Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Political Operatives Pose as Journalists, Human Rights Groups by Bassam Tawil

The same activists and organizations were silent when the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces arrested al-Qiq and harassed his family. Amnesty International neglected to mention that al-Qiq has also been targeted by PA security forces and that, in addition to his work as a newsman, he is also affiliated with Hamas. This detail, according to Amnesty, is evidently not significant.

When arrested, such political operatives posing as journalists — and so-called human rights groups, and the mainstream media in the West — get to scream about Israel assaulting freedom of the media. This dirty little game has been played by Palestinian and Western journalists and highly politicized, biased human rights groups for years.

The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (PJS), which is headed by Nasser Abu Baker, did not come out in support of journalist, Sami al-Sai when he was arrested (and tortured) for 20 days in the PA’s notorious Jericho Central Prison. Nor did Amnesty or most human rights organizations come out in defense of al-Sai.

Instead of calling on the PA leadership to release their detained colleague, Abu Baker and the PJS heads issued a statement in which they justified his arrest and defended the PA against charges of torturing him.

Nasser Abu Baker himself is affiliated with the PA’s ruling Fatah faction. Recently, the AFP correspondent even ran (and lost) in the election for Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.

While AFP has been reporting about the detention by Israel of al-Qiq, it has conspicuously failed to report about the plight of al-Sai and his serious charges of torture in PA prison. So a journalist arrested by the PA is not worth a story in an international media outlet, while anyone arrested by Israel gets wide coverage.

Now it is official: double standards, racism, and political activism are an integral part of the modern media.

Two Palestinian journalists are arrested — one by Israel and the other by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The name of the one arrested by Israel is Muhammad al-Qiq. The name of the one arrested by the PA security forces is Sami al-Sai.

Although he is registered as a journalist, al-Qiq was arrested for security-related offenses completely unrelated to his profession. Israel did not arrest him because of his reporting or his writing, but because of his activities on behalf of Hamas. As a student at Bir Zeit University in 2006, al-Qiq was already known to be affiliated with Hamas. He was a member of the Islamic Bloc — a student list belonging to Hamas.

Al-Qiq’s affiliation with Hamas even got him into trouble with the Palestinian Authority; its forces arrested and interrogated him several times in the past few years. The last time his family received a visit from PA security officers was in 2014. Then, officers in plainclothes seized al-Qiq’s laptop and personal documents.

Now, al-Qiq is in Israeli detention, where he has gone on hunger strike in protest against his arrest.

Guess who is campaigning on his behalf and demanding that Israel immediately and unconditionally release him from detention? The same PA that repeatedly arrested and harassed al-Qiq over the past few years.

In addition, human rights organizations and activists have endorsed the case and are now using it to attack Israel. These are the same activists and organizations that were silent when the PA security forces arrested al-Qiq and harassed his family.

One of these organizations is Amnesty International, which issued a statement last week calling on Israel to release the detained “journalist.” Amnesty neglected to mention that al-Qiq has also been targeted by the PA security forces and that, in addition to his work as a newsman, he is also affiliated with Hamas. This detail, according to Amnesty, is evidently not significant.

End the UNRWA Farce As president, Trump should defund the agency perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem. Sol Stern

After President Obama greased the wheels for the U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s settlements policy, President-elect Trump tweeted that “things will be different after January 20th.” I didn’t vote for Trump, but for the sake of restoring some sanity to America’s Middle East policies, I fervently hope he fulfills that promise.

To make a real difference, our next president needs to understand how the United Nations’ hostility to the Jewish state is rooted in perverse institutions that have been abetted by previous U.S. administrations. The most glaring example of this is the inaptly named United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). With its $1.3 billion budget (30 percent of which comes from U.S. taxpayers), this agency actually perpetuates the refugee problem it was created to solve, while promoting Palestinian rejectionism and Jew hatred. Trump will soon have the means to drain the UNRWA swamp. If he does so, he would increase the chances of peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

The United Nations created UNRWA with the noblest of intentions. By the time an armistice agreement ended the first Arab-Israeli war in 1949, roughly 700, 000 Palestinians had fled (or were driven) from the territories governed by the new state of Israel. The prevailing view at the time was that refugee problems produced by war were best solved through resettlement in the countries to which the refugees had fled. In the aftermath of World War II, 7 million ethnic Germans in Central and Eastern Europe were the victims of brutal ethnic cleansing campaigns approved by the victorious allied powers. On the Indian subcontinent another 3 million people were uprooted in the violent creation of India and Pakistan. These destitute refugees had to make do in their new host countries with virtually no outside aid. Yet, within a decade, there was no longer a refugee problem in Europe or Asia to trouble the international community.

