Posted tagged ‘Lawlessness’

European Attacks Show the Difficulty in Tracking Soaring Terror Suspect Numbers

September 18, 2017

European Attacks Show the Difficulty in Tracking Soaring Terror Suspect Numbers, Investigative Project on Terrorism, September 18, 2017

Managed by the National Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) the terror threat list has more than 1 million names on it. Other federal and state agencies have their own “persons of interest” list. Their information sometimes is not shared because of small-minded administrators and long-standing turf wars. This was a problem prior to 9/11.

Yet there are indications this continues to be an issue. The FBI’s National Data Exchange program, initiated in 2008 to foster cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, still does not have full participation due to longstanding mistrust between the groups.

***************************

Three separate radical Islamic terror attacks took place Friday in Europe. The most serious was caused by an improvised explosive device (IED) placed on a London underground train in the Parsons Green station which injured more than 30 people.

Witnesses spoke of hearing a “whooshing” sound and then seeing a fireball coming at them from a plastic bucket that was placed unattended on the floor of the rush hour train. The device’s failure to completely detonate was credited with saving lives. “There is no doubt that this was a serious IED (improvised explosive device) and it was good fortune that it did so little damage,” said UK Interior Minister Amber Rudd.

Two men, ages 18 and 21, are in custody. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Until the second suspect’s arrest Saturday night, Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level from severe to critical, meaning that future attacks may have been imminent.

As the number of terror attacks in Europe increases, the question arises whether current counter terrorism strategies are working. Issues such as immigrant vetting, watch lists, and de-radicalization continue to be critical components that require, upon closer examination, changes. At least one of those components failed in each attack.

This was the UK’s fifth terrorist attack this year. Other attacks targeted the Westminster Bridge, Manchester, Borough Market, and Finsbury Park. The terrorists have used knives, vehicles, and bombs to kill and injure both police and civilians.

These incidents have contributed to a 68 percent increase in terrorism arrests in the UK. Authorities say as many as 3,000 people are under active investigation with 20,000 more causing concerns about radicalization and terrorist leanings.

Former New York Police Counter Terrorism Director Mitch Silber believes that some of the UK’s previous counter terrorism and de-radicalization programs have been insufficient. “One of the things the UK will have to do is hire more intelligence analysts, police investigators, and staff in order to be better prepared to match up with the numbers that they are up against,” he said.

Similar statistics are also showing up in France, which suffered two more terror attacks on Friday. A man with a knife shouting “Allah Akbar” attacked a French soldier at the Paris Chatelet subway station. Then, two women in Chalon-sur-Saone were attacked by a man wielding a hammer. He also shouted, “Allah Akbar” as he assaulted the women, witnesses said.

This was the tenth terrorist attack in France this year. France’s terror watch list has more than 18,500 names on it, up from 15,000 a year ago.

So far, the United States has seen only a minimal number of terrorism attacks compared to the EU. In March, the FBI said it had as many as 1,000 open terrorism cases. Many of these involve people returning from Syria and Iraq or ISIS sympathizers. A third of those cases reportedly involve refugees.

The Bureau has also admitted that some of the people who carried out recent terrorist acts in the U.S. were “previously known to authorities.” That includes Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and would-be Garland, Texas shooter Elton Simpson.

People can become known to authorities in several ways. There may have been a prior allegation of radicalization, or an incident which caused federal or state law enforcement agencies to interview the subjects or their families. This creates a paper trail which may or may not be shared with other agencies.

We also have a watch list.

Managed by the National Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) the terror threat list has more than 1 million names on it. Other federal and state agencies have their own “persons of interest” list. Their information sometimes is not shared because of small-minded administrators and long-standing turf wars. This was a problem prior to 9/11.

Yet there are indications this continues to be an issue. The FBI’s National Data Exchange program, initiated in 2008 to foster cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, still does not have full participation due to longstanding mistrust between the groups.

Any list is likely to include duplications and erroneous entries, but still the numbers are mind boggling. How do you keep track of more than 1 million potential suspects? It is critical to make resource sharing and information sharing priorities if the information contained on the lists is to be of any value in preventing future terror attacks.

