For those seeking the White House, the conflagration in Baltimore exposed a complicated truth: The racial comity that the election of Barack Obama seemed to promise has not materialized, forcing them to grapple with a red-hot, deeply unresolved dynamic that strays far from their carefully crafted messages and favored themes.

A strange idea has been running through some of the commentary about Baltimore: wasn’t electing Barack Obama supposed to fix this? Why are black people still so mad all the time when we elected a black president? . . . What [this] means is that people (and, let’s say this right here: white people) are eager to pay off the whole legacy-of-slavery-and-systemic-racism tab, to finally settle up and not have to think about social justice anymore. Wasn’t making a black guy president enough? . . . .

Reeve’s next move is to suggest that racist, white people are just never satisfied:  “As the country has slowly inched toward a more equal society, at every step, certain white people have protested that this is enough, that black people ought to be satisfied by now.”  Reeve then, remarkably (and hilariously) equates the New York Times’ acknowledgment of Obama’s worsening of race relations with the Confederacy: “There you have it: You can draw a straight line from supporters of the Confederacy all the way to page A20 of the April 30, 2015, edition of The New York Times.”

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. . . .

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

[Reverend Wright’s statements] expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems . . . .

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Gee, I wonder why anyone would think a President Obama would help heal our racial divide?  As Reeve put it, what a “strange idea”!  Improving racial relations was a hope many Americans–black and white–held, in good faith, when supporting the first (half) black President. The fact that Americans now realize that race relations have actually gotten worse isn’t evidence of white racism, as Reeve insinuates, but evidence of President Obama’s failure to lead, or indeed his intent to mislead.

BOOM! CLIMATE CHANGE A U.N. ‘RUSE’:  So says a top business advisor to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.  The advisor, Maurice Newman, has an oped in The Australian today, in which he states:

Figueres [executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change] is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

Exactly.  Read the whole thing.

STATE DEP’T STICKS HEAD IN THE SAND:  . . . on high-level corruption and refuses to review the propriety of Hillary Clinton’s violation of her State Department Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. This is ironic, since the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, in the following Feb. 26 exchange, to direct their questions about the violations to the State Department:

Q    Josh, are there are any regrets here on the Clinton Foundation story that the ethics deal that White House aides, administration officials negotiated with Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation failed to prevent the Algerian government from contributing half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation the very time that they were lobbying this White House, the State Department?  Wasn’t this what the President was trying to prevent?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, let’s go back to 2008.  At the end of 2008, there was a memorandum of understanding that was drafted between the then-transition team and the Clinton Foundation, and the goal of that memorandum was to ensure that the excellent work that is being done at the Clinton Foundation could continue. . . .And that memorandum of understanding went beyond the baseline ethical guidelines.  It put in place some additional requirements to ensure that we could — that the Clinton Foundation could continue its work, and that the Secretary of State could do her work without even the appearance of a conflict of interest.  And we are —

Q    But it failed then, because then a half million dollars came in from a government that was accused of human rights abuses and was lobbying this administration for relief.  How do you explain then, given these wonderful ethics rules that this mistake was made?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, for compliance with the memorandum of understanding, I’d refer you to the State Department.  They’re ultimately responsible for executing the agreement.  And obviously there was some responsibility at the Clinton Foundation to live up to it.

Q    — the White House’s reputation on the line.  This was a negotiation between, as I recall, very senior people like Valerie Jarrett.  This is not just the State Department, not just a foundation.  Does the President have any concerns?  You laid out all the wonderful work the foundation does.  No dispute there.  But what about the appearance of impropriety, these foreign governments trying to get access and wield influence in this President’s administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is the responsibility of the Department of State to determine how compliance was enforced when it comes to the memorandum of understanding.

Q    Or not, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, it’s their responsibility to monitor the agreement.  And so I’d refer you to them for questions about this.  But I can tell you that the President is obviously very pleased with the way that Secretary Clinton represented the United States around the globe during her tenure over in Foggy Bottom.

At a State Department Press briefing Thursday, reporters followed up, asking Acting Deputy Spokesperson Jeff Rathke if the State Department intended to investigate Clinton’s violation of itsMOU:

MR. RATHKE:  Now at this point, our role has changed. Secretary Clinton is no longer at the department, for questions about the foundation or the health access initiative or any of the offshoots and their funding, we’d refer you back to them. The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure. The department’s actions under Secretary Clinton were taken to advance administration policy as set by the President and in the interest of American foreign policy. . . .

