Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

Via AEI, a study from the Arab Center for Research and Policy studies:

ISIS poll syria 1511

…a disturbing subset of 13% of Syrian refugees say their view of ISIS is “positive” or “positive to some extent.”

Yeah, I’d say that’s disturbing.  That’s 1 out of 8 admitting they have a positive view of ISIS.  I’d wonder what the actual numbers are, because the poll may well be tainted by skepticism of the pollster.  Saying “yes, I like ISIS” to a pollster you don’t know could be an easy way to get your house hit by a drone strike, so I suspect the numbers are probably lower than reality.

On the other hand, an important nuance of this is that there may also be some in the “positive to some extent” category who hate Assad more than they do ISIS, or who loathe Sykes-Picot and the effects of it enough that they don’t mind ISIS breaking down borders.  They could also be the kind of people who think that ISIS is justified in their terrorist attacks, like US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Either way, 1 out of 8 admitting to positive views of the Islamic State should be a warning to any nation opposed to the Islamic State that it’s unwise to bring in swarms of Syrian refugees.

That’s yet another example of why so many people in the US are opposed to importing Syrian “refugees”.

The Democrats have taken this opportunity to use it to push their favorite agenda – disarming the American people.

Via HotAir:

It looks like Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a new gun law onto the Republican bill trying to do more oversight on Syrian refugee entry into the U.S. Washington Examinerreports Democrats may try to slip that in the refugee bill next week.

The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of Nov. 30. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to decide whether he’ll allow it.

Of course.  They never stop.

The Democrat idea is that anyone on the no-fly list or terror watch list should be disallowed from owning a gun.  Which sounds great, until you consider that it’s depriving someone of their Constitutional rights with no recourse, no trial, no conviction, and no knowledge of what’s happened or why.

The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

You don’t get told you’re on the list and if you’re a person of normal means you can’t get off the list.

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list in 2004 and it took him a month to get off the list – and that’s as one of the most connected, influential people in the US at the time.

U.S. Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government’s secret “no-fly” list. …

“That a clerical error could lend one of the most powerful people in Washington to the list — it makes one wonder just how many others who are not terrorists are on the list,” said Reginald T. Shuford, senior ACLU counsel. “Someone of Senator Kennedy’s stature can simply call a friend to have his name removed but a regular American citizen does not have that ability. He had to call three times himself.”

A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays. After the first few incidents, his staff called the Transportation Security Administration, which maintains the no-fly list. But even after those discussions about getting his name removed, the senator was stopped again, according to Kennedy spokesman David Smith. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge finally called to apologize about the mix-up, and the delays stopped in early April, Smith said.

“If his name got on the list in error, is that happening to other citizens and are they experiencing such difficulty in resolving the problem?” Smith said.

Good luck to the average citizen if they find the secret system has secretly chosen them for targeting:

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Unlike a standard criminal trial, in which a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether you have violated a criminal law, under this proposed law the government must only show a preponderance of evidence–evidence which will almost certainly be redacted–in order to strip you of your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family from terrorists…

This is an issue where the Democrats can scream that anyone opposed to their “common sense gun control” scheme is supporting terrorism, when really we’re just opposed to the idea of a totally unaccountable secret government system that disarms the citizenry with no recourse… which is exactly what they’re asking for.

And of course, as is pointed out at the Federalist, the government could already stop terrorists from buying firearms legally:

All the attorney general has to do to prevent “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing firearms is to indict them. That’s it. Charge these terrorists with terrorism, and their legal right to purchase firearms goes up in smoke. That’s because existing federal law states that anyone who’s been indicted for any crime that carries a prison sentence of more than one year–and felony indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorist certainly satisfies that standard–automatically becomes ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm.

But this isn’t about going after terrorists (as one example, otherwise the Tsarnaev brothers would’ve been kicked out of the country after Russia warned us about them being terrorists), this is about going after you.

As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.

Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays.  Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)

If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here.  We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch).  There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him.  He’s the one who lost the war.

Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole.  In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world.  If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for.  It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.

When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up.  Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.

This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true.  One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.  Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice.  One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down.  If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible.  If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.

If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.

Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French.  He understands that protecting France is a priority.  I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic).  He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.

Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies.   They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.

These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free.  If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands.  They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do.  They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.

islam will dominate

So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there.  They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them.  Those are the regular “refugees”.  The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.

Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above.  And it’s not exactly a small number.

Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year.  It’s good to assess what the numbers say:

At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.

“France: 4.7 million muslims live there.  A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.  That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”

From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):

pew research muslim terrorism poll 2011 suicide bombing

If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.

The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.”  Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?

If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.

So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:

2015 paris attack

And that this is acceptable:

kenya attack 150406 2

kenya attack 150406

There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.

For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.

It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.

Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with.  They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.

They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free.  They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens.  They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.

Over 10 years ago we were told what Al Qaeda had planned.  “The Base” knew what their objectives were, and they’ve been working towards them steadily.  ISIS and their attacks are right on schedule.

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist (Fouad Hussein) writes, “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies (including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Seif al-Adl) to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

I’m going to use quotes from the Long War Journal’s assessment in 2005, because I’m also going to include their assessments:

The First Phase Known as “the awakening” — this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby “awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”

The Second Phase “Opening Eyes” is, according to Hussein’s definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the “Islamic community.” Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

The Third Phase This is described as “Arising and Standing Up” and should last from 2007 to 2010. “There will be a focus on Syria,” prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and — even more explosive — in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Long War Journal’s assessment of 3 and 4:

The Third and Fourth Phases can essentially be condensed. The potential spread of jihad and instability to Iraq’s neighbors of Turkey, Syria, (and while not mentioned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait) as well as Israel highlights the importance of an American victory in Iraq. Iraq, as a failed state, would provide al Qaeda a base to create instability in bordering countries, setting the stage for overthrow by the Islamists.

It should be noted that Syria is playing a dangerous game by allowing al Qaeda to use its soil to conduct operations in Iraq. The jihadis are developing contacts, networks and obtaining recruits, which can eventually by turned against the Asad regime.

That part’s pretty clear.  Long War Journal was dead on about it, as was Fouad Hussein.  Al Qaeda set their goals and managed to acheive them.  2010 to 2013 saw the “Arab Spring”.

arab spring map

After Mubarak was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood was ultimately ousted in Egypt, but not before demonstrating that the West wouldn’t get involved, and would instead sit around handwringing and neither coming to aid of allies nor trying to stymie enemies.

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

Long War Journal said this (again, with the original article in 2005):

Phases Five, Six and Seven are merely the dreams of al Qaeda, as the prospects for al Qaeda’s success in phases One thru Fourth are looking grim at the moment. Despite media portrayal of defeat in Iraq, the Iraqi people are fighting the insurgency and the Anbar region is set to be reduced as an al Qaeda rear area. The jewel of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, fell almost four years ago, and al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have not come even close to retaining control.

And yet, Phases One through Four were successful, and the Fifth is successful because there is an Islamic State.  There has been a growing strength for Al Qaeda and those groups that it spawned.  Iraq is losing to the Islamic State, and Afghanistan is another forgotten war where the national strategy has become “cut and run”.

Long War Journal finished up with this, which seems like a strange coda from a different time before microaggressions against transgendered headmates triggered national outrage:

However, in the event of the United State loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, an inevitable showdown with al Qaeda would ensue. Open confrontation with the West, as well as the possibility of a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring the full military might of the Western World (those who value their freedom). The current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Southeast and Central Asia and within the borders of Western nations would be tame in comparison to what would come. The Japanese, Germans and Italians discovered in World War II the price of wakening the American military psyche.

The US lost its political will when it elected a hard leftist whose objective was to fundamentally change the US through domestic force and culture war.  There won’t be a showdown with Al Qaeda or ISIS when we’re led by people who think ISIS only exists because of global warming, or because terrorists don’t have good jobs with a $15/hr minimum wage.

The West would basically have two options: (1) blitzkrieg 21st Century style – the full mobilization of its military and an accompanying sweep of the Islamic crescent, without regards for Politically Correct warfare; (2) nuclear war. Both campaigns would be designed to fully eliminate the Islamist threat, and the Muslim infrastructure, which allowed for the rise of al Qaeda’s ideology.

