Ann Coulter: Happy Fourth of July, You Wonderful Country!

It has become fashionable to equate the French and American Revolutions, but they share absolutely nothing beyond the word "revolution."
The American Revolution was a movement based on ideas, painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. (Until Democrats decided to give it away to the Third World.)

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Polls: No, of course Americans don’t want to abolish ICE

“Abolish ICE” isn’t a solution, argues my colleague Ed Morrissey at the Daily Beast today, it’s a slogan. Indeed, and that’s being generous. It started as a Twitter hashtag, per HuffPost. As the phrase started showing up more online, desperate opportunists like Kirsten Gillibrand who are looking for an angle to shore up their left flank in the 2020 primaries glommed onto it. Just like that, the hashtag #AbolishICE had become the slogan “Abolish ICE,” which had in turn become a semi-serious policy proposed by a semi-serious U.S. senator. And once it did, other supposedly serious 2020 contenders had to keep pace with Gillibrand by proposing it too.

Suddenly Democrats have a problem. No one to the right of the DSA thinks “abolish ICE” will help claw back Rust Belt voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in the last election, but because it’s gone from zero to “litmus test” overnight with Gillibrand’s and Warren’s help, the party leadership can only run so far from the idea without getting into trouble. Progressive open-borders shills are excited at having made inroads into the U.S. Senate with their idea; at a minimum, lip service will need to be paid to it for the next two years. How many swing voters will that alienate? Dem leaders are thinking about it:

“I think the focus should be on President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, and not on ICE,” Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, a relatively moderate Democrat, told BuzzFeed News on Monday. He noted the agency is just in charge of enforcing the administration’s policies, and said the calls to abolish ICE are “dangerously misguided.”…

“We need border security, OK? I’ve heard there’s some people out there saying we should get rid of ICE. That’s kind of like Republicans saying we should get rid of the IRS,” Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters after last week’s elections. “We need immigration enforcement, though not like this. ICE does not have to do what President Trump is telling them to do.”

If there was any chance of putting the genie back in the bottle, it evaporated when Joe Crowley lost his primary to socialist wunderkind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who’s also called for abolishing ICE. Progressives have spent two years grumbling that “Bernie would have won,” their rebuke to the centrist Dems who warned them during the 2016 primaries that Sanders couldn’t get elected only to find that, ah, Hillary couldn’t get elected either. The left is done being told that their ideas can’t succeed electorally. Ocasio-Cortez’s win reinforces that belief. How can “abolish ICE” be an electoral loser when she just shocked the world?

Reality check: Outside deep-blue districts, it’s a loser. Via HuffPost and YouGov:

Overall, across the total population, “abolish ICE” sits at 21/44 — and that’s the more encouraging of the two recent polls for progressives. The other outfit to poll this question, Harvard-Harris, found trainwreck numbers for liberals when it asked if ICE should be disbanded:

Three-quarters of Republicans and a solid majority of Democrats oppose disbanding the agency. How we reconcile that with the far more tepid numbers in HuffPost’s poll, I don’t know. The questions asked by the two pollsters are similar enough that the wording shouldn’t affect the result dramatically. It’s tempting to wonder whether the recent push on the left to abolish ICE has begun to soften opposition among Democrats and that’s now showing up in the HuffPost data, but there’s a logical problem there — the Harvard-Harris poll was conducted a few days after HuffPost’s was. If anything, opposition to the idea is growing, even among Dems. Maybe the spotlight on “abolish ICE” has already begun to backfire.

