bonginoreport--2020-08-13--U.S. Pushes New Resolution to Extend Arms Embargo on Iran

The United States on Tuesday introduced a new draft resolution to indefinitely extend a U.N. arms embargo on Iran that is tailored to entice European allies to back the effort , according to senior Trump administration officials .
The new resolution is aimed at streamlining the language of the embargo and removing additions that had drawn opposition from European nations , as well as Russia and China—which have the power to unilaterally veto the draft at the United Nations Security Council .
The new resolution is just four paragraphs long and no longer mandates spot inspections of Iranian imports or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trump administration has been working for months to ensure the arms embargo is extended beyond its mid-October expiration date .
If the United States fails to pass the extension language at the U.N. it could invoke what is known as snapback , or a full reimposition of all economic sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration .
The Trump administration maintains that if the embargo is permitted to expire , adversarial regimes such as Russia and China will be free to sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advanced military equipment .
`` The draft we have put forward today takes [ Security ] Council views into account and simply does what everyone knows should be done—extend the arms embargo to prevent Iran from freely buying and selling conventional weapons , '' U.N. ambassador Kelly Craft said in a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon .
`` It is only common sense that the world ’ s number one state sponsor of terror not be given the means of unleashing even greater harm on the world . ''
U.S. officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was shortened to get U.N. member nations to focus on extending the embargo .
The U.S. draft now includes language that is only meant to indefinitely extend the arms ban .
This approach will force European nations to make a clear choice about arming Iran , these officials said .
The language is similar to past U.N. versions of the embargo that easily won support from France , Germany , and the United Kingdom .
Still , many nations have fought against the extension due to lingering anger over President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear agreement .
There is not yet a date set for the Security Council to vote on the resolution .

The United States on Tuesday introduced a new draft resolution to indefinitely extend a U.N. arms embargo on Iran that is tailored to entice European allies to back the effort, according to senior Trump administration officials.
The new resolution is aimed at streamlining the language of the embargo and removing additions that had drawn opposition from European nations, as well as Russia and China—which have the power to unilaterally veto the draft at the United Nations Security Council. The new resolution is just four paragraphs long and no longer mandates spot inspections of Iranian imports or implements new sanctions on the country.
The Trump administration has been working for months to ensure the arms embargo is extended beyond its mid-October expiration date. If the United States fails to pass the extension language at the U.N. it could invoke what is known as snapback, or a full reimposition of all economic sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration.
The Trump administration maintains that if the embargo is permitted to expire, adversarial regimes such as Russia and China will be free to sell Iran arms, munitions, and other advanced military equipment.
"The draft we have put forward today takes [Security] Council views into account and simply does what everyone knows should be done—extend the arms embargo to prevent Iran from freely buying and selling conventional weapons," U.N. ambassador Kelly Craft said in a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon. "It is only common sense that the world’s number one state sponsor of terror not be given the means of unleashing even greater harm on the world."
U.S. officials familiar with the new draft language said it was shortened to get U.N. member nations to focus on extending the embargo. The U.S. draft now includes language that is only meant to indefinitely extend the arms ban. This approach will force European nations to make a clear choice about arming Iran, these officials said.
The language is similar to past U.N. versions of the embargo that easily won support from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Still, many nations have fought against the extension due to lingering anger over President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the landmark nuclear agreement.
There is not yet a date set for the Security Council to vote on the resolution.


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--IDF Strikes Terror Targets In Gaza After Hamas Sends Explosive Balloons

By subscribing I accept the terms of use

Israeli fighter jets, helicopters and tanks attacked Hamas terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip early Wednesday morning, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit said. The attacks targeted a military compound, underground infrastructure and observation posts.They were carried out in response to the launching of incendiary balloons into Israel from Gaza over the past several days.“The IDF considers all terrorist activity against Israeli territory to be very serious and will continue to act as necessary against attempts to harm Israeli citizens,” the IDF said. “The terrorist organization Hamas bears responsibility for what is happening in and out of the Gaza Strip and will bear the consequences of terrorist acts against Israeli citizens.”The terrorist balloon units on Wednesday warned they would continue to launch incendiary and explosive balloons in response to the IDF strikes.During the strikes, a missile that was fired from an IDF helicopter toward Gaza fell next to a cowshed in a town in the Eshkol Regional Council in the South. It did not explode, and sappers arrived at the scene to deal with it. The cowshed was slightly damaged. The IAF is investigating the incident.Earlier on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz both warned Hamas that Israel would respond if incendiary balloons were launched into Israel.“In the South, Hamas is continuing to enable explosive balloon attacks to be launched into the State of Israel,” Gantz said during a tour of Home Front Command. “We are not prepared to accept that and have closed the Kerem Shalom border crossing as a result.”“They would do well to stop violating Israel’s safety and security,” he said. “If that doesn’t happen, we will need to respond, and forcefully.”“There will be a heavy price to the balloon terrorism,” Netanyahu said. “We will act and exact a heavy price. We’ve done it in the past. Remember that, because we will do it again now. Hamas and Islamic Jihad will see the harsh results of these calamities.”Anna Ahronheim, Lahav Harkov and Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--New Conservative Caucus In British Parliament Looks to Get Tough on China

The U.K. Parliament 's China Research Group ( CRG ) —a caucus of Conservative Party China hawks—has increased both its membership and operations significantly since April , the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday .
Founded by MP and former British Army officer Tom Tugendhat , the group has clarified its message in recent months .
`` The point is pretty simple , '' said Tugendhat .
`` It is to make sure we have a better understanding of what China is doing globally . ''
Roughly 100 of the Parliament 's 364 Conservative members subscribe to CRG 's newsletter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look well beyond the immediate coronavirus crisis or issues relating to Huawei and will consider the longer term challenges associated with the rise of China and its industrial and diplomatic policies , '' according to the group 's official page .
Such policies include China 's economic policy , technological development , and foreign relations .
The group has already mobilized to alter strategic thinking in London .
British prime minister Boris Johnson previously described himself as `` very pro-China '' and largely maintained the status quo in Chinese-British relations before the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a paradigm change on the British right , however , culminating recently in new British sanctions against Chinese tech company Huawei .
The Conservatives ' new emphasis on brushing back China aligns with Washington 's efforts against the Chinese Communist Party in recent months .
Visiting London in July , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for a `` coalition '' to mitigate Chinese global influence .
`` We want to see every nation who understands freedom and democracy … to understand this threat that the Chinese Communist Party is posing to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echo Pompeo 's words .
`` We need an international coalition , '' said CRG member and Conservative lawmaker Damian Green .
`` Britain is in a good place to pull this together . ''

The U.K. Parliament's China Research Group (CRG)—a caucus of Conservative Party China hawks—has increased both its membership and operations significantly since April, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
Founded by MP and former British Army officer Tom Tugendhat, the group has clarified its message in recent months. "The point is pretty simple," said Tugendhat. "It is to make sure we have a better understanding of what China is doing globally." Roughly 100 of the Parliament's 364 Conservative members subscribe to CRG's newsletter.
"The group's work will look well beyond the immediate coronavirus crisis or issues relating to Huawei and will consider the longer term challenges associated with the rise of China and its industrial and diplomatic policies," according to the group's official page. Such policies include China's economic policy, technological development, and foreign relations.
The group has already mobilized to alter strategic thinking in London. British prime minister Boris Johnson previously described himself as "very pro-China" and largely maintained the status quo in Chinese-British relations before the coronavirus pandemic. The CRG has pushed for a paradigm change on the British right, however, culminating recently in new British sanctions against Chinese tech company Huawei.
The Conservatives' new emphasis on brushing back China aligns with Washington's efforts against the Chinese Communist Party in recent months. Visiting London in July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for a "coalition" to mitigate Chinese global influence.
"We want to see every nation who understands freedom and democracy … to understand this threat that the Chinese Communist Party is posing to them," Pompeo said.
British lawmakers echo Pompeo's words. "We need an international coalition," said CRG member and Conservative lawmaker Damian Green. "Britain is in a good place to pull this together."


