ACTION

             CBP agents “took every possible step to save the child’s life under the most trying of circumstances,” explained the Department of Homeland Security in a statement. “Unfortunately, despite our best efforts and the best efforts of the medical team treating the child, we were unable to stop this tragedy from occurring.” The DHS also noted, “The initial indication from Providence Hospital is that she passed due to sepsis shock. Her father was with her.”
               The CBP said that the girl had evidently not eaten or consumed water for several days. The group of migrants had crossed a very remote and arid region of New Mexico, where there is little access to water and food. DHS also addressed the ultimate culprit, stating, “Once again, we are begging parents to not put themselves or their children at risk attempting to enter illegally. Please present yourselves at a port of entry and seek to enter legally and safely.”
               Attorneys representing the migrant girl’s family pushed back against the CBP’s report, claiming that her father “made sure she was fed and had sufficient water.” Yet the Centers for Disease Control describes sepsis as the body’s extreme reaction to an existing infection somewhere in the body that can lead to rapid organ failure and death. In other words, it appears that this girl was already suffering from an infection that was exacerbated by the extreme desert conditions she was subjected to.
               Unfortunately and predictably, many on the Left heaped blame for this child’s death upon border agents. Cynthia Pompa, an advocacy manager for the ACLU, suggested that “lack of accountability, and a culture of cruelty within the CBP” resulted in the girl’s death, not negligence on the part of her father. Yet he was the one responsible for dragging his daughter across a desert to illegally cross a border he knew he was not allowed to cross.
               This tragedy also exposes the problem with accepting asylum requests from migrants who cross the border illegally. Ending the abuse of the U.S. asylum system will help to dissuade migrants from the notion that just making it across the border is a ticket to an indefinite stay.  

~The Patriot Post  

             This week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai faced the House Judiciary Committee, where he laughably asserted, “I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way. To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests.”
               Actually, to do otherwise would reinforce Google’s core principles, and that’s exactly what the company has done. Last year, our Thomas Gallatin reported, “Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology … ran an experiment to determine just how biased toward leftist politics were the nation’s leading social media giants. … Epstein found that Google searches returned twice as many pro-scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton news articles as did Yahoo. Even more disturbing was Google’s targeting tactic. Men in blue states saw more than double the pro-scumbag/liar-Clinton articles than did women in red states.”
               Gallatin continued, “Another study conducted by Nicholas Diakopoulos, a professor at Northwestern University, found that in December 2015 Google search results of presidential candidates showed seven out of every 10 articles were positive toward Democrats, whereas less than six out of 10 were positive for Republican candidates. … On election night, only 1% of 113 featured Google election-related searches produced articles from conservative news sources.” Furthermore, “Conservative media outlets began to see more of their content limited on leading social media sites, such as Prager University witnessing much of its content on Google-owned YouTube being labeled as restricted for no apparent reason other than the fact that it promotes conservative ideology.”
               There are other machinations as well. Earlier this year, our Louis DeBroux reportedthat “Google finds itself the subject of a lawsuit for discriminatory practices, targeting conservative and white male employees for harassment and mistreatment simply because of their appearance and beliefs.” Google also listed the California Republican Party’s ideology as “Nazism,” censored the word “gun,” and utilizes the Southern Poverty Law Center to police YouTube.
               More recently, The Daily Caller reported, “Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications … reveal.”
               We’d like to know what Pichai’s definition of “political bias” actually is. Because none of these functions appear to be without it.
               Sadly, Democrats couldn’t care less. In fact, during Tuesday’s testimony, they basically blessed Google with carte blanche. According to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), “Even if Google were deliberately discriminating against conservative viewpoints, just as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting and conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh discriminate against liberal points of view, that would be its right as a private company to do so, not to be questioned by government.”
               Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) chimed in, “You’ve got a right to have whatever politics you have. We could subpoena Fox News and bring them in here and beat them up about how 90% of the references on Fox News to Barack scumbag/liar-nObama or scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton are negative, but they’ve got that right under the First Amendment, and you’ve got a right under the First Amendment to have whatever political views you’ve got.”
               While technically true, these aren’t fair comparisons. Unlike some of these other big names, Google — whose consumer base is substantially more sizable — isn’t a political entity. Yet its influence is second to none. As Tony Perkins observes, Pichai has “90 percent of the world’s online searches at his fingertips,” and those searches in some cases are being used as a tool for promotion and/or censorship, depending on the circumstance. Furthermore, guys like Rush Limbaugh are distinguished becausethey brand themselves as politically biased. If the circumstances were flipped and it was conservatives being aggrandized by Google, Nadler and Raskin would argue just the opposite.
               Pichai should be ashamed for doubling down with such an egregious lie. And Democrats should be ashamed for cultivating it.  

