ACTION

             President Donald Trump was elected to undo much of Barack liar-nObama’s legacy, and part of that legacy was having liar-Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC, if that wasn’t clear before) sign the U.S. on to participate in this farce after George W. Bush had refused. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced Tuesday that the U.S. is withdrawing both membership and funding from the HRC. The final straw was the council’s chief calling U.S. border policies concerning families“unconscionable.”
               “The council has failed in its stated objectives,” Pompeo declared, adding that it’s an “exercise in shameless hypocrisy.” Furthermore, he said, “The council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable.”
               Haley rebuked the “hypocritical and self-serving” organization for defending rights abusers. This “cesspool of political bias,” she said, is particularly guilty of “chronic” and “pathological” bias against Israel. She accused the council of “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel,” which included its issuing of more resolutions (70) condemning Israel than North Korea, Iran and Syria combined. It’s never passed a resolution condemning abuses in China, Russia, Cuba or Saudi Arabia, but it has regularly recommended “improvement” for the United States.
               “American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has,” Haley concluded. “That is precisely why we must leave.”
               In effect, the inmates are running the HRC asylum and the Trump administration will no longer indulge that lunacy. It’s about time.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56663?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             One of those photographs was used to create a viral social media firestorm claiming it was “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Donald Trump,” and comparing Trump to Hitler — even though the photo in question was taken when liar-nObama was in charge.
               There were no outrageous claims of “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Barack liar-nObama!”
               Clearly, Democrat leaders don’t care about “the children” unless they can be used as fodder to advance their statist political agenda — in this case, establishing open borders to ensure future voters.

