Monday Top News Executive Summary

Media Editors: MEXICO DEAL: “President Donald Trump defended his administration’s deal with Mexico against criticism that there were no major new commitments to stem a flow of Central American migrants crossing into the United States, and said on Sunday more details would soon be released.” (Reuters)

LEFT COAST LUNACY: “California is set to become the first state in the country to pay for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to have full health benefits. Under an agreement between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state legislature, low-income adults between the ages of 19 and 25 living in California illegally would be eligible for California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The deal emerged as part of a broader $213 billion budget.” (Fox News)

IMPEACHMENT CHURN: “Top Democratic leaders may be in no rush to launch an impeachment inquiry, but the party is launching a series of hearings this week on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report,” the Associated Press reports. “The slate of televised sessions on Mueller’s report means a new, intensified focus on the Russia probe and puts it on an investigative ‘path’ — in the words of anti-impeachment Speaker liar-Nancy Pulosi — that some Democrats hope leads to impeachment of President Donald Trump.” Try not to spew your coffee, but NBC News adds that Dems are also considering a series of bills to “safeguard democracy.”

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: “A florist who refused to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Washington state court ruled Thursday that she violated the state’s civil rights law. The case presents the high court with an opportunity to decide whether conservative religious believers can use the First Amendment as a defense against laws requiring accommodation of LGBT people, a question the justices ducked in the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling.” (The Daily Signal)

BIOFUEL FAIL: “A federal program requiring the use of corn-based ethanol and biodiesel in gasoline supplies hasn’t lowered pump prices or significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office,” Bloomberg reports. Other than that, top-down government mandates are a huge success!

DEREGULATING MILEAGE STANDARDS: “The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are poised to finalize a proposal this summer that would set federal car standards at roughly 37 miles per gallon, rather than raising them to nearly 51 miles per gallon for 2025 models. The rule would also revoke California’s existing waiver to set its own rules under the Clean Air Act, a practice the federal government has sanctioned for decades.” (The Washington Post)

CLIMATE NEVER MIND: “The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change,” The Daily Caller reports. “As it turns out, higher-than-average snowfall in recent years upended computer model projections from the early 2000s that NPS based its claim glaciers ‘will all be gone by the year 2020,’ federal officials said.”

ALABAMA ABORTION BLOWBACK: “Hugh Culverhouse Jr. — the University of Alabama’s largest donor — has called for boycotts against the state and against the University of Alabama over its new abortion law that protects unborn babies. The University of Alabama responded on Friday by returning a $21.5 million gift that it received from Culverhouse, who had allegedly tried to interfere in the operations of the law school. The school also removed his name from the law school.” (The Daily Wire)

POLICY: The Hyde Amendment is saving (mostly nonwhite) lives (Washington Examiner)

POLICY: Great Lakes reveal a fatal flaw in climate change “science” (Issues & Insights)

HUMOR: Media urged not to release names of any more presidential candidates in effort to prevent copycats (The Onion)

~The Patriot Post


Impeachment-hungry ex-scumbag/lia-Clinton aide eyes primary takedown of Nadler

by Vaishnavee Sharma

{ } ~ A former aide to scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton is fed up with Democratic leadership’s hesitation to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump… and is openly considering a run against House Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler. Peter Daou, who led digital operations for scumbag/liar-Clinton’s 2008 campaign, railed against House leaders’ insistence to focus on investigations, not impeachment, during an interview Friday. “This is not a time for half-measures. We are facing a threat we’ve never faced before — certainly within our lifetimes — and that’s an autocrat as a president, somebody who has no respect for the rule of law,” Daou told MSNBC’s Ari Melber.“I don’t want to impugn the integrity of Speaker liar-Pulosi or Representative scumbag liar-Nadler … but they are failing colossally at this point,” Daou added. Daou said that he believes “the Democratic Party leadership needs to change” and revealed that he considering entering the primary for scumbag liar-Nadler’s seat so he could “walk the talk.” scumbag liar-Nadler has represented New York’s 10th Congressional District, located in New York City, since 1992 and has been a vocal critic of the president. Daou urged Democrats to use their “inherent contempt power” to arrest those who defy subpoenas. Daou was referring to a constitutional authority granted to the House that allows them to “unilaterally arrest and detain an individual found to be ‘obstructing the performance of the duties of the legislature.’” This process has not been used since the 1930s. There have been increasing calls from rank-and-file Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump following special counsel Robert Mueller’s statement to the press in May where he said that if his team “had had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”…



