NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

American Horror Story: U.S. Parents Separated from Children by Abusive Government Agencies By Megan Fox

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/american-horror-story-american-parents-separated-from-children-by-abusive-government-agencies/

As the caravan of people marching toward America approaches, filled with children who will soon be “separated from their parents” for processing, get ready for a press assault with pictures of crying children and anguished reporting on the cruelty of it all. Yet, American parents grieve silently the loss of their children to out-of-control or inept child protective government agencies every single day. As I reported a few months ago, Michael Chambers, though cleared of any wrongdoing by a judge, is still without his daughter. Tens of thousands of American parents are in the same situation, but while the network news media trip over themselves to find stories of separation and trauma of Honduran children whose parents break our immigration laws, they are completely silent in the face of these American stories.

There are enough families suffering abuse at the hands of state “family” agencies like CPS to write a column a day for the next century. It is an epidemic. Alyssa Leite is a 27-year-old mom of three who no longer has her parental rights, thanks to the Massachusetts Department of Family Services and family court. Her story is tragic. Leite had twin girls in March 2016. They were healthy girls until she took them for a routine well visit, where they each received four vaccines. They were two and a half months old. The next day she noticed that one of the girls’ feet was turning purple. “I called the doctor and they made me an appointment to have her looked at,” Leite told PJM. “But in the morning, she was unresponsive. I tried CPR, I called 911 and my house was swarmed with police and detectives and emergency services.”

Responders tried to revive baby Alliyah and took her to the hospital, where all attempts to save her failed.

Leite told PJM she was in a daze, grief-stricken, and confused. “When we were at the hospital the police turned my other daughter and son over to DFS to be evaluated. I wanted to go check on them but I was told I wasn’t allowed,” reported Leite. “The detective who had been at my house told me to just do everything DFS told me and it would be okay.”

He was so very wrong. Leite was given the opportunity to hold her deceased baby to say goodbye. “During that time, the DFS agent, Jessica Arrugio, came into the room saying, ‘I don’t have time for this, we have to go,’ forcing me to leave my child and go with her for an interview. I think I yelled at her because I just lost my baby and she was threatening to take my other children,” said Leite. She left her baby and went with the DFS agent for the interview. Leite was never charged with any crime, either that night or later, but Arrugio demanded that she sign a paper allowing her remaining children to go into foster care the same day she just lost her baby.

“She told me I would never see my children again if I did not sign it,” says Leite.

This is a common complaint that parents report about DFS agents overstepping their authority. Pam Wright of Wolf Rising, an organization that helps parents recover their children from state agencies, told PJM, “The fact that the social worker threatened that shows that they assume they have judge-like power.” A termination of parental rights is “considered so serious that they automatically get the parent assigned council — usually reserved for criminal cases,” she said. CONTINUE AT SITE

IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship Trump’s critics misread the text and history of the 14th Amendment. By Matthew Spalding

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-1541025425

President Trump accomplished something remarkable this week: He sent his harshest critics and closest allies running to the Constitution. In an interview about immigration, the president argued that the “ridiculous” policy of birthright citizenship has to end—and that he can do it through an executive order.

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Constitution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

The Many Faces of Jew-Hatred Anti-Semitism is a politics of misdirected blame. Today its most frequent target is the state of Israel. By Ruth Wisse

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-many-faces-of-jew-hatred-1541025486

In the wake of the shooting in Pittsburgh, a volley of voices called for more of this or that—armed guards or gun control, barring the doors of synagogues, policing of fringe web platforms or resources for mental health. While President Trump denounced the shooting as “an evil anti-Semitic attack” and visited the grieving community, a sector of the media blamed the president for the incident, as it does for everything else. It was politics as usual.

But instead of prompting a serious inquiry into the ideology that fuels the murder of Jews, the atrocity seems to be reinforcing a misconception that can only worsen the problem. Anti-Semitism is not synonymous with Hitlerism—the only form of anti-Semitism that has gone down in military defeat. Anti-Semitism is a politics of misdirected blame, and Americans must be sure to avoid its trap.

The shooter is being cast as a neo-Nazi threat. Under the caption “A Day of Broken Glass,” a cartoon in the Pittsburgh Current shows broken windows on the Tree of Life synagogue, linking this attack to Germany’s Kristallnacht of Nov. 9, 1938, which signaled Nazism’s open season on the Jews of Europe. Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett made the same association in conveying Israel’s sympathy to Pittsburgh community.