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--Murder Charges Filed in Killing of 4-Year-Old Kansas Boy for Whom “Operation Legend” Was Named

A Kansas City prosecutor on Thursday charged a man with second-degree murder in the killing of 4-year-old LeGend Taliferro , whose fatal shooting in bed while he slept in June shocked a nation and spurred a crackdown on violent crime by the Trump administration .
The Jackson County ( Mo . )
prosecutor announced that Ryson B. Ellis , 22 , has been charged with second-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon and two counts of armed criminal action .
Ellis was arrested in Tulsa , Okla. , shortly before the charges were announced , officials said .
Charron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arrest , but said she mourned not only for her son but also his murderer and her home city of Kansas City for the relentlessly violent summer it has endured .
`` This is a lose situation , for my family , and including his , '' Powell said , referring to Ellis .
`` We have to take it a step farther and calm the violence down . ''
Attorney General William Barr launched Operation Legend , a federal task force crackdown on surging city violence , in honor of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with Powell earlier this summer .
He applauded Thursday 's arrest , saying federal agents on the task force assisted the investigation that led to the arrest .
`` Today 's arrest of LeGend Taliferro 's suspected murderer marks a significant step forward in his case and illustrates the potential of Operation Legend more broadly , '' Barr said .
`` The arrest and state charges resulted from cooperation among Kansas City police officers , the FBI , and U.S .
Marshals .
This development is a model for joint efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities .
...
Inspired by this success , federal law enforcement will continue working tirelessly to support state and local partners in our shared mission to keep the American people safe and enforce the rule of law . ''

A Kansas City prosecutor on Thursday charged a man with second-degree murder in the killing of 4-year-old LeGend Taliferro, whose fatal shooting in bed while he slept in June shocked a nation and spurred a crackdown on violent crime by the Trump administration.
The Jackson County (Mo.) prosecutor announced that Ryson B. Ellis, 22, has been charged with second-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon and two counts of armed criminal action. Ellis was arrested in Tulsa, Okla., shortly before the charges were announced, officials said.
Charron Powell, LeGend's mother, hailed the arrest, but said she mourned not only for her son but also his murderer and her home city of Kansas City for the relentlessly violent summer it has endured.
"This is a lose situation, for my family, and including his," Powell said, referring to Ellis. "We have to take it a step farther and calm the violence down."
Attorney General William Barr launched Operation Legend, a federal task force crackdown on surging city violence, in honor of the young boy killed in his sleep and met with Powell earlier this summer. He applauded Thursday's arrest, saying federal agents on the task force assisted the investigation that led to the arrest.
"Today's arrest of LeGend Taliferro's suspected murderer marks a significant step forward in his case and illustrates the potential of Operation Legend more broadly," Barr said. "The arrest and state charges resulted from cooperation among Kansas City police officers, the FBI, and U.S. Marshals. This development is a model for joint efforts to solve crimes and reduce violence in other cities. ... Inspired by this success, federal law enforcement will continue working tirelessly to support state and local partners in our shared mission to keep the American people safe and enforce the rule of law."


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--State Department Designates  Confucius Institute U.S. Center as Foreign Mission of the PRC

The Trump Administration has made it a priority to seek fair and reciprocal treatment from the People ’ s Republic of China .
For more than four decades , Beijing has enjoyed free and open access to U.S. society , while denying that same access to Americans and other foreigners in China .
Furthermore , the PRC has taken advantage of America ’ s openness to undertake large scale and well-funded propaganda efforts and influence operations in this country .
Today , the Department of State designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of the PRC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an entity advancing Beijing ’ s global propaganda and malign influence campaign on U.S. campuses and K-12 classrooms .
Confucius Institutes are funded by the PRC and part of the Chinese Communist Party ’ s global influence and propaganda apparatus .
The goal of these actions is simple : to ensure that American educators and school administrators can make informed choices about whether these CCP-backed programs should be allowed to continue , and if so , in what fashion .
Universities around the country and around the world are examining the Confucius Institutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s influence in their education systems .
The United States wants to ensure that students on U.S. campuses have access to Chinese language and cultural offerings free from the manipulation of the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies .

The page you’re looking for may have gone offline or does not exist.
Please use our search, browse further via our navigation, or return to the home page. You may also visit our Archive page for more information.
Still can’t find it? Send us a message using our Contact Us form. A URL is helpful when reporting site problems.
Thank you for visiting State.gov.


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--Justice Department Accuses Yale of Illegally Discriminating Against White and Asian Students

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against white and Asian-American students in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
The federal agency found that most white and Asian Americans hoping to gain admission to the prestigious institution had a significantly smaller chance of getting in compared to African Americans .
`` For the great majority of applicants , Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials .
Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would admit , '' the DOJ declared in a press release .
The DOJ determined that race plays a pivotal role in Yale 's admissions decisions , going beyond what the Supreme Court has deemed permissible .
`` Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants ’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors , the Department of Justice found Yale ’ s use of race is anything but limited .
Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an applicant ’ s likelihood of admission , and Yale racially balances its classes . ''
Yale consents to comply with Title VI in order to obtain millions in taxpayer dollars , according to the Justice Department .
`` The Department of Justice has demanded Yale agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle , and , if Yale proposes to consider race or national origin in future admissions cycles , it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating its proposal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including by identifying a date for the end of race discrimination , '' according to the press release .

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against white and Asian-American students in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The federal agency found that most white and Asian-Americans hoping to gain admission to the prestigious institution had a significantly smaller chance of getting in compared to African-Americans.
"For the great majority of applicants, Asian-Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African-American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian-American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit," the DOJ declared in a press release.
The DOJ determined that race plays a pivotal role in Yale's admissions decisions, going beyond what the Supreme Court has deemed permissible.
"Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants' race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale's use of race is anything but limited," according to the press release. "Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant's likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes."
The DOJ notes that as "a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding," Yale must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance."
According to its press release, the Department is seeking an immediate end to Yale's racial preferences: "The Department of Justice has demanded Yale agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle, and, if Yale proposes to consider race or national origin in future admissions cycles, it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating its proposal is narrowly tailored as required by law, including by identifying a date for the end of race discrimination."


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--The Three Concepts That Underpin “Woke” Ideology

