The Rot Is Irreversible
A perverse alliance.

Disease is reversible—rot isn’t. Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib brought the disease of anti-Semitism into the upper echelons of the Democratic Party when they were elected in November. The party could have fought the disease. It chose instead to nurture it. And that’s when the irreversible rot set in.

The rot explains why Democrats, from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on down, are vigorously defending Tlaib’s recent lies about Arabs welcoming Jews after the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter what Tlaib or Omar say, how blunt their Jew-hatred is, or how often it’s aired. A defense pact is already in place that covers all calumnies against the Jews. Both the Democratic leadership and the liberal media establishment will back these bigots against any and all charges of anti-Semitism in return for smooth relations with the social-justice left. It’s a monstrous deal made by people too weak to defend their party and speak the truth.

 

Rashida Tlaib’s Lies Remind Us Why Israel Must Exist.

As the Peel Commission Report, a British paper recommending partition in 1936, noted, “the Arabs have benefited by the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary… with almost mathematical precision the betterment of the economic situation in Palestine meant the deterioration of the political situation.”

Even Palestinian “moderates” like Musa Alami told Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion “he would prefer the land to remain poor and desolate even for another hundred years” if the alternative was collaboration with Jews. Neither Alami nor Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian cause, nor the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, nor his protégé, Mahmoud Abbas, ever shared in their deprivations of their people. It was the opposite, in fact. Palestinian leaders have always enriched themselves on this conflict.

“Why can’t we all be free and safe together?” It’s a good question. Long before the Holocaust, every single major Jewish Zionistic organization, even the right-wing ones, saw the Jewish state as giving equal rights to the Arab population. As they do today.

The Media’s Sudden Disinterest in the Denver STEM School Shooting Proves Greater Interests In Agendas than You.

When the shooting at the Highlands Ranch, CO, Stem school happened, the world reacted in shock and horror that yet another student used a firearm to hurt or kill other students in a place that is supposed to be one of the safest places for your child to be.

News agencies across the country immediately took action, and activist groups began planning events to promote gun control. One such event occurred at the very location the shooting occurred. Students were duped into attending, believing it was a vigil of some kind, but walked away when they found out that the atrocity they endured was being politicized.

Facebook posts from concerned people dotted the social media site and Twitter was ablaze with anti-gun rhetoric once again.

And then it all suddenly went silent.

Now, the media seems far less interested in the shooting. An odd turnaround for the media who take every opportunity to hammer home the idea that guns are the problem in this nation, not something else. Why? It’s because the identity of the shooters was released, and it doesn’t fall in line with any of the approved columns for a media-based attack.

They found that one of the shooters is gay and another is transgendered and biologically female, as NBC reported in the update about her. Even NBC buried these facts in their own report about it, choosing instead to call the gay shooter a “bully” instead of highlighting their identities and backgrounds first…One of the shooters also expressed his hatred for Christians according to Heavy, which is also unfitting for reports as Christians are always the bad guys in the story……..

Worst of all, the shooter appeared to be a Democrat who posted memes and messages from the hard-left Facebook group “Occupy Democrats.”

None of this falls in line with what the shooter is supposed to be according to what the media likes to tell us. For mainstream press, the shooter is supposed to be white, male, straight, extremely right-leaning, and bonus points if he’s supposedly Christian. However, both of these shooters fall into their most protected groups.

Judging by how the media coverage and subsequent fallout from school shootings have gone in the past, the media seems absolutely silent in comparison now, but it’s easy to see why. All of its usual strawmen have been stripped away and its left with nothing but the cold reality that there was something mentally wrong with the two shooters.

Joe Biden: Soul Man.
The former senator and veep thinks Trump-era America needs some moral straightening out.

I’m not sure the country wants to hear lectures on morality from a hypocrite who made his son filthy rich playing footsie with Moscow and Beijing.

The current field of Democratic presidential candidates is no gift to the science of politics, but in some ways Joe Biden may be the most alarming of the crop crap.

The Democratic aspirants mostly want to invite government more deeply into our lives as arbiter of who gets how much money. Biden wants—or says he wants—to go to work on our souls.

“We are in battle,” said the former vice president, throwing his metaphorical hat into the metaphorical ring, “for the soul of this nation. If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation—who we are. And I cannot stand by and let that happen.”

