Thursday, January 18, 2018

The Trump Economy: Dow surges 322 points, closes above 26,000 for first time




Market experts weigh in on what has been driving the markets and the Dow closing above 26,000 for the first time.

The Dow closed above 26,000 for the first time in its history, as bank earnings, Boeing (BA) and IBM (IBM) drove the blue-chip index higher Wednesday.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged 322 points to 26,115. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite also hit all-time highs. The S&P 500 advanced 26 points to 2,802. The Nasdaq gained 74 points to 7,298.

An early rally Tuesday morning pushed the Dow past 26,000, clinching the fastest 1,000-point climb for the Dow. Although Wall Street pared its gains later in the session, the rally picked back up a day later.

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, said the brief pullback after the Dow first cracked 26,000 on Tuesday was a healthy sign for the market.

“With the economy growing at a healthy rate, with corporate earnings rising, and with the Fed still stimulating, there is simply no trigger for a pullback,” McMillan wrote in a note to clients. “Even if we did get a pullback, as we did in early 2016, it would be unlikely to last, and for the same reasons.”

On Wednesday, Boeing jumped 4.7% on news that the aircraft maker will partner with automotive supplier Adient (ADNT) to create an exclusive supplier of high-end aircraft seats.

Shares of IBM, another Dow component, rose 2.9% after analysts at Barclays (BCS) upgraded the stock to overweight from underweight.



 _____________________


Apple to add 20K jobs, pay $38B US tax bill to repatriate cash




Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Senior Vice President Marc Goldwein explains why, although the economy is reacting positively to tax cuts, the national debt that was exponentially increased by the bill could hinder growth.

Apple (AAPL) on Wednesday said it will create 20,000 new jobs and establish a new U.S.-based campus as part of $350 billion in new "direct contribution" to the economy.

Apple also said it expects repatriation tax payments of roughly $38 billion due to changes enacted by the recently-passed GOP tax reform bill. The new tax code calls for a 15.5% repatriation tax rate. The company listed $252.3 billion in overseas cash in its most recent filing with the SEC.

“The company plans to establish an Apple campus in a new location, which will initially house technical support for customers. The location of this new facility will be announced later in the year,” the company said in a statement.

______________





I promised that my policies would allow companies like Apple to bring massive amounts of money back to the United States. Great to see Apple follow through as a result of TAX CUTS. Huge win for American workers and the USA!
______________


_____________________

ANOTHER ARTICLE:

Dow soars 323 points, scores first close above 26,000

By Associated Press


Specialist Michael Pistillo wears a “Dow 26,000” hat as he works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. Richard Drew — Associated Press
---

A broad rally on Wall Street propelled the Dow Jones industrial average to close above 26,000 points for the first time Wednesday.
The sharp gains also delivered record highs for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and the Nasdaq composite, wiping out the market’s modest losses from a day earlier.

---

Investors have been encouraged by strong global growth, rising company earnings and the prospects for further corporate profits thanks to the tax overhaul signed into law last month, which cut the top tax rate for corporations from 35 percent to 21 percent.

----


Wednesday, January 17, 2018

President Trump reveals winners of his ‘Fake News’ awards



FILE - In this April 21, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump poses for a portrait in the Oval Office in Washington after an interview with The Associated Press. Trump has proven himself an unconventional leader time and time again in his first year in office. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)  (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

President Trump revealed the winners of his self-proclaimed ‘Fake News’ awards Wednesday night on Twitter with The New York Times topping the list.
____________










 _____________

Before naming the full list of “winners,” the website cited that “studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.”
It went on to call 2017 “a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage and even downright fake news.”
Coming in first place was The New York Times’ Paul Krugman for his predictions that the stock markets would never recover from Trump’s election.
In a bit of irony, the Dow Jones industrial average closed above 26,000 for the first time on Wednesday.
The Times was followed by ABC News' Brian Ross for his false report that Trump advised former National Security advisor Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign.
The website carrying the results of the “Fake News Awards” crashed because of the number of visitors.
_____________






Tonight, http://gop.com  saw more traffic than ever before. Even though the servers were scaled up, the interest was even greater than anticipated. Traffic is off the charts. Come back soon.
_______________

