.
.
https://rickwells.us/commiela-harris-sale-money/
George Washington University Tackles
'Christian Privilege'
Earlier this week, The College Fix reported, “The event will teach that Christians enjoy a privileged, easier life than their non-Christian counterparts, and that Christians possess ‘built-in advantages’ today, according to its online description. The workshop will also discuss how Christians receive ‘unmerited perks from institutions and systems all across our country.’” In what alternate universe?
Interestingly, the Fix goes on to note, “By the end of the training, the organizers want participants to be able to name ‘at least three examples of Christian privilege’ and ‘at least three ways to be an ally with a non-Christian person,’ the website states.” As Christians already know, one core tenant of genuine Christianity is to show grace and mercy (i.e. “be an ally”) toward sinners and unbelievers. Meanwhile, some Islamists, particularly in the Middle East, systemically enslave women, rape them and treat them like garbage. They also kill or persecute “infidels” and perpetuate jihad. Where’s the denunciation of this extremely violent form of privilege?
The workshop could only redeem itself if it pointed out, as Peter Heck does, that “Christians are privileged to join as heirs in a Kingdom that was not ours and that we’ve done absolutely nothing to earn.” But of course that’s not the angle George Washington University planned to take, and it’s a shame. As Heck notes, “You want to know what privilege is? True privilege? It’s that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ The truth is you can’t really know privilege unless you are a Christian.” What a refreshing and thoroughly Christian take on the subject.
In 1788, George Washington wrote, “The hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” Something for the students at George Washington University to think about.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55179-george-washington-university-tackles-christian-privilege
At Last — A Military Religious Liberty Win
Most Muslims are also against same-sex marriage, but it’s not exactly a mystery how investigators would have behaved differently had Bohannon opposed the certificate as a Muslim instead of as a Christian. To his great credit, Bohannon refused to acquiesce and recruited First Liberty Institute as his legal counsel. Some Republican members of Congress chimed in also, urging Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson to rectify the situation. And rectify it she did, freeing him from the shackles of anti-Christian hostility and resuming his career.
According to Secretary Wilson, “Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully discriminate when he declined to sign the certificate of appreciation for the same-sex spouse of an airman in his command.” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), says “the news of his reinstatement was almost as shocking as his temporary dismissal.” How so? In the words of Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of FRC: “When you overrule an inspector general or independent investigator, that’s a big deal. That takes a lot of time and a lot of nerve. It’s very rare.”
Secretary Wilson has it exactly right: “The Air Force has a duty to treat people fairly and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation and [Bohannon] met that duty by having a more senior officer sign the certificate.” In fact, every government installation has that duty. Col. Leland Bohannon tried not to create a scene by having a superior officer sign the certificate. But the master sergeant couldn’t tolerate an opposing viewpoint and wanted revenge. The Air Force initially obliged, and it shouldn’t have. The whole military should follow Secretary Wilson’s lead.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55146-at-last-a-military-religious-liberty-win
by Rick Noack
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ Saudi Arabia appears to be in the middle of an attempt to rebrand the kingdom as progressive and, judging from the headlines since last year, the strategy appears to be working, at least to some extent.
Last September, the kingdom announced it would finally allow women to drive. One month later, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he wanted to return to a "moderate Islam."
Now, in an interview with The Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg, the crown prince has acknowledged that Jewish people have a right to their own homeland --- long a taboo for the conservative kingdom that was long known as a fierce foe of Israel's creation.
While Saudi Arabia in the past has talked about recognizing Israel in the context of a peace deal with the Palestinians, the crown prince's straight up acknowledgement that the Jews have a right to a homeland is the clearest statement to date.
On a practical level, Saudi Arabia has de-facto acknowledged that right since at least 2002 when it began sponsoring an initiative to foster a two-state solution - a solution that has also long been supported by the United States, even though with different premises. But officially, Saudi Arabia does not recognize the state of Israel.
While Saudi officials made Israel's withdrawal to its territory prior to the 1967 Israeli-Arab war a precondition for closer relations in the past, that fundamental demand was not explicitly repeated by the crown prince in the Atlantic interview.
"I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations," he told The Atlantic.
The timing for the acknowledgment does not appear to be a coincidence, as it follows months of diplomatic gestures, including the opening of Saudi Arabia's airspace to commercial Israel-bound flights and the acknowledgment of backchannel communications between both governments.
After decades of threatening rhetoric, Saudi officials appear increasingly willing to strike a carefully conciliatory tone as they seek a new ally to confront their common arch enemy Iran and build stronger economic ties.
"Saudi Arabia has traditionally been a place that has produced a lot of anti-Semitic propaganda. Do you think you have a problem with anti-Semitism in your country?" Goldberg asked later in the Atlantic interview, to which Mohammed responded: "Our country doesn't have a problem with Jews. Our Prophet Muhammad married a Jewish woman. Not just a friend --- he married her."
"Our prophet, his neighbors were Jewish. You will find a lot of Jews in Saudi Arabia coming from America, coming from Europe. There are no problems between Christian and Muslims and Jews. We have problems like you would find anywhere in the world, among some people. But the normal sort of problems," said Mohammed, adding that there were "lot of interests we share," including economically.
The crown prince's economic reasoning laid out in the interview will likely play into the hands of critics who have long suspected the kingdom's progressive rebranding to be primarily a marketing ploy. When the crown prince announced a more "moderate Islam" last year, critics cautioned that the declaration might have more to do with boosting the kingdom's economy rather than reversing decades-old practices.
Mohammed, 32, has attempted to position himself as a favorite for the kingdom's younger citizens, who are less religious than older generations and are facing disproportionately high unemployment rates. The Saudi leader is currently pursuing a major reform plan, named Saudi Vision 2030, to revitalize the kingdom's economy.
The need for reforms may already have reversed at least some of the leadership's previous ultraconservative stances, including the driving ban for women. The step was widely interpreted as a sign that the modernizers within the Saudi government may have gained ascendance over the conservative hard-liners. Saudi Arabia's hard-liners have been under mounting pressure to agree to such proposals, as the kingdom has become increasingly engulfed in economic woes.
But the reforms have still been limited. Women's subordination to men remains unchanged and repressions against Shiites have continued --- despite Mohammed's assurances in the interview that all was well between Sunnis and Shiites in the country.