In our summer of discontent , of protests and then riots in what many view as a racial reckoning following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police , we ’ ve seen previously radical ideas such as defunding the police become the norm .
Not only that , we ’ ve seen liberal institutions such as The New York Times bow before “ woke ” mobs and cancel all who don ’ t conform to the whims of the radical left .
And we ’ ve seen corporate America almost universally endorse Black Lives Matter , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writers in particular have risen in popularity on the left , dominating national bestseller lists while gathering increased media attention : Robin DiAngelo , a lecturer and author of “ White Fragility : Why It ’ s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism , ” and Ibram X. Kendi , director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University and author of “ How to Be an Antiracist.
” Although their works are distinct , both writers promote an ideology they call “ anti-racism.
” These two authors are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and the ideas that are becoming politically mainstream in America , at least on the American left .
It ’ s critical to have an understanding of what they believe .
For instance , why would a mob opposed to white supremacy attack statues of both a slaveholder and an abolitionist ?
Is this an example of mindless , wanton destruction ?
Or perhaps the rioters are embracing a larger set of ideas that creates a ruthless dichotomy between racists and anti-racists ?
Here are three key concepts to which the anti-racists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DiAngelo and Kendi , there really are only two paths any person may take : racism or anti-racism .
Being “ not racist , ” as Kendi writes , is not good enough , nor does it mean one isn ’ t a racist .
DiAngelo defines “ white fragility , ” the topic of her book , as a process whereby white people return to “ our racial comfort , and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy.
” “ Though white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DiAngelo writes .
“ White fragility is not weakness per se .
In fact , it is a powerful means of white racial control and the protection of white advantage.
” Essentially , if a white person is uncomfortable talking about race or denies his fundamental whiteness , as well as his racism , he is guilty of white fragility .
In fact , according to the arguments of both DiAngelo and Kendi , even a denial of racism can be construed as evidence of racism .
As several other writers , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , this is what ’ s called a Kafka trap , a rhetorical device “ where the more you deny something , the more it ’ s proof of your guilt.
” DiAngelo and Kendi promote a racial variation of common oppressor versus oppressed narratives , seen in many traditional left-wing ideologies .
Marxist economic ideology revolving around class is more or less replaced by race in a scenario where there are only winners and losers .
Kendi and DiAngelo argue that racism is not just an individual act of discrimination or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on their race .
Instead , racism is redefined as a collective condition leading to inequities in society .
Kendi argues that those whom many Americans see as actual racists are far less dangerous than the real threat of widespread acceptance of color blindness .
He writes : Kendi decries “ assimilationists ” as being essentially as bad as “ segregationists.
” Assimilation is the process by which group differences are reduced or eliminated within a society to form a common culture .
Kendi opposes the assimilationists , as he defines them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the unequal outcomes for different races .
In fact , even asking the question of why different groups of people have statistically differing outcomes in a society may be construed as racist .
DiAngelo adopts Kendi ’ s construction of racism , writing that “ if we truly believe that all humans are equal , then disparity in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination.
” The argument essentially is that any racial discrepancies in society are examples of racism .
So , if a society has a disproportionate number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black people , that is racism .
If one race has a higher mortality rate from a disease than another , again the culprit is racism .
Kendi is , of course , highly selective in the statistics he cites to demonstrate that “ there may be no more consequential White privilege than life itself.
” As Coleman Hughes wrote for City Journal : “ By selectively citing data that show blacks suffering more than whites , Kendi turns what should be a unifying , race-neutral battle ground—namely , humanity ’ s fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the War on Racism.
” 2 .
Colorblindness Is the Problem , and Racist The concept of equal opportunity is fundamentally rejected by the doctrines of DiAngelo and Kendi .
They argue that in a deeply racist society conditioned to white supremacy , equal opportunity under the law perpetuates only more inequality .
Both DiAngelo and Kendi rebuke the idea of colorblindness in how we treat race .
DiAngelo does so more in a cultural sense .
She argues that colorblindness is essentially a sign of white privilege , a manipulation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetuate more racism .
“ Color-blind ideology makes it difficult for us to address these unconscious beliefs , ” DiAngelo writes .
“ While the idea of color blindness may have started out as a well-intentioned strategy for interrupting racism , in practice it has served to deny the reality of racism and thus hold it in place.
” White people must build their racial “ stamina , ” DiAngelo argues , to overcome their white fragility .
The way for white people to do this is by recognizing , embracing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an antidote to white fragility .
DiAngelo writes that “ as an insider , ” she can speak for the white experience , but that she uses her white identity as a way to “ challenge racism.
” DiAngelo lays on white people the responsibility—the burden , one might say—of attacking and defeating racism and “ whiteness.
” Kendi leans more strongly into creating laws that specifically promote anti-racism .
To be effective , he says , they must be discriminatory .
Discriminatory laws , Kendi argues , can be desirable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote equity : As long as the discriminatory finger is on the button of “ equity , ” however Kendi and the anti-racists define it , it is good .
Christopher Caldwell , author of “ The Age of Entitlement : America Since the Sixties , ” wrote for National Review that Kendi rejects the notion—stemming from many civil rights advocates— “ that everything will be well as long as we treat people with equality , neutrality , and respect.
” “ It is illegitimate .
It is a ‘ racist ’ obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution , which he wrote about in a short piece in Politico .
It ’ s worth quoting in full : This proposal by Kendi effectively would end self-government and nullify the Bill of Rights .
A cadre of intellectuals ensconced in the Department of Anti-racism would have the power to decide who can and can ’ t run for office , and which laws can or can ’ t be passed based on their interpretation of what is racist .
Again , racist being defined by Kendi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.
” Which policies fall under the rubric of being racist or anti-racist ?
All of them .
“ Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity , ” Kendi writes .
For those who believe they can escape the ugly culture war implications of these ideas and focus on economic or fiscal policies , it ’ s worth noting that embracing socialism and fighting capitalism is a critical element @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose capitalism , or else .
An example of racist policy , Kendi writes , is lowering capital gains taxes .
Therefore , a supporter of lower capital gains taxes—or even someone who isn ’ t actively opposing lower capital gains taxes—may be barred from running for or serving in office by a team of unaccountable bureaucrats in a permanently funded federal agency .
On top of that , this agency would have the power to void passage of a lower capital gains tax in Congress .
Gone are notions of individual rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections of freedom of speech and association .
Gone is the very bedrock of the system created by the Founders , the Constitution that has bent the flawed but exceptional American system toward liberty and justice .
We have a word for such a law : tyranny .

In our summer of discontent, of protests and then riots in what many view as a racial reckoning following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police, we’ve seen previously radical ideas such as defunding the police become the norm.
Not only that, we’ve seen liberal institutions such as The New York Times bow before “woke” mobs and cancel all who don’t conform to the whims of the radical left.
And we’ve seen corporate America almost universally endorse Black Lives Matter, a radical organization with Marxist roots.
But why?
These trends haven’t happened in a bubble.
Two writers in particular have risen in popularity on the left, dominating national bestseller lists while gathering increased media attention: Robin DiAngelo, a lecturer and author of “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” and Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University and author of “How to Be an Antiracist.”
Although their works are distinct, both writers promote an ideology they call “anti-racism.”
These two authors are shaping the modern discussion over “wokeness” and the ideas that are becoming politically mainstream in America, at least on the American left.
It’s critical to have an understanding of what they believe.
For instance, why would a mob opposed to white supremacy attack statues of both a slaveholder and an abolitionist?
Is this an example of mindless, wanton destruction? Or perhaps the rioters are embracing a larger set of ideas that creates a ruthless dichotomy between racists and anti-racists?
Here are three key concepts to which the anti-racists have attached themselves.
1. Racism Redefined
According to both DiAngelo and Kendi, there really are only two paths any person may take: racism or anti-racism. Being “not racist,” as Kendi writes, is not good enough, nor does it mean one isn’t a racist.
DiAngelo defines “white fragility,” the topic of her book, as a process whereby white people return to “our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy.”
“Though white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety, it is born of superiority and entitlement,” DiAngelo writes. “White fragility is not weakness per se. In fact, it is a powerful means of white racial control and the protection of white advantage.”
Essentially, if a white person is uncomfortable talking about race or denies his fundamental whiteness, as well as his racism, he is guilty of white fragility.
In fact, according to the arguments of both DiAngelo and Kendi, even a denial of racism can be construed as evidence of racism.
As several other writers, including Mark Hemingway at The Federalist, have noted, this is what’s called a Kafka trap, a rhetorical device “where the more you deny something, the more it’s proof of your guilt.”
DiAngelo and Kendi promote a racial variation of common oppressor versus oppressed narratives, seen in many traditional left-wing ideologies. Marxist economic ideology revolving around class is more or less replaced by race in a scenario where there are only winners and losers.
Kendi and DiAngelo argue that racism is not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a people based on their race.
Instead, racism is redefined as a collective condition leading to inequities in society.
Kendi argues that those whom many Americans see as actual racists are far less dangerous than the real threat of widespread acceptance of color blindness. He writes:
The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-white Americans toward equity is ‘reverse discrimination.’
Kendi decries “assimilationists” as being essentially as bad as “segregationists.”
Assimilation is the process by which group differences are reduced or eliminated within a society to form a common culture.
Kendi opposes the assimilationists, as he defines them, because he says they attribute behavior to the unequal outcomes for different races.
In fact, even asking the question of why different groups of people have statistically differing outcomes in a society may be construed as racist.
DiAngelo adopts Kendi’s construction of racism, writing that “if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination.”
The argument essentially is that any racial discrepancies in society are examples of racism.
So, if a society has a disproportionate number of rich white people compared to rich black people, that is racism. If one race has a higher mortality rate from a disease than another, again the culprit is racism.
Kendi is, of course, highly selective in the statistics he cites to demonstrate that “there may be no more consequential White privilege than life itself.”
As Coleman Hughes wrote for City Journal: “By selectively citing data that show blacks suffering more than whites, Kendi turns what should be a unifying, race-neutral battle ground—namely, humanity’s fight against deadly diseases—into another proxy battle in the War on Racism.”
Hughes, like Kendi, is black.
2. Colorblindness Is the Problem, and Racist
The concept of equal opportunity is fundamentally rejected by the doctrines of DiAngelo and Kendi. They argue that in a deeply racist society conditioned to white supremacy, equal opportunity under the law perpetuates only more inequality.
Both DiAngelo and Kendi rebuke the idea of colorblindness in how we treat race. DiAngelo does so more in a cultural sense. She argues that colorblindness is essentially a sign of white privilege, a manipulation of the message of Martin Luther King Jr. to perpetuate more racism.
“Color-blind ideology makes it difficult for us to address these unconscious beliefs,” DiAngelo writes. “While the idea of color blindness may have started out as a well-intentioned strategy for interrupting racism, in practice it has served to deny the reality of racism and thus hold it in place.”
White people must build their racial “stamina,” DiAngelo argues, to overcome their white fragility.
The way for white people to do this is by recognizing, embracing, and critically examining collective “white identity” as an antidote to white fragility. DiAngelo writes that “as an insider,” she can speak for the white experience, but that she uses her white identity as a way to “challenge racism.”
DiAngelo lays on white people the responsibility—the burden, one might say—of attacking and defeating racism and “whiteness.”
3. Racism Is Solved Through Discrimination
Kendi leans more strongly into creating laws that specifically promote anti-racism. To be effective, he says, they must be discriminatory.
Discriminatory laws, Kendi argues, can be desirable and in fact necessary as a way to promote equity:
If discrimination is creating equity, then it is anti-racist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
As long as the discriminatory finger is on the button of “equity,” however Kendi and the anti-racists define it, it is good.
Christopher Caldwell, author of “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties,” wrote for National Review that Kendi rejects the notion—stemming from many civil rights advocates—“that everything will be well as long as we treat people with equality, neutrality, and respect.”
“It is illegitimate. It is a ‘racist’ obstruction,” Caldwell added.
Kendi proposes an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution, which he wrote about in a short piece in Politico. It’s worth quoting in full:
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals [sic]: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with ‘racist ideas’ and ‘public official’ clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state, and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
This proposal by Kendi effectively would end self-government and nullify the Bill of Rights. A cadre of intellectuals ensconced in the Department of Anti-racism would have the power to decide who can and can’t run for office, and which laws can or can’t be passed based on their interpretation of what is racist.
Again, racist being defined by Kendi as “one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.”
Which policies fall under the rubric of being racist or anti-racist?
All of them.
“Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity,” Kendi writes.
For those who believe they can escape the ugly culture war implications of these ideas and focus on economic or fiscal policies, it’s worth noting that embracing socialism and fighting capitalism is a critical element in promoting anti-racism.
And you will oppose capitalism, or else.
An example of racist policy, Kendi writes, is lowering capital gains taxes.
Therefore, a supporter of lower capital gains taxes—or even someone who isn’t actively opposing lower capital gains taxes—may be barred from running for or serving in office by a team of unaccountable bureaucrats in a permanently funded federal agency.
On top of that, this agency would have the power to void passage of a lower capital gains tax in Congress.
Gone are notions of individual rights or limited self-government. Gone are constitutional protections of freedom of speech and association.
Gone is the very bedrock of the system created by the Founders, the Constitution that has bent the flawed but exceptional American system toward liberty and justice.
We have a word for such a law: tyranny.