Iran said accelerating uranium centrifuge production, anticipating deal collapse

by With Iran’s nuclear deal with global powers teetering on the edge of collapse, Israeli intelligence has identified a significant acceleration of work on the production of new uranium centrifuges… as Tehran prepares for the possibility of boosting enrichment activities, Channel 13 news reported Friday night. The intelligence sources were not named, nor were further details provided on the alleged centrifuge production efforts. The sources cited by the network also said, however, that the Islamic republic was making back-channel overtures to Washington expressing a willingness to renew talks in a bid to find common ground. That assessment appeared to agree with statements made by US President Donald Trump on Thursday. Speaking after talks in northern France with French President Emmanuel Macron, an ardent supporter of diplomacy with Iran, Trump indicated he could consider talking to Tehran. “I understand they want to talk and if they want to talk that’s fine,” said Trump, who was in France to mark the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. “We’ll talk but the one thing that they can’t have is they can’t have nuclear weapons,” he added. Trump said when he came to power Iran was “undisputed champions of terror” but indicated activity had slackened in recent times. “They’re not doing that anymore. They’re doing very poorly as a nation. They’re failing as a nation,” said Trump…


Americans May Be Strapped, But the Go-To Statistic Is False

by Michael R. Strain

{ } ~ A large share of Americans can’t cover a $400 emergency expense… You’ve probably heard politicians and journalists breathlessly report that shocking statistic more than once in the last year or so. A few recent examples. Senator lowlife-Kamala Harris, in April of this year: “In America right now today, almost half of Americans are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval.” Senator Elizabeth dinky-Warren last month: “The gap between incomes and costs is so gaping that 40% of Americans can’t come up with $400 in an emergency.” And Senator commie-Bernie Sanders, also in May: “Four in 10 Americans are unable to afford a $400 emergency expense.”This claim has never seemed plausible to me. After all, if so many Americans can’t cover a relatively minor unexpected expense, that would affect daily life in obvious ways. You’d frequently have a coworker out of the office who can’t afford to buy a new tire. You’d frequently hear from friends and neighbors who can’t afford to fix their dishwashers. Others have been equally skeptical of the $400 story, and published convincing rebuttals. Nevertheless, it has become the conventional wisdom. So when this issue flared up again last month, I decided to look into it. It turns out the claim that nearly half of Americans are a flat tire away from financial crisis is largely based on an inaccurate reading of one survey question. The question comes from the annual “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households” by the Federal Reserve. The report finds, in 2018, that 61% of adults would cover a $400 unexpected expense using cash or its equivalent. Politicians and many in the media seem to be subtracting 61 from 100, and concluding that 39% of people, to use dinky-Warren’s phrase, “can’t come up with” the money they’d need to handle this situation. Instead, as the Fed report makes clear, though “the remaining 4 in 10 adults” “would have more difficulty covering such an expense,” many of them would be able to make it work by carrying a credit card balance or borrowing from friends and family. Presumably some of these adults are 18-year-olds borrowing from their parents, but I’m not sure about that. The report states: “Twelve percent of adults would be unable to pay the expense by any means.” I’m dubious about that as well. In any event, 12% is a lot less than 39%… And yet these dems want a pay raise in thousands.


“Europe Will Not Be Europe”

by Guy Millière

{ } ~ On the evening of May 26, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini commented on the results of the European elections, “A new Europe is born.”… The party he leads, the League, had just won with 34.3% of the vote. Other parties defined in Europe as “populist” also won: in Hungary, the Fidesz-KDNP alliance (Hungarian Civic Alliance and the Christian Democratic People’s Party) received 52.3% of the vote. In Poland, the PiS (Law and Justice) party won 45.4% of the vote. Sebastian Kurz’s Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) won 34.6% of the vote and the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), his ally, was awarded 17.2%, despite a recent scandal that led to the resignation of Heinz-Christian Strache, chairma of the FPO, from his post as Vice-Chancellor of Austria (the Kurtz government fell on May 27). In the United Kingdom, the Brexit Party victory– at 31.6% of the vote — was a remarkable achievement that signaled the persistent willingness of millions of Britons to leave the European Union. There, the “populist” positions — the defense of national sovereignty and European civilization, refusal of uncontrolled immigration and diktats of Brussels technocrats — gained ground. In many European countries, however, the results of the “populists” were mixed. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally finished first, but with 23.3% of the vote: only 0.9% more than The Republic on the Move, created three years ago by Emmanuel Macron. The extreme unpopularity of the French President apparently did not cost him much. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats received only 15.4%, or two percent less than in the 2018 Swedish general elections. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) received 11%. In Belgium, the Vlams Belang received 11.2% of the vote. In Spain, Vox, with 6.2%, had to deal with even more disappointing results. In the Netherlands, the Forum for Democracy got 10.9% and Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which fell to 3.5%, no longer has a seat. The “populist wave” often mentioned in recent weeks did not overwhelm Europe. “Populist” parties will have only a little more than twenty percent of the seats in the European Parliament: enough to be heard, but not enough to exert influence. The parties that have ruled Europe for decades obtained weak results, but, with rare exceptions, did not collapse — and will continue to dominate the European Union. The crushing defeat of the British Conservative Party (8.9%, the lowest in its history) seems to have been the result of Theresa May’s inability to deliver Brexit. In France, the sharp downfall of The Republicans (8.5%) and the Socialist Party (6.2%) can be explained by most of their leaders (Republicans and socialists) having joined Macron’s The Republic on the Move party two years ago. In Germany, the CDU-CSU alliance obtained only 28.9% of the vote, but it was enough to win nevertheless. The socialist SPD received an honorable score, 15.8%. In several Western European countries, socialist parties prevailed, indicating that apparently socialism is not losing ground. The Spanish Socialist Party triumphed (32.8%), as well as the Portuguese Socialist Party (33.4%). In the Netherlands, the Labor Party (18.9%) finished first. In Italy, socialists obtained 22%; in Denmark, 21.5%, and in Sweden, 23.6%…


