DAN BONGINO: ‘Evil’ the Only Word to Describe Latest Actions of Radical Left

Clip Courtesy: Fox News

‘EDUCATE! DON’T INDOCTRINATE!’: Trump Threatens To Pull Tax Exempt Status of Colleges and Universities He Deems ‘Liberal Indoctrination Centers’

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the Treasury Department to review the tax exempt status of colleges and universities he deemed “liberal indoctrination centers.”

The president took to twitter to blast the schools as he traveled to his southern base of operations in Florida.

“Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education,” Trump tweeted. “Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!”

According to the Association of American Universities, a majority of U.S. public and private colleges and universities are tax-exempt entities because they are entities of state governments that are declared 501(c)(3) organizations.

The IRS permits primary or secondary schools, colleges and professional trade schools that have regularly scheduled curriculum, to qualify as tax-exempt educational organizations, including federal, state, and other publicly supported schools.

The president’s comments come after he criticized higher learning institutions this week for balking at welcoming students back in the fall in fear of the ongoing Coronavirus epidemic.

He has also blamed colleges and universities in recent weeks for many of the protests that have torn the nation, particularly those where protesters removed statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy and historical figures such as George Washington.

“Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country,” he said, “and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes but that were villains.”

TRUMP JR.: Facebook, Twitter Using Power to ‘Manipulate’ 2020 Election

WASHINGTON — Left leaning social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook are unfairly targeting conservatives, Donald Trump, Jr. said Tuesday, and something, he says, needs to be done about it.

In an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump said the censoring of conservatives by major social media platforms is a violation of free speech.

“It’s people who are pro-life, it’s people who are pro-Second Amendment, the religious right, I mean it’s happened to me on numerous occasions,” Trump Jr. said. “I got targeted for hate speech, but it turns out I was right,” he said. “That didn’t stop the mainstream media from, you know, dragging me through the mud for three or four days but you know that’s what’s going on.”

Facebook and Twitter are “controlled by leftists … they all believe in one thing and it’s not free speech,” said Trump. “They only believe in their speech, you know, you can only be woke. If you’re not woke, again a cancellable offense.”

Trump went on to say that social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are also doing whatever they can to prevent his father, President Donald Trump, from winning re-election.

They’re “doing whatever they can to manipulate an election,” Trump claimed, by making sure “certain content is pushed and others’ is totally stymied and that’s not right … they gotta lose those protections and the liability that’s probably worth billions of dollars in terms of protection to them from our federal government because taxpayers shouldn’t be funding their own suppression.”

MORE WINNING: ‘Majority’ of voters would approve of a Trump second term

WASHINGTON — A new poll released by The Hill on Monday shows that a “majority” of registered voters say they would be open to a second presidential term for Donald Trump.

54 percent of voters asked in the new HarrisX poll say they would consider voting for the much-embattled president in 2020, with most citing the booming economy as their reason why.

“Clearly the economy is always the issue in every presidential election,” GOP pollster Ed Goeas told Hill.TV. “Because that’s what it always is. Jobs, the economy, taxes. Basically, do people feel their lives are doing better economically than when that president went in?”

In all, the entire poll showed favorable results for the often embattled president.

According to the numbers:

– 95 percent of respondents who said they voted for Trump in 2016 said they’d do it again in 2020.

– Nearly a quarter, 24 percent, of 2016 Hillary Clinton voters who once said they would “never” vote for Trump now say they’d at least consider it and 35 percent say they now feel confident that they could.

A March 18 CNN-SSRS poll found that 71 percent of Americans viewed the country’s economy as “favorable”, a driving force for many voters.

Twenty percent of respondents polled said another reason they were willing to vote Trump in 2020 is that they viewed the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates as “too liberal”.



LIBERALISM GONE WILD: Dems push for parents who commit federal crimes to get off scot free

Washington, D.C. (The Federalist) — Democrats’ proposed legislation to prohibit so-called border separations would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.

Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.

Let’s break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “Keep Families Together Act” to see where Democrats went wrong. The bill provides that “[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim.

First, “designated agency” here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition on family separation to immigration-related matters. In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United States.

Second, “agent or officer” is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it includes contractors. Federal law, however, already defines “officer” to include (with exceptions not relevant here) every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency.

Here again, this bill is not limited to controlling the behavior of the DHS, DOJ, or HHS officers involved in the border crisis. The proposed law would apply with equal force to, say, FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS) in the exercise of their everyday duties.

Third, “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border” does not meaningfully limit the geographic scope of this bill. That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States and the vast majority of people living in it. Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border. That’s roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population. Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma (more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly 600 miles from the nearest border crossing). All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near a port of entry or both.