After he chases the Trumpmonster out of public life, will he then and thereupon explain what politics has to do with human souls? That would be a start, and a challenging one. The notion that Biden or any other political figure, from far Left to far Right, will be shaping our souls as well as our economic prospects is ludicrous and, in many contexts, frightening. Therein lies the deep dark shadows of 1984: “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”……

Biden, the Moses who would straighten us all out if you take him at his word, has in mind a miracle nearly as large as the parting of the Red Sea. He would turn America into the first nation ever saved by the wringers of hands at election rallies; by the solicitors of campaign cash, the beady-eyed inquisitors at televised committee hearings.

Nancy Pelosi Says the United States Is in a ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Horse hockey.

The only constitutional crisis is in Democrats’ synapses

I’m surprised they have any functioning brains cells.

This is all just more Democrat theater of the absurd.

House Democrats not getting their way is not a constitutional crisis. At some point the issue will land in court, and a court will determine whether the Executive Branch properly is withholding the material. Then more judges will rule on the appeal, and it will end up at the Supreme Court, in all likelihood.

If the Supreme Court rules that the material must be turned over, and if the administration defies that court ruling, then we have a crisis. I’m not sure it’s technically a constitutional crisis, because the constitution does not provide for judicial supremacy. But the norm since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 is that the judiciary’s interpretation of the law prevails.

Remember what is at issue. Congress has been offered the entire Mueller report except for grand jury material, which DOJ say it is prohibited from disclosing. Nothing in that slight percentage of grand jury material in the Mueller report changed Mueller’s conclusions, so it’s unlikely to be helpful to Democrats. Nadler and crew refused even to view the redactions related to classified material and ongoing investigations, which DOJ offered to provide for viewing. What Democrats want is not the grand jury material, but the ability to cry “constitutional crisis!” over being denied access.

At issue also are underlying investigation documents, which DOJ is not required to disclose (it didn’t even have to disclose the Mueller report), and would not normally be disclosed. Those files would contain unfiltered personal information about people, such as bank account and telephone records, and personal information about their lives. To turn that material over to the Democrats so it could leak within minutes would be the height of irresponsibility and would lead to the type of doxxing and savage internet and physical attacks we have seen #TheResistance carry out.

This is all part of the attempt to unwind the 2016 election. Trump and DOJ should play hardball, since Democrats are acting in bad faith.

David Harsanyi: Why Jerry Nadler’s ‘constitutional crisis’ talk is utter bull.

From the moment the central claim of the Russiagate conspiracy was decimated by the Mueller Report, Democrats have generated a series of manufactured outrages to keep the conspiracy dream alive.

Why the theatrics? Well, the scope of the Trump “collusion” theory has radically contracted from its heyday.

What was once “Donald Trump personally colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election for the Kremlin!” is now “Why won’t the attorney general release the entire unredacted version of a report that exonerates the president of collusion!” It doesn’t have quite the same bite.

So Democrats have moved from conspiracies about Russia to conspiracies about the report debunking the conspiracy.

A Real Attorney General: Bill Barr gets smeared for refusing to duck and cover like Loretta Lynch.

As with most of the Wall Street Journal’s articles, this is behind a paywall.

Washington pile-ons are never pretty, but this week’s political setup of Attorney General William Barr is disreputable even by Beltway standards. Democrats and the media are turning the AG into a villain for doing his duty and making the hard decisions that special counsel Robert Mueller abdicated.

Mr. Barr’s Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was preceded late Tuesday by the leak of a letter Mr. Mueller had sent the AG on March 27. Mr. Mueller griped in the letter that Mr. Barr’s four-page explanation to Congress of the principal conclusions of the Mueller report on March 24 “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Mueller team’s “work and conclusions.” Only in Washington could this exercise in posterior covering be puffed into a mini-outrage.

Democrats leapt on the letter as proof that Mr. Barr was somehow covering for Donald Trump when he has covered up nothing. Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, the Democratic answer to Rep. Louie Gohmert, accused Mr. Barr of abusing his office and lying to Congress, and demanded that he resign. The only thing she lacked was evidence……….

Contrast that to the abdication of Loretta Lynch, who failed as Barack Obama’s last Attorney General to make a prosecutorial judgment about Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified information. Ms. Lynch cowered before the bullying of then FBI director James Comey, who absolved Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing while publicly scolding her. That egregious break with Justice policy eventually led Mr. Comey to re-open the Clinton probe in late October 2016, which helped to elect Mr. Trump.

