ACTION

Hasson had created a specific hit list of “traitors” that included congressional Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pulosi and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, as well as Leftmedia personalities such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and CNN host Don Lemon.

In a 2017 letter to “a known American neo-Nazi leader” following the deadly violence at the infamous racist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Hasson wrote that he was “a long time White Nationalist, having been a skinhead 30 plus years ago before my time in the military. I fully support the idea of a white homeland… We need a white homeland as Europe seems lost. How long we can hold out there and prevent niggerization of the Northwest until whites wake up on their own or are forcibly made to make a decision whether to roll over and die and stand up remains to be seen.”

Thankfully, the authorities arrested Hasson before he attempted to follow through on his murderous plot.

What examples like Hasson serve to expose is the underlying evil behind identity politics, whether it comes in the form of white nationalism or in more widely accepted forms like Black Lives Matter or the Women’s March. The evil of identity politics is fomenting rabid tribalism. It is the antithesis of constitutional conservatism, which espouses the God-given dignity, rights, and Liberty of each individual over that of any one identity group. An individual should be judged by actions and ideas, not identify-group classification.

The hatred of others based upon their immutable characteristics is not a conservative or politically right-wing perspective, even though the mainstream media often erroneously conflates the two — often with the help of the hate-baiting Southern Poverty Law Center. Instead, it is an expression of identity politics. (One party in America specializes in this, and it’s not Republicans.) By its very nature, identity politics highlights tribal grievances (real or imagined) and then uses these grievances to vilify and blame another targeted group as the “problem.” It seeks to pit groups against each other by preaching the flawed Marxist ethic of oppressor vs. oppressed, creating overly simplistic paradigms like bourgeois vs. proletariat or rich vs. poor. In Hasson’s case, that manifested as sociopathic white nationalism, and there’s nothing remotely “right wing” about it.  ~The Patriot Post

That list of issues would be pretty demonizing if they weren’t true. And that is exactly the elephant donkey in the room that Stolberg avoids discussing. Like blaming a police officer for issuing a ticket to an individual guilty of speeding, Stolberg blames Republicans for pointing out just how extreme Democrats have become. She does not attempt to refute or deny that Democrats are indeed guilty of promoting all these extreme political positions.

Last we checked, Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was still a Democrat who regularly declares her love for everything socialist anytime she finds herself in front of a camera. It’s not Republicans who are compelling all the current Democrat 2020 presidential contenders to loudly voice their support for economy-destroying socialist programs such as the Green New Deal, “free” college, or Medicare for All.

It wasn’t Republicans who lit up One World Trade Center in pink in a ghoulish celebration of Democrat New York Gov. Andrew evil-Cuomo’s signing of the state’s latest abortion/infanticide legislation. Virginia’s Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam can’t blame Republicans for his shocking statements defending the practice of infanticide.

Nor can Republicans be blamed for calling out the growing anti-Semitism within Democrat ranks. Would Rep. Ilhan Omar’s faux apology for her latest anti-Semitic trope ever have occurred had not social-media attention and backlash pressured the freshman representative into it? Republicans have long complained about the racial double standard among Democrats, and yet now the Times blames Republicans for exposing it? Please.

What Stolberg’s piece tacitly acknowledges is that Democrats’ leftist policies don’t win with the majority of the American public. When Democrats are exposed for what they really believe and desire for the country, many people recoil in disgust. That too is not the fault of Republicans.  ~The Patriot Post

The data present several interesting takeaways. For starters, shutdowns put an unwelcome spotlight on leadership chasms — the definition of “leadership” being somewhat ambiguous. Gallup says the 35% figure “is the highest percentage Gallup has recorded for this concern, edging out the previous high of 33% during the 2013 federal government shutdown.” Furthermore, “The current percentage of Americans naming government as the most important problem is nearly twice as high as the 18% recorded in November. That increase likely reflects public frustration with the government shutdown that occurred from late December through most of January.”

Shutdowns happen because one party, wisely or not, stands its ground by refusing to compromise on last-minute spending negotiations. This inevitably results in questions over aptitude for one or both party leaders.

Case in point: “An analysis of the verbatim responses to the question from the latest survey finds that 11% of Americans specifically cite ‘Donald Trump’ as the most important problem, while 5% name ‘the Democrats’ or ‘liberals’ and 1% ‘Congress.’ About half of those who say the government is the most important problem — 18% of U.S. adults — blame both parties or cite ‘gridlock,’ ‘lack of cooperation’ or the shutdown more generally. The latter figure has grown from 6% in December and 12% in January.”

