Tag Archives: refugees

CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens

[Part I – “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)[1] – highlighted Britain’s current rebellion against the European Union. Americans would do well to emulate their growing fervor for freedom.]

We have seen why so many Brits seek to flee the European Union, whose centralized, supranational government prevents Britain from protecting itself from the immigration crisis and terrorist threat contained therein.

CPAC2016-11

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels (HQ of the EU), National Review noted the inescapable nexus between the E.U.’s policies and the fruit of those policies. The Editors wrote (emphasis added):

“In one part of the city reside EU bureaucrats who continue to promulgate their fanciful transnational ideals, increasingly against the evidence; in another part are roiling ghettos populated largely by Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom have a very different vision for the future of Europe … A half century of effectively open borders, a refusal to require assimilation of immigrants into a robust notion of European culture, and an unyielding fidelity to multicultural pieties have resulted in cities fractured along ethnic lines and, as Brussels officials have admitted in the hours since Tuesday morning’s attack, overwhelmed by potential terror threats.”

Terrorism is not the only threat posed by edicts from the European Union. Freedom itself is at stake!

Prototype World Government

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, offered his insight into the dangers of a centralized government within a supranational context. Those insights are extremely relevant to the ongoing battle for power within the United States between the various branches of government as well as the struggle over federalism vs. statism. Hint: Liberty is losing.

According to Woolfe, the European Union has become a “super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants.” The bureaucratic state – unelected and unaccountable to the People – enjoys an ever-increasing degree of control over the lives of the citizens of the European Union.

I asked Woolfe how that came about. He explained, “After the Second World War, people quite rightly no longer wanted to have their children murdered in wars against each other. So they decided that they wanted to have an organization where countries come together to sort out their differences, a little bit like the United Nations.”

However, the founders of the European Union sought the abolition of “populist governments” who are elected by the people. To achieve that goal, they created “the European Union, in which the body called ‘The Commission,’ made of up civil servants, made the laws for the whole of Europe.”

Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic,[2] highlighted the consequence of these “two interrelated phenomena” (emphasis added): “the European integration process on the one hand, and the evolution of the European economic and social system on the other – both of which have been undergoing a fundamental change in the context of the ‘brave new world’ of our permissive, anti-market, redistributive society, a society that has forgotten the ideas on which the greatness of Europe was built.”

Woolfe added, “What they did over a period of forty years, they slowly took powers, through different treaties, from each of the nation-states.” Woolfe contends, “The European Union is becoming like a colonialist empire. It’s almost like the prototype of a world government.”

12938235_497864707067616_986690819924296611_n

The Unbridled Power of Bureaucrats

Who runs this proto-colonialist empire? Bureaucrats!

As Woolfe put it, “Imagine the idea that civil servants – not elected politicians – can make your laws. Imagine that those laws can never be changed, can never be repealed. Imagine that government lobbyists and government affairs are the ones that talk to these civil servants and tell them what laws to initiate. That’s exactly what happens in the European Union. There is no people power. It’s very much bureaucratic power.”

Woolfe argues that the European Union is in embryonic form what globalists have always wanted to achieve. Woolfe almost sounds like a Bernie Sanders because he discerns a collusion between corporate Europe and the bureaucrats who make the laws.

Woolfe put it this way: “Many of us would argue that the fact that you have the large corporations who can game the system by basically negotiating their own laws with civil servants who then pass it down to the nation-states to enact. And if you’re a citizen in Germany who wants to have controlled borders, as you can see people flooding into Europe from all over the world in the migration crisis that we have, you’ve got no one who can stop it because you have no governments who can control it. It’s the EU that does it. If you want to have lower taxation, if you want to have less regulation, you can’t change your politicians to do that because it’s the civil servants – the Commission – that is making those laws.”

Woolfe concluded with a warning to America, one that is, sadly, decades too late. He queried, “And just think how dangerous that is to the United States if this idea crosses the Atlantic.”

Origins of the Statist Welfare State  

In the 1870s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state, with its byzantine bureaucracies and labyrinth of administrative laws. Bismarck’s model became the blueprint for Western European nations and also for progressives in the United States of America. At the heart of his model is centralized planning by elites made up of the self-anointed “best and brightest” who think that they know better than we do how to live our lives.

Philip Hamburger observed,[3] “This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.”

John Daniel Davidson has observed that “The father of American progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, saw this coming.” Wilson “thought the U.S. Constitution was outdated and that America needed a professional, Prussian-style administrative state, and that the chief hindrance to this in America was popular sovereignty.” Wilson believed that “expert administrators” were superior to the will of the People.

This is, of course, the antithesis of the individual liberty for which the Founding Fathers fought and the apotheosis for all those who oppose the Constitution and the framework of our Republic as envisioned by its Framers. Dennis Prager recently noted, “The size of the federal government and its far-reaching meddling in and control over Americans’ lives are the very thing America was founded to avoid.”

