Displaying posts published in

February 2018

Soros Buying A Texas DA Seat Undermining immigration enforcement and elevating sanctuary cities is the goal. Matthew Vadum

Leftist billionaire George Soros has been pouring big money into a Texas district attorney race as part of his effort to install extremist prosecutors across America who will protect lawless so-called sanctuary cities that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law.

We already knew that pressure groups funded by Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America. And leftist propaganda shops like the Brennan Center for Justice, which has taken in about $23 million from Soros since 2000, have churned out reports arguing that state judicial systems need to be reshaped to more closely follow the Left’s agenda.

Soros is using his vast fortune in an attempt to radicalize local prosecutors’ offices in part because he wants to block U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from functioning. The self-styled philosopher wants to cripple law enforcement in order to advance the radical abstraction known as social justice that simplistically breaks the world down into race, class, and sex. Radicals claim that American laws and institutions are corrupt and that these systems protect, for example, wealthy, white, native-born, non-disabled males at the expense of everyone else. In this instance, U.S. immigration law is inherently unfair to illegal aliens, or so the reasoning goes.

Soros’s current target is Bexar County, Texas, District Attorney Nico LaHood, Peter Hasson reports in the Daily Caller. LaHood is a Democrat who oppose sanctuary cities and describes himself as “a conservative guy.”

Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, is the fourth most-populous county in Texas. Knocking off LaHood would be a significant step forward for the Soros agenda.

Soros has already blown through around $70,000 supporting LaHood’s primary opponent, Joe Gonzales, by way of Texas Justice & Public Safety, a political action committee or PAC. The sum includes more than $30,000 devoted to mailers attacking LaHood as “bigoted,” “racist,” and “Islamophobic” in both the English and Spanish languages.

Feds Aren’t Verifying Passport Data By Kevin D. Williamson

Is there any agency in American law enforcement actually doing its job? Today in Wired:

Passports, like any physical ID, can be altered and forged. That’s partly why for the last 11 years the United States has put RFID chips in the back panel of its passports, creating so-called e-Passports. The chip stores your passport information — like name, date of birth, passport number, your photo, and even a biometric identifier — for quick, machine-readable border checks. And while e-Passports also store a cryptographic signature to prevent tampering or forgeries, it turns out that despite having over a decade to do so, US Customs and Border Protection hasn’t deployed the software needed to actually verify it.
0

This means that since as far back as 2006, a skilled hacker could alter the data on an e-Passport chip — like the name, photo, or expiration date — without fear that signature verification would alert a border agent to the changes. That could theoretically be enough to slip into countries that allow all-electronic border checks, or even to get past a border patrol agent into the US.

In a “WTF?” letter, Senators Wyden and McCaskill report that the relevant federal staff “lacks the technical capabilities to verify e-passport chips.”

All in, national-security spending is damn near $1 trillion a year. The average annual federal compensation package is somewhere north of $120,000 per worker. And we can’t even properly manage passport control.

The Trump Administration and America’s Transgender Moment By Ryan T. Anderson

Who knew that removing the federal government from debates over school bathroom policies would be considered an assault on LGBT rights? That’s the argument activists made last week when the Department of Education (DOE) announced that it would begin enforcing Title IX the way the federal government always had, up until the second term of the Obama administration. That’s when the Obama DOE announced that the word “sex” now meant “gender identity” — and ordered schools to open up their bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dorms accordingly.

It’s understandable that many ordinary Americans recoiled at this transgender mandate. Most Americans — including those who identify as transgender — aren’t activists and want to find ways to peacefully coexist. Most can understand why a man who identifies as a woman doesn’t want to be forced into the men’s room but also understand why women don’t want a man in the ladies’ room. These concerns are even more heightened when dealing with students.

New transgender policies raise five distinct areas of concern — privacy, safety, equality, liberty, and ideology — and the Trump administration is right to reject the radical Obama policies in favor of letting local officials work to find reasonable compromises.

America Badly Needs More Psychiatric-Treatment Beds By John Snook & E. Fuller Torrey

In a time of competing narratives and virtually unprecedented levels of polarization, there is one sad truth that Americans can readily agree on: our mental-health system is broken.