Trump also tweeted out that “despite some very corrupt and dishonest media coverage, there are many great reporters I respect and lots of GOOD NEWS for the American people to be proud of!”
______________




Despite some very corrupt and dishonest media coverage, there are many great reporters I respect and lots of GOOD NEWS for the American people to be proud of! 
___________________

Below is the full list of winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1)     The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claiming markets would ‘never’ recover from Trump presidency
2)     ABC News' Brian Ross’ bungled report on former national security adviser Michael Flynn
3)     CNN report that the Trump campaign had early access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks
4)     TIME report that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office
5)     The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel tweeting that Trump’s December rally in Pensacola, Florida, wasn’t packed with supporters
6)     CNN’s video suggesting Trump overfed fish during visit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
7)     CNN’s retracted report claiming Anthony Scaramucci-Russia ties
8)     Newsweek report that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake Trump’s hand
9)     CNN report that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump’s claim he was told he was not under investigation
10)  The New York Times report that the Trump administration had hidden a climate-change report
11)  In Trump’s words, "‘RUSSIA COLLUSION!’ Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!”


President Nobama


Trump is commonsensically undoing, piece by piece, the main components of Obama’s legacy.

By Victor Davis Hanson
Donald Trump continues to baffle. 

Never Trump Republicans still struggle to square the circle of quietly agreeing so far with most of his policies, as they loudly insist that his record is already nullified by its supposedly odious author. 

Or surely it soon will be discredited by the next Trumpian outrage. 

Or his successes belong to congressional and Cabinet members, while his failures are all his own. 

Rarely do they seriously reflect on what otherwise over the last year might have been the trajectory of a Clinton administration.

Contrary to popular supposition, the Left loathes Trump not just for what he has done. (It is often too consumed with fury to calibrate carefully the particulars of the Trump agenda.) Rather, it despises him mostly for what he superficially represents.

To many progressives and indeed elites of all persuasions, Trump is also the Prince of Anti-culture: mindlessly naïve American boosterism; conspicuous, 1950s-style unapologetic consumption; repetitive and limited vocabulary; fast-food culinary tastes; Queens accent; herky-jerky mannerisms; ostentatious dress; bulging appearance; poorly disguised facial expressions; embracing rather than sneering at middle-class appetites; a lack of subtlety, nuance, and ambiguity.

In short Trump’s very essence wars with everything that long ago was proven to be noble, just, and correct by Vanity Fair, NPR, The New Yorker, Google, the Upper West Side, and The Daily Show. There is not even a smidgeon of a concession that some of Trump’s policies might offer tens of thousands of forgotten inner-city youth good jobs or revitalize a dead and written-off town in the Midwest, or make the petroleum of the war-torn Persian Gulf strategically irrelevant to an oil-rich United States.

Yet one way of understanding Trump — particularly the momentum of his first year — is through recollection of the last eight years of the Obama administration. In reductionist terms, Trump is the un-Obama. 

Surprisingly, that is saying quite a lot more than simple reductive negativism. Republicans have not seriously attempted to roll back the administrative state since Reagan. On key issues of climate change, entitlements, illegal immigration, government spending, and globalization, it was sometimes hard to distinguish a Bush initiative from a Clinton policy or a McCain bill from a Biden proposal. There was often a reluctant acceptance of the seemingly inevitable march to the European-style socialist administrative state.

Of course, there were sometimes differences between the two parties, such as the George W. Bush’s tax cuts or the Republicans’ opposition to Obamacare.

Yet for the most part, since 1989, we’ve had lots of rhetoric but otherwise no serious effort to prune back the autonomous bureaucracy that grew ever larger. 

Few Republicans in the executive branch sought to reduce government employment, deregulate, sanction radical expansion of fossil-fuel production, question the economic effects of globalization on Americans between the coasts, address deindustrialization, recalibrate the tax code, rein in the EPA, secure the border, reduce illegal immigration, or question transnational organizations. 

To do all that would require a president to be largely hated by the Left, demonized by the media, and caricatured in popular culture — and few were willing to endure the commensurate ostracism.

Trump has done all that in a manner perhaps more Reaganesque than Reagan himself. 

In part, he has been able to make such moves because of the Republican majority (though thin) in Congress and also because of, not despite, his politically incorrect bluntness, his in-your-face talk, innate cunning, reality-TV celebrity status, animalistic energy, and his cynical appraisal that tangible success wins more support than ideology.


And, yes, in part the wheeler-dealer Manhattan billionaire developed real sympathy for the forgotten losers of globalization.

Even his critics sometimes concede that his economic and foreign-policy agendas are bringing dividends. In some sense, it is not so much because of innovative policy, but rather that he is simply bullying his way back to basics we’ve forgotten over the past decades.

The wonder was never how to grow the economy at 3 percent (all presidents prior to 2009 had at one time or another done just that), but rather, contrary to “expert” economic opinion, how to discover ways to prevent that organic occurrence.

Obama was the first modern president who apparently figured out how. 

It took the efforts of a 24/7 redistributionist agenda of tax increases, federalizing health care, massive new debt, layers of more regulation, zero-interest rates, neo-socialist regulatory appointments, expansionary eligibility for entitlements, and constant anti-free-market jawboning that created a psychological atmosphere conducive to real retrenchment, mental holding patterns, and legitimate fears over discernable success. 

Obama weaponized federal agencies including the IRS, DOJ, and EPA in such a manner as to worry anyone successful, prominent, and conservative enough to come under the federal radar of a vindictive Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, or a FISA court.

Trump has sought to undo all that, point by point. 

The initial result so far is not rocket science, but rather a natural expression of what happens when millions of Americans believe they have greater freedom and safety to profit and innovate, and trust they will not be punished, materially or psychologically, for the ensuing successful results. The radical upsurge in business and consumer confidence is not revolutionary but almost natural. 

The Left and Never Trump Right claim that Trump is Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini.

In fact, for the first time in eight years, it is highly unlikely that the FBI, IRS, CIA, DOJ, and other alphabet-soup agencies see their tasks as going after the president’s perceived opponents.

The same about-face is true on the foreign-policy front, as the ancient practice of deterrence replaced the modern therapeutic mindset. 

Obama blurred, deliberately so, the lines between allies and hostiles. 

America experienced the worst of both worlds: We were rarely respected by our friends, even more rarely feared by our enemies; loud rhetorical muscularity was backed up only by “strategic patience” and “leading from behind.”

On the supposedly friendly side, Europe assumed that the United States would fawn after the virtue-signaling Paris Climate Accord. 

The Palestinians concluded that there was no shelf life on victimhood and that America simply would not, could not, dare not move its embassy to Jerusalem as the Congress had chronically showboated it would. 

NATO just knew that endless subsidies were its birthright and prior commitments were debatable. 

The West apparently lapped up Obama’s Cairo speech: But when even the European Renaissance and Enlightenment were seen as derivatives of Islam, there is not much left to boast about.

On the unfriendly side, China sensed there was little danger in turning the Spratley Islands into an armed valve of the South China Sea. 

Russia understood that America was obsequiously “flexible” and ready to push a red plastic reset button in times of crisis.

ISIS assumed that American lawyers were vetoing air-strike targets. 

Iran guessed rightly that the Obama administration would concede a lot to strike a legacy deal on nonproliferation. 

It was unsure only about whether the Obama administration’s eagerness to dissimulate about the disadvantageous details were due to a sincere desire to empower revolutionary, Shiite Iran as an antipode to Israel and the Sunni oil monarchies, or arising from a reckless need to leave some sort of foreign-policy signature. 

Kim Jung-un concluded that the eight years of the Obama administration provided a rare golden moment to vastly expand its nuclear and missile capability — and then announce it as an irrevocable fait accompli after Obama left office.

Again, the common denominator was that the Obama administration, in quite radical fashion, had sought a therapeutic inversion of foreign policy — in a way few other major nations had previously envisioned.

Trump’s appointees almost immediately began undoing all that. 

There were no more effective avatars of old-style deterrence than James Mattis and H. R. McMaster. 

Neither was political. 

Both long ago embraced a realist appraisal of human nature, predicated on two ancient ideas: We all are more likely to behave when we accept that the alternative is far more dangerous to ourselves, and the world is better off when everyone knows the laws in the arena. 

