ACTION

“Serious questions need to be asked about the Portland Police Department,” says Fox News’s Todd Starnes. “Why were there no officers on the scene? Were the police ordered to stand down? And if so, by whom?” National Review’s David French adds, “It was appalling to watch masked Antifa thugs attack Andy Ngo, and it was also appalling that the police weren’t immediately present to arrest his attackers. Antifa’s propensity to violence is well known, and while I’d love to hear a sympathetic explanation for the absence of police, the lack of response looks a lot like a dereliction of duty.”

Law enforcement’s indifference to antifa — which was the optical upshot in Portland, even if it wasn’t the objective — is one area that certainly warrants review. But French highlights another problem, which is antifa’s countrywide proclivity to “protest” while donning masks. French offers this solution:

There is … a simple and well-known legal reform that will go a long way towards deterring Antifa violence — even when police aren’t close by, but iPhones are. It’s called an anti-masking law. They’ve long existed in the South as a check on Klan violence, and they not only make it easier for police to immediately identify and arrest criminals, they also allow witnesses to preserve the pictures and videos of violent attackers for later criminal or civil action. … Anti-masking laws can be unconstitutional when applied to peaceful demonstrators seeking to protect their identities as a matter of personal safety, but that reasoning doesn’t apply to Antifa. Its members seek to engage in violence and destruction with impunity, and the mask protects them from legal accountability. … While anti-masking laws aren’t a perfect cure, one thing is definitely true — it’s hard to throw a punch when you’re hiding your face with your hands.

Ironically, faux Russian-collusion witch hunters were fine with unmasking Trump officials. But antifa hoodlums are more or less being treated as a protected class because they engender “social justice” and “deservedly” malign or assault those on the Right who may or may not support President Donald Trump. And as long as they’re allowed to conceal their identity, their crimes will continue unabated.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64030?mailing_id=4395&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4395&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Zogby points to some warning signs for Democrats that, for Patriot Post readers, will strike at familiar themes.

“More Americans are earning a paycheck today than ever before,” he says, noting that the economy is strong. Indeed, Trump’s policies are benefiting Americans across the board. Unless Democrats get the recession they’re hoping and pushing for, the economy will only help Trump.

However, Zogby says Democrats have a bigger problem, and it’s one they see as a strength. “The party is very diverse and there will be demands to have a woman, an Hispanic, an African American, a member of the LGBTQ community and so on,” he says. “I can see this becoming a battle royal and causing potentially fatal damage to party unity. Simply being anti-Trump will not be enough for the Democrats to win.” Moreover, separating every single issue into victims versus villains runs the risk of alienating too many voters.

Finally, Zogby says, “The Democrats also suffer from elitism, a sense that they are the party of college-bred, coastal liberals who are in full possession of the truth. This has hurt them in previous elections — 2000, 2004, and 2016 come to mind.” As already noted, if Democrats continue to deride the “deplorables,” they are bound to lose a lot of votes. Time will tell, of course, but when your own pollster is issuing warnings, it might be best to heed them. Following last week’s debates, it’s hard to argue against Zogby’s observations, other than it appears the Democrats have decided that they will show no quarter to even moderates in their party.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64029?mailing_id=4395&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4395&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Said contrivance is believed to have existed at one time in the Nordic nations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Finland. The fad these days among Democrats is to appeal to voters through the enticements of “free” everything that are paid for by other people’s money. The theory is that those who have obtained wealth have done so through corruption, greed, crime, and hate by oppressing those who self-identify as being treated unfairly and inequitably. Hence, redistribution is certainly in order, not as a safety net, but as a means to achieve “social justice.” It’s actually a government-controlled economy that taxes the makers excessively to give to the takers.

But while pointing to these nations, Democrats have taken information, rearranged it to fit their narrative, and are now misrepresenting it.

Exactly what type of governance has been present in these northern European nations? The prime minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, declared in 2015, “Some in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

There was a time following great economic success in the early 1970s that this region and specifically the Swedes doubled their government spending and began heavily regulating labor markets, but that spurred an explosion of debt in the 1980s that then led to crisis in the 1990s. Sweden’s Central Bank imposed 500% interest to protect the nation’s currency as its new welfare state brought the nation to the brink of ruin.

In The Federalist, Swedish economist and Cato Institute fellow Johan Norberg was cited: “Free markets and small government made Sweden rich. The experiment with socialism crashed us.” Sweden fell from the fourth wealthiest nation to the 14th as it swept aside extremely low taxes and public spending just barely above 10% of GDP to taxes currently at 27% of GDP. Those taxes rely heavily on consumption, payroll, and social security taxes, all of which hit the middle class even more severely than the dastardly rich.