Specifically, the U.S. has long faced a critical shortage of inpatient psychiatric-treatment beds, with devastating societal consequences. From its historic peak in 1955 to 2016, the number of state psychiatric-hospital beds in the United States plummeted almost 97 percent, in a trend known as “deinstitutionalization.” There are now fewer beds per capita in the United States than there were in 1850. An analysis of the broader system of both inpatient and other 24-hour residential-treatment beds similarly found a 77.4 percent decrease from 1970 to 2014.

While inpatient treatment beds represent only one aspect of a functioning mental-health system, they are a vital one. Without access to a bed, acutely ill individuals are left to wait for the proper treatment, forcing mental-health professionals to triage the most severely ill in hopes of short-circuiting the next awful, unnecessary massacre. At the same time, families are caught in their own nightmare, watching helplessly as their loved ones deteriorate in the absence of the right care. With nowhere else to turn, those in need end up in the only remaining systems that cannot say no: emergency rooms, homeless shelters and, too often, jails and prisons.

Without treatment beds, the criminal-justice system has become our de facto mental-health system. By 2014, ten times the number of people with serious mental illness were in prisons and jails as in state mental hospitals. Astoundingly, the largest mental-health facilities in the nation are now the Cook County and Los Angeles County jails.

Russia’s Attack on U.S. Troops Putin’s mercenaries are bloodied in Syria, as he tries to drive Trump out.

The truth is starting to emerge about a recent Russian attack on U.S. forces in eastern Syria, and it deserves more public attention. The assault looks increasingly like a botched attempt to bloody the U.S. and intimidate President Trump into withdrawing from Syria once Islamic State is defeated. The U.S. military won this round, but Vladimir Putin’s forces will surely look for a chance at revenge.

Here’s what we know. Several hundred men and materiel advanced on a U.S. Special Forces base near Deir al-Zour on the night of Feb. 7-8. Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed soon afterward that the “battalion-sized unit formation” was “supported by artillery, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems and mortars.” U.S. forces responded in self-defense “with a combination of air and artillery strikes.”

Ms. White wouldn’t confirm how many attackers were killed or who was fighting, though the U.S. had “observed” the military buildup for a week. Defense Secretary James Mattis called the confrontation “perplexing,” adding that “I have no idea why they would attack there, the forces were known to be there, obviously the Russians knew.” He’s referring to the U.S.-Russia “deconfliction” agreement in which the Russians agreed to stay west of the Euphrates River.

Now we’re learning that Russian fighters were killed in the attack, and Lebanese Hezbollah was also involved. The Kremlin has tried to cover up the deaths, but that’s getting harder as the body bags come home and Russian social media spread the word. The Foreign Ministry finally admitted Tuesday that “several dozen” Russians were killed or wounded but claimed that “Russian service members did not take part in any capacity and Russian military equipment was not used.”

Have Campus Protesters Given Up on Charles Murray? When he came to Stanford this week, the chants outside were unoriginal, the audience inside polite. By Tunku Varadarajan

“What made the event so memorable was how uneventful it was. This is what counts as a triumph on an American campus today. ”

Waiting to enter the university building that would house Thursday evening’s debate, I encountered a security guard, ruddy and robust. From a private firm, he looked unsure of his role on a college campus. “Expecting trouble?” I asked. He was noncommittal but gave off a whiff of apprehension. “Things could get out of hand,” he said. “A white supremacist’s coming to speak.”

The lecturer to whom he referred so damningly—and inaccurately—was Charles Murray, a libertarian social scientist who’s had more controversy thrust upon him than almost any other American public intellectual. Critics say that the disputation that shrouds Mr. Murray is entirely deserved, and many regard him in precisely the terms the unknowing guard had used.

This is largely on account of a book Mr. Murray co-wrote in 1994, “The Bell Curve.” Sections of it have been brandished as proving Mr. Murray believes that differences in IQ among individuals are attributable to race. Ergo, he’s a toxic racist. Mr. Murray’s lecture at Middlebury College last year was disrupted violently, sending his faculty escort to the hospital. This evening, Stanford took no chances.