Just as Obama’s pseudo–red lines in Syria signaled to the Iranians or North Koreans that there were few lines of any sort anywhere; so too the destruction of ISIS suggested to others that there might be far fewer restrictions on an American secretary of defense anywhere

On the cultural side, the Trump team figuratively paused, examined its inheritance from the prior administration, and apparently concluded something like “this is unhinged.” Then it proceeded, to the degree possible, to undo it.

Open borders, illegal immigration, and sanctuary cities are the norms of very few sovereign states. They are aberrations that are unsustainable whether the practitioner is Canada, Mexico, or the United States. 

Calling a small pond or large puddle on a farm’s low spot an “inland waterway” subject to federal regulation is deranged; undoing that was not radical, but commonsensical.

Trump sought to revive the cultural atmosphere prior to Obama’s assertion that he would fundamentally transform what had already been a great country. 

In 2008, it would have been inconceivable that NFL multimillionaires would refuse to stand for the National Anthem — much less in suicidal fashion insult their paying fans by insinuating that they deserved such a snub because they were racists and xenophobes. 

It was Byzantine that a country would enter an iconoclastic frenzy in the dead of night, smashing and defacing statues without legislative or popular democratic sanction.

The Un-Obama agenda was not simply reflexive or easy — given that Obama was the apotheosis of a decades-long progressive dream. 

After all, in year one, Trump has been demonized in a manner unprecedented in post-war America, given the astonishing statistic that 90 percent of all media coverage of his person and policies has been negative. 

Obama was a representation of a progressive view of the Constitution that about a quarter of the population holds, but in Obama, that view found a rare megaphone for an otherwise hard sell.

One would have thought that all Republican presidents and presidential candidate would be something like the antitheses to progressivism. 

In truth, few really were. 

So given the lateness of the national hour, a President Nobama could prove to be quite a change.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, released in October from Basic Books.


Tuesday, January 16, 2018

The Reflexive Racism of the American Left

By Jeffrey Lord



Ulysses S. Grant (second from the left) (Wikimedia Commons)

President Grant understood the Left’s Culture of Racism — which today’s media ignores.

“Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter — as he is, and must remain — and soon parties will be divided, not on the color line, but on principle.”

So wrote President Ulysses S. Grant in a message to Congress in 1875. As Grant biographer Ron Chernow points out in his recent book, this was a “prophetic message” indeed from the man who won the Civil War that freed black Americans. 

Black Americans chained into the tyranny imposed in a political deal with slave owners that created the Democratic Party — and established the culture of racism that exists in the party to this day.

All of this, sadly — make that very sadly during the week that celebrates the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — surfaces yet again. 

Surfaces as, once again, the reflexive racism of the American Left is front and center in the controversy over President Trump’s alleged “s***hole” remarks.

Let’s leave “alleged” out of this. While two Senators present for the meeting say they didn’t hear the remark and the Senator who says he did — Democrat Dick Durbin — was outed by the Obama White House for making up comments by Republicans at a leadership meeting with President Obama.

Let’s say President Trump did say it. Then?

Then a comment that had nothing to do with race was immediately transformed into an example of out-and-out racism. 

In the New York Times, Emory University’s Professor George Yancy asserts that the President is a “white racist.” And over at CNN, my old sparring partner and friend Don Lemon closed his “Trump is racist” monologue saying this:

 And for all of you who over the last few years uttered that tired, lazy, uninformed, uneducated, ignorant response of calling me and others who point out racist behavior racists, you know what you can go do? I can’t say that, but you can go read a book. A history book.

Let me make this crystal clear. Respectfully to my friend Don — and I do mean respectfully — I have read history books. Lots of them. Plus original sources.

And it is crystal clear from those original documents of history that the reflexive racism of the American Left — the Democratic Party — that the media determinedly ignores and that disturbed President Grant 143 years ago flowers still today in the Left’s “Culture of Racism.” And for a reason.

Let’s start with the history. 

Back there in the ancient times of 2008, I took note of that history in this space.

I had discovered that the website of the Democratic National Committee was boasting of its party history in civil rights — with the curious omission of 52 years of party history.