QUESTION: Okay, but why not? I mean, why do you not intend to —

MR RATHKE: Again, we aren’t aware of any actions taken —

QUESTION: Oh, I know you’re not aware, because you haven’t looked into them, right? (Laughter.)

MR RATHKE: Well, but again, let’s go back to what we did do during her tenure. Over the course of her tenure, we reviewed dozens of entities each year. The Clinton Foundation also is a charitable organization, so we would not have had the obligation to review their donation beyond what was committed to in the MOU.

QUESTION: Right. But the – but what they committed to in the MOU in terms of the – listing the private donors, whether or not the State Department had to review them or was supposed to review them beforehand to see if they were okay or not, it would seem to me to make sense that if they didn’t live up to their end of the MOU you would at least go back and take a look at the private donations and see whether that might raise any questions. But maybe not. I mean, I don’t – it seems like you’re not aware of anything, and there may not be anything there, but the reason that you’re not aware of anything is because you’re – not you personally, but the reason you’re not aware of anything is because the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there’s anything that might raise a flag.

MR RATHKE: Well, again, these private donations were – there was never any expectation that they would be reviewed.

QUESTION: Right. But there was an expectation that they would be made public and so that you could go and look and see, well, hmm, and then they weren’t made public. And so now that they are being made public, wouldn’t it make sense – and tell me if I’m wrong, maybe it doesn’t make sense – but wouldn’t it make sense to go back and take a look at them and see whether there – that there’s any – any questions raised, any red flag that might get raised? I don’t understand why you would just close your eyes to it, because they have admitted that they didn’t live up to their end of the MOU on this.

MR RATHKE: Yeah. And they’ve – but they have subsequently —

QUESTION: I know. But you’re not —

MR RATHKE: — taken steps to address that.

QUESTION: Right. But you’re not going and looking at what they’ve done to address that to see if it brought them into compliance. It’s almost as if they had an agreement that they didn’t follow through on, but since she’s no longer the secretary of state you’re saying, well, that doesn’t apply anymore and so it just doesn’t matter. But —

MR RATHKE: Look, what we have —

QUESTION: You don’t know if it doesn’t matter or not because you’re not looking into it.

MR RATHKE: I think what we’ve seen – what we’ve seen is speculation. We haven’t – we’re not aware of any actions taken that were influenced by those donations.

QUESTION: Right. But you – but you’re not aware —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Yes. What has been put out there is – are questions. But you’re saying that the State Department doesn’t – either doesn’t have the same questions or isn’t interested in finding out what the answer to those questions is. That’s what it sounds like you’re saying because you’re saying that you’re not going to go back and look to see whether the violations of the MOU might raise questions or raise red flags about what was going on, right?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, we have – I think I don’t have anything to say beyond what I’ve said.

Okay, so let me get this right:  There was an MOU insisted upon by the State Department (and White House) to ensure that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, there was full transparency of any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, to protect against the possibility that foreign donors to the Foundation might be giving their money in exchange for favorable treatment by Secretary of State Clinton.  And that MOU was violated repeatedly.  Now, the Obama Administration is refusing to even investigate whether Clinton’s violation of the MOU may have actually caused the sort of bribery problems the MOU was designed to prevent?

Okay, so why have an MOU in the first place, if violations of it were not going to ever be investigated, or the agreement otherwise enforced?  Was it all just a dog and pony show, to allow Clinton to become Secretary of State and deflect possible criticism of her taking the post, given the potential for conflicts of interest?  The questions answer themselves, of course, but the fact that the Obama Administration is so blatantly and flippantly disregarding this nation’s interest in preventing corruption (at the highest level) is breathtaking– and telling.

REPUBLICANS COMPLICIT IN OBAMACARE FRAUD?:  Brendan Bordelon at NRO has a great story documenting the complicity of 5 Senate Republicans in covering up a fraudulent application by Congress to D.C.’s Obamacare exchange.  The application stated that Congress had only 45 employees, and listed fake employee names.