This would require first acknowledging there is an Islamist threat, not spouting counterfactual gibberish that the Islamic State is not Islamic.

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.  ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

isis not islamic cartoon

I find the “ISIS is not Islamic” to be the same kind of nonsense spouted by leftists in the US who say the USSR wasn’t really socialist or communist.  The left likes socialism and communism, so they don’t want their chosen ideology to be tarnished with the mass murder of 94 million human lives.  They embrace multiculturalism where Islam is an exotic ascetic discipline of exotic desert men they wish they could be as suave as, rather than acknowledging it for what it is – the exact antithesis of everything they claim to hold dear in their home countries.

Saying they aren’t a state because you don’t recognize them is as simple as recognizing them to change that.  The Taliban aren’t “a state”, either, but they’re being recognized and negotiated with.

The Russians living on the Volga probably didn’t recognize the Mongol Horde as a state, but it didn’t matter when the mongols took over.  Whether some posturing man in a suit half a world away recognizes ISIS as the authority on the ground really doesn’t change that ISIS is the authority on the ground.

Lara Logan hit this nail on the head three years ago:

This is terrorism.  It’s a completely and utterly different fight from anything we have faced in our history…  Our way of life is under attack – and if you think that’s government propaganda – if you think that’s nonsense – if you think that’s warmongering – you’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fightIn your arrogance, you think you write the script, but you don’t.

There is an ongoing effort to rewrite the script from the White House – it’s government propaganda of the “everything is fine” variety.  ISIS is the junior varsity team.  Nine hours before the Paris attacks Obama claimed ISIS is “not getting stronger” and “we’ve contained them”.

By reading that, and by listening to John Kerry talk about how the US stands with France and we’ll have some peace talks in January, or maybe 6 months, and that’ll solve that whole Paris terrorist attack thing and that ISIS thing, there is clearly one more option that Long War Journal didn’t consider 10 years ago – that option is to lose.

For those who live under a rock, dozens were killed in Paris tonight by Islamic terrorists yelling “Allahu akbar”.

France and Paris for years has had huge amounts of immigration from Islamic nations, some of it due to their national interactions with Algeria and North African nations, some of it due to brain-dead-liberal multiculturalist sensibilities – the same kind of brain-dead-liberal multiculturalism that’s leading the US to import “refugees” from terrorist nations today.

It’s how that nation came to be attacked, a nation that Obama said of today:

Paris itself represents the timeless values of human progress. Those who think they can terrorise the people of France or the values they stand for are wrong.

The statement is laughable.  Progressive values are what allowed terrorists to flourish and what allowed them in the country to begin with.  Jihadis terrorized France when they murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.  Jihadis are terrorizing the people of France again.

Clearly, those who think they can terrorize the people of France are correct.  They have done so recently and they have done so again today.

Obama’s hopey-changey boilerplate about “terrorizing the values the stand for” is kind of absurd.  You can’t terrorize ideas, but you can terrorize people and through the experience of terrorism show them that their ideas are wrong.

What it sounds like is a progressive’s way to say “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been attacked”.  “Don’t believe what you see and hear, you must stay true to your progressive ideas.”  There’s a saying that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.  This is Obama saying “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been mugged… it doesn’t mean anything.”

If people were to look at the predictable results of importing terrorists and their sympathizers, and they were to let their “values of human progress” be questioned, they might ask… why are we going to import more people from terrorist nations into the US?

The Obama administration is moving to increase and accelerate the number of Syrian refugees who might be admitted into the United States by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon, administration officials told Reuters on Friday.

The move comes after President Barack Obama pledged in September to admit an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016, torn by four years of civil war and disorder.

A lot of them aren’t refugees.  Enough of them are going to be terrorists that we’re going to be importing huge numbers of terrorists and terrorist supporters and the populations in which they hide.

This is what France did.  They’re suffering the consequences of open borders… borders they’ve now closed.

Terrorism is a predictable result of importing terrorists and populations that terrorists come from and hide in and allowing people from terrorist nations into your country.

As a side note, earlier this evening, The Economist had a piece about Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right wing* National Front with the title and subtitle “Phantom Menace – Marine Le Pen may win elections on fear of a non-existent migrant wave”.  40-100 dead Parisians** doesn’t sound like a non-existent menace.

