ACTION

               “Rachel Dolezal, the troubled former NAACP leader who claimed to be African-American, is the subject of an upcoming Netflix documentary that’s already causing major backlash,” Fox News reports.
               The Twitter-verse was rife with derogatory comments. “There are millions of black femmes and non-binary people in the world that deserve to be heard … and the fact that I have to see her name on my screen makes me so so so angry,” stated Lorazepam Grier. “Rachel Dolezal’s choice to play pretend in black culture has now destroyed the lives of two black children,” tweeted George M. Johnson. “Hey @Netflix, Rachel Dolezal doesn’t need a documentary streamed on your site. She’s fraudulent and problematic. Why don’t you take all that money and put it towards projects made by real black women?” asks Breniecia.
               Netflix isn’t paying Dolezal anything, but they remain the eye of the leftist storm for “giving the 40-year-old a spotlight with a film that explores how she portrayed herself as African-American for years, despite being born biologically white,” Fox explains.
               Biologically white? The use of biology to define one’s identity left the progressive train station long ago. So much so, that even the assertion it is a defining factor has real world consequences for those insufficiently attuned to the progressive worldview. “A student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania has been barred from attending a religious studies class required for graduation after pointing out that there are only two genders,” Campus Reform reveals.
               Senior student Lake Ingle was ultimately barred from class for questioning the worldview of IUP Professor Alison Downie following a video presentation featuring a transgender woman name Paula Stone. The 15-minute video was replete with tiresome progressive tropes asserting the reality of “mansplaining,” “male privilege” and “systematic” sexism.
               Following the video, Downie asked the women attending the class to share their thoughts. When none of them spoke up, Ingle rocked the proverbial boat.
               “I objected to the use of the anecdotal accounts of one woman’s experience to begin a discussion in which they were considered reality,” Ingle told Campus Reform. “It was during my objection that Dr. Downie attempted to silence me.”
               The next day Downie did more than that. She referred Ingle to the school’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB) and presented Ingle with a document illuminating his alleged violations: “Disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; [and making a] disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor’s personal prejudice.”
               The “Documented Agreement/Sanctions,” part of the document reveals conditions Ingle must fulfill to be reinstated in class. They include a letter of apology to the professor, an apology to the class, and the acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for “inappropriate behavior” that has “severely damaged” the class’s learning environment and the “safety” of its “atmosphere.” Moreover, when Ingle is done groveling, he is expected to “listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake’s disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28.”
               He or she? What about “ze,” “zir,” “ve,” “tey” or the panoply of other “gender appropriate” pronouns being force-fed to the American public, even to the point where one could be fined as much as $250,000 for failing to acquiesce? Apparently IUP’s administration is as insensitive to “reality” as Ingle himself. Regardless, Ingle’s hearing is set for tomorrow and a decision will be announced on March 19. If the administration rules against him, he won’t graduate in May.
               So why would progressives pillory a woman like Rachel Dolezal who insists biology doesn’t matter and pillory a student like Lake Ingle who insists it does? Because some identity politics are “more equal” than others. Identity politics that advance the progressive agenda are embraced, and those that threaten it are vilified.
               Dolezal represents a mortal threat to a racial spoils system that began relatively nobly enough, with the concept of affirmative action to redress a litany of historical wrongs, perpetrated mostly by Democrats, beginning with their establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and their enforcement of Jim Crow laws. It has deteriorated to the point where black students have demanded and received segregated dorms on University of California campuses, courses on “white privilege” have become part of the public school curriculum, and the enforcement of a policy where “students of color” cannot be disciplined in school at rates disproportionate to their statistical representation in the student population engendered the calculated disinterest in the Parkland shooter until it was too late.
               Yet even the racial spoils system has its “subsets.” While Dolezal is a pariah, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren remains a respected member of the Democrat Party, despite tenuous claims of Native American ancestry and the dismissal of a DNA test to prove it, one way or the other. “I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me,” dinky-Warren insists. “It’s part of who I am and no one’s ever going to take that away.”
               Still more subsets? As a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University indicates, Asians also remain on the outside looking in. That’s because minority groups who excel without an ideological thumb on the scale to assist them represent a threat to progressive efforts to convince the nation that victimization requires the elevation of diversity over meritocracy.
               The searing irony? Meritocracy still matters — in terms of determining the hierarchy of victimization among leftist grievance groups. And nothing would roil that hierarchy and its orchestrated pity parties more effectively than “trans-racialism,” and the ominous potential that anyone  could claim to be a victim, based on the exact same premise as transgenderism: self-identification is the sole standard for determining reality.
               So why is transgenderism championed? Because it aligns itself quite neatly with the progressive project to “fundamentally transform” America. And nothing says transformation better than the attempt to replace biological reality with gender “fluidity.” In stark contrast to racial fluidity, which threatens progressivism’s identity politics agenda, gender fluidity enhances that agenda, because it undermines traditional religious and family values.
               Values that don’t require the expansion of coercive government power to enforce them.
               As the Left’s contrasting reactions to trans-racialism and transgenderism indicate, intellectual consistency and honesty can be tossed aside if they don’t serve progressive interests. Thus the same CNN that put Bruce Jenner on the air to speak about his “path to womanhood” is the one that speaks to the “scandal” of Dolezal “presenting herself as black for years” — and presents a link to yet another CNN column that calls racial fluidity a “con.”
               Nothing is more of a con than the contemptible notion that reality itself can be determined by whether it accrues to the Left’s twisted identity politics agenda.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54757-identity-politics-insanity

