ACTION

By taking a pass during the previous presidential election cycle, dinky-Warren ceded that wing of the party to fellow senator and avowed socialist commie-Bernie Sanders — and she watched commie-Sanders become a Pied Piper to a broad swath of the electorate. Those who “felt the commie-Bern” in 2016 have mostly stuck with their septuagenarian socialist, but polling now suggests that Warren is tapping into that group. A recent poll saw her gain five points on polling leader loose lips liar-Joe Biden, which placed her ahead of commie-Sanders.

For his part, commie-Sanders is now trying to write off the dinky-Warren surge as bought-and-paid-for: “The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is publicly ‘anybody but commie-Bernie.’” Unfortunately, commie-Bernie is beginning to come across as yesterday’s news, while Warren (who turns 70 tomorrow) seems a somewhat fresher alternative, having broadened her appeal to a more populist crowd and at times even sounding a little like Donald Trump. She’s made a pitch to the lunch-pail crowd by allowing her campaign to be unionizedby the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — albeit a few weeks after the commie-Sanders campaign unionized.

Of course, in most other instances, dinky-Warren doesn’t sound at all like Trump. Remember, she’s the one came up with the so-called Accountable Capitalism Act, and the one who insisted that no one in America got rich on their own. Left-wing pundits argue that she and commie-Sanders “generally agree on a lot of policy,” but the nuance comes where commie-Sanders is “a democratic socialist” and dinky-Warren is “a social democrat.”

To take it further, “If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then dinky-Warren is the better candidate for you,” explained Barnard College political scientist Sheri Berman. “Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable? Then Sanders is the right fit.”

That straddling of the fence between capitalist productivity and socialist power will only last as long as Warren can continue her charade as a policy wonk who “has a plan for it” regardless of the problem. (And if anyone can maintain a charade, it’s Honest Injun Elizabeth.) Warren has been talking about imbalances in the system “in a way that doesn’t suggest she’s a socialist or she wants to kind of blow up the economy,” said one time Joe Lieberman speechwriter Dan Gerstein, who added that her approach is different than that of mainstream Democrats “tinkering around the edges” with policies like a minimum wage raise or entitlement reform.

dinky-Warren works hard to appear normal, taking lots of selfies and even choking down a beer like a regular Jane, but it’s worth noting that she hasn’t exactly lived like Joe Sixpack. Instead, she’s spent much of her adult life in the halls of academia, and her time in the ivory tower seems to correlate well with her party switch from Republican to Democrat in the mid-‘90s.

Of course, for Warren to appear truly “normal,” she’ll need to show some respect for those who worked hard to build their businesses and succeeded — unlike a previous president who once snidely remarked, “You didn’t build that.”

Try as she might, though, that lunch pail she’s toting around is still full of socialist baloney.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63801?mailing_id=4349&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4349&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

While Trump was busy fixing trade with Mexico he was also leveraging our southern neighbor on immigration. Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics makes an interesting observation: “Mexico just agreed to expend its resources to stem the flow of migrants from Central America through Mexico into the United States. In essence, Trump just delivered on the biggest, craziest campaign promise in history. He just used tariffs to get Mexico to agree to pay for the wall.” A metaphorical wall, to be sure, but that’s something. And Trump playing hardball by tying tariffs to immigration didn’t derail trade negotiations as some feared.

But Trump wasn’t only working with Mexico and Canada this week. He announced Tuesday that he “had a very good telephone conversation with President Xi [Jinping] of China” and that the two leaders planned to have “an extended meeting next week at the G-20 in Japan.” The potential for an end to the trade war via the possibility of a new trade deal between the world’s two largest economies injected a positive surge in the markets — the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 1.4% upon the news.

The Wall Street Journal notes, “The G-20 gathering of political leaders from large economies can often be a threat to the health of those economies. But if Mr. Trump can use this meeting to persuade Chinese dictator Xi Jinping to stop mistreating U.S. companies — in return for ending American tariffs — economic health is sure to improve worldwide.” Xi may be motivated to make concessions because Chinese manufacturing is hurting in part due to the tariffs.

As we have regularly noted, there is a third player in this particular trade war — Beijing’s North Korean puppet, Kim Jong-un. Last week, Xi took the unusual step of meeting with Kim in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. It appears that Xi may be working to leverage the trade talks with the promise of some sort of nuclear concession from Kim. Any deal is still a long way from done, but at least the initial signs are promising. As we’ve said before of China and North Korea, trade and national security are inextricably linked.