In other words, socialism failed in these nations. They now have excessive taxation on income plus a value-added tax (think sales tax that is applied to any transaction throughout the supply line) to pay for the “free” health care. Just wait for the copays and deductibles that are never mentioned as part of the Medicare-for-All plans of Bernie Sanders and all the other Democrats who pledge to put everyone, including illegal immigrants, on taxpayer-funded health insurance.

Put simply, Democrats are twisting the facts and peddling fantasy to win votes through pandering because everything else they’ve tried has failed. Democrats are promoting a perversion of fact.

Once upon a time, there really was a fourth-century Christian saint known for miracles and secret gift-giving — Saint Nicholas of Myra, a Greek maritime city. The same Nordic region of the Democrats’ mythical success of socialism honors Sinterklaas, the snow-white-bearded patron saint of children who rides a white horse wearing a long red cape that serves as the primary source of America’s Santa Claus. As we know, Santa Claus has turned into anything but a miracle worker tied to the Christian faith and is now the icon associated with a Holy Day turned retail orgy. Democrats wish to play Santa Claus, handing out gifts to all the awaiting “children” of America.

Just like democratic socialism, the promises of “free” leave others paying the bills for temporary satisfaction based on myth. Those who believe in the myth of democratic socialism are seeing their failed experiment play out in California, which is already beginning to look more like Venezuela or another Third World banana republic.

Kids believe in Santa Claus. Democrats believe in successful socialism. At least kids grow out of it.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64006?mailing_id=4389&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4389&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

There’s just one problem: “Only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.” In other words, most people oppose scraping together less than $10 a month — which is comparable to many subscription services including television streaming — for an issue that evidently creates near-universal trepidation.

And who’s to blame them? Yet there’s plenty of irony in this, especially when presidential candidates like Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris claim, as she did during Thursday night’s debate: “What is the greatest national security threat to the United States? It’s Donald Trump. And I’m gonna tell you why. Because I agree: Climate change represents an existential threat. [Trump] denies the science.”

If Trump denies the science, then Democrats deny the math. Even if we assume that global warming is man-made — and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s far more complex than that — it’s plainly evident that, economically speaking, there is a huge lack of decisive  concern among voters. Several Democrat lawmakers envision climate-mitigation programs that add up to trillions upon trillions of dollars. In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. can’t exactly afford that. According to the Reuters poll, most Americans can’t either — or they simply don’t want to waste their hard-earned money.

Of course, the reality is that the average Joe may claim to have concerns about the climate, but when push comes to shove, even they understand the situation isn’t as dire as alarmism and the accompanying poll aganda make it out to be. Democrats may get around this by assuring their constituents that it’s the obligation of “the wealthy” and Big Oil to pony up. But voters and consumers need to understand that those costs, one way or another, eventually circle back to them.

And let’s not lose sight of the biggest problem of all: There is absolutely no guarantee that these “green” programs will actually benefit the climate. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved that there are ulterior motives at work with the Green New Deal, the impact of which, by the way, “would be barely distinguishable from zero,” according to the American Enterprise Institute. Which just goes to show that talk is cheap. If only politicians were as hesitant as their constituents are to spend $100 on a contentious issue.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63971?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This was Trump’s third meeting with Kim, after the second highly anticipated summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, ended abruptly after North Korea failed to agree to any substantive policy changes. At the time Trump noted that “sometimes you have to walk.”

Following Sunday’s meeting, Trump offered guarded optimism regarding the restart of the denuclearization talks, stating, “They’ll start a process, and we’ll see what happens.” He added, “Speed is not the object. We want to see if we can do a really comprehensive, good deal. Nobody knows how things turn out, but certainly this was a great day. This was a very legendary, very historic day.”

Trump’s unconventional “personal diplomacy” foreign policy method has critics complaining of him offering legitimacy to ruthless despots like Kim. However, Trump argues that “a lot of great triumphs have been based on relationships.” The Wall Street Journal calls it the “Trump Doctrine,” where he relies on personal magnetism to lead to deal making. “Mr. Trump is betting, as he always does, that flattery and personal engagement can persuade Mr. Kim to give up his nuclear weapons.”

The president believes that establishing a relationship with Kim may pay off big in the long run, and thus far it has at the very least eased tensions. As far as U.S and South Korean interests are concerned, Trump has not conceded any ground, while at the same time he has given room for Kim to denuclearize while still saving face. Like Trump said, we’ll see what happens.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63996?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Ngo, whose Twitter profile notes that he’s “hated by antifa,” was covering the movement’s march in Portland on Saturday when he was attacked by 20 or so antifa thugs. They stole or destroyed thousands of dollars of his camera equipment and beat him physically, sending him to the ER with a brain bleed.

Of course, some “real” journalists in the Leftmedia don’t count Ngo as one of them; he writes for Quillette, National Review, and Spectator USA. Thus, after the beating, the same Leftmedia outfits still writing stories about  Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder at the hands of the Saudis nearly a year ago went on the attack … against Ngo.

Various reports blamed him for the assault — or at least implied that he had it coming — because he’s engaged in an “information war,” writes to provide “ammunition for a culture war,” he “antagonizes those he knows will react in a disproportionate way,” and he’s “one of the leading amplifiers of Islamophobia” who “participates in white supremacist violence.” Ngo is … not a white guy. In fact, he’s Asian and a homosexual.

It’s true this condemnation of Ngo wasn’t universal, but it was widespread. Yet as Erick Erickson pointedly notes, “Just a few months ago, Time magazine named journalists as their ‘person of the year’ given both the sustained abuse journalists are subjected to and the President’s ongoing verbal attacks on the press.”

As for antifa, once again the movement has been revealed for what it is. Moreover, “One gets the impression that Antifa rules Portland with the same impunity that the Ku Klux Klan ruled Birmingham in the 1960s,” writes Rod Dreher. “Do they actually have police in Portland? Do they have functioning government there?” The questions practically answer themselves.

We wish Mr. Ngo a speedy and full recovery.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63993?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

The nation’s oldest (1985) and one of its most prominent homosexual groups, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has since expanded its advocacy to include the other manifestations of gender confusion — LGBTQ+ (ad infinitum) — just received the results of opinion research it sponsors annually. And the news was not good … for homosexual advocacy.

The report notes: “Five years ago, GLAAD partnered with The Harris Poll to launch a unique index to measure Americans’ attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. In the first three years of the Harris Poll study, the Accelerating Acceptance report showed positive momentum year-over-year, with Americans stating they were more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues. … Last year, however, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction. More non-LGBTQ adults responded that they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ uncomfortable around LGBTQ people in select scenarios. … The decline in acceptance and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture.”

By “hateful rhetoric,” GLAAD is referring to the empowerment of dissenting social and cultural views that it attributes to Donald Trump’s election. However, I would argue that the decline in support for GLAAD’s constituency is the result of the absurd extent to which these thugs have taken their jack-boot agenda, from men invading girls’ dressing rooms and bathrooms to battles over the use of pronouns that dare imply there are only two genders. Of course, only the most reality-challenged heterophobic gender deniers argue that point.

In fact, the Harris survey results regarding what parents would want for their children is the most revealing trend indicator. Among the Left’s most dependable demographic of useful idiots, those aged 18-34, a full third (33%) said they would not be comfortable with their children in a class with a gender-confused teacher — and that was up from 25% in 2016 and 29% in 2017. And 39% of young adults indicated they did not want their children exposed to an LGBTQ-themed history lesson, up from 27% and 30%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The survey also found that only 45% of young people indicated they were “very” or “somewhat” comfortable around gender-confused/dysphoric individuals — and that was down from 63% and 53%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The number of young people indicating they would be distressed by finding out a family member was homosexual rose from 29% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.

Remarkably, there was a significant drop in acceptance among young women — 64% were “comfortable” with homosexuals in 2017, down to 52% in 2018. As I have noted previously, women voters are the largest Democrat Party voting block, and their collective LGBT sympathy is a major reason Democrats pander to that gender-confused subset.

Two years of polling results does not confirm a trend, and we will have to review GLAAD’s report next year. But the sentiments and sensibility of young people may be headed in the right direction.

Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema tipped his biased hand with this skewed observation about his company’s GLAAD poll: “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.” Well thanks for that heads up!

According to GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, the “rise in divisive rhetoric both in politics and in culture” has had “a negative influence on younger Americans.” She insists that “LGBTQ people and allies must urgently address today’s cultural crisis by being visible and vigilant.”

However, as I previously noted, the outcome of homosexual advocates “being visible and vigilant” is precisely why their support is dropping. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family agrees. He says that the drop in acceptance is because “the ‘gay’ movement continues to over-play its hand and that will certainly continue.” He adds, “Rather than simply being ‘live and let live,’ they are forcing Americans to embrace their politics, and often with overwhelming muscle and the life-crushing public accusations of a person’s so-called ‘bigotry’ and ‘hatefulness’ if they dare disagree.”

As for the absurd gender-pronoun variants, GLAAD’s Ellis notes that it’s “a newness that takes time for people to understand.” Or it takes time for people to reject.

The most ridiculous example of corporate support for gender-pronoun confusion came when Nabisco announced a new packaging scheme for its Oreo cookies: “We’re proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions. In partnership with National Council of Teachers of English, we’re giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day.” Seriously, Nabisco’s advertising department has become that detached from gender reality.

Regarding how LOUD the “LGBT+” crowd has become, another just-released research report found that Americans think one in four people are LGBT+. According to the report, “Americans’ estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than five times Gallup’s more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans are LGBT, based on respondents’ self-identification as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

Finally, for those who are quick to label others who don’t embrace their gender-bending orthodoxy as “haters,” we as Christians are called to love other sinners but not to embrace sin. That distinction is too often lost in rancorous rhetoric from the Left, as was the case over the weekend during New York’s “gay pride” parade. The storefront of a Chick-fil-A in Manhattan was desecrated with signs reading “F—k haters,” a reference to the fact the business is Christian owned. Of course, the “haters” were those who posted that message.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63972?mailing_id=4378&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4378&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

So maybe that’s why the Left has a problem with it.

You see, the progressive-socialists who’ve infected academia over the past 50 years — and now dominate some fields by tenfold or more — don’t want young minds to know the truth.

What they do want is to indoctrinate students as left-wing activists eager to do violence to America’s institutions, rather than to produce knowledgeable citizens prepared to uphold and defend Western values.

What’s more ironic is that leftists are the very people who, as college students in the 1960s, formed sit-ins and other protests to speak out against the “system” and who championed themselves as defenders of free speech.

Today, they’re the tyrants who force-feed your 18-year-old a diet of Marxism repackaged as “democracy.” Indeed, the Left has now become the very system they fought against in the ‘60s.

And this new system ensures that conservative guest speakers, students, and faculty are shouted down or otherwise silenced. Impressionable students are thus a captive audience for leftist ideology, whether in science, history, literature, or elsewhere. Outside of the lecture hall, campus activities boards and administrators fully support and encourage student organizations to serve as conduits for “LGBTQ” issues, “social justice,” and the like.

There’s no way to escape it. Conservative students are routinely belittled if they dare challenge their professor’s dogma, and often publicly shamed or threatened if they dare to invite someone to campus to speak favorably about capitalism, Western civilization, or conservative ideas.

But there’s a bit of hope.

South Dakota is challenging this assault on free speech. Last year, legislators enacted S.D. 1087, described as an “act to promote free speech and intellectual diversity at certain institutions of higher education.” Additionally, the act requires an annual report to the state legislature and ensures that outdoor spaces on campuses are forums for free speech. The law takes effect on July 1, but campus leftists are fighting it tooth and nail to make sure conservatives don’t have a voice.

An important part of the effort to quash right-leaning voices is the widespread practice of hiring “diversity officers.” With an average salary of $175,000, these bureaucrats police the college campus by promoting leftist programs and policies, integrating social justice into the institutional framework, and employing an army of uninformed Millennials to seek out any ideas not in line with their own. There’s hardly an institution of higher learning today that doesn’t have an office of diversity. But these campus cops care little for diversity of opinion or thought, and they certainly don’t want diversity in speech.

Imagine the outcry if colleges and universities across the country started hiring “freedom officers” who pushed a conservative ideology and actively prevented liberal students and faculty from speaking or holding events on campus.

In South Dakota, lawmakers justified their free-speech act by explaining that “while beneficial programs for Native American students, and students of other diverse cultures should be preserved, the build-up of diversity offices which are used to promote social justice causes associated with the political left such as safe zone training, the biannual drag show, and social justice training, to name just a few, should be dismantled.”

It’s about time that someone fights back against this assault on our freedom. But could the Mount Rushmore state’s bold stroke spread to other states?

Frederick M. Hess writes at National Review, “South Dakota’s experience is a microcosm of what’s unfolding across American higher education, and the resolution and implementation of S.D. 1087 may have national implications. After all, across the land, liberal faculty members outnumber their conservative counterparts five to one, and the disparity is starker still when it comes to the social sciences and humanities. Such a lack of intellectual diversity affects who gets hired at colleges and universities, who enjoys the platform provided by prestigious institutions, what gets researched, and what gets taught.”

If we’re going to have diversity officers on campus, they ought to be standing up for the free-speech rights of everyone. Now, thanks to South Dakota’s legislature, the tide may be turning.

That’s good news for all who believe in free speech, and bad news for those who’ve used our colleges and universities as a training ground for the next generation of socialist warriors.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/63949?mailing_id=4374&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4374&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body