Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Diversity - All Newspeak - Sickening

The Fraud Goes On

6/28/2016 - Thomas Sowell Townhall.com

Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.

But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws," by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.

Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.

The Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of "DeFunis v. Odegaard," the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.

While the 1896 "separate but equal" decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.

One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court's most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.

But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas' racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.

We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia -- and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.

The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.

Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.

But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.

When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.

We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.

Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."

When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.

But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like "diversity" -- a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas -- unless the word "diversity" was used instead of "quotas."

Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.

Senator Ted Kennedy ALSO Contributed to America's Transformation

How Does Immigration Reduce Mass Shootings?

6/22/2016 - Ann Coulter Townhall.com

With the media frantically hiding the content of Donald Trump's terrorism speech from last week, he should respond to every question with the central point of that speech: How does this kind of immigration make our country better? How does it make the country safer?

Media: Show us your tax returns!

Trump: Show me how our immigration policies are good for the people who already live here.

Media: Tell us why you fired Corey Lewandowski!

Trump: Tell me how our immigration policies are making the country safer for the people who already live here.

Media: How are you going to match Hillary's corporate fundraising?

Trump: How are our immigration policies helping the people who already live here?

Sooner or later people will say, "That's a good question -- why is this necessary?"

When the Third World immigrants admitted under Sen. Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act -- as well as their children -- commit mass murder, the government and media tell us it's a gun problem. Or it's "our" culture. Or it's "homophobia." Or we have to keep admitting millions of Muslims because otherwise the ones already here will REALLY hate us.

Isn't that extortion? We've already admitted millions of Muslim immigrants, but if we don't take in millions more, the ones we've admitted will go on killing sprees? How did we get in the position where we're screwed if we're not in the good graces of the Muslim community? Maybe we should stop doing that.

As any competent health professional will tell you, prevention is always better than a cure. No one says, Go ahead and have sex with that syphilitic whore -- we've got a cure! You don't need to worry about a leaky roof -- we've got mops! They know that's not a good argument, which is why the media refuse to tell you what Trump actually said in his terrorism speech.

Like defendants with a losing case being forced to cough up bits of discovery, it took the FBI a week to release a redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter's 911 call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Even then, the first version came from George Orwell's Ministry of Truth: "I pledge allegiance to (omitted), may God protect him (in Arabic), on behalf of (omitted)."

That was too much even for Speaker Paul "That's Not Who We Are" Ryan, prompting the FBI to produce the full version of at least one of Omar's calls. (It turns out, he wasn't pledging allegiance to Wayne LaPierre or Phyllis Schlafly.)

To hide the epidemic of immigrant mass murders, all the lists have to include massacres from a time when there weren't many immigrants here -- before Kennedy's Immigration Act had fully kicked in and overwhelmed our country with the Third World. Fox News ran a chart compiled by Mother Jones magazine that includes mass shootings from the 1980s. Why not the 1960s? Why not include Bonnie and Clyde?

Could we look at mass murders from the last decade? Those include:

2016: Orlando, Florida, second-generation Afghan immigrant Omar Mateen -- 49 dead;

2015: San Bernardino, California, first- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook -- 14 dead;

2015: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Kuwaiti immigrant Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez -- 5 dead;

2014: Isla Vista, California, half-Malaysian immigrant from England, Elliot Rodger -- 6 dead;

2013: The Boston Marathon, Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- 4 dead;

2009: Fort Hood, Texas, Palestinian second-generation immigrant Nidal Hasan -- 13 dead;

2009: Binghamton, New York, Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong -- 13 dead;

2007: Virginia Tech, South Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho -- 32 dead.

In the same time period, about a half-dozen mass murders were committed by American white men in their own country, where -- despite Teddy Kennedy's best efforts -- they far outnumber Vietnamese, Pakistanis and Afghans.

All the American shooters were visible nut cases who never should have been let out of a straitjacket. Their psychotic episodes wouldn't even count as mass shootings if committed by immigrants. Pakistani Naveed Haq's 2006 mass shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation, for example, isn't generally included on lists of terrorist attacks because, according to his parents, he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was on lithium.

Why do we need this? How are our current immigration policies helping the people who already live here? How are they making our country better, stronger, safer?

