Posted tagged ‘President Elect Trump’

How Trump’s Plan to Deport Criminal Illegal Aliens Would Work

November 17, 2016

How Trump’s Plan to Deport Criminal Illegal Aliens Would Work, National ReviewJessica Vaughan, November 17, 2016

Public safety is the obvious but not the only reason for enforcing immigration laws.

Even as immigration-enforcement officers across the country are breathing what one deportation officer described as “a collective sigh of relief” following Donald Trump’s election, the president-elect’s announcement on 60 Minutes that he plans to start with the estimated 2 million criminal aliens has been met with a combination of scorn and skepticism, at least in the mainstream news media and illegal-alien advocacy circles. But Trump’s enforcement approach is not only reasonable, it is very feasible, and will address the most disastrous failings of the Obama administration’s faux-enforcement regime, which brought interior deportations to a ten-year low and caused the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens back to our communities to reoffend, instead of back to their homelands.

Even as immigration-enforcement officers across the country are breathing what one deportation officer described as “a collective sigh of relief” following Donald Trump’s election, the president-elect’s announcement on 60 Minutes that he plans to start with the estimated 2 million criminal aliens has been met with a combination of scorn and skepticism, at least in the mainstream news media and illegal-alien advocacy circles. But Trump’s enforcement approach is not only reasonable, it is very feasible, and will address the most disastrous failings of the Obama administration’s faux-enforcement regime, which brought interior deportations to a ten-year low and caused the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens back to our communities to reoffend, instead of back to their homelands.

Said Trump: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.”

Now, this statement is a significant softening in tone and scale from some of Trump’s campaign statements, in which he suggested that the entire population of nearly 12 million illegal aliens could be subject to deportation. It’s important to affirm that principle — that anyone here illegally is potentially at risk of being sent home — but it makes good sense to start with those who are also breaking other laws.

While some illegal-alien advocates have accused Trump of exaggerating the size of the criminal alien population, he’s quite right on this. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that is responsible for carrying out deportations in the interior, there are approximately 1.9 million deportable criminal aliens in the country. It is able to estimate this because, since 2012, ICE has been receiving the fingerprints of everyone who is arrested or booked into a jail, and because ICE has officers screening inmates in most major correctional systems (except some of the sanctuary cities, where they are denied access to inmates).

ICE’s estimate does not include all of the immigration fugitives who skipped out on their hearings; currently there are more than 940,000 aliens who have been ordered removed but are still here. Nor does it include all those who were kicked out of the country but returned; that figure is unknown. Nor does it include aliens who committed a crime but were never convicted (often because they jumped bail or were released by a sanctuary), or the many illegal-alien gang members who are on the streets in greater numbers, and who were formerly an arrest priority for ICE but are now largely left for local law enforcement to handle.

Come January 21, we can expect that all of these cases will again, appropriately, become a priority for enforcement. There is nowhere to go but up in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration-enforcement agencies.

President Obama made a big show of focusing enforcement on criminal aliens; the targets were “felons, not families,” he said, “the worst of the worst.” He claimed to have achieved “record” deportations. Those “record” deportations were achieved by cooking the books, and the statistics were “a little deceiving,” in the president’s words. In a departure from past practice, ICE under Obama began counting in its annual totals the deportations of aliens arrested by the Border Patrol. That masked a big drop in the number of deportations from the interior, which is where most of the criminal aliens are.

In 2016, interior deportations are about one-fourth of what they were at the peak under Obama, and criminal deportations have declined by more than 50 percent. By every measure, ICE is now doing less enforcement with more resources than ever before. This means that it will be neither hard nor expensive to achieve a significant boost in enforcement and to make a big dent in the target of 2 to 3 million priority deportations, including those of the criminals.

The first step will be to let the career officers and agents of the immigration-enforcement agencies do their job and apply the law. One deportation officer has told me that currently one of the easiest ways to attract negative attention from a supervisor is to be caught putting someone into deportation proceedings who is not a violent felon but “just” a drunk driver or wife-beater.