Either the rule of law by representative government or law by executive and administrative fiat will prevail. They cannot coexist. Peaceful coexistence is a myth.

Absolute Power Wielded by Statists

In contrast to statists who favor administrative law, our Founders and Framers opposed the exercise of absolute power. Hamburger noted, “They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights.”

Consequently, “Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.”

Administrative law, wrote Hamburger, is extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated. It is in defiance of our system of checks and balances which is expressly designed to limit and diffuse power. According to Hamburger (emphasis added):

  • “Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms – not through statutes but through regulations – and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications.”
  • “It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law – which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges.”
  • “And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in administrative agencies.”

Hamburger added, “Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth.”

Power of the Pen, Phone, and Judicial Activism

Jonah Goldberg concurs, writing, “The growth of the administrative state and the encroachment of federal law into every nook and cranny of local life has been a century-long project of the Left.”

What President Obama couldn’t get passed in Congress he has sought to enact through the power of his pen and his phone. He has bypassed Congress through unconstitutional executive actions on immigration and other matters. Further, he has politicized the IRS, EPA, HHS, Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to target his political foes and implement his contra-Congress agenda (the will of the People be damned!).

Even before the advent of Obama administration, Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn lamented[4] that “We live in a more liberated age, the age of bureaucratic government. Here rules abound in such profusion that they seem to overbear the laws of nature themselves. So it is with honoring the Constitution these days. We honor it more avidly than ever in the breach of its restraints, but at the same time we pay it the respect of mandatory, hectic, and empty observance. Except for our dishonoring of it, we have never honored it so much.”

Moreover, for decades, several activist Justices have tilted the Supreme Court away from the Constitution and toward unbridled power by non-elected bureaucrats. Goldberg noted, “in many respects the Supreme Court is now more powerful than the presidency. It’s certainly far, far, far less democratic. We appoint justices for life and many of their decisions cannot be overturned by the Congress, or the people, short of a constitutional convention.”

Death of Federalism and Freedom by the Stroke of a 1,000 Pens

Obamacare exemplifies and is representative of all that is wrong with administrative law. Case in point: The whole power of the federal government is intractably opposed to and wielded against charitable work performed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.

David French pointed out (emphasis added) “it’s important to understand that the Sisters are not challenging a law passed by Congress. Instead, the contraception mandate is a rule concocted by bureaucrats. When Congress passed Obamacare it intentionally passed the statute with a number of vague directives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted and expanded through the regulatory rulemaking process. Thus, the Obamacare statute itself does not contain a contraceptive mandate. Instead, it merely requires employers to ‘provide coverage’ for ‘preventive services’ for women, including ‘preventive care.’”

These unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have “exempted vast numbers of employers from its requirements – sometimes for mere convenience. It grandfathered existing plans that did not cover contraceptives, exempted small firms, and exempted ‘religious employers.’”

However, they define that term “so narrowly that it applied mainly to entities such as churches and synagogues, not to religious schools, hospitals, or charities – entities that are motivated by faith, often require employees to share the organization’s faith commitment, and ordinarily receive much the same level of religious-freedom protection as houses of worship.”

A Time for Choosing

Ronald Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, should be revisited by all lovers of liberty. The 2016 election is of paramount importance and freedom itself hangs in the balance. Indeed, this election is about survival.[5] Will we elect a fraud and a mountebank, Donald Trump,[6] or an official Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton[7] or Bernie Sanders) – statists all?

Or will we choose the only constitutional conservative in the race, Ted Cruz?[8]

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[9] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[10]]

Update: The current tyrannical nature of the Obama administration and its rule imposed by unelected bureaucrats to force the American people to adopt a radical agenda foisted on them is perfectly illustrated by the Justice Department’s edicts regarding transgender-friendly bathrooms. Rich Lowry calls it the Bathroom Putsch. Lowry decries “middling bureaucrats [who] impose their will on the nation,” writing, “The transgender edict is a perfect distillation of the Obama administration’s centralizing reflex, high-handed unilateral rule, and burning desire to push the boundaries of cultural change as far as practical in its remaining time in office.”

Update: The absurdity of the bureaucratic state is epitomized by federal, state and local governments who are currently waging a war on illegal lemonade stands run by children! Kevin Williamson notes, “We are ruled by power-mad buffoons.”

Update: Wesley J. Smith writes: “The political left loves the Bureaucratic State because it allows unelected and democratically unaccountable “experts” to be in control–for our own good, of course.” Smith exposes how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is invading your privacy and intruding into your health care!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[2]               Vaclav Klaus, “The Crisis of the European Union: Causes and Significance,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, July/August 2011, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-of-the-european-union-causes-and-significance/.

[3]               Philip Hamburger, “The History and Danger of Administrative Law,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, September 2014, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/.

[4]               Larry P. Arnn, “A Return to the Constitution,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, November 2007, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/a-return-to-the-constitution/.

[5]               See “CPAC: This Election is About Survival” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dO.