All of this shows again the risks of appointing special counsels. They lack the political accountability that the Founders built into the separation of powers. Mr. Mueller, in his March 27 letter, revealed again that like Mr. Comey at the FBI he viewed himself as accountable only to himself.

This trashing of Bill Barr shows how frustrated and angry Democrats continue to be that the special counsel came up empty in his Russia collusion probe. He was supposed to be their fast-track to impeachment. Now they’re left trying to gin up an obstruction tale, but the probe wasn’t obstructed and there was no underlying crime. So they’re shouting and pounding the table against Bill Barr for acting like a real Attorney General.

A Manhattan judge on Monday gave city officials the green light to open a controversial homeless shelter in the ritzy “Billionaires’ Row” neighborhood.

State Supreme Court Justice Alexander Tisch rejected arguments from the West 58th Street Coalition and other opponents that the former Park Savoy Hotel doesn’t meet current safety standards and is unsafe in case of fire.
Tisch ruled that while the only way out is through the lobby and the stairwell may be too narrow for both tenants and first responders at the same time, “these are all aspects for which the City and its agencies are supposed to be given deference.”

Tisch said the fact that the city granted the shelter a partial temporary certificate of occupancy “demonstrates to the Court that the building is presumably safe and in compliance with applicable laws.”He also ruled that claims the neighborhood already had more than its “fair share” of shelters were “without merit.”

The Park Savoy, at 158 W. 58th St., stands back-to-back against the iconic One57 apartment building, the city’s first “supertall” residential skyscraper and home to a $100 million condo that was the city’s most expensive when Dell founder Michael Dell bought it in 2014.

Last year, neighbors were blindsided when Mayor Bill de Blasio quietly sent letters to local officials that revealed his plan to turn it into a shelter for 150 homeless men, sparking the suit against the city.

The West 58th Street Coalition’s lawyer, Randy Mastro, said the group was “disappointed in today’s decision and plans to pursue an immediate appeal.”

Biden senior adviser: We don’t need white men leading the Democratic Party

Well, allrighty then!

Symone Sanders, who has just joined Joe Biden’s presidential campaign as a senior adviser, must have reconsidered her earlier position on Democratic Party leadership.

In November 2016, shortly after President Trump’s victory, Sanders told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that “we don’t need white people leading the Democratic Party right now.”

“The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff at the highest levels from the vice chairs to the secretaries all the way down to the people working in the offices at the DNC,” she added.

The comments were puzzling at the time, considering Sanders, an African American, had earlier served as press secretary for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. Since leaving that position, she has worked as a political strategist and CNN contributor.

Writer’s ‘Medium’ Account Suspended After Challenging School Shooting Narrative

Even leftists who don’t hold tight to the ‘correct narrative’ suffer the consequences. The media’s hypocrisy knows no bounds if one of them strays off the plantation.

On Thursday, popular Twitter user and writer known by the alias “Kantbot” found his Medium account suspended in the wake of publishing a piece that went viral regarding school shootings and mental health interventions primarily in public schools.

Despite a somewhat provocative headline — “Guns Don’t Kill People, School Psychologists Do” — the piece gives a nuanced look at the culture of school psychology and mental health interventions in relation to school shootings. Notably, the post veers from talking points supporting gun control measures or, conversely, armed guards at schools — the two competing narratives consistently debated after such attacks.

According to a vague email from the tech platform, the writer’s account was suspended for “hateful text, images, or other content in (his) username, profile, or bio.”

The writer’s bio on Medium featured a photo of a philosopher-esque “Pepe the Frog” and a quote from Friedrich Schiller’s “On the Aesthetic Education of Man.”

Kantbot finds the timing suspect. The writer noted that he’s been publishing posts on Medium for two years using the same bio and photo without ever encountering an issue.

“It seems strange that after I posted a popular story to all of a sudden be cracked down on without any warning,” he told The Daily Wire, adding that he “wasn’t given a chance to remove” his avatar, if that indeed was the issue.

 

After the horrific mass murder of 50 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand, there was widespread coverage and a torrent of mainstream news networks contemplating the threat of white supremacy. These conversations, completely reasonable and necessary in the face of violent attacks from a racist gunman, soon began deteriorating into politically motivated and specious claims contending that “white supremacy” had become the predominate terror threat in the world.