~The Patriot Post 

             In the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the Court ruled 9-0 against a group of Democrat voters who claimed that the state’s redistricting plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
               Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the alleged dilution of the plaintiff’s voting power is an injury specific to a voting district. “Remedying the individual voter’s harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring of all the state’s legislative districts,” Roberts wrote. The case was sent back to the lower courts for another look.
               Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch objected only in sending the case back for review. “After a year and a half of litigation in the District Court,” Thomas wrote, “the plaintiffs had a more-than-ample opportunity to prove their standing under these principles. They failed to do so.”
               In the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, the Court ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed Democrat officials put them at a disadvantage in drawing a congressional district that led to the defeat of Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in 2012. In an unsigned opinion, the Court sided with the district court, which decided not to block Maryland from holding congressional elections and forcing the state to redraw the district in question.
               The Supreme Court added that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek relief, since they did not ask for an injunction until 2017.
               Voting-rights advocates were stunned by the back-to-back decisions. The ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and other leftist voter groups had hoped the Supreme Court would pass down specific guidance on how to handle these types of cases. In other words, they were hoping that the justices would legislate from the bench.
               No such luck. The Supreme Court has a solid track record of stepping around gerrymandering cases and avoiding wading into the political quagmire. Districting is a power delegated to the political branches, notes David French of National Review. “States can choose different ways to district,” writes French, “but when a state chooses the political path, the Supreme Court’s default position should be to defer, absent clear and unequivocal constitutional violations.” Claiming that your voting power was diluted because your political party happens to be in the minority in your district or state does not constitute a violation of voting rights.
               Democrats have cried foul about redistricting for much of this decade because Republicans have won control of so many of the levers of power at the state and national level. Of course, Democrats can thank Barack liar-nObama for their plight. His presidency drove millions into the waiting arms of the GOP, which picked up close to 1,000 state seats to give it control of two-thirds of state legislatures, as well as winning Congress by gaining 63 House seats and 10 Senate seats. But it wasn’t just liar-nObama who poisoned Democrat fortunes. Activist judges are primarily responsible for the pickle the Democrat Party finds itself in with redistricting.
               In the 1980s, Democrats redrew congressional districts with the express purpose of putting more blacks and Hispanics in Congress. This effort was clearly aimed to help the Democrat Party because these minority groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Districts were remade so that large numbers of minorities would virtually guarantee electing a minority to Congress. However, by grouping minorities into specific districts, other districts inevitably became more nonminority, in some cases overwhelmingly so. The result was that formerly competitive majority-minority districts ended up becoming Republican strongholds with few minority voters.
               Democrats should not be puzzled that their high vote counts have not translated into widespread electoral victory. What is happening now is a consequence of their attempts going back 30 years to game the system in their favor. If Democrats want to fix it, they must look elsewhere, because the Supreme Court has decided, at least for this term, that they are on their own.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56634?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended enforcing immigration law by citing the Bible’s book of Romans. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.” Without going into full Biblical exegesis, Sessions was both right and wrong. He was specifically responding to both conservative and liberal evangelical critics of the administration, but we’d prefer for him to leave this Biblical defense for others to make besides the one in power.
               Enter liar-Hillary. “This is not happening because of the ‘Democrats’ law,‘ as the White House has claimed,”liar-Clinton insisted. “Separating families is not mandated by law at all. That is an outright lie. And it is incumbent on all of us, journalists and citizens alike, to call it just that.” Actually, she’s the one lying, as we explained yesterday. In fact, it was her husband’s policy. But liar-Clinton only lies on days that end in “y.”
               She wasn’t done. “Nor are these policies rooted in religion,” she lectured. “In fact, those who selectively use the Bible to justify this cruelty are ignoring a central tenet of Christianity. I went to a lot of years of Sunday School — I even taught it from time to time. I’ve studied the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, and what is being done using the name of religion is contrary to everything I was ever taught. Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children unto me.’ He did not say, ‘Let the children suffer.’”
               That’s rich coming from a rabid pro-abortionist like   liar- Hillary, who has even defended partial-birth abortion — the practice of literally collapsing a partially born baby’s skull to terminate his or her life. But then again, Democrats only care about children when they can exploit them for political gain. That’s true of abortion, gun control, education, welfare programs, immigration and so on.
               While liar-Hillary may throw out a vague Biblical reference to make her point, she and her party have utterly rejected God’s Word, preferring to make government their god. And it is their policies on each of the aforementioned issues that hurt children the most. Welfare and abortion have destroyed families. Education has ruined kids’ minds and indoctrinated them in leftist causes. And open borders and sanctuary cities have invited the flood of illegals across the border — including illegal smugglers who grotesquely exploit children for entry to the U.S. So, again, spare us the outrage.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56636?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Cruz’s bill would end the practice of separating families by authorizing new temporary shelters to house families together until their asylum requests are processed. He also proposes that the number of federal immigration judges be doubled to a total of 750 and that an expedited review and processing of asylum cases within 14 days be implemented. Those families who do not meet the asylum requirements would be immediately returned to their home countries.
               Cruz’s proposal does offer at least a temporary solution to a problem that has been years in the making. It would essentially end the bad optics of separated families, while not returning to the flawed policy of Barack liar-nObama’s “catch and release.” It offers Trump and Republicans a bill that doesn’t compromise the commitment to fighting against illegal immigration and securing the U.S. border, while avoiding the biggest objection for Democrats — funding the border wall.
