ACTION

A 1961 “Twilight Zone” episode starred Peter Falk as a Central American revolutionary whose paranoia eventually leads to his destruction. The dictator he has deposed tells him about a mirror given to him by “an old woman,” a mirror that will show him who’s plotting to assassinate him. The revolutionary soon sees enemies everywhere and begins to unravel, picking off his comrades one by one, believing they are out to get him.

Fantasy, sure. But President Trump and Vice President Pence could use such a mirror to reveal those partisan forces attempting to carry out political assassination on the entire Trump administration.

The latest assault comes from another anonymous “whistleblower,” who told The Washington Post a Treasury Department official appointed by Trump sought to interfere with an audit of the tax returns of the president “or” vice president. Doesn’t that sound vague? On Sunday, the attorney for the first whistleblower told ABC News he is representing a second whistleblower who has “firsthand” knowledge of the president’s call to the president of Ukraine.

The first anonymous whistleblower has tentatively agreed to meet with congressional lawmakers, according to CNN, on the condition that his or her legal counsel is cleared to accompany the whistleblower to the meeting. No word yet on the second whistleblower’s conditions.

This is all political theater and bad theater at that. Democrats are going through the motions of impeachment, hoping to thwart the president’s re-election. They know the Senate is unlikely to convict him should impeachment articles be approved. It’s all about pleasing their base and fundraising, which both sides are doing. This is one of many reasons Congress’ approval ratings remain low.

Ruslan Ryaboshapka, Ukraine’s new general prosecutor, told Reuters that he was not aware of any evidence of wrongdoing by the son of former U.S. Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden, but would be reviewing criminal cases opened by his predecessor, including some that could relate to the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, a natural gas company that paid Hunter Biden.

If John Durham, the Connecticut prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to look into the origin of the phony Russian collusion probe, comes up with facts that lead to the indictment of anti-Trump Democrats, will that make any difference to those smearing the president? It might in public opinion, which Democrats are trying to shape against the president, but probably not to the real conspirators and colluders, except perhaps some lower-level types. The Establishment always protects its own. Could it be possible that Democrats are rapidly pursuing the impeachment inquiry to soften any blows that might come from Durham’s report?

That the president had to suggest Ukrainian and even Chinese leaders look into Hunter Biden’s possible corrupt activity is its own indictment of the anti-Trump media, scumbag/liar-nObama administration holdovers and career prosecutors.

The conservative organization Judicial Watch has been relentless in its pursuit of collusion by anti-Trump actors. It has released 145 pages of communications between former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and others which it says include a one-line email to special counsel Robert Mueller. It said, “The boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.” The communication included “off the record” emails with major media outlets (collusion?) around the time of Mueller’s appointment and “show that Rosenstein did not dispassionately go along with the fraudulent probe in an attempt to get at the truth, but was an active participant in the deep state coup, secretly plotting with other FBI and DOJ officials against the president of the United States.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “the astonishing emails further confirm the dishonest corruption behind Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller. The emails also show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media reporters.”

If true, why is that shocking, given the nonstop media assault on Donald Trump even before he took office? Their goal has been to impeach, or damage him sufficiently so a Democrat will win the White House next November. Consider the one-sided “coverage” in major newspapers, the broadcast and at least two cable networks.

More facts will emerge that undermine the Democrats’ narrative, but it won’t matter to anti-Trumpers. They live in the Twilight Zone.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65955?mailing_id=4575&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4575&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

In that ideal world, the People’s Republic of China would be swayed by a simple reminder that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and that cracking down on peaceful demonstrators or forcibly returning Taiwan to the fold is wrong. In an ideal world, senior leaders of Iran would not be voicing a desire to wipe Israel off the map.

As you are well aware, we are not in an ideal world. We’re nowhere close to one. So, why isn’t China trying to force Taiwan under the rule of the butchers of Beijing? The answer is very simple: If they were to try, they know that the United States Navy has the capability to sweep the People’s Liberation Army Navy from the seas. China would be at the mercy of the United States as a result. That is something that the Chinese are rational enough to want to avoid.

As The Patriot Post team has pointed out during coverage of the U.S. Navy’s issues, navies take a lot of time to build — or rebuild. Could China’s leaders survive such a setback, especially given the situation in Hong Kong? They’re not going to want to take that chance.

In essence, American strength deters hostile action. The same dynamic largely works with Iran. Yes, it shot down a MQ-4C Triton UAV, but its direct acts of aggression and belligerence haven’t caused any American fatalities. Well, no recent fatalities is the more honest way to put it — America still owes Iran for that theocratic regime’s provision of IED components to Iraqi insurgents. But the reason Iran hasn’t moved much beyond talk is that the mullahs know full well that America is willing to deliver a major butt-kicking if they push things too far.

So, from these two examples, we should understand that deterrence, in order to work correctly, has two components. First, there is the ability to deliver a devastating blow, and second, the willingness to deliver said blow should a country cross certain lines. If either of these is missing, then deterrence will inevitably fail.

Prior to President Donald Trump taking office, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama had reduced America’s deterrence capabilities in both ways. His defense cuts severely limited America’s ability to bring the pain, and he also was singularly unwilling to deal with Iran in the decisive manner needed. In short, BO gave the message that America could be a global doormat.

The fact is, if America is to avoid war, it never hurts to have a strong military in all facets. But it is also equally important to ensure that when a foreign country does something along the lines of firing missiles at a Navy destroyer, then we are able and willing to make them pay. Otherwise, we may very well find ourselves again in an armed conflict in the Middle East. Or elsewhere.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65957?mailing_id=4575&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4575&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“I campaigned on the fact that I was going to bring our soldiers home and bring them home as rapidly as possible,” Trump said. That may be true, but commitments made by political neophytes in the heat of a campaign are not always wise to keep. It’s certainly not sufficient justification. Trump also reportedly “completely blindsided” the Pentagon with the announcement.

The U.S. is not withdrawing from Syria entirely. The shift of a relative handful of U.S. troops from one part of northeastern Syria is nowhere near as significant a move as Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s total abandonment of Iraq (also a campaign promise), which led directly to the creation of the Islamic State. Yet the U.S. has vital interests in containing the ISIS threat, and it is possible that Trump’s move will have an undesirable effect on this front. On the other hand, U.S. troops were in Syria for the sole objective of defeating ISIS. The caliphate is now destroyed, and Trump argues that means it’s time to come home.

Abandoning allies — in this case, the Kurds — is never a good look for America, and it will have foreign-policy ramifications elsewhere. For many years, the Kurds fought and died alongside U.S. troops in the fight against ISIS, while Turkish President Recep Erdogan has threatened to attack the Kurds in northeast Syria. Were U.S. troops the only thing holding him back? “The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so,” Trump said. Yet that’s a crass transactional view of foreign policy.

Turkey, which seemingly has the green light for incursions into Syria, is being tested. Trump has taken on the NATO establishment, and Turkey’s membership in that defensive alliance as well as its efforts to join the European Union are now on full display. Either its increasingly authoritarian president will pass the test, or he will fail before the whole world. Trump promised major consequences for Turkey’s economy if it “does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits.” That’s ridiculously overwrought Bronx bluster at the wrong time, though Trump (probably) doesn’t actually think that; he’s just being Trump and, again, he’s testing Erdogan.

All of that said, it’s interesting to note an overall dynamic with this news. The Beltway Establishment is almost uniform in harshly criticizing Trump’s move. Sen. Lindsey Graham called it “shortsighted and irresponsible.” Rep. Liz Cheney decried it as “a catastrophic mistake.” House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi said it’s a “dangerous decision” that is both “reckless” and “misguided.” Of course, she didn’t seem to mind scumbag/liar-nObama’s Iraq withdrawal, and she’s too busy running the impeachment charade now to be taken seriously.

But we suspect the average American isn’t so keen on keeping our sons and daughters in harm’s way for a murky objective in Syria — as Trump put it, “to the benefit of people who don’t even like the USA.” After all, it’s less likely to be the loved ones of members of Congress spilling blood for their country than it is grassroots American Patriots.

In any case, Trump’s Syria decision isn’t black and white; it’s various shades of unappealing gray.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65966?mailing_id=4575&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4575&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Kurt Volker, the former U.S. envoy to Ukraine, testified on Capitol Hill Thursday for nearly 10 hours. He was one of the first witnesses deposed in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. (More on that below.)