The relevant language of the Affordable Care Act is found in section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Act, which states:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—

(i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a

Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

The language pretty clearly indicates that Members of Congress and their staff can “only” obtain health insurance that is created by the Act or offered on an ACA exchange.  However one slices it, this means that Congress and its staff cannot continue to obtain the rich FEHBP health insurance subsidies that it has historically enjoyed.  But of course, President Obama came to the “rescue” and, by executive fiat, decided Congress would continue to get the subsidies anyway.  The “solution” announced by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was to allow Congress to obtain subsidized insurance on the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), which is open only to employers with 50 or fewer full-time employees– and Congress clearly has more.

Senate Small Business Committee Chair David Vitter has fought the congressional exemption for years, and he recently sought to subpoena the original copy of the application Congress made to the DC exchange, as it would reveal who in Congress was responsible for its fraudulent misrepresentations.  Vitter ran into a problem, however:  To issue the subpoena, he needed either the sign-off the the Small Business Committee ranking member, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), or a majority of his own, Republican-dominated Committee.

Oddly, 5 Republicans on Vitter’s Committee (plus all Democrats)– Senators Rand Paul, Mike Enzi, James Risch, Kelly Ayotte and Deb Fischer–voted against issuance of the subpoena.

So why are Republicans passing up an opportunity to rectify an Obamacare amendment-by-executive-fiat?  Self-interest, of course.

Tar and feathers are too good for these unprincipled weasels.  I say bring back the Sicilian Bull.

IT HAS COME TO THIS:  U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) tweets that it’s “not right” that someone must work 50 hours per week to escape poverty.  How far we have come, since Booker T. Washington said, “Nothing ever comes to me, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.”  Senator Booker channels the progressive mindset, which holds nothing is worth working hard for, but should merely be “given” by (redistributed from) others foolish enough spend so much time working.  After all, they didn’t build that.

THE IGNORANCE, IT BURNS!:  The New York Slimes Times editorializes about “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.”  Versus?  Ugh. The progressive stupidity about free speech is actually getting dangerous.  So-called “hate speech”–which is defined by progressives as speech they deem “hateful” (i.e., which disagrees with their worldview)–is fully protected by the First Amendment.  As the Supreme Court said in the Westboro Baptist Church case, Synder v. Phelps:

Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment , it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Indeed, “the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Exactly. But the NYT editorial is just the tip of the progressive iceberg to roll back free speech. That’s what totalitarians do.

SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDS NSA METADATA COLLECTION ILLEGAL:    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion today in ACLU v. Clapper, a case challenging the legality of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Section 215 allows access to “tangible things,” that are “relevant to an authorized investigation,” and has been interpreted broadly to allow the collection of so-called phone “metadata”–numbers called, time/duration of call–first widely revealed by former NSA employee Edward Snowden.

The Second Circuit’s opinion is an interpretation of the Patriot Act, not a constitutional decision, and hinges upon the court’s interpretation of the word “relevant”:

We conclude that to allow the government to collect phone records only because they may become relevant to a possible authorized investigation in the future fails even the permissive ‘relevance’ test.

The court did not issue a preliminary injunction, however, preferring instead to remand that issue to the U.S. district court.  It also noted that if Congress reauthorizes section 215– as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell prefers–it would alter the statutory analysis and may cause consideration of the constitutional issues:

[T]he statutory issues on which we rest our decision could become moot (at least as far as the future of the telephone metadata program is concerned), and the constitutional issues appellants continue to press radically altered, by events that will occur in a short time frame.  If Congress decides to authorize the collection of the data desired by the government under conditions identical to those now in place, the program will continue in the future under that authorization.  There will be time then to address appellants’ constitutional issues, which may be significantly altered by the findings made, and conclusions reached, by the political branches . . . .

Congress would be wise to get rid of section 215 entirely–as the House Judiciary USA Freedom Act would do–and consider starting from scratch to craft a more thoughtful, appropriately tailored approach to actual terror investigation.  Section 215 is just too amorphous.

PAMELA GELLER’S RESPONSE: “This is a war.”    Her op-ed response to critics, in Time:

So, why are some people blaming me? They’re saying: “Well, she provoked them! She got what she deserved!” They don’t remember, or care to remember, that as the jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their friend and accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews asking for it? Did they “bait” the jihadis? Were they “provoking” them?

Are the Jews responsible for the Nazis? Are the Christians in the Middle East responsible for being persecuted by Muslims?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

This is a war.

Now, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, and after the Garland attack, what are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?