In fact, Crown Prince Mohammed has repeatedly stirred tensions against Iran, a majority-Shiite country. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he blamed Saudi Arabia's arch enemy Shiite Iran for Saudi Arabia's turn toward Wahhabism, an ultraconservative branch of Islam, which is being promoted by Riyadh both domestically and abroad. Religious scholars say that the Saudi state is deeply rooted in and has long been intimately entwined with Sunni Wahhabism. That same Islam was widely promoted in Muslim countries around the world, thanks to the Saudi state's deep pockets.
In the Atlantic interview, Mohammed nevertheless doubled down on his criticism, saying that "the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good."
Few things are more infuriating than the nation’s de facto capitulation to those who cross our borders illegally. And nothing says capitulation more forcefully than the con game known as America’s “catch and release” policy.
A news release by the Department of Homeland Security outlines how that game is played: “Due to legal loopholes and court backlogs, even apprehended illegal aliens are released and become part of the temporary, illegal population of people that we cannot remove.”
One of those loopholes is the Flores Settlement Agreement. In 1985, two groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) detained by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). An agreement was reached in 1997, but litigation has continued for more than 20 years, and numerous court decisions have hindered the DHS’s ability to detain and quickly remove UACs. Under the current agreement, the DHS can only hold UACs for 20 days, after which they must be released to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where they are placed in shelters or foster arrangements until a sponsor is located.
The other loophole is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It essentially defined any UACs not from Mexico and Canada as “refugees,” exempting them from a quick return to their home countries.
The liar-nObama administration gamed these loopholes with impunity. First, thousands of children deemed to be “refugees” were placed with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which subsequently dispersed them throughout the nation.
Central America got the “welcome” message. Between 2009 and 2014, this effort engendered an astounding 1,243% increase in the number of UACs coming from El Salvador, a 1,429% increase in the number coming Guatemala, and a 1,784% increase in the number coming from Honduras.
Unsurprisingly, the massive influx overwhelmed detention space, and thus many of these UACs were released.
To whom? During a 2014 Senate hearing, former HHS Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families Mark Greenberg admitted that the refusal to inquire about the legal or illegal status of family members taking custody of illegal immigrant children was HHS policy.
In other words, guardianship of illegal children was granted to other illegals.
What happened as a result was completely predictable. “American immigration courts have the highest failure to appear rates of any courts in the country,” explained Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) columnist Mark Metcalf in 2017. And lest anyone think this failure rate is strictly about “refugees” or illegals from South or Central America, think again. “Among those who absconded from court were 3,095 aliens from the 36 countries that promote terrorism,” Metcalf adds. “A disproportionate number — 338 altogether — came from those countries the U.S. State Department labels state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Sudan, and Syria.”
When Trump was elected, a sizable respite from this onslaught occurred. Unfortunately, the border surges have returned, and National Border Patrol Council (NPBC) President Brandon Judd wants Americans to know exactly who is to blame. “The Republicans control the House and the Senate: they do not need the Democrat support to pass any laws they want,” he declared. “They can go the ‘Nuclear Option’ just like what they did on the confirmation. They need to pass laws and end the catch-and-release program.”
And if they fail to do so? “[Illegal aliens are] going to create havoc and chaos,” he warns. “I mean, how many times do we have to hear stories of United States citizens being killed by people who are here illegally before we actually do something?”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is attempting to do something about it. In the next three weeks he plans to introduce legislation that would allow immigration agents to send those caught crossing the border illegally back to their home nation while their claims are being adjudicated, rather than continue abiding the “caught, released, fail to show up in court” charade that currently prevails. “The reason why 70 percent of [illegal aliens] don’t make their court date is because [the federal government doesn’t] make them stay in their country,” Inhofe explained. “And, obviously, if I were in that position, I’d be off someplace else too.”
Naturally, there was pushback. “Have we really stooped this low? This suggestion is absurd, illogical and cruel — not to mention a waste of resources,” asserted Kica Matos, director of the Washington, DC-based Immigrant and Racial Justice at the Center for Community Change. “Republicans need to focus on making communities safer instead of continuing to tear families apart.”
Making communities safer by ignoring catch and release? Tell that to Kate Steinle’s family, Ms. Matos. Or the families of the nearly 30 people murdered by MS-13 members on Long Island. Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Americans victimized by the thousands of illegals incarcerated in federal prisons, along with those in state and local prisons, all of whom were responsible for wholly avoidable crimes — if American lawmakers were really interested on making our communities safer.
Judd reminds us how the game continues to be played. “The smugglers are coaching them and telling them exactly what they need to say so all they have to do is come here and claim that they fear to go back to their country, and they don’t have to provide any evidence whatsoever,” he explains. As a result, “We’ll do hours’ worth of processing, and then we will turn them over to ICE and ICE will release them, based on what they call a credible fear, and [they] disappear in the shadows.”
Why does government remain so remiss? Judd believes too many officials are counting on Trump being defeated in 2020 and are “trying to wait him out.” In the meantime, he adds, they are “trying to throw a monkey wrench into everything he is trying to accomplish.”
How toxic is that mindset? Fred Burton, a counterterrorism expert and chief intelligence officer for Stratfor, believes it would take a “9/11 kind of moment — a weapon of mass destruction, an assassination of a key government official” before America took what he characterized as “draconian measures to secure the border.”
One of those “moments” has apparently arrived. “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump stated Tuesday. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen clarified that Trump will send National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol, and that the White House had drafted legislation to close “loopholes” with regard to those seeking asylum.
Seemingly, that takes care of the “front door.” But there is still plenty of “interior” work left to do. “Since fiscal year (FY) 2016, more than 107,000 UACs have been released into the interior of the United States,” reveals a statement released Monday by the White House. It further notes “only 3.5 percent of UACs who are apprehended are eventually removed from the U.S.”