               First Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest legal organization dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom, is currently appealing a case to the Supreme Court so this doesn’t happen.
               Here’s how it began. In 1925, Gold Star families and the American Legion (the largest veterans service organization in the U.S.) built the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Veteran’s Memorial, also known as the “Peace Cross,” in memory of the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland, who died in World War I. The names of the 49 deceased veterans and the words “Courage,” “Valor,” “Endurance” and “Devotion” appear on the monument.
               The cross stood as a peaceful memorial to the fallen veterans until February 2014, when the American Humanist Association (AHA) claimed that the monument unconstitutionally violated the Establishment Clause because of its public ownership and demanded that it be demolished, altered or removed. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the monument’s constitutionality citing the cross as a military symbol for sacrifice, courage and remembrance. However, in December 2015, the AHA appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the memorial was unconstitutional. On March 1, 2018, the Fourth Circuit denied the en banc rehearing, leaving an appeal to the Supreme Court as the final option.
               Hiram Sasser, chief counsel for First Liberty, notes, “If [the Fourth Circuit] decision stands, other memorials, including those in nearby Arlington Cemetery, will be targeted for destruction as well.” If the decision from the Fourth Circuit stands, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal case, it would mean that all crosses on public property are “unconstitutional.”
               The case rests on whether the Establishment Clause — the first sentence of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — prohibits the public display of crosses.
               The establishment of a religion means having an official, government-sponsored religion. Some have also interpreted the Establishment Clause as meaning government “neutrality.” According to the American Humanist Association’s website, the Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from “entangling itself in religious matters without a religiously neutral reason.” Government ought to be “neutral” toward religion and not favor one over the other. But a big difference exists between “neutrality” and “hostility.”
               While the AHA claims “Good Without A God,” as its motto, is it fair or tolerant to force that belief on everyone else? Radical atheism does not say, “I believe in nothing, and you can believe in God if you want.” Rather, it says, “I believe in nothing and it is my right to not see, hear or experience anything about God anywhere.” Whether it is “No, you can’t pray,” or “No, you can’t put a Bible verse there,” or “No, I don’t want to see a cross” — even if it’s in the middle of the desert — the radical atheists do not seek to live in mutual tolerance. They cannot rest until they have converted all of society into a religiously sterile culture. Our legal system should not bow down to this dogmatic, anti-tolerant behavior as the “neutral” option. Rather, radical atheists should practice the tolerance they demand from others.
               Following their Fourth Circuit win, AHA Senior Counsel Monica Miller, who argued the case, stated, “This is a big win not only for separation of church and state, but for all non-Christian veterans who are excluded from an enormous Christian cross war memorial.”
               But how many of the fallen men were actually atheists? The families of the fallen soldiers decided on that particular shape to remember their fallen sons, brothers and husbands. Would it not dishonor their choice to remove or destroy it? If, in fact, the non-Christian veterans feel excluded, why do they not build their own non-cross memorial?
               Further, while the AHA argues that the cross represents a sectarian, exclusionary religious symbol, the cross also represents military heroism. Some of the highest military honors include crosses such as the Distinguished Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, and others granted for exemplary military service. The cross also stands as an internationally recognized symbol of bravery and sacrifice as exemplified in the Victoria Cross in England and the Croix de Guerre (Cross of War) in France.
               The cross also represents a memorial. These men lost their lives in a foreign war on foreign soil. While some of their bodies were later repatriated, many were buried overseas. For several families, the “Peace Cross” stood as the only place where grieving families could pay honor to their loved ones.
               Michael Carvin, lead counsel for The American Legion and partner at Jones Day, notes, “This memorial has stood in honor of local veterans for almost 100 years and is lawful under the First Amendment. To remove it would be a tremendous dishonor to the local men who gave their lives during the Great War.”
               The case also has bipartisan support. Eight Republican and Democrat members of Congress joined in support of the memorial by filing an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit Court.
               Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty, states, “Memorials are living reminders of our country’s history and the cost of war. How will we remember the fallen or teach the next generation about service and sacrifice if we start bulldozing veterans memorials and cemeteries across America? We will continue our work to overturn this decision and defend the memory of those who preserved freedom.”   
~The Patriot Post
Learn more and sign the petition: DontTearMeDown.com
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54747-no-more-crosses

