Turns out that Trump has always had to authority to build "the Wall."

Ariane de Vogue / CNN:

Next time "they" give you the stats for Trumps wall,  always add 198 miles of replacement wall which is, in fact, new wall exactly like what which is being built.

Understand that the wordsmiths  within the new Socialist Democrat Party want you to believe there is a difference between a replacement wall and a new wall.  Not True.  As a result,  Trump has completed 198 miles of new replacement wall and another 222  miles of new wall for a total of 398 miles.  And an additional  516 miles to go.

for a map of the wall's progress, use this link   ---     https://www.trumpwall.construction/

Biden may have serious thoughts about Karen Bass as his VP - as radical a Democrat figure as exists.

CNN:
Joe Biden narrows down his VP list, with Karen Bass emerging as one of several key contenders  —  Bass on VP talk: ‘willing to serve’ however I can  —  (CNN)Joe Biden heads into the weekend weighing the biggest decision of his presidential campaign so far, and people close to the process tell CNN …

Editor:  I really have nothing good to say about this woman.  She hates conservatives,  is equal to Louis Farrakhan in terms of dividing this once great nation,  and is not all that well known within the Black community.  Understand that there really are no good VP choices within the Democrat Party at this time  . . .  and the scary thing about Bass is this,  she would be a heartbeat away from being president.  Make no mistake,  this election cycle is as much about Biden versus Trump as it is Biden's VP choice versus Trump. 

Bass's high regard for Castro is reason enough to be afraid of this woman.  'nuff said.

Kids and Corona: Good news and the bad

Stats released today for children 17 and under give us these figures:

   For New York only:   16 deaths for this age group

   Nationally:  63 deaths out of approx 154,000.
                                              (Fox News)

You should know, however,  that the infection rate is considerably higher.  No one knows that total,  but my daughter,  a nurse in pediatrics, recently told me that last week alone,  69 children were admitted into her hospital alone.  None were fatally infected,  but this virus is the real deal.  

Well, so much for the SAT Scandal:

If you haven’t noticed, Mary Trump’s ‘tell-all’ book has been largely forgotten already.
That’s because it turned out to be the same kind of tripe we’ve seen other people repeatedly author since Donald Trump ascended to the Oval Office: Vapid, unsubstantiated, meaningless gossip passed off as ‘bombshell’ material that will ‘end his presidency.’

But one thing in Mary Trump’s book that the contemptuous ‘mainstream media’ appears to have latched onto is the claim that President Trump paid a friend to take his SAT exam.

***FIGHT BACK Against Liberal Censorship. Download Our Free Trump News App***
One can only imagine why the media sycophants are focusing on this lone aspect of Mary Trump’s uncorroborated claims; it’s probably because they like to fancy themselves as the smartest people in the room and infinitely smarter than Donald Trump (who has outsmarted them every step of his presidency).

Mary Trump’s claim: Her presidential kin had a guy named Joe Shapiro, a friend, take his SAT so the future president could earn admission into the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School.

Here is the problem with the SAT candal:

according to Raw Story, the Joe Shapiro who allegedly took Trump’s SATs for him, was, in fact, the Joe Shapiro who died 21 years ago, and whom Trump didn’t meet until after he started at UPenn.

Source:    https://trendingpolitics.com/revealed-huge-hole-blown-in-major-claim-in-mary-trump-s-tell-all-book-about-the-president/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_5461015

Conservatives should know the plans for unrest and bloodshed from the Left. Hopefully we won't respond in kind.

“There’s Gonna Be a Lot of Bloodshed When They Come” – Democrat Caller on CSPAN Threatens Shootings Against Trump Supporters and Federal Agents (VIDEO)

Question: Whatever happen to John Bolton ? Even the Libs didn't like the guy. And Trump's niece? Little more than meaningless gossip.

Another Wa/Post opinion piece pretending to being "news."

Greg Sargent / Washington Post:
Trump's ugly law enforcement crackdown is even alienating Republicans  —  Under fire for dispatching federal law enforcement into cities in defiance of local leaders, in part to create TV imagery that sends an authoritarian thrill up President Trump's leg, top officials are offering several new defenses.
 
