RUTHFULLY YOURS

Republicans and Democrats introduced clashing bills last week related to the provision of taxpayer-funded legal services for Unaccompanied Alien Minors. Fortunately for Republicans we already have similar laws in place that deny such funding. Fortunately for Democrats, it’s riddled with loopholes.

Coinciding with last Tuesday’s Senate Homeland Security hearing on the continuing Unaccompanied Minors-surge, Chairman Ron Johnson and committee member Jeff Sessions introduced the Protection of Children Act (S. 2561), a bill that, among other things, promises to “ensure[] that taxpayer dollars do not pay for attorneys for these individuals, consistent with decades of precedent.” Meanwhile, House Democrats, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, introduced a bill on Friday that seeks to “protect children and other vulnerable groups in immigration proceedings by ensuring access to counsel, legal orientation programs, and case management services.” Lofgren’s bill tracks closely with a similar bill introduced by Sen. Harry Reid a fortnight ago.

Perhaps unknown to either side is that open-borders legal advocates representing Unaccompanied Alien Minors (UAMs) and illegal immigrants in general have been receiving taxpayer dollars for years although the practice is indeed a prohibited one. The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a government entity created in 1974 that distributes federal grants to non-profit law firms, has been blocked since the eighties from providing funds for the use of representing illegal aliens. Congressional appropriations law as it relates to LSC is clear: “LSC funds cannot be used to engage in litigation and related activities with respect to a variety of matters including… representation of illegal aliens.” Due to gaping loopholes, however, taxpayer dollars continue to flow to these groups.

Four years after opposition from residents and a lawsuit forced the withdrawal of plans for a multi-purpose Islamic center in rural San Martin, California, the proposal is back, tripled in size and with a burial center double the original capacity. The Southern Valley Islamic Center (SVIC) again calls its center “Cordoba,” a reference to the so-called “Golden Age of Islam,” after 8th-century Islamic invaders converted the Spanish city into a center for religious learning under Islamic rule for two centuries, restricting others to second-class status. Like those invaders from another age, the Cordoba Center may well be part of a larger plan to usurp American values and lifestyle and replace them with Muslim ideology and culture.

As I reported here in 2012, the SVIC proposal included a prayer hall, community center, cemetery and play area on a 15-acre parcel in the unincorporated town of San Martin, population 7,500, known for producing garlic, mushrooms and wine. In 2013, the SVIC withdrew their proposal and relinquished a Santa Clara County permit after a lawsuit was filed by a local group, the People’s Coalition for Government Accountability. The coalition’s suit against the county, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission sought to stop planning and construction on the center for a rigorous and thorough environmental impact review.

At the time, residents were concerned that failed soil-percolation tests made the site susceptible to poor drainage and flooding and that decaying human remains would pollute the local water supply. They worried about the impact of increased traffic in their pastoral oasis as well as noise from dawn-to-dusk calls to prayer. Anxious about decreased quality of life, they sought a full discussion of issues that had received short shrift during permit review.

Further, they felt that with no significant Muslim population in the surrounding area and several mosques nearby, the large-scale Islamic center failed to meet the county’s requirement that projects be kept to a size, scale and intensity that serves local needs. The county general plan requirements were created to minimize impacts from outside the community.

I got an instant chill when I looked at him. I got this grip in my stomach and then, of course, I gave myself a political correct slap…I thought, “My God, Michael, these are just a couple of Arab businessmen.”

That was ticket agent Michael Tuohey’s recollection of his encounter with Mohammed Atta at the check-in desk of U.S. Airways in Portland on the morning of September 11, 2001. For Tuohey, the fear of being politically incorrect was greater than his instinctive fear. Better to take the remote risk of a terrorist act than the more immediate risk of being thought a bigot.

It might be expected that 9/11 would have put an end to political correctness—at least in regard to Islam. But that was not the case. Instead, the forces of political correctness grew stronger and threw a protective ring around Islam, making it practically immune to criticism. You could, of course, criticize terrorist groups, suicide bombers and lone-wolf jihadists—as long as you added the caveat that their actions had nothing to do with Islam. But suggest that terrorists were inspired by Islam itself and you were sure to find yourself in hot water and maybe in a courtroom.

9/11 wasn’t the last time that a little less political correctness might have saved the day. Take the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood. Major Nidal Hasan’s jihadist sympathies were well known to fellow officers for years before he launched his murderous attack. Yet they failed to report him for fear of being branded as bigots. Even after the massacre, the Army, the media, and the administration worked vigorously to cover up Hasan’s devotion to Islam. His attack, we were told, was simply a case of workplace violence.

Meanwhile, over in England, another cover-up of Muslim misbehavior was already a decade old and wouldn’t be exposed for another five years. In the course of a fifteen-year period, more than 1,400 girls in the city of Rotherham were groomed, raped, and traded by Pakistani gangs. Police, city authorities, and child protection agencies knew about the rapes but said nothing out of fear that they would be subject to accusations of “racism” and “Islamophobia’ were they to implicate Pakistanis.

The Supreme Court’s stay of the EPA’s sweeping Clean Power Plan (CPP) is one of several developments undermining the efforts of President Obama and his fellow climate zealots. The Obama administration expected the CPP to seal the U.N.’s first universal climate agreement, but now that the president’s grand plan has been put on hold until final judicial review on the merits, its fate will likely not be known until late 2017 at the earliest. Furthermore, the prospects for upholding the power plan are not that strong. As a legal condition of imposing the stay, the Supreme Court had to conclude that the EPA’s plan would likely be overruled in the Court’s final review.