I’m pretty sure that if our brave men and women at Gitmo interrogated a jihadist for ten hours, the left would be yelling that it was torture. But that didn’t stop Democrats from interrogating Volker for ten hours.

And, of course, they did it behind closed doors, presumably because they were touching on classified subjects. Or maybe they just didn’t want the American people to hear what Volker had to say. I suspect it was the latter because Republicans came out of the hearing unfazed.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told reporters that “not one thing [Volker] said comports with any of the Democrats’ impeachment narrative. Not one thing.”

Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff left the hearing and told reporters that he had no comment. scumbag-Schiff’s silence speaks volumes. If Volker’s testimony had been damaging to Trump, scumbag-Schiff would have had plenty to say.

liar-Pelosi’s Charade

The White House is expected to notify Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi that it will provide nothing in response to the Democrats’ subpoena blitz until there is an actual vote by the full House authorizing formal impeachment proceedings.

Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, is also telling a federal court that demands by the Judiciary Committee to access grand jury testimony from Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation are illegal because the House has not yet authorized formal impeachment proceedings.

As Andrew McCarthy, Mark Levin, Newt Gingrich and others have pointed out, there is no impeachment process going on right now. There is no impeachment process because the speaker of the House refuses to call a vote on the rules governing the process as has been done in every other formal impeachment.

What we have is a political charade where liar-Nancy Pelosi is making up her own rules as she goes along.

The purpose of this charade is to damage the president, demoralize his supporters and scare independent voters into thinking there is something seriously wrong with the Trump Administration.

By avoiding the vote, liar-Pelosi is also shielding 31 House Democrats who hold seats Trump won in 2016 from having to vote on impeachment, which is really a vote to reverse the 2016 election.

The other advantage for liar-Pelosi is that House Republicans don’t have the benefit of additional tools that would help them defend the president during a formal impeachment process.

Trump, loose lips liar-Biden & China

On Thursday, President Trump said that China should be investigating Hunter Biden’s $1.5 billion business deal. Of course, the media immediately went into a complete meltdown. And I know some Republicans were frustrated he said that.

But the reason he said it is very important. He cannot allow the left and the media to convince the American people that it is somehow against the law for the president to pursue corruption that has occurred in the past when those accused are political opponents of the president.

If weak-kneed Republicans allow that idea to become accepted as fact, then the Deep State probe being conducted by Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham must be ended immediately.

Barr and Durham are looking at how the scumbag/liar-nObama Administration weaponized our intelligence agencies, along with foreign intelligence services, to surveil the Trump campaign and accept dirt from foreign sources in order to take down the duly elected president of the United States.

Consider this: If loose lips liar-Joe Biden does poorly in Iowa next year and drops out of the race, would the president then be allowed to investigate corruption in the loose lips liar-Biden family? The left’s absurd narrative suggests it would be okay to investigate loose lips liar-Biden then, but not now. In what world does that make any sense?

scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton appears to be deeply involved in the 2016 conspiracy to take down the president with false information. She is not running for anything yet. Can the president investigate scumbag/liar-Hillary and whether she was working with scumbag/commie-Brennen, scumbag-Clapper, the scumbag/liar-nObama White House and Ukraine?

Candidates routinely run for office on the platform of cleaning up corruption. Trump made “draining the swamp” a central element of his 2016 campaign. It’s a very popular position to take.

But are we now supposed to believe that candidates who vow to clean up corruption can’t seek information from foreign countries where the corruption extended if the people under investigation happen to be political opponents?

When it comes to Hunter Biden’s business dealings, there are a lot questions that demand answers.

For example, Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, wants to know why the scumbag/liar-nObama Administration signed off on a deal involving Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz (hanoi-John Kerry’s stepson) and a Chinese government-owned company that had previously stolen technology related to the newest generation of stealth fighters.

Can Fox Be Fixed?

As you probably know, the president has complained recently about what he has seen lately on Fox News. I have also heard from many supporters who are unhappy with the messaging on the supposedly “fair and balanced” network.

While some hosts including my friends Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson remain strong conservatives, it is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish the difference between Fox’s daytime hosts and other left-wing networks.