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--Officer Saves Man in Wheelchair From Oncoming Train With Seconds to Spare

Officer Erika Urrea , of the Lodi , California Police Department , saved a man from certain death as an @ @ @ @ @ .
The man 's wheelchair had become stuck on the tracks .
The tense video @ @ @ @ @ 's body cam , shows her dashing out of her police vehicle and rushing toward @ @ @ @ @ of the oncoming train on the tracks can be heard over shouts from Officer Urrea @ @ @ @ @ male stuck on the tracks '' and she 's `` trying to get him out @ @ @ @ @ bears down on them , Urrea pulls the man out of the chair and onto @ @ @ @ @ tracks .
She then calls for an ambulance .
The man sustained a leg injury @ @ @ @ @ okay .
The wheelchair , not so much .

Officer Erika Urrea, of the Lodi, California Police Department, saved a man from certain death as an oncoming train barreled toward him. The man's wheelchair had become stuck on the tracks.
The tense video, captured via Officer Urrea's body cam, shows her dashing out of her police vehicle and rushing toward the man.
The sound of the oncoming train on the tracks can be heard over shouts from Officer Urrea saying there's a "male stuck on the tracks" and she's "trying to get him out."
HERO ALERT! Officer Erika Urrea of the Lodi, California Police Department sprung into action to save a man's life after his wheelchair became stuck on train tracks.
The man suffered a leg injury but is expected to be OK. pic.twitter.com/RJrSDat55Y — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 13, 2020
As the train bears down on them, Urrea pulls the man out of the chair and onto the ground next to the tracks. She then calls for an ambulance.
The man sustained a leg injury, but reportedly will be okay. The wheelchair, not so much.


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--Devin Nunes: Obama and Biden Knew Trump Campaign Was Being Spied on

On Thursday , Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo interviewed President Trump .
Trump told Bartiromo that the Obama administration “ spied on my campaign , which is treason.
” “ President Obama knew everything .
Vice President Biden , as dumb as he may be , he knew everything .
And everybody else knew everything , Maria , and you know it .
And Comey and Brennan and Clapper , they all were terrible and they lied to Congress… ” After the president ’ s interview , Rep. Devin Nunes , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She asked Nunes about Trump ’ s comments about the spying on his campaign , and whether he agreed with Trump ’ s statement that it went all the way up to Obama and Biden .
“ It ’ s way worse than even we thought it was , ” Nunes told her .
“ And we knew it was really , really bad.
” Nunes then pointed out that , based on declassified notes , we know that it was Biden who suggested going after Flynn , based on the Logan Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous administration knew that they were spying on the Trump campaign .
Joe Biden should have known at the time to put a halt to this .
So he is just as guilty as everybody else.
” Nunes explained that by “ guilty ” he didn ’ t mean that Biden specifically broke any laws , but “ he knew damn well that something was occurring , using our intelligence apparatus in this country … to target people that his party had just got their clocks cleaned by in 2016.
” In May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) documents showed that President Obama was aware of the details of wiretapped conversations of then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak back in December 2016 .
Joe Biden was also aware , and was present at a meeting discussing it .
“ On January 5 , 2017 , Yates attended an Oval Office meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey , then-Vice President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan , and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , according to the newly declassified documents , including an FD-302 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ’ Gregg Re at the time .
“ They were discussing Russian election interference , along with national security adviser Susan Rice and other members of the national security council.
” The entire investigation of Trump and his associates was based on Russian disinformation , and the FBI “ used Russia ’ s meddling with the 2016 election as a pretext to investigate Donald Trump ” and those around him .
According to handwritten notes from Peter Strzok , it was Biden who suggested using the Logan Act to target Michael Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice sent to herself about the meeting saying Obama wanted everything done “ by the book.
” Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell noted , “ The Susan Rice email to herself clearly didn ’ t give an accurate portrayal of the meeting .
The ‘ right people ’ is fundamentally different than ‘ by the book . '
” The Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn on May 7 , in the wake of internal memos revealing the intent to entrap Flynn on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him fired ” as national security adviser to President Trump .
Testimony transcripts declassified the same day showed that the Obama administration never had any empirical evidence of Russian collusion .
“ I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election , ” testified former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2017 .
“ That ’ s not to say that there weren ’ t concerns about the evidence we were seeing , anecdotal evidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance where I had direct evidence.
” “ I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn ’ t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community , ” said former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power , in response to the same question .
“ To the best of my recollection , there wasn ’ t anything smoking , but there were some things that gave me pause , ” said Obama national security adviser Susan Rice with regard to conspiracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.
” When asked if she ever saw evidence of coordination , she answered , “ I don ’ t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.
” She gave the same answer when asked about collusion .
Obama ’ s former deputy national security adviser , Ben Rhodes , also had nothing .
“ I wouldn ’ t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ I saw indications of potential coordination , but I did not see , you know , the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.
” Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she did “ not recall that being briefed up to me.
” When asked about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Steele dossier , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted they were never able to prove its legitimacy .
When asked what was the most “ damning or important piece of evidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows is true , ” McCabe replied , “ We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.
” Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne : How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump , and the bestselling book The Worst President in History : The Legacy of Barack Obama .
You can follow Matt on Twitter @ MattMargolis Obama Officials Had No ‘ Empirical Evidence ’ of Trump-Russia Collusion , Intel Transcripts Show What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His Involvement in ‘ Obamagate ’ Newly Declassified Evidence : Russia Didn ’ t Try to Help Elect Trump in 2016