The operation to remake our country began with lies and has been sustained with lies ever since. Teddy Kennedy swore up and down that his 1965 Immigration Act would preserve America's traditional "ethnic mix" and would not "inundate" our country with people from "deprived nations." In fact, his law brought in the poorest of the poor, from the most dysfunctional cultures in the world, and effected the most dramatic demographic transformation of any nation in all of human history. But today, you're Hitler if you support Teddy Kennedy's original claims about his own bill.

Senator Ted Kennedy ALSO Contributed to America's Transformation

How Does Immigration Reduce Mass Shootings?

6/22/2016 - Ann Coulter Townhall.com

With the media frantically hiding the content of Donald Trump's terrorism speech from last week, he should respond to every question with the central point of that speech: How does this kind of immigration make our country better? How does it make the country safer?

Media: Show us your tax returns!

Trump: Show me how our immigration policies are good for the people who already live here.

Media: Tell us why you fired Corey Lewandowski!

Trump: Tell me how our immigration policies are making the country safer for the people who already live here.

Media: How are you going to match Hillary's corporate fundraising?

Trump: How are our immigration policies helping the people who already live here?

Sooner or later people will say, "That's a good question -- why is this necessary?"

When the Third World immigrants admitted under Sen. Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act -- as well as their children -- commit mass murder, the government and media tell us it's a gun problem. Or it's "our" culture. Or it's "homophobia." Or we have to keep admitting millions of Muslims because otherwise the ones already here will REALLY hate us.

Isn't that extortion? We've already admitted millions of Muslim immigrants, but if we don't take in millions more, the ones we've admitted will go on killing sprees? How did we get in the position where we're screwed if we're not in the good graces of the Muslim community? Maybe we should stop doing that.

As any competent health professional will tell you, prevention is always better than a cure. No one says, Go ahead and have sex with that syphilitic whore -- we've got a cure! You don't need to worry about a leaky roof -- we've got mops! They know that's not a good argument, which is why the media refuse to tell you what Trump actually said in his terrorism speech.

Like defendants with a losing case being forced to cough up bits of discovery, it took the FBI a week to release a redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter's 911 call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Even then, the first version came from George Orwell's Ministry of Truth: "I pledge allegiance to (omitted), may God protect him (in Arabic), on behalf of (omitted)."

That was too much even for Speaker Paul "That's Not Who We Are" Ryan, prompting the FBI to produce the full version of at least one of Omar's calls. (It turns out, he wasn't pledging allegiance to Wayne LaPierre or Phyllis Schlafly.)

To hide the epidemic of immigrant mass murders, all the lists have to include massacres from a time when there weren't many immigrants here -- before Kennedy's Immigration Act had fully kicked in and overwhelmed our country with the Third World. Fox News ran a chart compiled by Mother Jones magazine that includes mass shootings from the 1980s. Why not the 1960s? Why not include Bonnie and Clyde?

Could we look at mass murders from the last decade? Those include:

2016: Orlando, Florida, second-generation Afghan immigrant Omar Mateen -- 49 dead;

2015: San Bernardino, California, first- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook -- 14 dead;

2015: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Kuwaiti immigrant Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez -- 5 dead;

2014: Isla Vista, California, half-Malaysian immigrant from England, Elliot Rodger -- 6 dead;

2013: The Boston Marathon, Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- 4 dead;

2009: Fort Hood, Texas, Palestinian second-generation immigrant Nidal Hasan -- 13 dead;

2009: Binghamton, New York, Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong -- 13 dead;

2007: Virginia Tech, South Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho -- 32 dead.

In the same time period, about a half-dozen mass murders were committed by American white men in their own country, where -- despite Teddy Kennedy's best efforts -- they far outnumber Vietnamese, Pakistanis and Afghans.

All the American shooters were visible nut cases who never should have been let out of a straitjacket. Their psychotic episodes wouldn't even count as mass shootings if committed by immigrants. Pakistani Naveed Haq's 2006 mass shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation, for example, isn't generally included on lists of terrorist attacks because, according to his parents, he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was on lithium.

Why do we need this? How are our current immigration policies helping the people who already live here? How are they making our country better, stronger, safer?

The operation to remake our country began with lies and has been sustained with lies ever since. Teddy Kennedy swore up and down that his 1965 Immigration Act would preserve America's traditional "ethnic mix" and would not "inundate" our country with people from "deprived nations." In fact, his law brought in the poorest of the poor, from the most dysfunctional cultures in the world, and effected the most dramatic demographic transformation of any nation in all of human history. But today, you're Hitler if you support Teddy Kennedy's original claims about his own bill.