Finally, it’s worth reiterating U.S. trade numbers with Mexico and China for perspective. In 2018, the U.S. exported $299 billion to Mexico while importing $372 billion, for a trade deficit of nearly $73 billion. As for China, the U.S. exported just $74 billion while importing $297 billion, leaving the trade deficit at an eye-popping $222 billion. Given that America is essentially funding China’s military with that money, Trump’s more than justified in pointing to that as a big problem, even if Mexico is the bigger trade partner.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63784?mailing_id=4349&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4349&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

President Trump won a victory Friday when the Justice Department said Congress does not have the right to see his tax returns. More importantly, all American taxpayers won a victory, because the Justice Department memo regarding Trump’s returns has the effect of upholding the privacy and confidentially of all our tax returns as well.

If Congress is allowed to examine the president’s tax returns, the next step will be demands by lawmakers to examine the tax returns of others — political activists and opponents, members of unpopular groups, religious minorities, and who knows who else.

And if you think this isn’t possible, just think back to the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover and the files he kept on many Americans he considered to be dangerous subversives — including civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King.

Even if you can’t stand President Trump and think he should be impeached, remember that giving government the power to act against someone you oppose also gives government the power to act against someone you support — or perhaps even against you personally.

Importantly, the provision of the tax code that Democrats are seeking to use to get Trump’s tax returns could also be used to get the tax returns of other Americans as well, should Trump lose his fight to keep his tax returns confidential.

The 33-page opinion protecting the confidentially of tax returns was written by Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel, who heads the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. It is based on an appropriate reading of the law.

The Office of Legal Counsel is the office within Justice that provides legal advice to the president and all executive agencies, including on the proper interpretation of laws and the Constitution.

To no one’s surprise, Democrats are attacking the Justice Department memo as a political document designed to protect President Trump. Yet in fact, the reason Democrats want to see the Trump tax returns is blatantly political. They want to use the information in the returns in possible impeachment proceedings against the president and to campaign against Trump’s re-election.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has led the fight by House Democrats to get six years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns, has indicated Democrats will file a lawsuit seeking access to the tax returns.

The Justice Department opinion concludes that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was legally justified in refusing to turn over the Trump tax returns that Neal’s committee asked for.

As I have explained previously, the Justice Department opinion should come as no surprise, given the privacy protections contained in federal law ensuring the confidentiality of tax returns and the invalid reasons given by Neal for demanding the returns.

The opinion reviews the relevant federal statute, 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which prohibits federal officials from disclosing tax returns.

There is an exception in the law that says the Treasury Department secretary shall provide tax return information upon “written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.” No reason has to be given for the request.

However, the Justice Department opinion released Friday points out, Congress cannot “constitutionally confer upon the Committee the right to compel the Executive Branch to disclose confidential information without a legitimate legislative purpose.” The opinion cites numerous court decisions, including by the Supreme Court, that have made this clear.

The opinion goes into great detail examining the background behind the demand for the president’s tax returns. After reviewing that history, the Office of Legal Counsel says that Secretary Mnuchin “reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee’s asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service’s audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President’s tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Rep. Neal claimed that the reason for the demand to see the Trump tax returns was to examine the “extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.”

But if that was the case, asked the Office of Legal Counsel, why did Neal ask for Trump’s tax returns “for many years before his presidency.”

Furthermore, the Office of Legal Counsel noted that Neal did not ask for “any information concerning the IRS’s actual policies or practices governing presidential audits or the audit histories for any President other than President Trump.”

Based on these “discrepancies in the public record,” it was obvious that Neal had “not articulated the real reason for his request,” the Justice Department opinion found.

The opinion concluded that this is especially true given that Neal’s demand represented “the culmination of a sustained effort over more than two years to seek the public release of President Trump’s tax returns” by Neal and numerous other Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Speaker liar-Nancy Pulosi, D-Calif.

The opinion summed up the “sustained effort” by pointing out that Neal and other members of Congress made “clear their intent to acquire and release the President’s tax returns” throughout 2017 and 2018.

Referring to Democrats, the opinion states: “They offered many different justifications for such an action, suggesting that releasing the returns would ‘honor tradition,’ show ‘what the Russians have on Donald Trump,’ reveal a potential ‘Chinese connection,’ inform tax reform legislation, provide the ‘clearest picture of his financial health,’ and expose any alleged emoluments received by the president from foreign governments.

But alleged "oversight” of the IRS audit process of the tax returns of presidents “had never been the focus of their demands” until Neal’s letter to the Treasury Department in April, according to the memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Clearly, the effort by Democrats to get President Trump’s tax returns is not over. We can now expect a long and expensive legal battle — financed by your tax dollars — as Democrats continue their singular focus on investigation of the president instead of legislation to improve the lives of the American people and strengthen our nation.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63705?mailing_id=4340&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4340&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Lyman Stone at The Federalist suggests that one real problem for conservatives is a big one: “how to fill the innumerable appointments and support roles in modern government with people who will reliably advance a conservative vision of government.”