On Thursday, Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo interviewed President Trump. Trump told Bartiromo that the Obama administration “spied on my campaign, which is treason.”
“President Obama knew everything. Vice President Biden, as dumb as he may be, he knew everything. And everybody else knew everything, Maria, and you know it. And Comey and Brennan and Clapper, they all were terrible and they lied to Congress…”
After the president’s interview, Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Bartiromo’s show. She asked Nunes about Trump’s comments about the spying on his campaign, and whether he agreed with Trump’s statement that it went all the way up to Obama and Biden.
“It’s way worse than even we thought it was,” Nunes told her. “And we knew it was really, really bad.”
Nunes then pointed out that, based on declassified notes, we know that it was Biden who suggested going after Flynn, based on the Logan Act.
“So, clearly, the previous administration knew that they were spying on the Trump campaign. Joe Biden should have known at the time to put a halt to this. So he is just as guilty as everybody else.”
Nunes explained that by “guilty” he didn’t mean that Biden specifically broke any laws, but “he knew damn well that something was occurring, using our intelligence apparatus in this country … to target people that his party had just got their clocks cleaned by in 2016.”
In May, declassified Department of Justice (DOJ) documents showed that President Obama was aware of the details of wiretapped conversations of then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak back in December 2016. Joe Biden was also aware, and was present at a meeting discussing it.
“On January 5, 2017, Yates attended an Oval Office meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, according to the newly declassified documents, including an FD-302 FBI witness report,” reported Fox News’ Gregg Re at the time. “They were discussing Russian election interference, along with national security adviser Susan Rice and other members of the national security council.”
The entire investigation of Trump and his associates was based on Russian disinformation, and the FBI “used Russia’s meddling with the 2016 election as a pretext to investigate Donald Trump” and those around him.
According to handwritten notes from Peter Strzok, it was Biden who suggested using the Logan Act to target Michael Flynn.
These notes contradicted an email that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice sent to herself about the meeting saying Obama wanted everything done “by the book.” Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell noted, “The Susan Rice email to herself clearly didn’t give an accurate portrayal of the meeting. The ‘right people’ is fundamentally different than ‘by the book.'”
This is very troubling. The Susan Rice email to herself clearly didn’t give an accurate portrayal of the meeting.
The “right people” is fundamentally different than “by the book”. https://t.co/AYs3oZ7qaX — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) June 24, 2020
The Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn on May 7, in the wake of internal memos revealing the intent to entrap Flynn on perjury charges in order to “get him fired” as national security adviser to President Trump. Testimony transcripts declassified the same day showed that the Obama administration never had any empirical evidence of Russian collusion.
“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” testified former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2017. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community,” said former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question.
“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,” said Obama national security adviser Susan Rice with regard to conspiracy. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”
When asked if she ever saw evidence of coordination, she answered, “I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.” She gave the same answer when asked about collusion.
Obama’s former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, also had nothing. “I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,” he said. “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.”
When asked about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Steele dossier, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted they were never able to prove its legitimacy. When asked what was the most “damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that” he “now knows is true,” McCabe replied, “We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”
Watch the Nunes interview here:
_____
Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis


bonginoreport--2020-08-13--Five Socialist Policies Kamala Has Embraced

When presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced this week his choice of Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate , mainstream media covered her selection with fanfare .
For example , the New York Times dubbed the California progressive a “ pragmatic moderate , ” and both the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times described Harris as “ centrist.
” But is this narrative accurate ?
Given that Harris may become vice president under Biden , who would be the oldest president ever on Day One of his term , it ’ s important to look past media spin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With that in mind , here are five economic policies Harris openly supports and would likely push if she became president .
Not content with the record-breaking $ 3.7 trillion deficit the federal government is currently set to rack up this year , Harris wants to spend $ 5.5 trillion more over a decade— $ 500 billion per year—on a new proposal .
Harris ’ s latest bill would send most Americans monthly $ 2,000 checks , regardless of COVID-19-related need or circumstance , for the duration of the coronavirus crisis .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period is defined , and it could easily last for years or become permanent .
This is essentially a “ Universal Basic Income ” plan that forces taxpayers to finance a minimum income of roughly $ 24,000 for tens of millions of people .
Is it “ pragmatic ” or “ moderate ” to put the government in charge of Americans ’ livelihoods and incomes ?
Is it “ centrist ” to seize trillions of dollars taxpayers in the process ?
During the Democratic presidential primary , Harris endorsed “ Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and openly backed abolishing all private health insurance .
However , she later walked back that proposal in the face of widespread criticism .
Yet Harris still wants the federal government to seize control of Americans ’ healthcare and transition to a mostly socialist system in short order .
As the Wall Street Journal reports , Harris ’ s most recent plan would transition the US into a government-run healthcare system over 10 years , with only a minor , highly-regulated role remaining for private health insurance .
This means that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life-and-death decisions , and stifled innovation that would accompany fully socialized “ Medicare for All ” would still largely apply under Harris ’ s vision for American healthcare .
3 .
Total of At Least $ 40 Trillion in New Spending According to Manhattan Institute economist Brian Riedl , Harris ’ s combined proposals would mean more than $ 40 trillion in new spending over a decade .
To put that figure in context , it is roughly $ 280,000 in debt accrued per US taxpayer , over 10 years .
The federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piling trillions onto the shoulders of future generations and setting the stage for a future fiscal crisis .
Harris basically wants to drop a match on the powder keg that is our public finance .
“ Harris is many things , but please do not use ‘ moderate ’ or ‘ pragmatic ’ to describe someone whose own campaign proposed approximately $ 40 trillion in new spending over the decade , ” Riedl said .
Harris was an original co-sponsor of the “ Green New Deal ” resolution in the Senate , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution in the House of Representatives .
Throughout her presidential campaign , the California Democrat vociferously backed a version of AOC ’ s far-left climate plan .
Harris has thus signaled her support for a radical “ green ” platform that would cost up to $ 600,000 per U.S. household .
As Jarrett Stepman wrote for the Daily Signal , among the Green New Deal ’ s radical goals are : Stepman adds that the Green New Deal ’ s proposals go far beyond environmental policies : But the flawed economics of rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the long run by limiting the supply of housing , benefitting the few who snag artificially-cheap housing but ultimately leading to higher prices and worsening the area ’ s housing crisis .
Surveys of top economists routinely show near-consensus on this issue .
For example , an IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of top economists found that weighted for confidence , only 1 % of respondents agreed that rent control works .
A whopping 95 % disagreed , with 4 % uncertain .
Even the liberal Brookings Institution concluded that “ rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the short run , [ but ] in the long run it decreases affordability , fuels gentrification , and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.
” Yet Harris has ignored this evidence time and time again , even after rent control conclusively failed in San Francisco , her home city .
If ever allowed to impose her misguided socialist price controls on federal housing policy , Harris would spread the housing crisis plaguing cities with these rules to the entire country .
The takeaway here is clear : Harris ’ s economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not centrist or moderate by any stretch .
In fact , objective analysis of Harris ’ s Senate record reveals that she is one of the most left-wing politicians in America .
According to the watchdog website GovTrack.us , Harris ties for furthest-left of all senators , alongside self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders .
The group also reports she is the least bipartisan member of the Senate .
Meanwhile , the left-wing organization Progressive Punch deems Harris the 4th most left-wing of all senators .
It concludes that her voting record is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren .
But after acknowledging this fact , we ’ re left with another question .
Obviously this far-left policy agenda is unsustainable and unrealistic—so why would an intelligent and well-educated senator like Harris endorse it ?
Why Has Harris Embraced The Far Left ?
Simply put , public choice economics explains that candidates for government offices are predisposed to support whatever big government programs might sound good to voters and get them elected , regardless of the long-term consequences for their constituents .
“ Politicians are not forced to pay attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next election , ” famed free-market economist Thomas Sowell wrote in Basic Economics .
“ An elected official whose policies keep the public happy up through election day stands a good chance of being voted another term in office , even if those policies will have ruinous consequences in later years.
” The senator surely knows we can ’ t spend $ 40 trillion without a fiscal crisis , and she has seen policies like rent control fail miserably in her own hometown .
Yet as an ambitious politician , Harris ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And in 2020 , succeeding as a Democratic politician , especially in California , increasingly demands an embrace of the socialist agenda—even when empirical data , basic economics , and logical arguments aren ’ t on your side .
As Sowell wisely concluded , “ Politics allows people to vote for the impossible.
” Kamala Harris is hoping that come November , Americans will do exactly that .

When presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced this week his choice of Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate, mainstream media covered her selection with fanfare. For example, the New York Times dubbed the California progressive a “pragmatic moderate,” and both the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times described Harris as “centrist.”
But is this narrative accurate?
Given that Harris may become vice president under Biden, who would be the oldest president ever on Day One of his term, it’s important to look past media spin and accurately assess her policy agenda. With that in mind, here are five economic policies Harris openly supports and would likely push if she became president.
1. Massive Welfare-for-All COVID-19 Response Plan
Not content with the record-breaking $3.7 trillion deficit the federal government is currently set to rack up this year, Harris wants to spend $5.5 trillion more over a decade—$500 billion per year—on a new proposal.
Harris’s latest bill would send most Americans monthly $2,000 checks, regardless of COVID-19-related need or circumstance, for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. It’s entirely unclear how this crisis period is defined, and it could easily last for years or become permanent.
This is essentially a “Universal Basic Income” plan that forces taxpayers to finance a minimum income of roughly $24,000 for tens of millions of people. Is it “pragmatic” or “moderate” to put the government in charge of Americans’ livelihoods and incomes? Is it “centrist” to seize trillions of dollars taxpayers in the process?
2. Imminent Transition to Socialist Healthcare
During the Democratic presidential primary, Harris endorsed “Medicare for All,” which is basically socialized healthcare, and openly backed abolishing all private health insurance. However, she later walked back that proposal in the face of widespread criticism. Yet Harris still wants the federal government to seize control of Americans’ healthcare and transition to a mostly socialist system in short order.
As the Wall Street Journal reports, Harris’s most recent plan would transition the US into a government-run healthcare system over 10 years, with only a minor, highly-regulated role remaining for private health insurance. This means that the massive tax hikes, government control over life-and-death decisions, and stifled innovation that would accompany fully socialized “Medicare for All” would still largely apply under Harris’s vision for American healthcare.
3. Total of At Least $40 Trillion in New Spending
According to Manhattan Institute economist Brian Riedl, Harris’s combined proposals would mean more than $40 trillion in new spending over a decade. To put that figure in context, it is roughly $280,000 in debt accrued per US taxpayer, over 10 years.
The federal government’s broken budget is already piling trillions onto the shoulders of future generations and setting the stage for a future fiscal crisis. Harris basically wants to drop a match on the powder keg that is our public finance.
In today's Washington Post, I estimate that Kamala Harris' recession plan to give most Americans $2K/month for an entire year would cost at least $5.5 trillion -- on top of her $40 trillion spending plan. https://t.co/X1R57hGDDK pic.twitter.com/KR6SLeq1su — Brian Riedl 🧀 (@Brian_Riedl) August 12, 2020
“Harris is many things, but please do not use ‘moderate’ or ‘pragmatic’ to describe someone whose own campaign proposed approximately $40 trillion in new spending over the decade,” Riedl said.
4. A “Green New Deal”
Harris was an original co-sponsor of the “Green New Deal” resolution in the Senate, a companion to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution in the House of Representatives. Throughout her presidential campaign, the California Democrat vociferously backed a version of AOC’s far-left climate plan. Harris has thus signaled her support for a radical “green” platform that would cost up to $600,000 per U.S. household. As Jarrett Stepman wrote for the Daily Signal, among the Green New Deal’s radical goals are:
...meeting ‘100 percent of national power’ demand through renewable sources, retrofitting ‘every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety,’ and eliminating ‘greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural, and other industries.’
Stepman adds that the Green New Deal’s proposals go far beyond environmental policies:
It also includes a grab bag of other left-wing goodies to ‘mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional, and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low-income, deindustrialized, or other marginalized communities in such a way that builds wealth and ownership at the community level.)’ Among the liberal wish list items included, the Green New Deal contains a proposal for universal health care and a basic minimum income program to make up for all the jobs lost in the process of transitioning to a fully green economy.
5. Sweeping Rent Control Laws
Kamala Harris has repeatedly backed stringent “rent control” laws imposing government price controls on housing.
But the flawed economics of rent control are clear. Price caps backfire in the long run by limiting the supply of housing, benefitting the few who snag artificially-cheap housing but ultimately leading to higher prices and worsening the area’s housing crisis.
Surveys of top economists routinely show near-consensus on this issue. For example, an IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of top economists found that weighted for confidence, only 1% of respondents agreed that rent control works. A whopping 95% disagreed, with 4% uncertain.
Image credit: IGM Economic Experts Panel
Even the liberal Brookings Institution concluded that “rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, [but] in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.”
Yet Harris has ignored this evidence time and time again, even after rent control conclusively failed in San Francisco, her home city. If ever allowed to impose her misguided socialist price controls on federal housing policy, Harris would spread the housing crisis plaguing cities with these rules to the entire country.
So Is Harris a ‘Moderate?’
The takeaway here is clear: Harris’s economic policies are far to the left, and not centrist or moderate by any stretch.
In fact, objective analysis of Harris’s Senate record reveals that she is one of the most left-wing politicians in America. According to the watchdog website GovTrack.us, Harris ties for furthest-left of all senators, alongside self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. The group also reports she is the least bipartisan member of the Senate.
Meanwhile, the left-wing organization Progressive Punch deems Harris the 4th most left-wing of all senators. It concludes that her voting record is more liberal than even that of Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
But after acknowledging this fact, we’re left with another question. Obviously this far-left policy agenda is unsustainable and unrealistic—so why would an intelligent and well-educated senator like Harris endorse it?
Why Has Harris Embraced The Far Left?
The answer lies in public choice incentives.
Simply put, public choice economics explains that candidates for government offices are predisposed to support whatever big government programs might sound good to voters and get them elected, regardless of the long-term consequences for their constituents.
“Politicians are not forced to pay attention to future consequences that lie beyond the next election,” famed free-market economist Thomas Sowell wrote in Basic Economics. “An elected official whose policies keep the public happy up through election day stands a good chance of being voted another term in office, even if those policies will have ruinous consequences in later years.”
This insight explains Harris’s embrace of radicalism.
The senator surely knows we can’t spend $40 trillion without a fiscal crisis, and she has seen policies like rent control fail miserably in her own hometown. Yet as an ambitious politician, Harris’s concern is first and foremost getting elected. And in 2020, succeeding as a Democratic politician, especially in California, increasingly demands an embrace of the socialist agenda—even when empirical data, basic economics, and logical arguments aren’t on your side.
As Sowell wisely concluded, “Politics allows people to vote for the impossible.” Kamala Harris is hoping that come November, Americans will do exactly that.


bonginoreport--2020-08-14--Pompeo Warns of China and Russia Threats While Touring Eastern Europe

Touring Eastern Europe this week , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo emphasized the threat of Chinese and Russian anti-democratic aggression in a series of speeches and visits .
Pompeo is touring Poland , Slovenia , Austria , and the Czech Republic , addressing security partnerships , the future of democracy in Europe , and increasingly belligerent behavior from Moscow and Beijing .
`` As President Havel once reminded us , we must commit not to ‘ live the lie ' but to ‘ live in the truth . '
And here 's what 's true : China 's world dominance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors of our fate , '' Pompeo said Wednesday during a speech in Prague .
Pompeo 's visit comes at a critical time for Central and Eastern Europe .
While much of the region begins to close the door on Chinese telecom giant Huawei , some countries remain open to Chinese investment .
Last week , Serbia announced the purchase of new missile systems from China .
In his remarks , Pompeo emphasized the need for a coalition of democracies to counter authoritarianism .
`` It will take us working together here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have the obligation to speak clearly and plainly to our people and without fear .
We must confront the complex questions presented by this challenge , and we must do so together , '' he said .
Although he focused on the rising threat posed by China , Pompeo also spent time warning American allies about the Kremlin 's activities .
`` Russia continues to seek to undermine your democracy , your security through disinformation campaigns and through cyberattacks .
It 's even trying to rewrite your history , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to jointly pressure Moscow with allies over the country 's crackdown on press freedom .
`` We 've condemned [ Russian press censorship ] .
We 've also imposed enormous sanctions on Russia for other elements of their malign activity , '' Pompeo said .
`` We hope that the rest of the world will join us in this .
We hope that those nations that value the freedom of press , who want independent reporters to be able to ask questions , even if sometimes leaders do n't like them , @ @ @ @ @ @

