- Advocating reparations for slavery with no criteria as to whom would benefit: would recipients include privileged blacks who have no family history of American slavery such as 2020 candidate Senator Kamala Harris, D-CA?
- Failing to condemn infanticide.
- Packing and reorganizing the Supreme Court.
- Eliminating the Electoral College (so only the large liberal urban states will select presidents).
- Lowering the federal voting age to 16 to “capture” young voters who would most likely be sympathetic to the socialistic free medical care and education policies advocated by many of the 2020 wannabees.
- Expressing neither sympathy nor empathy for families of those killed by illegal immigrants and illegal drugs which are pouring across the southwestern border.
- Condemning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for enforcing immigration laws while taking sides with illegal immigrants and defending sanctuary cities.
- Failing to acknowledge and condemn sex trafficking and abuse of children, especially young girls by drug cartels.
- Allowing illegal immigrants to participate in the social security system.
Friday, March 22, 2019
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) speaks during a town hall meeting at Canyon Springs High School on March 1, 2019, in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Harris is campaigning for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
The disgusting, pathetic pandering of many of the Democrat 2020 presidential hopefuls to the far-left progressive movement is embarrassing and beneath the dignity of the Office they seek.
It is pitiful!
In a blatant appeal to the radical wing of the Democratic Party and those new left-wing extremists who are dominating the Democratic debate, they are ignoring the vast majority of hardworking Americans.
If the past month has shown us anything, it has made clear that the Democratic Party, through a few of its newly elected radical Members of Congress and many of its 2020 presidential contenders, is redefining itself to appeal to the radical progressive left — not mainstream America.
They have taken pandering to new low trying to see who can become more outlandish:
If these examples of pandering were not enough, the height of pandering would be for a male candidate to announce — before the primaries — that he is selecting a black or white female as his running mate!
Pandering isn’t limited to the candidates.
It also extends to the Democratic leaders and establishment.
In the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, rather than risk offending Muslims and blacks by specifically criticizing black Somali-American Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, D-Minn, for her anti-Semitic comments, Democrats chose to slap Jews and Israel in the face and opted for a watered-down resolution shielding her and condemning virtually all forms of bigotry — not really a hard sell.
In the Senate, rather than stand up for the rights of children to live after a botched abortion, Democrats pandered to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby and refused to support a bill that would have penalized doctors who failed to exercise care in saving the lives of children who survive an abortion or attempted abortion.
While candidates play the “reparations” game to pander to blacks, they do not let such pandering get in the way of maintaining power.
It seems like only yesterday that Democrats, including some of the candidates, were clamoring for the resignations of the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia for appearing in black face — until it was learned that the successor to the Governor could be a Republican since the black Lt. Governor was facing allegations from two different women.
Democratic indignation over black face suddenly evaporated.
The real shame is the silence of what used to be mainstream Democrats who appear to be afraid of, or are intimidated by, these new left-wing radicals who are steam-rolling their party.
By their silence, they are allowing the new extremists, and their media allies, to dominate the Democratic Party debate and frame the issues. In doing so, they are ignoring — and alienating — the vast majority of hardworking Americans who occupy most of the country between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
If Democrats and their eventual nominee continue down this road, they might find themselves in the position of Walter Mondale in 1984 — Reagan defeated him not only in a 525-13 electoral college landslide but also gave him the second largest popular vote defeat in history — nearly 17 million!
Clarence V. McKee is president of McKee Communications, Inc., a government, political, and media relations consulting firm in Florida. He held several positions in the Reagan administration as well as in the Reagan presidential campaigns. He is a former co-owner of WTVT-TV in Tampa and former president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters. Read more of his reports — Go Here Now.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to promote free speech on college campuses by threatening colleges with the loss of federal research funding if they do not protect those rights.
"We’re here to take historic action to defend American students and American values," Trump said, surrounded by conservative student activists at the signing ceremony. "They’ve been under siege."
"Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today," he said.