Editor:  Even if this headline is true,  it only means that a few GOP party members disagree.  Big whoop.  So there are people within the Trump circle of influence who disagree with the man.  
 
Understand that Greg Sargent wants you to believe that Trump's world is falling apart.  Not even close   . . . .  look how long many current members of his inner circle remain in place and loyal: Kellyanne, Pompeo, Mnuchin, Lapper, Pence, Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry,  Nikki Haley (remains a Trump supporter), Peter Navarro,  and more. 
 
 

Just a reminder as to how far Left John Kasich has gone . . . . no lomger in sync with the magority.

John Kasich To Speak At Democrat National Convention For Joe Biden

I'm sorry, but this simply is not a news story for the Left. As always, the vast majority of players refuse to kneel . . . . true for baseball and football.

And if there were fans present at the games,  virtually all of them would be standing  . . .  so who is winning this aspect of the cultural war?






President Trump Signs Executive Order Banning Illegal Immigrants From 2020 Census Count

President Trump Signs Executive Order Banning Illegal Immigrants From 2020 Census Count For the Purpose of Congressional Representation

  This will be challenged in the courts but if it stands,  as it should, and Trump wins another four years,  the Democrats' plan to convert illegals to the Democrat Party is foiled for a season.

Kind of a big deal.

 

James Comey back at it, again.

James B. Comey / Washington Post:
Is televised conflict Trump's goal?  —  James B. Comey is a former director of the FBI and former deputy attorney general.  —  Each day brings more images of dark-green-clad, helmeted figures striking and spraying unarmed protesters on the streets of Portland, Ore. The figures are federal officers … 
Editor: Comey asks, "Is televised conflict Trump's goal? "  All we can say about moment of idiocy is this:  Televised conflict is most certainly the goal of domestic terror and the Mob from the Left.   Understand that when these no-nothing pinheads and infant revolutionaries break windows and savage  businesses,  headlines are always the included goal.  You should know that these Leftist Morons actually believe that vandelism and sheer violence will generate a rebellion against the government and in their favor.  In that sense, the Left has failed miserably in it efforts for domestic uprising.  


Here is one of the most idiotic headlines in recent memory:

Biden Campaign Chair Cedric Richmond Compares Trump Voters to David Duke Voters – Says There’s More Secret Biden Voters than Trump Voters

Editor:  Understand that a "secrete voter" is one who is afraid of being discoveered.  Trump voters often are beaten, their cars burned and their business distroyed simply because they display a Trump preference.  None of that is true for a Biden voter.  

What you have in this headline is proof of the determined bias of the media  -  willing to say anything and everything in order to win the coming election.

Kind of makes you wonder what they are afraid of since Biden is 20 points ahead of Trump    . . . .   or is he? 

Is this know-it-all teenager the new militant leader on the Left when it comes to climate change?

Reuters:
Greta Thunberg: World must ‘tear up’ old systems, contracts to tackle climateNEW!
+
Discussion: Breitbart
 
The Left has Bernie Sanders, AOC,  Joe Biden, Hillary,  Greta as its core leadeership.  And you don't think this nation is in deep trouble ???? 

Despite the President's displeasure, the Supreme Courts' 7-2 decision blocking access to Trump's tax records is a win. (See video for explanation).



Evidence for Weiss being a "centrist." Scroll down for her letter of resignation from the Time (she was forced out by the Twitter Mob).

Bari Weiss

Bari Weiss is an Op-Ed staff editor and writer. She writes about culture and politics. Bari was an op-ed and book review editor at The Wall Street Journal before joining the Times in 2017. She has also worked at Tablet, the online magazine of Jewish politics and culture. She is a native of Pittsburgh and graduated from Columbia University in 2007. Ms. Weiss's first book, How to Fight Anti-Semitism, will be published by Crown in September.

The World’s Wokest Sports League Bows to China

The N.B.A. apologizes on behalf of Daryl Morey, a general manager who voiced support for democracy.