What could be worse than the specter of Nazism here in America? In fact, it is politically comforting to cast Robert Bowers in this light. Unlike in Germany, where the attacks on Jews were launched by the Führer, our head of government ordered the full press of law enforcement to prosecute the sole gunman. Unlike in Germany, where the SS directed and fomented the attacks on Jews, here four policemen were shot trying to save the Jews. Moreover, the American people are united in horror at this atrocity. If Mr. Bowers represents anti-Semitism, the response to his attack tells us we have relatively little to fear.

IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

Why A Country That Accepts All Comers Isn’t A Country At All Nations, not unlike families, need to have some sense of identity, even purpose. When a group of people is defined as everyone and anyone, that actually means that it is no one.By Mark Earley

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/31/country-accepts-comers-isnt-country/

A group 7,000 strong marches northward toward our southern border. I confess to mixed feelings. We should give asylum-seekers a fair shot, since our compassion toward those in tough spots is a bedrock American value. However, we should reject the idea of inclusivity at all costs. That’s not just about national security, it’s also about culture.

Exclusivity is necessary for meaning, identity, and accountability. A constant refrain during the 2016 election cycle, and again with the caravan, is some iteration of the following: without borders, we don’t have a nation. Despite the flawed vessel, this obviously resonated, and it’s fair to say that while simple, the concept is profound.

Perhaps this resonated precisely because we’re in a time where basic questions about immigration and nationhood are in question. Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee deputy chairman was seen wearing a shirt that said “I don’t believe in borders” in Spanish. Taking it at face value, it would appear that he doesn’t get the possibility that exclusivity and borders could actually give meaning and hold some cultural benefits.

The principle of exclusivity is critical to properly understanding relationships and institutions, and it is what allows for meaning, community, accountability, and some sense of identity. These are the things that allow a culture to form and flourish. Relationships or communities of real meaning require commonality. It can be commonality of interests, beliefs, values, covenant, or even simply time. This is true for institutions — marriages, families, friend groups, and nations.

Marriages are perhaps the most obvious example. With exclusion, the marriage works. It flourishes. It facilitates depth, vulnerability, accountability, and reliance. It allows for healthy sex and child rearing. Without exclusion, it is broken. It loses its essence and its unique character that provides reliability for the community. For families, and to a lesser extent friend groups, their power is in their exclusivity.

The idea that a nation should be exclusive is currently being challenged in the public mind and square. Why would a nation need to be based, as least in part, on a principle of exclusivity? It is because nations, not unlike families, need to have some sense of identity, even purpose. When a group of people is defined as everyone and anyone, that actually means that it is no one. If everyone comes and goes as he pleases, there is a void of identity, collective belonging, commitment, responsibility, and accountability. Citizenship is a commitment.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

If You Want to Save the Planet, Drop the Campaign Against Capitalism by Andrew Glover

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://quillette.com/2018/10/29/if-you-want-to

This month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report concluding that it is all but inevitable that overall global warming will exceed the 1.5 degree Celsius limit dictated in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The report also discusses the potentially catastrophic consequences of this warming, which include extreme weather events, an accelerated rise in sea levels, and shrinking Arctic sea ice.

In keeping with the well-established trend, political conservatives generally have exhibited skepticism of these newly published IPCC conclusions. That includes U.S. President Donald Trump, who told 60 Minutes, “We have scientists that disagree with [anthropogenic global warming]. You’d have to show me the [mainstream] scientists because they have a very big political agenda.” On Fox News, a commentator argued that “the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows—and [the IPCC report] could not explain why the Mercury had stopped rising.” Conservative YouTuber Ian Miles Cheong declared flatly that:
Ian Miles Cheong

✔ @stillgray I’m gonna get shit for this, but here goes.Climate change is a hoax invented by neo-Marxists within the scientific community to destabilize the world economy and dismantle what they call “systems of oppression” and what the rest of us call capitalism.

This pattern of conservative skepticism on climate change is so well-established that many of us now take it for granted. But given conservatism’s natural impulse toward protecting our heritage, one might think that conservatives would be just as concerned with preserving order in the natural environment as they are with preserving order in our social and political environments. Ensuring that subsequent generations can live well is ordinarily a core concern for conservatives.