Unfortunately, the surrounding Arab countries that launched a war of conquest against the Jewish State—Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq—refused to accept any responsibility for the welfare of their Palestinian brothers who were the big losers in the conflict. That’s when the U.N.—led by the United States—generously stepped in. The 1949 General Assembly resolution establishing UNRWA called for “the alleviation of the conditions of starvation and distress among the Palestine refugees.” Yet the resolution also stated that “constructive measures should be undertaken at an early date with a view to the termination of international assistance for relief.” In other words, the new refugee agency’s mission was to be temporary, pending a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict.

Flash forward 66 years. The original 700,000 Palestinians leaving Israel have now been magically transformed into a mini-state of 5.6 million “refugees” registered with UNRWA, about half of all the Palestinians living in the world today. The “temporary” U.N. agency has been transformed into a bloated international bureaucracy with a staff of 30,000, almost all of whom are Palestinian refugees themselves (many are activists of Hamas, the Islamist terrorist group).

Less than 5 percent of UNRWA’s clients ever lived in Israel, but the agency’s regulations state that all patrilineal descendants of the original displaced persons shall retain their refugee rights in perpetuity. Nor does UNRWA seem to be troubled by the fact that 40 percent of its camp residents are citizens of Jordan and Lebanon, and shouldn’t even be considered refugees under accepted international law and practice.

The unchecked growth of UNRWA is a classic case in international politics of the economic principle of “moral hazard.” By providing a social welfare safety net, the U.N. enables the Palestinian leadership to undermine efforts to solve the underlying conditions that created the refugee problem in the first place. Palestinian rejectionism is thus rendered risk-free. In turn, UNRWA nurtures Palestinian extremism, yet never is held accountable by the agency’s donor nations, including the United States.

Asghar Farhadi, Hollywood Hero Hollywood’s hypocrites – and Tehran’s. Bruce Bawer

Yes, you’re right. The best way to deal with today’s Hollywood community is to try to ignore it. The Oscar ceremony is a parade of mostly dimwitted narcissists whose fame and wealth have convinced them that their inane parroting of received elite opinions amounts to thoughtful political expression. And the nominations and awards themselves, especially in the documentary and foreign-language categories, are often based less on artistic accomplishment than on identity politics and other PC considerations. This year, it was widely assumed that the annual festival of shameless self-celebration would also be an all-out attack on Donald Trump, and that we would all have served ourselves, our country, and our culture best by tuning out. Plus a fact, I, for one, had nothing to root for, since I’d seen only one of the nominated pictures: Silent Nights, a nominee for best short film that happened to have aired on Danish TV immediately prior to the red-carpet nonsense.

But in my case, curiosity won the day. Would the winners, presenters, and host Jimmy Kimmel actually go after the president, and thereby alienate half the country (and bore much of the other half), thus continuing the show’s yearly slide into low ratings and cultural irrelevance, or would they do the smart thing and leave politics out of it? It didn’t take long to learn the answer. Preening statements about walls and religious bigotry and international brotherhood abounded. So did tired Trump humor: Kimmel kept flogging that dead horse, and each gibe was worse than the next – but that didn’t keep the glitterati from laughing reflexively at each lame gag. (It was interesting to note that when Kimmel, in reference to the winning feature documentary, O.J.: Made in America, actually cracked an O.J. joke, the audience response was one of discomfort – so much so that Kimmel commented on it, joshingly serving up a faux apology for having mocked “our beloved O.J.”) Also worth mentioning is the winner of the short documentary award, whose director, upon accepting his statuette, piously intoned that ubiquitously misquoted line from the Koran, “To save one life is to save all of humanity.” The audience, of course, applauded lustily.