[6]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[7]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[8]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[9]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[10]             See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

Advertisements

CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)

Many Brits seek independence from the European Union. Barack Obama and other statists oppose that effort. Why? Because they favors transnational, big government at the expense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

CPAC2016-10

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, is leading the charge for British independence and freedom lovers everywhere should support him.

(Just prior to our interview, Woolfe had spoken with the chiefs of staff of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns.)

Woolfe told me that the “main concern in the United Kingdom is something we call Brexit [British exit], which is a referendum which is being held in the United Kingdom on June 23rd, to determine whether Britain will be a member of the European Union.” (The Daily Caller provides a handy reference regarding the Brexit referendum.)

National Sovereignty and National Security

Power, not economics, is at the core of the European Union and the reason so many Brits want to leave it. Woolfe explained, “Many American citizens think that the European Union is simply a group of all the countries of Europe coming together over free trade. There is nothing further from the truth.”

Woolfe continued, “The truth is, this is a new European Union super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants. People can’t vote for them, can’t remove them, but they have 75% of the laws. Control of your law, your freedom, your liberty, your democracy is in the hands of civil servants, not in the hands of politicians.”

John O’Sullivan observed that the issue of national sovereignty favors Brexit supporters since the U.K. only has “one-28th of the EU’s decision-making authority, and thus power.” Therefore, it is in the best interests of those who want more freedom and more say in how to live their own lives to pursue freedom from the European Union.

Moreover, per O’Sullivan, “former chancellor, Nigel Lawson, pointed out that on all the 72 occasions when an issue was voted on in the EU Council of Ministers, Britain had been outvoted every time.” In other words, national sovereignty has been subordinated to supranational authority.

Europe’s refugee crisis and the rise of terrorism on the continent are of major concern to the British people. The European Union’s present open-door policy is anathema to those who want to protect Britain. Woolfe links the escalating terrorism seen in Europe with the immigration crisis[1] which has deluged so many European nations. According to Woolfe, the European Union prevents Britain and other EU nations from securing their borders. He seeks a revamping of the current open-door system to “a managed migration system.”

President Obama Weighs In

President Obama actually  threatened Britain should the British people leave the European Union. Obama said, “I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

Members of the British Parliament and European Parliament beseeched Obama “to stay out of Britain’s referendum.” In a letter to the President, they wrote, “With so much at stake, it is imperative that the question of exiting the European Union is not one answered by foreign politicians or outside interests, but rather by the British people who must ultimately live with change or the status quo.” They rightly notes that “issues of national sovereignty must be decided exclusively by the people of the United Kingdom.”

Presidential Candidates Respond

Naturally, those who favor statism and the advancement of a big government agenda oppose Britain’s efforts to leave the E.U., while those who favor freedom, limited government, and national sovereignty support Britain’s desire for independence.

Hillary Clinton backed Obama. Her senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, said, “Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.”

Bernie Sanders waffled: “I think the European Union obviously is a very, very important institution. I would hope that they stay in, but that’s their decision.”

Donald Trump equivocated, saying that the Brits “may leave” the European Union but refused to say whether that would be good or bad.

In contrast, Ted Cruz sided with our allies, declaring, “This was nothing less than a slap in the face of British self-determination as the president, typically, elevated an international organization over the rights of a sovereign people.” Cruz pledged, “If Brexit takes place, Britain will be at the front of the line for a free trade deal with America, not at the back.”

Cruz added: “The British people will shape their destiny, and we will stand with them regardless of the outcome of the referendum. As president, I will work to ensure that our special relationship is reinvigorated – and the Obama doctrine of coddling tyrants while castigating democratic allies will finally be at an end.”

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[2] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[3]]

[Part II – “Death by a 1,000 Pens[4] –addresses the broader implications of the Brexit movement as it pertains to Americans and our own need for independence from an increasingly tyrannical government.]

Update: Congratulations to our cousins across the pond for their stunning victory for Liberty. Will Brexit mark the beginning of the demise of the European Union just as the Soviet Union, one by one, lost its satellite states?

Update: Good commentary by Ian Tuttle on the globalist worldview and animus of those just defeated by Brexit:

“Liberal cosmopolitanism, regnant since the end of the Cold War, has bought completely into its own rightness. It is entirely devoted to an increasingly borderless political future carefully managed by technocrats and tempered by ‘compassion’ and ‘tolerance’ – all of which aims at the maximal amount of material prosperity. It sees no other alternative than that we will all, eventually, be ‘citizens of the world,’ and assumes that everyone will be happier that way.”

“The inability of our political leaders to envision political futures other than the one to which they are wedded has facilitated the polarization, and the unresponsiveness, of our politics. That people are now looking for alternatives is, in fact, entirely reasonable.”

Brexit is a victory for freedom and a blow to progressive statism and supra-nationalism.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e8.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

[4]               See “CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eV.

Member of European Parliament Links Terrorism with Immigration Crisis

Terrorism strikes Brussels, puzzling the Left while validating the Right.