Read the whole thing.  I like her.  She fights.  And she is asking the right questions.

3-D GUNS & THE CONSTITUTION:  An interesting lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the federal District Court for the Western District of Texas by well-known Second Amendment attorney Alan Gura on behalf of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation.  The suit is filed against Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department, alleging that the department’s letter warning Defense Distributed that it could not publish a 3-D printable file for its plastic pistol, the Liberator, violated the First and Second Amendments.

The inventor of the 3-D gun, Cody Wilson (a University of Texas law school dropout and founder of Defense Distributed) has said the 3-D gun,“will break gun control.”   Giving power to people will do that.

ANOTHER OBAMACARE LIE:  Along with “if you like your doctor/health plan, you can keep your doctor/health plan,” and “premiums will fall by $2500 per year,” one of the biggest lies promulgated by Obamacare supporters was that expanding health insurance will reduce costs by reducing expensive emergency care use.

According to a new survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians, three in four emergency room doctors said patient visits have increased since the Affordable Care Act went into effect.

The notion that expanding health insurance would reduce ER visits was always silly, as evidenced by RomneyCare.

COULD CLINTON GO FURTHER ON EXECUTIVE AMNESTY?:  Yes.  She says so, and when a President makes up categories– out of thin air–of individuals who are entitled to stay (and obtain work authorization) in the name of “prosecutorial discretion,” the next President can just keep making new, additional categories.  That’s why it’s lawless, and utterly unconstitutional. But unless Texas and the other 25 States succeed in their legal challenge to President Obama’s immigration actions, future Presidents will be able to do whatever they want.

Next question?

RICK PERRY FLIPS ON EX-IM BANK:  In a Wall Street Journal oped today, former Texas Governor Rick Perry announces he has changed his position on the U.S. Export-Import Bank, now opposing its reauthorization:

Next month, the bank comes up for reauthorization again—but this time I can’t get on board. I have been deeply disturbed by recent revelations of corruption and bribery at the institution. On April 13 the Justice Department announced that a former Ex-Im loan officer, Johnny Gutierrez, had pleaded guilty to accepting bribes on 19 separate occasions from people with interests before the bank. Michael McCarthy, Ex-Im’s acting inspector general, has told Congress that there are 31 corruption and fraud investigations into the bank still pending.

Those at Ex-Im who have abused the public trust must be pursued to the full extent of the law. But it may be that the best way to mend Ex-Im is to end it.

Perry’s right: The Bank should be allowed to die. As George Will recently put it,

The bank, which exists to allocate credit by criteria other than the market’s preference for efficiency, mirrors the market-distorting policies of foreign governments. These policies favor those countries’ exports that compete with America’s. Much of what the bank does is supposedly to “level the playing field.”

Revelations about Ex-Im Bank officials’ receipt of kickbacks should be the nail in this New Deal vestige’s coffin.  But Perry will take some political heat if/when he decides to announce his 2016 presidential bid.  But Republican realization–at least the tea party wing of the GOP–that the Bank is just a form of progressive corporate welfare isn’t unique to Perry. Unfortunately, Republican establishment types such as House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have mouthed opposition but are being (typically) wishy-washy and proceeding to floor votes allowing reauthorization.

It just goes to show you:  The “business community” is now addicted to corporate welfare and crony capitalism, and the Democrats (and their establishment Republican comrades) are enabling the addiction.

BECAUSE #DIVERSITY (TRANSGENDER VERSION)!:  Obama’s EEOC has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–which prohibits discrimination “based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin”–was violated by the Army when it refused to allow a transgender, male-to-female, civilian employee to use the women’s restroom.

The individual met with Army supervisors and discussed her transition from male-to-female, agreeing to a written plan that would allow him/her to use a single-user restroom rather than the general women’s restroom, at least until the individual had his external male genitalia removed. When he/she found the single-user restroom closed for repairs, he/she decided to use the women’s restroom, triggering understandable discomfort by other women in the office.  He/she then filed a civil rights claim with the EEOC, claiming he/she was being harrased “based on sex” due to a “hostile working environment.”

Obama’s EEOC agreed that the Army’s actions constituted discrimination based on sex, even though this individual was still, biologically, a man.  As Ed Whelan at NRO aptly observes:

But the EEOC has now ruled that an employer engages in discrimination on the basis of sex when it treats a man who thinks he’s a woman the same as it treats all other men—by barring all of them from using female restroom facilities.

