Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Daniel Pipes: Trump’s Muslim Immigration Policy Is Evolving for the Better

Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes joined Breitbart London Editor Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM to talk about Republican nominee Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration policy.

Kassam opened the discussion by mentioning Trump’s announced trip to Mexico on Wednesday to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, which Pipes described as “a very high-risk undertaking.”

“The sides begin so far apart that unless they have some kind of groundwork in place, some kind of preliminary draft agreement on what they’re going to say, it could work out to the detriment of Donald Trump,” Pipes explained.

Kassam quoted Nigel Farage’s observation that Trump was approaching politics with a “businessman’s strategy of trial and error,” which doesn’t work in politics, because “people always hold you to your previous positions.” Pipes offered a similar observation in a Washington Times article several weeks ago, concluding that Trump was learning “slowly and erratically from his mistakes.”

“There clearly was a learning curve,” Pipes told Kassam on Wednesday morning, adding:

I focused not so much on the Mexican question, but on the Muslim question. He came out with this extraordinary statement that there should be a complete shutdown and closure to Muslims entering the United States. He said that back in December, and he doubled down on it, repeated it, elaborated on it.

And then, starting in the middle of June, he started walking away from it, and he started talking about extreme vetting, and then he started talking about not taking in people from certain territories, which he implied would include places like France and Germany where there is a lot of political violence.

And finally he settled on his formulation – which is in fact, I think, the only workable one – which is that you keep out the Islamists. You keep out the nasties. You keep out the people who want to do you harm.

The Truth About Jew-Hatred is Never Slander UCLA student Robert Gardner: no innocent. Matthew Vadum

It ought to be axiomatic that if you join a group marinated in anti-Semitism and devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel you are likely at some point to be identified as a hater of Jews.

But after getting involved with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at UCLA, student Robert Gardner claims to be shocked at being called out publicly for promoting Jew-hatred.

A poster from David Horowitz Freedom Center (which publishes FrontPage) that was distributed where Gardner attends classes listed his name under the heading: “The following students and faculty at UCLA have allied themselves with Palestinian terrorists to perpetrate BDS and Jew Hatred on this campus.”

Quite predictably, some left-wing campus groups and UCLA’s diversity-groupthink commissar have condemned the posters. They are, after all, usually the ones doing the slandering and intimidating. This specific poster is merely an exercise in what the Left calls consciousness-raising.

UCLA Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Jerry Kang, says the posters constitute “thuggish intimidation” and absurdly characterized them as promoting “guilt by association, of using blacklists, of ethnic slander and sensationalized images engineered to trigger racially tinged fear.”

Gardner, a twenty-something political science and urban planning major, bristled at being publicly associated with racist hatred. He recently told the Los Angeles Times that the accusations on the poster are false, explaining that he does not support terrorists or hate Jews.

The newspaper reports:

The African American senior likened Israeli crackdowns on Palestinian protesters to police violence against black Americans. So he joined Students for Justice in Palestine and an international movement known as BDS, which advocates boycotts, divestment and sanctions against companies deemed players in Israeli human rights violations.

Gardner assures reporters that SJP explicitly condemns all unlawful violence, but he says he is “worried about people coming to campus to attack me.”

“I’ve received death threats online, and people have followed me,” or so Gardner claims.

Maybe Gardner should have examined SJP a little more closely before he got involved in its ugly campaigns.

Students for Justice in Palestine isn’t some innocuous group that meets up at Starbucks to harmlessly shoot the breeze about Middle East affairs: it’s a hate group. And a powerful one at that.

As John Perazzo reports in the DHFC pamphlet, “Students for Justice in Palestine: a campus front for Hamas terrorists”:

Chicago’s Murder Rate Spirals Out of Control By Jack Dunphy

We turn our attention once again to the city of Chicago, where, as of this writing, 2,858 people have been shot and 487 have been killed so far this year (both numbers will surely be higher by the time you read this). The website HeyJackass.com tabulates these and other figures related to crime in Chicago, and it reports that on average someone is shot every two hours and murdered every twelve. But these averages are for the year overall; we are now in the prime shooting season of summer, and the averages for August approximate to someone being shot every ninety minutes and murdered every eight hours. August, says the Chicago Tribune, has been the most violent month in Chicago in 20 years.

Despite these grim numbers, there persists among many the notion that it is the city’s police officers who bear the greatest share of blame for all that ails Chicago. Propagating this myth most recently is this same Chicago Tribune, which on Friday published a story about the 435 police shootings that occurred in Chicago between 2010 and 2015.

The story begins by noting that over the six years examined, a Chicago police officer fired at someone every five days, killing 92 people and wounding 170. “While a few of those incidents captured widespread attention,” says the Tribune, “they occurred with such brutal regularity — and with scant information provided by police — that most have escaped public scrutiny.”

Given the statistics cited in the opening paragraph above, it would seem it is not the police who are shooting people with “such brutal regularity.” Indeed, many of the Tribune’s readers, aware that they live in a city where someone is shot every hour and a half and murdered every eight, might not be all that disturbed – and might even welcome it – when the police manage to shoot at some evil-doer every five days.

But of course it is not merely the number of police shootings that so discomfits the enlightened ones at the Chicago Tribune, it is the skin color of those who are shot. In the second of a series of bullet points near the top of the story, we are informed that “about four out of every five people shot [by police] were African-American males.” Such use of racial data is at minimum misleading if not dishonest, but at least the Tribune made an effort at offering some context in the story for those who bothered to read beyond the first few paragraphs. Police shootings, says the story, “were more common on the South and West sides, in crime-ridden blocks profoundly shaken by decades of drugs, gangs and unrelenting poverty.” Even less subtle with the racial angle was Time magazine, which on its website cited the Tribune story under this headline: “Majority of Chicago Police Shooting Victims are Black Men or Boys: Report.”

And from this bit of information the uninformed reader is expected to conclude the number of officer-involved shootings is excessive, most especially those involving black males. “For years,” says the Tribune, “examining the full scale of the problem in Chicago was impossible because the city refused to release most details about police-involved shootings.”

So the Tribune labels this as a “problem” but doesn’t say why, other than to mention that over the six years studied, Chicago had more police shootings than Los Angeles, New York, Houston, or Philadelphia. It fails to mention the pertinent fact that Chicago has far more violent crime than any of the other cities listed. In the first half of 2015, for example, Chicago had 207 murders while New York City, with 5.5 million more people, had 164. So far this year, Chicago has experienced almost 100 more murders than Los Angeles and New York combined.

And if the Chicago Tribune feels the demographics of those shot by the police are somehow out of kilter, perhaps they should consider this: according to the U.S. census, the population of Chicago is 32.9 percent black, yet blacks make up 78.6 percent of the city’s murder victims. In Chicago and elsewhere, almost all murders are intra-racial, so we may safely conclude that blacks are similarly over-represented among Chicago’s killers. The fact that four out of five people shot by Chicago police officers seems far less startling now, doesn’t it? CONTINUE AT SITE

State Department Says 30-Odd Hillary Clinton Emails Could Be Linked to Benghazi Messages were among the 15,000 emails turned over by the FBIBy Byron Tau

WASHINGTON—The State Department said Tuesday it has found approximately 30 emails from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s account that could be related to the 2012 attacks on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

The new documents were found among the roughly 15,000 emails forensically recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from Mrs. Clinton’s personal email server as part of its investigation into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information.

Those emails were turned over to the State Department in the wake of the FBI probe, which resulted in no charges against Mrs. Clinton earlier this year. The messages are expected to be made public in the coming months.

The State Department couldn’t say how many of the 30-odd emails previously have been made public, raising the possibility that some were among the 55,000 pages of emails already provided to the State Department by Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys and released to the public. The department also couldn’t say with any certainty that the identified messages were related to the Benghazi attacks.

“Using broad search terms, we have identified approximately 30 documents potentially responsive to a Benghazi-related request. At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby.