Thus, until equally “draconian measures” are applied to that reality, catch and release remains alive and well.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55169-catch-and-release-remains-alive-and-well
David Limbaugh: “The Left’s crusade against Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt should be seen for what it is — a witch hunt. … This conspiratorially organized assault against Pruitt is precisely what Barack liar-nObama and his friends mean by community organizing. It is vicious, relentless street fighting aimed at discrediting Pruitt and taking him down because he is one of the rare administrative officials who won’t put politics above the law and will stand up to those who do. … Leftist activists and their media co-pilots are hellbent on disgracing Pruitt and destroying his reputation to effect his removal, so they are throwing all kinds of phony scandals against the wall of public opinion to pressure the White House to give them Pruitt’s head. The energy they are expending on this should tell you how important progressives view unelected, unaccountable administrative agencies in implementing their draconian regulations, which have been choking our individual liberties and wreaking havoc on our economy. … The Left considers Pruitt a hill to die on. So should we.” ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55199-friday-opinion
Trump Deploys Troops to Border
Along with this news is a report that the apprehension rate of illegals at the border has increased by 203% since last March. Trump, who campaigned heavily on stemming the problem of illegal immigration via building up stronger border security and a wall, pointedly blamed Democrats for the lax laws, while emphasizing that he will act. Trump stated, “We have very bad laws for our border, and we are going to be doing some things. … Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.” Trump added, “We can’t do anything about it because the laws that were created by Democrats are so pathetic and so weak.”
Trump is doubling down on arguably the number one issue that won him the presidency, and he’s using it to create a clear political dividing line between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have proven themselves the party of the radical Left by their siding with noncitizen illegal aliens over and against the interests of Americans. Thus Trump’s tweet on Monday: “Congress must immediately pass Border Legislation, use Nuclear Option if necessary, to stop the massive inflow of Drugs and People. Border Patrol Agents (and ICE) are GREAT, but the weak Dem laws don’t allow them to do their job. Act now Congress, our country is being stolen!”
Predictably, the Leftmedia has been making hay over Trump’s call for sending the military to the border, as if it was unprecedented. Oregon Democrat Gov. Kate Brown pledged to defy Trump if he requests National Guard troops, tweeting, “If [Trump] asks me to deploy Oregon troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border.” The truth is the past five U.S. presidents have sent troops to the border to aid the Border Patrol.
Meanwhile, that caravan of 1,000 illegal aliens crossing Mexico with the intent of illegally crossing into the U.S. appears to have had a change of plans. One of the caravan’s de facto leaders, Irineo Mujica, head of migrant advocacy group Pueblo sin Fronteras, stated, “We will wrap up our work in Mexico City. We have support teams at the border if there are people who need assistance there, but they would have to travel on their own.” Mujica added, “There are too many children — 450 in all. There are lots of babies. Hopping the train, as we did in the past, would have been crazy.” Was that really the reason, or did it have more to do with the fact that Trump is sending in the troops? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55171-trump-deploys-troops-to-border
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{ townhall.com } ~ Robert Mueller is the special counsel appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 to probe the nature and extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The investigation began in October 2016 under President Barack liar-nObama when the FBI took seriously the boast of Carter Page, one of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy advisers, that he had worked for the Kremlin.
The FBI also had transcripts of telephone conversations and copies of emails and text messages of Trump campaign personnel that had been supplied to it by British intelligence. Connecting the dots, the FBI persuaded a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a search warrant for the surveillance of Page, an American.
Page never registered as a foreign agent, and working for the Kremlin and not registering as a foreign agent is a crime for which the FBI should have investigated Page. Such an investigation would have included surveillance, but not from the FISA court. Surveillance in a criminal case requires a search warrant from a U.S. District Court based upon the constitutional requirement of probable cause of crime -- meaning that it is more likely than not that the thing to be searched internet and telephone communications will produce evidence of criminal behavior.
But the FBI didn't seek that. Instead, it sought a warrant to surveil Page's communications based on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act standard, which is probable cause of communicating with a foreign power. This lower, easier-to-demonstrate and unconstitutional standard is the tool of choice these days for FBI agents because it requires less effort and is used in a court that grants 99.9 percent of search warrant applications.
The temptation to use the FISA court and its easy standard instead of a U.S. District Court and its privacy-recognizing constitutional standard to get a search warrant is often too much for the FBI to resist. This is a form of corruption because it presents a path for criminal investigators to invade the privacy of Americans that the Constitution protects.
Yet the FBI used whatever it learned from the surveillance of Page to get that surveillance extended. Even the Trump Department of Justice went to the FISA court to spy on Page. Lost in all this is the purpose of FISA -- to prevent government surveillance of Americans and limit it to agents of foreign powers.
When Jeff Sessions became attorney general, he recognized that he himself would most likely be a witness in the Mueller investigation because of his involvement in the Trump campaign, so he removed himself from all matters pertaining to Russia, and his deputy, Rosenstein, appointed Mueller to run the investigation.
What is Mueller looking for?
When the feds are examining a potential crime committed by a group, their treasure-trove of evidence can often be a member of the group who reveals the criminal behavior of his former colleagues. That's why the feds often indict people for crimes that appear to be irrelevant to the ones they are investigating -- in this case, lying to the FBI and bank fraud allegedly committed before the 2016 election.
When such an indicted person can then be persuaded to turn on his former colleagues in return for a lesser charge or a lighter sentence, prosecutors can have a field day. This is a form of bribery -- you tell us on the witness stand what we want to hear and we'll go easy on you -- that is permitted only to prosecutors; and the courts condone it. If defense counsel gave as much as a lollipop to a witness to shade his testimony, both would be indicted.
From the backgrounds of those whom Mueller's grand juries have indicted and from the deals they have cut with him, it appears that Mueller is looking at three areas of potential criminal behavior. Mueller has already established as a base line the saturation of the 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agents. If his indictments of these Russians are accurate, they were here virtually and physically and they spent millions to help Trump. But the indicted Russians are not coming back to the U.S. for their trials.
Mueller is examining their potential American confederates for the crime of conspiracy -- or, as my colleagues in the media call it, collusion. This would be an agreement by campaign officials to accept something of value from a foreign person, entity or government, even if the thing of value -- for example, liar-Hillary Clinton emails -- was never actually delivered. The crime is the agreement, and it is prosecutable after at least one of those who agreed takes a material step in furtherance of the agreement.
Mueller's second area of examination is possible obstruction of justice by President Trump himself. Obstruction is the interference with a judicial proceeding for a corrupt purpose. Was FBI Director James Comey fired because Trump couldn't work with him or because he was hot on the president's trail and Trump wanted to impede that? If it was the former, it would have been licit. If it was the latter, it could have been criminal.