A maxim in life is that if you truly like doing something, then you will excel at it. You put in the time and effort, you care, and you are inspired by your work. Leftists love government and bureaucracy. They have a vested interest in maintaining government beyond its simple function to serve and protect society. They welcome any program, exploit, or endeavor that will increase its size and scope.

Conservatives don’t like or trust government. We see it as necessary in a world of fallible humans. As James Madison put it in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” For this reason, conservatives are quite wary of the expanding bureaucracy that is the hallmark of modern times.

“This preference for philosophizing about government rather than learning to master government is a very real thing among some conservatives,” Stone points out (italics in original). “Everyone is arguing about philosophy of governance, yet there are no credible suggestions about what should actually be done, given that Republicans do actually control the presidency right now.”

Stone argues, “We need a Federalist Society-type organization to train young conservatives to become federal bureaucrats if we want to slay the Big Government leviathan.”

Indeed, the Federalist Society’s work in cultivating conservative talent in the legal field has been essential in President Donald Trump’s task to bring the federal judiciary back to the side of Rule of Law. Other conservative groups and think tanks have been effective at nudging judges to adopt more conservative positions and getting policy actors to embrace fiscally conservative policies. The same could arguably be true of the legislative branch, with the Club for Growth being an example of a group fighting the long fight for more conservative legislators.

Stone points out, though, that these efforts need to expand to the executive branch.

“We talk about the federal government as this overwhelming entity that tramples on rights and liberties and is far too powerful and vast, and then we send young people to fight the federal government armed with nothing but their summer reading list and a few weeks’ experience processing mailers,” says Stone. “If conservatives are serious about rolling back the administrative state, we need to be training socially conservative young people to have the skills necessary to step into the Department of Interior on day one of a new administration and actually make a difference.”

The best way to successfully contain the federal bureaucracy is to control the levers of power in the executive and legislative branch that enable it. At the same time, Stone makes a compelling case that conservatives must advance through the bureaucratic ranks and become more involved in the inner workings of government. To ignore this opportunity is to cede control of the government to the leftists.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63713?mailing_id=4340&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4340&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

As National Review’s David French observes, “Let’s not pretend that Kyle is anything other than a victim of the culture wars. Had he not stepped forward after Parkland as a conservative spokesperson, he would be in no one’s crosshairs. He would have been allowed to make a mistake. At its heart, the attack on Kyle isn’t about making Harvard safe from racists. It’s not about protecting anyone. It’s about politics.”

Ironically, it is Harvard that is guilty of systematic racism. At least Kashuv willingly admitted he was wrong, apologized for his comments, and all evidence indicates that he has grown up. That’s more than can be said for those “woke” adults running Harvard. The institution has unfairly discriminated against Asian-American applicants in its effort to ensure “equity” and “diversity.” And this institutional racism continues as the university still seeks to judge people not solely on individual academic merit but by the color of their skin.

As the saying goes, leftists would have no standards if not for their double standards. Leftists offer forgiveness and understanding only toward those who bow to their worldview. Interestingly, one would think that a left-leaning school like Harvard would jump at the opportunity to “educate” a young conservative like Kashuv out of his “backward” views. Yet it appears Harvard is more concerned with appeasing the leftist outrage mob.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63714?mailing_id=4340&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4340&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Shanahan’s story is an odd one. He and his ex-wife both told police in 2010 about domestic violence on the part of the other. He still insists he “never laid a hand on” her, and she was the only one arrested. And in another incident in 2011, his then-17-year-old son hit his mother (Shanahan’s former wife) in the head with a baseball bat, leaving her unconscious in a pool of blood, with a skull fracture and other injuries requiring surgery. “Use of a baseball bat in self-defense will likely be viewed as an imbalance of force,” Shanahan later wrote. “However, Will’s mother harassed him for nearly three hours before the incident.” When asked about that statement, he walked it back: “I have never believed Will’s attack on his mother was an act of self-defense or justified. I don’t believe violence is appropriate ever, and certainly never any justification for attacking someone with a baseball bat.”

In any case, it’s hard to determine who knew what when in the vetting process. Democrats and the Leftmedia are having a field day slamming Trump for poor vetting, and even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of Trump’s biggest Senate allies, said, “We need to do a better job” on vetting nominees. However, he said, “That’s over. I appreciate his service, but it’s now time to find somebody else.”

That somebody else may permanently be Esper. Like Shanahan, he’s a former defense contractor, but Esper has served as Army secretary since 2017. And Fox News notes his extensive military service: “Esper graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1986 — the same year as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He received his commission in the infantry and completed Ranger and Pathfinder training. Esper served on active duty for over a decade. In the early 90s, he served with the 101st Airborne Division in the Gulf War. He later commanded an airborne rifle company in Europe. Following his service on active duty, he served in both the Virginia and District of Columbia National Guard and Army Reserve. He retired in 2007.”

Esper also seems to have his pulse on the needs facing the U.S. military in light of the rise in power and challenge from both China and Russia. So assuming his background checks out, Esper could serve the Pentagon well.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63747?mailing_id=4343&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4343&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Within this ideology that’s at the core of much of the policies driving Democrats these days exists the companion of aggressive activism. This often consists of posts on social-media platforms that now operate as rhetorical lynch mobs. Anonymous accounts spew vile comments ranging from rumor to complete slander and libel with no foundation. But sometimes, it becomes in-your-face protests of agitators spewing profanity and hate that may even rise to include violence and assault.

But oh what a great day with the verdict of Gibson Bros v. Oberlin. National Review’s David French sums it up: “An Ohio jury … ordered Oberlin College to pay a business called Gibson’s Food Market and Bakery a stunning $11 million in compensatory damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with business relationships.”

So what happened? French writes:

The facts of the case are egregious. On November 9, 2016, a bakery employee suspected an African-American Oberlin student, Jonathan Aladin, of stealing wine. The employee pursued the student and got in a physical altercation with Aladin and two other Oberlin students, Cecilia Whettstone and Endia Lawrence. Police arrested the three students, and almost a year later — on August 11, 2017 — Aladin pled guilty to attempted theft, aggravated trespass, and underage consumption. Whettstone and Lawrence pled guilty to attempted theft and aggravated trespass. They were not racially profiled. They were guilty of crimes.

Yet students immediately organized a protest of the bakery, publishing and distributing flyers that claimed it was “a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION,” and that a member of the Oberlin community “was assaulted” by its owner. Evidence indicated that university officials helped publish and distribute the flyer, including by disseminating it to media.

This was but the beginning of the bakery’s ordeal. The student senate issued a resolution stating that Gibson’s had a history of “racial profiling” and “discriminatory treatment,” and the resolution was posted on campus for “a period of at least one year.” The head of Oberlin’s Department of Africana Studies published a Facebook post declaring that Gibson’s had “been bad for decades” and that “their dislike for black people is palpable.” He said, “Their food is rotten and they profile black students.”

Then, from November 14, 2016, through January 30, 2017, the college suspended all business with Gibson’s.

A jury of locals spoke clearly with the law on their side after they watched Oberlin College fuel the flames of social justice hatred beyond a simple case of shoplifting and assault. That incident could’ve been adjudicated but instead was escalated by Oberlin, that Woke Progressive Institution of Higher Learning™, where people alleged racial profiling and a hate crime toward the assailants contrary to the facts.

The jury’s verdict means that, at least this time, social justice warriors aren’t getting away with their prettied-up brand of hate, assault, and criminal speech. Instead, they have been unmasked to be the criminals they truly are and face a big price tag for it. The news now coming from Oberlin should be cheered throughout the public in our need to reverse and right the decline from civil debate and dialogue to today’s ambush, protest, assault, and intimidation that comes after the offense-of-the-day is identified.

Oberlin College will appeal its ground-rattling verdict to pay $11 million in compensatory damages to this small, family-owned establishment in addition to another state-law-capped $22 million for punitive damage, down from the ruling of $33 million. “Cha-ching” is the sound of justice in this case.

So, what does this mean to conservatives everywhere being sued for this and that? For those being ambushed with shrieks of racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc.? Well, it seems that freedom of speech does come with a responsibility and value.

In Gibson Bros v. Oberlin, the justice system worked to demonstrate that those who cultivate an environment that infringes upon the rights, property, and safety of not just the disgruntled self-identified victims of society, but individuals who are law-abiding and attempting to operate within a framework of a civil society, will be held accountable and even financially responsible for their role in organizing, equipping, and mobilizing the actions, aggressions, and illegal assaults of the vigilantes of victimhood they instigate.

Remember, in the minds and world of “progressive” leftists, they get to determine and dictate who lives as the offended, the down-trodden, and those deserving of some measure of social justice dished out by the mobs of mouthy militants. It’s great to see, and hopefully the first of many situations in which Rule of Law protects all.

Let’s not only unmask the perpetrators of this unacceptable behavior destroying our politics and polite society; let’s completely dismantle it.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63687?mailing_id=4338&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4338&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body