               A string of Democrats, including Nancy Pulosi and commie-Bernie Sanders, addressed the crowd of students in DC, which speaks volumes about the political agenda. But remember: Democrats don’t care about children unless they can serve the leftist agenda.
               Not that students are admitting it. “It’s not Republican or Democrat; it’s about keeping people safe,” said a 16-year-old student from Manhattan. “We know what we want from our society: to have less guns and, at some point, no guns at all.”
               There you go — safe spaces and gun confiscation. Unfortunately for this naive young lady, those two are mutually exclusive. Liberty isn’t defended with a smart phone and poster-board sign.
               In related news, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered all armed officers removed from New York City schools. You know, because he cares about kids.
               Capitulating to the misguided and ill-informed sentiments of a youthful mob is not how wise legislation is enacted — never mind how constitutional rights are defended. Rather it is often the means by which nefarious individuals manipulate the masses in designed efforts to promote their own totalitarian agendas.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54741-the-adolescent-2nd-amendment-puppet-protests

             In January, liar-Hillary Clinton’s former campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, blatantly called for the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Fallon argued, “ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force. Dems running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form.” Far from withering on the vine, this clearly extreme and asinine suggestion seems to be gaining momentum within Democrat circles. Just last week, presumed presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was asked on MSNBC, “Should ICE exist?” Harris smartly didn’t take the bait and responded, “Certainly.” The question is, just how long will the Democrats’ base allow their candidates to get away with that answer? Not long it seems.
             Jack Mirkinson of the leftist site Splinter blasted Harris, writing: Any serious defender of undocumented people in this country would look at ICE and know that it is a cancer that needs to be excised from the U.S. Pretending that the most diseased levers of state power can be molded into something better is a useless fantasy. ICE must be abolished. Anything less is not good enough.
             Kamala Harris is very likely running for president in 2020. It should be a political problem for her that she is not willing to take her criticisms of ICE to their logical conclusion and call for its abolition. She should be asked, over and over again, why exactly she is willing to uphold the legitimacy of such a racist, corrupt, and thuggish organization. Anyone else who decides to run — commie-Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth dinky-Warren, Eric Garcetti, you name it — should be asked the same question.
             The leftist publication The Nation also weighed in on the issue publishing a piece entitled “It’s Time to Abolish ICE.” The author argued, “The idea of defunding ICE has gained traction among immigrant-rights groups horrified by the speed at which, under President Donald Trump, the agency has ramped up an already brutal deportation process.”
             If Democrats are seriously willing to die on this hill, then they can kiss their 2020 presidential electoral chances good-bye. How in the world does one expect to win over the votes of American citizens by brandishing the non-existent “rights” of illegal aliens, who have by definition broken the law, over and against those of Americans? These same Democrats seem to think that resisting the nation’s immigration laws by creating “sanctuary cities” to harbor illegals is a winning issue. The truth is, much of the Democrat party and its leftist base simply despise America, the Constitution and the ideal of rights of individuals to Liberty and justice. Rather, the Left would seek to superimpose the cause of the illegal alien over and against the rights and liberties of the law-abiding American citizen. And Dems seem to be hitching themselves to this losing wagon.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54711-the-left-calls-for-abolishing-ice