Well, the coordinated bomb blasts aimed at Christian worshippers on Easter Sunday, which killed at least 290 people and injured hundreds more, demonstrates the kind of meticulous planning, funding, resources and support that is still exclusively the domain of radical Islamic terrorism. It’s not merely that the act was planned to maximize the death toll, but that it is a continuation of long-standing efforts by Islamists to destroy the Christian communities left in Asia.

Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a worldwide, historic, ideological and political movement that includes, to various degrees and various reasons, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith. Then again, terrorist groups — as well as their recruitment and propaganda outfits — are often functioning in Islamic regimes, which either actively sustain terror, tolerate these groups or pay them off to engage in terrorism elsewhere.

The Christians who remain in the Islamic world are often oppressed in other ways. In a number of these nations, publicly praying in any faith but Islam is forbidden and, in many, converting to Christianity is still punishable by death. “Islamic extremism remains the global, dominant driver of persecution, responsible for initiating oppression and conflict in 35 of the 50 countries on the list,” according to Open Doors, a worldwide Christian group.

The idea that a similar threat exists in the West is risible. There’s not a single Western country that doesn’t afford Muslim citizens the same rights it does as all other citizens. No government on Earth supports white supremacy.

There is no funding infrastructure for those who support white power. There is no Christian or Jewish denomination, or any notable political factions, in those nations that imbue white supremacy with any theological or ideological legitimacy. There is no white supremacist government trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and none sending its terrorists to other countries. In the world’s free nations, where any political party can participate in the process, the power of racist groups is minimal.

Yet the American left continues to downplay the danger, first by arguing that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and then by lumping every white-skinned person who commits a terrorist act into one imaginary coherent political movement to contrast against it.

WaPo’s Latest Weapon

Many Christians were angered and annoyed by the Washington Post’s editorial headline from two days ago. I’m among that number.

It’s interesting to note how often most of the American mainstream media has ignored the Islamist mass murders of dark-skinned Christians just in the past few years. Examples: Nigeria and Egypt.

Then there have been cases in which they could not ignore the brown skin of Christian terror victims, such as with the Sri Lankans or in the case of the mass shooting at a Charleston AME church back in 2015. This, of course, was valid in the case of Charleston, with the white perpetrator confessing that he hoped to ignite a race war. But, with the Sri Lankans, the victims were the same color as the terrorists.

Therefore, it was necessary to conjure a racial narrative for the massacre in Sri Lanka, as WaPo did. That is the implication in the term “far-right.”

The other day, a friend postulated that one of the earthly reasons that Christianity is so hated and demonized by the Organized Left is because, in centuries prior to this one, it was spread chiefly by white males – in their flawed, human (BIRM) way of course. I, however, contend that, in the earthly realm, Christianity has helped its converts far more than it has harmed them.

Of course, we know the spiritual reasons for this hatred.

Australian blogger – and old online friend — Arthur Chrenkoff sees the Organized Left’s strategic goal for what it is.

If you are worried about the violence against and the persecution of Christians you might be far right. If you value the cultural and philosophical heritage of the Western civilisation you might be far right. If you don’t believe in an open borders immigration policy you might be far right. If you prefer local democracy to transnational institutions you might be far right. If you are defending your country from an armed invasion by another country you might be far right too. (…)

This effort to use language as a cudgel has several sinister implications. It delegitimises perfectly normal political ideas through guilt by association. It also creates the impression that the (genuine) far right is much bigger, more influential and more threatening and dangerous than it actually is. This in turn is used to downplay and minimise the dangers of Islamist and far-left extremism and terrorism. But perhaps the scariest aspect of it all is that the left, by manufacturing the far right monster, are actually genuinely contributing to the growth of far-right extremism. The relentless flood of identity politics, grievance and victimhood, and shaming and guilting entire sections of population based on their skin colour and culture is genuinely radicalising some misfits into fascism, like the Christchurch terrorist, for example. For every action there is eventually an equal and opposite reaction. The left might think it’s courageously defanging the fascist dragon but instead it’s just sowing its teeth.

That last sentence describes a desired goal of the Organized Left – a feature, rather than a bug.

