts estimate that if immigration judges could dismiss cases or render judgments at an early stage this would reduce their caseloads by 40 percent to 70 percent. That would be major progress. Congress should act immediately to give immigration judges this ability.

What else can be done?

Consider the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals. Almost all decisions rendered by the immigration judges are appealed to this board — even in cases where the appeals have absolutely no merit.

This happens because, unlike in our regular court system, appeals in the immigration court systems are virtually free. The American taxpayer subsidizes the appeals, and there are no penalties for filing frivolous appeals.

The filing fee, compared to those charged in state and federal courts, is extremely low. And the board waives the fee in almost half of its cases. Furthermore, migrants don’t have to pay all of the other costs associated with an appeal, such as for copies of the record or the transcript from the immigration court hearing.

Such “no-cost” appeals are almost nonexistent for citizens in state and federal courts in civil matters. Illegal immigrants should operate under the same financial constraints as citizens. We should not be funding their litigation.

In addition, immigration judges don’t have contempt authority. That means they can’t hold attorneys accountable for missing filing deadlines, tardiness or worse.

If this was changed, the immigration judges could levy civil penalties on lawyers and others who violate the court’s procedures and orders. Congress actually authorized the attorney general to give this tool to immigration judges more than two decades ago, but so far no attorney general has issued that regulation. Attorney General William Barr should issue it now.

Following up on the fast-tracked deportations begun Tuesday, the crisis in our immigration courts can be remedied by taking the actions noted above, namely: hiring more judges; revising the procedural rules governing these courts; issuing a regulation on contempt authority; and giving judges the ability to dismiss a case for failure to state a claim and the ability to render a final decision at the pleading stage.

There shouldn’t be a partisan divide about giving immigration judges the same authority and power as all other state and federal judges. That is just common sense, no matter what your views are on immigration policy.

Complaining about the immigration crisis isn’t enough. Elected and appointed federal officials have an obligation to quickly act to solve this crisis, and fixing the immigration courts is a good place to start.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64535?mailing_id=4443&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4443&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

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

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

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

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

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

~The Patriot Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promoting institutional infantilization is more like it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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