Wise Words on Immigration Policy

Obama, Immigration Propaganda and Our National Identity

6/7/2016 - David Limbaugh Townhall.com

Just when you think the Hollywood left might be showing some independence from the Obama White House, it once again falls in line to mouth its propaganda. Just kidding. No one believes that Hollywood leftists think independently.

Fox News reports that the White House has drafted a social media script on immigration for its Hollywood zombies to disseminate. You may recall that the White House furnished gun control talking points for its Tinseltown puppets earlier this year.

The entertainment shills dutifully delivered President Obama's thinly disguised message for gun control with the mindless hashtag "StopGunViolence." The White House supplied the script, imploring its actor enablers to tweet it and post it on other social media. It doesn't matter that Obama's lawless proposals would do nothing to make Americans safer. What's important is that liberals care, as evidenced by their painfully vacuous hashtag-parroting tweets.

On the immigration message, Jesse Moore, the White House's associate director of public engagement, sent an email to so-called Hollywood A-listers, with a video urging the stars to join the #IAmAnImmigrant movement.

Just as with the social media gun control campaign, the White House shamelessly twisted the issue to mislead the public through fact-free, emotion-based appeals. The email said, "We are a nation of immigrants, and whether you're an immigrant, the child or grandchild of immigrants, or you stand with immigrants -- it's on all of us to ensure that we continue to recognize the role immigrants continue to play at the core of this country."

On cue, such screen luminaries as Kerry Washington, Julianne Moore, Alan Cumming and Rosie Perez complied. Washington's account tweeted, for example, "Join Kerry and become part of the #IAmAnImmigrant movement today iamanimmigrant.com."

Let's put aside the obvious impropriety of the White House's using taxpayer dollars to engage in partisan political advocacy. Instead, let's examine the toxicity of its message.

Does anyone disagree with the notion that the United States is a nation of immigrants and immigrants have contributed greatly to America? The problem is that the White House is intentionally painting border enforcement hawks as bigoted and anti-immigrant. Not that this is anything new. It's no different from Obama's depicting Second Amendment defenders as Bible-toting bitter clingers who are wholly indifferent to gun violence. Why would he use facts when lies work so much better?

The left deliberately ignores that conservative opposition to liberal open borders policy has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It rejects that America is based on an idea. Our bond as Americans has been grounded not in our ethnic background but in our unified commitment to liberty, equality of opportunity, equal justice under the law and the belief that we human beings, made in God's image, have certain unalienable rights. Ironically, the very reason millions upon millions have immigrated to America is that it has been uniquely free and prosperous because of these foundational principles.

Ronald Reagan encapsulated the concept beautifully when he said: "America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'"

Don't you see? The conservative position on immigration is inherently colorblind. Our founding ideas belong to all Americans. The left, on the other hand, by flooding this nation with immigrants and celebrating their "diversity" rather than encouraging assimilation into the ethnic-neutral American culture, is overtly race-conscious and divisive.

We don't exclude people from entering based on race. We welcome immigrants, provided they come in legally, according to the rule of law, and consistent with our national sovereignty.

There's a reason we have immigration laws under which we control the orderly flow of immigrants and require prospective citizens to learn and embrace the unique American system. If our citizenry ceases to unite around our founding ideas, we will cease to be unique. Leftists have been at war with these ideas for decades, so we sure don't want to invite millions more people into the nation without restriction and outside the law if they reject our uniqueness. We must not have open borders and further Balkanize our society and dilute our national identity. A sovereign nation has no duty to commit national suicide. In fact, it has a duty to its citizens not to do so.

Immigration and citizenship are a two-way street. Citizens and would-be citizens have a duty to the nation to respect its laws, just as the nation has a duty to citizens to safeguard their rights. We, as a sovereign nation, have a right to admit or reject new citizens and to condition citizenship on their acceptance of the American idea.

Obama's crusade to divide Americans on the basis of race, gender and income has done immeasurable damage to our society. His exploitation of the immigration issue and his depiction of patriots as bigots are making it worse. These liberals know we aren't bigots. But we know that many of them, in their heart of hearts, don't embrace the American idea, which is one reason they are trying to flood the borders and dilute what it means to be an American.

Secure Borders is a Sovereign Right of Citizens

Secure Our Border and Our Freedom

6/15/2016 - Terry Jeffrey Townhall.com

One of the fundamental questions facing Americans today is: Will our government ever secure our border? Judging by recent history, the answer would be: No.