               Since the implementation of Trump’s zero-tolerance policy in April, almost 2,000 children have been separated from their parents at the border. However, the vast majority of children currently housed in Health and Human Services detention centers — 10,000 of them — are children who illegally crossed the border without their parents. At least some of these children were teens who came here to abort their children. That’s a family separation policy that Democrats don’t care about.
               When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, he noted that it was both a return to enforcing our nation’s laws and would serve as a deterrent to others who may consider crossing the border illegally. Ultimately, who is to blame for children being separated from their parents? It is parents who choose to cross the border illegally. In some cases, it’s not parents, but other adults exploiting children for entry. The outrage over Trump’s policy to enforce the law is entirely misplaced. And enforcing the law does appear to be working to deter some from illegally crossing, as CBS News laments that fear has spread along the Mexican border over family separations.
               So while Cruz’s legislative fix might mitigate the immediate ugly optics of enforcing the law, an interesting side effect is that in the long run it may also remove a disincentive for illegal immigration.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56635?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) is conducting an investigation after what Fox News Sacramento  called an “anti-abortion” video was included as part of a sex-education lecture at Sutter Middle School. What the series of videos actually depicted was animations of how abortions are carried out during various stages of pregnancy. They were  presented by a pro-life organization called Live Action, and narrated by Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist turned pro-life activist.
               During the presentation, Levantino urges viewers to “protect the pre-born.”
               SCUSD spokesman Alex Barrios insisted the videos are “completely inappropriate for the classroom” and fail to “meet the district’s approved family life and sexuality curriculum.”
               What curriculum? “California state law, the California Healthy Youth Act, requires that comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education be provided to students at least once in middle school and once in high school, starting in 7th grade,” the district’s website states. “Instruction must encourage students to communicate with parents, guardians or other trusted adults about human sexuality.”
               The instruction encouraging students to communicate with parents, guardians or other trusted adults about human sexuality is a bit rich when one considers that California is a state where children under the age of 18 who want an abortion are under no legal obligation to seek their parents’ permission to get it. In fact, they don’t even have to let their parents know they are having what amounts to a surgical procedure.
               One is hard-pressed to think of a single other surgical procedure a minor can have without parental consent or notification.
               Unfortunately, such twisted ideological priorities should surprise no one. Few things upset leftists who champion the “right to choose” — along with the right to usurp parental guidance and authority — more than the notion that one should be making an informed choice about terminating a pregnancy. Thus, any video that shows students exactly how abortions are performed is off limits.
               Why? It might have something to do with a four-minute-long video released by Levantino in 2016 that went viral. “One-third of women who said they hold ‘pro-choice’ views on abortion had a more negative view of abortion after watching even part of the video, and nearly as many called for abortion to be more strictly regulated,” reportedLife Site News. More compelling? “Even more pro-choice women, 46 percent, felt the videos should be shown in high school sex education classes,” it added.
               “We all know that the subject of abortion is sensitive, complex and controversial, and I personally don’t think it belongs as a topic to go into in any depth in a seventh-grade class,” said a parent of one student who viewed the video. The parent further bemoaned the fact that what the children saw “cannot be unseen.”
               It would be illuminating to know what this parent and others think of that same seventh-grade curriculum including a lesson entitled “Blue is for Boys, Pink is for Girls.” It is a lesson that “engages students in a discussion surrounding gender stereotypes and their origin,” and “connections around non-heterosexual orientations.” It’s followed by a lesson called “Sexual Orientation, Behavior and Gender Identity” that discusses “different types of sexual orientation and distinguishes between orientation, behavior and identity.”
               In short, while the pro-life agenda is anathema, the LGBT agenda is an integral part of the curriculum.
               And these are the “older” students. California is poised to launch a sex-ed program that makes an utter mockery of the indignation surrounding anti-abortion videos. As part of the state’s “Welcoming Schools” agenda, suggested reading for students at grade levels kindergarten through fifth grade will include “I AM JAZZ: READING A CHILDREN’S BOOK TO HELP UNDERSTAND TRANSGENDER TOPICS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.” It will be accompanied by another publication entitled “Sexual Health Guide,” subtitled “An Adolescent Provider Toolkit.”
               That toolkit describes topics such as “anal intercourse,” “phone sex,” and other “common sexual behaviors.”
               During a May 29 meeting at San Diego Unified School District’s offices, dozens of parents chanting “too much, too soon,” and “protect our kids,” made it clear to school officials — for the third time in two years — they were less than enchanted with the district’s Sexual Health Education Program (SHEP). “It’s not about sex education, it’s not about biological science, it’s about promulgating and pushing a world view upon them,” one parent rightly told the board, adding that “gender confusion, gender dysphoria is what you’re trying to promote.”
               District officials insisted the curriculum was in compliance with the new California Healthy Youth Act and state mandates. Dean Broyles, an attorney with the National Center for the Law and Policy, disagrees, asserting, “There are only recommended curriculum, there are no mandated curriculum under the California Healthy Youth Act because it’s too new and a framework has not even been developed yet.”
               In stark contrast, the abortion videos are a bridge too far and spokesman Barrios promises the district “will address this matter with the seriousness it demands.” That would be the same district that gives children access to graphic cartoons  featuring characters named “Julie Melons” and “Miles Long,” naked in bed together. Seriously.
               Jenny Thomas is the science teacher who presented the videos. It’s her job to teach students about family life and human sexuality. She has apologized for the presentation.