But recently the dean of conservative media, the man who broke the left’s stranglehold over the media, Rush Limbaugh blasted Fox, saying, “You know, Fox really ought to change the name of the network from the Fox News Channel to the Fox Never Trumper Network.”

Going Strong

Friday’s jobs report shows that the economy is still going strong even as pundits and left-wing politicians keep hoping for a recession. The unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low of just 3.5%. Job growth in September came in at 139,000 new jobs. That was slightly short of expectations, but the previous two months were revised upward by 45,000.

What a contrast: Job creation under Trump versus every progressive/socialist seeking to replace him and their radical job-killing ideas.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65924?mailing_id=4573&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4573&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Anyone who delivers a speech at an event hosted by the school district in Appleton, Wisconsin, must submit the speech in advance and then swear under oath they will not deviate from the script. And that includes students.

“The opportunity to speak at a school event is a privilege, not a right,” the Appleton Area School District wrote in a statement. “These guidelines do not restrict or regulate individual or regulate individual speech or expression. However, individual speech and expression may still be subject to other restrictions or limitations that are imposed by law or that the District may lawfully enforce through other policies, rules or practices.”

The new regulations were implemented after a Christian school-board member invoked the name of Jesus Christ during a graduation ceremony last June.

Rev. Alvin Dupree told students to “never succumb to the pressure of being politically correct,” the Post Crescent reported. He also changed the district’s prepared statement of “best wishes” to “God bless.”

The new guidelines require all speakers, including students, to submit their entire speech in writing two weeks in advance of delivery.

First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s leading religious-liberty law firms, told Starnes Media it stands ready to assist any students who become targets of hostility because of their religious beliefs.

“Students who earn the right to address their peers are free to reference their faith as a part of those remarks,” First Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys told Starnes Media. “Any school district that requires students to submit their speeches for pre-approval must be careful they do not force students to secularize their private remarks to satisfy government censors.”

Speakers are also not permitted to wear “jewelry, clothing or accessories that reasonably could be understood to communicate a message to the audience when the speech is given.”

Does that mean students will be banned from delivering a speech if they are wearing a cross necklace or a T-shirt that references the Almighty?

But the swearing of an oath is perhaps the most disturbing part of Appleton’s crackdown on free speech.

“Speakers that submit proposed speeches shall be required to certify that they will deliver the speech as written, except for minor and immaterial variances from the text of their proposal,” the district wrote. “Certification shall be in writing and shall be sworn under oath.”

I wonder if they are going to make folks swear that oath on a copy of the Holy Bible or a copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

The oath must be signed by student and adult speakers and must be witnessed and sealed by a notary.

The oath states, among other things, “that I am affirming the statements to be true and correct under penalty of law.”

First Liberty’s Dys blasted the school district’s draconian speech oath.

“The only oath these school officials should require of anyone is that they uphold the First Amendment to the US Constitution,” he told Starnes Media.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization that targets and bullies Christians, praised the school district’s crackdown on free speech.

“We think the district did the right thing,” FFRF attorney Ryan Jayne told the newspaper. “We expect there won’t be any problems with (Rev.) Dupree speaking at district events in the future, because under these guidelines we don’t expect that he’ll be allowed to speak.”

And that’s exactly the point the school district is trying to make. Their new policies and procedures are meant to silence people of faith — specifically Christians.

Many of our public schools have been turned into indoctrination centers for left-wing propaganda. Every freedom-loving American should be appalled by the actions of the Appleton Area School District.

Heaven forbid the day comes when an American teenager or a pastor is dragged off the stage by security forces simply for uttering the name of Jesus Christ at a graduation ceremony.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65911?mailing_id=4573&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4573&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Now dinky-liar-Warren has come under scrutiny for another autobiographical tall tale that contradicts the record and even her own past statements. To paint herself as a victim of sexism under the “patriarchy,” Warren has repeatedly relayed a story of being fired from her first teaching job after it became apparent that she was pregnant. dinky-liar-Warren claims, “By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days — wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.”

However, back in 2007, dinky-liar-Warren told a different story. She stated, “I was married at 19 and then graduated from college after I’d married. My first year post-graduation, I worked — it was a public-school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ‘emergency certificate,’ it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”

Furthermore, The Washington Free Beacon obtained  “minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting,” which “show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend dinky-liar-Warren a ‘2nd year’ contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.’”