 Vanity Fair
Meet Bari Weiss, “alt-righter,” “fascist,” “the Jewish, female version of Kanye West.” She doesn’t like immigrants. She’s a traitor to her gender, and she should be “sterilized.” In short, “Bari Weiss can fuck off.”
That’s the word, anyway, about the 35-year-old star opinion writer for The New York Times, from a very loud and increasingly influential corner of social media. Her newfound fame has transcended her platform. She’s become a somewhat unwitting avatar for the knee-jerk flash-bang of social media, a poster child for the polarization of the chattering classes.
Therefore it’s disorienting to meet Weiss and discover that she’s neither an aspiring sex symbol/bomb thrower, à la Ann Coulter, nor a defensive Ivy League know-it-all. When she walks into Cafe Luxembourg on the Upper West Side, blocks from her fifth-floor walk-up, you might peg her as a kindergarten teacher—she’s petite, with hair parted down the middle and pulled back in a low ponytail, big glasses framing a cherubic face. She’s effusive and warm, immediately popping out with one eager question after another before I can successfully steer the conversation around to her. Her minor insecurities are blurted fodder for making a connection. “I have pen marks on my boob. I was like, ‘I’m going to meet a Vanity Fair writer and I have pen on my boob.’ I was really embarrassed. Also, I’ve been sweating a lot.” She says that her father has been urging her to freeze her eggs. “Should I do it now?” she asks, sincerely searching for an answer. This isn’t some dopey act intended to charm. Weiss seems genuinely fueled by curiosity, the desire to connect, to cross boundaries and try out new things. As she sums up her outlook, “I just want to gobble the world.”






Bari Weiss resigns from the NY Times. She is a centrist and "centristws" are no longer welcomed at the Time. Here is her resignation letter:

 ". . . . The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers . . . . Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor . . . . But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. ~ Bari Weiss

_____________________
 
Dear A.G.
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 
Sincerely,
Bari

In the spirit of COVID, did you know that more than 40,000 Americans die annually due to auto accidents ? (updated for content)

I propose a ban on auto travel outside the city of residence.  Live in Denver,  work in Denver.  Live in Cottonwood, work in Cottonwood.  Live  in Phily, go to school (at all levels) in Phily.

No Freeway or highway travel.

This will require a mass migration involving workers to the immediate locale of their workplace and students to "area schools and colleges."

Understand that the saving of just one life (not to mention 600,000 lives) would make this economic change of direction critically important.

And think of the Progressive advancement toward a socialist state based on the demand, alone, of a faster growing population  (6 milllion in 10 years ).

And what if we banned water sports in an effort to save 320,000 lives World Wide?  I don't know how many folks die falling in the shower,  but a helmet requirement would solve that problem   . . .  and the saving of even one live would made that requirement reasonable.

30,000 folks die each year because of influenza.  Why not enforce the same social requirements as are in place with COVID ??  Of course we would have to fundamentally transform our economic production processes and eliminate all factory production that could not adapt to social distancing requirments.

In fact,  we could almost eliminate all domestically transmitted diseases if we enforced social distancing rules . . . . .  and wearing helmets in the shower would save lives.

My point?
Living life without risk is impossible. 

If you understand that "tide rise" is a critical aspect of demonstrative warming, the following disproves the doctrine

1.  Manhatten is the financial captial of the world.  Its elevations range from  sea level to 300 feet.  There are no financial institutions on this island planning on moving to "higher ground."  no tide rise

2.  Pictures of the Statue of Liberty show an identical shore-line when comparing 1935 pictures to  present day pictures of the island.No tide rise

3.  The Panama Canal  :  a recent passage through the Canal revealed (to me) an identical water level as on the day of it's opening in 1914.  No tide rise.

4.  There are no planned projects designed to move the population to higher ground on any of the Pacific Island including Hawaii.

5.  Japan has a large population living on its coastline with no plns to "rescue" that population due to a supposed "tide rise." 