That will change as soon as President Trump makes good on his promise to cancel improper executive actions, including the directives for ICE officers to refrain from initiating deportation until someone is convicted of a serious felony or several misdemeanors. This means scrapping the disastrous Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which has drawn the ire of the National Sheriffs Association, among others, and forced local ICE offices to release of thousands of deportable criminals, including Eswin Mejia, an illegal alien with prior arrests who killed 21-year old Sarah Root in Omaha, Neb., while drag-racing drunk in January of this year. Like many of the 86,000 convicted criminals released by ICE since 2013, Mejia is now a fugitive but considered a “non-criminal,” because he has yet to be tried and convicted for Root’s death.

Enforcement opponents maintain that even if the Obama prioritization scheme is rescinded, there is no way that 2 to 3 million criminal aliens can possibly be found and processed in just a few years, because the immigration courts are hopelessly backlogged.

True, the courts are backlogged, and that’s another story, but many of the criminal aliens who will be targeted under the Trump administration are not entitled to take advantage of the dysfunctional immigration court. They should be handled through the more accelerated forms of due process that were discontinued by the Obama administration even though they are provided by law and neither require long periods of detention nor lead to endless hearings and appeals. Known as expedited removal, stipulated removal, and judicial orders of removal, these forms of due process operate in a way similar to the way in which plea bargaining operates in the criminal-justice system. They benefit the aliens, the government, and the taxpayers by providing a swift resolution to the case.

In addition, we can expect that the Trump administration will move to rebuild with local law-enforcement agencies the productive partnerships that emerged toward the end of the Bush administration but that Obama stifled. These would include the 287(g) program, which trained and delegated immigration-enforcement authority to state and local officers and was a tremendous force multiplier for ICE — at very little cost to the feds, because the local jurisdictions pay the salaries of local officers who are able to start the deportation process for the criminal aliens they encounter on the job. At its peak, the 287(g) program, used in only a few dozen places, generated between 10 and 20 percent of ICE’s criminal deportations.

It will also help ICE when President-elect Trump gets tough on the sanctuaries that obstruct their work. The stage has already been set for this. Under pressure from Representative John Culberson (R., Texas), who controls the Justice Department’s budget, DOJ has so far identified ten large states and cities that have sanctuary policies that are inconsistent with federal law and that as a result should be ineligible for certain DOJ funding. The new administration could apply this standard to many more sanctuaries and to many more pots of federal funding, thereby making it very expensive to remain a sanctuary. Since some of the die-hard sanctuaries will remain defiant, I hope that the new administration will also consider litigation or even prosecuting them for harboring criminal aliens.

Prioritizing the removal of criminals and the most egregious scofflaws is a no-brainer. But public safety is not the only reason immigration laws should be enforced. We need immigration laws enforced in order to protect job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants, to avoid the fiscal costs of providing welfare to illegal aliens and their children, and to preserve the integrity of our legal-immigration system.

For these reasons, the Trump administration needs to go beyond a narrow focus on criminal aliens to reinstate work-site and payroll records–based enforcement as well as work to deter and remove visa over-stayers. Not to mention, build that wall!

Cartoons of the Day

November 17, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

olegacy

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

0legacy

 

via e-mail

relax

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

compromise

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

the-loser-legacy

 

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

girls

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

November 17, 2016

Trump Derangement Syndrome, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 17, 2016

tr_3

The hysteria of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the flip side of Obama worship. Both reject democracy and embrace power. They are the illiberal attitudes of a totalitarian movement at odds with America.

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

Like all dictators, the Democrats believe in democracy only until they lose an election.

And then they lose their minds.

The last time a national mental breakdown this severe happened was sixteen years ago when Bush beat Gore. The Democrats reacted gracefully to their defeat by insisting that they didn’t really lose because Bush stole the election. Psychiatrists were soon tending to lefties suffering from depression. Others protested outside the Florida Supreme Court, President Bush’s home and their parents’ basement.

Jesse Jackson accused Republicans of a “coup.” Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson warned that “without justice there will be no peace.” Thousands protested Bush’s inauguration waving signs like, “We want Bush out of D.C.” and “You’re not our president.”

The Congressional Black Caucus tried to obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote. Then when Bush won again in the next election, they did it all over again. Expect them to try it one more time.