It will require decisive action both from the congressional and executive branches. An agreement on how to properly vet individuals from countries ravaged by war or terrorist attacks seeking refugee status would help. A clear policy on what to do with people who commit terrorist acts would address the growing concern of what happens when someone who has been radicalized is released from prison.

If we do not address this issue sooner or later some that have been released will return to the battlefield. The environments where radicalization seem to thrive most – cyber chat rooms, websites, prisons and radical mosques – must be countered.

Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves into thinking we can avoid the surge in terror attacks that we see in Europe. As coordinated military action continues to squeeze ISIS and regain territory in the Middle East, it undoubtedly will increase its call for followers to carry out attacks in their home countries.

The U.S. will not be immune from the threat.

Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”

June 25, 2017

Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”, Jihad Watch, June 25, 2017

(From what “international community” does the author suggest that help will be necessary? The European Union? That would be like ingesting arsenic to cure a brain tumor. — DM)

Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.

*********************

Sweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help, and it is only a question of time before the country will need military intervention from abroad in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

(Photo: Sweden’s National police chief, Dan Eliasson)

A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.

A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:

“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”

10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamistssharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police escort or protection.

In related news: Sweden Changing: 150,000 Women Undergo FGM, Authorities Admit Large Areas UNDER ISLAMIST RULE

The word that Swedish authorities and media use for the country’s “no-go zones” is utenforskap. The word means something like “excluded area.” In these areas, Swedish law has been replaced with a mixture of the law of the jungle and the Islamic legal code, sharia. Armed Muslim gangs and Islamic radicals are simply carving out big pieces of Sweden for themselves. The only reason why it has not evolved into large-scale armed conflicts — in this formerly peaceful and safe country — probably relates to how Sweden’s feminist-liberal government is not putting up any real resistance against the Islamists.

Even if the Swedish feminist government chose to fight back tomorrow, Sweden has nothing close to the paramilitary capacity needed to reverse this situation. That 80 percent of the country’s law enforcement officers are considering quitting their jobs is a clear sign of a police force that is completely demoralized. The military in this traditionally pacifist country is cut down to almost nothing, and there is no money to fix it.

As Johan Patrik Engellau puts it: “The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take and clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”

The fact remains that Sweden’s political elite is nowhere near taking such decisive action, as it has not even started to openly speak out about these problems.

Therefore Sweden will very soon need help from abroad. Police chief Dan Eliasson’s prayer for help only included potential partners inside Sweden, but very soon the international community will have to intervene if a humanitarian catastrophe is to be avoided.

On Mueller investigation, Trump should fight fire with fire

June 22, 2017

On Mueller investigation, Trump should fight fire with fire, American ThinkerKarin McQuillan, June 22, 2017

President Trump has the responsibility to re-establish the rule of law in our country, and he will have the enthusiastic backing of his base if he does so.  It is time to end Democrats’ politically motivated abuse of the law.  Stop the Mueller investigation, and go after Obama Inc.’s multiple crimes.

****************************

John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, writes in American Greatness this week that the powers invested in Special Counsel Mueller to investigate “Russian hacking/collusion/obstruction poses grave dangers to our body politic and our liberty.”  His advice to President Trump: Fight fire with fire.  Turn the law and the courts back on your opponents. Trump is being investigated without any probable cause of a crime.  The Obama administration, in contrast, is a target-rich arena of criminal activity.

It is unconstitutional to issue a search warrant when there has been no crime and there is no probable cause.  But that is exactly what President Trump’s DOJ has inflicted on the president and his team with Mueller’s special investigation.  It was not just cowardice, but folly for the DOJ to buckle to the left-wing media’s hysterical insistence to investigate our president’s alleged collusion with the FSB.  

According to Professor Eastman:

The special counsel will not to track down the details of a crime known to have been committed and determine “who dunnit,” but will scour the personal and business affairs of a select group of people – the President of the United States, members of his family, his business associates, and members of his presidential campaign and transition teams – to see if any crime can be found (or worse, manufactured by luring someone into making a conflicting statement at some point). This is not a proper use of prosecutorial power, but a “witch hunt,” as President Trump himself correctly observed. Or, to put it more in terms of legalese, this special prosecutor has effectively been given a “writ of assistance” and the power to exercise a “general warrant” against this select group of people, including the President of the United States, recently elected by a fairly wide margin of the electoral vote.