By the way, when I talk about these things, getting angry is appropriate. But it’s important to let one’s anger dissipate and to appreciate those who are able to dissect this Othering of Christianity and of Western Civilization; to peel off its coating. When we point it out to you, we’re not trying to stoke fear, but to wipe away the confusion as to what the Sowers of Discord are doing.

Reconnaissance is your friend.

Taqiyya for Easter

Let’s say a fire breaks out at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris at the start of Holy Week, and just after two of the city’s other most prominent houses of worship – St Sulpice and the Basilica of St Denis – have been attacked and vandalized.

Well, I think we can all confidently say as the first flames are beginning to lick the ceiling that it’s undoubtedly an accident. Cigarette butt. Or maybe computer glitch. Probably just an overheated smart phone. We don’t need to get in there and sift through the debris. We can just announce it.

On the other hand, when there are coordinated attacks on Easter services at several churches in Sri Lanka, it becomes a little more challenging to pass off multiple suicide-bombings killing nearly three hundred people as an electrical malfunction.

So, in contrast to the confident declarations of a week ago, on Sunday morning the media opted for a subtler narrative. Lead sentence from The Economist:

IT HAS BEEN nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

So it’s something to do with the Tamil Tigers? Their guns fell silent, but now they’ve returned with a vengeance, eh?

Well, er, no, er, not, ah, precisely… But it’s useful for “context”, lots and lots of context. And, if you pile up enough context, you can bury the actual story. My old chums at The Age in Melbourne produced an especially fine example:

Colombo: More than 200 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in eight bomb blasts that rocked churches, luxury hotels and other sites in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday – the deadliest violence the South Asian island country has seen since a bloody civil war ended a decade ago.

Ah, there’s that bloody civil war flaring up all over again, right?

Steady on. We’re not quite saying that, but it’s important to know the historical background and so forth…

The scale of the bloodshed recalled the worst days of Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war, in which the Tamil Tigers, a rebel group from the ethnic Tamil minority, sought independence from the Buddhist-majority country. The Tamils are Hindu, Muslim and Christian.

So it’s a Hindu-Muslim-Christian attack on churches and hotels?

Er, not exactly. We’re still doing ten paragraphs of general throat-clearing here…

Sri Lanka, situated off the southern tip of India, is about 70 per cent Buddhist. While there have been scattered incidents of anti-Christian harassment in recent years, there has been nothing on the scale of what happened on Sunday.

So it’s part of a tradition of Buddhists’ anti-Christian harassment?

Well, these Buddhists are notoriously “hard-line”…

There is also no history of violent Muslim militants in Sri Lanka. However, tensions have been running high more recently between hard-line Buddhist monks and Muslims.

So the hard-line Buddhists attacked the churches to get at the non-hard-line Muslims?

Whoops, did we give you the impression Muslims had something to do with this? Our mistake…

Two Muslim groups in Sri Lanka condemned the church attacks…

Let us turn to The New York Times:

Religious Minorities Across Asia Suffer Amid Surge in Sectarian Politics

Gotcha. This is all part of a general problem of various unspecified religions in unspecified countries suffering in a general sort of way. But could you be a little less general and more specific?

Okay. Opening paragraphs:

The deadly attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted how easily religious coexistence can be ripped apart in a region where secularism is weakening amid the growing appeal of a politics based on ethnic and sectarian identity.

In India, the country’s governing right-wing Hindu party is exploiting faith for votes, pushing an us-versus-them philosophy that has left Muslims fearing they will be lynched if they walk alone.

In Myanmar, the country’s Buddhist generals have orchestrated a terrifying campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Rohingya Muslims.

And in Indonesia and Bangladesh, traditionally moderate Muslim politicians are adopting harder-line stances to appeal to more conservative electorates.

So Hindus are attacking Muslims, and Buddhists are attacking Muslims, and “hard-line” Muslims are attacking moderate Muslims. Thank God for some clarity on the situation. But what were all these Muslims doing in church on Easter morning?

Well, as we said, it’s all very complex – not like “Edelweiss” being an obvious white-supremacist dog-whistle by a notorious Nazi Jew composer. Best not to think about it.