~The Patriot Post  

             Flynn’s legal team’s argument is that the FBI failed to alert Flynn to the criminality of lying to investigators and that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pressured agents to set up an interview that precluded Flynn from having an attorney present. That was enough to prompt Sullivan to seek answers before sentencing Flynn for lying to the FBI.
               The actors in this whole event should raise a few eyebrows. The now-fired anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was one of the two agents in the interview that the also now-fired McCabe set up. Clearly, Flynn believed the meeting was not intended as an interrogation of any sort, as he quickly agreed to meet with the agents the same day as he received the call from McCabe. Flynn even gave them a tour of the West Wing. And, of note, those agents described Flynn as “unguarded,” “relaxed and jocular,” as well as saying they “didn’t think he was lying” and that he “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.”
               Importantly, Flynn was never found to have committed any crime related to collusion with Russians. Instead, as Mark Alexander notes, dirty cop-Mueller has only “accumulated some ‘process crimes,’ most notably perjury charges related to the testimony of George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. … There is nothing that remotely establishes Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Nothing.”
               Of most significance is the different treatment Flynn received to that of scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, who showed up with nine lawyers to her interview with FBI agents. Or consider George Papadopoulos, who was given explicit warnings by agents of the criminality of perjury and was allowed to have attorneys present.
               Interestingly, The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland points out, “The most recent iteration of Sullivan’s standing entered in the Flynn case required dirty cop-Mueller’s office to produce ‘any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.’ The order further required the government to submit to the court any information ‘which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material.’” Sullivan may smell a rat.
               dirty cop-Mueller and the DOJ have until 3:00 p.m. today to produce for the court the requested documents. Hopefully, those documents will shed a little more light on this twisted web of legal gotcha. And for Flynn, who has lost almost everything in this politically motivated witch hunt, there could be at least a little redemption in the end.  

~The Patriot Post  

scumbag/liar-nObama Power Grab

             Under scumbag/liar-nObama, the EPA widely expanded the Clean Water Act’s definition of navigable waters to include pretty much every conceivable form of surface water — even irrigation ditches and rain-filled potholes. It was a clear and outrageous case of government overreach.
               In announcing the change, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained, “Our proposal would replace the Obama EPA’s 2015 definition with one that respects the limits of the Clean Water Act and provides states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources and grow local economies. For the first time, we are clearly defining the difference between federally protected waterways and state protected waterways. Our simpler and clearer definition would help landowners understand whether a project on their property will require a federal permit or not, without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and legal professionals.”
               Predictably, Democrats and environmentalists were quick to misrepresent the definitional change, calling it a “sickening gift to polluters,” the “dirty water rule,” or as Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) laughably insisted, “nothing short of senseless.” In reality, it was the 2015 EPA’s redefinition of “navigable waters” that was senseless.
               The announcement garnered high praise from Republicans, however. “The 2015 rule was an expansion of federal power that used bureaucrat-speak to strip landowners of their rights and local governments of their ability to manage waters within their borders,” said Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA). “This new approach is the product of doing it the right way — openly, with the input of the American people.”
               It should be normal to have clearly written rules with consistently limited definitions that any member of the public can understand without a lawyer. Regulations that are so overly broad that they prevent individuals from knowing if they are in compliance or not are bad, as they have the potential for abuse of power written all over them. Thankfully, the Trump EPA is seeking to clean things up.  ~The Patriot Post  

             “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.” —Article 1, Section 10, U.S. Constitution, pertaining to the states.
               As of Tuesday, the Constitution was suspended in the state of New Jersey. Last June, one of six new gun-control laws  signed by Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy banned the possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Moreover, state residents have 180 days to give them up, permanently modify them to hold 10 rounds or less, or transfer them to someone legally allowed to own them. Active-duty military and law enforcement officers “authorized to possess and carry a handgun,” as well retired police officers, are exempted.
               New Jerseyans who fail to comply can be charged with a fourth-degree felony, subjected to a prison sentence of up to 18 months, up to a $10,000 fine, or both.
               It gets worse. On Dec. 5 in a 2-1 ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, rejecting a lawsuit filed shortly aft the law’s passage by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and supported by the NRA. U.S. Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz and Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., both appointed by Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, insisted the law did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced New Jersey’s interest in preventing mass shootings and does not “severely burden” the Second Amendment rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens.
               That would be former law-abiding citizens turned potential felons as of Tuesday.
               Dissenting Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Donald Trump appointee, forcefully disagreed, insisting the Court “watered down” those rights. “The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights,” he declared, referring to the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
               In fact, Bibas echoed the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion when he wrote for the majority’s ruling in Heller. “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach,” Scalia declared. “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
               Unfortunately, New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals are working toward the Second Amendment’s incremental elimination. And as columnist Daniel Horowitz reveals, both entities are hardly outliers. “Since the Heller ruling, five circuit courts have essentially abolished the ruling by allowing states to ban common weapons, common magazines, and any ability to carry any firearms outside the home,” he explains.
               Horowitz further notes the same Supreme Court with a penchant for upholding constitutionally dubious interests has been rather sanguine when it comes to clamping down on courts that defy the “plain meaning” of the Constitution.
               And no one made the meaning of “ex post facto” with regard to criminal law plainerthan Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull, a case adjudicated in 1798:
               1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
               So where is SCOTUS? As of now sitting on the sidelines. But maybe not for long. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs has promised to appeal the decision that turns “one million honest citizens into felons for keeping property obtained legally that could be used for defending their lives,” stated the group’s executive director Scott Bach.
               In the meantime, New Jersey plans to act. “We will enforce the law of the state,” Lt. Theodore Schafer of the New Jersey State Police said. “That’s our plan.” When asked for details, Schafer referred questioners to the attorney general’s office.
               Leland Moore, a public information officer for the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, was equally obstinate, refusing to answer any questions regarding how the state would deal with as many as one million gun owners who currently possess such magazines, including whether or not police would be conducting door to door searches. “We have no comment,” Moore said in response to numerous questions.
               Ominously, New Jersey is hardly through with its efforts to eviscerate the Second Amendment. In October, Murphy  announced a package of laws he wants the legislature to address in 2019, including one that would require ID from customers, and reports from retailers, for ammunition purchases.
               In other words, a de facto gun-registry scheme. “When I took office this past January, New Jersey’s gun-safety laws were among the strongest in the nation,” Murphy declared. “But there is still significant action needed to address our nation’s gun-violence epidemic. As we close out 2018 and move into the new year, we will continue to be proactive in our efforts to save lives and prevent needless tragedies.”
               Utter nonsense. Needless tragedies are not committed by law-abiding citizens looking to defend themselves, their families and their homes. Just as more and more Americans, marinated in a stew of progressive ignorance, are growing comfortable with banning “hate speech,” so too are they buying into the idea that targeting law-abiding gun owners will reduce violence committed by maniacs and felons.
               Nothing reveals the utter bankruptcy of their “logic” more than so-called “gun-free zones.” Gun-free zones turned classrooms into killing fields at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Parkland, where the only thing more egregious than the extermination of utterly defenseless people was the reality that each shooter had ample time to reload — and reload — in the midst of perpetrating each atrocity, precisely because of that codified defenselessness.
               If gun-control laws were the answer, Chicago would be the safest city in the nation. A total of 528 homicides so far this year suggests otherwise. So does the reality that cities with the highest homicide rates in the nation are overwhelmingly  Democrat Party strongholds.
               The same Democrat Party yearning to repeal the Second Amendment. Maybe banning Democrats would be a more effective strategy.  ~The Patriot Post  