To this, conservatives might (and do) counter that they are merely pushing back against environmental extremists who seek to leverage the cause of global warming as a means to expand government, eliminate hierarchies of wealth, and reorganize society along social lines. And while most environmentally conscious citizens harbor no such ambitions, there is a substantial basis for this claim. Indeed, some environmentalists are forthright in seeking to implement the principles of “ecosocialism.” Meteorologist and self-described ecosocialist Eric Holthaus, for instance, responded to the IPCC report by declaring that:
Eric Holthaus ✔ @EricHolthaus
If you are wondering what you can do about climate change:The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Upholding the Jihadist’s Veto by Jacob Mchangama and Flemming Rose

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://quillette.com/2018/10/30/upholding

In his provocative essay The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine didn’t mince words on Christianity. ”What is it the Bible teaches us?” he asked, and answered: ”rapine, cruelty and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us?—to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”

In 1819, the English deist Richard Carlile was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to two years in prison for selling the Age of Reason.

Today Tom Paine is celebrated as one of the Enlightenment’s foremost champions of human rights. But even 200 years after his conviction Carlile might not have been vindicated had he been able to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. In a recent ruling, the Court upheld the conviction of an Austrian citizen for an ”abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace” for denouncing the Prophet Muhammad as a “pedophile.” The Court insisted that the comments could arouse “justified indignation” in religious believers who have a right to have their religious feelings protected. Moreover, states have wide discretion to prevent such “improper attacks on religious groups” in order to ensure social and religious peace. Paine would have been shocked and horrified by such logic. And it is deeply regrettable that the Court declined to revisit its long-held doctrine that the freedoms of religion and speech are conflicting rather than complementary rights.

Paine’s scathing attack on holy scripture was clearly offensive to many Christians—US President Theodore Roosevelt later called Paine “a filthy little Atheist.” But the harsh attacks on the authority of religion by Paine and other Enlightenment figures contributed to a broadening concept of tolerance encompassing both the right to express, critique and reject religious doctrines. So the Court’s insistence that the freedoms of religion and speech are in conflict when the latter is used to attack the former is regressive, however noble the purposes of securing “social peace” and “tolerance.” The Court’s reasoning is ultimately based on protecting the secular aim of peaceful co-existence rather than religious doctrine. But the underlying idea that expressions offensive to religious dogma constitute a threat to the social and religious peace of society has deep roots stretching back centuries.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

China Has Landed By Christopher R. O’Dea

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/china-global-maritime-commerce-ambitions-us-must-respond/

Beijing’s ambitious campaign to dominate global maritime commerce is in full swing. Here’s how the U.S. must respond.

In a speech at the Hudson Institute earlier this month, Vice President Mike Pence said that the American people deserve to know of the strategy behind China’s economic and political competition with the U.S. — and of what the Trump administration is doing to counter the Middle Kingdom’s challenge to U.S. security.

“Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States,” Pence said, and “applying this power in more proactive ways than ever before, to exert influence and interfere in the domestic policy and politics of our country.”

While the vice president was speaking of the U.S., the American people also deserve to know that China is employing the same playbook beyond our shores, with considerable success. In effect, China has landed, not only by militarizing artificial islands it built in the South China Sea, but by building or acquiring seaports, logistics terminals, and related transportation, communication, and energy assets in more than a dozen countries around the globe, including U.S. allies in the EU and Latin America.

Unlike the high-profile takeover of an American technology company by a Chinese one, the threat to U.S. security posed by China’s new maritime network is all too easy to overlook. Although 90 percent of the world’s energy, commodities, and manufactured goods are transported by ship, few consumers have any direct exposure to shipping or the logistical operations that comprise the “supply chain” of our globalized economy.

But maritime commerce is the operating system of that economy, running constantly in the background in much the same way the operating system of a smartphone powers apps. Control of the components of the system — ports, terminals, and the roads and railways that connect ships to stores — gives China significant leverage over the essential economic functions of the countries where those assets are located.

IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

It’s Not Unreasonable to Be Worried about Disease and the Caravan By Michelle Malkin

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/its-not-unreasonable-to-be-worried-about-disease-and-the-caravan/

We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to this problem.

We live in bizarro times. Suddenly, it is controversial to state obvious, neon-bright truths. This week, it has become newsworthy to observe that illegal border-crossers who circumvent required medical screenings are a threat to America’s public health and safety.

Just look at these hyperventilating headlines and tweets.

From Newsweek, which is supposed to, you know, report actual news of the week: “‘We don’t know what people have’: Laura Ingraham calls migrant caravan a health issue.”

