Real Legislation To Combat Terrorism Welcome to a bill that makes a crucial first step. Michael Cutler

The continuing threat of terror attacks committed by international terrorists in the United States requires meaningful, decisive and effective action that protects America and Americans.

Congressman Raul Labrador, a Republican from Idaho, has introduced legislation that would help address the issue of the lack of integrity to the refugee program. His bill is H.R. 2826 (Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act of 2017) and addresses an area of critical importance, imbuing the refugee program with meaningful integrity to combat fraud in this program.

I am particularly gratified by Congressman Labrador’s efforts. I have repeatedly noted in my appearances before Congressional hearings and elsewhere that the lack of integrity of the immigration system created a national security vulnerability that international terrorists and transnational criminals and fugitives frequently exploited, often with deadly consequences.

I have also noted that the lack of integrity of the immigration system was attributable to the lack of integrity of all too many politicians from both political parties creating “Immigration Failure – By Design.”

These politicians hypocritically claim that “the immigration system is broken” while never providing the resources that would enable DHS to enforce and administer the immigration laws to prevent the entry and embedding of international terrorists and transnational criminals.

However while H.R.2826 would require DHS more carefully vet the applications for refugees and maintain awareness about their activities after they admitted into the United States this level of scrutiny and vigilance must not be limited to refugees but also must be applied to aliens who are granted political asylum.

There are many examples of aliens who, upon being granted political asylum, carried out or attempted to carry out terror attacks in the United States.

One of the most notorious examples of this involves the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

Along with other members of their family they were lawfully admitted into the United States as nonimmigrants from their native Russia.

They subsequently applied for an were granted political asylum when they made a claim of “credible fear” that they could not return to their home country. However, shortly after being granted political asylum they voluntarily flew back to Russia.

Nevertheless, both brothers were granted lawful immigrant status along with other members of their family and one of the brothers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, currently incarcerated and awaiting his execution having been found guilty of his murderous terror attack, became a naturalized United States citizen, ironically on September 11, 2012.

His older brother, Tamerlan, was killed in a shootout with law enforcement officers during the attacks. He had applied for citizenship but that applications was never approved.

The adjudications of applications for lawful immigrant status require thorough background investigations. Under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act applicants for United States citizenship are supposed to undergo even more stringent “Good Moral Character” investigations.

Clearly this process failed abysmally and resulted in hundreds of casualties and Rep. Labrador’s bill, if enacted, would strip refugees of their refugee status under these circumstances. There is no justification for not expanding this scrutiny to aliens who apply for political asylum. The risks are no less significant.

The Murder of Officer Miosotis Familia—and Those Who Killed Her Distributing responsibility equitably. Jack Kerwick

In the wee morning hours of July 5, a Bronx police officer, 48 year-old Miosotis Familia, was shot dead as she sat in her patrol car.

Familia was a 12-year veteran of the New York Police Department and the mother of three children. She was murdered by 34-year-old Alexander Bonds, a career criminal with a record for violence, including violence against police officers.

Officer Familia, judging from her name and photograph, is a dark complexioned Hispanic.

The scumbag who robbed her of her life is black.

This last point bears mentioning, for there is no way to divorce this cold-blooded, unprovoked assassination of one of New York’s Finest from the anti-police Zeitgeist to which forces on the left have given rise. It’s true, of course, that there has long existed in America, especially since the emergence of leftist “liberationist” movements in the 1960’s, hostility toward those entrusted with maintaining the thin blue line between civilization and savagery.

Yet it’s equally true that this hostility accelerated considerably during Barack Obama’s second term as President, particularly since the shooting death of Mike Brown and the Black Lives Matter movement that arose in its wake.

Leftists are forever excusing non-white actors for their conduct, however atrocious it may be. It is to “the root causes,” the context of “social conditions” or “institutions,” that we must turn to account for why, say, blacks, though comprising no more than 13% or so of the American populace, are responsible for over half of all murders.