Two hundred yards away, at a picturesque spot called History Corner, was a group of student protesters who didn’t want Mr. Murray on campus. “Hey hey, ho ho, Charles Murray’s got to go,” they chanted. Their gusto was impressive, though their lack of originality left me feeling shortchanged. Was that the best they could do with their world-class education? The drabness of their prosody was lifted somewhat by a spirited young rapper, although her punch line, “F— Steve Bannon, f— the Western canon,” seemed misdirected.

Mr. Murray had been invited by Stanford as part of a new university initiative “to help promote discussion of a diversity of perspectives” on campus. He was to debate Francis Fukuyama, perhaps America’s best-known political scientist, on the subject of “Inequality and Populism.” In the weeks preceding the event, argument had raged among students, and some faculty, about the merits of inviting Mr. Murray. Objections to his presence came at a furious pace and fell into two categories.

Parkland’s Enforcement Failures The public-safety bureaucracies failed on multiple levels.

Any response by public authorities to do something in response to the killings in Parkland, Fla., must first come to grips with why established security measures failed on so many levels. Explain the failures by the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, so that the new solutions don’t fail, too.

On Jan. 5, someone familiar with Nikolas Cruz had the presence of mind to call the FBI’s Public Access Line to say she feared he might “get into a school and shoot the place up.” That tip wasn’t forwarded to the FBI’s office in Miami. Two other recent callers to the Broward police—which got 23 calls about Cruz’s behavior back to 2008—also warned he could become a school shooter.

Here are the official explanations.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “I have ordered the deputy attorney general to conduct an immediate review.” FBI Director Christopher Wray : “I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes.”

FBI Special Agent Robert Lasky: “We will conduct an in-depth review.” Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel : “This isn’t science fiction. We aren’t allowed to arrest on what a person thinks about on pre-crimes.”

Florida already has a law, the Baker Act, permitting forced hospitalization for psychiatric examination. In 2016 mental-health workers were called to the high school to determine if Cruz should be hospitalized. They concluded he was stable. NBC reported that the Florida Department of Children and Families investigation of Cruz was “closed with no indicators to support the allegations of inadequate supervision or medical neglect.”

Finally, the armed sheriff’s deputy assigned to protect the high school failed to confront the shooter, instead staying outside the building.

Now come new solutions. Senator John Cornyn’s legislation would fix the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which has existed since 1998 but works poorly. Florida Governor Rick Scott wants to raise the legal age for purchasing a gun to 21. President Trump on Thursday tweeted his to-do list: comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health, raising the gun-purchase age and banning bump stocks.

U.S.’s Jerusalem Embassy to Open in May, Could Get Adelson Funds Casino magnate and GOP donor has offered to help pay for a new facility after initial personnel move By Felicia Schwartz

WASHINGTON—The State Department will open its embassy in Jerusalem in May and is entertaining an unusual offer from Sheldon Adelson, Republican Party donor and casino magnate, to help pay for a new facility after an initial move from Tel Aviv, U.S. officials said.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson late Thursday signed off on security plans for converting a consular facility in Jerusalem’s Arnona neighborhood. Officials said they are eyeing a ribbon-cutting ceremony on May 14 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel’s declaring independence.

“We are excited about taking this historic step, and look forward with anticipation to the May opening,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said.

At first, David Friedman, U.S. ambassador to Israel, and a small group of aides will begin working from the facility. Next, the State Department will begin retrofitting that complex to accommodate more officials, and the department has begun efforts to plan and locate a site for a new embassy facility in Jerusalem. Mr. Adelson has offered to contribute to the effort to build a new embassy, but the discussions are informal so far.

State Department officials are examining whether the U.S. could accept such a gift. Mr. Adelson’s offer was earlier reported by the Associated Press. A representative to Mr. Adelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a speech before Israel’s legislature on Monday, Vice President Mike Pence said the U.S. embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by the end of 2019, ahead of schedule. Photo: AP (Originally published Jan. 22, 2018)

Mr. Adelson has also engaged with President Donald Trump and his administration on acquiring land for the construction of a new embassy in Jerusalem, according to a person familiar with the matter. State Department officials said that process could take at least five to seven years.