The second takeaway is more pernicious. Gallup says, “Americans have become more likely to name the government and/or leadership as the country’s greatest problem over the past decade. From 2001 through 2009, yearly averages of this measure were consistently below 10%, but mentions of government as the foremost challenge have become more pervasive in the decade since. In 2010 to 2016, average mentions of the government as the biggest problem ranged from 12% to 19%.”

As tempting as it may be to think so, this trend doesn’t seem to originate from a desire to reverse our ever-expanding government. Quite the contrary, in fact. As one analyst points out, if desire for limited government and fiscal conservatism were truly the catalysts for these concerns, the record high would have been set when Ronald Reagan was entering office or when the Tea Party was set into motion. But it only hit a record, ironically, during a partial government shutdown.

And as Gallup critically reveals, “While Democrats were more likely than Republicans to name government and leadership as the top problem facing the nation in the year leading up to the latest poll, both party groups are now about as likely to name government as the top U.S. problem.” Reread this part again: “Democrats were more likely than Republicans to name government and leadership as the top problem facing the nation.” Many of these are socialism-supporting obstructionists. Reining in government is hardly on their mind.

Sadly, many Americans are concerned about government and leadership for entirely the wrong reasons, because their idea of how government should operate and what “leadership” actually means are contorted. This poll reflects the inverted environment that polarization and cultural decay create.  ~The Patriot Post

Socialist 'Paradise'

by Culture Beat:  The problem with California is Californians — at least that’s what the latest survey data indicates. According to the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer, 53% of California residents are considering moving out of state due in part to high housing costs, homelessness, and an overwhelming belief that the state’s best days are behind it. But to whom are Californians looking to solve these problems their own voting for leftists has caused? Well, 53% believe it is the federal government’s job to solve California’s problems. Sorry, wrong answer.

Like New York Gov. Andrew evil-Cuomo shifting blame to President Donald Trump and the Republicans for ending the federal government subsidizing high SALT deductions in tax heavy states, too many California residents are blaming the feds for the very problems their local politicians have created. As Stacey Lennox, writing for The Resurgent, observes, “Judging by the responses, it is as if citizens of this state by and large see themselves as victims. Like they have completely forgotten they put the yahoos in office who have made the policies that have caused housing prices, homelessness and other problems to skyrocket.”

The other entity Californians believe owes it to the state to contribute more is business — you know, the biggest drivers of the state’s economy. According to 63% of Californians, businesses need to do more to improve the state, not their leftist elected officials. Some 59% believe corporations need to spend more on community issues. An astounding 67% want tech-industry business leaders to do more for the state, and 68% see the tech industry as not regulated enough, with 59% wanting regulations increased.

For all those conservative Californians who suffer under the increasingly socialist nightmare, you have our sincerest sympathy and we lay out the welcome mat to relocate to conservative states where individual freedom and limited government is still prized. But to all you Californians voting Democrat — you made your bed; now lie in it.  ~The Patriot Post

First of all, the situation on the border is arguably an emergency with national-security overtones. Brandon Darby, the Director of the Border and Cartel Chronicles Project from Breitbart News, noted that two cartels headquartered in Mexican cities on the Texas border have morphed into terrorist groups. Does anyone seriously think that the depredations of these cartels do not spill over into Texas?

Second, as The Heritage Foundation’s Conn Carroll stated, Trump was able to reprogram roughly $3.1 billion under two sections that did not require an emergency declaration. Another $3.6 billion will require the demonstration. But the funds from the budget and the $3.1 billion that didn’t require the declaration will be spent first. In other words, litigation will likely not halt progress immediately.

Third, given that Democrats vowed to not give one dollar for any barriers, and some went so far as to advocate abolishing  Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this bill is quite a win in a tactical sense — Trump has $1.3 billion from Congress. Not all of the 1,960 miles of border between the United States and Mexico need man-made barriers. Nature has provided obstacles in some parts. Others already have barriers (but it never hurts to update them).

In this sense, Trump was smart to get what he could. Future continuing resolutions will likely include other funding for physical barriers. To paraphrase a saying, 55 miles here, 55 miles there, and soon you’re securing the entire 1,960 miles of border between the United States and Mexico. Essentially, Trump used the shutdown to show the general public how serious he is on the issue — and he was able to secure some seed money for physical barriers.