Except if you’re hand-waving away the consequences and commanding “don’t change your mind just because you’ve been attacked” or “you must not let your progressive values be deterred by reality”.

*keep in mind this is right wing for France and Europe, which is quite different from the US
** numbers as of writing this, with varying reports

Via HotAir:

Here’s a piece of cheerful news to brighten your day. We’re going to be needing a new boss at the Border Patrol shortly and while there is nothing written in stone yet, word on the street is that one of the names near the top of the list is that of Heather Fong. While unfamiliar to most of you I’m sure, Heather may ring a bell when you’re reminded that she’s a San Francisco law enforcement figure who was very big on the whole sanctuary city thing. Feel better yet? (Fox News)

A former San Francisco police chief and vocal supporter of a sanctuary cities policy is on a short list of candidates to become the new chief of the Border Patrol, according to sources.

As police chief, Heather Fong shielded illegal immigrants, including aliens who committed crimes, from deportation. In contrast, it is the job of the U.S. Border Patrol to catch and deport all illegal immigrants, including those with a criminal history.

“If they bring (a police chief) in for political purposes based on the sanctuary cities model, that politicizes the job and I think it completely undermines credibility and morale in the organization,” House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, told Fox News.

HotAir adds some more info and backstory, but there’s a simple takeaway from this – 8 USC 1324(a):

(a) Criminal penalties

(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

And 8 USC 1327:

Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2) (insofar as an alien inadmissible under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof) of this title to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Pretty cut and dried.

People who run sanctuary cities are in violation of federal laws.  Their leaders and their henchmen should be prosecuted.

The Obama administration won’t enforce federal law in this case because of its identity politics and hard leftist ideology, and the Bush Administration didn’t enforce it because of their lazy economic interest, and so on and so forth pretty much back to the Eisenhower administration when law was actually enforced.


WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps is expected to ask that women not be allowed to compete for several front-line combat jobs, inflaming tensions between Navy and Marine leaders, U.S. officials say.

The tentative decision has ignited a debate over whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus can veto any Marine Corps proposal to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions. And it puts Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant who takes over soon as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at odds with the other three military services, who are expected to open all of their combat jobs to women.  …

Putting the social justice to the warrior.

Mabus on Monday made his position clear.

I’m not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines, and it’s not going to make them any less fighting effective,” he said, adding that the Navy SEALs also will not seek any waivers. “I think they will be a stronger force because a more diverse force is a stronger force. And it will not make them any less lethal.

It’s going to make the Marines less effective, and it’s going to make the Marine Corps a weaker force because diversity is not strength.  And it will make the Marine Corps less lethal to the enemy, but more lethal to itself.

In fact, the Marine Corps even did studies and found male units outperformed female units.  I hear next up they’re going to do a study in LeJeune to see if water is wet and then one in 29 Palms to see if the sun makes things hot in summer.

…the report also pointed to the 25-year-old report by a presidential commission on women in the armed forces that concluded: “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

Mabus, however, told the City Club of Cleveland that while the Marines did a long study of the matter, it relied on averages — such as the average woman can’t carry as much or perform as quickly as a man.

“The other way to look at it is we’re not looking for average,” said Mabus. “There were women that met this standard, and a lot of the things there that women fell a little short in can be remedied by two things: training and leadership.”

I’ve said this for years now – this is about the cocktail party circuit and the DC circuit for these kinds of social justice progressives and their sycophants.  Mabus is not going to ever be in danger from harm because a BAM who can’t carry Fred is going to leave him bleeding in a street in Ramadi.

Training and leadership do not make up for millenia of biology.  The only leadership and training he’s going to put forth are either specialty programs to advance women at the expense of better qualified men (which is a waste of resources and ability) or that the leadership and training in question means the people who are allowing women to fail and that the standard will be adjusted by making sure more women pass.

The recent “grunt life” story also highlights a lot of the failures that it doesn’t take a psychic to forsee:

Lance Cpl. Chris Augello arrived at the integrated task force believing that women should get a shot at service in the infantry as long as they could meet existing standards. It was a perspective that made him different from most male Marines, he said, and he’d argued with his unit members for hours on the point.

When Augello checked out of the task force months later, however, he submitted a 13-page essay to unit officials explaining exactly why the experience had made him change his mind.

Another reservist from Delta Company, 4th LAR, Augello, 23, said he volunteered for the task force for personal reasons — namely, a chance to accrue the six consecutive months of active duty that would qualify him to take advantage of the post-9/11 GI Bill.

He was assigned to the light armored vehicle platoon once he got to Camp Lejeune. Over time, he said, discipline broke down because some noncommissioned officers were hesitant to hurt the feelings of more junior female Marines with orders or correction. Romantic relationships and friendships between male and female unit members also became a distraction, he said.

“The female variable in this social experiment has wrought a fundamental change in the way male NCOs think, act and lead,” Augello wrote in the 13-page paper he presented to Marine leaders, which he shared with Marine Corps Times. “A change that is sadly for the worse, not the better.”  …

… the lance corporal said he became frustrated during group assessments, such as an exercise in which platoon members had to work together to haul a dummy weighing nearly 200 pounds out of the vehicle turret and to a designated recovery spot dozens of yards away. When partnered with the platoon’s female Marines, he said he frequently had to compensate for their smaller frames and lack of upper body strength by hauling more of the load.

“I told myself, ‘I don’t know how much longer my back will have after doing this,'” he recalled.

During one assessment, Augello said he found himself paired with the smallest male Marine in the platoon — one who was physically shorter and slighter than a number of the unit’s female Marines. But the Marine’s build and musculature made a significant difference, he said.

“I didn’t feel a lot of stress on my back because he was able to actually help me,” he said. “His upper body strength made the difference at the end of the day.”

He’s carrying the extra weight.

Amazingly, they even include an image and caption of a female Marine who needs help lifting shells.

29 palms arty bam needs help

What’s funnier yet is she’s mentioned in a positive light in this story, despite being the slowest in the team.

I’ve said this about armor and artillery units before.  There’s a lot more moving of big, ugly, heavy objects and more manual labor than women are up to.  Yes, there may be a handful who can hack it (at least for a while), but the wear and tear and strain is not the same on women, and the effect of having someone incapable of the job who is in the job just means the capable male Marine has to haul more weight.

On top of that, in-theater, combat arms units are frequently thrown into other roles.  What springs to mind first is that my battalion in the mid-2000s ended up sending units to Afghanistan that promptly abandoned their AAVs and were simply “amgrunts” for the duration of their tours.  Not their specialty but it’s what they had to do anyway.  Infantry units don’t just march and shoot – they spend a lot of their time doing hard manual labor like constructing fortifications that last anywhere from overnight to months to years.  Arty guys and tankers get tasked with plenty of things outside their MOS as well.  Any line unit is no stranger to the phrase “working party up”.  The multitude of roles that can be assigned any combat unit are only limited by the vicissitudes of war.  Having people who are only marginally physically capable in their primary role engaged in an activity (war) that will probably put them in additional strenuous roles is a recipe for failure.

Brown, the lance corporal who was one of only two female Marines to complete the infantry assessment, said she is certain she has found her calling as a grunt. She loved the experience, she said, from grueling humps to sweaty field operations and rough-edged, coarse camaraderie with other infantrymen. She attributed her success in the physical challenges in part to her background in sports, including a competitive soccer career that began when she was 6 years old.

That sports background was probably helpful.  What’s not helpful is that in the field and outside of a controlled test environment, she’ll hold up every bit as well as Captain Katie Petronio did.  Biology doesn’t care.

And SgtMaj LeHew pointed out the obvious – though it’s probably best to just read his words on this:

Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study.

We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school.

I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train eveyone to the best of their abilities.

This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study.

They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything.

Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to persue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security. The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry.

Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are badasses in their own right. In regards to the infantry….there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die.

Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy’s ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is.

You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is. As a country we preach equality.

But to place these mandates on the military before thiscountry has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality.Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear and oath to this country.

Yes, we are an all volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service. Until that happens, we should not even be wasting our time even thinking about opening up the infantry to women.