That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent. Indeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America’s war for independence.

 Professor Eastman suggests fighting fire with fire, prosecution with prosecution.

Unfortunately, the only antidote may be to fight fire with fire. President Trump: Perhaps it is time to make good on that old pledge to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Clinton “matters” after all. And while you’re add it, add in referrals to the grand jury for the contempt of Congress committed by the IRS’s Lois Lerner and former Attorney General Eric Holder, an FBI investigation of the destruction of government documents and servers in the midst of the IRS scandal, an investigation into alleged perjury committed by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in testimony about those matters given under oath to Congress, an “obstruction of justice” investigation against former Attorney General Eric Holder and others (and related perjury charges against Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez) for allegedly ordering that an egregious voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party be dropped shortly before a default judgment was about to be entered in the government’s favor, etc., etc., etc.

President Obama and his leftist minions spat on our constitution  and flouted the rule of law for eight long years.  Google “Obama flouts constitution,” or see here and here and here and here and here.  Their abuse of power was ignored by the media and our partisan courts, but it has not been forgotten by conservatives.

President Trump’s voters would like to see equality before the law upheld once again in America.  It is bad for our country that rich and powerful Democrat politicians and bureaucrats harm our national security and ruin other people’s lives, in flagrant violation of the law, and are never held to account for their crimes.

Professor Eastman’s advice to fight fire with fire stops short.  Based on his own analysis, it is unconstitutional to do warrantless searches with no probable cause.  Ending the baseless “Russian collusion” witch hunt is fundamental to upholding our constitution.

Those who counseled President Trump to not prosecute Hillary Clinton said a Clinton investigation would distract the White House from furthering Trump’s positive agenda.  That was a strong argument – then.  But as Professor Eastman points out, it backfired.  Perhaps Trump’s civility was taken as a sign of weakness.  Hillary launched the lie that the Russians made her lose the election.  Democrats instigated this phony Russian collusion investigation of Trump, precisely in an effort to distract the White House and halt the Trump agenda.  The best defense is to return to offense.

President Trump has the responsibility to re-establish the rule of law in our country, and he will have the enthusiastic backing of his base if he does so.  It is time to end Democrats’ politically motivated abuse of the law.  Stop the Mueller investigation, and go after Obama Inc.’s multiple crimes.

H/T: Powerlineblog.com

 

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits

June 9, 2017

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits, Judicial Watch via YouTube, June 9, 2017

 

Alien Invasion: Thousands of Foreigners Registered To Vote (and Voting) in Virginia

May 30, 2017

Alien Invasion: Thousands of Foreigners Registered To Vote (and Voting) in Virginia, PJ Media, J. Christian Adams, May 30, 2017

In the age of Obama, politics prevented voter fraud prosecutions. Obama’s Justice Department didn’t prosecute alien registration and voting because their governing philosophy opposed it. The Justice Department ignored the information gift-wrapped by local election officials.

*****************************************

Some inside the Beltway are in a froth about foreign influence in our elections.

Yet I’ll wager they won’t say a word about real foreign influence in elections — even when actual evidence exists.

A new report released today documents that in Virginia alone, 5,556 voter registrations were cancelled because of citizenship defects. Many of those cancelled had gotten on the voter rolls despite saying on their voter registration form that they were an alien and not eligible to vote.

Voter history records also show that many thousands of ballots were cast by registrants removed for citizenship defects.

Only Americans should be electing American leaders, but that isn’t happening.

Even worse, the report documents the extensive efforts by state and local election officials to conceal the extent of noncitizen registration and voting.

These efforts include internal emails which revealed an intent to alter public records to hide the full extent of noncitizen cancellations.

The report, entitled Alien Invasion II: The Sequel to the Discovery and Cover Up of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting in Virginia, notes that the 5,556 removed for citizenship defects in Virginia are only the tip of the iceberg. These 5,556 were only caught by accident after each told a state agency of his or her alien status after previously registering to vote. Had they never provided an inconsistent answer to citizenship status, they never would have been detected.

The report released by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, of which I am president, can be accessed here.