             There was no gun involved but rather something even more powerful — a bomb. Luckily for everyone in the school, the explosive failed to detonate. The Associated Press reports, “No one was hurt, no damage was reported and the school reopened Tuesday morning for classes.” However, “Police did not describe the homemade bomb in detail but said it ‘had the potential to cause significant injury or death.’”
             Investigators also revealed the perpetrator’s Islamist motivations: “It was also determined that the male had been researching information and expressing interest in ISIS and promoting the organization.” Not only that, but the student conveyed his devotion to the Islamic State only a month earlier — in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland massacre, in fact — by hoisting the terrorist group’s flag at a nearby school.
             The Daily Signal says last week’s episode is “the 102nd Islamist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11,” which it adds “serves as an important reminder that though ISIS is largely defeated in Syria and Iraq, it still inspires people in other countries to engage in terrorism.” No doubt ISIS’s influence will continue to be felt throughout the world — even here in America and in its schools. But the fact the tool was a bomb provides an equally important reminder.
             As our Mark Alexander recently pointed out, “The most costly mass slaughter of school children in the U.S. did not involve a gun. In 1927, a sociopathic Bath Township, Michigan, school board member detonated a bomb that killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and six adults.” Try as some might to restrict the Second Amendment in response to school shootings, any perceivable void created by a reduction in guns would simply be filled by other, more lethal methods.
             After all, the ways in which wickedness is acted upon are infinite. And those pretending guns are as bad as it gets are woefully shortsighted.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54712-utah-barely-escapes-school-bombing-while-media-scream-guns

             As part of her service to this country in the shadows that are part and parcel of what the intelligence community does to keep us safe, she oversaw a CIA “black site” in Thailand that housed two high-ranking members of al-Qaida, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The latter was a mastermind of the attack on USS Cole (DDG 67). Both were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques — because they weren’t gonna talk for beer and cigarettes. Haspel was also involved in destroying video evidence of those interrogations. Keeping secrets is, after all, what the CIA does.
             The “Gitmo bar” coalition — you know, the folks who make Hanoi Jane look like a bush-league supporter of America’s enemies — is already denouncing her selection. So is Sen. Ron Wyden. Glenn Greenwald, who last year smeared SEAL Team Six, is piling on, as is NSA leaker Edward Snowden. In other words, Haspel has the right opponents.
             Haspel was among some American patriots, including José Rodriguez, Dr. James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who were handed a very difficult task. They had to get information about pending attacks from terrorists who had no inclination or incentive to cooperate. Contrary to the lies that Sen. Dianne Fein-stein (D-CA) pushed forward in a half-baked report on American “torture,” they succeeded in their mission.
             Sadly, Fein-stein teamed up with rino-John McCain to tie the CIA’s hands, and in doing so, left us in today’s situation where our enemies now know our interrogation playbook — in fact, they can readily obtain versions online. It was a dishonorable and ungrateful way to repay the service Haspel and others performed for this country.
             It seems that a party once eager to break the glass ceiling has a problem with a woman whose confirmation would break the CIA’s glass ceiling. Quite frankly, that opposition isn’t a disqualification, it’s a résumé enhancement.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54728-the-left-smears-the-incoming-cia-director

             The federal government, however, is not bound by the same rules. Not only does it operate with deep and worsening deficits, but its true financial condition is disguised by shady and elusive accounting metrics. The headline national debt is nearing $21 trillion, but the truth is that this figure is significantly deflated. Citing new Treasury research, PJ Media reports:
             If the national debt were officially calculated the way assets for private companies are calculated — by tallying assets, debts, liabilities, and obligations — the official federal debt would be $88.9 trillion, or $704,000 per household.
             This represents no less than four times the projected national debt of roughly $20 trillion. The federal government uses accounting practices different from private companies, and so it can report a much smaller national debt than its true liabilities account for.
             While the federal government reported a budget deficit of $666 billion for the 2017 fiscal year, a new comprehensive report from the U.S. Treasury showed that finances really deteriorated by $1,157 billion. The document explained that this difference comes from accrued costs that are not necessarily paid, such as estimated future costs of federal employee and veterans’ benefits.
             This discrepancy is tied to what’s known as accrual accounting, a method utilized by the Treasury in its report. “Accrual accounting involves measuring the full spectrum of financial commitments,” according to PJ Media, “while cash accounting — the kind used to calculate the federal budget — only counts money as it flows in and out.”
             The author points to worker’s pension benefits as an example. If the Treasury standard were applied, “an employee’s pension would be recorded as the employee earned it. Under cash accounting, this liability would not emerge as a cost until years or decades later, when it is actually paid.”
             If we take off the rose-colored glasses, the reality is that taxpayers are $7.7 trillion in the hole when it comes to funding public-worker pensions and benefits. And that’s just one example. Social Security and Medicare together are $65 trillion in the hole. The DC Swamp, it turns out, is far deeper and wider than most people realize. And the catastrophe will be gradual until it’s sudden.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54687-the-national-debt-far-worse-than-you-realize

