RUTHFULLY YOURS

Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests ‘open borders’ are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.

Earhardt had asked how to prevent “what’s happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they’re not vetting, they’re opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they’re paid back in return.” Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

The Washington Post, too, editorialized that “defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities.” Well, where did the assault originate from—Buckingham Palace?

Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency’s mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court.

What about using ordinary police powers to try to hinder terrorism? Islamic terrorists in Europe have moonlighted as crooks, engaging in drug dealing, robberies, vandalism, and theft. The U.S. should have zero tolerance for any criminal activity committed by aliens: break the criminal law and you’re out of here. Deporting alien criminals is both an anti-crime and an anti-terrorism strategy. Yet mayors and police chiefs in sanctuary jurisdictions across the country continue to release alien criminals back into the community from jail in defiance of requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the criminals briefly for removal proceedings. The New York Police Department defied every ICE detainer request it received in the first four months of 2017, instead releasing 179 alien criminals back into the streets, according to the New York Post.

Comedian Kathy Griffin’s gruesome, Islamic State-inspired, photoshoot with the fake severed head of President Trump is an unsettling reminder of both the depravity of the Left and the lengths to which some radical activists will go to make a political statement in our information-rich age.

The Left, American history shows, is inherently violent in both word and deed, but conservatives, despite a fondness they share with Democrats for military metaphors in politics, are rarely moved to commit actual violence. Conservatives’ natural disinclination towards political violence is why Hillary Clinton authorized Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to pay leftist agitators, the homeless, and the mentally ill, to cause melees at Trump rallies as part of the DNC’s officially authorized “conflict engagement” program. After all, the leftist lie that Trump and his supporters were deplorable thugs wouldn’t have gained traction without news reports of Trump fans getting physical with Trump haters.

Plenty of left-leaning, anti-Trump comedians have subordinated their comedy routines to their politics. Almost always they end up being not funny. People who expect comedy from their comedians don’t like being tricked into taking in political sermons.

The tedious sanctimony junkie John Fugelsang is one example of a comedian whose political rants have supplanted actual jokes. Liberal comedians bombed at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner this year (the preachy Hasan Minhaj) and last year (Larry Wilmore). Stephen Colbert and John Oliver aren’t funny when they’re trashing Trump. Bill Maher is seldom funny nowadays. Samantha Bee has never been funny. Jon Stewart, who has described himself as a socialist, used to be funny sometimes but the laughs faded as he became increasingly immersed in political commentary. His replacement on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” affirmative action hire Trevor Noah, is almost never funny, especially when blathering on about politics.

And there was nothing courageous about Griffin’s photo. She wasn’t speaking truth to power. There was no controversy or political issue addressed. She was being grotesque for the sake of being grotesque. She was pandering to her elitist left-wing friends in Hollywood who enjoy comparing the Republican Party to the Taliban.

Greg Gutfeld opined on “The Five” Wednesday that Griffin did this to try to move from the D-list up to the B-list, a reference to her reality TV show, “Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List.”

Griffin is attempting to “take the express train to political relevance,” even though “she’s about as funny as syphilis,” he said.

President Trump agrees. “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself,” Trump tweeted yesterday. “My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!”

The first lady also weighed in.

“As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” said Melania Trump in a statement. “When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it.”

Initially, Griffin tried to justify participating in the photoshoot. She tweeted that she was “merely mocking the Mocker in Chief.” She later deleted the tweet.

Then as the firestorm she created spread, Griffin posted an apology video online. In it, she said:

Hey everybody, it’s me, Kathy Griffin. I sincerely apologize. I’m just now seeing the reaction of these images. I’m a comic. I crossed the line. I move the line and then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny, I get it. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my career. I will continue. I asked your forgiveness. Taking down the image. Going to ask the photographer to take down the image. And I beg for your forgiveness. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong.

Barack Obama in 2014 made a large to-do about his reforms of U.S. surveillance programs to “protect the privacy” of Americans. We may soon learn how that squares with his Administration’s unmasking of political opponents.

The House Intelligence Committee Wednesday issued seven subpoenas as part of its Russia probe. But the three most notable demanded that the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation turn over records related to the Obama Administration’s “unmasking” of Trump transition members.

We know that U.S. intelligence agencies routinely eavesdropped on foreign officials who were talking about or meeting with Trump aides. Much less routine is for political appointees to override privacy protections to “unmask,” or learn the identity of, U.S. citizens listed in a resulting intelligence report.

The new subpoenas seek details of all unmasking requests in 2016 by three people: former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. Democrats claim Ms. Rice needed to unmask names to do her job, though this is questionable given that she wasn’t running counterintelligence investigations. They have a better claim with Mr. Brennan.

But Ms. Power’s job was diplomacy. Unmaskings are supposed to be rare, and if the mere ambassador to the U.N. could demand them, what privacy protection was the Obama White House really offering U.S. citizens? The House subpoenas should provide fascinating details about how often Ms. Power and her mates requested unmaskings, on which Trump officials, and with what justification. The public deserves to know given that unmasked details have been leaked to the press in violation of the law and privacy.