I could go on and on,  talking about the African coastline, Australia, England (its an island).  The demonstrable fact of the matter is this:  glabal warming as tied to "tide rise" is not evidenced.

Remember the good old days when Disney stood for American Values.

Walt Disney Signs Colin Kaepernick in First-Look Deal the Weekend After He Calls Independence Day a “Celebration of White Supremacy”

Editor: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 190 million American adults do not agree with Kaepernick's ranting.  Problem,  CNN, NBC, ABC, cBS, and all of ESPN think he is some sort of intellectual martyr.  He sure as hell is no NFL star

Understand that there is no financial path to sustainability for all of the 32 NFL if they continue down their anti-American, anti-Police ways.  Me?  I am done with the sport.  

The collective greed of the players coupled with a stubborn resistance to the influence of Marxism within much of professional sports means smaller paychecks and few teams.  

Put three to five people in each boat and you have as many as 15,000 in support of the Chief.

The people of South Carolina held a boat rally for President Trump this past weekend with a parade on July 5th, with 2,500 to 3,000 boats in attendance.



Midknight Review is beginning a conversation about the transgendered:

In this extremely biased  and critical article in review of JK Rowling's position against transgender theorapy here, w

J.K. Rowling, as you may have heard, has some Opinions about trans identity, some of which she aired on Twitter in early June. Sharing an article on period poverty, the author took aim at the phrase “people who menstruate.” As became clear from her subsequent explanation, Rowling believes that womanhood somehow hangs on this biological function, logic that excludes trans women and gender-nonconforming people. Many read her comments as transphobic, and with criticism growing, Rowling published a 3,690-word response on June 10. In this essay, entitled “TERF Wars,” she both broadly declares her support for trans people, while doubling down on her original suggestion that trans women do not actually qualify as women.
And now, weeks after publishing her controversial essay, Rowling has reiterated those beliefs at length, while also implicating people who take mental health medications. It is, as you may have intuited, a lot to unpack.

Rowling’s June essay sparked outrage for its reliance on anti-trans talking points.

In the June 10 post, Rowling named five core reasons for her position. The two that animate the essay, however, are a suspicion that young people who decide to transition (particularly adolescent girls heavily influenced by their peers, an idea that has been thoroughly debunked) often “grow out of their dysphoria” and come to regret their decisions; and Rowling’s fear, as a survivor of sexual assault and domestic abuse, that opening the doors of a women’s restroom to “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” means “open[ing] the door to any and all men who wish to come inside,” jeopardizing female safety.
Naturally, the existing online criticism of Rowling’s position did not cool with the publication of this rebuttal. One reader summed it up as a “TERF bingo card,” and indeed the term TERF — which stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist and in its current usage, often describes a liberal woman whose brand of feminism excludes transgender women from its push for equal rights — is one that Rowling heard many times between hitting send the tweet that kicked off the controversy, and the birth of this essay.

An alternative point of view , one that is in line with real science. (It is not real science that says a biological man can become a biological women, BTW).

British author J.K. Rowling, who last month issued controversial comments many considered transphobic, now maintains that some doctors needlessly steer young people toward sex-hormone therapy and transition surgery.
"Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests," the "Harry Potter" novelist, 54, said in one of more than a dozen tweets on the topic Sunday. "Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function."
Rowling added that "transition may be the answer for some. For others, it won't – witness the accounts of detransitioners," she said, linking to a blog post by The Detransition Advocacy Network founder, self-described as "not a philosopher or a gender expert or a psychologist."
In her conclusion before two postscripts, Rowling said, "None of that may trouble you or disturb your belief in your own righteousness. But if so, I can't pretend I care much about your bad opinion of me."

 https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/jk-rowling-transgender-1.46429870

J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter author) defends her criticism of transgender proponents in this tweet:



Replying to @jk_rowling
The long-term health risks of cross-sex hormones have been now been tracked over a lengthy period. These side-effects are often minimised or denied by trans activists. bit.ly/38F0GnD
 

Did you know that all drugs used to block a child's development into puberty are "off-label" and dangerous for that reason. Its past time for honesty in our discussion about transgender "therapy."