A senior administration official said the order directs 12 grant-making agencies to use their authority in coordination with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure institutions that receive federal research or education grants promote free speech and free inquiry. White House officials have said it will apply to more than $35 billion in grants.
Public universities seeking funding would have to certify they comply with the First Amendment, which already applies to them. Private universities, which have more flexibility in limiting speech, would need to commit to their own institutional rules.
"Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and the First Amendment," Trump said.
Trump had announced that such an order was forthcoming at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, where he said the directive would require colleges and universities to support free speech in exchange for federal research dollars.
He brought on stage Hayden Williams, a conservative activist who was attacked while working a recruitment table on campus at the University of California-Berkeley. The video quickly went viral, with conservatives citing it as further evidence of the stifling and sometimes-violent atmosphere that conservatives face on campus.
“He took a punch for all of us,” Trump said of Williams. “And we could never allow that to happen. And here is, in closing with Hayden, here’s the good news. He’s going to be a wealthy young man.”
“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak,” Trump said. “Free speech. If they don’t, it will be costly. That will be signed soon.”
Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro have faced hostile atmospheres when trying to speak at universities -- particularly Berkeley, where Coulter was forced to pull out of speaking and Shapiro faced protests that required police in full riot gear and intense security measures.
White House officials declined to provide specific examples about how universities could lose funding said implementation details will be finalized in coming months.
Fox News’ Kellianne Jones, Robert Gearty and The Associated Press contributed to this report. Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached here.
By Frances Rice
Those who express outrage over President Donald Trump’s statements about deceased Senator John McCain are silent about how liberals routinely trash dead Republicans, particularly deceased President Richard Nixon, as a way to demonize current Republicans, including President Trump.
A prime example is the CNN documentary now airing that has the title: “CNN Original Series: 'Tricky Dick'.”
Below are the CNN subtitles for the Nixon documentary:
Featuring never-before-seen footage, 'Tricky Dick' explores Richard Nixon's life and times -- tracking his rise, fall, incredible comeback and political destruction.
Trump is sounding a lot like Nixon during Watergate
By Jason L. Riley | Wall Street Journal
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren. PHOTO: KAREN PULFER FOCHT/REUTERS
How can centuries-old oppression be to blame for problems that became severe only recently?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a town-hall audience in Jackson, Miss., Monday that “it’s time to start the national, full-blown conversation” about slavery reparations for blacks. Come again?
Compensating black Americans for past oppression has been a subject of discussion for decades. The senator’s problem is that large majorities of the public have consistently opposed reparations, not that we don’t talk about it.
James Forman, a black activist, called for $500 million in reparations in 1969 and inspired a 1973 book, “The Case for Black Reparations,” by Yale law professor Boris Bittker. Civil-rights organizations rejected the idea, which the NAACP’s assistant director called “an illogical, diversionary and paltry way out for guilt-ridden whites.”
Bayard Rustin, who organized the 1963 March on Washington and was one of Martin Luther King’s closest advisers, was another vocal skeptic of blacks cashing in on the tribulations of long-gone forebears. “The idea of reparations is a ridiculous idea,” Rustin said. “If my great-grandfather picked cotton for 50 years, then he may deserve some money, but he’s dead and gone and nobody owes me anything.”
Each year for more than a quarter-century, Rep. John Conyers introduced a reparations bill in Congress.
Other books, like Randall Robinson’s “The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks,” have become best sellers.
And prominent legal scholars, such as Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, have filed class-action lawsuits seeking compensation for the descendants of slaves.
The civil-rights leadership and black elites today generally support reparations.
But public opinion hasn’t moved much.
In a 1997 ABC poll, 77% of respondents said the government should not pay black descendants of slaves.
In a 2002 Gallup survey, it was 81%. A 2016 Marist poll put opposition to reparations at 72%.
Even black support for reparations isn’t as high as you might imagine.
The Gallup poll from 2002 found that half of blacks opposed reparations, along with 90% of whites.
In 2015, a Kaiser Family Foundation/CNN survey found that 52% of blacks, and only 8% of whites, agreed that the government should “make cash payments to black Americans who are descendants of slaves.”