Names—Like ‘America First’ or ‘Progressive’—Have Histories Neither Donald Trump nor anti-Israel boycotters can duck the political origin of their campaign slogans. By Cynthia Ozick

It was recently revealed that Donald Trump’s family, immigrants from Germany, chose early on to live a lie: They called themselves Swedes. There is more pathos than blame in this deceit. After all, they were by then established Americans residing in Queens, N.Y., far from the venomous swastikas of Munich. Understandably, they were in fear of stigma, much as today a Muslim immigrant from, say, Sri Lanka might dread being associated with the Islamists of Hamas.

Yet Mr. Trump’s heritage of self-conscious deception discloses something else. His choice of “America First” as a slogan to inspire is unlikely to have been made out of innocence, and still less out of ignorance. Historical amnesia—a later generation having forgotten the Lindbergh era and its prevailing nativism, including anti-Semitism—in this instance cannot apply. He knew the phrase well. Responsibility for the baleful implications of Charles Lindbergh’s cry of “America First” was exactly what those fake Swedes were hoping to evade.

Names, like families, have histories. Academics, particularly the historians among them, and writers (not omitting the journalists) who term themselves “progressives” are hardly invoking the admirable but nearly eclipsed Robert La Follette, the Wisconsin reformer of the early 20th century who founded an ephemeral American party of that name. Not unlike Mr. Trump when he pretends that “America First” is an expression new-born and pure, they mean to offer the label they flaunt as altogether free of the impress of the past.

It cannot be done, at least not naively. No name is a vacant well. For thinking citizens who are reluctant to toss history into Orwell’s memory hole, these self-defined progressives carry, willy-nilly, the tainted name of those earlier progressives, Stalin’s fellow travelers, who were willfully blind to the reality of the Great Promise and its gulags and show trials. What’s in a name? The date and place and meaning of its birth. And as a German is not a Swede, so is a progressive not a La Follette.

Jason Riley:Trump’s Immigration Shift Is a Winner The older whites cheering for walls and deportation don’t represent most of the GOP, let alone the country.

It’s anyone’s guess where Donald Trump really stands these days on illegal immigration. Even Donald Trump may not know for certain, which is why the Republican presidential nominee apparently feels compelled to clarify his stance in a speech scheduled for Wednesday.

Given the centrality of immigration to Mr. Trump’s presidential run, this ambiguity is noteworthy. No one puzzled over where Ronald Reagan stood on tax cuts or defense spending 10 weeks before Election Day in 1980. Barack Obama’s health-care ambitions were unwavering and clear to all in August 2008. If you knew nothing else about Mr. Trump’s candidacy this year, it was that he vowed to wall off the southern border and remove every cotton-pickin’ foreign national here illegally. Until the past week or so, that is.

To be accurate, skepticism about Mr. Trump’s sincerity on deportation isn’t new. In February, BuzzFeed reported that the candidate had told the New York Times in an off-the-record interview that his views on expelling illegal immigrants were more flexible than he had let on. Asked about the story, Mr. Trump allowed that “everything’s negotiable” but declined the Times’s offer to Since then, Mr. Trump’s immigration shift has became more overt. In November he was proposing a “deportation force” to hunt down the undocumented. Last week, however, he said that giving millions of people the boot is impractical and that enforcement should focus on “the bad ones”—which is the Obama administration’s policy. For those who obey the law and contribute to society, Mr. Trump says that no citizenship should be offered and opposes “amnesty as such.” But if they “pay back taxes” he would be willing to “work with them.” Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio ought to sue for plagiarism.

The weekend brought more confusion. Mr. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, told CNN that “there’ll be no path to legalization, no path to citizenship unless people leave the country.” But when Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was asked by Fox News whether her candidate still supported mass deportation, she answered that his approach was “softening.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Some Observations From the Man Who Created Alt-Right An intellectual movement that Democrats want to use to smear Breitbart and Trump. Paul Gottfried

Editor’s note: Frontpage’s recent article by Matthew Vadum, The Alt-Right is Coming! Hillary Shrieks, exposed the dishonest nature of Hillary’s and the Left’s slanderous attacks on Trump, Breitbart and the “Alt-Right,” revealing that the situation is far more complicated than their smear campaign would suggest. For instance, Clinton and leftists blame individuals such Richard Spencer for the Alt-Right, but it was Dr. Paul Gottfried, Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, who actually invented the term for the movement. Below we are publishing Gottfried’s account of the narrative to help clarify matters for our readers.