Carl Henegan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, has described the off-label use of puberty blockers on under-18s as an ‘unregulated live experiment on children’. bit.ly/3dVU6Kg

Editor:  "Off label" ----  Unapproved use of an approved drug is often called “off-label” use. This term can mean that the drug is: Used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to treat, such as when a chemotherapy is approved to treat one type of cancer, but healthcare providers use it to treat a different type of cancer.

Did you know there is no truth to the notion that public opinion within the native Indian community supports the change to the Washington Redskins name

 From The Federalist:

“All” would seem to imply that there is a strong and overwhelming consensus on the offensiveness of “Redskins,” not dissimilar to the consensus against the most infamous and ugliest of racial slurs (the one that ends in a hard “R”).
But by virtually any poll, survey or study conducted, that simply doesn’t appear to be the case. At most, it’s fair to say that the nickname is polarizing. But the idea that a name change is necessary for “all”? The numbers simply don’t back that up.
The best-known survey is likely a 2016 Washington Post poll that found 9 out 10 Native Americans don’t find the “Redskins” name offensive.
The poll asked a random national sample of 504 Native American adults and was conducted via phone interviews. The margin of error was 5.5 percentage points.
According to The Post, the 2016 poll found similar results to a 2004 poll conducted by Annenberg Public Policy Center.
It’s now 2020 and quite a bit has changed in the social landscape. It’s a year where it’s considered offensive to stand for the American flag, two separate anthems will be played before NFL games for the sake of “unity,” and you’re not allowed to support the president of the United States. A more recent survey, conducted by “market research organization” Wolvereye in 2019, along with “two other prominent research companies,” interviewed 500 people who self-identified as Native American. The method of interviewing and margins of error were not disclosed.
The Wolvereye survey took a more human approach to their survey. Instead of asking whether a person was offended by “Redskins,” it delved into what it called “emotional DNA” and asked for specific feelings on the team’s name.
The Post and the Annenberg poll both asked: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?”
The Wolvereye survey instead presented interviewees with 40 options that included feelings such as “proud,” “love” and “fear.”
The findings were fascinating.
The most common emotion the survey takers cited when asked about how they felt about Redskins’ name was “proud.” The next most common was “indifferent.”
In fact, of the top five most common emotions, three of them were categorized as “positive.” That list includes the aforementioned “proud,” “content” and “satisfied.”
The only negative emotion to crack the top five was merely “annoyed.” That sure seems like a far cry from the deeply wounded emotions that detractors of the name would have you think Native Americans feel about it.
To complete the trifecta, there’s a University of California, Berkeley study published in the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science in March.
UC Berkeley researchers said they recruited “1,000 self-identified adult Native Americans” across 50 states and representing 148 tribes using the Qualtrics online survey platform.
The study found that 49 percent of participants strongly agreed or agreed that the Redskins team name was offensive. 38 percent were not bothered by it. The rest of the participants were indifferent.
Which is all to say, whether you want to analyze a poll, a survey or a study, the notion that “Redskins” is a horribly racist and hurtful team name is hardly the slam dunk that some would have you believe.
Is wiping out 87 years of NFL tradition really necessary to possibly placate, at most, half of the allegedly aggrieved?
In any other year, probably not. But it’s 2020, and this may very well be the new norm.

The Post can't allow for "the preservation of American history" as it continues to brand Trump as a racist.

Washington Post:
Trump's push to amplify racism unnerves Republicans who have long enabled him  —  President Trump's unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination, crystallized by his harsh denunciation of the racial justice movement Friday night at Mount Rushmore … 
 
Editor:  Understand this, our President has never defended the Confederacy on any level.  Lets not forget that the racist South was the sole (as in "exclusive") invention of the Democrat Party, period.  Seriously,  " 'nuff said."

Here is my defense for negative polling: Liberal polls lie and moderate polls are making the same mistakes they did back in 2016.

