The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
The Left's Unilateral Suicide Pact
by Heather Mac Donald
.
Trump Can Be His Own Worst Enemy
President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban has been the subject of much consternation for several months. After he issued a lawful (if ill-conceived) order regarding incoming travel from several dangerous Islamic countries, a lawless judiciary struck it down based not on the order but on Trump’s campaign statements about Muslims. So he tried again with a revised order that attempted to address the judicial concerns. That too was struck down, and Trump is now appealing to the Supreme Court.
But shortly after announcing the appeal, he proceeded to shoot himself in the foot with another Twitter tirade. “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want,” Trump tweeted. “I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” He added, “The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.”
Where to begin? He signed off on the revised order, but he’s throwing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the DOJ under the bus. That kind of buck-passing was pathetic when Barack liar-nObama did it, and it’s no less so now. The revision was not “watered down,” either, but on better legal footing than the original. The Wall Street Journal notes, “Had the White House done such legal due diligence in the first place, the travel ban might not have become a political bonfire — not least because the President enjoys wide constitutional and statutory discretion over immigration and national security.”
Worse, his legal team has already had a tough time with judges who’d rather look at his campaign rhetoric than the actual executive order. Trump just made his defense harder.
We’ll give him one thing: He is absolutely right about courts being “slow and political,” though even there he could help by moving to fill the 131 federal judicial vacancies instead of starting Twitter firestorms.
Some constructive criticism (again) for the president: Yes, Twitter helps him reach his base, and it’s very likely most grassroots folks see this as Trump speaking truth to corruption. But he needs a legal win on the policy, not accolades from people who already voted for him. Set Twitter aside and govern.
We suppose the good news is that there are more effective security strategies than this temporary travel ban — better vetting, for example, which the ban was supposed to provide time to accomplish — so even if Justice Neil Gorsuch writes the unanimous majority opinion striking it down, Trump won’t be out of options. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
CNN Orchestrates Rep’s Anti-Trump Attack –
“Fanning Flames Of Islamophobia”
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ CNN Fake News mongrel Wolf Blitzer asks the leading, scripted question in a relatively direct manner, in order to offer his guest, Rep Andre Carson (D-IN)... an opportunity to attack those who recognize the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and to decry them as bigots. The tactics have proven to be quite successful in diminishing the intensity and frequency of the warnings and the ability and willingness of people to speak out, to force self-censorship as well as empowering others who would censor the free speech of Americans. Carson is one of two members of Congress who are Muslims, the other being Keith Ellison. Both have sworn an oath to the Constitution that their ideology precludes them from honoring. Blitzer asks, “You’re one of two Muslim members of the United States Congress. Are you facing any hatred, anything along those lines, in the aftermath of what’s been going on over these past several weeks and months?” Right Wolf, dismiss any objection to what they’re doing, to their agenda of conquest as unjustified, bigoted, hate; that’s the mission of a CNN propagandist... http://rickwells.us/cnn-orchestrates-reps-anti-trump-attack-fanning-flames-islamophobia/
.
A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism
Members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) march across
the City Hall lawn in Los Angeles, California
by Alan M. Dershowitz
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ All over the world anti-Semites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew hater. This is especially so if the anti-Semite uses the cover of rabid hatred for the nation-state of the Jewish people... These bigots succeed in becoming accepted -- even praised -- not because of their anti-Semitism, but despite it. Increasingly, they are given a pass on their Jew-hatred because those who support them admire or share other aspects of what they represent. This implicit tolerance of anti-Semitism -- as long as it comes from someone whose other views are acceptable -- represents a dangerous new trend from both the right and left. In the United States, although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses...We need to put our foot down and say enough is enough. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10492/anti-semitism-toleranceMembers of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) march across
the City Hall lawn in Los Angeles, California
by Alan M. Dershowitz
.