This is one place America must change.

"We need a secure border to stop potential terrorists from entering the nation," House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul said last Thursday at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (and televised by CSPAN) at which Republican congressional leaders discussed their national security plans.

The need to secure the border, of course, is obvious. It is also obvious that for years this nation's elected political leaders have declined to take the steps needed to do so. They have left it wide open to people crossing illegally.

"But right now we're catching less than half of what's coming in," McCaul said during his panel with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

"What Bob and I worry about is: What's coming in that we don't know about?" said McCaul. "And we do know we're apprehending other-than-Mexicans, special-interest aliens from countries of interest that concern us. We're apprehending them. But how many have already gotten into this country? And I think that is one of the biggest concerns."

Fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, American citizens appropriately still go through stringent and time-consuming security procedures before boarding airplanes.

Yet we do not know who or what is crossing our southern land border.

A nation that does not control its borders cannot be truly secure and cannot have a rational immigration policy.

Securing the border and establishing a rational immigration policy cannot be accomplished without building the physical barriers -- the walls and fences -- needed to stop and deter those who would otherwise illegally cross.

We build effective walls and fences around publicly owned baseball stadiums -- so that people cannot get in unless they have paid for a ticket. We build them around important government buildings -- so people cannot enter until they have been vetted.

Are those walls and fences symbols of an unwelcoming nation or simple acts of prudence?

The victims of an unsecured U.S. border reside both here and abroad. Foreign nationals who wish to immigrate here and pursue the American dream -- but who would never do so illegally -- see some of those who have illegally entered this country rewarded by our government for doing so.

And if establishing a secure border is one place America must change, then there is something we must never change.

This nation is not just a stretch of territory; it is a culture, a set of beliefs. The United States will remain a free and prosperous country so far we remain true to our founding principles and our pioneering spirit of individual initiative and self-reliance.

Our most basic founding principle -- that all men are endowed by God with the right to life and liberty -- was spelt out in the Declaration of Independence, the signing of which we will celebrate this summer for the 240th time.

The most important question facing U.S. politicians today -- not only in immigration and national security policies, but in economic and cultural policies as well -- is whether our children will be able to freely celebrate that same basic principle when the Declaration comes up for its 275th anniversary.

Paradox About Walls and Security

Walls And Immigration— Ancient And Modern

6/2/2016 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com

When standing today at Hadrian's Wall in northern England, everything appears indistinguishably affluent and serene on both sides.

It was not nearly as calm some 1,900 years ago. In A.D. 122, the exasperated Roman emperor Hadrian ordered the construction of an 80-mile, 20-foot-high wall to protect Roman civilization in Britain from the Scottish tribes to the north.

We moderns often laugh at walls and fortified boundaries, dismissing them as hopelessly retrograde, ineffective or unnecessary. Yet they still seem to fulfill their mission on the Israeli border, the 38th parallel in Korea and the Saudi-Iraqi boundary, separating disparate states.

On the Roman side of Hadrian's Wall there were codes of law, habeas corpus, aqueducts and the literature of Cicero, Virgil and Tacitus -- and on the opposite side a violent, less sophisticated tribalism.

Hadrian assumed that there was a paradox about walls innate to the human condition. Scottish tribes hated Roman colonial interlopers and wanted them off the island of Britain. But for some reason the Scots did not welcome the wall that also stopped the Romans from entering Scotland.

The exasperated Romans had built the barrier to stop the Scots from entering Roman Britain, whether to raid, trade, emigrate or fight.

Today, the European Union has few problems with members that do not enforce their interior borders. But European nations are desperate to keep the continent from being overwhelmed by migrants from North Africa and the Middle East. Like the Romans, some individual EU nations are building fences and walls to keep out thousands of non-European migrants, both for economic and national security reasons.

Many Middle Easterners want to relocate to Europe for its material and civilizational advantages over their homes in Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Morocco or Syria. Yet many new arrivals are highly critical of Western popular culture, permissiveness and religion -- to the extent of not wanting to assimilate into the very culture into which they rushed.

Apparently, like their ancient counterparts, modern migrants on the poorer or less stable side of a border are ambiguous about what they want. They seek out the security and bounty of mostly Western systems -- whether European or American -- but not necessarily to surrender their own cultural identities and values.