As I wrote at the time, what was missing was interesting indeed. And it certainly wasn’t getting much media coverage — then or now. Let me remind:

So what’s missing?

    * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were 6 from 1840-1860.

    * There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were 7 from 1800-1861.

    * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868-1948.

    * There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a “whites only” bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats.

    * There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”

    * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth banned slavery. The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote.

    * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

    * There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

    * There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”

    * There is no reference to four Democrat platforms, 1908-1920, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynchings (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.”

    * There is no reference to the DNC-sponsored Democrat Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the Convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering Convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African Americans and Catholics.

    * There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government of the United States, specifically at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

    * There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no reference these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democrat presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

    * There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80 percent of the nay vote on the bill in the Senate came from the Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr., father of future Vice President Al Gore.

    * Last, but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact — yes indeed — both a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

I am often criticized for mentioning this history. 

But the fact remains that history counts. 

To bring this to an individual level, if someone has spent their entire life chain-smoking cigarettes, it should come as no surprise when the doctor tells them that they have cancer. 

In this case, the American Left — specifically their party of choice, the Democratic Party — has been inhaling the poison of racism since Thomas Jefferson created the Party with the support of slave owners. 

It is now a full blown cancer — a “Culture of Racism.” There are very few Leftists not infected with this party cancer.

Let’s look at Grant’s message to America again: “Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter-as he is, and must remain-and soon parties will be divided, not on the color line, but on principle.”

A full 143 years after Grant wrote those words of warning the American Left and the Democrats have done exactly what Grant feared. 

By approaching issues always out of the Left’s Culture of Racism they have divided political parties not on principle — Big Government versus Limited Government or free markets versus socialism — but, as Grant put it, they perpetually have divided it “on the color line.”

The tragic part of this, as mentioned here last week, is that it has turned the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on its head.

Among the famous lines from that famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech of Dr. King’s was this:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Dr. King was, in other words, in complete agreement with then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, when Kennedy said this in a speech in Kentucky a few months earlier in 1963 at Kentucky’s celebration of the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Said RFK, approvingly quoting Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan from an 1883 dissent to the overruling of the 1875 Civil Rights Act:

 He (Justice Harlan) said, “Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Kennedy also noted that Harlan had accurately predicted the future (not unlike Grant) in his dissent, when Harlan wrote that if the 1875 Civil Rights Act was overturned doing so:

 … gives no other result than to render permanent peace impossible and to, keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned.

That is exactly what happened — and the 1875 law written by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, and signed into law by President Grant had to be re-done in 1964. 

After almost 100 years of Leftist-driven racism that ran the Democratic Party with an iron fist — an iron fist of racism still at the center of the American Left today. Which the media simply ignores.

Now the Left is telling us, as did Laurie Rubel, a Brooklyn College math education professor, exactly the opposite of the King and Kennedy message — not to mention the Ulysses Grant message:

Teachers who claim color-blindness — that is, they claim to not notice the race of their students — are, in effect, refusing to acknowledge the impact of enduring racial stratification on students and their families.

By claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child’s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction.

And as also noted last week, the Daily Caller surfaced a memo from ex-Hillary Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri, now President of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in which the bold pitch that “defending Dreamers” (aka DACA) was nothing less than a “Defining Political Moment for Democrats.” 

In other words, as Grant warned 143 years ago, the Democrats and the Progressive Left are still all about tying racism to the progressive agenda. That’s how they win elections — which the ex-Hillary aide candidly admitted.

Thus there is just incredible irony in Professor Yancy’s closing words in his Times article. Wrote Yancy:

So, as we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, we must face the fact that we are at a moral crossroad. Will America courageously live out Dr. King’s dream or will it go down the road of bigotry and racist vitriol, preferring to live out Mr. Trump’s nightmare instead?

We are indeed at a moral crossroads. 

And those of us who believe in Dr. King’s dream of a colorblind America where all Americans are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character understand that the “bigotry and racist vitriol” in this country is not coming from President Trump or his supporters but rather from the American Left and the Democratic Party.

Which intends to perpetuate it for as far as the political eye can see.

That isn’t just sad. It’s tragic.