The third of Mueller's areas is financial dealings by the pre-presidential Trump. These bear little surface relationship to Russian involvement in the campaign, yet evidence of wrongdoing must have come to Mueller from his FBI agents or his cooperating witnesses, and he is following the money as prosecutors do.
Where will all this go? The president cannot seem to find an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Mueller has 16 experienced federal prosecutors and a few dozen FBI agents passionately at work. And he also has witnesses he legally bribed and a few hundred thousand documents from the White House and from Trump's financial affairs that the president has not personally reviewed.
And now Mueller wants to interview the president. Who will have the upper hand if that happens?
Who Killed MLK's Dream? by Mark Alexander: On this day 50 years ago, April 4, 1968, 39-year-old Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee, by a racist sociopath from Alton, Illinois, named James Earl Ray.
The night before his death, King preached at the Mason Temple, headquarters of the Church of God in Christ. Having been warned of threats against him, he prophetically declared:
“I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
Dr. Gary S. Smith, emeritus chairman of Grove City College’s history department, observed that King’s “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” sermon “ranks with John Winthrop’s ‘A Model of Christian Charity’ and Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ as among America’s most famous.”
King’s pastoral influence in that era was rivaled only by his friend Billy Graham.
That fateful day in 1968 was a Thursday, and King was killed around 6:00 in the evening. On Friday, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, and three of her children, joined by faith leaders and thousands of citizens, marched in Memphis to support King’s work.
I was an 11-year-old kid in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and I recall that at noon on that Friday, Chattanooga’s mayor called for a memorial service at a noted local venue, led by black and white community leaders and attended by 1,500 citizens. There was a dusk-to-dawn curfew enacted several days after King’s assassination, because a few hundred black high school students congregated to express their frustration. I recall the distinct quiet during those curfew nights — unlike many other large cities, there was no violence and the curfew was lifted.
Riots elsewhere were an affront to King’s insistence on nonviolent protest, and they resulted in 40 deaths and significant property damage. More than 100,000 soldiers and guardsmen were called up to support police and firefighters.
In 1968, I had no real sense of abject racism or school segregation. There was only one elementary school in our suburban community, and we had black classmates from kindergarten forward. There were degrees of inequality, but little overt racial tension in our town, which MLK had referenced in his famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington: “Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.” (He had never been to our small town but had visited Chattanooga in 1960.)
In fact, though there were plenty of racist haters, both white and black, in the South, I would not fully experience ethnic division and racial hatred firsthand until the mid-1970s as a high-school student in Connecticut. On a few occasions while defending black friends, we rumbled with racist “greasers” (the North’s version of “rednecks”) in pool halls and bowling alleys. But it was my many weekend trips to Boston and New York where I first experienced widespread systemic hatred.
Everybody hated everybody. The Italians hated the blacks hated the Irish hated the Jews hated … ad nauseam. Here, there was overt ethnic and racial division the likes of which I had never experienced in the South. Though the most noted racial tensions in the ‘60s had been in the “Deep South,” which has since been stereotyped, I found out that ignorance and hatred were not geographically specific.
It was only when I returned to the South, after graduating from a state police academy and completing my undergraduate degree, that in a law-enforcement capacity I was sent to “observe” a few of the KKK events still occurring — events that also defied geographic stereotypes. At the first major Klan event I witnessed in Georgia as part of a federal task force in 1982, the two ranking Klansmen were both from the Northeast. But Martin King understood racism in the North.
In1966, he went to what would later become Barack liar-nObama’s hometown, Chicago, which was then, as it is now, a violent city. King went there in an effort to cool the hotbed of racial hatred that was emerging in that city, mostly fomented by the Democrat power brokers under then-Mayor Richard Daley.
After his visit, King observed, “I’ve been to Mississippi and Alabama and I can tell you that the hatred and hostility in Chicago are really deeper than in Alabama and Mississippi.” No small irony that MLK would be murdered by an Illinois racist.
Forty years later, liar-nObama, a neophyte “community organizer” from that same racist hotbed, a student of Marxist mentors and a disciple of afrocentric hatred indoctrinated by his “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, was raised up by the Democrat Party to become president.
In the five decades since King’s death, the Party of liar-nObama has institutionalized racial division as a central strategy of its political platform — with the help of an opportunistic King lieutenant, Jesse Jackson, and other poverty pimps like Al Sharpton, all of whom have betrayed King’s “dream.”
In King’s most famous speech, to more than 250,000 people at the National Mall in Washington, DC, he declared, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. … And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.”
But the Democrat Party of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize recipient’s era has devolved into a political machine fueled by hate and division — one that has turned the wisdom of this iconic sovereign’s most quoted remark upside down. It’s as if King had said, “I have a dream that my children will be judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.”
Today’s Democrat leaders are consummate race-bait hustlers who have defiled King’s legacy — and that of Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglas. They’re intent on keeping poor blacks enslaved on modern day urban poverty plantations, the effluent of the so-called “Great Society.” For Democrats, black lives matter only inasmuch as they are a dependent voting bloc.
But there are also bold black Americans who have rejected the Left’s statism and institutional victimhood, and they are thus subject to the condemnation of many on the Left. One of the most outspoken detractors of the Left’s orthodoxy is MLK’s niece, Alveda King. She was 17 at the time of her uncle’s assassination, and she has offered some insights on the anniversary of his death.
She recalls a conversation with her father on that day in which she said, “I hate white people, they killed Uncle M.L.”
He replied, “No, white people didn’t kill my brother; white people didn’t kill your uncle. White people march with us, pray with us, go to jail with us, live with us, die with us. No, no, the devil did this. You have to forgive; you have to forgive.” Such forgiveness is anathema to most of today’s black leaders.
Alveda added, “Acts 17:26 says, ‘Of one blood God made all people, to live together on the face of the earth.’ So we can be brothers and sisters because we are one blood; we are the human race. And I believe if my uncle were here today, he’d like for us to consider ourselves as human beings, not different races. One race, colorblind.” We should all remember that Liberty is colorblind.