Finally, “child” is defined in this legislation as any individual who has not reached 18 years old who has no permanent immigration status. This astonishing definition includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18. Citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise. (Even if the Democrats belatedly amended this provision to restrict the definition to alien children without a permanent immigration status, that amended definition would still include non-migrant aliens, like tourist children, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients under the age of 18, and children whose parents have had their immigration status revoked.)

Thus, far from addressing the border crisis, the Democrats’ Keep Families Together Act applies almost everywhere in the country to prohibit any DHS, DOJ, or HHS officer from removing almost any child from a parent. The listed exceptions to the prohibition—a state court authorizes separation, a state child welfare agency determines that the child is in danger, or certain DHS officials establish that the child is a victim of trafficking or is in danger from the parent, or that the parent is not the actual parent of the child—are completely unrelated to the vast majority of DHS, DOJ, and HHS enforcement activity.

Two groups would not benefit from the prohibition on family separation in this bill. First, parents who have children with a permanent immigration status go unprotected. Additionally, the childless would obviously find no shelter from this legislation. This disparity in treatment for the childless and lawful permanent residents borders on the farcical.

The ridiculous consequences of passing the Democrats’ hastily written mess are easily demonstrated. Let’s say FBI agents hear about a drug trafficker and murderer in Buffalo, New York. The agents get a warrant to raid the drug trafficker’s house and arrest him. While they do so, they discover the drug trafficker’s minor daughter is home with him. Feinstein’s bill would prohibit the FBI agents, while arresting a drug trafficker, from separating this child from her father.

This is not a farfetched hypothetical. FBI agents are agents of DOJ (a designated agency) and Buffalo is within 100 miles of the border. So long as the daughter is either a U.S. citizen or an alien without permanent status, the FBI agents would be unable to proceed with normal law enforcement activities. The agents would be forced to choose between booking the drug trafficking murderer into jail with his daughter or not booking him into jail at all.

Panicky lawmaking often produces absurd results, and this one presents law enforcement with the choice between keeping children with their criminal parents while prosecuting them almost anywhere in the United States and for any crime whatsoever, or not prosecuting criminal parents at all. The legislation is not limited to unlawful entry prosecutions, to migrants, or (absent amendment) even to alien children.

A more honest method of ending unlawful entry prosecutions—and the family separations that ensue—would be to repeal 8 U.S.C. § 1325, which criminalizes unlawful entry in the first place. That would at least have the benefit of not curtailing federal enforcement of every other criminal law on the books for parents who keep their children close.

At a minimum, Democrats’ proposed legislation is the consequence of extremely careless and hurried drafting. If this is actually what Democrats intend to do—and every Democratic senator has now signed on—it is a monstrous attack on law and order. If enacted, this bill would turn federal law enforcement upside down in the name of protecting relatively few unlawful border crossers from being prosecuted. This sloppiness is a prime example of why Democrats are unserious about outcomes and unfit to govern when the emotional stakes get high.



‘HEY LIBERALS, BETTER GET YOUR GUNS!’: Pro-Trump billboard warns Dems of consequences if president is impeached

Huntingtown, Md. — A pro-Trump sign warning liberals of the wrath they will face if Trump should be impeached has liberals in one Maryland community up in arms.

The billboard, posted just off Route 4 in Huntingtown, Maryland, reads, “Hey liberals, better get your guns if you try to impeach President Trump.”

The bottom of the sign reads, “From all of your deplorables in Calvert County.”

The billboard, which was paid for by a local man who was asked by the Calvert County Sheriff’s Office to take it down due complaints received from the community, has since been taken down.

Captain Dave Payne of the Calvert Sheriff’s Office told The Baltimore Sun that his office had received multiple calls from mainly Democrats in the area who complained the sign was “offensive”. However, Payne said the sign also received a lot of positive response from the community.

“There’s two groups that are offended. We’ve received messages that say it’s offensive that it’s up,” Payne said. “While others say it’s offensive that he’s being pressured to take it down. We can’t win. We’re in the middle.”

Payne said this was not the first time the man put up pro-Trump messages on the billboard the past few years but this one has, by far, received the most attention.

“I love the billboard,” Michelle Rinker, a resident, told WJLA. “We’re conservative and there’s a lot of corruption that’s happened in this country and I don’t think it’s threatening.”

“If you attempt to take down a good president, there’s gonna be a problem,” Rinker added.

Another resident of the town, who asked not to be identified other than to say that she was a registered Democrat, said she and her son “fear” the sign.

“I hate that billboard,” she said. “I think it’s very threatening. I don’t like it at all.”

The signature on the sign which read “deplorables” relates to a controversial comment made by former DNC presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign in which she said Trump supporters and their fellow Republicans were “deplorable”.

The comment received a great deal of backlash from Conservatives and went on to play a key role in the outcome of the election.