The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Playing With Fire
by Laura Hollis
.
The Left's 'un-American' Smear
By Allyne Caan: When leftists take a torch to Old Glory, take a knee for the National Anthem or take an apology tour around the world, they're lauded as heroes of free speech. But when a Republican president does something leftists don't like, he's "un-American."
This is the latest slur the Left is hurling at President Trump as a result of his recent executive order implementing a temporary travel ban. Incidentally, this order is worth a moment of consideration both for what it does and does not do. As we previously noted, despite leftist hysteria, the ban is not what the Left claims. In fact, Jimmy Carter, Bill liar-Clinton and Barack liar-nObama also enacted temporary bans.
But what a difference an election makes. What under liar-nObama was a noble endeavor to protect Americans under Trump is suddenly "un-American." Hence, liberals from academia to Hollywood to government are donning robes of patriotism to denounce the president. Morehouse College professor David Dennis Jr., for example, called New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady's support of Trump "far more threatening to America than taking a knee during the National Anthem" because Trump is — per Dennis — the consummate "un-American."
Then, there's Hollywood. At the recent Screen Actors Guild Awards, Julia Louis-Dreyfus took to the podium and announced Trump is "un-American" because of the "immigrant ban." And Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said Trump's actions "are so un-American it pains us all."
Four states — Washington, Massachusetts, New York and Virginia — are even suing the Trump administration over the order, with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman calling it "unconstitutional, unlawful and fundamentally un-American." This is the same guy, by the way, who unlawfully went after Exxon Mobil and other "aggressive climate deniers."
Of course, the "un-American" attribution is hardly limited to immigration issues. The Left likes to slap this label on anyone who disagrees with their views. Are you pro-life? No, you're "anti-American," said NARAL president Ilyse Hogue. (That whole "right to life" thing in the Declaration of Independence must be pretty un-American to Hogue, too.) Do you believe boys should actually pee in boys' restrooms? You're not rational. You're "un-American." Do you oppose the government-takeover of the health care industry? You're not pro-freedom, you're "un-American."
For those who seem so ready, willing and able to identify what makes someone "un-American," it's amazing how little they understand about what makes someone "American."
Contrary to the Sandra Flukes of the world, being American doesn't mean free condoms for all. Nor does it mean free health care. It doesn't mean safe spaces or safety pins, government-mandated school lunch menus or free cell phones. It doesn't mean free college tuition or a guaranteed job upon graduation. It doesn't mean gender identity affirmation or global citizenship. It doesn't mean the right to kill a child or the right to make some one else pay for you to do it.
And, despite what the Left is crying, being American doesn't mean demanding indiscriminately open borders.
As Michelle Malkin explains, "America's Founding Fathers … asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration." James Madison, for example, stated, "It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of."
Indeed, being American actually means embracing the ideals that men and women, far braver than some Hollywood talking heads, have given their lives for, by the tens of thousands over the last 250 years. The ideals of personal responsibility and industry; the belief in the equality of all men based not on government dicta but on the reality of a Creator; the freedom to do not whatever you want but whatever is right.
Leftists can toss around accusations of "un-Americanism" as long as they'd like. But until they demonstrate that they understand what it means to be American, their attempts at contrast will continue to fall flat. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Ex-visa officer: liar-nObama
failed to do basic screening of migrants
by Greg Corombos
{wnd.com} ~ President Trump’s executive order on immigration is not a permanent ban, but it is necessary for America’s national security, thanks to the lax vetting practices applied by the liar-nObama administration... according to a leading immigration policy expert. Trump has issued a flurry of orders, but his executive order last week ordering an immediate and indefinite pause on travel to the United States from seven terrorism-prone nations is drawing by far the fiercest response. Protesters have clogged airports, and political critics are demanding Trump rescind the order. Jessica Vaughan is director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “The point was to give our government the opportunity to take another look at these people who have been granted green cards, visas, refugee status,” Vaughan said. “We know that the vetting process under the liar-nObama administration was not adequate.” Vaughan, a former visa officer, said the liar-nObama administration failed to do even basic screening much of the time, including waiving required interviews with those seeking to go to the U.S. But she said the problems didn’t end there... http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/ex-visa-officer-obama-failed-to-do-basic-screening-of-migrants/
.