Republican internal polling signals a Democratic rout



Updated 1439 GMT (2239 HKT) July 4, 2020

Editor:  Think about this:  Stay in your bunker;  ignore the fact that you often have "crowds" of 10, 20 40; pretend you could do better after 8 years serving in a stagnate administration and 40 years of of doing nothing to repair the damage done to the poorer communities because of you rules regulating welfare , and, then claim you are winning in a landslide.  Incredible. 


Trump was/is a commited socialite and to a lesser degree, a womanizer, but he has never been a child molester and even his enemies know.

Sarah Rumpf / Mediaite:
Eric Trump Deletes Tweet of Bill Clinton With Ghislaine Maxwell After Twitter Buries Him With Photos of Her With His Father  —  Eric Trump tweeted, and then deleted, a photo of former President Bill Clinton with Jeffrey Epstein's alleged partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell …

Trump was/is a commited socialite and to a lesser degree, a womanizer,  but he has never been a child molester and even his enemies know.  So,  Mediate's effort to cast Trump in that light will fail.  

The fact that a Democrat Socialist can rise to prominence tells you all you need to know about the current Democrat Party - - - and it has always been about the destruction of Union.

The Fatal Flaw in the Electoral Victory Plan of Democrat Elites

Since its founding in the 1820’s, the Democrat party has been the most pernicious and most schizophrenic entity in American politics.  Today, the two dominant factions within the party are the ultra-wealthy beneficiaries of capitalism plus college educated sanctimonious elites (collectively the vast bulk of the ruling class) on the one hand, and Marxist indoctrinated self-described democratic socialists on the other.

The elites, in the personage of Barack Obama, chose to enter into this marriage of convenience with the socialists in 2008 in order to have another, albeit at the time numerically small, ally in their unrequited need to retain power.  However, the primary targets of the now-dominant radical left has always been their fellow bedmates, the Democrat establishment and the ruling class.  This marriage is about to end, not in an amicable divorce, but a palace revolution which could ultimately and deleteriously impact the future of the nation if Joe Biden wins in November.