And from the Daily Beast: “Fox & Friends Host Brian Kilmeade Fears ‘Diseases’ Brought by Migrant Caravan.”

This is not “news.” It’s propaganda recycled and regurgitated by lazy political operatives masquerading as journalists. At least the Newsweek writer gave credit to his zealous hitmen sources: “Ingraham’s comments,” he dutifully wrote, “were first highlighted by Media Matters for America.”

MMfA is a militant left-wing oppo-research outfit funded by progressive billionaire George Soros. Somehow, not-really-Newsweek forgot to mention this fact. (Alas, mentioning Soros subsidies has also become a forbidden act this week, but that’s another story.) The determined intent of these “news” pieces is not to inform readers but to inflame them with the dog-whistle assumption that conservatives, Fox personalities, and ordinary Americans who worry about diseases from immigration are de facto racists.

On cue, tennis star and celebrity leftist Martina Navratilova barked at Fox News’s Kilmeade on Twitter: “YOU ARE THE DISEASE! the migrants are not the problem, trump and his sycophants, like you, are the problem. Stop spewing fear and prejudice.”

Comedian John Henson tweeted: “Brian Kilmeade is spreading the disease of intolerance every single day . . .”

IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

Would the American left suborn an invasion? By Robert Arvay

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/would_the_american_left_suborn_an_invasion.html

Sometime in the 1960s, as I recall, a prominent person in the news made the sarcastic statement that if an enemy invasion army were to land on our shores, the ACLU would meet the soldiers on the beaches to protect their rights. The ACLU quickly protested, averring that, patriots all, they would do no such thing. Being a parody writer myself, I once wrote a fictional piece about the Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941) in which an ACLU lawyer sought an injunction against American armed resistance. He stated, “As soon as those Japanese aircraft entered American airspace, their pilots were entitled to the full protections of the United States Constitution, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.”

Today, we are living parody. A massive parade of foreign nationals is marching toward our border, its members openly proclaiming that they intend to illegally enter our country. They have already stormed and breached the southern border of Mexico in a glaring preview of their defiance of law, so they are clearly to be believed.

And where is the American political left? Are leftists decrying the violation of our national sovereignty? Are they demanding that our government protect its citizens from encroachment? Of course not. They are the parody. They of the left are seeking ways in which to prevent the administration from doing any of that.

This is President Trump’s PATCO moment. Remember that? Soon after President Ronald Reagan took office, in 1981, members of the unionized left organized a strike of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. They were adamant that their demands be met, or else PATCO would shut down all air traffic in the United States. Reagan gave the union members 48 hours in which to return to work or be irrevocably fired. You can’t do that, the striking controllers jeered. Twenty-four hours later, they were all fired, and not one of those who continued the illegal strike has been rehired. Shortly afterward, PATCO ceased to exist.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Don Lemon: ‘Biggest Terror Threat Is White Men on the Right’ By Tyler O’Neil

Posted By on October 31st, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/video/don-lemon-we-have-to-stop-demonizing-people-but-biggest-terror-threat-is-white-men-on-the-right/

On Tuesday night, CNN’s Don Lemon urged people to stop demonizing “any one group or any one ethnicity” and, in the very same breath, stigmatized “white men … radicalized to the right” as “the biggest terror threat in this country.” So, conservative white men are not “any one group or any one ethnicity”? Oh, right, according to “intersectionality,” we’re not people!

CNN’s Chris Cuomo was discussing the horrific shooting of two black people at a Kroger in Kentucky. The suspect reportedly targeted a black church first, but could not get in, thank God. Ironically, the same CNN commentators who would avoid rushing to judgment if a shooter were a different race or Muslim immediately rushed to stigmatize white men.

“I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, but we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else, some people who are marching towards the border like it’s imminent,” Lemon said.

“So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right,” Lemon declared.

“And we have to start doing something about them,” he added. “There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — they had the Muslim ban — there is no ‘white guy’ ban.”

What exactly is Don Lemon suggesting? Should government go after conservative white men?

Furthermore, forcing both of the most heinous terrorism attempts in recent weeks into this narrative proves quite a strain. The man who killed 11 people at the Pittsburgh synagogue hated Donald Trump — because Trump is a friend to Jews. The man who attempted to send bombs to Democrats was half-Filipino and self-identified as a Native American. If liberals want to stigmatize “whiteness,” they’re going to run into the same problem white supremacists do — defining “white” is far from easy.