             In released excerpts from their book, Isikoff and Corn write that when liar-nObama and company were first alerted to Russian election meddling efforts, they debated as to “how forcefully to respond.” Eventually the decision was made, as Isikoff and Corn explain, “It was a debate that would culminate that summer with a dramatic directive from liar-nObama’s national security adviser to the NSC (National Security Council) staffers developing aggressive proposals to strike back against the Russians: ‘Stand down.’”
             The authors note that liar-nObama and company had essentially two separate Russia-related meddling problems. The first was the Russian hacking and leaking of documents and emails from the DNC and liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the second was a number of Russian cyberattacks on several states’ “election systems, particularly voter registration databases.” liar-nObama seemingly took the threat to states’ election systems as more of a concern but the solution sought was to increase federal government oversight of state elections — something that the states rightfully bristled against.
             Never, it seems, was liar-nObama willing to go directly at the source of the problem: Russian President Vladimir Putin. Instead liar-nObama followed a similar pattern of “leading from behind,” or in reality not leading at all. In issuing the “stand-down” order, liar-nObama opted for the most part to ignore the Russian problem and assume, like much of the mainstream media, that liar-Clinton would win anyway. And, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey observes, “Had liar-nObama not been ‘standing down’ on Russia for practically the entirety of his presidency and openly mocking Republicans like Mitt Romney who correctly pointed out the threat they represented, he might not have been left with a bad hand in September 2016.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54688-obama-backed-off-putins-election-meddling

             House Democrats, clearly not thrilled by the decision, predictably claimed that Republicans were shutting down the investigation too soon in order to protect Trump. The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam scum-Schiff (CA), blasted the announcement as a “tragic milestone” and a “capitulation to the executive branch.”scum-Schiff added, “By ending its oversight role in the only authorized investigation in the House, the Majority has placed the interests of protecting the president over protecting the country, and history will judge its actions harshly.” scum-Schiff then regurgitated the Democrats’ worn-out talking point of Russian collusion conspiracy, saying, “If the Russians do have leverage over the president of the United States, the majority has simply decided it would rather not know.”
             After more than a year of the Intel Committee investigating and turning up no evidence of any collusion, Republicans are right to conclude the matter — it has proven only to descend into political gamesmanship. Democrats weren’t interested in finding the truth and concluding the investigation. Rather, their desire was to see it continue unendingly in order to maintain a politically convenient cloud of suspicion over Trump’s entire presidency. Their feigned concern over protecting the nation has nothing to do with actually protecting America; it’s aimed at protecting their anti-Trump political position.
             While Democrats are trying to protect their anti-Trump talking points, Republicans are rightly focusing on moving forward and protecting the nation against more Russian election meddling. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan noted, “After more than a year investigating Russia’s actions in the 2016 election, we are well into the primary season for the 2018 elections and experts are warning that we need to safeguard against further interference. That’s what this next phase is about and we hope Democrats will join us in seeing this through.” Fat chance.
             Exit quote: “House Republicans have abandoned their oath to support and defend the Constitution and protect the American people,” lamented House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA). No, Democrats are the ones who’ve mastered abandoning their oaths.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54702-no-collusion-house-intel-committee-concludes

            So you can see why that behavior fits dinky-Warren quite well. As we’ve noted, dinky-Warren has used this supposed ancestry for gain in both her academic and political careers. That continues to this day.
            She’s back in the news this weekend after making the rounds to repeat her talking points on all the Sunday morning shows. Public service announcement: dinky-Warren is not running for president and she will not take a DNA test to prove her ancestral claims. “I’m not running for president,” dinky-Warren maintained, though she declined to commit to serving a full six-year Senate term if re-elected this November. Of her supposed heritage, she insisted, “I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me. … It’s part of who I am and no one’s ever going to take that away.”
            Her claims of ancestry and of not running in 2020 are equally believable. Which is to say, not at all. “I am not running for president” just means she hasn’t yet declared her candidacy, but she’ll be beating the class-warfare drums regardless. So just keep an eye out for that dinky-Warren 2020 Wigwam near you.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54678-iron-eyes-lizzy-is-not-running-for-president