               California public schools are hardly outliers in pushing the progressive sexual agenda. At UC Santa Barbara, a student-operated sex information website addresses a variety of topics, including “Childhood Sexuality,” and “Talking To Your Child About Sex.” The former focuses on prepubescent children and urges parents to “keep their reactions to children’s consensual sexual activity and play positive.” Even when children are “touching each others genitals” parents should remain sanguine because “children are just exploring.” The latter topic in part urges parents to teach their children that watching pornography “is a normal habit, and that they do not need to be ashamed of it,” provided it is viewed in moderation.
               Enough. America needs congressional hearings on the state of public school education, and one of the primary topics that must be addressed is why, in the overwhelming majority of cases, promoting progressive dogma is the default agenda.
               In California, it’s a sexual agenda epitomized by the  website “CALIFORNIA MINOR CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS,” which details just how extensive the usurpation of parental rights has become in the Golden State. By law, the “health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent” — with regard to pregnancy, abortion, STDs and rape services for minors 12 years of age and older.
               What undergirds this usurpation is a lowest-common-denominator presumption that a parent or guardian might be the child’s impregnator, disease transmitter or rapist. That presumption alludes to the greater discussion of cultural degradation — which alludes to the anything-goes “morality” that constitutes an integral part of the progressive agenda that contributed mightily to that degradation.
               The same progressive agenda promulgated in public schools where a pro-life video warrants an investigation. Go figure.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56601?mailing_id=3551&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3551&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Granted, good guys in the Middle East are hard to come by. But Erdogan is not even one of the not-so-bad ones. When the F-35 program started, Turkey was a loyal friend, even if it caused drama with NATO ally Greece. But under Erdogan, that has changed.
               Erdogan’s regime has imprisoned an American pastor, Andrew Brunson. Erdogan needs to be told that his immediate release and safe return to the United States is non-negotiable. If Brunson is not released by the time the defense policy bill is ready for conference committee, Turkey is not getting any F-35s, and any airframes they are currently slated to receive will go to Israel.
               Erdogan’s support of Hamas also needs to end. International relations often come in shades of gray, but Israel’s fight for survival against the terrorist group Hamas (whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction) is not one of those gray areas. Erdogan can be Hamas’s friend or he can buy F-35s. Not both.
               Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 is causing a stir. This, though, is something that Turkey can use to demonstrate it is a friend of the United States. To wit, deploy one battery to Nellis Air Force base where it can be evaluated thoroughly in Red Flag exercises. After all, Turkey should be glad to help NATO allies evaluate this system, especially since NATO could very well face off against it should Russia attack the Baltic states. If Turkey doesn’t, then it doesn’t really need F-35s.
               Turkey was a friend of the United States prior to Erdogan’s regime taking hold. Erdogan’s really undermined the relationship, though, and it’s a good time for President Donald Trump to stand up for America and Israel. Turkey’s first F-35, to be delivered on June 21, goes to Luke Air Force Base, where it will be used for training.
               Ideally, Turkey would have until the defense policy bill is on President Trump’s desk to shape up. If Erdogan fails to do so, the 116 F-35s Turkey wants to buy go to Israel, which boosts a real ally in the Middle East. But as things stand right now, giving the latest fighter technology to the Erdogan regime would be the wrong move.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56607?mailing_id=3551&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3551&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             First and foremost, the Trump administration has not changed any rules that govern the nation’s immigration and border enforcement. As Rich Lowry of National Review explains, “Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.”
               The Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy is simply a change from Barack liar-nObama’s policy of limited enforcement in which his administration deliberately avoided enforcing the nation’s immigration laws consistently.
               What has caused all the commotion over separating children from their illegal alien parents is something called the Flores Consent Decree, which mandates that children can be held by the government for no longer than 20 days. This law has been effectively exploited by illegal aliens, who, after crossing illegally, request asylum, a process often exceeding the short window of 20 days. Paul Mirengoff of Power Line notes, “Since asylum petitions take more than 20 days to process, the government must either release the adults and children together into the country pending the adjudication of the asylum claim or hold the adults and release the children, thereby separating them. If the adult illegal immigrant is released while the claim is pending, it’s extremely unlikely that the government will find him or her again. Thus, releasing the adult is tantamount to allowing the illegal immigrant to live in the U.S. regardless of the merits of the case.” That explains why Democrats want to keep the racket going. Worse, their “sanctuary cities” serve as beacons attracting even more illegals.
               A clear first step to end the issue of separating families would be the elimination of the Flores Consent Decree. But aside from all the absurd over-the-top emotional criticism of the practice of separating children from adults who have illegally crossed the border, the fact of the matter is that separating children from their parents is not at all unusual law-enforcement policy even for U.S. citizens. In 2016, more than 21,000 children were separated from their parents and placed into foster care after their parents had been incarcerated. Where are all the emotional calls to end the practice of separating children from their criminal parents? Should the children live with their parents in prison? Obviously the question is absurd on its face, so why isn’t the reaction the same with regard to those who break our nation’s laws by entering the country illegally? There are legal means by which families can seek asylum within the U.S., and parents who do so are not separated from their children.
               By the way, Trump has repeatedly called on Congress to come up with solutions to the illegal immigration problem, including funding for the construction of a border wall. But Democrats now oppose what they once supported.
               This issue boils down to Democrats and the Leftmedia claiming to take the moral high ground while at the same time attacking the very laws that enable a nation to secure its borders. Noncitizens do not have a right to enter the U.S. Trump’s enforcement of the law is what every American should desire, and if a majority want the law changed, then they can lobby Congress to make that change. Don’t fault Trump for doing his job. Unfortunately, Democrats seeing nothing but an opportunity to exploit emotions for votes.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56613?mailing_id=3551&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3551&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