But the highlight, or low point, of the whole preposterous pageant was the presentation of the award for best foreign-language film. A couple of days before the ceremony, the directors of the five pictures nominated in this category signed a joint declaration in which, presuming to speak “[o]n behalf of all nominees,” they expressed their “unanimous and emphatic disapproval of the climate of fanaticism and nationalism we see today in the U.S. and in so many other countries, in parts of the population and, most unfortunately of all, among leading politicians.” Subtle, huh? Speaking up for “the diversity of cultures,” they decried those who raise “divisive walls” that categorize people by “genders, colors, religions and sexualities” and celebrated the power of film to offer “deep insight into other people’s circumstances and transform feelings of unfamiliarity into curiosity, empathy and compassion — even for those we have been told are our enemies.”

Who were the signers of this pompous document? Martin Zandvliet of Denmark, Hannes Holm of Sweden, Maren Ade of Germany, Marin Butler and Bentley Dean of Australia, and – last but not least – Asghar Farhadi of Iran. Farhadi ended up winning the trophy, but didn’t show up. In fact he may have won precisely because of his announcement, some days before the big night, that he wouldn’t be showing up. His motive: to protest Trump’s temporary ban on travel to the U.S. from his country and six others. When his victory was announced (it was his second in the category, after A Separation in 2011), the audience cheered, and it cheered again, quite fervently, when an Iranian-American woman read aloud a statement by Farhadi in which he explained that he’d stayed home “out of respect for the people of my country and those of other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S.”

Black Lives Matter Plotted to Burn Down Minnesota Capitol? Former group member Trey Turner says Saint Paul activists were planning mayhem. Matthew Vadum

A former Black Lives Matter activist claims his comrades planned to burn down the Minnesota state capitol in Saint Paul and the governor’s mansion if the police officer who fatally shot a black man during a traffic stop had not been prosecuted.

Trey Turner, who describes himself as half black and half white, said in a YouTube video dated Feb. 27 that BLM activists planned to go on a violent rampage if Saint Paul area police officer Jeronimo Yanez had not been charged in connection with the high-profile shooting July 6, 2016 of the late Philando Castile, which they claim was racially motivated.

The violence and advocacy of violence against white people by Black Lives Matter is well-documented.

In recent weeks, Yusra Khogali of the Toronto, Canada branch of BLM, said white people were “recessive genetic defects” and contemplated how whites could be “wiped out.” In Seattle a BLM supporter issued a profanity-rich call “to start killing people” including President Trump. The speaker also ranted against “white supremacy,” “capitalism,” “patriarchy,” and “anti-blackness,” dropping the F-bomb 55 times in the tirade.

Last July, Micah X. Johnson, a sniper sympathetic to the movement’s goals shot and killed five Dallas area cops before being killed. Johnson’s shooting spree took place the day after Castile died and some say it may have served as a catalyst for the mass murder which happened during a Black Lives Matter march.

FrontPage readers need to be cautioned that so far Turner’s statement is uncorroborated. It is unclear if authorities are even investigating Turner’s story. A telephone call and emails seeking comment from the U.S. Department of Justice had not been returned at time of writing.

Castile, 32 at the time of his death, was an elementary school cafeteria employee with a long list of traffic infractions but no criminal convictions. The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., issued a concealed-carry permit for a pistol to Castile in 2015. He had a handgun in his vehicle at the time of the traffic stop.

President Trump Makes the Union Great Again There is hope once again. Daniel Greenfield

Big.

The Empire State Building was built in a year. During WW2, we built almost 100,000 aircraft in a year. The 1,700 mile Alaska Highway was completed in a year. Compare that to Obama’s California high speed train to nowhere which got its start in his stimulus plan in 2009 and whose deadline he had to extend to 2022. In the 19th century, railroad crews laid 10 miles of track in one day between sunrise and sunset.

It took a decade and billions of dollars for New York City to build a subway that runs 20 blocks.

But in a bold and courageous address, President Trump laid out a tremendous vision that runs from transforming our education and health care systems and rebuilding our military, to curing diseases, unleashing technological wonders and even, “American footprints on distant worlds.”

It is a vision of revitalized industries, rebuilt cities and thriving communities. It is the America that once was and might have been if history had taken a different turn on a cold fall night in Chicago.

And it can be ours again.

The President called for unleashing the potential of inner cities trapped under Democrat rule with school choice and gave a voice to the victims of illegal alien crime. He envisioned the rebuilding of our infrastructure and the end of ObamaCare. He defied the warnings of the appeasement lobby and spoke out firmly against Islamic terror. And he laid out a vision for making the nation great again.

“Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people,” the President urged.

We haven’t thought big or built big. Money pours through our hands and disappears into the pockets of a corrupt establishment. The dollar tip of a waitress in a small town in Ohio goes into the Georgetown mansion of an environmental consultant. The tax hike that wipes out the annual profits of a small business in Michigan disappears into a three billion dollar accounting error in Washington D.C.

And even this thievery, the theft of the billions and trillions that vanished under Obama leaving us deeply indebted to China and Japan, is small, mean and petty. The Clintons had rented out the Lincoln Bedroom when they were in the White House. Then they ran for office by charging half the dictators and lobbyists of the world rent on the Lincoln Bedroom on the assumption that Hillary would get the keys.

There was no vision to the miserable thievery. Just vultures picking over the bones of a great nation.

But in the election, tens of millions of Americans drove off the vultures circling over the Washington Monument. The Clintons roam the Chappaqua woods while a national vision returns to D.C.

A vision that is uniquely American in its optimism and its confidence.

“A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning,” President Trump declared. “A new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.”

“What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.”

Bill Nye to Tucker Carlson: Humans Cause ‘100 Percent’ of Climate Change By Tyler O’Neil

Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and “science guy” television personality, appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Monday evening to discuss climate change. Pushed by Fox host Tucker Carlson on exactly what percentage of climate change is caused by humans, Nye gave a very unscientific answer — 100 percent. He said climate “deniers” suffer “cognitive dissonance,” but maybe it is the “science guy” himself who cannot accept that there is reason to doubt climate change.

When Carlson asked, “to what extent is human activity responsible for speeding up [climate change]?” Nye responded, “One hundred percent. Humans are causing it to happen catastrophically fast.”

The problem with this answer should be obvious from a scientific perspective. During the show, Carlson acknowledged that the climate is changing, and even that human activity might be contributing to it. But as he explained, “the core question from what I can tell is, why the change? Is it part of the endless cycle of climate change or is human activity causing it?”

If human activity has an impact, then to what degree? Carlson asked, “Is 100 percent of climate change caused by human activity? Is it 23.4 percent? It’s settled science, please tell me to what degree human activity is responsible.”

Rather than pointing to a specific number, Nye hemmed and hawed. He argued that “instead of happening on timescales of millions of years, or let’s say 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years.” But the self-described “science guy” dodged the fundamental question — to what degree is human action exacerbating climate change? And how can we be sure?

After the host pressed him, Nye finally gave his “100 percent” answer. In most realms of human endeavor, 100 percent is not a serious answer — especially in science, where the simplest movement in physics can be broken down into various factors including air resistance, normal forces, velocity, et cetera.

When Carlson pressed Nye on what the climate would look like today, without human activity, the “science guy” actually provided a rather interesting answer. “The climate would be like it was in 1750, and economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today.”
The difficulty with this picture is that it is static. Nye assumed that the climate would not have changed since 1750, during the intermittent “Little Ice Age,” when the Earth’s climate took a dip. Nye seemed to be thinking that without the increase in carbon emissions caused by human activity, the Earth would be experiencing another ice age today. He did not address how scientists could know this with any certainty, however.

AP ‘Fact Check’ FAIL: Trump Claim on Terrorism and Immigration Correlates with Justice Dept. Data By Patrick Poole

During his Tuesday address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump cited Justice Department terrorism figures:

According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home — from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.

We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world.

It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.

We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.

That is why my Administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe — and to keep out those who would do us harm.

The Associated Press “fact check” on this claim pretends that Trump pulls this number out of thin air:

From the AP:

TRUMP: “According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home — from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.”

THE FACTS: It’s unclear what Justice Department data he’s citing, but the most recent government information that has come out doesn’t back up his claim. Just over half the people Trump talks about were actually born in the United States, according to research from the Department of Homeland Security revealed last week. That report said of 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to attempt or carry out an attack in the U.S., just over half were native-born citizens.

This terrorism data identifying 280 terrorism cases from 9/11/2001-12/31/2014 come from a Justice Department letter (dated January 13, 2016) sent to Senator Ted Cruz and then-Senator (now Attorney General) Jeff Sessions. This letter is provided below.

When the staff of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest examined the open-source data for the 580 cases, this is what they found:

Based on open-source research conducted on a list provided by the Department of Justice, the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest has determined that at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad.

On August 12, 2015, December 3, 2015, and January 11, 2016, letters were sent to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State, requesting the immigration histories of individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014. For over 10 months, the Obama Administration has refused to provide this crucial and easily accessible information. Since sending the last letter on January 11, however, the Subcommittee has identified 18 additional individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014 – bringing the total to 131, of whom at least 16 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 17 of whom are the natural-born citizen children of immigrants.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did provide the Subcommittee with a list it maintains of 580 individuals not only implicated, but convicted, of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014. DOJ has deferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide immigration background information regarding these individuals, but to this day, DHS has not done so – despite having the information on the foreign-born easily accessible in its records and databases.

Using this list, the Subcommittee conducted open-source research and determined that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan.

So Trump is correct: 380 of 580 (65.5%, or just under 2/3) were in fact foreign born.

It is no mystery, contra the Associated Press, where this data came from. And as you can note, all of these cases involved Category I, II, and III terrorism offenses.

That notwithstanding, some in the media and terrorism industry began throwing out other terrorism numbers from a number of difference sources with no reference to the Justice Department data cited by President Trump:

But in this instance, this is official Justice Department data of terrorism convictions — and Senate Judiciary Committee staff analysis of that data.

You may not like Trump’s positions, but attempts to falsify this data don’t remotely comport with the Obama Justice Department.

Consider this fact check: FAILED

Democrats sit on hands as Trump pleads for cooperation Stephen Dinan

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/28/democrats-withhold-applause-support-trump-speech-c/

Forget about an end to partisanship anytime soon.

It never got as bad as the GOP’s “you lie” disruption that struck President Obama, but Democrats were intent on showing as little approval of President Trump as possible during his address to Congress Tuesday, at one point even staging a round of fake coughs to protest his claims of making strides to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and hissing at his recognition of victims of illegal immigrant crimes.

The freeze-out was nearly total. Democrats who had lined the aisles in recent years to be seen hugging President George W. Bush and President Obama as they strode to the rostrum hung back Tuesday night, leaving the president to shake hands almost exclusively with Republicans.

Trump’s State of the Union, viewed with anti-Trump Democrats By Howard J. Warner

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/trumps_state_of_the_union_viewed_with_antitrump_democrats.html

President Donald Trump hit a home run while addressing Congress yesterday. He delivered a well-crafted policy statement that stayed true to his campaign. He will alter his immigration plans to allow the “Dreamers” some leeway for future American residency. He might even consider a plan that allows illegal residents with clean records possible employment status, without any citizenship. Undoubtedly, Democratic leaders will reject this as they seek additional votes. But Trump has shown how the “art of the deal” begins with an opening gambit. All in all. he gave a speech that reiterated his campaign promises.

To the Democrats that I together with watched the speech, this was a totally different person. They could not recognize the lack of “hate” that they felt during the campaign. I suspect that they rarely listened to an uninterrupted hour-long speech from Trump before. At first, the anger was palpable, but with time, the speech overwhelmed them. I almost felt sorry for them. They, like the Democratic politicians in Congress, had to sit and listen to this speech and wonder how to respond. In the end, they hoped that his rhetoric would come to fruition.

This is amazing progress. Yes, they still hate Trump. But, if his speech is received by the nation positively, then there is hope for our nation.

The review on CNN was almost shocking. They could not find much to question. On Fox, the jubilation was significant. They all recognized that Trump has a comprehensive vision for our nation. He sees economic prosperity as allowing many choices for our people. He sees neighborhood safety as essential for our youth and future. He wants a unified goal of enriching all Americans with education and a skill set that provides adequate incomes for the future. Trump wants a strong and dominant military that prevents wars and wins those it fights. He wants our veterans protected and remembered.