The embassy move and Mr. Adelson’s unconventional offer come amid an effort by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Mr. Trump’s chief negotiator, Jason Greenblatt, to try to restart the Middle East peace process between Israel and Palestinians. The offer of Mr. Adelson’s gift could complicate those efforts as Mr. Adelson is a staunch supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and funds Israel Hayom, a pro-Netanyahu newspaper in Israel.

At the United Nations this week, diplomats pressed Messrs. Kushner and Greenblatt on whether their plan would be biased toward Israel. They responded that they have spent months meeting with Palestinians, Israelis and others in the region to ensure evenhandedness. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Humanitarian Hoax of Multiple Realities: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 23 by Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The ideological strivings of our Founding Fathers were rooted in freedom, liberty, limited government, and the separation of church and state. They sought to create a more perfect union – a society of individuals cooperating by mutual consent. Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter’s stunning book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness details America’s extraordinary achievement of ordered liberty, how its infrastructure complements the nature of man, and how the collectivist liberal narrative is pathologically antithetical to ordered liberty.

The ideological moorings of ordered liberty require consensus on what is real. This is no small thing. Language is based on consensus of what is real. Laws are based on consensus of what is real. Without agreement on what is real there is no societal order only chaos.

Senator Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.” Well said. Opinions are based in the subjective reality of feelings, facts are based in the objective reality of actuality. Feelings are not facts.

This is worth repeating – objective reality is defined by facts and subjective reality is defined by feelings. The Leftist Culture War on America is attacking the ideological strivings and ideological moorings of ordered liberty by attacking its most basic requirement – consensus on what is real. The left-wing liberal attack strategy seeks to replace factual objective reality with subjective multiple realities based on feelings. This is how it works.

Hard-Line Supporter of Israel Offers to Pay for U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem By Gardiner Harris and Isabel Kershner

WASHINGTON — Sheldon G. Adelson, one of the most hawkish supporters of Israel among American Jews, has offered to help fund the construction of a new American Embassy in Jerusalem, according to the State Department, which on Friday said it was reviewing whether it could legally accept the donation.

The total price tag to build the new embassy to replace the current one in Tel Aviv is estimated at around $500 million, according to one former State Department official. While private donors have previously paid for renovations to American ambassadors’ overseas residences, Mr. Adelson’s contribution would be likely to far surpass those gifts — and could further strain American diplomacy in the Middle East.

Before the embassy is built, the Trump administration plans to open a temporary one in Jerusalem. On Friday, it said that it was accelerating the projected opening in time to mark the 70th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel on May 14.

Even some of Mr. Adelson’s allies expressed concern that if the administration accepts his offer for the permanent embassy, it could be seen as a well-heeled financial contributor effectively privatizing — and politicizing — American foreign policy.

Mr. Adelson, who has been a vocal supporter of the contentious plan to move the embassy, is not merely a philanthropist; he is one of the most prominent players in Israeli-American relations. He is a conservative force in American politics, a donor to President Trump, a longtime patron of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the owner of Israel’s largest-circulation daily newspaper.

“I’m concerned that people will think that this is being done because of a group of people — evangelicals and Jews — who care about it and not because it’s the U.S. government that cares about it,” said Morton A. Klein, who runs the Zionist Organization of America, a nonprofit group that is funded partly by Mr. Adelson. “It should be crystal-clear that this is the U.S. government making the decision to move it.”

Through a representative, Mr. Adelson declined to comment on Friday. His offer of a donation was first reported by The Associated Press.

Steve Goldstein, the under secretary for public diplomacy, said State Department lawyers began looking several weeks ago at whether it was legal to accept a private donation to build an embassy, a process that continues. He said the department was not currently negotiating with any private citizen for a donation, and that a new embassy building would take seven to 10 years to construct.

It was not clear whether private donors had ever helped with the financial costs to build an American embassy. Patrick Kennedy, who last year retired from the State Department, where he served as under secretary for management, said donors in the past had contributed millions of dollars to refurbish the palatial United States ambassadors’ residences in London, Paris, Rome and Tokyo.

“As long as a donor passes an ethics and background check, we’ll take their money if they’re willing to give it. There’s no problem there,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview on Friday.