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, linked the escalating terrorism seen in Europe with the immigration crisis which has deluged so many European nations.

CPAC2016-09

Over a million unexpected migrants entered Europe last year, among them, criminals and also Islamists who seek to commit jihad in Europe. In an exclusive interview at CPAC, Woolfe warned, “it is the people traffickers – led by ISIS, Boca Haram, and gangsters – who are making over $2 billion a year at the moment.”

According to Woolfe, Europe desperately needs to end its “open-door [immigration] system that Angela Merkel from Germany permitted,” a system which has swamped Europe with millions of unassimilated people who drain the welfare state and potentially endanger the citizenry.

Woolfe would replace that “open-door” with “a managed migration system.” He acknowledges that “some immigration is useful for a country,” but argues that each nation in Europe should have the right to control its own borders based upon its own priorities.

While welcoming refugees from migration camps is one thing, European citizens are coming to see that unrestricted migration poses a clear and present danger to European citizens. Therefore, Woolfe proposes dramatically limiting the influx of refugees and other migrants, declaring that Europeans “must turn back the boats – back to Libya, back to Lebanon, back to Turkey – to ensure that this crisis stops.

The nexus between terrorism and “open-door” immigration is very real. It is, indeed, a major reason why Britain is seeking to leave the European Union. Woolfe supports a referendum, called Brexit [British exit], which will be “held in the United Kingdom on June 23rd, to determine whether Britain will be a member of the European Union.”

Left Wrong on Biggest Stories of 2015

The AP recently listed the top ten news stories of 2015 – and the Left was wrong on every one of them!

Left Wrong - 2015

The pacifist and radical Left, especially as epitomized by the Obama administration, rejects the very notion of a war on terror and denies the existence of Islamic terrorism in America. It prefers to wage war on climate change (a hoax), endemic and institutional racism (a myth), and law-abiding gun owners (a bogeyman), while championing the dissolution of America’s social fabric (e.g., gay marriage and the gay agenda).

1 – Islamic State

The Islamic State was the number one new story of 2015, with good reason: Islamist jihadists have created a terrorist nation-state which is gobbling up whole swaths of the Middle East and their vision of a global caliphate stretches around the globe, with climactic terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino which serve to underscore both their ambitions and their zeal.

Even in the face of the latest atrocities, the Left in general, and the Obama administration in particular,[1] reflexively defend Islam. Even in the face of savage brutality immune to reason, they seek to negotiate peace with these predators.[2] They view poverty – not religious ideology – as the motivating cause of terrorism.[3] Indeed, they hold politically correct conferences which teach the West how to capitulate to Islamists.[4] Refusing to accept reality, they really think that ISIS is contained[5] and the war on terror is over.

2 – Gay Marriage

After decades of indoctrination (via public education, entertainment, academia, and political correctness), a significant number of Americans have fallen for the gay agenda. The Supreme Court recently “settled” the issue of gay marriage. The Left was ecstatic!

The gay agenda has further infiltrated a number of churches,[6] causing them to preach a false gospel. Gay activists seek to stifle the true gospel through the power of the state and mob action (e.g., Sweet Cakes Bakery, Memories Pizza).

The Obama administration has succeeded in its goal of fundamentally transforming America[7] away from traditional values and its Judeo-Christian roots.

The Left champions gender transformation and self-identification as a different race[8] as acts of courage. America is becoming lost in a fog of immorality and tyranny[9] – while the Left applauds.

Kym Davis was denounced for standing up for truth, morality, and the law[10] when she removed to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

3 – Paris Attacks

Islamists committed notorious terrorist acts in Paris in 2015. In the first instance, Obama snubbed the Parisians[11] even as the world stood with them.[12] Right-thinking people advised Obama to stand in solidarity[13] against these terrorists. After the latest attack, Obama continued to insist that climate change is a greater threat than jihadists. The Left, as a whole, went bonkers over that attack, blaming everyone but the terrorists for their terrorism.[14]

4 – Mass Shootings

“Mass shootings” is AP’s catch-all category which includes typical criminal activity, atypical massacres committed by the mentally ill, shootings by white and black supremacists, and Islamic acts of terror. Failure to differentiate between different kinds of violence precludes prevention of that violence.[15]

Unable to split different types of violence into appropriate categories, the Left is left with only one solution: gun control.[16] Indeed, the Left’s answer to all violence, whether committed by criminals, crazed individuals, or fanatical terrorists, is … gun control![17]

The reverse is actually true: more guns, less crime. Gun control is a form of appeasement to criminals. Charles Cooke provides an excellent and thorough explanation and analysis of why the Second Amendment arose and remains relevant today. Moreover, the weapons used in San Bernardino massacre were already illegal.