In other words, non-whites are never, ultimately, accountable for those of their behaviors that are undesirable and destructive (it is always and only their bad behavior from which nonwhites are exempted of responsibility). It is “society,” i.e. whites, who bear accountability for the bad deeds of nonwhites.

Never, though, do leftists look upon their own words and deeds as “root causes.” Indeed, while the search for “root causes” and the specific excuses that the left invokes are almost always fundamentally wrongheaded for more than one reason, to understand patterns of conduct larger contexts must be sought.

And the shooting death of a police officer by a black criminal does in fact belong to an all-too extensive—and established—pattern.

The Democrats’ Soviet Insane Asylum for Trump The Left’s faithful devotion to socialist-style “psychiatric” disposal of political dissidents. Jamie Glazov

The former Soviet Union possessed many imaginative mechanisms to deal with the problem of enemies of the people who obstructed the path to socialist utopia — now known as “social justice.” One of those mechanisms was the practice of confining individuals who were thinking the wrong thoughts to insane asylums. Indeed, if you caused any trouble for the commissars, a good inoculation of neuroleptics (powerful drugs used to “quiet” the symptoms of schizophrenia), forcibly administered through a tube in the nose, could do wonders in bringing your politically incorrect behavior to a halt.

Dissidents such as Natalya Gorbanevskaya, Pyotr Grigorenko, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin and Joseph Brodsky were all among the brave freedom-fighters who bore the brunt of the Soviet practice of institutionalizing dissidents in mental hospitals and force-feeding them mind-shattering drugs. Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Grigorenko suffered the same fate for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. Bukovsky was confined to a psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved “tranquilizing” injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts.

Today’s progressive Democrats are also faithfully journeying on an uplifting odyssey. Horrified by Trump’s opposition to Obama’s “fundamental transformations,” they have found their own neuroleptics in the form of the 25th Amendment and a bill seeking to impeach the president for being mentally unsound. Indeed, Trump has to be mentally deranged and unfit for office, because what other reason could possibly explain his frightening disagreement with the Left’s un-American creed of identity politics — race and gender uber alles? What other factor could possibly be at play in his embrace of individual freedom and responsibility — and in his rejection of group privileges and racial/gender hierarchies that, as David Horowitz has noted, can only be manifested after America’s Constitution is null and void?

Confronted by Trump’s shocking blasphemy against their anointed plan, several Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have now signed onto a bill that seeks to remove Trump by invoking 25th Amendment powers. The bill cites section 4 of the amendment, created in 1967 after JFK’s assassination, that allows for an independent body to remove the president based on the determination that he has been mentally or physically incapacitated to carry out his duties. Raskin’s initiative would activate a probe into whether Trump has been too far “incapacitated” to continue as president.

This effort is, actually, even sicker than the Soviet practice, since the amendment does not refer to psychiatric problems, but to actual incapacitation through assassination or stroke.

Raskin claims he is concerned that “something is seriously wrong” with Trump, citing a “sustained pattern of behavior” and several “errant and seemingly deranged tweets,” which he believes are damaging to U.S. interests. But to anyone who hasn’t drunk the progressive Kool-Aid, it is obvious that Trump’s sustained pattern of behavior is not damaging U.S. interests. Instead, it is unhinging his political enemies and damaging the progressive assault on America’s social contract. Trump’s tweets do not warn, for example, that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam (an Obama meme) or that you can keep your doctor if you like him. They are singing the praises of America and calling out a corrupt media for its brazen lies and political partisanship.

Lethal Police Hatred The War on Cops claims another life, this time in New York City. Seth Barron

The assassination of NYPD officer Miosotis Familia, who was sitting in her vehicle doing paperwork when she was shot in the head, is the latest instance of the national “War on Cops.” Her murderer, Alexander Bonds—subsequently gunned down by cops—was a career criminal who boasted of having attended “Attica High School,” and had previously beaten up a police officer with a pair of brass knuckles.

Bonds, whose Facebook page displays a picture of him wearing a T-shirt reading “Coming Out Hard,” hated the police and blamed them for his problems. He posted a video of a young man assaulting a female officer, agreeing with a comment that she was a “lil bitch” who had “to prove something.” Bonds also called for the release of leftist hero and convicted cop-killer Judith Clark, a participant in the notorious 1981 Westchester Brinks robbery on behalf of the Black Liberation Army. Depicting himself as a vicious pit bull straining at the leash, wearing a spiked collar, Bonds described “vengeance” as his most “deadly” characteristic: “If someone hurts you, they have to feel the full force of your wrath and your vengeance is swift and merciless.”

Officer Familia, the tragic target of Bonds’ twisted sense of justice for the miserable consequences of his bad choices, was by all accounts a model citizen and heroic public servant. A former Red Cross worker and registered nurse, the mother of three had served on the NYPD for 12 years. At the time of her murder, Officer Familia was guarding a corner that had been the site of a recent shooting, in a demonstration of the NYPD’s commitment to “flooding the zone” to restore order to neighborhoods afflicted by criminality.

The murder of Officer Familia is only the most recent of a deadly series of attacks on law enforcement officers around the country. The murders of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in December 2014 by a gunman apparently seeking revenge for the death of Eric Garner; the killings of seven police officers in Baton Rouge and Dallas by a radical black separatist in July 2016; and the murder of two Des Moines cops last November by a disgruntled “loner” are three of the most prominent ambush killings of cops in recent years. But these incidents only scratch the surface of what San Antonio police chief William McManus described earlier this week as general “hatred” toward police officers.

That hostility arises largely from a media-fed narrative—promoted cynically by liberal politicians—that black men are unjustly targeted and killed by police. In fact, incarceration rates by race, age, and sex largely track criminality, and research demonstrates that black men are actually less likely than whites to be killed during police confrontations, when adjusting for crime rates.

Anti-police sentiment has led to “de-policing” across America, though not yet—thankfully—in New York. But in Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Detroit, murder rates have shot up as law enforcement has retreated from proactive policing of high-crime neighborhoods. The Black Lives Matter movement and its rhetoric of victimhood have thus helped lead to more black deaths. And now the killing of Officer Familia by Alexander Bonds can be added to that sad and growing list.

Seth Barron is associate editor of City Journal and project director of the NYC Initiative at the Manhattan Institute.

Scalise Weathers Another Surgery After Infection Setback By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) underwent another surgery today after an infection dealt a setback to his recovery from a gunshot wound.

Scalise’s office said Wednesday night that he had been “readmitted to the Intensive Care Unit at MedStar Washington Hospital Center due to new concerns for infection,” with his condition downgraded to “serious.”

The congressman was gravely wounded in the June 14 attack on a Republican congressional baseball game practice, and had been moved out of the ICU on June 23.

In an update this evening, Scalise’s office said he “underwent surgery for the management of infection” earlier. “He tolerated the procedure well. He remains in serious condition. We will provide updates as appropriate.”

Tyson Foods lobbyist Matt Mike, who was shot multiple times in the chest, was released from the hospital on June 23. Capitol Police Special Agent Crystal Griner is recovering from a gunshot to the ankle.

Kris Kobach Rips Reports of Mass Boycott of Trump Voter Fraud Probe as ‘Fake News’ By Debra Heine

News reports claiming that 44 states have refused President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission’s request for voter data are “fake news,” the vice chairman of the commission declared on Wednesday.

In a statement released by the White House, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said only fourteen states have actually refused thus far.

“At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws,” Kobach wrote. “In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission’s work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system.” The vice chairman concluded:

While there are news reports that 44 states have “refused” to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more “fake news.” At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission’s request for publicly available voter information. Despite media distortions and obstruction by a handful of state politicians, this bipartisan commission on election integrity will continue its work to gather the facts through public records requests to ensure the integrity of each American’s vote because the public has a right to know.

News outlets that made the “44 states” false claim include CNN, NBC, The Week, Forbes, Vox, NY Daily News, Mic, CBS, and Yahoo.

On CNN’s “New Day” Wednesday morning, co-host Chris Cuomo said that Trump’s allegation of voter fraud is “B.S.”:

“Is there a second line to this story in terms of what this commission is about other than the obvious, which is trying to put meat on the bones of a B.S. allegation?”

CNN Political Commentator Errol Louis agreed, saying it is worse than that. The real objective of the administration’s voter fraud commission is voter suppression.

After the election Trump claimed that he would have won the popular vote if “the millions of people who voted illegally” were deducted.

Democrats really want that to be a “B.S. allegation.” But is it? From NewsBusters:

The Daily Signal has reported on the many cases of voter fraud and other studies have found that there are potentially large amounts of noncitizens registered to vote.

An Old Dominion University study found that noncitizen voting “is at times substantial enough to change important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races.” As Tom Fitton points out, using this study’s math, 1.41 million noncitizens would have voted in 2016.

The Pew Center’s 2012 election survey found that:

“Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.”

“More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.”

“Approximately 2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.”

Additionally, as the Washington Times reports, investigations in Maryland and Virgina have found thousands of aliens registered to vote.

Hamas-Linked Women’s March Organizer Calls for ‘Jihad’ Against Trump By Tyler O’Neil

This past weekend, a Muslim activist who helped organize the “Women’s March” this past January actually called for Muslims to engage in a “jihad” against President Donald Trump.”

“I hope that we — when we stand up to those who oppress our communities — that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,” Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, declared in a speech at the annual Islamic Society of North America convention over the weekend.

“We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House,” the activist added.

Sarsour argued that if Muslims did not wage a kind of jihad against Trump, they would be effectively siding with the “oppression” of every liberal group.

“If you sit back idly in the face of oppression, if you maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims but oppresses black people inside our community and outside our community, undocumented people, other minority groups and oppressed groups, then you — my dear sisters and brothers — are then identified with the oppressor,” Sarsour declared.

“If you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country, you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America.”

Sarsour mentioned “jihad” more than once, and explained what she meant by the term. She quoted the prophet Mohammed’s response to the question of “what is the best form of jihad or struggle,” saying that “a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad.”

This liberal activist was not calling for violent attacks on Trump, his administration, or Republicans in general. But if their policies constitute “oppression,” and if no patriot can support those policies, and if a Muslim calls for jihad against the president, it stands to reason that violence is, to some degree, implied.

Mere weeks after the politically motivated shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise, who remains in the hospital today, this Muslim activist behind the Women’s March called for jihad against the “oppressive,” “tyrant,” “fascist,” and “white supremacist” Trump. Talk about turning politics into a religion and demonizing your opponents.

Sarsour has supported a political enshrinement of sharia (Islamic law), has ties to the terrorist organization Hamas … and lectures Westerners about women’s rights, after she tweeted that Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali “don’t deserve to be women” and should have their vaginas taken away. But if you sit idly back in the face of what she considers injustice, no peace be upon you.

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ You’d think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers—but apparently not. By Julie Kelly

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways.”

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”

Scientists puzzle through effect of ‘deep solar minimum’ on earth’s atmosphere By Thomas Lifson

There haven’t been any sunspots for the last 44 days, and some scientists believe that the sun is entering a period called a “deep solar minimum,” with unpredictable, but potentially devastating effects. But don’t worry: even if we don’t know what’s going to happen over the next couple of years, it is still “settled science” (ask Al Gore, if you doubt this) that in a century the “earth’s temperature” will rise and cause catastrophe.

Meanwhile, in the ort run, the science isn’t looking very settled. The New York Post reprints a story from the UK Sun:

The sun might soon batter us with a shower of deep space rays so intense, it could cause part of our atmosphere to collapse.

Space scientists reckon we are on the verge of a “deep solar minimum,” which is a period of low activity.

Unlike the name suggests, this could cause an outer layer of the atmosphere called the thermosphere to contract — and it’s not entirely clear what the effects of this could be on our planet.

Professor Yvonne Elsworth at the University of Birmingham in England believes that a “fundamental change in the nature of the [sun’s magnetic] dynamo may be in progress.”

It’s backed up by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory’s daily snaps, which have shown a spotless sun for 44 days in a row.

This led scientists to believe that it’s nearing a tumultuous period not seen since 2008.

There is too much “may” and “might” floating around here for me to be 100% confident that the atmosphere will “collapse.”

One finding that I have arrived at (and I am a “social scientist” with a PhD in Sociology, after all) is that claiming catastrophe is a good way for a scientist to get attention. Maybe even some grant money.

The Deconstruction of Western Values By David Prentice

Western Civilization is extraordinarily complex. From Greece to Rome to Europe and America, a long, multifaceted, and rich line of thought has dominated. In 1909 Harvard (oh, the irony) published a series called the “Harvard Classics” that began a major emphasis on what we now call “the great books”. Many universities nationally and worldwide used this book list as the basis of understanding who we were and how the West had come to be what it was. It was a list worthy of teaching each generation. In today’s jaded academic world, these courses barely exist.

This was the epitome of Western thought. From Plato, the Judeo/Christian writings, Epictetus, Augustine, Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and many more, and with such depth, the list was genuinely incredible. I remember asking a professor why we didn’t study more contemporary books, rather than these stuffy old tomes. He replied, “Because they have stood the test of time.” Checkmate. You could say that they once formed the basis of thought for both liberals and conservatives in the country, that they helped make America great. Post-World War II, most boomers studied the great books.

Enter the deconstruction. It had begun prior to the 1930s. It was the critical theory of the Frankfurt School that began our slow death march. Our academics fell for this critique of Western thought. Howard Zinn and the current group of “historians” all put their stamp on calling these books as the progeny of “dead white men.” The left, being who they are, readily accepted this new history. It was not necessary to debate or discuss actual historical ideas. It was more important to call them old, dead, and white. The democrat party may as well call its platform the epitome of the deconstruction of the West.

The deconstructionists have been winning. Our universities have literally gone insane, teaching every new critique about our culture that pops up. Just look at any liberal arts college course list. Most are pretty sick, intent on salting the mental constructs of their students so they can be good leftist role models. They want students spouting the aphorisms of ignorant live professors who forgot how alive the classics are, if they ever knew. If you want to know the fruit of this teaching, just look at what the universities have instituted in recent years: safe rooms, therapy dogs, crying sessions, counselling. They are still melting down. A generation lost in space, in the mentally “safe”, and very demented spaces of the professoriate.

C.S. Lewis saw this budding phenomenon back in the 1930s. In his writings, professors spouting the deconstruction theories were the villains, universities were the vehicles, bureaucracies were the model for Hellishness, and leftist politicians rounded out the whole bad barrel of apples.

In his novel, That Hideous Strength, there are powerful scenes where his hero, Ransom, battles a professor/politician who has given himself over to these new forces. Ransom watches as the professor deteriorates mentally and morally, finally realizing what this new philosophy leads to. He sees the formerly brilliant professor becoming sotted with viciousness, self-indulgence, and foolishness. Ransom finally understands he has to fight this man, and his philosophy, to the death. Literally.

These scenes are powerful foreshadowing of what has happened in our deconstructed country. C.S. Lewis and his good friend Tolkien envisioned the great earthly battles to come, writing fiction about the courage of those who would fight against deconstructionist enemies.

Donald Trump this week gave a speech in Poland lauding Western values, stating our vulnerabilities, and wondering if the West has the will to survive. He is encouraging those in the West who have the mettle to rise up and reclaim our heritage. He is engaging the battle against those who would tear it down. Trump knows the stakes. When he talks about making America great again, it’s likely because he understood the courses of great books, and knew the greatness of what was once handed to us.

Pope John Paul II gave some great speeches about what he called “the culture of death. How fitting that Trump would give his latest call to arms in Poland. How fitting that Poland, so historically war-torn, sees the battle clearly. How fitting that they are already in the fight to preserve the West, one of the few European countries to do so.