What’s more, even though Lusardi did not complain about it, the EEOC goes out of its way in a footnote to opine that his employer unlawfully deprived him of the “use of common locker and shower facilities that non-transgender employees could use.” In other words, according to the EEOC majority, it’s unlawful sex discrimination to bar a man who thinks of himself as a woman from sharing locker and shower facilities with women.

There is a lot more of this craziness to come, and it will soon reach a work location near you. According to someone who is very well informed about the EEOC, the EEOC issued the decision because it has filed suits against employers about transgender employees and plans to file more very soon, and it wants its litigators to be able to cite something as legal support for its adventuresome claims.

Whelan is right–ladies had better get used to seeing male genitalia in their restrooms, because diversity! Personally, I would be deeply offended by this happening, prior to the “final” surgery of a male-to-female transsexual–talk about a hostile working environment!

A recent oped in Slate indicates that the progressives have the elimination of separate gender bathrooms on their target list:

But as a straight man, gender-neutral bathrooms matter a lot to me, too—in part because I want the trans community to enjoy the same privileges I do, but also because nothing irks me more than seeing a long line snake out from the women’s room while the men’s room sits vacant, or vice versa. This affront to queuing theory and common sense is never more irksome than when the bathrooms in question serve just one person at a time. In such spaces, the concepts of a “men’s room” and a “women’s room” are completely imaginary; the room belongs to whoever is in it, although that philosophy didn’t impress the two older women waiting for me when I exited “their” one-toilet restroom at a McDonald’s last summer, nor did it stay the manager they’d convinced to escort me Big Mac-lessly to the parking lot.

So there you have it:  It’s all about being “fair” to women, who have longer lines during intermission and the seventh inning stretch.  Right.  And the notion of “men” and “women” (and their respective restrooms) is far from “completely imaginary”– it is basic science.  What are they now, a bunch of science deniers?

Thank you very much for your concern about my waiting time for a private stall, but I’d still prefer waiting in a long line to having to see strange men lined up at a urinal, or worrying that some creepy dude is going to be trying to peep through the gap in the door.  And I know my teenage daughter (and my husband) would feel the same way as I do, so the oped writer’s attempt to dismiss opposition as generational is utterly ignorant.

I remember when, as a kid, my mom used to tell me that she didn’t support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment because she believed it would result in the elimination of separate men’s and women’s restrooms.  I thought that sounded scary back then, and it still does.  But hey– no need for a constitutional amendment!–we can just pack the EEOC (and federal courts) with progressives and accomplish the same thing. 

ISIS GATHERING ON MEXICAN BORDER?:  According to Judicial Watch, ISIS is operating a camp in Mexico, just a few miles from the El Paso border.  Judicial Watch contends:

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation. . . .

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

Politifact rates Judicial Watch’s claim as false.  But then again, Politifact is dishonest and partisan, as has been noted here before.  When Judicial Watch was not willing to offer up the identity of its sources, telling Politifact it “would get them killed,” Politifact asked the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, which denied the claim.  Politifact then called the Mexican government, which “categorically” denied the claim.  And hey, who wouldn’t believe the Obama Administration (they never lie), or the Mexican government, whose President recently called Americans who oppose amnesty racist?

Move along.  Nothing to see here.  There’s no need to build a fence or anything– that would be racist.

At least Texas Governor Greg Abbott is doubling down on former Governor Rick Perry’s commitment of Texas National Guard troops for border security.

UPDATE:  An astute InstaP reader corresponded with the Politifact author, asking “Wouldn’t you agree that a lack of ‘on the record’ corroboration doesn’t determine whether a statement is false?,” to which the Politifact author, Gardner Selby, replied, “Our editors took the absence of on-the-record corroboration to indicate the claim was False.”

So apparently, according to Politifact, “false” doesn’t mean what most of us think it means– i.e., untrue. It means it cannot be corroborated by direct evidence. By this standard, the existence of God, extra-terrestrials and much of history is “false,” since it cannot be corroborated by anyone with first-hand knowledge, and not just “uncorroborated.”

I’m not taking any position on whether Judicial Watch’s sources are good ones or not (who knows?).  But I do see a material difference between calling something “false” versus “uncorroborated.”  Politifact thinks they are synonymous, which is interesting.