Progressives won’t give up, though. There’s no reason to. Their best-case scenario is that “abolish ICE” continues to catch on among 2020 contenders, eventually becoming orthodoxy among prospective nominees, in which case slowly but surely it’ll become orthodoxy among Democratic voters too. If the HuffPost numbers above are accurate, there are already a plurality of Democrats in favor of the idea. The worst-case scenario is that Gillibrand, Warren, and the rest start to inch away from it when the polling doesn’t soften, although even then something useful will have come out of it for lefties. The “abolish ICE” fad will have reminded the party’s next leaders that they have no room to move right on immigration in the general election. With constant leftward pressure towards open borders, the eventual nominee will either have to move left as well or, at most, stand firm on the very amnesty-friendly ground that the party currently occupies. Republicans should be familiar with this dynamic: By demanding smaller government when you have no expectation of getting it, you at least make it more politically painful for congressional GOPers to *expand* government. In theory. Emphasis on “in theory.”

Here are Amy Klobuchar and Tammy Duckworth from this past weekend, each trying to tamp down the “abolish ICE” flames before the party’s 2018 and 2020 hopes start catching on fire. A question asked by Ed and many others this past week: Why not just overhaul ICE? If you don’t like the agency’s mandate or its tactics, write some new rules for how it should operate. The answer is that that wouldn’t adequately capture the left’s contempt for immigration enforcement and, really, wouldn’t achieve what it wants to achieve. It may be that there are moderate Dems who really do want immigration enforcement but nonetheless support abolishing ICE because they believe the agency’s culture will make it impossible for it to change how it operates. But most of the “abolish ICE” vanguard doesn’t want enforcement at all, I think, certainly not against illegals with no history of violent crime. (If that sounds radical to you, recall that it was essentially Hillary Clinton’s position.) “Abolish ICE” is a catchier version of “abolish enforcement” and most Americans seem to recognize it as such. That’s why the polling is what it is.

The post Polls: No, of course Americans don’t want to abolish ICE appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Trump administration set to eliminate Obama guidelines on using race in college admissions

The Trump administration plans to rescind some of the guidelines set by the Obama administration regarding the use of race in college admissions, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The change will focus on guidance documents published in 2011 and 2016 that drew from Supreme Court decisions that set precedent on the use of affirmative action, which the Trump administration will reportedly argue go beyond precedent and are misleading.

What will change?

The guidelines that will be eliminated called for colleges to seek ways to promote racial diversity without being discriminatory in their admissions. Here is an excerpt from the 2011 guidance on race in admissions:

When an institution is taking an individual student’s race into account in an admissions or selection process, it should conduct an individualized, holistic review of all applicants. That is, the institution should evaluate each applicant’s qualifications in a way that does not insulate any student, based on his or her race, from comparison to all other applicants. An institution may assign different weights to different diversity factors based on their importance to the program. … But race cannot be given so much weight that applicants are defined primarily by their race and are largely accepted or rejected on that basis.

In summary, the guidelines give institutions options on how to promote racial diversity without specifically targeting and isolating race as a primary factor in the admissions decision.

Examples of how to accomplish that goal include targeted recruiting or the use of socioeconomic or other demographic identifiers to draw students from different racial backgrounds.

Why are they doing this?

The Department of Justice is currently investigating Harvard’s use of race in admissions; specifically, whether the school is holding Asian-American students to a higher standard.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration believes the Obama-era guidelines “go beyond Supreme Court precedent on the issue and mislead schools to believe that legal forms of affirmative action are simpler to achieve than what the law allows.”

While the Supreme Court has affirmed the practice of affirmative action more than once, the issue could be revisited if Trump’s Supreme Court nominee views the practice differently than his predecessor, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A lawsuit against Harvard over the alleged discrimination against Asian-Americans is working its way through the courts now.

(H/T: The Hill)

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

CNN Meltdown Over Supreme Court Pick: ‘Trump the Destroyer’

On Tuesday’s edition of New Day, hosts John Berman and Alisyn Camerota conducted a panel on President Trump’s list of potential candidates for retiring Justice Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court. During the segment, CNN political analyst Brian Karem made his animosity towards President Trump and the conservative movement quite clear. Apparently, conservatives make Karem “nauseous.”