In addition to reflexively screaming “gun control” at every instance of violence, the Left is wont to wrongly affix blame, usually on conservatives[18] or Christians. For them,

5 – Black Deaths in Encounters with the Police

AP’s sole focus was on the allegations of police brutality and murder and the rationale behind the Black Lives Matter movement, with zero interest in the perspective of the police and the targeting of police for assassination. The Left seems largely apathetic about the illegitimacy of most of those allegations.

“Hands up; don’t shoot” was a fraudulent narrative from the beginning,[19] yet the racial grievance industry continues to regard it as factual.[20] This is one of the Left’s most cherished narratives.[21] As a consequence of perpetuating this racial myth, Ferguson went up in flames.[22] The lives of countless police officers across the country were threatened (some were killed).[23]

Despite all the hype from Black Live Matter activists and the eagerly-complicit media, their memes are false.

Just as the Left refuses to place the blame for terrorism on Islamists, for crime on criminals, for mass shootings on the mentally ill. The Left also refuses to place the blame for dysfunctional black communities in major Democrat cities where it belongs: fifty years of Democrat policies.

Instead, the Left denies the astonishing progress made to achieve Dr. King’s dream[24] and, instead, encourages more violence in the name of alleged black victimhood and black entitlement.[25] Escalating violence in Baltimore[26] is but one of many examples. The “Ferguson Effect” endangers whole communities, including blacks.

6 – Terrorism Worries

Despite the Left’s protestations, Islamic terrorism has been on the rise in America[27] ever since President Obama took office. The AP’s sole entry in this category is the San Bernardino massacre. It completely ignored the many Islamic terrorist attacks committed in the United States[28] during the Obama administration.

The Left regularly employs Orwellian word games for ideological and political purposes. They continually try to redefine terrorism[29] to exclude the actual terrorists committing terrorism and to include their political foes: conservatives[30] and Christians.[31]

Ever-ready to deny the existence of Islamist terrorists,[32] the Left perpetuates the notion that Christians and conservatives are a far greater threat.[33] Perversely, they want to believe this nonsense.[34] A recent poll confirms this observation.

7 – US Election Campaign

The AP only names Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. It totally ignores every[35] Clinton[36] controversy.[37]

The media’s singular obsession with the Trump Phenomenon serves multiple purposes. First and foremost, ratings and money. Second, it enables them to tarnish all Republicans with the Trump brand. Third, it diverts attention away from more credible, serious, and substantive candidates. And fourth, it provides cover for the many character and candidacy flaws of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

8 – Climate Change

That climate change – a non-story – came in number eight on this list shows the extent to which the White House[38] and liberals will promote this myth. Headline: “Obama’s EPA – Holiday Meals Cause ‘Global Warming’’

Meanwhile, despite its efforts to hype global warming, the media ignores those stories which disprove its thesis.

Climate doomsayers have been around for over a century!

9 – Charleston Church Shooting

The Charleston massacre by a white supremacist made the list, fitting the media narrative of black victimhood and white racism. Finally, this very real tragedy gave the Left a singular, high-profile of white villainy. This tragic event, roundly condemned by everyone, sparked a massive campaign to destroy all things Confederate or Southern, from the flag to statues and monuments for Confederates and even America’s founding presidents! (Strangely, college campuses remain awash with courses, posters, and memorabilia exalting the Castro regime and other left-wing causes.)

But the actual surviving victims of the massacre and the citizens of Charleston exhibited genuine Christian charity in their grief.[39]

For the Left, America’s greatest threat comes from whites, conservatives, and Christians. Hence, the media silence over a gay, black supremacist, and Democrat who committed terrorist acts.[40]

10 – Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Last on the Top Ten list, Europe’s migrant crisis exposes the failures of the Obama administration’s strategy of appeasement and disengagement from the world.

Having made America weaker, Obama claims the opposite.[41] Obama’s appeasement of Putin emboldened Putin’s quest to recreate the Russian Empire.[42] Instead, Obama’s policies frustrate America’s friends and strengthen America’s enemies.[43]

Obama’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and hands-off approach to Syria created ISIS and enabled it to seize massive amounts of territory and expand its reach globally.[44]

Yet, Obama admits he has no strategy[45] (while claiming it is working) and denies we are at war.[46]

Still, the State Department has the chutzpah to assert as one if its accomplishments in 2015: Bringing Peace, Security to Syria.” Tell that to the Syrian refugees!

Endnotes:

[1]              See “Obama’s Muslim Roots and Sympathies” at http://t.co/3FIt1xmLqV.

[2]              See “Let’s Talk ISIS Into Peace” at http://t.co/x5bJ44gBxY.

[3]              See “Root of Evil: Let’s Put ISIS on Welfare” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-7s.

[4]              See “CVE: How to Submit to Jihad” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-7x.

[5]              See “ISIS Is Contained!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-bX.

[6]              See “Vicky Beeching and the Lesbian Gospel” at http://t.co/CpHQtj5sGN.

[7]              See “Flags Depict Obama’s Fundamental Transformation of America and the World” at http://t.co/xjupplSWD1.

[8]              See “PC Trans-Racial Politics” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aB.