Sri Lanka is a popular tourist destination, so there were many western victims of yesterday’s attack, including young ones: from an eleven-year-old English boy and a ten-year-old Australian girl to three of the four children of Denmark’s wealthiest man, retail billionaire Anders Holch Povlsen. Yet throughout Sunday the UK, Aussie, Danish and the rest of the world’s media saw their job as thorough obfuscation of the truth. I heard about yesterday’s attack from the BBC, which had extensive rolling coverage with correspondents on the ground – and yet seemed mainly to be trying to tell us as little as possible. A lady think-tanker from Chatham House was keen to focus on the brutality with which the Sri Lankan government had ended the Tamil insurgency a decade ago: a fascinating topic no doubt, but utterly irrelevant to the mound of Christian corpses in Colombo that morning. In the entire hour, hers was the only mention of Islam – when she cautioned that it would be grossly irresponsible and “Islam-phobic” even to bring up the subject.

She didn’t really need to spell that out, did she? It used to be said that ninety per cent of news is announcing Lord Jones is dead to people who were entirely unaware that Lord Jones was ever alive. Now the trick is to announce Lord Jones is dead and ensure that people remain entirely unaware of why he is no longer alive. One senses that a line was crossed in yesterday’s coverage. As one of our Oz Steyn Club members, Kate Smyth, put it, the media have advanced from dhimmitude to full-blown taqiyya.

The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie. All day yesterday and into today, if you had glanced at the telly, switched on the radio or surfed the big news sites of the Internet, you would have thought the Tamil Tigers were back “with a vengeance”, as The Economist put it – even though with one exception (the 1990 police massacre) the death toll was higher than any individual attack the Tigers had ever pulled off.

Meanwhile, back in that fast shrinking space known as the real world, from the very first hours the headline of this story was completely straightforward:

Islamic Suicide Bombers Slaughter Three Hundred on Easter Morning

But apparently that can no longer be said.

LEFTISTS WON’T SAY ‘CHRISTIANS,’ CALL BOMB VICTIMS ‘EASTER WORSHIPPERS’
Obama, Hillary reach new heights in giving pass to Islamic terror

Establishment media long have been reluctant to identify Islam as the source of terrorism while readily labeling those who do as “Islamophobes.”

Now, it seems, there’s an unwillingness to identify one of the primary targets of terrorism, Christians, as Christians. Their their new word? “Easter worshippers.”

One of the early users of the term was Barack Obama, who wrote, “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemptions, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”

Hillary Clinton joined in: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh noted Monday of Obama and Clinton: “They’re supposedly Christians and they can’t even bring themselves to say slaughter of Christians. They have to say ‘Easter worshippers.’ Millennials say, ‘What are those?’”

Political analyst Sebastian Gorka asked his Twitter followers to compare Clinton’s reaction to the recent New Zealand mosque attack with the Sri Lanka bombings against Christians.

Tiana Lowe wrote at the Washington Examiner that, very simply, “Terrorists want to threaten their targets into submission, invisibility, and then elimination.”…….

Monica Showalter explained at American Thinker: “They don’t like Christians to start with, and they’ve since gone a long way to coddle Muslim extremists, too. Having to acknowledge that Christians are in peril might just make someone in flyover country identify with them. Can’t have that.”

Ilhan Omar: A Hostage Situation.

The Democrats are in a political pickle. They would very much prefer that the Jew-hating caucus shut up, and they are not crazy about the fact that the public face of the Democratic party is, at the moment, risible and demented amateurs such as Representative Omar and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, i.e., the people who are even crazier than Senator Sanders. But intersectionality is a jealous god, and they cannot simply tell Representative Omar et al. to sit down and clam up. All they can really do is to try to raise the price of criticizing the nut cutlets on the Democrats’ menu by insisting that criticism of Representative Omar is an attack on Muslims as such, that criticism of Representative Ocasio-Cortez is an attack on Latinas who don’t know how a bill becomes a law, that criticism of Robert Francis O’Rourke is an attack on . . . whatever it is that “Beto” is pretending to be this week. The New York Times et al. are reliable allies on that front.

This is, incidentally, what all those fake hate crimes are really about: Redefining criticism of Democratic politicians and constituencies as violence. When there isn’t enough violence to make that case in a sufficiently dramatic fashion, then violence can simply be invented — and, if the case of Jussie Smollett is anything to go by, the cost of doing so is pretty low. When’s the last time you heard of a prosecutor dropping a 16-felony indictment in exchange for a firm handshake?