In 1967, King, who began as a preacher at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, declared, “Before I was a civil rights leader, I was a preacher of the Gospel. This was my first calling [and] remains my greatest commitment. [All] I do in civil rights I do because I consider it a part of my ministry.” And it is in that context that he is best remembered.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/55144-who-killed-mlks-dream
Leftist Knives Are Out for Scott Pruitt
Another “scandal” surrounds Pruitt’s travel and beefed up security. He flies first class rather than coach and considered the use of a private plane, and he spends a lot of money on security. Why? Because ecofascist psychos have leveled death threats against him, along with other lesser physical threats. Never mind that Barack liar-nObama’s EPA chiefs, Lisa Jackson (a.k.a. “Richard Windsor”) and Gina McCarthy, spent more on travel, violated transparency and broke laws.
Long story short, leftists hate Pruitt almost as much as President Donald Trump because he’s been very effective in threatening the Left’s Church of Climate Change Dogma. Mollie Hemingway notes, “When he was attorney general of Oklahoma, he sued the EPA more than a dozen times to get the powerful regulatory agency to stay within its legal authority.” Since taking office at the EPA, a rundown of Pruitt’s accomplishments is impressive. He stewarded the agency through the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, rolled back Barack liar-nObama’s clean water and clean power regulations, cut costs by $1 billion, pushed through transparency reforms on how the EPA uses science, and, just this week, scrapped liar-nObama’s vehicle-emissions rules.
No wonder ecofascists hate him. Make no mistake: Environmentalism of the type followed by statists is a religion, and Pruitt is worse than at odds with its teachings; he’s directly challenging its tenets and undoing its sacraments. That’s why we’re seeing a coordinated effort to discredit and oust him. Fortunately, Trump called Pruitt Tuesday to tell him to “keep fighting” and that “we have your back.” The Swamp needs draining and that’s why Pruitt must stay. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55133-leftist-knives-are-out-for-scott-pruitt
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Over the past week or so, a “caravan” of “immigrants” has been making its way from Central America, through Mexico, towards the United States, which has brought about a twitterstorm from President Donald Trump, as one might well expect.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of it…let me first explain who is unabashedly behind this thing.
It just happens to be some group that calls itself, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, or, in English…People Without Borders. That, of course begs the question…just what in the hell does this group believe in aside from no borders?
Well…
Here’s their mission statement…
by Michelle Malkin
{ townhall.com } ~ Open borders tour guides in Mexico illegally shepherding 1,500 Central Americans to the United States border declared victory this week. Mexican officials reportedly are offering humanitarian visas to avert a showdown. But the parade of immigration lawlessness marches on -- with reckless aiding and abetting by churches across the U.S.
Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the group in charge of the annual "migrant caravan," launched its effort during Holy Week by invoking the Stations of the Cross with biblical costumery and prop crosses. When they're not serving as human traffickers masquerading as human rights activists, these travel agents for amnesty busy themselves constructing shelters along their illicit pathways that span the globe. Catholic groups have sponsored and subsidized such nation-sabotaging campaigns for decades.
The Vatican itself donated at least $20,000 in 2009 to erect a shelter for Central American illegal aliens sneaking through Ixtepec, Mexico, where they hopped on freight trains into our country. Another papal society, Catholic Extension, has poured more than $12 million dollars into ministries along our southern border over the past five years "to ensure that those who are on a journey are protected by the Church and that we advocate on their behalf," according the Catholic News Agency.
In Colorado, five illegal aliens have taken sanctuary in houses of worship in the outlaw safe spaces of Mancos, Denver, Carbondale and Boulder -- more than any other state. Each had multiple bites at the legal apple that stretched out for years. Our immigration courts heard their cases, rejected their appeals, turned down the appeals of their appeals and ordered them to leave. Religious groups have provided lawyers and media relations consultants every step of the way.
In Washington state, the Jesuit-affiliated St. Joseph Catholic Church of Seattle blasted President Trump's "destructive and brutal" immigration enforcement and declared "our unwavering solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the immigrant community." All deportations violate "Catholic Social Teaching" and "the common good," the parish asserted.
In Manhattan's Upper West Side, the Fourth Universalist Society of New York is harboring a mother and her family who've lived here illegally for more than a dozen years and feel entitled to flout their deportation orders.
In Springfield, Massachusetts, the South Congregational Church is shielding a Peruvian woman and her two children facing deportation. Mayor Domenic Sarno has called on the city council to revoke the church's property tax exemption so that no "public dollars shall be allocated for the purpose of interfering with the religious freedoms of South Church in accordance to our Constitution." In response to a rare public official taking his legal and fiduciary responsibilities seriously, the church's leader condemned Sarno's soul.
In Las Vegas, the incoming Catholic Bishop George Leo Thomas announced that illegal immigration and gun control will top his spiritual agenda. Echoing the left-wing U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Thomas pledged to support and advocate for the so-called illegal alien Dreamers and welcome them into the church.
In San Diego, Catholic and Episcopal leaders united to protest construction of the border wall while waving Mexican flags. "Jesus said we should love our neighbor," one argued.
True, but Scripture also teaches citizens to honor the rule of law and secular authorities who preserve and defend civil order and safety: "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. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Romans 13:1-7).
The Acton Institute's Brooke Levitske put it more bluntly: "Christ expected his followers to treat criminals in prison the way they would treat him, but he said nothing about busting them out of prison."
As a Catholic who believes in strict immigration enforcement, I have argued repeatedly that it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and asylees, and those abused and mistreated by smugglers. It's quite another to conspire against an orderly immigration and entrance system that imposes commonsense limits, eligibility requirements, criminal background checks, medical screening and a commitment to assimilation.
Our laws are clear: 8 U.S. Code Section 1324 makes it a felony to knowingly bring or attempt to bring aliens across the border illegally; to knowingly conceal, harbor or shield them from detection in reckless disregard for the law; and to engage in any conspiracy or to aid and abet such acts.
We reserve the right to regulate entry into our country for the same reasons the Vatican itself has high barriers, armed guards and metal detectors. Yet, Pope Francis has lambasted President Trump and our walls as "not Christian."
If you don't like our laws, change them. If you can't respect our sovereignty, go organize a caravan of alien trespassers and seek permanent shelter at the Sistine Chapel. Good luck with that.
China Tariffs: More Moves and Counter Moves
As Trump foresaw, Beijing was quick to hit back, announcing that it will level $50 billion in tariffs against U.S. goods, specifically agricultural products, such as soybeans and beef, as well as the auto industry. The Wall Street Journal notes that China focused on “goods that were chosen to hit U.S. states that supported President Donald Trump.” News of the tariffs sparked fears of an escalating trade war, which sent stocks plummeting again. However, it’s important to note that none of these tariffs have been enacted, and there is likely a lot of wheeling and dealing that will occur before any are imposed.
Trump responded to fears of a trade war, tweeting, “We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!”
One interesting factor here is the clear motivational differences behind the tariff threats between Trump and Beijing. Trump is right about the unfair trade imbalance and Chinese theft of U.S. company intellectual technologies, and his intent is to rectify the situation. Beijing on the other hand is seeking to keep the gig going and has reacted with tariffs specifically designed to hurt Trump politically. China isn’t interested in fair trade; rather the totalitarian government is aiming to weaken Trump politically so that he is forced to capitulate to its abusive trade practices.
It is the twisted “advantage” a totalitarian government has over that of a representative democracy. The Chinese governing elites are free to force their will on their populace with little political blowback. In a representative democracy, however, the president is ultimately beholden to the will of the people, and therefore Trump’s options are limited. That said, while politically speaking Beijing may have an advantage, China is still behind the eight ball on this issue economically — it has much more at stake than does the U.S. Jianguang Shen, an economist at Mizuho Securities, notes, “Beijing is facing a difficult time now as it has resorted to its core weapons, such as soybeans and cars. If the disputes escalate, what else can Beijing use?” In other words, in the geopolitical chess match, Beijing is countering with a big move in the hopes of creating enough political blowback in the U.S. to force Trump to back off his tariff threats. Will it work?
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55136-china-tariffs-more-moves-and-counter-moves
Two Big Confirmation Battles Loom
Both Pompeo and Haspel are highly qualified but the landscape of the United States Senate has changed significantly since President Trump took office in January 2016. While Republicans will be able to push the two nominations out of the respective committees for a floor vote, there isn’t a guarantee that the nominees will be confirmed. Currently, the GOP holds a 51-49 edge in the Senate, but with Rand Paul going on record saying he doesn’t support either nominee and rino-John McCain’s cancer treatment regimen keeping him on the sidelines since December, the Republican Party has very little margin for error.
An analysis of the two nominations shows that the Pompeo proceedings will be the most combative. While he was confirmed for the CIA director position last year by a 66-32 vote, several Democrats have announced either reconsidering their votes or that they remain on the fence until he testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Recent reports indicate that Pompeo will face a brutal confirmation fight. And even if he makes it through the questioning with no major errors, his nomination may still face obstacles. If Paul and all of the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee cast a “no” vote, then the Republican Party leadership would be forced to use an obscure rule that would still allow the nomination for a Senate-wide vote.
This type of maneuver has never been utilized in the history of the Senate and would, according to Foreign Policy magazine, “be the first time in modern history a secretary of state nominee moves to a Senate-wide vote without the approval of the foreign relations committee.”
The Haspel nomination, on the other hand, looks to be the easier fight for the Republican Party, but not by very much. Haspel, a decorated career intelligence officer, is expected to face numerous questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee pertaining to her oversight of the CIA’s black-site interrogation program in Thailand. The program, where waterboarding was conducted on a regular basis, has drawn the attention of numerous Republican and Democrat committee members and will be the topic of much of the questioning of Haspel.
According to numerous reports, Haspel is considered by her peers as the consummate professional and has the skillset to lead the CIA. However, as Rich Lowry pointed out last week, Republicans must ensure that her nomination doesn’t degenerate into a 21st century “Borking.”
The U.S. foreign and intelligence communities need proven leadership that can guide them against the plethora of threats that face our nation on a daily basis. A failure with either nomination would be a severe blow to the country as a whole. That’s why the Trump administration must put all of its energies into ensuring that both Pompeo and Haspel are confirmed. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55129-two-big-confirmation-battles-loom
by Colonel Allen West
{ allenwestrepublic.com } ~ Well, it is official, the global progressive socialist movement is worried. All was well when you had their boy-king Barack liar-nObama running things in the United States. liar-nObama was a born and bred true globalist who embraced the concept of surrendering American sovereignty to global body politic organizations. Never forget the massive throngs who welcomed candidate liar-nObama in Germany and his proclamation that he was a “citizen of the world”. When liar-nObama was asked about American exceptionalism, well, he responded that the idea was just the same as any other nation’s exceptionalism. The global liberal progressive movement, especially that in western Europe cheered as they had one of their own as President of these United States of America.
And the same just knew that things were going to be well with a follow-on of liar-Hillary Clinton as President. There would be more global policies such as the Paris climate accord, done not by the rules of legislative democracy, but rather executive order. We still see Mrs. liar-Clinton traipsing around the world as if her opinions matter. What she is actually doing is trying to heal the hurt of the globalists who cannot accept that she is not our president. They cannot accept that America is reasserting its role as a strong sovereign Nation.
Therefore, I found this article entitled, “How Populism is poisoning the global liberal read progressive socialist Order” at the World Economic Forum very interesting. It states,“Whether springing up in the U.S., Europe or Asia, populists are predictable. Immigrants and elites are usually the first to be targeted by these groups. Populists appeal to “true” citizens to reclaim their homeland, through border walls and trade protectionism. The free press will also come under assault, described by populists as “fake news” and enemies of the truth. Next, the populist will turn his fire on the judiciary and legislative mechanisms responsible for checking executive power.
Notwithstanding global anxieties over populists like U.S. President Donald Trump, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, and Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, there is still a surprising level of confusion about what is, and what is not populism. While there are multiple definitions in circulation, populism can be distilled to three essential characteristics: popular but unsustainable policies; the designation of a specific population group as the sole “legitimate” members of a nation; and highly personalized styles of leadership emphasizing a direct relationship with “the people.”