PILF originally asked in 2016 for election records demonstrating registrants removed from the voter rolls for citizenship defects. Under federal law, all list maintenance records are subject to public inspection. You would have thought election officials would be transparent and keen to comply with federal disclosure laws.

You would be wrong: it took three separate federal lawsuits — against Alexandria City, Manassas City, and Chesterfield County — filed by PILF to finally obtain the information.

Along the way, other election officials in internal email discussions obtained by PILF contemplated altering list maintenance records to conceal the extent of cancellations for citizenship status.

For example, Arlington County General Registrar Linda Lindberg, in an email obtained by PILF, contemplated providing an altered and shorter list of registrants removed for citizenship problems. Her email stated:

This group [PILF] has and will interpret the fact that there may be voting credit on the cancelled record as “illegal aliens” registering and voting, despite the voter having subsequently affirmed his citizenship. …  I am going to delete or otherwise notate these names from my report, either by deleting the rows from the Excel version or marking them on the report.

Lindberg specifically contemplated hiding the full report of non-citizen cancellations from PILF and then producing an abbreviated list that excluded anyone on the list who subsequently cast a ballot regardless of the timing of any naturalization process.

Arlington registrar Linda Lindberg

Federal law requires list maintenance records to be public, and does not entertain alteration of those records prior to release or the production of derivative records that conceal original removal data.

Some officials claim that the list of those cancelled for non-citizenship eventually affirmed citizenship or may have been citizens in the first place. Even that excuse — that the government was cancelling valid voters for citizenship defects — illustrates the mess that American voter rolls are in regarding aliens.

Without robust citizenship verification procedures at the front end, downstream failures occur in election administration. States like Virginia, which utilize no means to verify citizenship at registration, find themselves cancelling valid registrations occasionally if Lindberg’s story is to be believed.

Neither cancelling valid citizens nor registering aliens is good government.

Yet the PILF report demonstrates that hundreds of foreigners ended up on Virginia voter rolls even after telling Virginia election officials they were aliens on their voter registration form.

Consider Jiling Xiao. Xiao registered to vote during Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for president. Indeed, the report notes that 2008 was the year with the highest rate of alien voting in Virginia. Xiao plainly marked “NO” to the question “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?”, yet was registered to vote. Such is the flimsy check used to prevent alien voting:

Jiling Xiao registration form obtained by PILF

Or take Yun Ok Bae. Bae plainly answered “NO” to the citizenship checkbox question on the federal form, but was still registered to vote — and remained on the rolls for four years:

Yun Bae registration form obtained by PILF

Juan Mones Cazon was registered to vote in Charlottesville despite marking “NO” to the citizenship question. Cazon also marked his form that he wished to serve as an election official.

Juan Mones Cazon registration form obtained by PILF

PILF obtained 700 pages of similar examples.

All can be accessed by law enforcement personnel at this link. 

As day follows night, the people most obsessed with Russian influence in American elections will excuse away the behavior uncovered in the PILF report. Here are some voter fraud axioms:

— The more in a froth you are about Russia and Trump, the less you care about alien registration and voting.

— The more you believe foreigners in Russia handed Trump the White House, the less you worry about foreigners like Xio, Bae, Cazon, and thousands of others participating in our election system.

Yet the law takes a different approach. (Remember that quaint institution — the law?) The PILF report documents election felonies piled on top of felonies.

Federal law 52 U.S.C. Section 20511 makes it a felony to submit a false voter registration form. Federal law 18 U.S.C. Section 1015 makes it a crime to make a false statement to register to vote. Federal law 18 U.S.C. Section 611 makes it illegal for foreigners to cast a ballot. Virginia law also criminalizes the casting of an illegal ballot.

So you may think there should have been hundreds, or even thousands, of voter fraud prosecutions in Virginia in the last few years. Again, you’d be wrong.

And it’s not for a lack of information. Federal and state prosecutors were made aware of the problem of alien registration and voting by the Fairfax County electoral board years ago. Hans von Spakovsky, who served on that board, told me the information “disappeared into the equivalent of a cosmic black hole.” Not a single alien voter fraudster was prosecuted — even those who cast ballots.