Put another way, opposition to slavery reparations among whites has been far higher than support for them among blacks.
Which might explain why even prominent Democrats have frowned on the idea.
Barack Obama opposed reparations when he ran for president in 2008, as did Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders eight years later.
By contrast, reparations supporters in the 2020 field include not only Ms. Warren but also Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker and former Housing Secretary Julián Castro. Mr. Sanders has been more circumspect when pressed, but it’s clear that he’s less dismissive of the idea than he was three years ago.
It’s too early to tell whether this recent Democratic enthusiasm for reparations represents confidence, recklessness, an exceptionally crude strategy for appealing to black voters, or some combination of all three.
But it’s clear that supporters have convinced themselves that racial disparities today persist due to racial discrimination in the past.
In an interview with National Public Radio last week, Ms. Harris said that the “trauma” experienced among blacks today stems from their slave past. “It is environmental. It is centuries of slavery, which was a form of violence where women were raped, where children were taken from their parents—violence associated with slavery,” said the senator. “There was never any real intervention to break up what had been generations of people experiencing the highest forms of trauma.”
Ms. Harris wants to hold slavery responsible for black America’s contemporary problems.
But that requires ignoring the progress made by blacks—both in absolute terms and relative to whites—who lived much closer to the era of slavery.
For example, the soaring violent-crime rates that produce so much “trauma” in poor black communities today did not exist in those communities in the first 100 years after emancipation, even though poverty rates at the time were much higher and racism was still legal and widespread.
Barry Latzer, a criminologist at John Jay College, reports that black male homicides fell by nearly 18% in the 1940s and by another 21% in the 1950s, while rates remained relatively flat among their white counterparts over the same period.
Similarly, Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson has written that “in ghetto neighborhoods throughout the first half of the twentieth century, rates of inner-city joblessness, teenage pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births, female-headed families, welfare dependency and serious crime were significantly lower than in later years and did not reach catastrophic proportions until the mid-1970s.”
Did the “legacy of slavery” and Jim Crow skip over a couple of generations and then reassert itself in the mid-1970s?
Or is it possible that something else is primarily responsible for the outcomes we see today?
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Oh, So This Is Why The FBI Couldn't View The Clinton Foundation Emails On Hillary's Unauthorized Server
By Matt Vespa |FOX News
Source: Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
I know it’s a story that isn’t as dominating as the 2020 contenders, the college admission scandal, or the horrific shooting in New Zealand, but the Department of Justice/FBI meddling in the 2016 election is still news.
We all had suspicions that there were top-level folks screwing around. I mean, we just had revelations that top officials at the DOJ were discussing ways to remove Donald Trump through the 25th Amendment.
These people weren’t elected. This was coup talk. Period.
Now, we have ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page saying that there was an order handed down from the DOJ to the FBI, telling them not to charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured server from which she did all of her officials business when she served the Obama administration as secretary of state.
And now, there was supposedly a deal between the DOJ and the Clinton camp that prevented the FBI from viewing Clinton Foundation emails (via Washington Examiner).
Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congress last year that the agency "did not have access" to Clinton Foundation emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server because of a consent agreement "negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton."
That agreement was revealed in newly released congressional transcripts from Strzok's closed-door testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2018.
When asked by then-majority general counsel Zachary Somers if “the Clinton Foundation was on the server”, Strzok testified that he believed it was “on one of the servers, if not the others.” But Strzok stressed that due to an agreement between the DOJ and Clinton, they were not allowed to search Clinton Foundation emails for information that could help in their investigation.
The FBI would have been investigating Clinton's emails in 2016, when former President Barack Obama was still in office and when Clinton was running for president against then-candidate Donald Trump.
Somers asked in the 2018 hearing: “Were you given access to those emails as part of the investigation?”
Strzok replied: “We were not. We did not have access," according to the transcript.
The allegations lobbed at the Clinton Foundation have been pervasive as well, with many noting that it was a virtual slush fund for the power couple. A political favor bank where the wealthy and well connected to drop a donation and could expect very good things to benefit them in their economic lives at some point down the road.