That’s a neat trick, really: to be the hostage and the hostage-taker at the same time.

Hypocrite Socialist Bernie Sanders is in the 1%

It should come as no surprise that socialists are hypocrites and Senator Bernie Sanders is no different. He likes to spend his time blaming capitalism and free markets for the 1% when he himself is a true 1%er.

Sanders has never actually created much of anything over the course of his life, other than the hot air he expels as he looks down on those who actually produce wealth in a country with a very limited (if any) free market left. He may have written some books in which he bemoans the system that has allowed him to get rich, but Sanders is wealthy not just from his books, but off the backs of the taxpayers. Don’t let him fool you — he became a millionaire in 2016. He was rich because the government steals money from producers and gives it to him and other criminal hypocrites as a salary for being an authoritarian politician. And this was going on long before he wrote a book.

Prosecutor’s Refusal To Charge Mayor Indictment Of Preemption Laws

Passing gun control laws against explicit state law is illegal. It’s illegal as hell. Preemption laws exist for a reason, and part of that reason is to create a universal code of gun laws throughout a state.

Yet the City of Pittsburgh did just that. Mayor Bill Peduto announced his intentions and proceeded, well aware that he was ignoring the law in the process. It was a blatantly illegal act, and what’s going to happen to him? Nothing.

Late last week, the Alleghany County District Attorney announced it was declining to charge Peduto or any of his cronies on the city council for willfully violating state law.

The Allegheny County district attorney declined to approve charges against the mayor of Pittsburgh and six city council members on Friday after the city passed gun control legislation that some gun rights supporters have said violates Pennsylvania law.

Seven Pittsburgh residents attempted to file criminal complaints against Mayor Bill Peduto (D) and the city councilors, according to The Associated Press. Citizens are allowed to file such charges with approval by the district attorney.

Democratic District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr.’s office said that prosecutors will not consider criminal charges until after the laws go into effect and someone is accused of violating them. The law will become effective in about two months.

“We will consider a private complaint if somebody is aggrieved by the law,” a spokesperson for Zappala told residents.

In other words, someone has to be arrested for violating the law before Zappala will do anything.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we can now see how much preemption laws mean. Not just in the state of Pennsylvania, but throughout the nation.

Trump Insists He Has Legal Right to Move Detainees to Sanctuary Cities, and He’s Probably Right.

Difficult as it may be to parse through Trump’s bluster and ramble, nestled between his threats to immigrants and those reserved for the State of California is a kernel of truth: the federal government does have the legal right to relocate immigration detainees as it sees fit. The federal government and its executive agencies have wide legal discretion overseeing immigration generally and detention specifically.

Noted liberal suddenly becomes a Republican:

Cher Reverses Course On Mass Immigration — ‘if My State Can’t Take Care Of Its Own, How Can It Take Care Of More?

Rep. Rashida Tlaib makes stunning accusation about Democratic Party leadership:

Here’s more of that demoncrap ‘circular firing squad’ that Obammy was so worried about. Har Har-de Har Har.

Amid controversy between President Donald Trump and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — stemming from the president criticizing remarks Omar made recently when she refused to denounce the 9/11 attackers as terrorists — Tlaib launched a broadside at her party’s leadership.

The Michigan lawmaker is seemingly upset over what she believes is a failure by Democratic leadership to properly condemn Omar’s critics.

“They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored,” Tlaib charged. “To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us.”

Ah, He’s a corrupt hypocrite?
Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, is a fierce critic of the affluent in America. That’s a bit rich, considering he himself is well off. Sanders, 77, has, in fact, amassed an estimated $2.5 million fortune from real estate, investments, government pensions—and earnings from three books, including the 2016 hit Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times, striking a downright Trumpian note.
Since his bid for the Democratic nomination raised his profile in 2016, Sanders has released a book a year. In all, he has pulled in at least $1.7 million from the series, starting with Our Revolution (220,000 copies sold, according to industry tracker NPD BookScan) and then Bernie Sanders Guide to Political Revolution (27,000) and finally Where We Go From Here: Two Years in the Resistance (26,000).

Trump Plan To Transport Illegal Border Crossers to Sanctuary Cities Makes Liberals Live By Their Own Rules
When your own “Rules for Radicals” comes back to bite you

Of course, Alinsky had no understanding of Christianity, or the Church. Few atheists do and those often become Christians. The basic 10 commandments – and all the rest – were to show that no one could live up to them on their own. The Messiah, Christ from the Greek, was necessary.