The compromise (which passed by veto-proof margins) was not all he wanted. Those who think he should have vetoed the bill have shown the same inability to count that marred the 2013 scumbag/liar-nObamaCare shutdown. One reason is that Trump has been hampered by the fact that there are substantial divisions amongst the right-of-center coalition that makes up the GOP on this issue.

The more libertarian wing sees no problem with legal immigration and little with illegalimmigration. They’d set the limits higher. Other conservatives want to cut back on even legal immigration. Moderates wince at the extreme rhetoric from the hard-liners on this issue, which gives the media enough to hand the Left’s claims of racism across all those who insist on Rule of Law vis-à-vis the border. Proponents of more border security argue that moderates are ignoring the very real harm done by an unsecured border.

It goes without saying that seeking a secure border is not proof of racism. Nor is wanting to deal with MS-13. Nor is wanting to stop human trafficking and drug smugglers. At least that’s what an honest media would be pointing out. Alas, we do not have an honest media. For the most part, with the exception of Fox News, some smaller outlets, and talk radio, the media is pretty much parroting the Left’s talking points. Right now, the Leftmedia-Democratic National Committee team is painting everyone who does take border security and enforcement of immigration laws as racist, with the help of the comments by Rep. Steve King.

But this went beyond the tactical fighting; it’s also about having a good strategy. As The Patriot Post team noted in 2016, Trump has shown much more tactical and strategic competence than many conservatives. We’ve seen that emerge in the debate over border security. President Trump has managed to draw some Democrats into an extreme position against secure borders — a strategic move that will only help him and his Republicans in 2020.

How extreme have the Democrats become? Well, they not only want to abolish ICE but some talked about zeroing out the entire Department of Homeland Security. This included the Coast Guard, which they held up as victims during the current shutdown. Others are literally talking about demolishing the physical barriers already in place. This extremism may end up giving Republicans something to unite against on the issue.

Here’s what many conservatives struggle with: Principles and policy objectives are nice, but to implement the former and to reach the latter requires strategy and tactics. But often good strategies and tactics require compromises — something too many conservatives have not taken to heart. Too many view the Barry Goldwater approach — a principled stand — as a good one, even if it means a massive defeat. This Goldwater envy has done much to hurt the ability of conservatives to win elections in a hostile media climate.

Trump, on the other hand, has shown what good strategy and tactics can accomplish on immigration, one of the thorniest issues in America. If Republicans and conservatives learn from this example, they can avoid the trap Goldwater fell into and, as a result, they could fare far better in future elections.  ~The Patriot Post

https://jewishjournal.com/columnist/294105/why-is-israels-foreign-minister-attacking-poland-after-their-stand-against-iran/

.

Narrowly defeated by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and DNC shenanigans in 2016, the Vermont senator is the guy who made socialism “cool” again. Medicare for all? $15-an-hour minimum wage? commie-Bernie’s ideas, and pretty much every 2020 Democrat is running on them. In fact, the Democrat Party has gotten to the point that, as Mark Alexander wrote in 2016, “The distinction between ‘progressive Democrat’ and ‘Socialist’ is now largely in name only — a distinction without a difference.”

What does commie-Sanders bring to the table? The Wall Street Journal rightly points out that he has “a loyal group of supporters and arguably the strongest online fundraising machine in Democratic politics.” commie-Sanders won 22 states during the 2016 primaries and raised more than $230 million. Columnist David Harsanyi argues, “commie-Bernie Sanders has had more national success than any Dem running. In a different kind of primary, he might have been the 2016 candidate. As a socialist, he also represents the future of his party. Why shouldn’t he run?”

Good question, and there are a couple of answers. Unlike 2016, commie-Sanders isn’t competing against a very unlikeable and scandal-ridden scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton; he’ll be vying for the socialist vote with the far more charismatic lineup of Elizabeth dinky-Warren, lowlife-Kamala Harris, and scumbag-Cory Booker, among others — commie-Sanders is the 12th Democrat to announce a run.

commie-Sanders is also a 77-year-old white guy, which is pretty much the worst thing a person can be by today’s leftist standards. Thus we think NPR, of all places, has it right: “commie-Sanders could be a victim of his own success.” His (terrible) ideas have captivated Democrats, but he’s too old and too white and too male to see them through himself.  