 

 

The panel began its discussion by examining Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his writings on executive privilege based off his work in Ken Starr’s investigation of the Clinton Administration. Karem responded saying that Trump’s consideration of Kavanaugh was “Trump the destroyer in action. I mean, this is the man who wants to tear down everything.”

After Karem made his views on the President perfectly clear Berman pointed out that this list of judges is relatively standard for a Republican president and is not “very different than [what] you would have seen under a President Rubio, a President Cruz or President Romney.”

If Karem hadn’t made his disdain for conservatism perfectly clear yet, he responded to the prospect of those once potential administrations “now you’re just trying to make me nauseous aren’t you.

Karem is well known for these silly political stunts. One incident on June 14th went particularly when Karem yelled at White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders over the illegal immigration crisis.

There is nothing wrong with Karem holding the opinions he wishes to hold. It does speak to the objectivity of “the most trusted name in news” when their political analysts (not their opinion hosts) act like far left pundits better suited for left wing publications than a self-professed objective news outlet.

A transcript of the relevant segment is below

New Day 

7/3/18

6:10:43 – 6:11:15

JOHN AVLON: In the case of Kavanaugh, what’s really interesting is this is a guy who served on Ken Starr’s committee that investigated Bill Clinton but seems to emerged from that with a very skeptical view about these attacks on the presidency and a very expansive view of presidential privilege. That could be very appealing to this president.

BRIAN KAREM: It is – it will be appealing to the president as he tries to deflect. Look, this is Trump the destroyer in action. I mean, this is the man who wants to tear down everything–

JOHN BERMAN: Let me just say. Let me just say — whatever you say about President Trump, I do not think this list is very different than you would have seen under a President Rubio, a President Cruz or President Romney.

KAREM: Now you’re just trying to make me nauseous aren’t you.

BERMAN: But Brian, in all seriousness here. President Trump is doing whatever he is doing, but this is a very traditional, predictable, conservative list of judges.

KAREM: It is. But what you have to look at is that one, as John was talking about, the things that will — that Trump will want to use to his benefit whereas Rubio or someone else would make a choice based on social issues. Trump is going to make the decision based on how it affects Trump.

 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Deep State Targets Conservative Favorite Jim Jordan With Vicious Smear Campaign After Announcing Speakership Plans

Deep State Targets Conservative Favorite Jim Jordan With Vicious Smear Campaign After Announcing Speakership Plans

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) was hit with a vicious smear campaign Tuesday by the swamp.

Rep. Jim Jordan has been hammering Rosenstein and the FBI over their corruption, Russia probe and Spygate.

The Ohio Congressman also just announced his House Speakership bid plans; he’s a Freedom Caucus founder and very popular with Trump supporters.

The swamp unleashed a smear campaign on Jordan Tuesday morning, accusing him of turning a blind eye to sexual abuse as Ohio State wrestling coach.

The law firm handling this case is none other than Perkins Coie; the same law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and paid for the fake Russia dossier.

NBC reported:

Rep. Jim Jordan, the powerful Republican congressman from Ohio, is being accused by former wrestlers he coached more than two decades ago at Ohio State University of failing to stop the team doctor from molesting them and other students.

The university announced in April that it was investigating accusations that Dr. Richard Strauss, who died in 2005, abused team members when he was the team doctor from the mid-1970s to late 1990s.

Jordan, who was assistant wrestling coach at the university from 1986 to 1994, has repeatedly said he knew nothing of the abuse until former students began speaking out this spring. His denials, however, have been met with skepticism and anger from some former members of the wrestling team.

Three former wrestlers told NBC News that it was common knowledge that Strauss showered regularly with the students and inappropriately touched them during appointments, and said it would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware; one wrestler said he told Jordan directly about the abuse.

Former head coach Russ Hellickson, Jordan’s mentor, said in a recent video — made by Mike DiSabato, a former wrestler — that Hellickson had told Strauss that he was being too “hands on” with students.

DiSabato, whose allegations against Strauss prompted Ohio State to open its investigation, called Jordan a “liar.”