Trump seeks an efficient government with reduced interference in our daily lives. He began the process of reducing regulatory control. He has argued for federalism and the return of powers our founders gave to the states. It appears that he also endorsed the Paul Ryan approach to reforming Obamacare. With success, (and against the Democrats, who would love to establish a single payer system) businesses and individuals would find innovative insurance plans that will provide health care that meets the needs of consumers.

Some question top White House advisor Steve Bannon’s role, but it is clear that he helps frame the ideological statement for the president in concise terms, as he did at CPAC.

Today, the White House must begin the process of enacting the legislation that will be needed to change the national trajectory. If he restores faith in capitalism and reduced national interference in our daily activities, then his will be a successful administration. He needs the congressional help of leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and we can only hope that they will deliver.

Trump’s opening injected a sense of unity and concern for those besieged by bigotry and hatred. He reminded us that we soon will celebrate our 250th anniversary. He has promised a better future for all our citizens. His success will be our success. Godspeed!

Trump’s speech and our infantile left By Patricia McCarthy

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/trumps_speech_and_our_infantile_left.html

Tuesday’s State of the Union address was without a doubt the best speech President Donald Trump has ever given, perhaps the best speech to a joint session of Congress since the great Ronald Reagan. But who could watch it and not be embarrassed by our infantile, bitter Left?

It was uplifting, optimistic, full of unifying words, and obvious to everyone. The pathetic exception was the Democrats in Congress. And those were the ones who did not boycott the event.

Like spoiled children, who had not gotten their way, they refused to applaud at the most obvious good-for-the-country lines. In fact, they were like a clique of mean girls in middle school who have decided to target one of their own.

They knew what they were hearing was monumental and good for the nation. But consumed in schoolyard jealousy, they got angry, not glad. In doing so, they showed no intention of working “with” President Trump. They are still scrambling for, and planning to sabotage him any way they can.

They proved one thing: They do not have America’s best interests at heart.

Is there any member of Congress more horrid than Nancy Pelosi? Her “we’re all wearing white and purple to protest Trump” nonsense means … what? She rolled her eyes, snickered to her seatmates like an ill-mannered child, and, of course, refused to stand and applaud, no matter how positive Trump’s words. The Democrats would not applaud or stand when he spoke of government ignorance of the criminal decimation of Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. They would not applaud when he spoke of protecting American citizens by securing our borders. They would not applaud when he spoke about the companies who have promised to invest billions in U.S. manufacturing which will provide thousands of new jobs, or when he spoke about de-regulating business to unleash the economy. They do not want the economy unleashed; it would expose the dismal failure of the eight-year Obama administration.

The Democrats also refused to approve of his call to enforce our immigration laws. These leftists favor illegal immigrants over American citizens which is why they institute sanctuary cities. They do not distinguish between the criminals among them and those who commit no crimes. To the left, they are all the same. Yet to normal Americans, they are not.

Nor do our elected Democrats aim to protect and defend the citizens of the United States. They oppose the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” despite the graphic, barbaric actions of ISIS. They do not approve of “extreme vetting” to keep potential terrorists out of America. They would not even applaud Trump’s stated allegiance to and alliance with Israel! Who are these people? By two-thirds of the way through the speech, it began to seem as though they were enemies of America. Schumer stared into his lap. Steny Hoyer was stonefaced. None of them could applaud Scalia or his proposed replacement, Neil Gorsuch.

Perhaps the deplorable behavior of the Democrats throughout the speech was shame. There are 94 million people out of work, 43 million living in poverty and 43 million on food stamps. This is Obama’s legacy. He transformed American into something it was never meant to be. Iran is building its nukes. Cuba is still a communist nightmare. The Middle East is a seventh circle of hell. They should be embarrassed by these facts. Poverty has increased. Crime has increased. Maybe that is why they stare at their laps and do not clap. They all know Obamacare is collapsing but cannot cheer Trump’s plan to repeal and replace it with something that is affordable and actually provides health care.

The Democrats booed Trump’s new agency, VOICE, Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. God forbid the public should be informed about the tragedies inflicted on innocent Americans by criminal illegals.