History is replete with examples of the inevitable demise of alliances of convenience.  Stories and fables throughout the ages chronicle the disaster that inevitably befalls those that ally themselves with avowed aggressors or natural predators, such as Aesop’s fable of the Scorpion and the Frog.  
_______________________________
. . . . .   the establishment within the party and their financial and media benefactors believe they will be able to maintain control of the party by buying off their incongruent bedfellows with symbolism and minor compromises.  Yet, {the} so-called best and brightest cannot help but be aware, as is much of the nation, that this active and dominant wing of the party are true-believers and, as the riots, violence and attempted destruction of the symbols of the nation’s heritage confirms, they are very impatient and determined to fundamentally transform America -- regardless of who is president. 
_______________________________________________________
The party hierarchy may not openly admit it, but they do know who is their dominant ally, and what is their end game.  Nonetheless, they are helpless in preventing the ultimate takeover of the party by the radical left.  This is confirmed by the fact that everyone in the party knows Joe Biden is a closet segregationist and mendacious, as well as physically and mentally incapable of being president.  Yet, the establishment dares not replace Biden, as their erstwhile ally would insist on Bernie Sanders or a clone as a replacement, precipitating an unwanted but potential internal feud before the election.  However, the decision about who will run with Biden is fraught with the same pitfalls as whoever is chosen will be the de facto president were Biden to win in November.  In short, the radical left is in the driver’s seat.
A historical analogue less than a century ago reflects the predicament the establishment of the Democrat party has created for itself and why elitist naïveté always creates enormously consequential and at times fatal outcomes.  
It is 1929 and the global Depression has hit Germany.  The National Socialist Workers Party (Nazis) is still a relatively small fringe party but one that had garnered a lot of attention in Bavaria over the previous five years, as its militant arm, the Sturmabteilung, SA or Brown Shirts, intimidated and often fomented violence throughout the state.  In 1930, Hitler and the Nazis allied themselves with the German National People’s Party (DNVP) and through a sympathetic media was able for the first time to reach a national audience.  This alliance also allowed Hitler to seek and receive support from many magnates of business and industry who controlled political funds and were anxious to use them to establish stability and peace on the streets.
Over the next two years the strength of the party grew, as chaos, often fomented by the Brown Shirts, and frustration ran rampant throughout the country.  In the 1932 national election, the Nazis garnered 36.8% of the vote, and while a significant minority in the Reichstag, they were still overwhelmingly outnumbered by other more conventional parties. 
Nonetheless, Hitler was greeted with open arms by the nation’s more sophisticated, erudite, wealthy and well-spoken political leadership as someone, they naïvely believed, they could work with.  These elites then approached the President of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, (84 years old and in declining health) to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, proclaiming unequivocally that they could work Hitler and keep the Nazi party under control.  One of Hitler’s demands for assuming the office would be for Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag so the Nazis in alliance with the DNVP could win an outright majority.  Hindenburg acquiesced.
After the appointment and a newly configured Reichstag, Hitler unleashed the Brown Shirts on all his opponents, passed legislation enabling him to rule by decree, and suspended all civil liberties after the Nazis deliberately set fire to the Reichstag building.  The rest of the story ends in 1945 with the near total destruction of the continent of Europe and the slaughter of nearly 40 million men, women and children.
Just as the naïve fools in Germany did not realize that once they accepted Hitler into the political hierarchy the die was cast, neither have the naïve fools among the Democrats’ establishment realized that once they allied themselves with the Marxists masquerading as democratic socialists and became willing apologists for their twin militant arms, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, that the die is cast.  Whether the Democrat party succeeds or fails to win the White House in November, the elites have lost control of the party in perpetuity. 
Thus, the only issue at hand is the reality that if Biden were to win the presidency, these credulous buffoons will be responsible for the nation descending into chaos and potential nationwide civil unrest, as well as obliterating the future for their progeny.  The current Democrat party hierarchy, the media, and the elites in the party are incapable of thwarting the inevitable ultimatums of the radical left.  Further, the left knows that these self-absorbed elitists will cower and surrender in the face of the inevitable violence and aggression fomented by Antifa and Black Lives Matter if they do not get their way.  An unthinkable civil war will no longer be a hypothetical thesis but an escalating reality.
Is pulling out all the stops and working tirelessly to defeat Donald Trump in November, because he is supposedly uncouth and lacking in civility, worth the price all the people of this nation will ultimately pay?  This is a question that this nation’s clueless ruling elites need to answer.
Graphic credit: Curzon

Turns out that Adam Schiff knew about these briefings back in February and told no one.

Stephanie Ruhle / MSNBC:
Speaker Pelosi: ‘The president himself is a hoax’  —  Congressional leaders are hoping they will get the answers they're looking for this morning when Trump administration officials brief them on intelligence that Russia allegedly paid bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Apparently the NFL only wants blacks and ignorant Millennials watching its sport.

Jason Reid / ESPN:
Source: NFL plans to play Black national anthem before Week 1 games  —  “Lift Ev'ry Voice And Sing,” traditionally known as the Black national anthem, is expected to be performed live or played before every Week 1 NFL game, and the league is considering a variety of other measures during …

Vanity Fair is a declared enemy of Donald Trump and we are going to believe its editorials because . . . . . . ?

Gabriel Sherman / Vanity Fair:
“What Do I Do?  What Do I Do?”:  Trump Desperate, Despondent as Numbers Crater, “Loser” Label Looms  —  “They probably won't have” the Jacksonville convention.  The Joni Ernst campaign is angry at Trump's horrible numbers.  Meadows and Kushner are at loggerheads over Parscale.

'nuff said.

Great news for school choice and schools sponsored by private religion.

WSJ:   Whatever his jurisprudential faults, Chief Justice John Roberts often sides with the angels in disputes over religious liberty. Case in point: In a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court resurrected a Montana scholarship program that was in jeopardy because students used it to attend religious schools.
“A State need not subsidize private education,” the Chief Justice writes for the majority in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. “But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools  (because of their religious affiliation.)"

Kellyanne . . . from attractrive to georgeous