Iraq’s Archbishop: I Wonder Why
Americans Didn’t Protest When ISIS
Came to Kill Christians?
by Onan Coca
by Onan Coca
{constitution.com} ~ A good question from one of Iraq’s most important Christian leaders, Catholic Archbishop Basar Warda. The archbishop was speaking the Catholic website, Crux, when he voiced support for President Donald Trump’s immigration... posture towards the nations of the Middle East and said that Iraq’s Christians “celebrated when Trump won” because they hoped it meant that the USA would finally offer support for their suffering. The entire interview is a treasure trove of information about the plight of Christians in the Middle East (Iraq in particular) and is well worth your time to read. On whether or not he and other Iraqi Christians agree with President Trump’s new immigration...
.
Gangster Islam: The problem Europe ignores
by Timon Dias
{gatestone.eu} ~ For over a decade, Europe’s struggle to successfully integrate its Muslim population has been evident. But throughout the years a new and distinctly European phenomenon arose... which is as significant as it is underreported: Gangster Islam. It entails the conflation of the seemingly a-religious street culture of youths from a Muslim background on the one hand, and elements of the Islamic religion on the other. The German publication Der Spiegel once very briefly touched on the matter, a Danish documentary highlighted Islamic extremists recruiting gang members from a Muslim background, and a Dutch terrorism expert pointed out how Syrian returnees were more likely to live a life of crime in order to finance the jihad, than to actually commit a terror attack. One would think that after having spent millions of euros on interreligious dialogues, cultural sensitivity trainings and moral diversity classes, Europe’s social scientists would have punctured the surface by now... https://gatestone.eu/gangster-islam-europe/
.
liar-nObama allowed Iran missiles that could hit Israel
by wnd.com
{wnd.com} ~ Just as Iran announced the testing of a ballistic missile and the Trump administration reviewed plans for new sanctions, the rogue Islamic regime claimed that in nuclear negotiations, President liar-nObama allowed Iran to have missiles that could strike Israel... reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. In statements, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps “hinted that restrictions on the range of Iranian missiles so that they reach Israel but not Europe were part of the Iran deal,” reported the Middle East Media Research Institute. MEMRI said that according to Iranian officials, the liar-nObama administration gave unwritten consent in the nuclear talks and in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiations for Iran to develop ballistic missiles with a range of only 2,000 kilometers, or 1,200 miles, which means they could strike Israel but not Europe...
.
Judge Jeanine Blisters Egotistical
Activist Judge Usurping President Trump
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Judge Jeanine Pirro directs her open comments at the leftist activist in Seattle impersonating a judge, a clown in a black robe by the name of Robart, Robart the Clown... He’s the commie Ben and Jerry’s bow-tied America-hating subversive who usurped President Trump in his chief duty as the President of the United States, the protection of our nation. The latte sipping Seattleite is taking over, in his mind, abusing his authority in promoting his liberal anti-American dementia. Judge Jeanine says, “Federal Judge James Robart has put a nationwide halt to President Trump’s temporary 7 nation travel ban. This halt needs to be reversed. It will be reversed and here’s why. The President’s executive action last week, halting travel for 90 days for nationals from seven mostly Muslim countries, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya and Yemen, is eminently constitutional and it will be upheld on both legal precedent and national security grounds.” Judge Jeanine continues, “Now I start with one fundamental premise, no one has the right to enter the United States unless he or she is a citizen of the United States. So, did the Commander-in-Chief have the authority to impose the 90 day ban? Every president has wide latitude to protect the homeland... http://rickwells.us/judge-jeanine-blisters-egotistical-activist-judge-usurping-president-trump/
.
.
Playing With Fire
by Laura Hollis
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Having lost the election fair and square, Democrats are still seething. They have apparently decided to retaliate by attacking everything done by the new Republican administration.
First, it was the election itself. The party line — with no hard evidence and despite statements to the contrary by WikiLeaks' Julian Assange — was that the Russians "meddled" in the election by hacking the DNC. Democrats allowed this story to morph into public confusion about whether Russia had actually "hacked" votes. There was zero evidence of that.
"Not my president" was already a rallying cry of those who felt betrayed by the news and the polls, having been lulled into a false sense of security that deeply unpopular candidate liar-Hillary Clinton would win in a walk. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., took it further, saying, "I don't see newly elected president Donald Trump as a legitimate president."
Next, the Women's March participants let the world know of their opposition to all things Trump.
Over the weekend, Trump's executive order impacting immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries drew a fresh round of criticism including from former President Barack liar-nObama.
Now, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch to fill deceased Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch is a consummately qualified and well-respected jurist. Right on cue, the next salvo in the Left's attack on this administration now, the judicial branch has been launched.
First, the histrionics: Nancy Pulosi called Gorsuch "a hostile appointment." Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren called him "a threat to our American values." The Alliance for Justice characterizes him as a wait for it "far-right extremist."
Second, the hypocrisy: Predictably, Trump has been slammed for not nominating a so-called "moderate" what the left calls a Republican who betrays his or her core values. Yet we all know that Republican demands for President liar-Hillary Clinton to nominate someone who was palatable to conservatives would have been met by peals of laughter. Hypocrisy were a gas, the EPA would have to ban it; we're suffocating in it right about now.
The hypocrisy is standard fare. The attacks on the validity of Gorsuch's seat should he win confirmation, however, are not.
Lacking the votes to block Gorsuch's nomination unless they filibuster, which Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is threatening, the latest petulant "news" to emanate from the left is that Gorsuch is "stealing" the seat that "should have" gone to liar-nObama's nominee, Merrick Garland. Lefties across the country, led by The New York Times, are tweeting the hashtag #StolenSeat.
This is asinine. Scholars disagree on the obligation of the Senate to hold confirmation hearings. Even if Senate Republicans had held hearings and called for an up-or-down vote on Garland's nomination, there is no guarantee that he would have received enough votes to get the seat. Worst of all, Joe loose lips-Biden and Schumer both argued for delaying GOP nominees Bush I in 1992 and Bush II in 2007, respectively — and loose lips-Biden specifically called for a moratorium on judicial confirmations until the next election. Phew! Do you smell that? Must be hypocrisy again.
It's clear that Democrats are doubling down on the very strategy insults, fake news, faux outrage, deceit that lost them the White House and Congress. This is not only a losing strategy; it is also a very dangerous game.
The democratic political processes of most western nations are civilized ways of transferring power, resolving disputes, expressing views and addressing grievances. The left is deliberately and systematically undermining the legitimacy of these institutions: voting, executive power, congressional action and judicial decisions.
They do so at their peril. People deprived of ways to peacefully express their political opinions will find ways to express them that are not peaceful. Constant attacks on the legitimacy of the American political process create incentives for people to use other, less civil means, to achieve their ends. We have seen these impulses in recent protests, violence, and threats. This is a disturbing precedent that should concern Democrats more than it does.
Unfortunately, much of the left attaches little importance to precedent, because they never intend to hold themselves to the same standard that they expect of the right — which is to say that they behave in ways they would never tolerate from the right. The left thinks they can act out with impunity, but count on the civility of the right — including the press' ability to shame people into submission. But I submit that that ship has sailed. In fact, the public's mistrust of the media should serve as a warning: Democrats, solidly in control of the press, opted to compromise the press' objectivity, in furtherance of political gain. Having destroyed the press' credibility, the left cannot now trot them out as arbiters of public virtue; the damage done to the institution is not so easily repaired.
In a system that depends upon a free and objective press, that is a grave loss. But undermining the credibility — and legitimacy — of the entire government — is much more serious, indeed.
So, in the spirit of democratic collegiality, I will warn the left: Choose your battles — and your tactics — wisely. You are playing with fire — and we are all likely to get burned.