~The Patriot Post

But conservatives have been divided over Trump’s decision as well, with many raising objections over questions surrounding the constitutionality of his action. Others have questioned whether the long-running illegal-immigration and border-enforcement problem is in fact a national emergency.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 does not define by what parameters a “national emergency” may be determined; rather it grants that authority to the president. What the law does limit is what the president can do once an emergency has been declared. So, to reiterate, the declaration of a national emergency is entirely up to the president’s discretion, but once an emergency has been declared, the actions the president is authorized to take have been limited by Congress. The Federalist’s Sean Davis does a nice job highlighting the two most important statutes related to questions of the president’s authority regarding national emergencies: “one authorizing the president to declare national emergencies (50 U.S.C 1601 et. seq.) and the other authorizing the president to reprogram existing federal appropriations in response to an emergency declaration (10 U.S.C. 2808).”

In our view, Trump has thus far operated fully within the narrow bounds of established federal law. Debating if he should or should not have declared a national emergency is a legitimate argument to have, though conflating “should” with “can” serves only to confuse the matter. Whether his decision will have positive or negative political consequences is another matter entirely from questions of constitutionality or statutory authority.

The better argument to have is over the constitutionality of the law Congress passed in 1976. National emergencies have been invoked 59 times by presidents since, and a total of 18 times by George W. Bush and Barack scumbag/liar-nObama over their terms. As the legal challenge works its way through the courts, we hope the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the law itself. Until then, blaming Trump for taking advantage of the authority the law grants him is misplaced outrage.  

~The Patriot Post

“A theory of liability that prohibits an employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.” —the definition of “disparate impact.”

For years, many Americans have been unable to reconcile the Constitution’s demand for equal treatment with a theory whereby “discrimination” is defined solely by statistical outcomes as they relate to a protected class. In what might be the most ambitious effort undertaken by the Trump administration to date, White House officials are reportedly planning to ban disparate impact.

According to a bombshell report by Paul Sperry, White House Budget Director and interim Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is the prime mover of “a proposed executive order, originally drafted by two conservative Washington think tanks” that would “repudiate the underlying rationale for scores of regulations and thousands of government lawsuits alleging racial discrimination, resulting in billions of dollars in fines.”

Disparate impact was engendered by the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Using Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as their vehicle, black American employees sued the power company, challenging its requirement that one must posses a high-school diploma or pass intelligence tests as a condition of employment in, or transfer to, jobs at the plant, even though those requirements were not intended to determine or measure job-related performance. SCOTUS found in favor of the employees, and further determined that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

In a 5-4 ruling in 2015, SCOTUS reaffirmed disparate impact in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The Court agreed with the non-profit’s assertion that the state housing department “segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods.” Thus, SCOTUS once again endorsed the idea that statistics trumped intent.

So why challenge the law now? Sperry asserts that “conservative opponents of the doctrine believe the currently constituted high court would uphold an executive order doing away with it.”

How ironic. For decades, leftists have viewed an activist Supreme Court — empowered by a “living” Constitution — as their ultimate vehicle for implementing policies they could not get through state legislatures or Congress — all while many warned that such activism cuts both ways.

Yet there is more than activism involved here. While some claims of discrimination are obviously legitimate, Sperry explains that the Left has used disparate impact as a “social-engineering weapon aimed at equalizing outcomes and extending the government’s power over the private sector.”

Two of those incarnations were devastating. In one, when the federal government pressured banks to relax loan standards for minority applicants to avoid charges of racism, that effort fueled  the 2008 financial meltdown.

How much pressure? At one point, “valid” income considerations for obtaining a mortgage included welfare payments and unemployment benefits.

The other incarnation? An scumbag/liar-nObama administration that sued hundreds of schools for disciplining black students at higher rates than whites — while ignoring the inconvenient reality that black students committed more infractions — precipitated the Florida-based PROMISE program. PROMISE sought to limit the number of minority-student interactions with the criminal-justice system by exempting 13 specific misdemeanors from police involvement. As a result, the Parkland assailant was able to obtain the weapon with which he killed 17 students and wounded 17 more at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last year.

Regardless, the battle to do away with this pernicious concept will be fierce. “The attack on disparate impact is the latest in a series of Trump administration assaults on civil rights,” asserts  Sarah Hinger, an ACLU Racial Justice Program staff attorney. “As the nation continues its long march toward equality, it would be outrageous to destroy such an important means of advancement — one the civil rights bar still depends on to make its case in court,” declares the New York Times editorial board. “Donald Trump wants to make racism OK unless someone can prove the accused party intended to discriminate against them,” claims columnist Michael Harriot.