BECAUSE DIVERSITY!:  An MSNBC pundit, Michelle Bernard, says GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson “probably went to Yale and University of Michigan for medical school because of affirmative action” and says he “drank the Kool-aid” because of his conservative views. This is becoming so ubiquitous among progressives it’s almost laughable–may as well have called him an Oreo.  I hope Dr. Carson punches back twice as hard.

EPIC FAIL:  Only 18 percent of 8th graders are proficient in U.S. history according to the new Nation’s Report Card. Asians score highest at 33%; whites at 26%; Hispanics at 8%; blacks at 6%.  The gap between public and private schoolers is large:  17% proficiency for public school students, versus 31% for private.

If you don’t know U.S. history, you simply cannot appreciate the exceptional nature of our country, which explains a lot.

THOMAS SOWELL:  The inconvenient truth about ghetto communities’ social breakdown.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century. Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

Yep.  Progressivism is all about keeping groups angry, alienated and feeling powerless for political profit.

OBAMA LAWYERS LIE TO THE COURT:  Department of Justice lawyers have restated their apology to federal judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The DOJ admits that it checked with the White House before issuing the apology, suggesting that DOJ lawyers understood the magnitude of their misrepresentation to the court.

The apology comes in the context of the Texas-led 26-State lawsuit against the Obama Administration, challenging the second and third of the President’s three unilateral executive orders on immigration: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA+).

In February, Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction halting the DAPA and DACA+ programs–finding that the plaintiff-States had proven both irreparable harm and a “likelihood of success” on the merits of their legal claims.  Hanen’s issuance of an injunction should have stopped both DAPA and DACA+ from being implemented at all, but in early March, DOJ admitted that it had begun to implement DACA+, and in fact had already issued work permits and expanded deportation protection to over 100,000 additional illegals.

Hanen is currently considering whether/how to further sanction the DOJ for its transgression, though he has already ruled out striking the government’s pleadings and entering judgment for plaintiff-States.

DOJ has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, asking that court to issue a stay of Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction.  My guess is that the Fifth Circuit won’t interfere with Hanen’s ruling.  And Hanen ought to hold the DOJ lawyers in contempt (though I doubt he will).  Maybe he should have them write “I will not lie to the court” 1,000 times on a blackboard or walk around in front of the courthouse with a sandwich board sign.

ORWELLIAN DOUBLETHINK, RAPE EDITION: “Inspired by the recent performance of The Vagina Monologues” on the Claremont-McKenna College campus, student Jordan Bosiljevac has penned an exegesis of the progressive view of sexual relationships, titled, “Why Yes Can Mean No.”  Ms. Bosiljevac explains:

In discussing this experience with friends, we coined the term “raped by rape culture” to describe what it was like to say yes, coerced by the culture that had raised us and the systems of power that worked on us, and to still want ‘no.’ Sometimes, for me, there was obligation from already having gone back to someone’s room, not wanting to ruin a good friendship, loneliness, worry that no one else would ever be interested, a fear that if I did say no, they might not stop, the influence of alcohol, and an understanding that hookups are “supposed” to be fun.

For me, and many others like me, consent isn’t easy. Yes doesn’t always mean yes, and we misplaced ‘no’ several years ago. This experience isn’t random, but disproportionately affects oppressed communities. Consent is a privilege, and it was built for wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculinity. When society has taught some of us to take up as little space as possible, to take all attention as flattery, and to be truly grateful that anyone at all could want our bodies or love, it isn’t always our choice to say yes.

. . . . When you’re poor, disabled, queer, non-white, trans, or feminine, ‘no’ isn’t for you. I don’t mean to insist that every person oppressed in these systems of power can’t have empowering consensual experiences, and I know many who do. What I do mean to say is that for me, finding ‘no’ is a process, consent is elusive, and sometimes, even when people don’t mean to—they hurt me.

It should be sufficient to point out that consent is the basis of much of law, and if “yes” doesn’t mean “yes,” then there will be no objectively fair principles upon which to judge human interactions, whether one is “wealthy, cis, white, wester, able-bodied” or otherwise.  Ms. Bosiljevac may not yet understand it, but the presumption that individuals– other than minors or those non compos mentis— are capable of giving consent to transactions evinces a deep respect for individualism, and indeed is the embodiment of equal treatment under law that progressives such as she purport to support.  It is also a fundamental basis for the legitimacy of any government–progressive or otherwise. In the words of the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed 

Perhaps Ms. Bosiljevac should brush up on her liberal political theory.  She should have a lot of time, since I rather suspect she won’t be getting any dates anytime soon.