There is growing consensus that populism constitutes a grave threat to liberal democracy, and to the liberal international order on which peace and prosperity have rested for the past two generations. Democracies rely on power-sharing arrangements, courts, legislatures and a free and independent media to check executive power. Since these institutions obstruct the free reign of populists, they are often subjected to blistering attack. This is especially the case with the right-wing variety of populism that is spreading across the U.S. and Western and Eastern Europe.
The liberal international order depends, in turn, on institutions such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Trade Organization, the G20, the European Union, the North American free-trade agreement and others in order to facilitate the movement of goods and investment across borders. All of them, together with the underlying principles and values giving rise to them, have been in the crosshairs of populist politicians in recent years.
The utter delusion of the authors of this missive is quite lucid, as well, they open themselves up to very appropriate criticism. Recall that it was a liberal progressive organization that awarded Barack liar-nObama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, but rather for what they thought he would do. In essence, liar-nObama was awarded a great big participation trophy as an emotional feel-good moment for the global progressive socialist left. Yet, in the eight years of liar-nObama, and his feckless abject weakness centered on the foreign policy principle of “leading from behind” and “strategic patience” we witnessed more turmoil in the international order. If the authors of this piece believe that the ignorant decision to abandon Iraq and enable the rise of the Islamic State is a better pursuit that the defeat of islamic jihadism, then they are displaying the highest form of stupid.
I would like to see these authors name one foreign policy or national security success of the king of wishful thinking who led the decline of our Constitutional Republic. As well, liar-nObama and the global progressive socialist elites prefer a weak America, however, that state of existence is what entices the despots, dictators, theocrats, and autocrats of the world to act upon their Machiavellian intentions.
The economic policies of liar-nObama were rooted in the Marxist principle of wealth redistribution and transfer, domestically and internationally. Now, I am not a fan of the recent Omnibus spending bill crafted by House and Senate GOP majorities and signed into law by President Trump. My concern is that we are going right back down the same path liar-nObama took this Nation down. Hence why I assert that progressivism has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but rather how does one see the relationship between the individual and their liberty and the institution of government.
The article seems to denigrate the new populism as being led by grand charismatic personalities, well, what was Barack liar-nObama? Doggone, we had posters everywhere, little children singing weird songs, and a fawning media that did nothing but prostrate themselves before him. And yes, when the media puts forth lies, distortions, and deceitful reports, the people have a right to deem it as “fake news”. No one residing in America wants to restrict the free press, however, we do want a responsible press and not a self-licking ice cream cone that is truly the fourth estate, a propaganda arm for liberal progressivism.
The article expresses its true fear quite explicitly, “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the global liberal read progressive socialist order hangs precariously in the balance. If the Democrats can regain their majority in the House in 2018 and go on to win the presidency, then Mr. Trump is likely to go down in history as an unpleasant aberration. But if the Democrats lose in 2018 and Mr. Trump wins the presidency in 2020, the polarization in the U.S. will deepen and the savaging of liberal institutions will likely increase. Even beyond Mr. Trump, there are other reasons why populists post a very real threat to the global liberal order.”
We must come to realize that the Resistance movement is not just centered here in America. This is truly a global movement expressing the concerns of the left. They were so close to fundamentally transforming America, and now their master plan has been turned on its head. The appointment of Ambassador John Bolton as the national security adviser, and nope, he does not have to undergo any Senate confirmation hearing, has the left, namely the United Nations in complete freak out mode.
How odd that Russian aggression, Chinese belligerence and expansionism, North Korean nuclear threats, and Iranian hegemonic dominance and support to islamic terrorism is not what concerns the global progressive socialist left. They are more than willing to accept all of this, just as long as they get to be in power. What an insidious trade-off that the global left seeks. One would think that the World Economic Forum would be more upset that Angela Merkel allowed millions of islamic migrants to overrun Europe, much to their demise with horrific consequences.
Nope...”There are also worrying signs that populists are banding together, as in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Serbia, with worrying implications for the integrity of institutions ranging from the UN to the EU and NATO. One thing is for certain: The road ahead is radically uncertain.”
The global progressive socialist left is more afraid of strong Nation-States who believe in their own sovereignty. The polarization the authors of this article warn of is nothing more than their anger of not being in power. Always remember, the left can only advance their ideological agenda by way of intimidation, coercion, lies, deceit, threats, and last resort, violence.
No wonder why they want law abiding legal gun owning Americans disarmed…no better way to impose your will.
London Murder Rate Surpasses New York City's
Meanwhile, in recent years London has seen a significant rise in murders. Since 2014, the number of homicides in the British capital has risen by 38%, and throughout the countries of Wales and England the number of violent crimes has increased by 12% from 2011 through 2017. What makes this notable is that the weapon most often employed in these British murders is a knife. While the UK has essentially banned private ownership of firearms, and NYC does have strict gun-control laws, the total number of law-abiding American citizens who own firearms has steadily increased across the U.S. since the 1990s. In other words, the correlation of number of guns to increases in murders hasn’t happened in the U.S., if anything the argument can be made that an overall increase in gun ownership has led to a drop in violent crime.
However, the bigger point to be made here is the fact that individuals regardless of laws, will still seek to harm others. Though the methods employed for committing murder may change, like using a knife rather than a gun, the obvious point is that it is people who kill people. The larger question should be focused on motive rather than method for these homicides. Why is London seeing such an increase while New York has seen a significant decrease? One factor maybe the increase of refugees within the UK, who may have either radical Islamic motivations or are easy prey to be exploited by organized crime in these often poor foreign communities. In any case, its worth pondering as American malcontents try to strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
That’s because Democrats don’t care about violence unless they can make political hey with people’s deaths. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55093-london-murder-rate-surpasses-new-york-citys
DACA, NAFTA and a Caravan ... Oh My
When Trump ended Barack liar-nObama’s unconstitutional order to create the DACA program, he gave Congress six months to come up with a permanent legislative fix. During that time, Trump signaled a willingness to end deportations, extend citizenship to the so-called “Dreamers,” and offer amnesty to close to two million illegal immigrants. In return, he wanted an end to the visa lottery and chain migration, which the Left now claims is a racist term, and money set aside to start building the wall. And even that was up for negotiation, as the president appeared willing to break out the $25 billion tab for the wall over three years.