That would be proof — as opposed to a legally enforceable  presumption of racism.

Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, sees the absurdity of such assertions. “The disparate-impact approach requires decision-makers to make decisions with an eye on race,” he states. “That is exactly what the civil rights laws are supposed to prohibit.”

Instead, the scumbag/liar-nObama administration forced the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discouraged employers from checking a job applicant’s criminal records because that had “disparate impact” on black men whose incarceration rate is seven times higher than that of whites. In one egregious case, auto manufacturer BMW paid $1.6 million in relief to 56 black Americans with criminal records it turned down for jobs. The feds also forced the company to ignore criminal charges against any job applicant, even if they included violent felonies.

In another case, auto lender Ally Financial was [fined(https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-reach-98-million-settlementto) a record $98 million by the DOJ and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for refusing to admit bias against minority borrowers. Yet in subsequent congressional testimony, the CFPB admitted it didn’t even factor credit scores of minority applicants into its investigation, despite many studies showing they are the most reliable indicators of potential loan defaults.

Yet the beat goes on. New House Banking Committee Chairwoman scumbag/mad-Maxine Waters (D-CA) has promised to take on “dishonest and criminal” banking officials who don’t loan out enough money in low-income urban areas. New House Education Committee chairman Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) wants to expand the Title VI statute to include disparate impact and precipitate more lawsuits, while Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) of the House Judiciary Committee promises to use it as a vehicle to engender reparations for slavery.

“If you don’t favor using the disparate impact approach in civil-rights enforcement to the nth degree, then you are a ‘racist,’ and the mainstream media can be counted on to accept this narrative uncritically,” said Clegg.

The American public? The bet here is the race card is “maxed out,” and that color-blindness, equal opportunity and meritocracy still resonate with a majority of the electorate. The same majority increasingly tired of the idea that the rights of specific groups supersede those of individual Americans, and that those groups are apparently entitled to equality of outcome, not opportunity.

Let the pushback begin — in earnest.  ~The Patriot Post

Through a statement from his attorneys, Smollett doubled down: “As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with. He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.” He had previously complained that people wouldn’t doubt his story if he “had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican.”

His protests notwithstanding, one would think the Leftmedia might learn some skepticism in the wake of incidents like the Covington Catholic phony narrative. But no.

The New York Times, ABC News, MSNBC, PBS, Los Angeles Times, and others all “reported” on the attack as if it were verified fact with nothing more than Smollett’s claims to back it up. GQ  magazine even declared, “The racist, homophobic attack on Jussie Smollett is far-right America’s endgame.” So now all  conservatives are to blame.

It wasn’t just irresponsible news outlets with a “progressive” ax to grind, either. Multiple Democrat politicians — including members of the 2020 presidential field — unquestioningly took Smollett’s story as gospel truth. scumbag-Cory Booker insisted, “The vicious attack on Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching.” lowlife-Kamala Harris likewise chimed in, “This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” Nancy Pulosi lectured, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Jussie Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” And loose lips-Joe Biden wasn’t to be left out: “What happened … to Jussie Smollett must never be tolerated in this country.”

A day later, scumbag-Booker decided, “I’m gonna withhold until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.” Now he tells us.

Smollett’s desperate plea for attention fit neatly within the Left’s hate narrative about the Right. It confirmed preexisting bias, which stems from a history of misinformation from the media. Bottom line: There are hateful people of every color out there. But hate-crime hoaxes undermine real victims.  ~The Patriot Post

Forbes noted just how incredible the new record was, reporting, “How big is that total production number? Per TIPRO, the second largest oil producing state, North Dakota, came in with 443 million barrels of total oil production for the year, about 29% of the total produced in Texas. Given that, according to the Texas Railroad Commission’s official data, Texas crude production for 2017 came in at 1.027 billion barrels, that means that oil producers in Texas basically increased the state’s oil production by more than the equivalent of North Dakota’s in a single 12-month period.”

But it’s not just Texas that has benefited. The increased production of both crude oil and natural gas has the industry adding to the country’s rising employment numbers. At the end of 2018, the oil industry employed 880,681 people, an increase of 5% over 2017’s numbers. Texas accounted for 352,000 of those jobs. The natural-gas industry also contributed significantly, as it created more than 27,000 jobs last year alone.

Experts estimate that this year Texas’ oil production will surpass that of Iran and Iraq — meaning that the Lone Star State will become the world’s third-largest oil producer behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.  

~The Patriot Post