RUTHFULLY YOURS

The usual media suspects were aghast at President Trump’s mention in his Florida rally speech regarding unrestricted acceptance of refugees:

During a rally Saturday in Florida, Trump referred to several countries that have taken in a disproportionate number of refugees and that have recently been the target of attacks. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” Trump went on to refer to Paris, Nice, France, and Brussels, European cities where attacks have occurred in the past two years.

Except for the fact that there was not much going on that particular night in Sweden, President Trump, who was conflating the steady descent of Sweden into a caliphate with a Tucker Carlson report on Fox News was exactly right. Europe is rapidly becoming Eurabia due to unrestricted immigration. Yet the media obsessed about the “last night” part, quoted allegedly “confused” Swedish officials, officials who have much to hide about their reckless policies, ignoring Sweden’s decline into radical Islamic terrorist hell. As reported on Fox Nation:

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz defended his investigation of refugees in Sweden Monday night amid a backlash after President Donald Trump cited his work during a campaign speech over the weekend.

“Between 2012 and 2016 the murder rate [in Sweden] is up almost 70 percent,” Horowitz told “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” citing the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. “Rape between 2007 and 2015 is up a similar number, almost 70 percent. These are their statistics, not my statistics.”

At the Florida event Saturday, Trump said Sweden “took in large numbers” of refugees and was “having problems like they never thought possible.” Trump later specified on Twitter that he was referring to Carlson’s original segment with Horowitz, which aired Friday night.

Trump’s remarks, which implied that a terror attack had hit Sweden Friday night, was roundly criticized by Swedish officials and mainstream media outlets.

No, this rise in Swedish rapes and murders didn’t just happen last night, but Trump is right that it is happening and that it is tied to the rapid and unrestricted influx of refugees from Muslim countries racked by chaos and terror. As Jihad Watch reports, Sweden reflects the consequences of the Islamization of Europe:

Statistics concerning ethnicity and religion when it comes to criminals are not to be found in the world’s most politically correct country with probably the fastest-growing share of Muslims: Sweden. The risk of being raped in Sweden during one’s lifetime is one out of four, which is probably equal to the risk of being raped in any other country under Muslim attack. When it comes to rapes, Islamized Sweden is already in a state of war. If we want to have a hint about who is committing these tens of thousands of rapes and other types of sexual assaults yearly, we can turn to another Scandinavian country, Sweden’s neighbor Norway, the country most similar to Sweden. Here 100 percent of all rapes in the last five years in Oslo were committed by immigrants from “non-Western” countries. In Stavanger, a major Norwegian city, 90 percent of rapes are committed by “immigrants.” Sweden has 75,000 crimes yearly, in a population of only 9.5 million.

Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe, thanks largely to an influx of Islamic refugees not content to wait for a chance at being rewarded for jihad with 72 virgins:

Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa….

During labor disputes at major newspapers, it’s not uncommon for reporters to withhold their bylines from stories to demonstrate frustration with management and win sympathy from readers. This can sometimes get management’s attention, but it’s unclear how many readers notice or care.

In recent weeks the Washington press corps’s coverage of its continuing personal feud with Donald Trump, which pits a supposedly tyrannical president against a supposedly noble Fourth Estate, has dominated the news. Does the public care about this standoff as much as the media believe?

“They have their own agenda,” Mr. Trump said of the national press at a rally in Florida Feb. 18, where he pitted the elite media against his supporters. “And their agenda is not your agenda.” The president is on firmer ground than his media foes.

Republican presidents have been accustomed to harsh criticism from the mostly left-wing Beltway journalists who cover them, but no one in memory has received as much sustained abuse as Mr. Trump. Most major news outlets showed nothing but contempt for him and his supporters throughout the campaign, and the disdain has only escalated since the election.

“They could not defeat us in the primaries and they could not defeat us in the general election,” Mr. Trump told supporters, referring not to his political opponents but to the press. “We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live, or what to believe. We are free and independent people, and we will make our own choices.”

It’s also becoming clearer that the media are more interested than Mr. Trump in maintaining this antagonistic relationship. Mr. Trump won the White House as an outsider who preached the sort of pragmatism on display in Florida, where he spoke at length about his administration’s intention to focus on jobs, crime, border security and economic growth.

“I know that you want safe neighborhoods where the streets belong to families and communities, not gang members and drug dealers,” he said. The president talked about reducing violent crime nationwide and assembling a task force that will focus on urban areas. He said “safety is a civil right.” The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that murder rates in Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Memphis have returned to record levels reached in the 1990s. For millions of Americans, that task force can’t come soon enough.

Mr. Trump’s approach to job creation is no less commonsensical. He wants to cut red tape and use our natural resources as safely and strategically as possible. “You want low-cost American energy also, which means lifting the restrictions on oil, on shale, on natural gas, on clean—very clean—coal,” he said at the Florida rally. “We’re going to put the miners back to work.” Mr. Trump pledged to reverse course at the Environmental Protection Agency, where regulatory activity increased dramatically during a previous administration that placed the concerns of environmentalists above those of blue-collar workers in Ohio and Michigan.

In the president’s view, these regulations have been “clogging up the veins of our country,” which “meant no jobs. It meant companies leaving our country and going to foreign countries to do things that they’d rather do here.” An Americans for Tax Reform report last year said EPA compliance costs had grown by more than $50 billion annually under President Obama and “ripple throughout the economy, impacting GDP, killing thousands of jobs, and increasing the cost of consumer goods.” CONTINUE AT SITE

On February 16, the New York Times, the go-to paper for the alt-left, ran an attack editorial piece deriding President Donald Trump’s response to two reporters who queried about how his administration sought to address the scourge of anti-Semitism. The editorial insinuated that Trump was aloof about the subject and insulated himself from criticism by pointing to his Jewish familial ties and strong support for Israel. It also implied that anti-Semitism is a recent phenomenon, a product of Trump’s immigration policies.

Admittedly, the president could have responded in a more forceful and robust manner in addressing this very important issue. In at least one instance, Mr. Trump likely misunderstood the reporter’s question – which was somewhat incoherent and rambling – leading to an unfortunate, charged exchange. But the New York Times’ editorial was not only far off the mark, it was disingenuous and reeked of hypocrisy.

During Obama’s tenure, college campuses across the United States experienced an explosion of anti-Semitic acts. These incidents have been well documented by watchdog groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Amcha Initiative. According to Amcha, anti-Semitic incidents are nine times more likely to occur at the universities or colleges that host groups like the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine or similar Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

These acts of overt Jew-hatred have manifested in various forms and have included intimidation tactics, verbal abuse, graffiti scrawls, denial of free speech or the right to peaceably assemble and increasingly, physical assaults. Often, school officials are completely indifferent to the plight of Jewish students or worse, complicit in anti-Jewish or anti-Israel incidents. In many instances, campus police have been told to stand down in the face of rowdy anti-Jewish protest, laced with anti-Semitic vitriol.

The situation for Jewish students on many college campuses has become so intolerable that some watchdog groups have invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in a desperate bid to combat Islamist driven Jew-hate. Yet during its two terms of office, the Obama administration did virtually nothing to combat this malevolency. Moreover, the rise of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses received scant coverage from radical leftist outlets like the New York Times. Obama’s inaction on the matter was effectively immune to challenge.

I moved to Europe in 1998, and it was just about that time that the New York Times went online in a serious way. I still remember sitting at an Amsterdam café one day at happy hour and having an American tourist say to me, with obvious wonder: “Did you know that you can read the New York Times online every day? The whole paper? For free?” For years thereafter, nytimes.com was the first site I went to every morning. It was, after all, the “newspaper of record.” And at the time, I was a regular contributor to it. In those days, hardly a month went by without my byline appearing in one section of the paper or another – the book review, the travel section, the op-ed page, Leisure & Arts, Week in Review. Even after I published my book on Islam, While Europe Slept, in 2006, and the phone calls and e-mails from the dozen or so Times editors I worked with mysteriously stopped coming all at once, I continued to peruse the Gray Lady while sipping my morning coffee.

Even as it became clearer and clearer that the powers that be at the Times had committed the paper to a see-no-evil position on Islam, I kept reading it, although it became increasingly maddening to do so. After a certain point I started trying to break free – but it was tough, like trying to kick heroin. A few weeks ago, unable to bear the daily onslaught of anti-Trump propaganda, I finally managed it: I stopped reading the New York Times. Hold the applause: I’m pretty sure that at some point I’ll fall off the wagon.

But for the moment it feels good. What makes it feel even better is that I’ve also been entirely CNN-free for several months now. Well, almost entirely. I’ve slipped up a couple of times. The other evening, having read and heard about the wall-to-wall Trump-hate now on display at CNN, I felt obliged to check it out. Sure enough, when I put on Don Lemon’s show in medias res, he and a panel of “experts” were discussing Trump’s latest actions and statements. Uniformly, their reactions to everything were a combination of fake outrage and chuckling condescension. In short, nothing had changed since the campaign. None of them had learned anything. None of them was thinking seriously about anything. They were all still in the same reflexive mode. Who would want to watch any of this, except to see a reflection of his or her own lockstep hatred?