First, it was the election itself. The party line — with no hard evidence and despite statements to the contrary by WikiLeaks' Julian Assange — was that the Russians "meddled" in the election by hacking the DNC. Democrats allowed this story to morph into public confusion about whether Russia had actually "hacked" votes. There was zero evidence of that.
"Not my president" was already a rallying cry of those who felt betrayed by the news and the polls, having been lulled into a false sense of security that deeply unpopular candidate liar-Hillary Clinton would win in a walk. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., took it further, saying, "I don't see newly elected president Donald Trump as a legitimate president."
Next, the Women's March participants let the world know of their opposition to all things Trump.
Over the weekend, Trump's executive order impacting immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries drew a fresh round of criticism including from former President Barack liar-nObama.
Now, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch to fill deceased Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch is a consummately qualified and well-respected jurist. Right on cue, the next salvo in the Left's attack on this administration now, the judicial branch has been launched.
First, the histrionics: Nancy Pulosi called Gorsuch "a hostile appointment." Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren called him "a threat to our American values." The Alliance for Justice characterizes him as a wait for it "far-right extremist."
Second, the hypocrisy: Predictably, Trump has been slammed for not nominating a so-called "moderate" what the left calls a Republican who betrays his or her core values. Yet we all know that Republican demands for President liar-Hillary Clinton to nominate someone who was palatable to conservatives would have been met by peals of laughter. Hypocrisy were a gas, the EPA would have to ban it; we're suffocating in it right about now.
The hypocrisy is standard fare. The attacks on the validity of Gorsuch's seat should he win confirmation, however, are not.
Lacking the votes to block Gorsuch's nomination unless they filibuster, which Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is threatening, the latest petulant "news" to emanate from the left is that Gorsuch is "stealing" the seat that "should have" gone to liar-nObama's nominee, Merrick Garland. Lefties across the country, led by The New York Times, are tweeting the hashtag #StolenSeat.
This is asinine. Scholars disagree on the obligation of the Senate to hold confirmation hearings. Even if Senate Republicans had held hearings and called for an up-or-down vote on Garland's nomination, there is no guarantee that he would have received enough votes to get the seat. Worst of all, Joe loose lips-Biden and Schumer both argued for delaying GOP nominees Bush I in 1992 and Bush II in 2007, respectively — and loose lips-Biden specifically called for a moratorium on judicial confirmations until the next election. Phew! Do you smell that? Must be hypocrisy again.
It's clear that Democrats are doubling down on the very strategy insults, fake news, faux outrage, deceit that lost them the White House and Congress. This is not only a losing strategy; it is also a very dangerous game.
The democratic political processes of most western nations are civilized ways of transferring power, resolving disputes, expressing views and addressing grievances. The left is deliberately and systematically undermining the legitimacy of these institutions: voting, executive power, congressional action and judicial decisions.
They do so at their peril. People deprived of ways to peacefully express their political opinions will find ways to express them that are not peaceful. Constant attacks on the legitimacy of the American political process create incentives for people to use other, less civil means, to achieve their ends. We have seen these impulses in recent protests, violence, and threats. This is a disturbing precedent that should concern Democrats more than it does.
Unfortunately, much of the left attaches little importance to precedent, because they never intend to hold themselves to the same standard that they expect of the right — which is to say that they behave in ways they would never tolerate from the right. The left thinks they can act out with impunity, but count on the civility of the right — including the press' ability to shame people into submission. But I submit that that ship has sailed. In fact, the public's mistrust of the media should serve as a warning: Democrats, solidly in control of the press, opted to compromise the press' objectivity, in furtherance of political gain. Having destroyed the press' credibility, the left cannot now trot them out as arbiters of public virtue; the damage done to the institution is not so easily repaired.
In a system that depends upon a free and objective press, that is a grave loss. But undermining the credibility — and legitimacy — of the entire government — is much more serious, indeed.
So, in the spirit of democratic collegiality, I will warn the left: Choose your battles — and your tactics — wisely. You are playing with fire — and we are all likely to get burned.
Comments