And it wasn’t just liberals who were writing about how this little system was rather slimy.
In August of 2016, Guy noted that the DOJ rejected an FBI request to look into the Clinton Foundation. At the time, who cares, right? Clinton was going to win anyway.
For years, the liberal media and the Democrats have alleged that there was Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to tilt the 2016 election.
So far, there’s been zero evidence to substantiate that allegation that’s rapidly becoming a clown show. It’s embarrassed the media for peddling stories on this beat that was not just straight trash, but totally wrong.
Now, with more light on the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign’s antics, the collusion call is coming from inside the house. Remember the Steele Dossier on Trump that was compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele was a Democrat/DNC/Clinton funded the venture.
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had a months-long extramarital affair in which they shared tens of thousands of anti-Trump texts, alluding to an insurance policy against the then-candidate, worried that the bureau might be going too hard on Hillary during the email probe, with Strzok explicitly saying that they would find ways to stop a Trump presidency. He reportedly was told that the Clinton server may have been breached and did nothing about it.
Strzok was a top counterintelligence agent at the bureau prior to the revelation of these texts. He was transferred to human resources before being fired, but not after he was involved in the Clinton email probe and signed off on the counterintelligence investigation into Russian collusion in July of 2016; an investigation now being helmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Page resigned, but in a closed-door session with Congress said the anti-Trump texts meant what they said.
This story about the Clinton Foundation emails having a shield thanks to the Obama DOJ shouldn't shock us, but it's part of a pattern.
So, when it comes to collusion, the Robert F. Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover buildings seem to be a point sources.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of the Trump administration by deciding federal officials can detain immigrants at any time for possible deportation after they have served their time in the U.S. for other crimes.
The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said officials have to detain these immigrants immediately or they are exempt from ever being detained.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion for the court, and he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Justices Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.
At the center of the case are immigrants Mony Preap and Bassam Yusuf Khoury, who are in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents. Both were convicted of crimes and served their sentences but were not detained by immigration authorities for removal proceedings until years after they were released from criminal custody.
The dispute focused on a federal law that says the Department of Homeland Security can detain immigrants convicted of certain crimes “when the alien is released” from criminal custody.
Lawyers for Preap and Khoury, as well as other immigrants in similar circumstances, argued they are exempt from mandatory detention because of the gap in their custody, as the statute applies only if the immigrant is taken into custody immediately upon release.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and in a 2016 ruling, the appeals court said the word “when” in the statute “conveys immediacy,” and immigration detention has to occur promptly after the immigrant is released from criminal custody.
The Trump administration argued that the government has the authority to detain immigrants as they await deportation, even if they are arrested by immigration authorities years after serving their sentences. The Supreme Court agreed.
Reading his dissent from the bench, Breyer warned the "greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority's interpretation grants to the government."
"It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail," he wrote.
IN OTHER NEWS
CNN Poll: Trump Approval Climbs to 42 Percent
By Jason Devaney | Newsmax
President Donald Trump's approval rating climbed to its highest since last August in a new CNN survey.
Trump has garnered rising approval ratings in other recent polls as well, with an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey giving him a 46 percent approval rating earlier this month.
Key numbers in the results of the latest CNN Poll conducted by SSRS:
- 42 percent of U.S. adults approve of the job Trump is doing, up from 40 percent a month-and-a-half ago. It was as high as 42 percent in the CNN Poll in August 2018.
- 51 percent approve of Trump's handling of the economy, a 3-point jump from the beginning of February.
- Trump's approval rating on immigration fell two points and now stands at 39 percent.
- Trump's approval rating on foreign affairs remains at 40 percent.
- Regarding Trump's veto last week of a Congressional resolution to overturn his national declaration to secure money to build additional border wall, 55 percent said he should not have issued the veto and 35 percent said he was right to use his veto powers.