Touring Eastern Europe this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo emphasized the threat of Chinese and Russian anti-democratic aggression in a series of speeches and visits.
Pompeo is touring Poland, Slovenia, Austria, and the Czech Republic, addressing security partnerships, the future of democracy in Europe, and increasingly belligerent behavior from Moscow and Beijing.
"As President Havel once reminded us, we must commit not to 'live the lie' but to 'live in the truth.' And here's what's true: China's world dominance is not inevitable. We are the authors of our fate," Pompeo said Wednesday during a speech in Prague.
Pompeo's visit comes at a critical time for Central and Eastern Europe. While much of the region begins to close the door on Chinese telecom giant Huawei, some countries remain open to Chinese investment. Last week, Serbia announced the purchase of new missile systems from China.
In his remarks, Pompeo emphasized the need for a coalition of democracies to counter authoritarianism.
"It will take us working together here in Prague, in Poland, in Portugal. We have the obligation to speak clearly and plainly to our people and without fear. We must confront the complex questions presented by this challenge, and we must do so together," he said.
Although he focused on the rising threat posed by China, Pompeo also spent time warning American allies about the Kremlin's activities.
"Russia continues to seek to undermine your democracy, your security through disinformation campaigns and through cyberattacks. It's even trying to rewrite your history," he said Wednesday.
Pompeo also announced his efforts to jointly pressure Moscow with allies over the country's crackdown on press freedom.
"We've condemned [Russian press censorship]. We've also imposed enormous sanctions on Russia for other elements of their malign activity," Pompeo said. "We hope that the rest of the world will join us in this. We hope that those nations that value the freedom of press, who want independent reporters to be able to ask questions, even if sometimes leaders don't like them, will join with us."


bonginoreport--2020-08-14--Victor Davis Hanson: Democrats Are Waging War Against Tradition and the Constitution

Several of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates favored the abolishment of the Electoral College .
Or , as once-confident candidate Elizabeth Warren put it , `` I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College . ''
Furor over the Electoral College among the left arose from the 2000 and 2016 elections .
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton , respectively , won the popular votes .
But , like three earlier presidents , they lost the Electoral College voting -- and with it the presidency .
The Founding Fathers saw a purpose in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rural states would retain importance in national elections .
The Electoral College lessened the chance of voting fraud affecting the outcome of a national vote by compartmentalizing the outcome among the various states .
It usually turns the presidential election into a contest between two major parties that alone have the resources to campaign nationwide .
The college is antithetical to the parliamentary systems of Europe .
There , a multiplicity of small extremist parties form and break coalitions to select heads of state , often without transparency .
Yet to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by intent .
Historically , an amendment has required a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and an additional ratification by three-fourths of the states through votes of their legislatures .
There is a chance that some states could render void the Electoral College without formally amending the Constitution .
To circumvent the Constitution , Democrats have pushed `` The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , '' an agreement among a group of states that would force state electors to vote in accordance with the national popular vote and ignore their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totaling 73 percent of the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency have joined .
Liberal academics have an array of proposed constitutional changes .
Why do two Wyoming senators each represent about 290,000 voters while each California senator represents 20 million ?
Forget that the founders established a constitutional republic , not a radical democracy , in order to check and balance popular and often volatile public opinion .
One way was by creating an upper-house Senate that would slow down the pulse of the more populist House of Representatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dream up ways to create more , and apparently liberal , senators -- to change the rules rather than the hearts and minds of the voters .
In his recent eulogy at John Lewis 's funeral , Barack Obama proposed giving statehood to liberal Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico .
That would instantly give Democrats four additional senators .
Others want senators allotted by population .
That was the argument in a recent Atlantic article titled `` The Path to Give California 12 Senators , and Vermont Just One , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that specifies the exact size and makeup of the Supreme Court .
It only offers guidance on how justices are appointed and confirmed , and that there will be a chief justice .
But since 1869 , the Supreme Court has been fixed at eight associate justices and one chief justice .
Democratic primary candidates Pete Buttigieg , Kamala Harris , Beto O'Rourke and Elizabeth Warren said they would consider ending that 151-year tradition and `` pack '' the court with additional justices in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt 's failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afraid of a second Donald Trump presidential term that might allow him four or five Supreme Court picks over eight years in office .
The effect of such appointments could be mitigated by expanding the court to 12 or more justices , along with altering the rules for selecting them .
In his eulogy for Lewis , Obama also called for an end to the Senate filibuster .
He claimed it was a racist relic from the Jim Crow era used to stymie needed social change .
Given recent polling , Obama now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Congress with it .
But he also seems to fear that fundamental progressive transformation could be checked by a filibuster-happy Republican Senate minority .
Democrats were perfectly happy with the filibuster -- or the mere threat of the filibuster -- from 2017 to 2019 , when the Democratic Senate minority blocked much of the Trump agenda .
Efforts to change time-honored rules for short-term gain are becoming more common .
Sanctuary cities nullify federal immigration law to empower illegal immigration .
The nonenforcement of laws against rioting and looting has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment is inert on college campuses .
The left should beware .
Politics are volatile and often change .
When Democrats destroy longstanding rules for short-term advantage , they may regret it when they too are in need of sober traditions and the U.S. Constitution .

Several of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates favored the abolishment of the Electoral College. Or, as once-confident candidate Elizabeth Warren put it, "I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College."
Furor over the Electoral College among the left arose from the 2000 and 2016 elections. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, respectively, won the popular votes. But, like three earlier presidents, they lost the Electoral College voting -- and with it the presidency.
The Founding Fathers saw a purpose in the Electoral College. It ensured that small, rural states would retain importance in national elections.
The Electoral College lessened the chance of voting fraud affecting the outcome of a national vote by compartmentalizing the outcome among the various states. It usually turns the presidential election into a contest between two major parties that alone have the resources to campaign nationwide.
The college is antithetical to the parliamentary systems of Europe. There, a multiplicity of small extremist parties form and break coalitions to select heads of state, often without transparency.
Yet to change the U.S. Constitution is hard -- and by intent.
Historically, an amendment has required a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and an additional ratification by three-fourths of the states through votes of their legislatures.
There is a chance that some states could render void the Electoral College without formally amending the Constitution.
To circumvent the Constitution, Democrats have pushed "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact," an agreement among a group of states that would force state electors to vote in accordance with the national popular vote and ignore their own state tallies. Already, 15 states totaling 73 percent of the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency have joined.
Liberal academics have an array of proposed constitutional changes. Why do two Wyoming senators each represent about 290,000 voters while each California senator represents 20 million?
Forget that the founders established a constitutional republic, not a radical democracy, in order to check and balance popular and often volatile public opinion. One way was by creating an upper-house Senate that would slow down the pulse of the more populist House of Representatives.
Nevertheless, there is an ongoing effort to dream up ways to create more, and apparently liberal, senators -- to change the rules rather than the hearts and minds of the voters.
In his recent eulogy at John Lewis's funeral, Barack Obama proposed giving statehood to liberal Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. That would instantly give Democrats four additional senators.
Others want senators allotted by population. That was the argument in a recent Atlantic article titled "The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One,"
There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the exact size and makeup of the Supreme Court. It only offers guidance on how justices are appointed and confirmed, and that there will be a chief justice. But since 1869, the Supreme Court has been fixed at eight associate justices and one chief justice.
Democratic primary candidates Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke and Elizabeth Warren said they would consider ending that 151-year tradition and "pack" the court with additional justices in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 effort.
The left is apparently afraid of a second Donald Trump presidential term that might allow him four or five Supreme Court picks over eight years in office.
The effect of such appointments could be mitigated by expanding the court to 12 or more justices, along with altering the rules for selecting them.
In his eulogy for Lewis, Obama also called for an end to the Senate filibuster. He claimed it was a racist relic from the Jim Crow era used to stymie needed social change.
Given recent polling, Obama now apparently believes Trump will lose the election, and Congress with it. But he also seems to fear that fundamental progressive transformation could be checked by a filibuster-happy Republican Senate minority.
Democrats were perfectly happy with the filibuster -- or the mere threat of the filibuster -- from 2017 to 2019, when the Democratic Senate minority blocked much of the Trump agenda.
Efforts to change time-honored rules for short-term gain are becoming more common.
Sanctuary cities nullify federal immigration law to empower illegal immigration. The nonenforcement of laws against rioting and looting has become common in big cities. The First Amendment is inert on college campuses.
The left should beware. Politics are volatile and often change. When Democrats destroy longstanding rules for short-term advantage, they may regret it when they too are in need of sober traditions and the U.S. Constitution.