Meantime, we learned from Circa News last week of a declassified document from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which excoriated the National Security Agency for an “institutional lack of candor.” The court explained that Obama officials had often violated U.S. privacy protections while looking at foreign intelligence but did not disclose these incidents until the waning days of Mr. Obama’s tenure.

“The Oct. 26, 2016 notice [by the Obama Administration] informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting [queries that identified U.S. citizens] in violation of [prohibitions] with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court,” read the unsealed document, dated April 26, 2017.

All of this matters because Congress will be asked by the end of this year to reauthorize programs such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows for spying on bad guys and is a vital terror-fighting tool. Even Mr. Obama endorsed 702’s necessity. Congress needs to keep the program going, but it has every right to know first if Team Obama eavesdropped on political opponents.

The House Intelligence Committee has reportedly issued seven subpoenas in connection with its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and of the Obama administration’s potentially illegal use of the government’s foreign-intelligence-collection power for the purpose of monitoring Americans — in particular, Americans connected to the Trump campaign and transition.

The news was broken Wednesday afternoon by the Wall Street Journal.

The most intriguing detail of the subpoenas is the demand for any information related to requests for unmasking by Samantha Power, President Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations.

“Unmasking” is the revealing in intelligence reports of the identities of Americans whose communications (or information about whom) have been “incidentally” intercepted during foreign-intelligence-collection operations.

Of course, the fact that a subpoena demanding information is issued does not necessarily mean the information exists. Nevertheless, the issuance of a subpoena implies that the issuer has a good-faith basis to believe it does. On that score, it has previously been reported that the committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), has reviewed intelligence reporting and detected instances of unmasking.

Were there to be information indicating that Ms. Power was involved in unmasking American identities in intelligence reports, significant questions would be raised. As ambassador to the U.N., Power, a long-time Obama adviser, held a diplomatic position. She was not an intelligence analyst. It is not immediately clear why the U.N. ambassador would be involved in the disclosure of American identities in intelligence reports — after the agencies that collected and analyzed the intelligence had decided such identities should be masked.

The Journal report further indicates that committee subpoenas demand any information related to unmasking requests by Susan Rice and John Brennan. Ms. Rice was President Obama’s national-security adviser (a White House staff position), and, as we’ve noted, previous reporting has tied her to unmasking activities. Brennan was Obama’s director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA is in the business of gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence outside the United States. In that capacity, the CIA routinely makes judgments about whether identities of Americans should be unmasked.

The House Intelligence Committee is investigating both a) Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, an inquiry that entails thus far unsubstantiated suspicions of Trump-campaign collusion, and b) the use of intelligence authorities to investigate the Trump campaign, an inquiry that focuses on whether national-security powers (such as those codified in FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) were used pretextually, for the real purpose of conducting political spying.

The radical Left is so incensed and horrified by the advent of a Trump presidency that it has been driven to adopt what it considers to be the tactics of a grassroots movement it abhors and accuses of being racist, homophobic, anti-government, anti-woman, nativist, and Islamophobic along with the array of other epithets reserved for conservatives and flag-waving Americans. Led by five former Democratic congressional staffers, the recently birthed progressive organization Indivisible admits to modeling its strategy to “resist” the Trump administration after the tactics employed by its perceived nemesis: the Tea Party.

Operating from the conviction that presidential power is not unlimited and that pressure on Congress can reverse Trump’s potential damage, the Indivisible Team has launched a movement mainly for progressives, although disgruntled conservatives or anyone who opposes Trump may apply. The idea behind Indivisible is to resist the Trump agenda by diverting members of Congress, especially conservatives, from accomplishing their goals and preventing them from undoing many of the progressive policies put in place by the Obama administration.

Ironically, the current protestations vis a vis “presidential power gone wild” is incongruous with the absence of complaints from the Left when it came to the Obama administration and its many secretive actions, executive orders, and congressional bypassing, despite unrelenting claims of transparency. The uncontested shift in Washington over the past eight years away from a constitutional republic and congressional legislative responsibility toward more of a bureaucratic, administrative government run without Congress’ intervention belies the sincerity of these assertions.

Characterizing the ideas of the Tea Party as “wrong, cruel and tinged with racism,” the Indivisible Team pledges to protect their values of “inclusion, tolerance and fairness” with an equivalent level of resistance and fervor.

Following the January publication of a guide posted to Google Docs that went viral, the founders reported that within three weeks they had amassed 105,000 interested parties and 2,400 registered groups, one in every congressional district. Today, the Indivisible website boasts close to 6,000 Indivisible groups, at least two in each congressional district.

Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda refers to Trump as “the biggest popular vote loser in history to ever call himself President Elect.” In their inaugural document, Indivisible’s architects reveal their defensive, ostensibly Tea Party-templated strategy to thwart the policies of the incoming administration. Positing that Trump will “attempt to use his congressional authority to reshape America in his racist, authoritarian and corrupt image” even though he “has no mandate” from the voters, the Team presents a methodology to “stand indivisibly to defeat Trump and the members of Congress who would do his bidding.”

In defense of their position, Indivisible’s founders rationalize that if a “small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump” and prevent him from “victimizing us and our neighbors.” They characterize Trump’s agenda as one that “explicitly targets immigrants, Muslims, people of color, LGBTQ people, the poor and working class, and women.”