So, was dinky-liar-Warren a victim of sexism? Not even remotely. Yet for today’s Democrats, creating a fraudulent and politically expedient victim narrative is more important than speaking the truth. The question for the country is, if Warren can’t be trusted to be honest about her past or even who she is, how can she be trusted to govern the nation? The simple answer is, she can’t.   ~The Patriot Post

VIDEO:  https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=831129063948395

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65967?mailing_id=4575&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4575&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The debate about political power and authority among those who profess the Christian faith has raged since the 1st century. In modern America, the debate raged throughout Jimmy Carter’s presidency and more recently through the presidencies of scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton and Barack scumbag/liar-nObama. The debate now looms large for Donald Trump.

Newsweek magazine labeled 1976 “The Year of the Evangelical” because of Carter’s openness about his faith. At the time, commentators claimed that conservative Christians had finally found “a place at the table.” The marriage of church and state seemed to have been consummated.

There are three camps in which contemporary Christians have assembled. In one, these Christians believe God is on the side of pro-life, “values voting” Republicans. This begs the question – is God on holiday when Democrats with different political views are elected?

The second camp composed of more politically liberal Christians believes Scripture has much to say about social justice. They tend to vote for Democrats, whether Christian or not, because those politicians advance their temporal agenda.

Camp three (really a subset of camp one) ignores President Trump’s history, language and behavior toward his political foes, believing he is God’s choice, though he has said he doesn’t feel the need to ask for God’s forgiveness (a prerequisite Scripture teaches for becoming a Christian). Critics of this camp excoriate them for hypocrisy based on their attacks on scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton’s character and behavior.

Who is right? Each has a point, but none is entirely correct.

For non-Christians reading this column, knowing what believers think might help toward a better understanding of them. Better still are the instructions in Scripture, largely ignored or cherry-picked by all three camps when it comes to political power.

One verse states: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God (Romans 13:1). That seems unequivocal.

Does "every” mean every to my friends who believe in the “inerrancy of Scripture,” or only to conservative Republicans? Paul wrote this when he was under the authority of political dictators in Rome and the religious authorities of his day, which were unfriendly to him and to Jesus of Nazareth, to say the least.

How do conservative Christians reconcile what the writer of Hebrews says with their singular devotion to Republican presidents? “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

How many think President Trump, or any president, should be credited with keeping watch over their souls? And yet that’s what it says.

There is a strong case to be made for President Trump’s support of many issues that in some cases can be defended biblically, including judges who are pro-life. However, one should be careful about overt devotion that supersedes where Christians are supposed to put their sole trust and faith. It was He who said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” which is the ultimate declaration of where all power and authority lies.

Perhaps instead of trashing politicians they don’t like and revering other ones, politically conservative Christians should contemplate another powerful verse: “I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men, for kings and all those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity. This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior…” (1 Timothy 2:1-3)

Again, does “all” mean all?   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65854?mailing_id=4567&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4567&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Their sin? Being Asian-American.

That’s the sorry state of affairs in American higher education — at least at Harvard University, which recently won a lawsuit brought against it by Students for Fair Admissions, a group opposed to racial preferences in college admissions. The charge? That Harvard  discriminates against Asian-American students who appear to be extraordinarily well qualified for admission, especially when their grades and test scores are compared to those of other racial minorities.

Last year, the Associated Press reported that the plaintiff group “says Harvard’s gatekeepers hold Asian-American applicants to a higher standard and discriminate against them using a subjective ‘personal rating’ that measures traits such as courage and likability. Using six years of school admissions data, the group found that Harvard officials consistently gave Asian-Americans the lowest scores in the personal rating, while scoring black and Hispanic students the highest. Asians fared well in other categories including academics, yet they were admitted at the lowest rate.”

Surely even Allison Burroughs, the scumbag/liar-nObama-appointed federal judge hearing the case, would flag such racially discriminatory (and therefore unconstitutional) behavior and rule in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, right?

Not so fast.