Voter fraud deniers use this absence of prosecutions to argue that voter fraud doesn’t exist. The referrals by Fairfax election officials provide an excellent example of how the lack of prosecution is meaningless data for determining the extend of voter fraud.

The PILF report documents over 7,000 ballots were cast by those cancelled for citizenship defects.

In the age of Obama, politics prevented voter fraud prosecutions. Obama’s Justice Department didn’t prosecute alien registration and voting because their governing philosophy opposed it. The Justice Department ignored the information gift-wrapped by local election officials.

For good measure, Democrats in Virginia launched a successful campaign against von Spakovsky to get him removed from the Fairfax County electoral board. There was no question that the data the board provided was valid. The real issue is that the question was even raised.

If you ask questions and collect empirical data about voter fraud, you must be extinguished.

It explains why Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed multiple bills that would have addressed the problems found in the PILF report, including using jury recusal forms filled out by aliens to see if the same recused juror is also registered to vote.

The PILF report catalogs the bills vetoed by McAuliffe.

Ignorance and denial is the preferred approach of voter fraud deniers, with ridicule toward those who ask the questions tossed in for good measure.

In another American age, when government records revealed that crimes were committed by the hundreds or thousands, that foreigners were registering to vote, that thousands of citizenship defects were caught on the voter rolls, everyone would have cared. Democrats would have joined Republicans in seeking solutions. But these days, our political discourse is corrupted by the same lack of intellectual honesty and factual curiosity that Solzhenitsyn described to his bunkmate: they don’t care what you have to say, they don’t care about the truth. They only care about destroying you.

Let’s see what happens. Will there be any intellectual curiosity, any effort to expound on what we now know about defects in at least one state’s election administration?

Or will we hear, yet again, the tired propaganda about “voter suppression” and the “myth of voter fraud?”

Maybe, just maybe, those tasked with enforcing the law at the United States Department of Justice and county prosecutors will ignore the nonsense and click the links — where hundreds of pages of real evidence can be found.

To Say, ‘Stop Raping Me!’ in English, Press ‘1’ Now

May 11, 2017

To Say, ‘Stop Raping Me!’ in English, Press ‘1’ Now, Front Page MagazineAnn Coulter, May 11, 2017

 

In multicultural America, sexually active college coeds are treated like naive 14-year-old girls, while naive 14-year-old girls are treated like hardened hussies — depending on who the accused rapist is. A “frat boy,” an athlete (black or white) or a white male: Always guilty, no due process allowed. Illegal aliens: She was asking for it. 

**************************

The same media that slavishly ignored the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two illegal immigrants in Rockville, Maryland, spent last week crowing about the prosecutor’s refusal to bring charges. 

It turns out that illegal aliens gang-raping a 14-year-old girl in a bathroom stall is not a statutory rape because … the girl had previously sent one of her assailants prurient text messages.

Somebody better tell the college campuses.

Columbia University’s Mattress Girl, Emma Sulkowicz, became an international cause celebre after alleging rape against a fellow student to whom she’d sent dozens of desperate and salacious messages — including, most memorably, “f–k me in the butt,” and “I wuv you so much.”

She’d also had consensual sex with him several times, only one of which she deemed “rape.”

Sulkowicz’s “f–k me in the butt” texts were no impediment to her becoming the face of silenced rape victims on campus. She was sympathetically profiled everywhere; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand invited her to Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address; and she dragged a mattress around campus with her as her senior thesis project …

“… a succinct and powerful performance piece …” — The New York Times

“… like ‘The Vagina Monologues,’ only more subtle …” — Ann Coulter

In its lavish coverage of our brave mattress-toting heroine, the Times reminded readers: “False reports of rape are rare, many experts say.” In fact, according to the FBI, there are more false rape claims than false reports of any other crime.

That’s why normal people like to look at the facts. For example, how long did it take the alleged victim to report the rape? How sophisticated is she? Is the story plausible? Did the accuser have any other motive to cry rape? And is there any record of her begging the suspect to sodomize her?Mattress Girl waited seven months to report her rape — even then, only to college administrators, not the police. In the intervening months, she strenuously, albeit unsuccessfully, pursued a relationship with her alleged rapist.