[9]              See “America – Lost in a Fog of Immorality and Tyranny” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aL.

[10]            See “In Defense of Kym Davis AND the Rule of Law” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-bQ.

[11]            See “Obama Snubs Paris, Disses War on Terror” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6S.

[12]            See “We Are All Parisians!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-71.

[13]            See “CPAC: Roman Genn – Solidarity for Liberty” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8f.

[14]            See “The Left Goes Gaga Over Paris Attack” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c0.

[15]            See “Making Sense of Madness” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aY.

[16]            See “Let’s Stop the Insanity Over Gun Violence” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1o.

[17]            See “Commonsense Guns Laws” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-br.

[18]            See “Left Politicizes Las Vegas Shootings” at http://t.co/dPKxyOnxsH.

[19]            See “Ferguson: Justice, Race, and Reason” at http://t.co/ksowFPCx62.

[20]            See “I’m Black: Truth Does Not Matter” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-5t.

[21]            See “Ann Coulter Takes on the Racial Grievance Industry” at http://t.co/YgG2rpgZIc.

[22]            See “Ferguson in Flames” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-5I.

[23]            See “Propaganda Kills” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6n.

[24]            See “King’s Dream Realized (sort of)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-76.

[25]            See “Race Myths Exposed!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8Z.

[26]            See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[27]            See “Terror Strikes America – Again!” at http://t.co/nurkdy0GI6.

[28]            See “OK Beheading? Must be Tea Party Christians!” at http://t.co/JeE8yIckeC.

[29]            See “Terrorism Redefined” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-S.

[30]            See “Right-Wing Islamic Terrorists” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6V.

[31]            See “CPAC: Alleged Christian Terrorists” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8I.

[32]            See “Islamists Fear Cartoons” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9Z.

[33]            See “’Right-Wing Terrorists’ or Muslim Jihadists” at http://t.co/JriDYcKizd.

[34]            See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[35]            See “Orwell Lives: Dead Broke = $Millions” at http://t.co/85yxboS3lk.

[36]            See “Clinton Cash – Only 15% for Charity” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8O.

[37]            See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[38]            See “Obama’s War … on Global Warming!” at http://t.co/WmjRvUyVlw.

[39]            See “Our Daddy: God is Our Refuge” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-aE.

[40]            See “Bryce Williams – Domestic Terrorist Ignored by the Media” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-ba.

[41]            See “Obama: America is Stronger Than Ever” at http://t.co/3dxkSeF8fj.

[42]            See “Putin = Hitler? Yes!” at http://t.co/czfFgLNzmx.

[43]            See “Obama Abets Five Anti-American Empires” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-7k.

[44]            See “Is Baghdad Burning? Obama’s Leadership Vacuum” at http://t.co/anrh8hfqtC.

[45]            See “We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet” at http://t.co/Ftcx1QT0eA.

[46]            See “War? What War?” at http://t.co/k63DebowZE.

Willful Blindness to Reality

Two jihadists massacred people at a Christmas party and the Left refuses to call it Islamic terrorism.

Blindness

While events were unfolding, the “mainstream” media and liberal blogosphere was awash with speculation that white, Christian, anti-government militia were behind the attack. They appeared to relish, yet again, an opportunity to bash both Christians and conservatives and to continue their efforts to redefine terrorism away from its real meaning and source.

But the moment it was discovered that devout adherents of Islam were the attackers, the term “terrorism” lost its relevance and the religious motivation behind the attack became moot.

The preferred liberal narrative of widespread Christian terrorism and denial of Islamic jihad was again was thwarted by reality.

Their perverse logic emanates from a distorted worldview in which America is always to blame for having exploited the world and must atone by humbling itself before dictators, tyrants, and terrorists. Only then will we be at peace.

In the immediate aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre, Salon published an article entitled, “Syed Farooq is an American: Let’s stop the Muslim vs. Christian debate and take a look at ourselves.”

Huh? Blame America for being targeted by Islamists? We’re the guilty ones?

The “American,” Syed Farooq, clearly didn’t think very highly of America or his fellow Americans. Farooq waged a religious war on us.

In that polemic, the writer asserted that Americans were “gleeful” at the discovery the terrorist was a devout Muslim. He further accused “the United States of brutality” and “political violence.”

Blaming America for the attack, he accused Americans of being endemically racist and xenophobic. He continued, seemingly oblivious to the reality he was denying:

“The attitudes you possess – that Arabs are beholden to violent culture, that Islam singularly produces religious evil, that Syrian refugees threaten American safety, that the Middle East and South Asia are places of mystical barbarity – have existed since before 9/11, but they seem to have a particular resonance in the current presidential election.”

Looking at the facts, Islam is indeed responsible for 99.99% of the violence perpetrated in the name of religion. It’s called jihad with the purpose of imposing a global Islamic caliphate upon the world by force and political/cultural subjugation.