{thesleuthjournal.com} ~ Nearly 500 North Carolina prison employees have been either fired for misconduct or charged with criminal offenses like smuggling drugs, weapons, and cellphones inside prisons since 2012, the Charlotte Observer reported Wednesday... The Observer’s research is extensive and damning, covering everything from the state’s hiring of corrections officers with violent criminal histories to counselors and officers carrying on long-term sexual affairs with inmates. Former prison officers and inmates say the prevalence of corruption is largely due to the state under vetting and underpaying employees. The state’s new prison leaders vow to change those problems. George Solomon, the state’s recently retired director of prisons, is under no illusions about the grim situation he has left for his successor, Kenneth Lassiter... http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/corruptio-every-prison-north-carolina/
Leftist Senator Bullies DHS Secretary
Kelly Into Near Submission On ICE Detainers
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Democrat hag and Senator Kamala Harris is another of a first generation American children of foreigners who rose to prominence during the liar-nObama occupation, who exhibits no understanding or respect for traditional America... but instead a preoccupation with and dedication to the destruction of our nation through open borders globalism. Her mother was from India and her father, a Jamaican liberal professor at Stanford. There is good news for those of us watching this exchange, we had the good sense and good fortune not to be married to this witch. General Kelly likely wanted to walk across the room and slap the snot out of her, but he’s too much of a gentleman, doesn’t need the headaches and wouldn’t want to risk cutting his hand on her beak. The open borders hag showed no respect for Homeland Security Secretary General John Kelly beyond the use of the words thank you and “with due respect” and to a degree it may have been effective. Kelly did seem to back down on whether or not he would stick to his guns on the issue of ICE detainers in sanctuary cities... http://rickwells.us/leftist-senator-bullies-dhs-secretary-kelly-near-submission-ice-detainers/
.Corruption Rampant in ‘Every
Prison’ in North Carolina, Report Says
.
Sekulow Warns Comey Better Be Very Careful
About What He Says In Senate Testimony
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Attorney Jay Sekulow finds it troubling “that the special counsel is letting James Comey testify at all. Because if he’s a witness that he’s using in an investigation, why in the world would you put your witness up to be examined... And James Comey, let’s face it, is not exactly the most credible witness. This is a guy that had to correct his testimony before the United States House and Senate on three separate occasions.” Comey is set to testify publicly and in a closed hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. "He’s not a credible witness,” says Sekulow, “and he’s discussing his testimony with the special counsel, I think this points to what we’re going to see on Thursday, which is, probably, basically, not much.” Sekulow warns, “James Comey better be very careful in what he says,” noting that the law required Comey to report any crime he knew to have taken place or be taking place, which would be a simple matter of walking across the street to the DOJ, and he failed to do so, he committed a crime.”... http://rickwells.us/sekulow-warns-comey-better-careful-says-senate-testimony/
.
.
by Heather Mac Donald
The Left's Unilateral Suicide Pact
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Liberal ideology conceives of "safe spaces" in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a "safe space" in Britain's three terrorist attacks in the last three months. What was the "progressive" answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.
A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders --- not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester, the killing of young girls.
The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. The parents of the Manchester terrorist emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world's largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.
Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests 'open borders' are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.
Earhardt had asked how to prevent "what's happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they're not vetting, they're opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they're paid back in return." Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.
The Washington Post, too, editorialized that "defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities." Well, where did the assault originate from-Buckingham Palace?
Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency's mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court.
What about using ordinary police powers to try to hinder terrorism? Islamic terrorists in Europe have moonlighted as crooks, engaging in drug dealing, robberies, vandalism, and theft. The U.S. should have zero tolerance for any criminal activity committed by aliens: break the criminal law and you're out of here. Deporting alien criminals is both an anti-crime and an anti-terrorism strategy. Yet mayors and police chiefs in sanctuary jurisdictions across the country continue to release alien criminals back into the community from jail in defiance of requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the criminals briefly for removal proceedings. The New York Police Department defied every ICE detainer request it received in the first four months of 2017, instead releasing 179 alien criminals back into the streets, according to the New York Post.
So what does the progressive and liberal bloc offer? Treacly bromides, combined with fatalism about the necessity of adjusting to future attacks. A day after Manchester, the Washington Post admonished:
As nations across the West have learned, it is not possible to prevent all such terrorist attacks, especially when they are staged by homegrown militants. What is possible is a response that focuses on uniting rather than dividing a diverse society. That's what was happening in Manchester on Tuesday, as thousands of people of all races and faiths gathered for a vigil in the city's Albert Square. "I'm not here as a person with brown skin or someone born Muslim," a man named Amir Shah told a Guardian reporter. "I'm here as a Mancunian." If that spirit prevails, the terrorists will have failed.
No, the terrorists will have failed if they can no longer slaughter children. They don't care if a terror attack is met with candlelight vigils; they care if border restrictions and law enforcement make it impossible to destroy lives.