Because they don’t believe in democracy. They believe in their own absolute entitlement to power. Any election that they win is legitimate. Any election that they lose is illegitimate.

But if Bush Derangement Syndrome was bad, Trump Derangement Syndrome is even worse.

#NotOurPresident on Twitter quickly gave way to riots in major cities. Democrats in the affected cities decided that the riots were a great idea even though it was their own police that were being attacked.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City’s radical leftist boss, claimed that “more disruption… will change the trajectory of things”. Even though the only trajectory that the protests have changed thus far is New York City traffic. “The more people fight back, the more it takes away his power,” he insisted.

Wiser heads on the left recognized that messing up Manhattan traffic wouldn’t stop Trump from taking office. Instead they decided to abolish the Electoral College. Senator Boxer will introduce a bill to that effect. Bernie Sanders mumbled that it’s time to rethink it. Michael Dukakis fired off an angry email insisting that Hillary Clinton had won and that abolishing it should be a top Democratic priority.

Since Hillary lost, the Electoral College is, according to Slate, an “Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism”. And probably Islamophobic and Homophobic too. Time Magazine defaulted to the default lefty attack on anything by accusing the Electoral College of being racist. But if Hillary had won, then any attack on the Electoral College would be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and claustrophobic.

Rank and filers weren’t interested in waiting to abolish it tomorrow. They skipped right to trying to rig it today. Over 4 million people have signed a petition titled, “Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19”. Because that’s just how they think elections should work.

Efforts were made to contact Electors directly urging them to hijack the election. Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney said that the Electors were being harassed with “insults”, “vulgar language” and “threats”. One Elector reported that his cell, home phone, email and Facebook were targeted.

“They’re just trying to steal this thing,” he said.

The Electoral College is undemocratic. Unless you’re a Democrat asking it to undemocratically hijack the results of a state election while depriving its voters of political representation.

Some Democrats despaired of stealing the election and tried to steal the Supreme Court instead. There were revived calls for a Supreme Court recess appointment. There’s a petition, a Saturday Night Live punch line and a bizarre effort by Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley to move the nomination forward.

Merkley claimed that Trump has “no right to fill” that seat and that the Supreme Court seat was stolen.  “We need to do everything we possibly can to block it,” he insisted.

What does that mean? How about a permanently deadlocked Supreme Court?

A Slate writer urged that, “the only way to answer nihilism is with nihilism of our own.”

“Obstruct the nomination and seating of any Trump nominee to fill Scalia’s seat,” she urged. “We will lose. But that’s not the point now… If Democrats can muster the energy to fight about nothing else, it should be this.”

A permanently deadlocked Supreme Court doesn’t sound like much of a plan. But Trump Derangement Syndrome means embracing nihilism. And it’s downright rational compared to the celebrity meltdowns as TMZ’s finest cope with the blow to their egos of an election that showed they didn’t matter.

Lady Gaga has been yelling at Trump on and off Twitter. Constitutional scholar George Takei demanded that Obama just appoint Garland. Honorary feminist Joss Whedon declared, “This is simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It’s not about 2018. It’s about RIGHT NOW.”

What does that mean? It’s a tantrum. It means that baby wants his power and he wants it now.

And it only gets crazier from there.

The outer reaches of Trump Derangement Syndrome include calls to boycott three brands of toilet paper because they’re allegedly made by the Koch Brothers. Never mind that the Koch Brothers weren’t supporting Trump. Facts, like democracy, only matter when they happen to be on your side.

Then there are the ritual burnings of New Balance sneakers on YouTube and Instagram. Not to mention support for the secession of California from the United States of America.

A man has sued Donald Trump for $1 billion for having inflicted “great emotional pain, fear and anxiety on Election Day and beyond.” Students at Cornell held a “cry-in” to mourn the results of the election.  The University of Kansas offered students therapy dogs. At the University of Michigan’s multi-ethnic student affairs center students took comfort in regressing to childhood with coloring books and Play-Doh.

John Hopkins recommended a healing circle. Stanford urged students to “take care of yourselves and to give support to those who need it.” Vanderbilt encouraged them “to take advantage of the outstanding mental health support the university offers.”

At the University of Maryland, an astronomy test was canceled to help students cope with “a personally threatening election result.” A Yale economics professor made his test optional because students were “in shock” over losing an election.  A dozen midterms were rescheduled at Columbia.

One student complained, “Instead of studying for my exam, I was glued to the election update. It’s not fair to have a test the following day when something so monumental is taking place, especially when this event is threatening so many groups of people in our country.”

Under all the outraged rhetoric is a narcissistic sense of entitlement. Frustrate it and tantrums happen.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the tantrum that happens when that sense of entitlement bursts. It’s not a new phenomenon. We saw it with Bush and with previous Republican presidents before him. But as the left’s power has grown, its insular ivory towers have become unable to imagine ever losing it.

Obama maintained the illusion that the opposition didn’t matter by ruling unilaterally. Then in one election the illusion collapsed. The left wasn’t really in charge. There were millions of people across the country in places they had never visited or even heard of who got to decide on all these issues.

That warm comfortable safe space of John Oliver and Samantha Bee viral videos, Buzzfeed stories and social media feeds filled with carefully curated people who agreed with them wasn’t reality. It had been an illusion all along. It was an elitist island that had little in common with that vast geography of people who get their say through the Electoral College. After two terms of getting their way on everything, they woke to a world in which they didn’t matter and which was suddenly no longer catering to their whims.

They don’t really want to abolish the Electoral College, to put Garland on the Supreme Court or to burn New Balance sneakers. What they really want is to get rid of democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. Trump Derangement Syndrome is the tantrum of tyrants.

It’s a real threat to democracy. But that’s what the left has always been.

The hysteria of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the flip side of Obama worship. Both reject democracy and embrace power. They are the illiberal attitudes of a totalitarian movement at odds with America.

RIGHT ANGLE: What A Night!

November 16, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: What A Night! Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, November 15, 2016

Obama tells world ‘My vision’s right,’ warns of dangers of Trump’s populism

November 16, 2016

Obama tells world ‘My vision’s right,’ warns of dangers of Trump’s populism, Washington TimesDave Boyer, November 16, 2016

(These grapes sure are sour. — DM)

obamaairfarcePresident Barack Obama points as he boards Air Force One in Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Sunday, Nov. 6, 2016, en route to Florida, where he will speak at a campaign event for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at Osceola …

Facing rejection of his worldview on both sides of the Atlantic, President Obama doubled down Tuesday on the dangers of populism and declared that Donald Trump’s supporters don’t realize how good they’ve had it for the past eight years.

Declaring, “My vision’s right,” the president said Mr. Trump won the presidential election by exploiting conservatives’ “troubling” rhetoric to play on Americans’ skepticism of globalization and diversity. He accused Republicans of fanning flames of “anger and fear in the American population” over economic uncertainty to help Mr. Trump win, and warned that similar forces are threatening the European Union.

“You’ve seen some of the rhetoric among Republican elected officials and activists and media,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Athens, Greece, with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. “Some of it [was] pretty troubling and not necessarily connected to facts, but being used effectively to mobilize people. And obviously President-elect Trump tapped into that particular strain within the Republican Party and then was able to broaden that enough and get enough votes to win the election.”

Asked if the election of Mr. Trump and British voters’ decision to leave the European Union amounted to a rejection of his worldview, Mr. Obama pointed to his relatively high approval ratings and retorted, “Last I checked, a pretty healthy majority of the American people agree with my worldview on a whole bunch of things.”

It was a remarkable display of cockiness for a president whose favored candidate just lost the election to succeed him and who failed to persuade British voters last spring to remain in the EU.

Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Obama was displaying hubris and a lack of understanding of the anti-EU forces rising in Europe.

“He is a president really in denial with regard to the sweeping changes that are taking place both at home and abroad, especially across the Atlantic,” Mr. Gardiner said in an interview. “The biggest development in Europe in the last few years has been growing support for sovereignty and self-determination. He continues to lecture Europe and European politicians about the right path forward. I think it’s a message that is stuck in a time warp.”

The lame-duck president, whose legacy initiatives are imperiled by an incoming Republican president and Republican-led Congress, said Americans will realize eventually how dangerous it is to foment discrimination based on race or religion. He said it’s a lesson that Europeans who favor breaking up the European Union should heed as well.