The Islamists – on a daily basis! – state their goals very clearly, and they zealously act to achieve those goals, which are prescribed in the Koran. To deny this truth is irrational folly – and suicidal at that.

As for that “particular resonance in the current presidential election,” has Salon not seen the carnage being perpetrated in the Middle East by Islamist barbarians who have created a terrorist state which seeks to engulf the world? Are they not witnesses to the barbarism which has invaded Europe and is now invading America?

Emulating Obama, the Left asserts it is not American to protect Americans from those who would seek to destroy America.

The Left Goes Gaga Over Paris Attack

In the aftermath of the horrendous, 9/11-style, coordinated terrorist attack on Paris by Islamic jihadists, the Left, by and large, has demonstrated its capacity to rationalize evil, ignore reality, and dismiss the truth.

Left Gaga

While many mourned the loss of life and were roused to defeat the enemy that has become our implacable foe, others either denied or dismissed this existential threat, blamed America (Bush, conservatives) for the attack, or refused to call ISIS either Islamic or evil.

Some continued to assert that ISIS is on the run, or that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, or that gun control is the answer – all various attempts to escape the reality of life and the world as it is, not the world as liberals think it should be.

But first, kudos to Saturday Night Live for exhibiting class “with a brief, moving tribute to the city of Paris delivered by cast member Cecily Strong, clad in a black dress.” Strong declared: “Paris is the city of lights and here in New York City, we know that light will never go out. Our love and support is with everyone there tonight. We stand with you.”

Vive la France!

Now, on to the rest.

Paris Attacked – So What?

Black Lives Matter proved, once again, that the only lives that matter to it are those exceptionally few black lives killed by white cops. Its response to massive death in Paris was despicable, as noted in statements and tweets from its members.

Prepare for a shock as you read this set of expletive-laden tweets expressing hatred toward Parisians for taking the spotlight away from BLM, which is nothing more than a racial grievance organization promoting victimhood and espousing violence.

Blame Bush, Conservatives, and America

Even in the seventh year of the Obama administration, the Left blames George W. Bush for everything – even events and situations created by Obama’s own policies and actions.

All three Democrat presidential contenders, in one way or another, blamed the former President (former by two elections) for the Paris terrorist attack. Salon blamed both Bush and America. It’s headline spoke volumes: “Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves.” Ourselves? Salon fails to discern the evil hearts of terrorists and, instead, attacks fellow Americans.

Salon took to task those nasty conservatives who leapt to the conclusion that Islamic terrorists were to blame, “even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers,” claiming their motivation was to seize this “violence” (note: not “terrorism”) “as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.”

No evidence? How about the modus operandi? The nature of the attacks themselves. Witnesses who heard what the terrorists said?

The liberal media blamed conservatives for the fact that terrorists attacked Paris. Salon tweeted: “Real terror unfolds in Paris. Perhaps this will convince the right to done down their incessant violent rhetoric.”

In their contorted logic, what we said caused innocent Muslims to viciously attack someone else.

Salon also posted a lengthy, rambling, incoherent essay blaming violent, elimination rhetoric on the Right for this – and other – terrorist attacks. According to Salon, “Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly.”

They continue: “Given the American right-wing’s casual habit of using violent language to describe their foes, and to gin up fear and anxiety among the movement conservative base, the Fox News’ right-wing echo chamber and its elites should be ashamed given the death and destruction that terrorism actually reaps in practice.”

(Salon should read those Black Lives Matter tweets noted above.)

For quite a few years, the Left has redefined terrorism to actually exclude terrorist actors and activities, and instead to demonize conservatives, the Tea Party, and Christians (who are actually the targets of Islamic jihadists).

Blame Climate Change Myth, Not Fact of ISIS Terror

Yet again, the far Left is using yet another tragedy to promote its phony climate change agenda. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the openly Socialist Democrat presidential candidate claimed, “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.”

This is in keeping with the Obama administration’s viewpoint, which has, on at least 23 occasions, claimed that climate change poses a greater national security threat than Islamic terrorism (which it doesn’t call by that name).

Make Love, Not War

The pacifist War Is Not The Answer contingent greeted this latest destructive attack on Western Civilization with its Sixties-style “make love, not war” mantra. Pop icon Madonna argued, “Yes, there are people who have no respect for human life and there are people that do atrocious, degrading and unforgivable things to other human beings, but we will never ever, ever change this world that we live in if we do not change ourselves, if we do not change the way that we treat one another on a daily basis.”

In other words, we need to change before the terrorists stop committing terror. Applying the same logic, we should not arrest criminals but, rather, change ourselves until they stop their criminal activities.

Madonna, continued, “Only love will change the world, but it’s very hard to love unconditionally and it’s very hard to love that which we do not understand, or that which is different than we are. But we have to or this will go on and on forever.”

Again, it is our fault for not understanding them, and until we understand them, terrorism will not end. Most rational people do understand that these are evil people committing evil acts.