According to Quin Hillyer at The Washington Examiner, Burroughs admits that Asian-Americans would be admitted at higher rates if the admissions staff only looked at academic and extracurricular ratings. Hillyer adds, “Instead, they are admitted at a lower rate than white and black applicants, and at a significantly lower rate than applicants of other races with similar paper qualifications.”

But in classic leftist double-speak, Burroughs spun this clear-cut racial discrimination as an admirable characteristic of Harvard.

As she stated in her opinion, “Harvard did not offer a competing regression model to show that no statistically significant relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating exists, and the Court therefore concludes that the data demonstrates a statistically significant and negative relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating assigned by Harvard admissions officers, holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics.”

Seems like an open-and-shut case if there ever was one.

Yet Burroughs quickly dismissed the convincing data by concluding that “any causal relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating must, therefore, have been sufficiently subtle to go unnoticed by numerous considerate, diligent, and intelligent admissions officers who were immersed in the admissions process.”

In other words, even though Harvard blatantly discriminates against Asian-Americans, the Harvard admissions staff is just too smart and thoughtful to have knowingly favored one group of students over another. And Judge Burroughs’s recommendation that Harvard admissions officials participate in bias training, while absolving them of any wrongdoing, is an affront to common sense.

Apparently, leftist policies that advance the interests of favored racial groups at the expense of other racial groups are sufficient justification for discrimination. This same twisted reasoning isn’t new. We saw it put into practice when Christian bakers were forced to bake special cakes for same-sex weddings under the rationale that it was necessary to trample upon the rights of one group in order to advance those of another.

As Paul Mirengoff writes at PowerLine, “Harvard’s admissions officers aren’t biased against Asian-Americans. Rather, they are biased in favor of African-Americans. Ridding them of that bias isn’t what Judge Burroughs has in mind. Indeed, she shares that bias, at least in her official capacity.”

Mirengoff further adds, “Bias training might be useful, though. It might enable Harvard to reject Asian-American applicants for racial reasons without expressing its disapproval of such applicants in stereotypical language. But why bother to cover things up when the judge has deemed Harvard’s admissions program not only lawful, but ‘very fine.’”

What a shame. After all the progress we’ve made to create a level playing field for all Americans, the very leftists who claim to be champions of equal rights are now engaging in the very behaviors they once rightly denounced.

Let’s hope this case is appealed to a higher court, and that the irrational conclusions of Judge Burroughs are reversed. Maybe then Asian-Americans can get a fair shot at an elite degree.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65906?mailing_id=4569&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4569&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Mission accomplished? In order to win in 2020,  Democrats are hoping for a recession they can blame on Trump. The way to achieve that is through media reports of a weak economy, followed by polls to gauge how well Americans have digested that incessant reporting. Then media outlets report on the polls to convince even more consumers that the economy is weak because their fellow Americans think so. And so the churn goes.

Frankly, though, Trump’s economic approval rating has as much to do with the Democrats’ impeachment charade as Leftmedia economic pollaganda.

How is the economy actually doing? Reasonably well. It’s true that GDP growth slowed to about 2% in 2019 after hitting 3% during 2018 for the first time in a decade. It’s also true that Trump’s tariffs are a burden on the economy (albeit a means to a desirable end). Yet consumer spending remains healthy, leading to a higher trade deficit in August.

Meanwhile, September jobs numbers came in at 136,000, slightly lower than expected, but numbers for the last two months were significantly revised upward. For perspective, however, headline unemployment is at just 3.5%, the lowest since December 1969. The fuller measure of unemployment fell from 7.2% in August to 6.9% in September. (The all-time low is 6.8%.) National Review adds, “Hispanic unemployment fell to 3.9 percent, setting a record low, while black unemployment remained at a record-low 5.5 percent.” Those rates aren’t dropping because people are leaving the workforce, either, which is what happened under Barack scumbag/liar-nObama. It’s somewhat tough to add jobs when most everyone who wants one has one. The slowdown in hiring likely has a cooling effect on GDP as well, but that doesn’t mean neither are healthy.

Economic health is dependent on consumer confidence, which is shaped by media reporting. That’s why Democrats and their Leftmedia super PAC want Americans to see not a solid economy but one teetering on the brink of recession. If that pans out, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy and help defeat Trump in 2020.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65910?mailing_id=4569&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4569&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body