“I considered Jim Jordan a friend,” DiSabato said. “But at the end of the day, he is absolutely lying if he says he doesn’t know what was going on.”

DiSabato said he reached out to Jordan this year, before going to the university, to tell Jordan that he planned to go public with his allegations. Jordan told him to “please leave me out of it,” DiSabato said. “He asked me not to get him involved.”

One of the accusers, Dunyasha Yetts, who wrestled at Ohio State in 1993 and 1994, served time for bilking investors out of $2 million and served 18 months in prison, said, “I am not a perfect person, but ask any of the wrestlers and they will tell you everybody knew about Doc,” reported NBC.

Another alleged victim of abuse admitted he never told Jim Jordan that Dr. Strauss abused him:

A former teammate of DiSabato’s who asked not to be identified said he never told Jordan directly that Strauss had abused him. But there is no way Jordan could have avoided the rumors “because it was all over the locker room.”

Jim Jordan’s spokesman responded:

After NBC News reached out to Jordan, the congressman’s spokesman repeated the denial.

“Congressman Jordan never saw any abuse, never heard about any abuse, and never had any abuse reported to him during his time as a coach at Ohio State,” his spokesman, Ian Fury, said in an email to NBC News.

Hillary’s favorite Deep State swamp law firm, Perkins Coie is handling this case.

In response to a series of questions from NBC, Ohio State emailed a statement saying that the law firm Perkins Coie was overseeing the probe into the Strauss allegations for the university. OSU said it has also reached out “to the Columbus Division of Police and the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for any potential criminal investigation.”

“To date, Perkins Coie has interviewed more than 150 former students and witnesses and is engaged in further investigative efforts,” the university said in the statement. “Ohio State has shared all additional information that has come to the attention of the university with the independent investigators whose work is ongoing.”

Trump supporters know better. We’ve seen this before.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

MSNBC Targets and Mocks Amy Coney Barrett’s Faith

On Tuesday, MSNBC hosts and correspondents displayed their religious intolerance by attacking the faith of potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. During one hour after another, Barrett’s membership in a faith group was ridiculed and listed as one of her “potential weaknesses” in a Senate confirmation fight.

“The private lobbying has ramped up in recent days, with some anti-abortion rights group favoring Amy Coney Barrett, from the 7th Circuit,” correspondent Peter Alexander noted on Morning Joe. He then warned: “A strong conservative, Barrett also has a pretty interesting bio. She’s Catholic, has seven children, and is a member of a small religious group called the People of Praise, where members swear a loyalty oath, what they call a covenant.”

 

 

The reporter cited a 2017 New York Times hit piece that highlighted how People of Praise members were “held accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women.” Co-host Mika Brzezinski could be heard gasping in the background.

Moments later, Washington Post Associate Editor Eugene Robinson chuckled as he joined the morning show to take another jab at Judge Barrett: “Susan Collins, you know, for example on Barrett, she might have some problem with the ‘handmaid’ thing, right? Which I think a lot of people would have problems with.”

Appearing in the 9:00 a.m. ET hour, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters informed fill-in host Chris Jansing of Barrett’s religious affiliation:

Amy Coney Barrett, you know, is somebody who is known to be deeply religious. She’s a Catholic. She belongs to a very small tight-knit group called People of Praise, that has received some scrutiny lately for some of its less orthodox beliefs.

Jansing eagerly asked: “Such as?” Peters replied: “Taking a lifetime loyalty oath to the organization and basically preaching an ideology that says the husband is the head of the wife in the family unit. You know, that’s all going to come out in way – ”

The anchor began laughing and interrupted: “Let’s see how that plays out when the wife is a Supreme Court justice.” Peters joined in the laughter and remarked: “Right, I know, exactly. It seems a little odd to me.”

Jansing then commented: “Ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s husband, yeah.” That would be difficult to do, since Justice Ginsburg’s husband, Martin Ginsburg, died in 2010.