Nevertheless, “fired MSNBC personality Krystal Ball” insisted: “Most powerful response to radical hate is radical love. Open your hearts wider and love harder.”

This is the Barack Obama Model for World Peace, a model proven wrong time and again.

Release Terrorists; Take in Refugees; Spurn Persecuted Christians

So, we can’t call the terrorists what they are – terrorists – and we aren’t supposed to fight back against those self-same terrorists who want to destroy us – because it wouldn’t be, according to our Commander-in-Chief, in keeping with our American values.

(Mr. President, you don’t adhere to “American values.”)

Now, we find ourselves in a panorama from Hell. At one and the same time, the Obama administration is releasing more Gitmo detainees (i.e. terrorists), even as it brings into America even more Syrian refugees (many of whom are undoubtedly terrorists), while utterly ignoring the plight of Christians who are persecuted by the terrorists it refuses to fight.

Some would call that crazy!

President Obama has just released five more Yemeni terrorists from Gitmo, while continuing its efforts to “accept 10,000 Syrian refugees,” with a goal of absorbing 100,000 refugees annually. Presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton actually wants to increase the number of refugees brought into America.

Clinton’s senatorial successor in New York, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, concurs, saying, “I think what we could be doing more of is dealing with the humanitarian crisis. I wish we were focused on how we could create relief for millions of families that are streaming out of Syria. I’ve seen our European partners really pick up the pace and take significant responsibility for these families. What Germany has done is outstanding. I think America should be doing more.”

In the meantime, Obama’s State Department (once run by Hillary), has denied visas for Christians being persecuted in Iraq. This falls on Obama’s shoulders.

At the G20 Summit in Turkey, Obama said, “We have to, each of us, do our part, and the United States has to step up and do its part. When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims. When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution – that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

(Mr. President, you don’t know “who we are.”)

ISIS is Neither Islamic Nor Evil

The Obama administration continues to claim that Islamic terrorists are not Islamic and it refuses to recognize that what they engage in is terrorism. Last Saturday (the day after the Paris attacks) all three Democrat presidential candidates avoided the stark reality of global Islamic jihad.

(The Left will soon discover that ISIS is more dangerous that campus radicals.)

Dan Kimmel, a [Democrat] candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat” tweeted: “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

That logic would justify every serial killer and terrorist throughout human history.”

But ISIS is Islamic and ISIS is evil. The evil of ISIS derives from a defect in the human heart, not a product of economic deprivation. Obama’s ideas of putting ISIS on welfare are ludicrous.

Gun Control Will Stop Jihadists

Other proposed solutions to end the jihadist threat include the liberal favorite: gun control. Hint: gun control never works to achieve its stated goals. Gun control only serves to aid tyrants and dictators, terrorists and criminals. If any of those victims in Paris had been armed, they might not have become victims. Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a game changer for good.

Nonetheless, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America tweeted: “Our hearts are with the victims and survivors of the horrific mass shooting and violent attacks in Paris today.” The attached photo bore the words: “We are united in mourning all lives lost to gun violence.”

Those lives weren’t lost due to gun violence, but due to terrorists intent upon doing evil.

Appeasement Is the Answer

Like gun control, appeasement never works. Still, Obama is intent upon continuing his disastrous foreign policy. In light of the Paris attack, Obama said, “The strategy we are pursuing … that’s the strategy we are going to have to pursue. And we are going to continue to generate more partners for that strategy.”

The strategy that created ISIS and mushroomed it into a world-threatening terrorist state is the strategy that Obama intends to continue?

Appeasement encourages aggression and leads to defeat and subjugation.

ISIS is on the Run

Obama’s false claims that Al-Qaeda is on the run, that the war on terror is over, that ISIS is JV, that ISIS is contained, ad infinitum, were amplified by yet another claim, this one from a Muslim apologist who argues that the Paris attack is a sign of weakness and not strength on the part of ISIS. (Just as Obama claimed Putin’s many acts of aggression are really signs of weakness.)

This apologist reasons thus: “There is a reason ISIL still want to appear so powerful, why they don’t want to acknowledge that the land they control has been taken from weak enemies, that they are pinned down by airstrikes, or that just last weekend they lost a significant part of their territory.”

“ISIL don’t want you to know they would quickly be crushed if they ever faced a proper army on a battlefield.”

“They want you to fear them. They want you to get angry. They want all of us to become hostile, and here is why – ISIL’s strategy is to split the world into two camps. It is that black and white. Again, we know this because they told us.”

Except, of course, they haven’t. This phony propaganda is designed to dismiss and discount the danger posed by ISIS, to thwart the sense of urgency the West sees in combating that terrorist threat, and to enable the status quo to continue until the West has been defeated.

I’m sure the current President of the United States would rally behind this apologist’s opinion, just as he has heralded all of the many unprecedented accomplishments of his tenure in the Oval Office. After all, according to Obama, America has never been stronger and the world has never been safer.

But for those who live in the real world, neither of those claims is true.