The flip side of the Post's "terrorists will have failed if we light candles" conceit is the ubiquitous meme that the "terrorists will have won" if we modify our intelligence strategies or immigration policies in any way. The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: "It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain-and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West-to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies." This response is narcissistic. The attack was an effort to kill British girls and their parents, period. The terrorists win every time they pull off such massacres. They are not monitoring the legislative process and plotting how to move the needle on Western security protections in a way contrary to their own self-interest. If a society were exclusively Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim, it would be just as much the target of attack by ISIS or al-Qaida as a more "diverse" society.
Moreover, how would the New York Times distinguish a terror attack that seeks to "sweep away . . . the inclusiveness of diverse societies" from one that was merely intended to kill? Any terror attack carries some chance albeit an increasingly de minimis one that it will result in a tightening of immigration or security policies, but that does not mean that such tightening is the goal of the attack.
Perhaps aware that the "candlelight vigil" strategy for fighting terrorism may seem a little wan, progressives make passing reference to actual security measures, but couched in such broad terms as to be almost meaningless. And they are only faking it, because those security measures would violate core tenets of progressive ideology.
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, for example, invokes the usual weak remedies: she calls for "community solidarity, things like the mass vigil that took place in Manchester on Tuesday night, or the offers of tea, blankets and bedrooms extended to people stranded by the attack." But then, so as not to sound too soft, she also suggests "better policing . . . as well as the forthright teaching of British values in British schools." If "better policing" means more surveillance of, or interaction with, suspicious individuals, good luck with that. One can already hear the cries of "racial profiling." As for the "forthright teaching of British values in British schools," where does Applebaum think we are-the 1920s? Forthright teaching of Western values went out decades ago as an anti-minority, anti-immigrant violation of multicultural relativism.
Even more hypocritically, the New York Times intones that "maximum vigilance is needed, and . . . public spaces must be made as safe as possible." Never mind that the Times led the fight against NYPD Commissioner Kelly's neighborhood-mapping program that tried to maintain "vigilance" against nascent radicalization. Never mind that the Times rages against any police effort to increase the safety of "public spaces," whether via pedestrian stops or Broken Windows policing.
The contrast between the Times's attitude toward domestic policing and its attitude toward Islamic terrorism is striking. When it comes to terrorism, the public should "recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses," the Times says. It is also "critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized." If the Times were talking about police shootings of black males, it would never counsel acceptance of the alleged inevitability of more shootings. As for not stigmatizing an entire group for the actions of a few, when it comes to the police, there has been no shriller a stigmatizer than the Times. It has crusaded against cops in the most inflammatory terms, accusing the police of systemic bias against blacks. Unlike a terrorist, an officer almost never initiates an interaction with a civilian with the intention to kill, unless he is confronting a suspect who poses a deadly threat. True, a few individual officers have made horribly wrong judgments about a suspect's threat level. But those misjudgments do not occur out of homicidal animus. Regarding Islamic terrorism, the Times intones that "Understanding is critical" and inveighs against "whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds." The Times has never tried to "understand" why officers are more likely to use force in high-crime, gang-ridden areas or why officers try to restore order there answer: because the law-abiding residents of those anarchic neighborhoods beg them to do so.
Applebaum warns against "politicizing" the "natural" emotions triggered by the attack-"horror, anger, sadness, fear, revulsion." Why shouldn't those emotions be politicized? Every left-wing cause, especially the anti-cop crusade, is the result of politicizing an emotion. When it comes to terrorism, however, a country is apparently not allowed to say: "Enough is enough, the status quo is not working, we need to rethink the policies that have allowed this mayhem to flourish." Mob justice, of course, is abhorrent, and any changes of law must follow the normal deliberative process. But the public should not have to resign itself abjectly to future attacks.
Islamic terrorism in the West is an immigration problem. Until we have the law enforcement and intelligence capacity to detect terror plots, immigration policy has to change, both in Europe and in the U.S. European security forces are unable to track the militants in their populations, so large are their numbers. The United States must not end up in the same situation. We need lower immigration levels and much tighter screening. The Manchester bombing vindicated President Donald Trump's March 2017 executive order briefly limiting travel to the U.S. from half a dozen ISIS- and al-Qaida-riven countries, including Libya, while the administration reviews security screening in those countries. Yet three days after Manchester, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that order, claiming that it "drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination." This judicial crusade against Trump's travel pause cripples the executive's ability to protect the country from attack, by exporting phantom constitutional rights to the world. Progressives' passivity in the face of Islamic terrorism is not a consistent philosophy. It is rather the outcome of their commitment to open borders at any cost. That ideology has taken too many lives and must be overcome.
Comments