Last week I was reminded by a call from Associated Press that I had invented the term “Alternative Right.” When I asked about how I had accomplished that, the woman on the other end of the phone referred to a speech I had given in November 2008 in which I urged the creation of an “Alternative Right.” The same caller said that I was considered the “godfather” of what had become Altright, something that the Democratic presidential candidate would be denouncing later in the week. Thereupon I tried to explain in what modest ways I may have inspired the movement that Hillary was about to go after (namely, in a quadrennial ritual in presidential races in which the Democratic candidate accuses her GOP rival of being the second coming of Adolf Hitler).

I pointed out that Altright authors, some of whom I knew, shared my revulsion for the neoconservatives and deplored their influence on the American Right. I also noted that Altright publicists believed that modern liberal democracies had become dangerously fixated on promoting equality; and I’ve made this observation repeatedly in my books. Finally, as someone who had published entire works on the European Right in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (and most recently a book on the career of fascism as a concept), I had provided the Altright with food for thought. This was the case, even if the writers in question didn’t bother to look at my qualifying phrases.

Except for being a very occasional contributor to vdare.com, I am not exactly part of the Altright stable of writers. Recently I expressed interest in an email in writing for Breitbart, which is rumored to have some connection to Altright. Alas, I may have to wait until Hell freezes over before hearing from this website. More importantly, I couldn’t recall until a few days ago that I had spoken to fifty attendants at the H.L. Mencken Club eight years ago on the subject of the “Alternative Right.” I am president of the Mencken Club, and in November 2008 gave an inaugural address, in which I called for an “Alternative Right” to combat the high degree of neoconservative control over the intellectual Right.

This speech may have been a rousing affair, but until someone in the national news service retrieved it a few weeks ago, I had forgotten about my oration. Although I still support the project mentioned in that speech, I’ve never had the means to bring it about. Indeed, I’ve been largely marginalized by both the entire Left and most of the Right since the late 1980s. My works (perhaps we should look at the bright side) do get read but mostly in translation in Poland, Russia, Romania and other Eastern European countries. To link me to the Altright may be more of a stretch than the person from AP was aware of.

Hillary Is Way More Awful than Trump Never Trump equals Hillary, plain and simple By Deroy Murdock

If Never Trump Republicans succeed on Election Day, Donald J. Trump will return to real estate, his political dreams shattered.

Hence, the bigger headline on Wednesday, November 9, would read: hillary clinton elected 45th president. Neither independent Evan McMullin, nor the Green party’s Jill Stein, nor Libertarian Gary Johnson will leapfrog Clinton and Trump to win the White House. So, ipso facto, Never Trump = President Hillary Clinton. Full stop.

A President Hillary Clinton would be Obama with a work ethic. Rather than slacking off on putting greens, she will dedicate her impressive work ethic to turbocharging Obama’s policies, America be damned. Thus, here is some of what to expect if Never Trump triumphs:

Hillary Clinton would appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court. If she only replaces the late Antonin Scalia with a liberal, the 5–4 center-right high court will go 5–4 center-left. And if, among justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas, one or more departs, Clinton would shift the Court even farther left. On issue after issue, the Supremes consequently would order less liberty and more government. They would be eager to reverse the Heller and Citizens United cases and thus jeopardize gun rights and non-union political speech.

Also, scores of Clinton’s judicial appointees would use their federal trial and appeals courtrooms to apply her statist legal philosophy for life.

“We are going to start immediately on comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship,” Clinton recently promised. From illegal aliens to the lightly vetted Syrian refugees that America’s Angela Merkel would vacuum into the U.S., Clinton would convert these individuals as swiftly as possible into freshly minted Democratic voters. Republicans will find it even harder to win elections as Clinton builds a permanent Democratic majority.