Democrats refused everything put in front of them. They sought neither compromise nor any alternatives. The reason for this is simple: Democrats don’t want a solution to DACA. They want to keep the issue alive for the midterms because they believe it will drive support among Latino voters and they can use it as a cudgel against the Republicans by claiming the GOP doesn’t care about immigrants. Democrats will claim Republicans are using immigration as a political wedge issue, even though that is precisely what Democrats are doing.
Where to from here now that DACA is dead? (Well, maybe not technically dead. A federal judge recently ruled that Trump doesn’t have the authority to end the program by executive order, even though the program was created by executive order by his predecessor. Stay tuned on that one.)
Trump suggested that Senate Republicans go nuclear — end the filibuster even on legislation — and pass tough immigration legislation on their own. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will not end the filibuster. Such a move would surely come back to haunt the Republicans later since they won’t be in the majority forever.
Now, to Trump’s threats to dump NAFTA if Mexico doesn’t help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into the U.S. He referred specifically to a caravan of anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 people currently making their way through Mexico from Honduras headed for the U.S. border. Mexican authorities had been turning a blind eye to this group, allowing them free passage through their country. The caravan reportedly plans to cross the U.S. border this weekend by any means necessary, then demand asylum or just blend into the masses once they arrive. However, Trump’s threat might have worked — the Mexican government appears poised to break up the group.
Of course, Trump has threatened to dump NAFTA before, but, as negotiations to revamp the deal continue, he can still pull the plug. Mexico stands to lose big if that happens; it sends close to three quarters of all its exports to the U.S. And whether Trump will make good on his most recent call to end NAFTA is uncertain. He’s very likely posturing for a better deal by going for the extreme position, forcing Mexico to come further his way than it otherwise would. Again, that might already be working.
Either way, if there is going to be any true immigration reform, then Republicans are going to have to do it themselves just like with the tax cuts. Democrats can’t be counted on to do the right thing here. In fact, they can’t be counted on to do anything. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55102-daca-nafta-and-a-caravan-dot-dot-dot-oh-my
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” *
What Rep. Waters is talking about is Google turning over ALL of its user databases to the DNC. Once the DNC uses this database to put them back in power, it will be the closet time this Republic will ever come to a fascist state.
by Ben Shapiro
{ townhall.com } ~ On April 6, a bombshell will hit America's theaters.
That bombshell comes in the form of an understated, well-made, well-acted film called "Chappaquiddick." Full disclosure: They advertise with my podcast. The film tells the story of Ted Kennedy's 1969 killing of political aide Mary Jo Kopechne; the Massachusetts Democratic senator drove his car off a bridge and into the Poucha Pond, somehow escaped the overturned vehicle and left Kopechne to drown. She didn't drown, though. Instead, she reportedly suffocated while waiting for help inside an air bubble while Kennedy waited 10 hours to call for help. The Kennedy family and its associated political allies then worked to cover up the incident. In the end, Teddy was sentenced to a two-month suspended jail sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. The incident prevented Kennedy from running for president in 1972 and 1976, though he attempted a run in 1980 against then-President Jimmy Carter, failing.
So, why is the film important?
It's important because it doesn't traffic in rumors and innuendo -- there is no attempt to claim that Kopechne was having an affair with Kennedy, or that she was pregnant with his child. It's important because it doesn't paint Kennedy as a monster but as a deeply flawed and somewhat pathetic scion of a dark and manipulative family. But most of all, it's important for two reasons: It's the first movie to actually tackle a serious Democratic scandal in the history of modern film, and it reminds us that Americans have long been willing to overlook scandal for the sake of political convenience.
First, there's the historic nature of the film. Here is an incomplete list of the films made about George W. Bush's administration since his election in 2000, nearly all of them accusatory in tone: "W," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Recount," "Fair Game" and "Truth." There has still not been a movie made about former President liar-Bill Clinton's impeachment though one is apparently in the works. There's been no movie about former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, former President Lyndon Johnson's dramatic mishandling of the Vietnam War though we have had two hagiographies of LBJ, one directed by Rob Reiner, the other starring Bryan Cranston or former President Woodrow Wilson's racism and near fascism.
And it only took nearly 50 years to make a film about a Democratic icon leaving a woman to die in a river. It's amazing it was made in the first place.
Most importantly, though, "Chappaquiddick" reminds us that confirmation bias and wishful thinking aren't unique to one side of the aisle. In the era of President Trump, media members have had fun telling Republicans that they have abandoned all of their moral principles in order to back a man whose agenda they support. But Democrats beat Republicans there by decades: They not only overlooked a man who likely committed manslaughter but also made him into a hero, the "Lion of the Senate." We can't understand how morals and politics have been split in two without reckoning with this history.
"Chappaquiddick" is a must-see. It's just a shame it took half a century for it to see the light.
Pruitt Rolls Back liar-nObama-Era EPA Emissions Rules
Pruitt’s announcement was widely applauded by those in the automobile manufacturing business and by many conservative and libertarian groups. Predictably, however, Democrats and ecofascist groups decried the change. Sen. Dianne Fein-stein tweeted, “The EPA is willfully ignoring the fact that these emission standards are working. Cars are becoming more fuel efficient and consumers are saving money at the pump.” And it appears likely that California will seek to challenge Pruitt’s decision to lower the emissions standards.
Yet it is leftists who are out of touch with reality on this issue. Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) noted, “CAFE’s lethal effects on vehicle crash worthiness were documented by analysts and a federal appeals court years ago. We hope that the Trump Administration will finally take account of those effects and start to liberalize this program.” Myron Eball, director of the CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, also praised the decision, stating, “EPA’s announcement is good news for consumers who care about safety, performance, and size, as well as fuel economy in the vehicles they drive. This is the first step in many years toward reducing government control over what kinds of cars people can choose to buy.”
This is indeed good news for American consumers, the economy and, yes, the environment. While it remains to be seen what the new emissions rules will be (the current standard is 38.3 miles per gallon), it will certainly be less dramatic and a more affordable and realistic standard. liar-nObama’s climate change rationale was simple: He embraced the unproven theory of mankind’s activity being the primary cause of global temperature increases, which he then used as an excuse to enact greater government control over Americans’ lives. The fact is the free market has always been better than government fiat as a means for making products that are innovative, affordable and efficient.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55104-pruitt-rolls-back-obama-era-epa-emissions-rules