To my female Marine friends out there, I love you to death, you are the best of the best and you have my continued admiration for what you do and to the Marines of the GCEITF….you are tops in my book for taking up the challenge…regardless what the SECNAV says about you not being the best that we could have put in that unit because you were….on all accounts.

And for those of you who don’t know Sgt Maj LeHew, his Navy Cross citation:

Citation: For extraordinary heroism as Amphibious Assault Platoon Sergeant, Company A, 1st Battalion, 2d Marines, Task Force Tarawa, I Marine Expeditionary Force in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM on 23 and 24 March 2003. As Regimental Combat Team 2 attacked north towards An Nasiriyah, Iraq, lead elements of the Battalion came under heavy enemy fire. When the beleaguered United States Army 507th Maintenance Company convoy was spotted in the distance, Gunnery Sergeant Lehew and his crew were dispatched to rescue the soldiers. Under constant enemy fire, he led the rescue team to the soldiers. With total disregard for his own welfare, he assisted the evacuation effort of four soldiers, two of whom were critically wounded. While still receiving enemy fire, he climbed back into his vehicle and immediately began suppressing enemy infantry. During the subsequent company attack on the eastern bridge over the Euphrates River, Gunnery Sergeant Lehew continuously exposed himself to withering enemy fire during the three-hour urban firefight. His courageous battlefield presence inspired his Marines to fight a determined foe and allowed him to position his platoon’s heavy machine guns to repel numerous waves of attackers. In the midst of the battle, an Amphibious Assault Vehicle was destroyed, killing or wounding all its occupants. Gunnery Sergeant Lehew immediately moved to recover the nine Marines. He again exposed himself to a barrage of fire as he worked for nearly an hour recovering casualties from the wreckage. By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, Gunnery Sergeant Lehew reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

Give ‘im one!

Both HotAir and Twitchy have really good links and info on the crazy reaction.  The short short version is that eBay, Amazon, etsy and Walmart have all pulled any and all merchandise with the Confederate Flag on it in some kind of crazed knee-jerk response to a murderer having some interest in the flag.

I’m not from the Old South, so I’m not particularly attached to the flag.  It holds no personal meaning for me, but it is a historical symbol.  Some folks are attached to it for personal reasons – like Byron Thomas, whose ancestors fought for the south and despite having been slaves, were compensated by the state.  It’s not part of my heritage, but it is still part of American heritage.

When I was stationed in NC for a while, I visited some Civil War sites, talked with some reenactors, and frankly they’re the only ones I see getting hurt in this.  They do living history and play dress-up, and now they’re suddenly terrorist racists or something.

It is telling to see handwringing by both leftists and the big city right worrying about “a creepy underground market” and driving a symbol underground to make it a martyr’s mark or something, where they’re all worried not that their spastic eradication and witch hunt is insane, but that there might still be some hardcore hate-driven hate-hate people who bond around a flag.  Because of course they don’t know any reenactors, and only know what their bubble tells them about that flag.

The folks ostensibly on the right asking “why do these places still sell Nazi and Communist memorabilia” are hopefully trying to point out a double standard, but risk getting even more things banned.  Frankly, if someone wants a bust of Stalin (20,000,000 murders to his credit) or a copy of Mao’s little red book (65,000,000 murders), it’s telling of the owner, whether they’re a historian, history buff, or Communist.  And if you want to dress like a Nazi, maybe you’re an apt pupil, or maybe you’re part of a theater company doing a version of The Producers, or you’re a WWII reenactor (yes, they exist).

The character of a person is not changed by obliterating a flag from existence.  But the character of the people demanding eradication is often made quite clear.

Stephen Miller hits on the real lesson to take from this (via Twitchy):

conf flag stephen millerIn three days it went from “let’s take down the flag in historic capitals because we don’t really need it there anymore” to “burn it all”.

ban all the things

Slippery slope?  Nope, just the left getting people to agree with them and do their bidding.  If it does not conform, it must be obliterated.

Also, the Confederate Battle Flag belongs on the General Lee… which is being stripped of the flag.

As a MOPAR guy, that’s offensive.  It’s also yet another reminder that the objective of the left is to utterly obliterate anything they disagree with.  It must all be destroyed.

Update: And now Google’s going to do its part to delete the Confederate flag from existence.