ACTION

Republicans find themselves in a difficult position. While the majority agree with Trump on the need to secure the border, some object to his evoking an emergency declaration as the means to garner greater funding. Many conservatives have long argued that the National Emergencies Act cedes too much power from Congress to the executive branch.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on Tuesday sought to offer a possible solution that would serve to uphold Trump’s emergency declaration while at the same time reining in executive power on future emergency declarations. Lee’s bill, which actually has Trump’s support, would require congressional approval within 30 days of an emergency declaration by the president or it would automatically terminate. Lee argued, “If Congress is troubled by recent emergency declarations made pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, they only have themselves to blame. If we don’t want our president acting like a king, we need to start taking back the legislative powers that allow him to do so.”

The trouble is that, should the Senate take up and pass Lee’s resolution — the unwieldily named Assuring that Robust, Thorough, and Informed Congressional Leadership is Exercised Over National Emergencies (ARTICLE ONE) Act — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has already declared it DOA in the House.

So, as things currently stand, even if the Senate passes the House’s resolution, Trump is certain to veto it. And the Senate doesn’t have the votes to override that veto, effectively keeping Trump’s emergency declaration in place while it’s duked out in the courts. “And for what?” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board asks. “The President doesn’t need to invoke a national emergency to build his wall along the southern border. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has pointed out that the White Housealready has funds at its disposal without declaring an emergency.”

Trump currently has enough money to move forward on constructing the border barrier through to the next round of budget negotiations in the fall, when he can once again press Congress for more border funding. Seemingly, all the emergency declaration has done is give Democrats more political fodder to attack Trump, while dividing Republicans over the issue of executive overreach. We still argue that Trump has not exceeded his authority under the law as it stands currently, but we also believe that the National Emergencies Act grants too much power to the executive branch.

Subsequent centuries have featured similar trepidation. There are five notable examples, says Stepman, beginning with the inaugural 1970 Earth Day. At the time, North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter ominously predicted, “By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Conversely, undernourishment has plummeted worldwide.

Also in 1970, Life magazine asserted, “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution [and] by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” At last look, people are still roaming the streets without gas masks — Beijing notwithstanding.

In June 1989, the Associated Press stated, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. … He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.” Today, it’s Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s turn to wave the dozen-years-left-to-live placard.

In similar fashion, scumbag-Al Gore in 2009 prophesied, “Some of the models suggest … that there is a 75% chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.” As Stepman notes, “In 2014, the ice caps were still there. In fact, it’s 2019 and the ice caps are still there.”

And finally, feminist Betty Friedan surmised in 1958 that swelling “ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future — and … it will be followed by the growth of a vast glacier which may eventually cover much of Europe and North America.” Today, they argue just the opposite.

All of this raises an important question: Shouldn’t climate skeptics be given the freedom to counter these apocalyptic claims without fear of censorship, especially when skepticism, at least thus far, has been vindicated? Absolutely — and that would be the case even if some or all of these predictions materialized. Yet according to another report by The Daily Signal, an app that challenges the mainstream climate missive is suspected of being expurgated.

“Since March 4, users of Apple’s iPhone no longer can access the app through the tech giant’s App Store,” according to the Signal. It just so happens that scumbag-Al Gore is an Apple board member who peddles snake oil. Coincidental, or willful suppression? You be the judge. Forgive us to being skeptical of the former.  ~The Patriot Post

Recall back in 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated by SCOTUS’s ruling against several of his New Deal programs, sought to expand the size of the Supreme Court so he could pack it with justices of his own choosing. At the time, the scheme was recognized for what it was — a bald-faced power-grab, which FDR’s own party wisely shot down.

But several leading Democrats today clearly don’t share  the same sentiments. In fact, Democrat presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand recently stated that she’s open to court-packing. Don’t be surprised if other 2020 contenders follow suit. The Wall Street Journal observes, “Having dominated courts for decades, progressives can’t abide that the highest Court might no longer be an engine of progressive policy. Donald Trump’s determination to nominate highly qualified and principled judicial conservatives has heightened their panic.”

The most obvious objection to Holder’s idea would be the fact that such an action would only serve to further inject politicization into the one branch of government that was designed to be nonpartisan. It’s already the despotic branch. But that’s not enough.  ~The Patriot Post

For years, Democrats have refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, declaring themselves to be “sanctuary” cities and states. Refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, they have harbored illegal alien criminals to prevent deportation. In one case, an Oregon judge even helped an illegal alien, just convicted of DUI after having been previously deported, escape from ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to take him into custody.

Despite the thousands upon thousands of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaultscommitted against U.S. citizens each year by illegal aliens, Democrats stand defiant against enforcement of laws stopping illegal immigration. Despite the metastasizing threat of the brutal, violent Salvadoran gang MS-13, which has grown to tens of thousands of members in the U.S., engaging in murder, rape, child prostitution, drug and human trafficking, gun-running, etc., Democrats stand with the criminals.

So it seems only fitting that the tables are being turned. In leftist, Democrat-run states where draconian gun-control laws have been and continue to be passed, citizens and sheriffs in more conservative, rural counties are declaring themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuary cities” and refusing to enforce the anti-gun, unconstitutional laws that seek to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Arguably, New Mexico leads the biggest rebellion against these infringements on constitutionally protected rights. In response to several gun-control bills passed by the Democrats in the state legislature, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs signed a letter pledging their refusal to enforce the new laws.

One of the leaders of the rebellion, Quay County Sheriff Russell Shafer, explained his position, stating, “If a state or city can become a sanctuary for illegal immigration, then we can become a sanctuary for Second Amendment rights.”

In fact, the local governments of 25 of New Mexico’s 33 counties have declared themselves to be “sanctuary” counties where the gun-control laws will not be enforced, and 29 of the 33 county sheriffs are refusing to enforce the laws. The New Mexico Sheriff’s Association has also warned it will sue the state if the new gun laws are enacted.

No doubt part of the rebellion comes from indignation at having rights infringed by elected officials whose knowledge of guns is imbecilic at best. New Mexico’s Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham last year called for a ban on “high magazine cartridges.” That’s not even a thing!

If the underlying intent wasn’t so nefarious, listening to Democrats expose their absolute stupidity about guns would be hilarious.

One of the bills in question is the so-called “red flag” legislation that allows family members or even acquaintances of a gun owner to petition a court to temporarily confiscate the owner’s weapons if they believe the person presents a danger to themselves or others. The obvious danger is that such a provision could be abused without significant safeguards. Sheriffs argue they already have legal recourses to remove a weapon from a potentially dangerous person, and the new laws fail to protect the due process rights of gun owners. 
Sheriffs say they are responding to the wishes of the voters who elected them, in counties that have passed resolutions banning county funds from being used to enforce these laws.

Newly elected New Mexico Governor Grisham mocked the revolt by county sheriffs in her state, accusing them of being “rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party,” claiming they are undermining public safety.

In reality, it is the statist, gun-grabbing Democrats who are undermining public safety by disarming law-abiding citizens, leaving them as easy prey for violent criminals. In January 2013, to much leftist fanfare, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama directed the Centers for Disease  Control to commission a study on how to reduce gun violence in America. The results were released later that year with a whisper. Why? Because the study determined that the number of defensive gun uses, which prevented or stopped a crime, occurred as much as 10 times more often than criminal gun uses.

These revolts are occurring not just in New Mexico, but in even more Democrat-dominated states like Washington,  Colorado, and Illinois, where the state legislature is seeking to ban commonly owned semiautomatic weapons; which is to say, nearly all firearms.

It’s no wonder that there is such a deep divide between “red” and “blue” America. Red America wants the Constitution respected and immigration laws enforced. It wants God-given rights protected by the government that supposedly serves them. Blue America insists we allow in wave after wave of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, while also demanding that law-abiding citizens be stripped of their right to arm and defend themselves.

Thomas Jefferson was right when (quoting Cesare Beccaria) he declared that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

Therefore, we recommend that gun-grabbing Democrats abide by the same advice they give pro-lifers on abortion; namely, if you don’t want one, don’t get one, but don’t take away our right to one. And unlike the “right” to abortion, the right to keep and bear arms can actually be found in the Constitution.  ~The Patriot Post

The Korean Peninsula is one of the most dynamic and dangerous operating environments on earth. It’s a mature theater: The U.S.-led United Nations Command has either been conducting or planning operations continuously since 1950, and a robust exercise program has been in place for decades. While some might argue that these characteristics make Foal Eagle a cheap “chip” to trade for better relations with North Korea, they are only part of the equation.

One of the main reasons the theater has received so much attention (and money) for so long is because it’s hard to think of a place on earth where the combination of high tensions and proximity form a more volatile mix. North Korea has enough short-range missiles and conventional artillery within range of Seoul to inflict unthinkable casualties in the first few hours of an attack. Most believe those volleys would be accompanied by extensive sabotage and acts of terror carried out by North Korean sleeper agents and special operations teams. If the North Koreans launch an attack, those tasked with stopping it will have minutes to make critical decisions; there simply won’t be time to make introductions and check playbooks.

U.S. personnel policy also complicates matters. The majority of servicemen and women are on one-year “unaccompanied” orders — they leave their family at their last stateside duty station for the year they’re in Korea — which does actually save “hundreds of millions of dollars” by minimizing the infrastructure required (e.g., family housing, schools, etc.) as well as the cost of shipping household goods across the Pacific. But it also means that the relationships formed and lessons learned at last year’s exercises have no more than a 12-month shelf life.

Foal Eagle alone won’t make or break the good guys’ war-fighting capability, but canceling it is neither a purely symbolic move nor one that’s going have a meaningful financial impact. In the long run, President Trump’s statements couching the U.S.-South Korea relationship in primarily financial terms and absolving North Korean leader Kim Jong-un of any responsibility in the death of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier continue a troubling trend of bashing our allies and providing platforms that boost the credibility of opponents. There’s a lot of “The Art of the Deal” in Trump’s mix, but at some point, the leader of the free world has to call a spade a spade.  ~The Patriot Post

While conversing with “Bubba The Love Sponge,” Carlson used salty, misogynistic, racist, and degrading language about women, blacks, Iraqis, and others. It was indeed objectionable. He also made comments defending white men for “creating civilization and stuff.” That’s an arguable point, regardless of the race-baiters’ “outrage.” In any case, the muckrakers at Media Matters — try not to laugh, but it’s a leftist website dedicated to finding conservative bias in the media — dug up those comments, fomenting hysteria and calls for boycotting and firing Carlson from the Fox News show he’s been hosting only since 2016.

Now, we’re not going to defend everything Carlson said. In fact, we’d likewise condemn a lot of it. But context matters, as does a simple question: Did Carlson’s comments reflect his actual beliefs? Leftists aren’t concerned with that. They’re too busy trying to get his scalp.

Carlson addressed the controversy in his monologue last night:

As anyone who’s ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great American outrage machine is a remarkable thing. One day you’re having dinner with your family, imagining everything is fine. The next, your phone is exploding with calls from reporters. They read you snippets from a press release written by Democratic Party operatives. They demand to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and offensive. “Do you have a statement on how immoral you are?” It’s a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old.

There’s really not that much you can do to respond. It’s pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest, or taken out of context, or in any case bear no resemblance to what you actually think, or would want for the country. None of that matters. Nobody cares. You know the role you’re required to play: You are a sinner, begging the forgiveness of Twitter. So you issue a statement of deep contrition. You apologize profusely for your transgressions. You promise to be a better person going forward. With the guidance of your contrition consultants, you send money to whatever organization claims to represent the people you supposedly offended. Then you sit back and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which are simply pretexts for attacking you again.

So, what can be made of Pulosi’s statement? Three possibilities, and perhaps a combination of all three.

First, it’s important to note that Pulosi’s statement does not preclude any future impeachment attempts. Instead, she has simply conceded that Democrats do not presently have enough political capital to instigate impeachment proceedings. In other words, Pulosi recognizes that as things currently stand, an attempt at impeachment would be more politically damaging for Democrats than for President Donald Trump. And practically speaking, with the Senate under GOP control, an impeachment attempt without any real evidence would only push Republicans to further coalesce behind Trump. To put it bluntly, Pelosi knows it would be a politically damaging effort in futility.

Second, Pulosi may have deduced something about or even been privy to dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report. If, as we have long speculated, the report finds no evidence of any Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy, Pulosi will need to have her party repositioned in such a fashion as to avoid appearing to have invested any real political capital in dirty cop-Mueller’s findings. By downplaying the impeachment mantra that has been entirely linked to Russian collusion, Pulosi is attempting to pull back and make Democrats look the part of objectively minded statesmen, not the politically invested hacks they are.

Finally, Pulosi is flexing her intra-party authority over the young and popular upstarts within her own party. By publicly speaking out to a prominent Leftmedia outlet, Pulosi is communicating to her young leftist firebrands that whatever their rhetoric may be, she will be the one to decide what if any action will be taken on impeachment, not them. And no action will be taken — yet. Of course, that will all change if House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler’s fishing expedition turns up anything.   ~ The Patriot Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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