In the case of Hadrian, by A.D. 122 he apparently felt that Rome's resources were taxed and finite. The empire could neither expand nor allow tribes to enter Roman territory. So his solution was to wall off Britain from Scotland and thereby keep out tribes that sometimes wanted in but did not wish to become full-fledged Romans.

The same paradoxes characterize recent, sometimes-violent demonstrations at Trump rallies, the controversy over the potential construction of a fence on the Mexican border 25 times longer than Hadrian's Wall, and the general furor over immigration policies.

Mexico is often critical of the United States and yet encourages millions of its own people to emigrate to a supposedly unattractive America. Some protestors in turn wave the flag of the country that they do not wish to return to more often than the flag of the country they are terrified of being deported from. Signs at rallies trash the United States but praise Mexico -- in much the same manner that Scots did not like Roman Britain but were even less pleased with the idea of a fortified border walling them off from the Romans.

What are the answers to these human contradictions?

Rome worked when foreigners crossed through its borders to become Romans. It failed when newcomers fled into the empire and adhered to their own cultures, which were at odds with the Roman ones they had ostensibly chosen.

There were no walls between provinces of the Roman Empire -- just as there are no walls between the individual states of America -- because common language, values and laws made them all similar. But fortifications gradually arose all over the outer ring of the Roman world, once Rome could no longer afford to homogenize societies antithetical to their own.

If Mexico and other Latin American countries were to adopt many of the protocols of the United States, their standard of living would be as indistinguishable from America's as modern Scotland is from today's Britain.

Or if immigrants from Latin America were to integrate and assimilate as rapidly as possible, there would be less of a need to contemplate walls.

Historically, as Hadrian knew, walls are needed only when neighboring societies are opposites -- and when large numbers of migrants cross borders without necessarily wishing to become part of what they are fleeing to.

These are harsh and ancient lessons about human nature, but they are largely true and timeless.

Destruction of America in Two Words - Political Correctness

The Donald & The La Raza Judge

6/7/2016 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge's bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific? Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge's rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University -- that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump's past, had a field day.

And who is Curiel?  An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.

Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a "racist"? He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.

But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to "pack the court" by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln leveled "that eminent tribunal" in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the '50s and '60s, "Impeach Earl Warren!" was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God's country.

The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.

Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.

But Trump's real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge's ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision's Jorge Ramos.

Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich's term, "inexcusable," to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench. But these things matter.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench? Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums. Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.  There are reasons why defense lawyers seek "changes of venue" and avoid the courtrooms of "hanging judges."

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley "stupid" after Crowley's 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it's "possible" a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well. Another "inexcusable" outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge's religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

Executive Branch Lawlessness Continues

Obama STILL Giving Out Amnesty to Illegal Aliens, Despite Court Injunction

Conservative Daily June 3, 2016 Fellow Conservative,

They actually did it. In complete violation of the law and of a lawful court injunction, the Obama administration has been caught, once again, continuing to dole out amnesty to illegal aliens.

The Department of Homeland Security has just announced that it is continuing to violate Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction by sending out more amnesty paperwork after they were ordered not to.

This is the pinnacle of lawlessness, folks. Under Obama, we don’t have checks and balances. We have one branch of government that believes it has power over all others.

The tally has now crossed 100,000 illegal aliens who have received amnesty in violation of the Judge’s injunction.

It has to stop and unfortunately, the votes aren’t there on the Supreme Court to stop it. With Justice Scalia’s passing, the votes aren’t there to rule against the Obama administration.

So we have an executive branch violating the law and when the courts try to stop the amnesty, they move forward with it anyway.

We’ve tried to be patient. We’ve tried to wait while Congress figures out what to do. Well, the clock’s up! Enough is enough. Either we have a country or we don't anymore.

What President Obama is doing is beyond lawless. He violated the constitution by rewriting the law to give work permits to millions of people in the country illegally, and then when he got caught and ordered by a judge to stop, his administration processed over 100,000 amnesty applications.

Now that a judge has ordered them to retrieve these processed applications and stop the illegals from working in the United States and stealing jobs from Americans, the Obama administration once again refused.

And now we've learned that they're processing even more illegal alien amnesty documents in total violation of the law and a court order. It's time to end this once and for all.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former-Speaker John Boehner both promised to defund Obama's amnesty if the court fights failed. We just learned that the Obama administration violated a court order over 100,000 times and counting.

It is long past due for Congressional action. Either they pull the rug out from under this unconstitutional and lawless President and everyone under him or we will remove them from office. Period!