Making Sense of the New American Right

by Matthew Continetti

{ } ~ I like to start my classes on conservative intellectual history by distinguishing between three groups… There is the Republican Party, with its millions of adherents and spectrum of opinion from very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, and yes, liberal. There is the conservative movement, the constellation of single-issue nonprofits that sprung up in the 1970s—gun rights, pro-life, taxpayer, right to work—and continue to influence elected officials. Finally, there is the conservative intellectual movement: writers, scholars, and wonks whose journalistic and political work deals mainly with ideas and, if we’re lucky, their translation into public policy. It’s a common mistake to conflate these groups. The Republican Party is a vast coalition that both predates and possibly will post-date the conservative movement. That movement has had mixed success in moving the party to the right, partly because of cynicism and corruption but also because politicians must, at the end of the day, take into account the shifting and often contradictory views of their constituents. The conservative intellectual movement exercises the least power of all. You could fit its members into a convention hall or, more likely, a cruise ship. Ideas matter. But the relation of ideas to political action is difficult to measure and often haphazard. The line between shaping a politician’s rhetoric and decisions and merely reflecting them is awfully fuzzy. The conservative intellectual movement, in addition to generating excellent writing, has had seven real-world applications since its formation after the Second World War: originalism and supply side economics in the 1970s; welfare reform and crime policy in the 1980s and ’90s; educational choice and reform over the last two decades; James Burnham’s anti-Communist strategies that found expression in the Reagan Doctrine; and the counterinsurgency plan known as the “surge” that prevented the defeat of American forces in the second Iraq war. There have been other successes, for sure, but also plenty of setbacks. What’s important to remember is that liberals as well as Republicans, conservative activists, and conservative intellectuals contested every single one of these policies. The story goes that, for many years, American conservatives adhered to a consensus known as “fusionism.” Economic and social conservatives put aside their differences. Freedom, they decided, was necessary for the exercise of virtue. The struggle against and ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union was more important than domestic politics or intramural disagreements. Conservative intellectuals eager to privilege either freedom or virtue like to attack this consensus, which they often describe as “zombie Reaganism.” The truth is that the strength of fusionism always has been exaggerated. The conservative intellectual movement has been and continues to be fractious, contentious, combustible, and less of a force than most assume…


Court Reaffirms 2A and 4A Rights

Thomas Gallatin: In Commonwealth v. Hicks, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with a defendant who argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by law enforcement due to his legal exercise of his Second Amendment rights. Essentially, the court recognized that lawful possession of a firearm does not revoke a citizen’s other rights — specifically in this case an individual’s rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

In the case, the defendant legally possessed a conceal carry permit, but he was spotted outside a convenience store showing his firearm to another individual, not in a threatening manner. An observer notified the police who then responded to the call, restrained Mr. Hicks and conducted a search of his person and his vehicle. They smelled alcohol and found a small bag of marijuana and subsequently arrested him for driving under the influence and disorderly conduct.

The court in its ruling correctly concluded, “Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.”

National Review’s David French notes, “This is exactly correct, and it’s buttressed by the plain constitutional truth that there exists ‘a first principle that lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment — that the government may not target and seize specific individuals without any particular suspicion of wrongdoing, then force them to prove that they are not committing crimes.’” ~The Patriot Post  


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *