Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Crazed Zealot Jeff Sessions Attempts to Enforce Law!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration “on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures.” The Times’ sources were “current and former career department lawyers.” In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.

One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not “Astor” or “Carnegie”?) As at any federal agency, 99 percent of “career” attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham’s resume is that he “created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors.”

During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can’t do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.

In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, “career” DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June. Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen’s table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain!” “If kids don’t eat in peace, you don’t eat in peace!” “The f—ing gall!” “Shame on you!” “Shame! Shame! Shame!” “Fascist pig!” — which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening’s special.

(And it still didn’t occur to Gen. John Kelly’s special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.)

It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar — and her own arrogant claim that she couldn’t be fired — for her to finally lose her job.

In Buckingham’s case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)

The Times reports: “In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief” — and presumably his forthcoming memoirs — “that he could find no legal grounds for such a case.”

Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn’t? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.

Didn’t Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?

I have been not practicing law longer than “Buckingham” was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: “Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

It’s hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn’t have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.

Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of “accessory after the fact” has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.

Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ show that Trump could be an “accessory after the fact” to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion. Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).

By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a “sanctuary city” is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation. Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.

Prosecutors in “sanctuary” jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants — or allowing them to plea to minor offenses — for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation. In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the “new Jim Crow.”

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.

These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should “lie, cheat and steal” to ensure that no immigrant be deported.

It’s hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.

Yes, you’re right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.

Commentary: “You don’t support Trump? Neither did I, until …”


Commentary by Dr. Michael L. Brown – Guest Columnist | Monday, October 15, 2018 | http://www.askdrbrown.org/

Michael BrownWhat’s changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms?


I’m reading about more and more former people like Erick Erickson. They were once Never Trumpers, but they would vote for him in 2020 if he runs again. What’s changing their minds?

I too once opposed Donald Trump. I didn’t like his past. I didn’t trust his intentions. His character, to me, was highly suspect. I had no idea what he really believed or stood for. And I certainly questioned if his outreach to evangelical Christian leaders was sincere. Wasn’t he just using them, as others had in the past?

To be totally honest, I had actually forgotten just how deeply I disliked him when he was a Republican primary candidate. But when editing my new book on Trump, which includes 90 Trump-related articles from August 2015 to August 2018, I realized just how much of a problem I used to have with this highly controversial figure.

You see, most of us remember the past through the filter of the present. It’s like the man who says to his wife after 30 years of marriage, “I want a divorce. The truth is, I never really loved you.”

His present attitude has clearly distorted the facts of the past.

It was the same with me and Donald Trump. It was only while re-reading my articles written about him during the primaries that I remembered just how much I did not want to see him win.

And, to be brutally honest, since I had endorsed Ted Cruz and Trump was his main opposition, on some level, even subconsciously, I must have looked at Trump as the competitor. So, just like you root for your home team and against the opposition, I rooted for Cruz and against Trump.

How did I go from that attitude to rooting for him and voting for him? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms? (For the record, I’m registered as an Independent but consistently vote Republican, especially because of key social issues.)

Let’s think about what is changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers:

  • The Kavanaugh hearings revealed just how intense and ugly the opposition can be.

  • The Democrat-inspired mobocracy is deeply disturbing.

  • The radicality of the pro-abortion movement has been unveiled for all to see, along with the radicality of the extreme feminist movement.

  • The outright hostility of the leftwing media has revealed their depth of antipathy, not just to Trump but to conservative values in general.

  • The emergence of die-hard socialist candidates has made our choices more stark.

  • It’s even increasingly hard to deny that some kind of “deep state” exists.

On the positive side, Trump has done a great job with the economy. He is doing better against ISIS and Islamic terrorism. He has proven to be a true friend to Israel. He has made some positive progress with hostile countries. He is absolutely keeping his promises about Supreme Court and federal court nominees. And he has proven sincere in his commitment to stand with evangelical Christians.

In my case, there were several factors that led to a change of thinking, all of which can be followed in the chronological reprinting of the 90 aforementioned articles included in my book.