In recent days, many have sought to contrast President Trump with President George H.W. Bush. But there is one area where Trump is channeling his inner George H.W. Bush — and not in a good way. His response to the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate echoes Bush’s handling of China’s crackdown on peaceful democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.
               We only recently learned how ruthless that Chinese crackdown really was, when a secret 1989 cable by Britain’s then-ambassador to China, Sir Alan Donald, was declassified. Student protesters were crushed by armored personnel carriers, which rolled over their bodies repeatedly until their pulverized remains were collected by bulldozer, incinerated and hosed down drains, the document said. “Wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted,” Donald wrote. “A three-year-old girl was injured, but her mother was shot as she went to her aid, as were six others.” One thousand survivors of the initial assault were told they could leave “but were then mown down by specially prepared MG [machine gun] positions.”
               The cable ends with this chilling sentence: “Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000.”
               China’s murderous brutality put Bush in an impossible position: He had to uphold American values while at the same time preserving a critical relationship with the men who carried out these horrific crimes. It is much the same quandary that Trump has faced in the wake of Khashoggi’s murder. Like Bush, Trump was faced with an inhuman act of violence that shocked the conscience of the nation. Like Bush, Trump had to impose consequences on the regime while balancing U.S. national interests in a critical part of the world. And like Bush, Trump has handled the situation poorly.
               Bush was unapologetic about his outreach to Chinese leaders after the massacre in June 1989. “What I certainly did not want to do was completely break the relationship we had worked so hard to build since 1972,” Bush later wrote. “While angry rhetoric might be temporarily satisfying to some, I believed it would deeply hurt our efforts in the long term.” At the time, Bush lashed out in his diary at congressional leaders who wanted him to take a harder line, including Rep. Stephen Solarz, D-N.Y., whom he called “the kind of guy that was delighted about the overthrow of the Shah, not worrying about what follows on.” He sent a cringeworthy letter to Deng Xiaoping, in which he called the Chinese leader his “genuine ‘lao pengyou’” (old friend) and apologized for the punitive measures his administration had taken. “The actions that I took as President of the United States could not be avoided,” Bush wrote, “as you know, the clamor for stronger action remains intense. I have resisted that clamor, making clear that I did not want to see destroyed this relationship that you and I have worked hard to build.” Worse, Bush sent national security adviser Brent Scowcroft to Beijing, where he was photographed cordially clinking wine glasses with Chinese leaders at a state banquet.
               Bush was right that the relationship had to be preserved. The opening to China was critical to peacefully ending the Cold War. But his eagerness to placate Chinese leaders, and his reticence in condemning those who committed such horrific crimes, harmed America’s moral standing in the world.
               Today, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, Trump is — like Bush — in an impossible position. The United States must stand for human rights. But it must also preserve its relationship with Saudi Arabia, the only nation in the Middle East that can serve as a bulwark against Iran, the main strategic threat to U.S. interests in the region. Trump has tried to balance these conflicting responsibilities by imposing sanctions on 17 Saudis under the Global Magnitsky Act and declaring Khashoggi’s murder “an unacceptable and horrible crime” — while refusing to publicly blame Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for ordering it. He has correctly determined that the crown prince is not going anywhere and that a permanent breach with Riyadh is unacceptable. But the unapologetic way in which he has gone about it — touting how much we make from Saudi arms purchases while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo castigates critics in Congress and the media for “caterwauling” — has been unseemly.
               One of the toughest challenges of the presidency is upholding American values while dealing with pro-American tyrants. Few presidents have done it well. In this sense, Trump is no different from his predecessors. We don’t know what Trump’s back-channel communications with the Saudi leadership have been like — perhaps he has been tougher in private than public. But we do know this much: They can’t be any worse than Bush’s plaintive entreaties to the butchers of Beijing.  

~The Patriot Post