Peters went on to explain the possible political strategy behind Republicans nominating Barrett:

Point being, that the Republicans are eager to make this a fight over a religious test. They want to make the Democrats look intolerant when it comes to people of faith and they would love nothing more than another moment like you saw in Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing for the appeals court position, when Dianne Feinstein seemed to belittle her faith, saying, “The dogma runs deep in you.”

MSNBC managed to already accomplish that task.

In the 10:00 a.m. ET hour, anchor Hallie Jackson listed Barrett’s faith as a “weakness” when it came to confirmation: “But, when you look at some of the potential weaknesses here. This People of Praise, reported ties that she has. An interesting religious group that, for example, labels heads of household, the men, the ‘heads,’ the women the ‘handmaidens,’ along those lines.”

Just prior to that, Politico Senior White House Reporter Josh Gerstein worried: “Amy Barrett would be among the more provocative possible nominees because of her skepticism about the Roe v. Wade decision is basically a matter of public record. So the White House would be making, I would say, a pretty edgy nomination if they go in that direction.”

Clearly MSNBC was making an effort to scare viewers by conjuring up an image of Barrett being a character in The Handmaid’s Tale, a fictional Hulu TV series in which America is taken over by an authoritarian theocratic regime.

On Monday, National Review’s David French took the left to task for its intolerance:

If you ever need much evidence that the growing “God gap” in American politics fosters an immense amount of ignorance and occasionally outright bigotry, look no farther than the concern — the alarm, even — that Amy Coney Barrett is on President Trump’s short list to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.

The alarm isn’t about her credentials. She’s checked every box of excellence — law review, appellate-court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship (with Justice Scalia), elite law-firm experience, law professor at an elite law school, and now experience as a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s a young, brilliant woman at the apex of her profession.

So, beyond her obvious originalist judicial philosophy (shared to varying degrees by every person on Trump’s list of potential nominees), what’s the problem with Judge Barrett. Why do some progressives single her out for particular scorn?

It turns out that she’s a faithful Christian who lives a Christian life very similar to the lives of millions upon millions of her fellow American believers.

French specifically ripped The New York Times for leading the attack, with its article that implied “there’s something not quite right with Barrett’s faith.” The Times published the item knowing full well that other media outlets like MSNBC would use those talking points to go after Barrett if she ever to found herself on the Supreme Court short list. It only took less than a year for that to happen. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Walmart causes outrage after selling ‘Impeach 45’ merchandise on its website; move sparks boycott

Walmart is under major fire after news went viral that the retailer sold anti-Trump merchandise on its online shopping website.

What are the details?

Ryan Fournier, chairman of the group Students for Trump, appeared to be one of the first social media users to notice that retail giant Walmart was selling “Impeach 45” merchandise on its website.

In a Monday tweet, Fournier wrote, “@Walmart why are you selling Impeach 45 baby clothes on your website????? … What kind of message are you trying to send?”

Fournier’s tweet has currently received more than 5,000 retweets and generated nearly 2,000 comments.

After Fournier’s tweet grabbed the attention of many, myriad social media users began calling for a boycott of the retailer.

Other Twitter users found similar merchandise for sale on the site — items not just for children.

One user wrote, “I [didn’t] want to believe it. So I searched for myself. This is despicable. All American Walmart? [I’m] out!!!”

Who’s selling the anti-Trump merchandise?

According to a Tuesday report by Fox News, the company selling the “Impeach 45” merchandise is called Old Glory, and Old Glory apparently isn’t the only manufacturer of Trump impeachment merchandise — Fox reported that three other companies were featured on Walmart’s online marketplace that also sold similar goods.

Fox News pointed out, however, that “Make America Great Again” merchandise was available on Walmart’s website as well.

Walmart has yet to publicly address the controversy or the burgeoning boycott on social media.

At the time of this writing, “Impeach 45” merchandise is still available and for sale on Walmart’s website — as is “Make America Great Again” gear.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com