“My vision’s right on that issue,” Mr. Obama said. “It may not always win the day in the short term in any political circumstance, but I’m confident it will win the day over the long term.”

After eight years of denying that he pays attention to polls, Mr. Obama pointed to his job approval ratings (57 percent in Gallup) as proof that there was a “mismatch … between frustration and anger” among Mr. Trump’s voters. He speculated that voters simply felt a “need to shake things up.”

Mr. Obama also pushed a theme of “You’ll miss me when I’m gone,” predicting that voters in the U.S. and Britain will eventually realize that he was correct in his assessment of the political forces at work. He forecast that Mr. Trump’s supporters will grasp soon, probably before the Republican faces re-election, how good things have been during his administration.

“Time will now tell whether the prescriptions that are being offered, whether Brexit or with respect to the U.S. election, ends up actually satisfying those people who have been fearful or angry or concerned,” Mr. Obama said. “I think that’s going to be an interesting test, because I think I can make a pretty strong argument that the policies we put forward were the right ones, that we’ve grown faster than just about any advanced economy. The country is indisputably better off, and those folks who voted for the president-elect are better off than they were when I came into office, for the most part. But we’ll see whether those facts affect people’s calculations in the next election.”

He said he has pushed an agenda for economic equality over the past eight years but congressional Republicans have blocked him.

The president’s 52nd and final foreign trip was not supposed to become a postelection autopsy. It was planned before the election as part sightseeing tour — Mr. Obama had never been to Greece — and partly to offer a fond farewell in person to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Mr. Obama counts as his closest partner over his two terms.

Mr. Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton changed all that. Now Mr. Obama is traveling on a mission to reassure anxious European allies that Mr. Trump will keep the U.S. commitment to alliances such as NATO and will largely preserve the continuity of U.S. foreign policy.

Mr. Obama praised Greece as one of only five NATO members that spends the advised 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense, despite its heavy debt burden and austerity measures.

Thousands of Greeks protested Mr. Obama’s visit. Riot police fired tear gas Tuesday night at demonstrators marching a few miles from the presidential mansion where Greek leaders were hosting a state banquet for Mr. Obama.

About 7,000 people, among them many hooded protesters and members of the communist-affiliated group PAME, marched through the streets of central Athens holding banners reading, “Unwanted!”

Police clashed with the protesters after they tried to break through cordon lines to reach the parliament building and the U.S. Embassy. Some demonstrators threw two gas bombs at police before dispersing into nearby streets close to Athens’ main Syntagma Square.

In a separate protest in the northern city of Thessaloniki, protesters burned a U.S. flag.

Mr. Obama was visiting two days before the anniversary of a bloody 1973 student revolt that helped topple a military junta that took power in 1967 with U.S. government support.

Before Mr. Obama left Washington on Monday, he conducted an hourlong press conference at the White House, hoping that questions about Mr. Trump’s election wouldn’t follow him overseas. They did.

A reporter for NBC News reminded Mr. Obama of an interview he conducted in January with “Today” show co-host Matt Lauer, who had asked the president if he felt responsible for creating the conditions for Mr. Trump’s candidacy. At the time, Mr. Obama replied, “Talk to me if he wins.”

The NBC reporter asked the president Tuesday if he felt responsible for Mr. Trump’s victory.

“I still don’t feel responsible for what the president-elect says or does,” Mr. Obama said. “But I do feel a responsibility as president of the United States to make sure that I facilitate a good transition and I present to him, as well as the American people, my best thinking, my best ideas about how you move the country forward.”

Mr. Obama warned that “we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an ‘us’ and a ‘them.’”

“I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict,” he said. “Take Europe. We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way. The 20th century was a bloodbath.”

Mr. Gardiner said Mr. Obama has no real understanding of the forces reshaping Europe.

“I think President Obama remains a figure of tremendous hubris who does not really understand the changes taking place across the world, and whose administration has been incredibly weak-kneed in terms of projection of American influence and power,” he said.

“For a president with such an embarrassing foreign policy record, President Obama’s been an extraordinarily self-confident figure. His record doesn’t match his arrogance,” he said.

⦁ This article is based in part on wire service reports.

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon?

November 15, 2016

Why the Big Lie about Steve Bannon? PJ MediaDavid P. Goldman, November 15, 2016

(Gosh Darn! Trump should have appointed Keith Ellison or some other “acceptable” leftist, anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Islamist. Please see also, The Ellison Angle and Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?. — DM)

All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against Steve Bannon, the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

I know Steve Bannon, and have had several long discussions with him about politics. Steve is fervently pro-Israel, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that he is anti-Semitic. Other observant Jews who know Bannon, for example Joel Pollak, attest to his support for Israel and friendship for the Jewish people.

All we have learned from the sewage-storm directed at Bannon is that the Establishment plays dirty and that the formerly Republican #NeverTrumpers aren’t just misguided ideologues, but also yellow-bellied, gutter-crawling, backstabbing, bushwacking liars. Hell hath no fury like a self-designated elite scorned. All the existential rage of the defeated and humiliated elite is now focused against the architect of Trump’s victory, the media genius who won the battle with less than a fifth of the financial resources at Hillary Clinton’s disposal.

They hate Steve Bannon because he beat them fair and square on the battlefield of social media. He is the President-elect’s most effective general. Trump’s enemies can’t reverse the results of a national election, but they can try to cut the incoming president off from his popular base.

The charges against Steve Bannon are a tissue of lies without a modicum of merit.

Anyone can search the Breitbart Media archive for posts on Israel, Jews, and related topics, as I have, and determine that Steve Bannon’s hugely successful media platform is 100% pro-Israel. Not only that: Breitbart consistently reports on the dangers of anti-Semitism around the world. Not a single article appeared in Breitbart.com during the past two years that could not have appeared in Israel Hayom, the leading Israeli daily.

But that is not what one hears from Ian Tuttle at National Review, who complains that “in May, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol was labeled a ‘Renegade Jew.’ He was indeed, by another Jew, David Horowitz, who argued that Kristol had betrayed Jewish interests by trying to torpedo Trump–a point Horowitz emphasizes here. Tuttle knows this but chooses to twist Horowitz’ headline into its opposite. Tuttle’s colleague Jonah Goldberg also inveighs against Bannon but his post is too silly to quote.

Generously, Tuttle allows that Bannon is not Goebbels. No, he isn’t, but the Establishment (including conservative Establishment) media drumbeat against Bannon takes its cue from Goebbels doctrine of the Big Lie: repeat it often enough, and people will believe it, no matter how absurd it is.

NeverTrumper John Podhoretz meanwhile penned an underhanded a attack on Steve Bannon on the Commentary website yesterday. One has to read this a couple of times to appreciate how sleazy it is: “The key moral problem with Steve Bannon is that as the CEO of Andrew Breitbart’s namesake organization, he is an aider and abetter of foul extremist views, including anti-Semitic ones. He used the site to promote the alt-right, which has retailed anti-Semitism as well as general outright racism and white nationalism. The distinction may seem like a minor one, but it isn’t; the hatred Breitbart has channeled is too general for it to be singled out for its anti-Semitic content.”

Note the construction of Podhoretz’ sentence: Breitbart isn’t anti-Semitic, but in some vague, unnamed way, he has facilitated anti-Semitism from the alt-Right (whatever that is). The man is an embarrassment to the venerable Jewish monthly. It’s time for Commentary to find a new editor.

Those are facts, indisputable, accessible, and easy to verify. Anyone can enter the terms “Jews” or “Israel” and “site:www.breitbart.com” into the Google search engine and obtain everything that Breitbart has published on the subject. I looked through roughly a thousand articles and found nothing but pro-Israel, pro-Jewish articles that might well have appeared in Israel Hayom. There is not a shred of evidence–not a single article–that supports Podhoretz’ allegation that Bannon and Breitbart aid and abet anti-Semitic views. In lieu of other evidence, the the supposedly offensive David Horowitz piece has been cited dozens of times in the past 24 hours (including by the Times of Israel!).

Of course, one expects the Establishment media to lie at two hundred decibels. Yesterday’s email blast from the usually staid Financial Times began, “Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, the establishment head of the Republican National Committee, as his chief of staff, while naming Steve Bannon — his campaign chair who ran Breitbart News, a website associated with the alt-right and white supremacists — as his chief strategist and counsellor.” To claim that Breitbart is associated with white supremacists is a despicable lie. , but the FT feels compelled to say such things because polite opinion requires ritual anathemas of Trump.

And the liberal Jewish website The Forward wrote, “The reaction was quick and furious from Jews and anti-hate groups. The Anti-Defamation League, which stays out of partisan politics and vowed to seek to work with Trump after his election, denounced Bannon as ‘hostile to American values.'” The Forward headline asks, “Will Steve Bannon bring anti-Semitism into Trump’s inner circle?” It is shameful that Jewish organizations cry “wolf” over anti-Semitism in pursuit of a patently political agenda.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes,” tweeted France’s Ambassador to the United States as the returns came in early in the morning of Nov. 9. The “liberal world order” of elitist social engineering has come to an end. The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine have no more reason to publish than do the New York Times or the New Republic. The world simply has moved away from them. And symbolizing their humiliation is one man who who took on their vast media machine with seemingly insignificant resources, and defeated them. They will stop at nothing to destroy him.

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org.

November 13, 2016

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org., Clarion Project, November 13, 2016

awad-reuters-trump-getty-hpPresident-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

Donald Trump will work to pass legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, said Walid Phares, a foreign policy advisor for the president-elect.

Speaking to the Egyptian news outlet Youm7, Phares said the legislation, which was already approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was held up due to the Obama administration’s support of the group.

Clarion Project spearheaded a campaign to educate legislators and move the bill forward over the past year.  The bill currently has bipartisan support.

See below for a list of senators and representatives and their stance on the bill and what you can do to move the bill forward.

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the bill, which identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

You can read Clarion’s thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The bill included is an unprecedented opportunity to educate members of Congress about the Muslim Brotherhood‘s involvement in terrorism.  It reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it is banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The bill also outlines how the Brotherhood is linked to CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The U.S. designated the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas— in 1997, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S.

You can tell your representatives to support the legislation in less than one minute by using our online form.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

 

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

 

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA)

 

 

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

 

Click here to easily contact your representatives with just a few clicks! Please let us know if you receive a position statement.

 

Early Returns on Trump’s Appointments are Good

November 12, 2016

Early Returns on Trump’s Appointments are Good, Power Line, John Hinderaker, November 12, 2016

Donald Trump has been appointing members of his transition team, appointments that presumably foreshadow the ultimate composition of his administration. So far, I have been impressed by his choices. A case in point is Myron Ebell, who will lead Trump’s EPA transition team. The headline says it all: “Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition.”

Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.

Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.

The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign.

Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.

This could hardly be better. It suggests that Trump is willing to stand up to the bullies in the EPA and the environmental movement generally. Fantastic news, if that really is what it means.

Perhaps the most important question about Trump’s administration is, what will his economic policies turn out to be? On the campaign trail, Trump often didn’t sound like an orthodox conservative on the economy. Yet I was encouraged by my interview with Steve Moore of the Heritage Foundation when I guest hosted the Laura Ingraham show yesterday. The first hour of the program is below. It starts with my monologue on the election, and the interview with Moore begins at 18:40.

The whole hour is interesting, I think, but the Moore interview particularly so for what it tells us about Trump’s economic policies. If you are a conservative, you will like what you hear. Steve names Larry Kudlow as another of Trump’s key economic advisers and lists repatriation, reform of corporate tax rates, repeal of Dodd-Frank and rejection of job-killing climate deals among the incoming administration’s objectives. As you will see, Steve Moore is still giddy about the economic prospects he sees as a result of Trump’s election:

(Podcast at the link — DM)

The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests

November 11, 2016

The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests, Front Page MagazineJohn Perazzo, November 11, 2016

(Please see also, ‘Professional protesters’ riot over Trump’s election, attacking bystanders and vandalizing cars, property. — DM)

antitrumpprotest

Ever since Donald Trump’s election victory Tuesday night, the media have been abuzz with stories about massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests breaking out in cities all across the country. We’ve been told that ordinary Americans everywhere are so frightened and angered by the prospect of a Trump presidency—as opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency—that they’re taking to the streets to express their grave concerns for the future of the country.

In Chicago, for instance, thousands of people held an “emergency protest” outside a Trump hotel, chanting: “No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

In New York, some 5,000 people (including the political oracle Lady Gaga) demonstrated outside Trump Tower. “Their concerns,” said CNN, “ranged from policies, such as Trump’s proposed plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that they say stoked xenophobic fears.”

In Oakland, some of the 7,000+ demonstrators damaged police cars, vandalized businesses, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at law-enforcement officers, and started at least 40 separate fires.

And in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people filled the streets, burned Trump in effigy, and sang John Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance. “Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office,” said CNN.

From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.

But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”

And, lo and behold, many components of Socialist Alternative’s agenda mesh seamlessly with Hillary Clinton’s political priorities. For instance, Socialist Alternative seeks to: (a) “raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, as a step toward a living wage for all”; (b) provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; (c) create “a publicly funded single-payer [healthcare] system as a step towards fully socialized medicine”; (d) impose absolutely “no budget cuts [on] education and social services”; and (e) legislate “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business.”

In short, the anti-Trump protests that are currently making headlines are 100% contrived, fake, phony exhibitions of street theater, orchestrated entirely by radicals and revolutionaries whose chief objective is to push America ever farther to the political left. Moreover, they seek to utterly demoralize conservatives into believing that public opposition to their own (conservative) political and social values is growing more powerful, more passionate, and more widespread with each passing day.

The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton’s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.

“There is No Plan”: Obama Never Believed it Could Happen

November 10, 2016

“There is No Plan”: Obama Never Believed it Could Happen, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 10, 2016

sub-buzz-18602-1478675867-9

There’s no joy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They never planned for this. In their arrogance and hubris, they were sure that it could never happen. And then it did.

There is no plan at the White House.

They also never thought this could or would happen.

Obama said for months on the campaign trail that he’d consider Donald Trump’s election a personal repudiation. And it was. The Senate and House results leave no question, as if there could be one.

A reality has slipped through their fingers. Four more years of a Democrat in the White House would make much of how Obama reshaped the government irreversible. A woman following a black man would drive home how there was no turning back to the old ways. Filling that Supreme Court seat would cement it for a generation.

Sorry, no.

But you can see the lack of preparedness in Obama’s stumbling awkward statement this morning. His pregnant pauses at key points. His difficultly even pronouncing “President Elect Trump”. There really was no plan for the impossible.

President Barack Obama and aides are keeping smiles on their faces, but a sense of doom has descended on the White House.

Doom! Freak out!

But the freak-out has been kept in check – in public, at least. Obama stood calmly on Wednesday afternoon promising a smooth transition, coolly urging supporters and disappointed voters to nurse their wounds and get back into the arena.

The world order has been shaken. Everything that everyone thought they knew about politics is wrong

The slaves are rebelling. This was not supposed to happen.

Obama, watching the returns come in from the White House residence until late into the night, was stunned and disappointed, Earnest said.

Shoe. Other foot.

The plan was for Obama to stay in Washington for at least two years, moving to a house a few miles away while his younger daughter finished high school. Either that plan will change, or that home will likely become the base of a government in exile…

What about Elba?

And there will no doubt be renewed calls in some quarters for Michelle Obama, who could run though her husband constitutionally cannot, to look at 2020 as the saving grace.

Sure. She’s as qualified as Hillary. And about as likable. When in doubt, double down on dynasty.

The White House staffers who massed into the Rose Garden to hear some kind of comfort or explanation cried and hugged, the shock running through their bodies.

Meanwhile the darkness sweeps in.

For President Barack Obama, Donald Trump’s presidential victory is nothing less than a nightmare.

His longstanding vision for progressive change faced sharp and unexpected repudiation Tuesday night from voters still fuming at their perceived diminished prospects. By Obama’s own admission, the major pieces of his presidential legacy are now subject to a gutting by a successor he resents deeply.