When I first heard that President Trump is considering releasing illegal aliens into sanctuary cities, I laughed. Out loud.  There may have been giggling, too, as I pondered the implications and read the outraged outraging of the left.

My first thought was “perfect! This is Alinsky in action: make them live by their own rules.”  My second thought was “this has a touch of Cloward-Piven, too, overwhelm the systems of the sanctuary cities, and voters there may decide they don’t like living in a sanctuary city after all.”

Saul Alinsky, go-to guru of the radical left, laid out his Rules for Radicals back in 1971.  The right has since become savvy to these tactics, and, as we see in Trump’s sanctuary city proposal, more than willing to deploy them when situations merit.

In this case, Trump is expertly using Rule #4.

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

The absolute chaos the very idea has created on the left is hilarious and underscores the effective power of Alinsky, even against those who know the rules inside and out.  They are by turns expressing outrage (is this even legalHe can’t do that!) and sputtering defiance (We’ll take all the illegals you can send our way. So there!).

Trump doubled down on his proposal late Friday, Fox News reports.

President Trump responded to reports Friday that his administration proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities by not only confirming the plan but saying it remains under “strong” consideration.

Further, the president tweeted that relocating illegal immigrants to these districts should make the “Radical Left” happy.

. . . .  Trump repeated the remarks later at the White House: “We can give them an unlimited supply…let’s see if they have open arms.”

The president doubled down as Democrats fumed over the relocation idea.

“The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in a statement Friday. “Using human beings—including little children—as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal.”

Why Are Democrats Upset at Illegal Aliens Being Sent to Their Sanctuary Cities?

‘Something’s off’ he says? Of course, something’s off. Demoncrap’s standard operational hypocrisy (NIMBY this time)  has been exposed – again – and they can’t stand it. So they resort to their usual squealing like a stuck pig.

I use the term “Democrat” in the headline for both politicians and the media.

A story broke yesterday in which the White House apparently discussed sending illegal aliens to sanctuary cities twice in the last six months.

This was described as Trump “targeting political foes” by The Washington Post.

White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

Here’s the response from Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi’s office blasted the plan.

“The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”

……………

We’ve been told for years by these people that illegal immigrants are a net positive. They supposedly commit less crime (they don’t), do the jobs Americans won’t do, and provide valued diversity. The Democratic party believes that so much that they refuse to do anything to stem the tide. The media believes it so much that they run cover 24 hours a day for lax immigration efforts. CNN’s Jim Acosta once quoted the poem on the statue of liberty asserting that it was our duty to allow illegal immigration.

Given that, how is it consistent to now complain that the President wanted to send them exactly what they claim they want? I also think it’s silly for The Washington Post to describe this as “targeting foes,” as Democrats constantly proclaim illegal immigration is a general good. If I give you a something you say is good, no one would say I’m “targeting” you.

Something is off here.

The answer is simple. These elitists don’t actually want their cities becoming home to masses of illegal immigrants. They want to sit in their gated communities hundreds (but mostly thousands) of miles away from the border and virtue signal instead. When push comes to shove though, they’d rather these people file into border towns in Arizona and Texas. They don’t want them in New York or San Francisco.

If they were consistent, they’d be begging the President to send buses of illegals to their sanctuary cities. That’s what they exist for right? Why have sanctuary cities at all if not? They aren’t supportive of the President doing that though because they don’t actually want to help these people. They just want to use them as political pawns.

Bernie Sanders: Yeah, I’m A Millionaire. What About It?

Bernie confirmed it today: He’s too rich.

Something must be done.

“April 15 is coming,” Mr. Sanders, whose refusal to release his full past returns has become an issue in the campaign, said in an interview in his office. “We wanted to release 10 years of tax returns. April 15, 2019, will be the 10th year, so I think you will see them.”…

“Not being a billionaire, not having investments in Saudi Arabia, wherever he has investments, all over the world, mine will be a little bit more boring,” Mr. Sanders said.

Reminded that he is a millionaire, he did not shirk from the description.

“I wrote a best-selling book,” he declared. “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

Exit quotation via Conor Friedersdorf: “Capitalism: where even the socialists have an opportunity to get rich by making something that lots of people value.”