Rolling Stone’s “Jackie” never reported her apocryphal rape, explaining to The Washington Post that after allegedly being violently gang-raped, she was “unaware of the resources available to her.” (Heard of 911?)

By contrast, the 14-year-old girl in Maryland emerged from the bathroom stall and immediately reported her rape to the police.

According to the police report, she had run into her friend, 17-year-old Jose Montano, and his friend, 18-year-old Henry Sanchez-Milian, in a school hallway. (The 17- and 18-year-olds are both in the 9th grade. We really are getting the best illegal immigrants!) She knew Montano, but not Sanchez-Milian. Montano hugged her, slapped her buttocks and asked her to have sex with both men.

She says she said no — something generally missing from the corpus of cases making up the “campus rape epidemic.”

Montano and Sanchez-Milian then forced her into a boys’ bathroom, according to the report, where she grabbed the bathroom sink to stop them from dragging her into a stall, repeatedly saying “no.” In the stall, the illegals took turns holding her down, as they penetrated her orally, vaginally and anally. As she was screaming, they yelled at one another in Spanish.

Although there was no hard evidence, like the victim dragging a mattress around for a year, police investigators did find blood and semen in the bathroom stall.

If even one story on the left’s via dolorosa of campus rape had allegations like these, the accuser would be on a postage stamp, have laws named after her, and she’d be the one giving the State of the Union address. She’d be having lunch with Lena Dunham, Emma Watson would play her in the movie, and Lady Gaga would write a song about her.

Instead, because the accused rapists (“Dreamers,” as I call them) are illegal aliens, the media want to submit their names for sainthood. The prosecutor, Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy, wants to know how short the 14-year-old’s skirt was.

McCarthy dropped rape charges against both suspects, reportedly on the grounds that the girl had previously sent nude photos of herself to Montano. This, the prosecutor interpreted as consent to have multi-orifice sex in a bathroom stall with him, as well as any of his friends.

Can we get the pre-consent-by-text rule written into college guidelines on sexual assault?

However risque her texts were, can’t a girl change her mind? Evidently, she thought it was rape when she emerged from the bathroom, inasmuch as she promptly notified authorities. Isn’t it possible she also thought it was rape as it was happening, an hour or so earlier?

Mattress Girl was old enough to attend college, vote and buy a mattress, but it was rude to mention her text requests for anal sex and previous romps with the alleged rapist. Only when the accused is an illegal do the victim’s X-rated texts become binding consent to all forms of sex with the illegal — plus his friends.

There’s also the fact that she’s 14 years old! Her alleged rapists are 17 and 18. Under about 700 years of Anglo-Saxon law, that’s statutory rape. (Statute of Westminster of 1275.) Apparently, diversity — in addition to being a “strength” — requires us to jettison our statutory rape laws.

This is the case the media are howling with glee about — demanding that President Trump apologize for even mentioning it.

The New York Times and Washington Post both editorialized about Trump’s “reflexive immigrant-bashing” -– after first telling their readers about the alleged rape that neither paper had bothered reporting when it happened.

CNN — which also didn’t mention the Rockville case until charges were dropped — is in a state of high dudgeon at Trump for citing the rape.

Erin Burnett announced: “Tonight, the White House not backing down, refusing to retract its comments on an alleged rape case used — that they used as an example of why the United States should crack down on illegal immigration.”

Correspondent Ryan Nobles raged that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referred to what happened to the 14-year-old girl as “tragedies like this.”

“Tragedies!” This milquetoast, boring American girl got to experience diversity, up close — vaginally, anally and orally — AND THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY CALLS THAT A “TRAGEDY”?

In multicultural America, sexually active college coeds are treated like naive 14-year-old girls, while naive 14-year-old girls are treated like hardened hussies — depending on who the accused rapist is. A “frat boy,” an athlete (black or white) or a white male: Always guilty, no due process allowed. Illegal aliens: She was asking for it.

FBI Study: Police Scared, Demoralized, Less Proactive Due to Anti-Cop Activism

May 5, 2017

FBI Study: Police Scared, Demoralized, Less Proactive Due to Anti-Cop Activism, Washington Free Beacon, May 5, 2017

Dallas police chief David Brown, center, takes part in a candle light vigil at City Hall, Monday, July 11, 2016, in Dallas / AP

In surveying assailants, there were two expressed reasons for their actions: “a desire to kill law enforcement,” and the fear that the assailant was “going to lose their freedom by going back to jail or prison.”