To that end, Clinton’s Justice Department would double down on Obama’s war on voter ID and other ballot-integrity measures. This would expand opportunities for pro-Democrat vote fraud and rigged elections. Good luck, GOP candidates.

Clinton ignored the candidate questionnaire from the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. “I was disappointed and shocked,” the cops’-union president, Chuck Canterbury, told The Hill. This exposes Clinton’s cold shoulder towards blue lives, even as 2016’s shooting deaths of police officers have climbed 61 percent through August 25, compared to the same period in 2015, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Clinton likely would turn her back on cops, even as they increasingly endure bull’s-eyes on theirs.

“I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act,” Clinton declared. “That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic party, and of our country.” Rather than a temporary aberration, Obamacare would become permanent — unless Clinton transforms it into full-blown, single-payer, socialized medicine.

Social Justice Warriors Against Free Speech: Charles Lipson ****

Well, that didn’t take long.

The Social Justice Warriors have emerged from their safe spaces and begun attacking the University of Chicago’s statement supporting free speech and opposing trigger warnings and safe spaces. They are complaining for a good reason: They don’t want free speech to spread to other campuses.

What are the main arguments against the Chicago letter? One of my former graduate students sent me this report from a group website for her liberal arts college (a very fine school). What do her fellow alums say?

Well, for one, they are surprised they even need to make arguments for their side. For years, they haven’t had to. Administrators, like those at the University of Missouri, simply rolled over and played dead rather than confront them. But that was political cowardice, not real intellectual engagement. Now that the Social Justice Warriors must defend their position, what do they say?

The arguments against Chicago’s free-speech letter

They object to “no trigger warnings” because it is insensitive to people who have experienced trauma and might need a “heads-up” if they are going to encounter triggering content in class.

They object to “no safe spaces” because those are the only places where marginalized groups will feel completely free to voice their opinions.

They say safe spaces are not about banning dissenting viewpoints but about banning hateful, bigoted speech that is truly harmful.

They reject the idea that colleges should be places where ideas are freely exchanged because “not all ideas are equal and some are too offensive to have a place in the community.”

The common theme is “we must all be more sensitive. Otherwise people will be harmed psychologically.”

What’s right with those arguments, and what’s wrong?

First, let’s consider trigger warnings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a professor or teaching assistant saying, “We are going to discuss Greek myths and some of you might find them troubling.” But it’s also perfectly fine if, all of a sudden in a class on Greek myths, the professor discusses one. The students at Columbia University actually wanted warnings before all myths. Their demand was not about helping one or two students in a large class. It was simply bullying under the cloak of “sensitivity.”

Anyway, universities are all about discussing sensitive subjects and raising troubling questions. If a university is really vigorous, then the whole place should be wrapped in a gigantic trigger warning.

Finally, as a teacher, how can I possibly anticipate all the things that might trigger students in my class on “Big Wars From Ancient Greece to Early Modern Europe” (a lecture course I am teaching next year)? When I mention the Roman war with German tribes on the Rhine, how can I know that your grandfather died fighting on the Rhine in World War II?

Shock video: Jesse Jackson gushes with praise for Donald Trump By Carol Brown

A C-SPAN video documents at least one, if not two, Push Coalition forums from as early as 1998 that focused on Wall Street, minority business executives, and the black community, honoring those who’ve made a difference. In addition to one other notable individual, the clips feature Jesse Jackson. (I know. Hang in there with me.)

Who is the other notable person being honored at the gathering?

Donald J. Trump.

Why? Because of his support of and investment in the black community.

Jesse Jackson was absolutely gushing with praise for Trump, whose work crews comprised a disproportionately high percentage of black and Hispanic builders, stating:

Let me bring forth a friend who has, well, he is deceptive in his social style [inaudible], one can miss his seriousness and his commitment for the success is beyond argument…He has a sense of the curious and a will to make things better.

Jackson went on to enumerate various ways that Trump had shown himself to be a genuine partner in promoting inclusivity and helping those living in underserved communities.