WHY DIETS DON’T WORK:  Actually, I think this is true, at least long-term.  Everyone has a “set weight” that one shouldn’t fight against, but simply accept.  But I’m a exercise junkie who doesn’t own a scale, eats junk food regularly, and have been blessed with apparently good “weight genes.”  I think exercise is the key–finding what you love to do, and doing it habitually.

UPDATE:  Fixed broken link!

JUDICIAL IDENTITY DISORDER: Ed Whelan over at National Review labels a metastasizing legal disorder. “Unfortunately, no effective treatment for the condition is currently available.”  But at least we can identify the environmental cause:  long-term exposure to progressive ideology.

HEH:  Note to Jihadists: In America, we shoot back.  “It turned out those practicing their First Amendment rights were protected by those practicing their Second Amendment rights.”

THE WORLD, IN BLACK AND WHITE:  Normally a voice of semi-reason, Juan Williams has a race-baiting oped in The Hill today, titled “The Republicans and Racial Resentment,” in which he insinuates that the loss of white Southern Democrats (and concomitant shift of white, male voters to the GOP)– what Williams not so subtly calls the “former Confederacy”– is due to racist opposition to President Obama, and “has prompted alarm.”  In true passive-aggressive fashion, Williams then goes on to quote other liberal mainstream media commentators, who do Williams’ dirty work more directly, such as the New York Times editorial board and Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson.

What Williams– and these other liberal/progressive pundits–fail to appreciate is that “white flight” away from the Democrats has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with issues, as I’ve written about before.  In almost every major issue, blacks and whites have wildly different positions, with polling gaps exceeding 10 percentage points.  Obamacare?  83% of blacks support; 34% of whites support.  Obama’s handling of foreign policy?  68% of blacks approve; 29% of whites approve.   The Iran deal?  62% of blacks approve; 25% of whites approve.  Global warming Climate change?  17% of blacks believe there is no solid evidence the earth is getting warmer; 31% of whites think that.  Gun control?  34% of blacks think it’s more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership; 61% of whites think that gun ownership is more important than gun control.   Support for RFRA laws that allow business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings?  36% of blacks support such religious protections for business owners; 52% of whites support them. Same-sex marriage?  42% of blacks support; 53% of whites.

With such fundamental differences in how blacks and whites view various important policy issues, it is base to suggest (as Williams does) that white males are abandoning the Democrats due to race. Given the broad black-white gap on important issues, the demographic data from the 2012 presidential election–which shows that 39% of whites supported Obama while only 6% of blacks supported Romney (93% supported Obama)–frankly indicates that it is blacks, not whites, who are voting based solely on race.

PATRIOT ACT SHOWDOWN:  Several key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire June 1, including Section 215, which allows collection of so-called “metadata” business records, such as the timing, length and call logs of cell phone records.  The Obama Administration unilaterally modified the section 215 metadata program in early 2014, to restrict somewhat the collection of telephone metadata in response to public outcry.

If Congress fails to reauthorize section 215, the Obama Administration has said it will end the collection of telephone metadata entirely.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-NC) have introduced a bill that would extend section 215, unchanged, through 2020. They have invoked a procedural maneuver that allows their bill to bypass normal committee consideration, and go straight to the Senate floor.

Last Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee, by contrast, passed the USA Freedom Act in a bipartisan effort, 25-2, which would end the section 215 telephone metadata program entirely.

The McConnell-Burr clean reauthorization bill has sparked strong opposition by libertarian-leaning groups, who have urged the Senate to follow the House lead and end section 215 telephone metadata collection. The National Security Council and FBI have stated that a lack of reauthorization of section 215 could hamper its efforts at tracking terror suspects, and it is speculated that other provisions of law could be invoked to continue surveillance of such suspects (without bulk collection of telephone metadata).

With all of the other horrendous events going on in the world, the Patriot Act reauthorization seems to have slipped off the radar of most Americans.

21st CENTURY PORN:   A new website allows women (sorry, boys) to raise crowdsource funding by providing a little home-made porn.  I guess it does have the advantage of cutting out the middleman.