Last December in Paris the climate agreement was declared a fait accompli, with representatives of around 190 countries expected to sign it on Earth Day (April 22) at the U.N.’s headquarters in New York. The Paris deal does not “enter into force” until at least 55 countries that together account for 55 percent of man-made greenhouse gases ink the document. But if President Obama’s grand plan to reduce CO2 remains in legal limbo for two more years, why would other countries go ahead and submit their economic future to the terms of the U.N. agreement?

In response, the White House has apparently assigned Todd Stern, the State Department’s special envoy on climate, to get busy on damage control. Stern last week warned the presidential candidates that they would be well advised to stop sowing seeds of doubt about the CPP. In Brussels, Stern reassured EU officials that the Court’s freeze on the CPP would not weaken the EPA’s resolve on pledged carbon cuts or delay the signing of the agreement in April.

However, the European Union has good reason to worry about the viability of the Paris deal if the United States’ contribution is uncertain. After ambitious green efforts over the last ten years, many EU member countries have substantial economic concerns about expanded carbon dictates. As a result of the carbon policies they already have in place, Germany, Britain, and Spain have experienced soaring electricity rates, energy poverty, unsustainable subsidies, and industrial flight — all while failing to achieve meaningful carbon reductions.

The incoherence of the policies spawned by the U.N.’s earlier Kyoto climate accord is increasingly undeniable. Germany is subsidizing the construction of coal-fired power plants as necessary backups to renewables, and Britain is burning wood imported from the United States to generate electricity on a massive scale. Renamed “biomass” and declared “carbon neutral,” wood is no less polluting than coal. Headlines in the Daily Mail excoriate the retrofit of Britain’s largest coal plant to burn wood as a “forest-destroying symbol of the shameful absurdity of European energy policies.”

Some students wore sombreros to a tequila-themed birthday party at Bowdoin College — and others were so offended that the school had to provide them with safe spaces and counseling to deal with it.

According to the school’s newspaper, the Bowdoin Orient, the e-mail invitation to the event called it “a ‘tequila’ party” and then added, “we’re not saying it’s a fiesta, but we’re also not not saying that 🙂 (we’re not saying that).”

This phrasing was, presumably, aiming to poke fun at the way the PC police often lose their minds over pretty much any party where tequila is present — which wound up being exactly what happened with this one.

Yep. According to the Orient, one student (1) reported that some of the attendees had been wearing sombreros at the same time as they were drinking tequila at the party, and all hell broke loose.

In an e-mail to National Review Online, sophomore Richard Arms states that there have been “3 school-wide emails from deans and our president, and there have been several ‘safe-space’ opportunities on campus for students to discuss how they were hurt and offended” by the party.

What’s more, the General Assembly of Bowdoin Student Government issued a “Statement of Solidarity to stand by all students who were affected by the ‘tequila’ party that occurred on 20 February 2016.”

“The Assembly, representing the entire student body of Bowdoin, stands by all students who were injured and affected by the incident,” the statement reads.

(Yes — “injured.”)

According to the statement, even though the school offered offended students counseling (!) to help them deal with the fact that their classmates were drinking a kind of booze with a kind of hat on, the response just wasn’t enough for something so serious.

Rather than being a racial healer, Barack Obama has presided over and at times stoked more racial divisiveness than we have seen in a long while. Just in the last year we’ve had Black Lives Matter marches and verbal assaults of Democratic candidates, the Oscar protests over the absence of nominated black actors, Ivy League university students marching over “microagressions” no one else can see, and the still simmering protests and agitation over police shootings of black men. Driving it all is our duplicitous and malignant national racial discourse.

At the heart of it lies “racism,” a question-begging epithet and verbal aerosol sprayed over issues to avoid honestly confronting them. The idea of racism is peculiarly modern, and like most of progressive ideology it reflects the rise of pseudo-science in the wake of the scientific revolution. As such, racism was a consequence of the massive category error that tries to reduce human beings to mere material phenomena to be classified and understood and shaped with the methods of real science. In “scientific” racism, certain characteristics of physical appearance and behavior were stripped of historical and cultural context, and the “irreducible complexity” defining all humans reduced to this simplified, superficial description. Worse yet from the perspective of the West’s Judeo-Christian and Hellenic heritage, the unique individualism of people, with their God-given natural rights and spiritual freedom, was denied to fellow human beings.

Before modern racism, there were prejudice and bigotry, the leftover tribal instinct to distrust the stranger or those who look and live differently. Humans are naturally clannish and exclusionary, as a visit to any playground or school, or a perusal of multiculturalist dogma and curricula, will reveal. The idea of a universal human nature and the subsequent tolerance for difference was and still is a strange one, a learned behavior that culture has to teach and reinforce.

Politicians insisting that the latest Islamic jihad attack has nothing to do with Islam have become a familiar feature of the mainstream media landscape, but last Saturday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans went them all one better.

Speaking at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, Evans declared:
We’re all Muslims deep down. We all yearn for peace.

Evans thus went farther than Barack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron, and all the other Western politicians who insist that Islam is a religion of peace. For Evans, Islam is not just a religion of peace, but the religion of peace: to be a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist would not make one yearn for peace.

This is taking pandering to dizzying new heights, and that wasn’t all: this wasn’t the police commissioner’s first visit to the Islamic Society of Boston. He went there last December — right after two Muslims murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino. He made that visit in order to make sure that the local Muslims weren’t jittery after that attack:

I don’t think we can tolerate bigotry toward the Muslim population. They’re an important part of our city. I just want to reassure them that we’re here for them.

Muslims acting avowedly in the name of Islam and jihad committed mass murder of non-Muslims, and in the wake of that attack, the Boston police commissioner took it upon himself to reassure … Muslims. However he went about doing this reassuring, it is certain that he never asked members of the Islamic Society of Boston why so many Muslims don’t yearn for peace at all, but seem instead to relish war.