 

{ tommclaughlin.blogspot.com } ~ Three years ago I agreed with the mainstream media I otherwise disdained, when they said it was a joke. Donald Trump had descended an escalator at his tower and announced his candidacy for president. He didn’t have a chance, I thought. His uncamouflaged narcissism would preclude a serious bid. No one who combed his hair like that could ever win, I thought. Then he won primary after primary and still I agreed with mainstream media: “His campaign is going to fall apart any day now. He’ll say something stupid; his poll numbers will plummet, and that’ll be it. He’ll drop out.”

 

 

And he did say stupid things, plenty of them — all joyfully trumpeted by media — but his numbers kept going up. Eventually Ted Cruz, his last serious opponent and my preferred candidate, dropped out. Trump won the Republican nomination. At that point I realized I was actually going to vote for him, but only because I could never vote for liar-Hillary Clinton or the two minor candidates. I wasn’t comfortable with it, but I knew I would do it. As the campaign wore on, however, I found myself in agreement with virtually all his policy positions — and I really liked how he told liar-Hillary to her face she would be in jail if he were president.

On election night I celebrated his victory. If he actually did half the things he said he would, I knew America would be much better off. At about 9:30 pm, I flipped around to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC and enjoyed the extreme distress on the faces of their talking heads as they realized Trump would actually win. I savored schadenfreude for the rest of the evening and all through the next day.

 

 

I believed President liar-nObama’s DOJ and FBI had helped liar-Hillary to avoid indictment for gross negligence in her handling of classified documents on her private server. However, I didn’t realize at the time that, after exonerating her, the liar-nObama Administration had then weaponized the FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA against first Donald Trump’s candidacy, and then against his presidency.

 

That process I’ve been closely following for more than a year and a half, and I eagerly anticipated last week’s report by the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). Its accumulated evidence of FBI and DOJ corruption was extremely damning, but the conclusion in its executive summary was perplexing to say the least. CBS reported it this way: “…the [OIG] report found that political bias [ofliar- nObama officials] did not affect the liar-Hillary email investigation and it gave support to the decision not to prosecute liar-Clinton.”

 

 

So how can the OIG report be both damning and exonerating? Former US Attorney George Parry, writing in The American Spectator, illustrates it best by using a hypothetical:

It seems like a day doesn’t go by without some female high school teacher getting arrested for having sexual relations with an underage student. The story line is always the same. Ms. Hotpants either gets caught in the act or because her student paramour shares with the world the naked selfies that for some weird reason she just had to send to his cell phone. Invariably the teacher is quickly and unceremoniously condemned, fired from her job and arrested.

 

To illustrate this point, let me apply the OIG’s reserved and non-judgmental standards to the hypothetical case of Teacher 1 and Student A who have been caught naked in a car parked behind the local Piggly Wiggly. Herewith is an excerpt from the hypothetical report by the Pleasant Valley School District’s Office of Inspector General:

 

We asked Teacher 1 why she and Student A had been in her car at Midnight. She replied that he had been doing poorly in her class, and she was tutoring him. We acknowledge that such additional instruction would be a valid and proper pedagogical undertaking. Nevertheless, we asked why they were not wearing clothes. She explained that they had become hot and sweaty, and she believed that it was important that teacher and student should eliminate physical discomforts to maximize the learning experience.

 

We asked why they had an open bottle of vodka and a box of condoms. She explained that these items had been left in the car by her husband. Since her spouse is not an employee of the school district, we were unable to question him regarding this matter.

 

While we found Teacher 1’s answers to be unpersuasive, she made no direct declaration as to why she had engaged in this drunken, naked and nocturnal meeting with Student A. Consequently, we have no definitive proof that she was motivated by a desire to engage in sexual relations. Therefore, we make no finding regarding her motive or intent.

 

 

As a trial attorney might say at this juncture: “I rest my case.”

http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com/2018/06/understanding-oig-report.html