According to CNN, Trump's approval number of 42 percent puts him between former Presidents Bill Clinton (44 percent) in 1995 and Ronald Reagan (41 percent) in 1983 at this point in their presidencies.
US Consumer Sentiment Beats Forecasts
By Trading Economics
The University of Michigan's consumer sentiment for the US increased to 97.8 in March of 2019 from 93.8 in February, beating market expectations of 95.3, preliminary estimates showed. It is the highest reading in three months, amid rising income and lower inflation expectations and more positive growth prospects.
Consumer Confidence in the United States averaged 86.49 Index Points from 1952 until 2019, reaching an all-time high of 111.40 Index Points in January of 2000 and a record low of 51.70 Index Points in May of 1980.
Consumer expectations rose to 89.2 from 84.4 and the gauge for current economic conditions increased to 111.2 from 108.5. Inflation expectations for the year ahead edged down to 2.4 percent from 2.6 percent in February while the 5-year outlook increased to 2.5 percent from 2.3 percent.
The early March gain in sentiment was entirely due to households with incomes in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution, whose sentiment rose to 97.4 from 90.0 in February.
Sentiment fell among households with incomes in the top third to 98.5 in early March from 101.7 in February.
The difference that accounted for the divergence was how households evaluated their personal finances, as lower income households expressed much more positive assessments.
The divergence was due to a monthly jump of one-percentage point in income expectations among middle and lower incomes compared to a change of just one-tenth of a percentage point among those with incomes in the top third.
Rising income expectations were accompanied by lower expected year-ahead inflation rates, resulting in more favorable real income expectations.
Moreover, all income groups voiced more positive prospects for growth in the overall economy during the year ahead. Since households with incomes in the top third account for more than half of all consumer expenditures, cautious observers will conclude that the latest data are another indication that the end of the expansion is on the distant horizon.
While that may well be true, the current level of consumer sentiment at 97.8 hardly indicates an emerging downturn; even among households with incomes in the top third, the Sentiment Index is 98.5, and 97.4 in the bottom two-thirds.
The data indicate that real consumption will grow by 2.6% in 2019 and that the expansion will set a new record length by mid-year.
In Sanders’ first month:
Also see the below related article.
· He sided with the brutal socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro and refused to call him a dictator.
· It was revealed that back in the 1970s, he called for government control of major industries.
· He confirmed his government run healthcare proposal would eliminate private insurance plans.
· His staff wants him to be less grumpy.
· Two of his top staffers have already left his campaign citing creative differences.
· Struggles still remain for him in South Carolina, with one Democrat saying Sanders is too extreme for South Carolina and doing “greater damage to the party overall.”
· Despite winning the state in 2016, New Hampshire voters and activists are hesitant to support him again.
· He was unable to point to specific legislation that he passed to help black people (His 2016 struggle with black voters still exists.)
· His press secretary pushed anti-Semitic tropes and it was revealed that two of his top advisers have deep ties to the anti-Israel community.
· He refused to guarantee that America would NOT become a socialist country if elected.
· He had to apologize for allegations of sexual harassment during his 2016 campaign.
· Old videos resurfaced where he praised Cuban Communist Dictator Fidel Castro and Nicaraguan Dictator Daniel Ortega.
· He lost his fundraising crown to a younger socialist.
· And he defended the $93 trillion “Green New Deal” saying “you cannot go too far on the issue.”
Bottom Line: Bernie’s rough first month has driven home that he is a crazy socialist who supports a radical policy agenda.
Complied by the RNC.
Bernie Sanders gets stitches after cutting head on shower door
By Jane C. Timm | NBC News
Bernie Sanders speaks at a health care roundtable in South Carolina on March 15, 2019.
2020 campaign is leaving its mark — on Bernie Sanders' head.
The Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont independent senator cut his head on the edge of a shower door, his campaign said on Friday, and visited a walk-in clinic as a "precaution."
"The senator has proceeded with all of his scheduled events," the campaign said in a statement.
Sanders, who was a Democratic contender in 2016 before running again for the 2020 nomination, is 77.