bonginoreport--2020-08-14--Derek Hunter: Democrats Sure Love the Post Office

If you ’ ve ever made the mistake of signing up for campaign emails from Democrats , if only out of morbid curiosity , you are inundated with requests for money from every candidate and cause under the Sun .
In an odd way , it ’ s amusing to get an email from Eric Holder ’ s group hyperventilating about Republican gerrymandering while ignoring states like Maryland ( where I live ) where the former Democratic governor admitted they drew the lines to eliminate as many Republican members of Congress as possible ( they got two of three with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a wet Rorschach test ) to Bernie Sanders ’ organization extolling the virtues of socialism while begging for cash .
They all have their own niches and pet causes , but lately emails from these groups have all hit on one specific issue – “ saving the post office.
” They aren ’ t raising money for the post office , they ’ re raising money for their various campaigns off the post office .
But why are so many groups – from the Biden campaign to “ Our Revolution ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office going away ?
Because Democrats are trying their best to freak out their fellow liberals that somehow President Trump is going to steal the election via delayed mail .
Former Attorney General Holder ’ s DNC front group , “ All on the Line , ” hyperventilated that “ the president declared that he would block funding for the USPS .
CNN reported that Trump went as far as calling the Postal Service ‘ a joke.
’ The possible collapse of America 's most widely used public service is nothing to laugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair , safe elections this November.
” Well , the post office is a joke .
It ’ s been run so poorly for decades that it requires regular federal bailouts .
Liz Sheld at American Greatness points out , “ The USPS has lost a staggering $ 78 billion since 2007 which suggests there are serious structural problems with the USPS business model.
” Now that ’ s a joke , it ’ s just not a funny one because we ’ ve all been forced to pick up the tab .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ email claimed , “ First a public health crisis made vote-by-mail a necessity in 2020 .
Then Trump repeatedly railed against mail-in ballots ... And put in place his new Postmaster General , a top donor .
Now we 're hearing that this Postmaster General is ordering mail delivery to be slowed down – just in time for the election !
” Cue dramatic chipmunk music .
Just this week , the Biden campaign sent out an email with the subject line , “ Sorry to bother you , but this is important.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ post office , of course .
The email stated , “ the Trump administration continues to threaten the USPS at every turn .
We know we have a winning message at the ballot box , and we ’ re fighting tooth and nail to protect our democracy .
That means protecting our post offices , too.
” The fate of our democracy hinges on the fate of the post office ?
We ’ re screwed !
What ’ s really behind all this ?
The Democrats ’ plan to stuff the ballot box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail is almost easier than voting on behalf of someone who died years ago whose name Democrats refuse to remove from the voter rolls .
Of course , if you can do both by using a prepaid envelope , you even save on postage !
It doesn ’ t hurt that on June 9 the executive board of the postal union endorsed Joe Biden , writing in their statement , “ Joe Biden has committed to support the Postal Service and its dedicated postal workers .
Our union will continue to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Postal Service and win a more just society.
” And who doesn ’ t want a “ more just society ” delivered with their monthly bills , and who wouldn ’ t trust their ballot in the hands of someone being told their job ’ s very existence depends on Democrats winning ?
American Greatness reports , “ now the USPS is asking for $ 25 billion ” in additional bailouts in the next round of coronavirus “ relief.
” Democrats are going to the mattresses for their supporters with our money .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats jumping on a bandwagon that just so happens to benefit a union supporting them at a time of pandemic when liberals are pushing to force voting by mail on everyone – I can see why you ’ d think that .
There ’ s one problem with that , however .
On January 5 , the Biden campaign sent out their first email on the post office , long before anyone had heard of COVID-19 .
“ The U.S .
Postal Service is an important part of American life .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government agency .
But Donald Trump is trying to destroy it !
” the email screamed .
In a desperate call to action , the email concluded , “ we need to take action now to protect the Postal Service.
” There ’ s no way the Biden campaign could have known they ’ d be pushing for voting by mail in January , but they did know the union leadership would be on their side .
That liberal cronyism just happened to dovetail perfectly with the liberal election agenda is just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Democrats never let a good crisis go to waste .
Our tax dollars , on the other hand , they ’ re happy to waste , especially on their supporters .
As my friend Liz concluded , “ No other business would run the way the USPS does in a free market environment because it would go out of business without a billion-dollar taxpayer parachute.
” If Democrats win , it may well be with a heavy lift from the post office .
That favor will be returned with never-ending bailouts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ free daily podcast ( subscribe ! )
, host of a daily radio show on WCBM in Maryland , and author of the book , Outrage , INC. , which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses .
Follow him on Twitter at @ DerekAHunter and on Parler at @ DerekHunter .

If you’ve ever made the mistake of signing up for campaign emails from Democrats, if only out of morbid curiosity, you are inundated with requests for money from every candidate and cause under the Sun. In an odd way, it’s amusing to get an email from Eric Holder’s group hyperventilating about Republican gerrymandering while ignoring states like Maryland (where I live) where the former Democratic governor admitted they drew the lines to eliminate as many Republican members of Congress as possible (they got two of three with a map that looks like someone sneezed on a wet Rorschach test) to Bernie Sanders’ organization extolling the virtues of socialism while begging for cash. They all have their own niches and pet causes, but lately emails from these groups have all hit on one specific issue – “saving the post office.”
They aren’t raising money for the post office, they’re raising money for their various campaigns off the post office. But why are so many groups – from the Biden campaign to “Our Revolution” – trying to scare people about the post office going away? Because Democrats are trying their best to freak out their fellow liberals that somehow President Trump is going to steal the election via delayed mail.
Former Attorney General Holder’s DNC front group, “All on the Line,” hyperventilated that “the president declared that he would block funding for the USPS. CNN reported that Trump went as far as calling the Postal Service ‘a joke.’ The possible collapse of America's most widely used public service is nothing to laugh at – it's serious and threatens fair, safe elections this November.”
Well, the post office is a joke. It’s been run so poorly for decades that it requires regular federal bailouts. Liz Sheld at American Greatness points out, “The USPS has lost a staggering $78 billion since 2007 which suggests there are serious structural problems with the USPS business model.” Now that’s a joke, it’s just not a funny one because we’ve all been forced to pick up the tab.
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee’s email claimed, “First a public health crisis made vote-by-mail a necessity in 2020. Then Trump repeatedly railed against mail-in ballots... And put in place his new Postmaster General, a top donor. Now we're hearing that this Postmaster General is ordering mail delivery to be slowed down – just in time for the election!” Cue dramatic chipmunk music.
Just this week, the Biden campaign sent out an email with the subject line, “Sorry to bother you, but this is important.” What was so important? The post office, of course.
The email stated, “the Trump administration continues to threaten the USPS at every turn. We know we have a winning message at the ballot box, and we’re fighting tooth and nail to protect our democracy. That means protecting our post offices, too.”
The fate of our democracy hinges on the fate of the post office? We’re screwed!
What’s really behind all this? The Democrats’ plan to stuff the ballot box via stuffing the mailbox.
Voter fraud by mail is almost easier than voting on behalf of someone who died years ago whose name Democrats refuse to remove from the voter rolls. Of course, if you can do both by using a prepaid envelope, you even save on postage!
It doesn’t hurt that on June 9 the executive board of the postal union endorsed Joe Biden, writing in their statement, “Joe Biden has committed to support the Postal Service and its dedicated postal workers. Our union will continue to help build the movement to defend the public Postal Service and win a more just society.” And who doesn’t want a “more just society” delivered with their monthly bills, and who wouldn’t trust their ballot in the hands of someone being told their job’s very existence depends on Democrats winning?
American Greatness reports, “now the USPS is asking for $25 billion” in additional bailouts in the next round of coronavirus “relief.” Democrats are going to the mattresses for their supporters with our money.
If this seems like simple opportunism – Democrats jumping on a bandwagon that just so happens to benefit a union supporting them at a time of pandemic when liberals are pushing to force voting by mail on everyone – I can see why you’d think that. There’s one problem with that, however. On January 5, the Biden campaign sent out their first email on the post office, long before anyone had heard of COVID-19.
“The U.S. Postal Service is an important part of American life. It’s America’s most popular federal government agency. But Donald Trump is trying to destroy it!” the email screamed. In a desperate call to action, the email concluded, “we need to take action now to protect the Postal Service.”
There’s no way the Biden campaign could have known they’d be pushing for voting by mail in January, but they did know the union leadership would be on their side. That liberal cronyism just happened to dovetail perfectly with the liberal election agenda is just a coincidence, I’m sure, but Democrats never let a good crisis go to waste. Our tax dollars, on the other hand, they’re happy to waste, especially on their supporters.
As my friend Liz concluded, “No other business would run the way the USPS does in a free market environment because it would go out of business without a billion-dollar taxpayer parachute.” If Democrats win, it may well be with a heavy lift from the post office. That favor will be returned with never-ending bailouts.
Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of a daily radio show on WCBM in Maryland, and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter and on Parler at @DerekHunter.