Police are increasingly “scared and demoralized,” and avoid engagement with communities where they are not trusted and defiance and hostility are the norm.

************************

Police officers are “scared and demoralized” and have reduced “proactive policing” due to intense criticism from the public and national politicians amid heightened anti-cop activism, according to a recent FBI study.

The demoralization is in part due to the spike in attacks on police last year, which is partly driven by an anti-police narrative spread by the media and not discouraged by elected officials, the agency found.

The report, titled “Assailant Study–Mindsets and Behaviors,” was first reported Thursday by the Washington Times. It was written in April, according to FBI spokesman Matthew Bertron, and examined 50 of the 53 incidents last year in which police officers were killed on duty.

The report comes at a time when the killing of police officers is conspicuous in the news. Last summer, five officers were killed in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge in the wake of the shooting death of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge police. These were two of the most high-profile incidents; 135 law enforcement officers were killed in 2016, a 10 percent increase from the prior year and the highest total since 2011, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

The main cause of officers’ deaths was firearms-related incidents, with 64 being shot and killed, representing a a 56 percent spike from 2015. Among those shootings, 21 deaths were due to ambush-style attacks, including the deaths in Dallas and Baton Rouge. The NLEOMF said this was the highest total in more than two decades.

The FBI report, which focused on “mindsets and behaviors,” broke down the thinking that inspired attacks on police, as well as the underlying factors that it believes drove them. In surveying assailants, there were two expressed reasons for their actions: “a desire to kill law enforcement,” and the fear that the assailant was “going to lose their freedom by going back to jail or prison.”

The former category, containing 28 percent of assailants, included those with social or political reasons for attacking officers, as well as a general hatred of police. This group included the ambushers in the Dallas and Baton Rouge killings, who, according to the report, “said they were influenced by the Black Lives Matter movement, and their belief that law enforcement was targeting black males.”

Assailants motivated by social or political reasons or hatred of the police often expressed their views on social media or told friends and family before their attack. In general, the desire to “get justice” for those they believed were unjustly killed by police was a major driving force in the decision to attack.

The study further highlighted the negative impact of highly scrutinized police incidents over the past few years.

“Specifically, the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, and the social disturbances that followed, initiated a movement that some perceived made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement,” the report stated.

“This attitude was fueled by the narrative of police misconduct and excessive force perpetuated through politicians and the media,” it continued. “Assailants were constantly exposed to a singular narrative by news organizations and social media of police misconduct and wrong-doing,” which elected officials did little to disrupt.

This narrative led, for example, to an officer afraid to shoot an assailant who had slammed him to the ground and was beating him. According to the report, the officer did not shoot the assailant because of not wanting his or her “family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news.”

The problem is compounded by what the report called a “turnstile justice system,” with criminal justice reform bills, including decriminalization and reducing penalties for drug use, driving an increased rate of release for criminals. This factor, the report argued, leads to criminals doubting the severity of punishments for wrongdoing, especially while under the influence of drugs.

This intersection of narrative and decreased effectiveness of the justice system causes what the report called “de-policing”: police making “the conscious decision to stop engaging in proactive policing.” Police are increasingly “scared and demoralized,” and avoid engagement with communities where they are not trusted and defiance and hostility are the norm.

De-policing, the report warned, led to a state of affairs where police were “purely reactive,” unwilling to engage with distrustful communities and cowed by a critical news media.

Across the 50 assailants examined, several common features were apparent. Eighty-six percent had prior criminal histories, and 56 percent were “known to the local police or sheriff’s department.” Twenty-four percent had known gang affiliations, 44 percent had a history of domestic violence, 26 percent had active warrants, and 32 percent were on probation or parole.

Demographically, all of the assailants were male. Nearly half, 48 percent, were white, 36 percent were black, 14 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent were Alaskan native.

Moreover, 18 percent had “diagnosed mental health issues,” but “mental health concerns were anecdotally identified” in 40 percent of cases. Sixty percent had a history of drug use, with at 32 percent under the influence at the time of the incident.