  • First, I always said that if it was Trump vs. Hillary, I would reevaluate my opposition to him.
  • Second, prophetic words from friends of mine saying that God had raised up Trump like a Cyrus-type figure (a foreign king who was not a worshiper of Yahweh) had me asking the whole time, “Am I wrong here?”
  • Third, the fact that he struck a chord with so many Americans got my attention.
  • Fourth, the fact that he beat so many fine Republican candidates suggested strongly to me that there was a supernatural wind in his sails.
  • Fifth, close friends of mine who were respected evangelical leaders spent lots of time with him and assured me that he was open and listening.
  • Sixth, his positions became more consistent, leading me to believe (or at least hope) that he would keep his word, hence my vote for him.

Now while I certainly do not support his every word and deed, I must say as president he is doing the things I hoped he would do if elected.

Would it be great if he would be a good role model too? Absolutely.

Do I often wish that he could unify more people behind him? Certainly.

But am I glad I voted for him? Without a doubt.

And, as I’ve often said, if it were Trump vs. Hillary today, I’d vote for him without any hesitation.

Perhaps this analogy will prove helpful.

There are a bunch of pit bulls with rabies terrorizing a neighborhood and biting the children. But there is no town dog catcher, and kids are suffering and dying.

Two candidates emerge.

One is the nicest guy in the world. He’s happily married with great kids, and you’ll never hear a foul word from him. But he can’t even catch a fly. The guy is hopeless.

The other candidate is as nasty as they come. His three ex-wives hate him. He curses like a drunken sailor. But the guy can catch a dog with his teeth.

For whom would you vote?

That’s where many formerly Never Trumpers are today. The stakes are that high, and he’s the man for the job. A great role model would be a wonderful plus. It’s just not in the cards right now.

So, let’s keep standing with President Trump, both in prayer and in face-to-face support, helping him become a better man. And let’s make our voices and votes heard for the good of the nation. The political stakes are really that high.


Dr. Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is “Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President.”

Commentary: “The Post-9/11 Cycle of Cynicism”


Commentary by Michelle Malkin / /

/ 14 Comments

URL of the original posting site: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/12/the-post-9-11-cycle-of-cynicism/

The Tribute in Light, an installation of searchlights representing the fallen twin towers, is seen Tuesday from New Jersey. (Photo: Chine Nouvelle/Sipa/Newscom)

For 17 years, America has engaged in a collective ritual every Sept. 11: hang flags, light candles, bow heads, and make vows to “Never forget.”

Then, every Sept. 12, it’s back to business as usual: See something, do nothing.

Did you remember that five of the 9/11 hijackers—Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Satam al-Suqami—carried out their killer plot after overstaying their visas, evading detection, and avoiding deportation?

Did you remember the other radical Muslim members of the Terrorist Visa Overstayers Club?

They include 1997 New York subway bomber Lafi Khalil; 1993 World Trade Center bombers Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammed Salameh, and Eyad Ismoil; 1993 New York landmark bombing plot conspirator Fadil Abdelgani; convicted Times Square bomb plotter Faisal Shahzad; and U.S. Capitol bomb plotter Amine El Khalifi, whose visa expired in 1999 and who escaped Homeland Security’s notice for 12 years before he was arrested in 2012—just blocks from the Capitol building donning what he thought was a suicide bomb vest.

Did you remember that a year after the jihadist attacks that stole nearly 3,000 innocent lives, the 9/11 Commission urged our government to build a biometric entry-exit program to track and remove visa overstayers—who comprise an estimated 40 percent of the total illegal immigrant population?

Did you remember that Congress had already mandated exactly such a system for all ports of entry—land, sea, and air—in 1996 as part of the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act?

Janice Kephart, former border counsel on the 9/11 Commission, testified five years ago that “tracking the arrival and departure of foreign visitors to the United States is an essential part of immigration control, with collateral effects on law enforcement and national security.” Without both arrival controls and departure records, she warned, “there is no way to know whether travelers have left when they were supposed to.”

At least eight separate federal statutes, passed with bipartisan support, have established the parameters and appropriated funds for a foreign visa holder entry-exit system over the past two decades.

But as I reported in my book “Invasion” 16 years ago, lobbyists for the travel and tourism industries, airlines, universities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and illegal immigrant amnesty banded together to undermine the implementation of this most basic national security program, which every sovereign country needs to defend its borders.

On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then-House Homeland Security Chairwoman Candice Miller, R-Mich., reported on the federal backlog of more than 750,000 unvetted visa overstay records: “If we are serious about controlling who comes into the nation and preventing another 9/11 attack, we need to get serious about an exit program,” she testified.

Spoiler alert: The swamp creatures in Washington are not serious.

Now, the Department of Homeland Security reports a whopping 700,000 foreigners overstayed their temporary tourist, business, or student visas in fiscal 2017. Most alarming, among the countries with the highest overstay rates are the terrorist breeding grounds of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya.

An estimated 40 percent of the 700,000 student/exchange visa overstays on record last year came from four countries: China, India, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. (In case you’d forgotten, Saudi Arabia sent 15 of the 19 hijackers to America 17 years ago this week.)

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies analyzed the data and flagged five countries “where we need to critically examine visa issuance processes” because of overstay rates of more than 30 percent: Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Liberia, and the Solomon Islands.

Last year, a DHS inspector general’s audit concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot account for all visa overstays because its 27 different databases are a stovepiped mess. ICE arrested a measly 0.4 percent of visa overstays (3,402 out of 500,000) it could account for—in part because investigators couldn’t access information or weren’t even aware of available national security databases.

President Donald Trump called on Congress to expedite completion of the long-delayed biometric exit program, and several pilot programs at airports are now in place. But Trump faces the same open borders/big business roadblocks that have stymied the system ever since the twin towers came crashing down.

If Congress wanted to, it could immediately pass measures to make overstaying a visa a felony, to impose re-entry bars on visa violators, and to require bonds for foreigners entering through the highest-risk temporary visa programs or from countries of concern.

But annual pretension is so much easier than actual prevention. All remembrance and no action dishonors the 3,000 who died 17 years ago—and endangers us all.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CR

Commentary By

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor.

 

 

 

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Liberals Never Sleep (And Neither Does Jeff Sessions


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

The left is very close to having a governing majority due entirely to immigration. Despite the promise of the Trump campaign, there isn’t much standing in their way. Now, they’re just running out the clock. Soon, we will have admitted so many immigrants that it will be too late to do anything.

Although liberals pretend to have no idea where conservatives got the idea that immigration was designed to change the country and bring in new voters, they weren’t always so modest.

In a 1998 article for Cornell University’s Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Democratic political consultant Patrick Reddy exulted that the 1965 immigration act was “the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” Changing the country’s demographics through immigration would be “George McGovern’s revenge,” liberal political strategist Ruy Teixeira announced 16 years ago — and then celebrated as a fait accompli upon Obama’s election in 2008.

The very reason the left loathes Trump is that he promised to stop their hostile takeover of our country. But instead of sticking it to his enemies by blocking their depraved agenda, he has fallen into their trap.

Obsessed with the Robert Mueller investigation, the president spends his days tweeting attacks on his attorney general, Jeff Sessions — the one member of Trump’s Cabinet making good on his campaign’s immigration promises.

It’s a win-win for the left. Either they drive Trump from office with an unending harassment campaign disguised as a legitimate investigation, or they keep him too distracted to thwart their plans to flood the country with foreigners.

The Swamp has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Trump seems to have completely forgotten about the one policy the left fears most.

Evidently, the media have decided Trump is no longer a threat to their inevitable conquest. The Washington Post cheerfully touts the “growing diversity” — i.e., non-whiteness — of Democrats’ nominees. (“Black and Latino Democratic nominees boost their ranks by merging insider organization and outside money,” Aug. 29.)

The New York Times is already doing a victory dance on the corpse of historical America. Recently, the newspaper hired a white male-hating bigot, Sarah Jeong, for its editorial board. In the past week alone, the Times has run articles with these headlines: “Who’s Afraid of a White Minority?” and “The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult.”

The gleeful destruction of our country may be less annoying than the insults to our intelligence necessary to pull it off.

To keep the mass migration flowing, we get lies, half-truths, insults and cliches. The citizenship of anchor babies is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the humanitarian need of so-called “refugees” is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the lower crime rate and welfare consumption of immigrants is a lie (see “Adios, America”); the Trump administration’s policy of “separating children” from their parents at the border is a lie.

About 80 percent of the “children” are teenaged boys, many of them MS-13 gang members. Recently a child rapist tried to enter the country, claiming the rapee was his daughter. Don’t separate children from their rapists!

The left doesn’t care about child rape or human trafficking. They just want an end to America and its infernal white people.

Children” captured at the border have to be released from custody after 20 days, pursuant to an ACLU-forged court order. Twenty days was the number the ACLU settled on after determining that it would be impossible to process the illegal border-crossers’ asylum claims within that time frame, so the kids and their alleged “parents” would have to be released into the country.

I could process the claims in 10 minutes. Anyone who shows up on our border after “fleeing” El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras isn’t fleeing anything. There are about 20 countries closer to their homes than the United States — and they speak the same language.

Among the countries closer to them than the U.S. is Mexico.

You’d think that, just as a PR matter, Mexico would say, We’re currently involved in this PR thing with the U.S., so let’s be REALLY nice to any illegals coming into our country. … He beats you? Oh, that’s awful — of course, you can stay here!

But no. Mexico says, Screw off, illegals. We’ll help you get to the U.S., but that’s the end of our beneficence.

The whole border surge is a hoax, intended to overwhelm the system and get Democrats their last needed non-American voters.

When they’re busted on their lies, liberals turn to cliches. “Diversity is a strength!” After four decades of mass immigration from the Third World, I think we’re all set on diversity. Any more diversity would be like bringing snow to Eskimos. We’re drowning in diversity.

Even if diversity were ever desirable — as opposed to what it is, which is “undesirable” — surely it’s not the most important value to a country. At best, diversity is a luxury, adding “vibrancy,” as The New York Times is constantly telling us.

It’s like having a rule that men need to set aside a certain amount of money each week to wear carnations in their lapels. Carnations are nice, but when you’re unemployed and the carnations are wormy, would you make that Priority No. 1?

Similarly, “diversity” is a luxury we can’t afford in a time of massive income inequality, stagnating wages and a raging heroin epidemic — with 90 percent of the heroin coming from Mexico.

When the cliches fall flat, they just say, So you’re with Hitler!

You’re Hitler if you support Teddy Kennedy’s original claims about his 1965 immigration bill. At the time, he and his co-conspirators swore up and down that it would not alter the country’s ethnic composition one iota. Now, it’s “white supremacist” to say: “We liked our country the way it was.”

Has anyone ever criticized a black, brown, beige, yellow, red or green nation for wanting to preserve its ethnicity? No, only a white majority is pure evil that must be extirpated.

When facing your new overlords, remember: When there was 10 seconds left on the clock, we decided to get rid of Jeff Sessions for keeping Trump’s promises on immigration, rather than using his office to protect the president from a Russian investigation so stupid that no one outside of the Swamp cares about it.

Commentary: South Africa Will Go the Way of Zimbabwe If It Doesn’t Change Course


South African President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Beijing, Sept. 3, 2018. (Photo: Xinhua/Sipa USA/Newscom)

South Africa has been thrown into the news because of President Donald Trump’s recent tweet that he instructed his secretary of state to “closely study” alleged land seizures from white farmers in South Africa. Earlier this year, a land confiscation motion was brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema, and it passed South Africa’s Parliament by a 241-83 vote.

Malema has had a long-standing commitment to land confiscation without compensation. In 2016, he told his supporters he was not calling for the slaughter of white peopleat least for now.

The land-grabbing sentiment is also expressed by Lindsay Maasdorp, national spokesman for Black First Land First, a group that condones land seizures in South Africa. He says, “We are going to take back the land, and we’ll do it by any means necessary.” The land confiscation policy was a key factor in the platform of the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa.

I have visited South Africa several times, in 1979, 1980, and 1992. My three-month 1980 visit included lectures at nearly all South African universities. The 1992 return visit, two years after apartheid ended and two years before democratic elections, included lectures on my book “South Africa’s War Against Capitalism.”

During each visit, my counsel to South Africans, particularly black South Africans, was that the major task before them was not only ridding the nation of apartheid but deciding what was going to replace it.

That’s an important question. William Hutt, the late University of Cape Town economist who was an anti-apartheid voice within the academic community, wrote in his 1964 book, titled “The Economics of the Colour Bar,” that one of the supreme tragedies of the human condition is that those who have been the victims of injustices or oppression “can often be observed to be inflicting not dissimilar injustices upon other races.”

In 2001, Andrew Kenny wrote an article titled “Black People Aren’t Animals—But That’s How Liberals Treat Them.” Kenny asked whether South Africa is doomed to follow the rest of Africa into oblivion. Kenny gave a “no” answer to his question, but he was not very optimistic because of the pattern seen elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

He argued that ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism. Colonial masters never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia, and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, including being hacked to death, boiled in oil, set on fire, and dismembered. Kenny said that if as many elephants, zebras, and lions were as ruthlessly slaughtered, the world’s leftists would be in a tizzy.

Ghanaian economist George Ayittey expressed a similar complaint in his book “Africa Betrayed”: “White rulers in South Africa could be condemned, but not black African leaders guilty of the same political crimes.”

Moeletsi Mbeki, a brother of former South African President Thabo Mbeki’s and deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs, an independent think tank based at the University of the Witwatersrand, said in 2004 that Africa was in a spiral of decline. “The average African is poorer than during the age of colonialism,” he said.

Zimbabwe, South Africa’s northern neighbor formerly called Rhodesia, was southern Africa’s breadbasket. That was prior to the confiscation of nearly 6,000 large white-owned commercial farms during the 1990s. By the turn of the century, Zimbabwe was threatened with mass starvation and was begging for food.

Added to that tragedy, Zimbabwe experienced history’s second-highest inflation rate. It reached 79.6 billion percent in mid-November 2008. (In 1946, Hungary experienced the world’s highest inflation rate, 41.9 quadrillion percent.)

South Africa leads in mining, food production, and critical infrastructure, such as power production and railroading, in southern Africa. But it’s going the same way as Zimbabwe, spelling disaster for the entire southern part of Africa.

What’s needed most right now is for South Africans to adopt some of the principles enunciated by Nelson Mandela, one of which is, “You will achieve more in this world through acts of mercy than you will through acts of retribution.”

Commentary By

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University.

 

 

 


COMMENTARY: President Trump Fires Back with His Own Incredible Response After McCain Funeral Turns Political


Commentary By Benjamin Arie | September 3, 2018 at

6:10am

John McCain’s actual election rivals may have been George W. Bush back in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008, but you’d be forgiven for wondering if they were all on the same team after the late senator’s funeral on Saturday.

“The same team” is even how former President Obama described himself and McCain as he addressed the gathered crowd at the senator’s funeral.

The Arizona lawmaker may have been gone, but the figures he approved to speak at the service definitely seemed to be on the same page when it came to using the memorial service as a platform to join forces against the sitting president of the United States.

Nobody mentioned Donald Trump by name, but as Joseph Curl pointed out at The Daily Wire, it was clear that three of the main speakers — Meghan McCain, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush — were of one mind when it came to backhanding the current president.

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness — the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served,” McCain’s adult daughter Meghan chastised from the podium.

It was a cheap shot directed, without a doubt, at the billionaire Trump.

“The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great,” Meghan McCain continued, obviously hammering at Trump’s famous slogan of “Make America Great Again.”

Remember, this was supposed to be a funeral.

Obama joined in when his time came.

“So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage,” he declared pompously.

“It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear. John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that,” stated the former president who beat the deceased in 2008 aided in large part by a media that slandered McCain constantly.

Then George W. Bush, a man who reportedly refused to vote for Trump against Hillary Clinton, took the stage.

“John was above all a man with a code,” Bush stated.

“He led by a set of public virtues that brought strength and purpose to his life and to his country. He was courageous, with a courage that frightened his captors and inspired his countrymen,” Bush said.

“He was honorable, always recognizing that his opponents were still patriots and human beings,” Bush continued, without clarifying what the definition of a patriot was or if every opponent met the criteria.

“He loved freedom with the passion of a man who knew its absence. He respected the dignity inherent in every life, a dignity that does not stop at borders,” Bush continued, likely taking a swipe at Trump’s push for border security.

One Republican president jabbing at another for daring to enforce the nation’s borders, at a funeral. Welcome to 2018.

In response, Trump could have gone on a rant. He could have pushed back against the almost certain efforts to chide him by establishment politicians who have had power for decades — basically, the very people he was elected to counter.

Instead, Trump posted just four words on Twitter on the evening of McCain’s funeral.

It wasn’t a lot. It didn’t have to be.

For Trump opponents, nothing the president said would have mattered.

For Trump supporters, those four words said it all.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Hall Monitor Nation”



Commentary by Ann Coulter  

Apart from building the wall, President Trump’s most important act as president so far was his attack on internet censorship this week.

The left controls all the cultural institutions — the establishment media, corporate America, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, public schools and universities. The only breach in their total dominion of the flow of information is the internet. So now they’re fixated like a laser beam on private citizens yammering to one another online.

Why can’t people accept the officially certified news as delivered by respected truth-tellers like Brian Williams, CNN and NBC — the network that censored Juanita Broaddrick and illegally leaked the “Access Hollywood” tape?

Liberals assessed the situation and correctly concluded: People are learning facts on the internet that we’ve been withholding from them, so now they don’t agree with us. We have to stop this.

The media relentlessly lied to the public about Hillary’s health, denouncing conservatives as “conspiracy theorists” for mentioning it. Then an alert citizen with an iPhone captured Hillary having to be carried to her car at the 9/11 memorial service in 2016.

Mainstream media outlets painted a cherubic picture of Michael Brown after he was fatally shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. He was a “gentle giant,” gunned down like a dog as he plaintively cried, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”

HEY! Wait a second! How did that video get out of Brown manhandling a tiny Indian man while robbing a convenience store? That should have been suppressed like the Broaddrick interview!

Would we ever have known about Monica Lewinsky, but for the Drudge Report publishing the blockbuster story that Newsweek had killed?

Currently, the establishment media are in a rage that the public has found out about the modern genocide being waged against white South African farmers. ( https://whatdidyousay.org/2016/09/28/most-important-article-written-in-2016-when-america-becomes-south-africa/ (https://whatdidyousay.org/2018/07/23/dear-cnn-theres-a-white-genocide-going-on-in-south-africa-is-that-news/)

I can’t even blame them. If I were advising liberals, I’d say: You’ve got only one small breach in the wall of sound; you’ve got to ban conservative speech on the internet.

It’s not as if the left has ever shown any particular commitment to free speech. They love “transgressive” ideas and “controversial” speech — but only when they’re in the minority. As soon as they get control, no more free speech for you! Just look at the universities.

You might think that the exact same people wailing about Trump attacking the “free press” (fake news) would be too embarrassed to use their next breath to demand censorship on the internet. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.

On Sunday night, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt spent her entire interview with Facebook’s former chief information security officer Alex Stamos, demanding that Facebook go pedal-to-the-metal on censoring conservatives. It was left to defender of the reich Stamos to mumble something about not banning speech based on “content.”

Indignant that Alex Jones was allowed to “foment dissent on controversial topics online,” Kasie asked, “Did Facebook react too slowly to the Alex Jones issue? … Does Facebook have a responsibility to take on figures like this?”

Kasie then quoted Stamos back to himself, citing a memo in which he’d written: “We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.”

One “clear,” “moral,” “humanitarian issue” for Facebook — which according to Kasie isn’t doing enough censoring — is to prevent any criticism of caterwauling, protesting illegal aliens. (That sentence just violated Facebook’s Community Standards.)

Last May, I was notified by Facebook’s Julia Smekalina that “one of your posts was reported and found to be in violation of our Community Standards.”

Little Nazi block watchers are constantly reporting conservatives. They can’t just stop following people they don’t like. Liberals used to mock fundamentalist Christians, claiming they feared that someone, somewhere, may be happy. Now they’re the ones haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them.

The offending post was from January, months earlier, when I retweeted John Binder’s story on Breitbart News headlined: “Illegal aliens who say they ‘deserve’ amnesty tell pro-amnesty Sen. Thom Tillis: ‘Fck this conservative! Fck this person!’”

Illegals screaming obscenities at a U.S. senator does not offend Facebook community standards. It was the comment added to the story by the pro-American immigration website, Vdare: “It would be so easy to just deport these parasites @realDonaldTrump. They hate you, they hate your supporters, they hate your party, they hate our country. Why not just enforce the law and send them home?”

(The reason I’m talking about “tweets” when it was Facebook that censored me is that I detest Facebook, so the only “posts” of mine that ever showed up there were my tweets, which used to transfer automatically. Now they don’t, so I’ll never go to Facebook again.)

Here is my full and complete exchange with Smekalina, defender of “Community Standards,” illustrating what a complete joy using Facebook is.

From: Ann Coulter:

Okay, you’ll have to tell me how to delete. nothing I click on offers the option of deleting. I wish you’d spend more time making facebook user friendly. Also, can you please tell me how it violates community standards to support enforcing the law? is the word “parasites” forbidden?

From: Julia Smekalina:

… yes, comparing immigrants to parasites is the specific portion in violation of our policies.

From: Ann Coulter:

It’s obviously NOT about “immigrants.” it’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. law breakers. is it a violation to call lawbreakers “parasites”?

I never heard from Julia again, but I gather she helpfully deleted the post for me. At the risk of bringing MSNBC’s hammer down on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, the tweet’s still available there.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: