A Rash Leader in a Grave Time Trump could bridge the divide between the elites and GOP voters. Instead, he’s deepening it.By Peggy Noonan

As tribune of the base Donald Trump is successful and inadequate. You see it in the Muslim question. His strength is that he responds to and appears to share the concerns of those who are legitimately worried about whom we allow into the United States—our visa protocols, our vetting, our standards. This is a national-security issue. We have entered the age of ISIS-inspired and ISIS-directed attacks on the West. The latter (Paris) have tended to be bloodier than the former (San Bernardino), because they involve more operatives, more simultaneous targets, more weapons. Whether inspired or directed, the idea of future hits in the U.S.—and everyone, from the most sophisticated desk-jockey intel analyst in Washington to the receptionist at your dentist’s office, will tell you they believe more are coming—is very much on the public mind.

A Paris here would change everything, transposing a detached debate about strategy into a hot and immediate political exigency. There is the real danger events will outstrip sober decision making. The smartest thing I’ve heard the past few weeks was the suggestion that America figure out the most effective and constructive things it could do after a Paris-style attack, and start doing them now. I hope everyone who runs the country is thinking about this. They’d better have a plan.

No Political Guardrails President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit.By Kimberley A. Strassel

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

Call Islamic Terrorism by Its Name Why ignoring the religious beliefs behind the threat is foolish—and dangerous. By Rudolph W. Giuliani

In 1983 when I was the U.S. attorney in New York, I used the word “Mafia” in describing some people we arrested or indicted. The Italian American Civil Rights League—which was founded by Joe Colombo, one of the heads of New York’s notorious five families—and some other similar groups complained that I was defaming all Italians by using that term. In fact, I had violated a Justice Department rule prohibiting U.S. attorneys from employing the term Mafia. The little-known rule had been inserted by Attorney General John Mitchell in the early 1970s at the behest of Mario Biaggi, a congressman from New York.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

Similarly, you may hear about ISIS or ISIL or Daesh, but make no mistake: The terrorists refer to themselves as members of Islamic State. Just as it would have been foolish to fail to use the word Mafia or admit its Italian identity, it is foolish to refuse to call these Islamic terrorists by the name they give themselves or to refuse to acknowledge their overriding religious rationale.

The Muslim Reform Movement Plays Fantasy Islam Welcome to a personal version of Islam that has nothing to do with Islam. Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

In December 2015, a small group of “Muslim reformers” met in Washington DC to discuss the reform of Islam. They stated they were “Muslims who live in the 21st century” who were “in a battle for the soul of Islam.” They proclaimed that they stood for “a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam.” They called their meeting the Summit of Western Muslim Voices of Reform and named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement. On December 4, 2015, fourteen “founding authors” from this movement signed the Declaration for Muslim Reform, laying out their beliefs.

At the conclusion of the event, two participants posted a signed copy of this Declaration on the door of the Islamic Center of Washington DC (a la Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church in 1517). The document was quickly removed, and so far there has been little, if any, support for this reform movement from the greater Muslim-American community.

Here is the reason for that lack of support: the Preamble and Declaration are only two pages in length. But in those two pages these “founding authors” fundamentally rejected the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad in an effort to create their own Fantasy Islam that is more compatible with Western, Judeo-Christian values. Let’s examine some parts of that Declaration for Muslim Reform.

KGB-TV Holds Conference Starring Former DIA: Chief Cliff Kincaid

While U.S. policymakers worry about the propaganda techniques of ISIS in drawing thousands of Islamists into the fight against the West, America’s adversaries in the Arab/Muslim world as a whole, as well as Russia and China, continue to make inroads into the U.S. media market. Indeed, on Thursday in Moscow, the premier Russian propaganda channel, RT (Russia Today), is holding a conference [1] marking its 10th anniversary as an outlet for Kremlin propaganda. President Obama’s former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is among the speakers at the event.

“RT aired its first broadcast on December 10, 2005,” says the promotional material. “Since then, the geopolitical chessboard has been rearranged and the news media scene welcomed many new voices.” However, these “new voices” are state-funded and controlled, in contrast to the privately-funded and independent news media organizations in the U.S.—which has a First Amendment—and other Western countries. The reference to the geopolitical chessboard being rearranged refers to the influence of government-financed media in Russia, China, and much of the Arab/Muslim world in changing perceptions of the United States.

Retaking America Best-selling author Nick Adams’ new book outlines an action plan against the Left for all patriotic Americans. Jamie Glazov

FP: Nick Adams, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Adams: Thank you, Jamie, great to be with you.

FP: Congratulations on your new book. Let’s begin with this question: Why does an Australian care what happens in America?

Adams: Jamie, what’s good for America is good for the world. A weak America is a weak world. A strong America is a strong world. That’s not a theory. That’s reality. We can see it happening right now. Cast your eye over the world: Islamists are openly working to establish a Caliphate. There is a catastrophic humanitarian disaster. Russia is attempting to re-establish the Soviet empire. China is aggressively expanding in the South China Sea. There are vast refugee flows. This is no coincidence. Frankly, this is what the world looks like when American influence is in decline. We are all paying a heavy price for the Obama administration’s politically correct decisions. Western intellectuals have long believed that America is not a force for good in the world, and should take a backseat in world affairs. They now have egg on their face.

FP: Tell us about your new book and why people should read it.

Adams: Let me put it this way: if you love America, and you hate political correctness, then you need to read this book. It’s as simple as that. Nothing is more anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-truth, and anti-reality than political correctness. It is a noose around America’s neck, growing tighter each day. From identity politics and secularism to the all-powerful welfare state and the war against national identity, every problem in America today is either rooted in, or compounded by political correctness. It is destroying America, and if it destroys America, it destroys Western civilization. So, we have to crush it, and only America can.

‘Architects of Disaster’ Takes on Obama and Hillary’s Disaster The price of arrogance in Libya. Daniel Greenfield

There have been many books written about Benghazi, but not every book led to a personal attack from the White House. And yet that’s what happened with “Architects of Disaster”, the book by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra indicting Obama and Hillary for the Libyan disaster.

In “Architects of Disaster”, Hoekstra lays out the case against the intervention in Libya, a war that still remains nameless and hardly discussed despite the post-war murders of five Americans in that country. Beginning with the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, he traces back the roots of that disaster to Obama and Hillary’s intervention in Libya which ended up empowering Islamic terrorists.

As Hoekstra states, the cause of that atrocity was rooted in the administration’s belief that “Jihadists can be both trusted and managed.” And as Hoekstra, currently a Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, points out that, “in spite of all that has happened… the Obama administration has continued this policy to the present day.” And appears ready to continue it forever.

Despite that beginning, “Architects of Disaster” is less of a look at Benghazi and instead represents a wider examination of what really happened in Libya. Benghazi was one of the symptoms that Obama and Hillary’s war had gone badly wrong. But it was neither the beginning nor the end of what was taking place in Libya. It was a bloody moment that made Americans rethink a war that they had opposed, but had otherwise never really paid much attention to.

ACLU Silence Enables Campus Anti-Free Speech Movement by Nat Hentoff and Nick Hentoff

The Radio Television Digital News Association recently presented its new First Amendment Defenders Award to Tim Tai, a student journalist who was hired by ESPN to cover the anti-racism protests at the University of Missouri.

“Tai was confronted by University students, faculty and staff, threatening him with violence if he did not abandon his efforts,” the award citation reads. “Instead, he stood his ground and patiently asserted his First Amendment Rights to stand in a public place and report on the events around him.”

One would hope that the ACLU of Missouri issued a statement of support for Tim Tai at the time the video of this highly publicized event went viral on the Internet. But the ACLU of Missouri didn’t even acknowledge that the incident occurred. Instead, they issued a statement that “the ACLU of Missouri honors the University of Missouri students and faculty who displayed courageous and creative leadership …”

The next day, when MU’s student body vice president suggested on national television that the exercise of First Amendment rights creates a hostile and unsafe learning environment, the ACLU of Missouri remained silent. Two days later, when a Christian street preacher was physically assaulted by anti-racism protesters while speaking inside MU’s designated “Free Speech Circle,” the ACLU of Missouri remained silent.

FBI director: Feds Missed Signs San Bernardino Shooter Was Jihadist During Visa Screening By Joel Gehrke

One of the San Bernardino shooters came to the United States with the intention of carrying out a terrorist attack, FBI director James Comey told Congress on Wednesday.

Comey said he doesn’t know if a terrorist group arranged the marriage between the two attackers, but said that Tashfeen Malik had jihadist goals as early as 2013. “The intelligence indicates that she was [radicalized] before she connected with the other killer and came here,” he said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning.

Comey’s revelation comes in the midst of a debate over President Obama’s pledge to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States, as lawmakers and governors question the efficacy of Department of Homeland Security screening procedures. It rattled even Democratic lawmakers on the committee who have defended Obama’s policies.

“After this hearing today, every American is going to be asking the question: How did this woman come in on a visa . . . if she was talking publicly (again, we’ll get into ‘privately’ in the classified briefing) about jihad?” said New York senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader-in-waiting. “Shouldn’t that be somehow tied into our visa program?”

PC Suppression of Public Concerns Fuels the Trump Phenomenon By Victor Davis Hanson****

The more analysts try to figure out Donald Trump’s appeal, the more they sound baffled.

Pundits cite Trump’s verbal sloppiness and ridiculousness as proof that he must soon implode. But Trump sees his daily bombast as an injection of outrage for a constituency now hooked on someone who finally voices their pent-up anger. The more reckless Trump’s doses of scattergun outrageousness, the better the fix for his supporters.

Trump’s vague “make America great again” was the natural bookend to Barack Obama’s even more vacuous “hope and change.” The popularity of such empty slogans reflects a culture in which no one any longer trusts institutions, the media, government, or politicians.

The public no longer respects U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the IRS, the VA, or the GSA. Even the once-hallowed Secret Service has become a near laughingstock of incompetency, corruption, and politicization. Is the purpose of NASA really Muslim outreach, as NASA chief Charles Bolden suggested in 2010?